Thomas Dalton writes: Without revealing an *allegation* that is unsubstantiated by anything other than a Register reporter's willingness to make it over the phone. If you're saying the Register is a reliable source, all of a sudden, you hold it in much higher opinion than I do. Criminal background checks take at least a day, and possibly a few days, to do properly, at least in the United States. The allegations made in the Register story would have taken significant time for us to confirm or refute. (I assume, without knowing more, that most of this stuff was simply handed to Cade Metz by someone else who spent significant time trying to put a scandal together.) Plus, I don't think we should be in the business of trying to beat the Register in publishing a thinly sourced, largely unsubstantiated story. And, finally, it bears repeating that we have legal considerations that prevent us from discussing most personnel matters, much less publishing stories about them. Confidentiality agreements at the end of a term of employment generally benefit both parties (that's what makes them contractually binding), and are quite commonplace. You are mischaracterizing the nature of the agreement here. You're also, I think, assuming we had a lot of advance knowledge that we did not in fact have -- not even after talking with the Register. --Mike