> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 12:55 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Shortcuts to Outlook objects > > > You're missing the point Ed. Any form of compensation is a conflict of > interest. Period.
Nice absolute statement there, but this isn't an absolute subject. I've had a pink squeezie pig with a Motorola logo on my monitor for six years now. Sometimes I bounce it against the wall to help me think. But no-one accuses me of being a Motorola apologist, and I've bought a sum total of $0 worth of Motorola kit in that time. As for that making us "tradespeople" and not "professionals," have a look around your doctor's office next time you go there. > The discussion is not being advanced in any regard. The view > that I have > is that the IT industry's focus on vendors and tools will keep the IT > industry from becoming a profession. What on earth is that supposed to mean? Is there a ISO9001 definition of "profession" that "the IT industry" has failed to apply for? Some people who work in the IT field can indeed be seen as tradespeople, others as professionals - the guy who assembles PCs on the line versus Michael Dell, for example. But if you try to tell a CTO with an MBA that he's not in a "profession" s/he will most likely still be laughing by the time the security people have carried you out of the bulding. > And, accepting any form of > compensation is a fundamental conflict of interest. Sure it is. That's why Congresspeople, doctors, lawyers, or architects aren't allowed to do it. Oops, they all are, aren't they? Just usually there is a limit on it. > In all of > the posts, > nothing refutes theses points. I hope I've rectified that. _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
