Well, you're missing the big picture and the whole point, but yes, if you paid Microsoft, even one dollar, then it would not be such an egregious breach of ethics.
> So how fundamentally different is paying Microsoft to be a Partner than > being an MVP? It's true that I don't pay actual money to be an MVP, but I > do work for it. Don't you have to sign lots of agreement papers to be a > Partner? Do you give all your customers copies of those papers so they can > assess the level of conflict of interest? So if I send Microsoft a dollar > for my MVP status, the conflict of interest ends? > > You still haven't proven your assertion that my accepting the small gratuity > and title associated with MVP constitutes a conflict of interest. Your only > proof so far is along the lines of, "It's obvious," or "It is because I say > it is." > Perhaps it's because you can't prove it? > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP > Freelance E-Mail Philosopher > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 8:51 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics > > First, you have no credibility on the point. You find the phrase "I finish > them (fights)" offensive but not someone being called a "liar", "stupid", > "idiot", "wife beater". You simply have zaro credibility. > > Second, as for your other two points, our customers and potential customers > are made well aware of any and all potential conflicts of interest. We > practice full disclosure. In addition, meeting with a vendor to talk about > their new products is in no way even CLOSE to accepting a title or gift from > said vendor. But, there is no point to even debating this with you because > you are never going to see it because you are going to deny the obvious. > Yes, I have to deal with vendors just like everyone else in this industry. > It is a fact of life. But, I don't have to like it and no, generally, I > almost NEVER meet with vendors and when I do, it is for specific purposes, I > get in, get the information and get out. > > Finally, you have obviously shown your bias by claiming that I claim to be > the "all ethical" sort. And to my knowledge, I have no "ethics test" that I > have created. This is a blatant mis-characterization and exposes your bias. > I am not, nor ever will be "all ethical" and "holier than thou". I have > *different* ethics apparently than many on this board, but I have never > claimed to be perfect or that my ethics are the end all, be all. > Yes, I have paid to attend conventions, I have paid to be a Microsoft > "partner". In some strict ethical vaccuum those may be considered unethical, > but this is the real world. And besides that, there is a clear, bright line > between paying a vendor to attend a convention and accepting a pure gift > from a vendor. That bright line is what I have been talking about, but you > are never going to see it because you will never admit to the obvious and > just want to pick a fight. > > And yes, for all of you out there, I am nearly certain that, in my youth, I > accepted direct gifts from vendors. I cannot recall any particular > occassion, but I'm willing to bet that it probably occurred. And guess what? > I stopped that long, long, long ago because IT IS WRONG. > > So, to sum it up, you have no credibility that you have been "offended" in > any way because there have been lots more offensive stuff said that you have > not said boo about. And, you are in self-denial about the DISTINCT > difference between accepting a pure gift from a vendor and PAYING that > vendor to attend a convention, etc. Here's a hint. One costs you money, the > other doesn't. > > > I am not "quibbling" with what you said, I'm instead taking offense at > > what you said. You see, you can't claim to be the "all ethical" sort > > you want, if you can't even pass the ethics test of your own making. > > I didn't post any of those points on your website, someone from YOUR > > company did, and you are the one claiming to hold them near and dear. > > > > How interesting that you choose to respond ONLY to one point, and then > > make irrelevant statements about people calling you names. > > > > Since I didn't call you names sir, perhaps you should go back and > > re-read the whole message. It's not that I consider you a liar, or > > that you are stupid. I now consider you incapable of having any type > > of intelligent discussion based on the fact that you choose to ignore > > 2/3rds of what was posted, or should I just assume that you chose not > > to discuss those points because you couldn't keep your "I have my Ethics" > > argument and all this would be moot? > > > > Speaking of MOOT, can anyone tell me what top 10 classic rock single > > contains the word "MOOT"? > > > > > > > > Bob Sadler > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:50 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics > > > > > > So you are going to quibble with things that "I" said? You people are > > so whacked out that it is utterly incomprehensible. So where were you > > when I was called a "liar" or a "wife beater" or "stupid" or "idiot" > > or that I "starve children". All of that is OK in your whacky bizarro > > world, but explaining to someone that if you start a fight (in email > > for Christ's > > sake) that I will finish that fight. Oh that is TERRIBLE! How could > > you SAY such a thing. Never mind the "liar", "stupid", "idiot" stuff, > > THAT, sir, is uncalled for. > > > > Bob, you amaze me. > > > > > You know, I'm just as happy to NOT read this dribble, but when > > > someone > > > > > points out so wonderfully how ethical they are, and we can all go > > > to=20 www.infonition.com/ethics.shtml to prove it, then someone like > > > me just > > > > > might go there and read, and low and behold what is it we find? > > >=20 > > > Well, this character Greg, wants us all to believe his "ethics" > > >are=20 without question. So, let's take a look at his ethics page > > >and see=20 what he's supposed to be doing. > > >=20 > > > First, Greg's point of vendor conflict is answered here: > > >=20 > > > To never accept compensation from vendors for recommending = > > products=3D20 > > >=20 > > > One must ask then Greg, have you ever been to a seminar, > > >conference,=20 or LUNCH where the vendor presenting paid for the > > >meal, the snacks,=20 the coffee? > > >=20 > > > Second, Greg's list of ethics claim: > > >=20 > > > To disclose any and all influences that may affect our=20 > > >recommendations=3D20 =20 Greg, does this mean that if I were to > > >speak to you over the phone,=20 you would tell me just how many > > >times your Cisco, Microsoft, Bay=20 Networks, etc., Rep. has called? > > >Or are you saying that you never=20 meet with the vendors to discuss > > >how their products can benefit your=20 customers? Do you ever read > > >trade magazines that discuss the use of=20 one vendors products over > > >another? Will you then tell me all the=20 magazines you read, what > > >date, publication, page number, etc? > > >=20 > > > Third, Greg's list goes on to say: > > >=20 > > > To be fair and accurate when resolving disputes, problems or > > >issues=20 [and] To conduct ourselves in a professional manner at all > > >times=3D20 =20 One must ask then Greg, exactly how does your > > >statement of: "Wrong.=20 You brought it up by throwing stones my > > >way. I don't pick fights, I=20 finish them." work into these > > >statements? > > >=20 > > > This is just what I don't need in a vendor. Someone who believes > > >he's > > > > > always right, and if he is going to have a fight with his > > >customers,=20 HE'S going to finish it. I can see now why people > > >flock to your=20 organization Greg. > > >=20 > > > The point is, don't say something matters a great deal to you, > > >and=20 then give this list plenty of examples showing that > > >apparently it=20 doesn't. You want to wave a flag around and say "I > > >have ethics" and=20 yet not live by those same ethics, then be > > >prepared to be inundated=20 with the onslaught. > > >=20 > > > I would trust Ed, Tom, Tony, and even Don, further then I would > > >trust=20 someone yelling about how ethical they are and at the same > > >time say=20 they'll finish any fight. > > >=20 > > > It's time to throttle back now greg, and realize this. You are a=20 > > >Sales Manager for a company that apparently you are supposed to be=20 > > >drumming up business for. Just how much business do you think you=20 > > >have generated on this list after acting in the manner you did? > > >=20 > > > Bob Sadler > > >=20 > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=3Dexchange&text_mo > > de=3D= > > & > > lang=3Denglish > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang > =english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
