On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:59:15 -0600, Mark Zelden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>... >Why would you expect them to mention it or stop advertising? Has any >other company ever stopped advertising their product because of >impending litigation? >... I was questioning SHARE's apparent endorsement of the ad by sending it as a SHARE email. I received an explanation off-list. I think I understand SHARE's position in this, but I still find it a bit disconcerting. 1. The ad is for goods and services that, as near as I can tell, will not be available unless and until the suit is decided in PSI's favor. 2. This is the only ad I remember getting from SHARE that wasn't about SHARE itself (although I might have just automatically deleted them without remembering). It sort of feels to me like SHARE and SHARE members are being manipulated. If I hadn't been reading IBM-Main I would not have been aware of this PSI issue. As both a SHARE member and officier it bothers me SHARE is giving (perhaps can give) only the vendor's comments. Pat O'Keefe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
