Ugh. Again, too long to quote, but in response to Glen:

Glen — the first point wasn't intended to be a scare tactic and apologies if it came off as anything like that. It was colored by the cynicism of NSGP and the ongoing slander you and others have endured. 

Second — I want to stress my questions have been in good faith trying to understand the lay of the land and the process here since I've really been tuned out here. Which brings me to this point ...

If we're helping to re-establish a defender-type ideology, great! I'm more than happy to support TSP leading the way on something like that. But, then, let's toss our weight behind it! Let's write up a list of what values we support. What are we "defending"? What are we supporting? Etc. etc. etc. 

To me, the framing that there's this nebulous "defender ideology" out there that we're "aligning" ourselves with is what I'm not fond of. It feels like we're positioning ourself as the "also ran" (even though as you've been explaining there's little else out there). And, it makes it that framing more problematic that there *isn't* a defender manifesto that we can point to, so saying we're "defender" is this overly broad, non-descriptive term.

To this end, this is why I like the draft Glen wrote. I'd probably suggest some cosmetic changes to lean more on specific ideals/qualities we want to support, but I think that's a good direction to go in.