Uh, you are the one being melodramatic here, and childish, and arguing strictly from emotion.

You are trying to suggest the really vapid idea (over and over and over) that because no "names" are being supplied by one side (in a realm where divulging names might be harmful in itself), then no harm was done.

Hey, I'm a big supporter of transparency and whistleblowing activites.

And I still say to people behaving like you - do you have any clue whatsoever how illogical you sound?