RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
They aren't a valid survey of broadcasters from around the country. There only appeal is to middle aged MTV burn-outs. John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics VH1 - Where are they now :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics And just who's survey list did you use to verify this? Billboard or the AT40 list? John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:33 PM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I said TOP 10 Classic Hit :) Tom M. of Texas is the winner if anyone cares. The song was Jessie's Girl by Rick Springfield. Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Rob Hackney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics : Speaking of MOOT, can anyone tell me what top 10 classic rock single contains the word MOOT? Do you mean in the band name, song title or lyrics? Eg: Moot The Hoople - Ballad of Mott the Hoople (1973)? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Greg-- SHUT UP! Why are you making this your personal agenda. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Um, yes it DOES make it unethical. You are accepting a direct gift from a vendor and then turning around and supposedly giving unbiased technical advice to a client. That is the definition of real or perceived conflict of interest. It does not mean that you WILL act unethically, but it is OBVIOUSLY a breach of ethical conduct and conflict of interest rules. Sort of. There are no well documented criteria that you apply for and then meet, there are informal criteria that leads to an invitation.=20 As I said, others must decide whether the criteria meet the expertise they are looking for. That does not make it unethical, as you know. I seriously doubt any customer will give you a blank check simply based on being an MVP, but I know I can have a higher degree of trust for the info (usually) a MVP provides in lists like this. Best Regards,=20 Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:42 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Just so that the record is set straight and Deckler doesn't feel the need to write a 2,000-word response to this technical inaccuracy, the title of MVP isn't awarded based set standards. It's rather subjective, I must confess. 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 Dan Bartley Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title warrants a level of trust and respect. Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions regarding is unethical. Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. Just another opinion :-) Best Regards,=20 Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading.=20 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=3Dexchangetext_mode=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=3Dexchangetext_mode=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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I believe that the answer to the question about a shop's behaviour is that it depends. Perhaps, there could exist an assumption that there are two types of shops. It consultant shops, and product specialist shops. The shop that only considers one solution is a product specialist. An ethical dilemma exists if the shop was not clear with their client which type of shop they are. So to answer the question, if the shop indicated that it was a particular solution provider and perhaps had initials after the business insignia indicating such, then it would not be unethical for not considering any other vendors. Nathan Black Messaging Consultant -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics No. John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: Martin Tuip [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:51 PM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: Re: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Does that make the shop unethical now for not considering any other vendor ? -- Martin Tuip MVP Exchange Exchange 2000 List owner www.exchange-mail.org www.sharepointserver.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- - Original Message - From: Erik Sojka [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:45 AM Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the types of consulting engagements. One such type: I want to put in a new email system. Please tell me which system from all of the major players would fit in my environment. Another such type: I've already decided that Lotus Notes is the email system for me. Please draw from your vendor-specific expertise and help me with my deployment. There are others of course. You seem fixated on the ethical problems that might arise with a vendor-biased consultant being hired for the first of my examples. In this first example, you are completely correct in pointing out the very real conflict of interest. I cannot and should not expect completely neutral recommendations from a person who markets themselves as an expert in $vendor's technology. Logic would dictate that the consultant would recommend the technology that they are affiliated with. You have completely and repeatedly ignored the possibility of the second (and IMO more frequently occurring) type. If I am already running a $vendor shop, I want to hire the best talent I can. I would expect that the best talent I can find would be familiar with $vendor technology. The decision to use a particular vendor has already been made. By me. Without any prodding or cajoling by said consultant. (Remainder of post clipped and recycled) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
If you were truly sorry you would stop!! -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Too easy: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:52:58 -0800 For those of you who haven't been around, Mr. Greg Deckler has repeatedly broadcast his diatribes that those of us who are MVPs should be likened to employees (his word) of Microsoft and anything we tell you should be considered to be propaganda straight from Bill Gates. Well, my response is the kind of unprofessional response he deserves, having made his bed. Sorry to have troubled the rest of you. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! Where did I do that? Please replay the transcript. 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 10:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics No Ed, you blatantly mis-characterized my position and forced me to clarify what I believe. I am not going to let you or anyone else interpret what I believe and provide bogus information to someone when I can tell them directly what I believe without going through a third-party. All I did was to admit that I am a vendor whore. It is you who launched into a weak but wordy defense of your silly position. 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 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Can I get a jacket? XXL preferably -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:29 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Apples and oranges. Ed is not the IT director of Ohio (nor does he play any kind of similar role in any of his consulting engagements, I'd imagine). If Consolidated Widgets, Inc. hired Ed to do $vague_technical_work and the IT director of CWI then received a leather jacket from a vendor, then I can see there being an ethical problem for the IT director. Not for Ed. In your example, were any of the *conslutants* fired over the jackets? -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I've argued the theory on this too many times now. Let me provide a specific example. At time, I wear a Novell leather jacket. I received this jacket at the end of a project for the State of Ohio. Basically, the State of Ohio gave Novell something like $1 million for implementing a G-NOC. I worked on this project and at the end Novell gave out about 50 of these leater jackets to people that worked on the project in this big huge ceremony that was held. The director at the State of Ohio was forced to resign over accepting his leather jacket because of conflict of interest rules. So, the State of Ohio had ALREADY paid Novell ALL of the money and THEN Novell gave out these gifts and the director at the State of Ohio was STILL found to have violated conflict of interest rules. Does that make anything more clear? Where's the conflict if Ed consults on Microsoft products? They come to him for MS products! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics You can be offended all you want, it does not change the FACT that accepting a direct gift from a vendor creates an obvious problem with basic conflict of interest rules. I don't make these rules up all I have stated is that a real or perceived conflict exists. If the argument held no water, then there would be no reason to be offended. It's not exactly a gift. It's a recognition for a contribution pefrormed. There are, admittedly, strings attached, although there are none that=20 I consider to be ethical issues. =20 I completely resent your entire assertion that I am somehow unethical=20 because I accept the title and gifts associated with being an MVP. I=20 will defend my standards of ethics against anyone's, including your=20 poorly defined and indefensible set. In fact, I was nearly fired from my current job because I defended ethical behavior, but the system=20 worked and I am still here. (This was completely unrelated to=20 anything surrounding Microsoft or MVP.) =20 So, let's get back to the real argument. Please either (1) prove how=20 being an MVP is unethical, or (2) go away and let this thread rest. I tire of your repeated extrapolations, digressions, and=20 less-than-brilliant treatises. =20 Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T =20 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics =20 The flaw here is that that Cisco Certified has clearly defined=20 things that must be met and requires a payment to the vendor to=20 achieve. You must PAY to get the required material. You must PAY to=20 take the tests. You must PAY for the certification. =20 MVP is a gift. There are no explicit requirements and there is no=20 exchange of currency. =20 This is the CLEAR difference between certifications and gifts like MVP. =20 Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP=20 or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned=20 title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view=20 the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title=20 warrants a level of trust and respect. =20 Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions=20 regarding is unethical. =20 Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. =20 Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of=20 brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone=20 whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the=20 truth and good
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Good grief! Talk about LAG! Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Jason Clayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:31 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Can I get a jacket? XXL preferably -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:29 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Apples and oranges. Ed is not the IT director of Ohio (nor does he play any kind of similar role in any of his consulting engagements, I'd imagine). If Consolidated Widgets, Inc. hired Ed to do $vague_technical_work and the IT director of CWI then received a leather jacket from a vendor, then I can see there being an ethical problem for the IT director. Not for Ed. In your example, were any of the *conslutants* fired over the jackets? -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I've argued the theory on this too many times now. Let me provide a specific example. At time, I wear a Novell leather jacket. I received this jacket at the end of a project for the State of Ohio. Basically, the State of Ohio gave Novell something like $1 million for implementing a G-NOC. I worked on this project and at the end Novell gave out about 50 of these leater jackets to people that worked on the project in this big huge ceremony that was held. The director at the State of Ohio was forced to resign over accepting his leather jacket because of conflict of interest rules. So, the State of Ohio had ALREADY paid Novell ALL of the money and THEN Novell gave out these gifts and the director at the State of Ohio was STILL found to have violated conflict of interest rules. Does that make anything more clear? Where's the conflict if Ed consults on Microsoft products? They come to him for MS products! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics You can be offended all you want, it does not change the FACT that accepting a direct gift from a vendor creates an obvious problem with basic conflict of interest rules. I don't make these rules up all I have stated is that a real or perceived conflict exists. If the argument held no water, then there would be no reason to be offended. It's not exactly a gift. It's a recognition for a contribution pefrormed. There are, admittedly, strings attached, although there are none that=20 I consider to be ethical issues. =20 I completely resent your entire assertion that I am somehow unethical=20 because I accept the title and gifts associated with being an MVP. I=20 will defend my standards of ethics against anyone's, including your=20 poorly defined and indefensible set. In fact, I was nearly fired from my current job because I defended ethical behavior, but the system=20 worked and I am still here. (This was completely unrelated to=20 anything surrounding Microsoft or MVP.) =20 So, let's get back to the real argument. Please either (1) prove how=20 being an MVP is unethical, or (2) go away and let this thread rest. I tire of your repeated extrapolations, digressions, and=20 less-than-brilliant treatises. =20 Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T =20 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics =20 The flaw here is that that Cisco Certified has clearly defined=20 things that must be met and requires a payment to the vendor to=20 achieve. You must PAY to get the required material. You must PAY to=20 take the tests. You must PAY for the certification. =20 MVP is a gift. There are no explicit requirements and there is no=20 exchange of currency. =20 This is the CLEAR difference between certifications and gifts like MVP. =20 Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP=20 or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned=20 title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view=20 the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title=20 warrants a level of trust and respect. =20 Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions=20
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I already asked for that!! He chose NOT to respond... ;o) -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics OK, I can be childish as well. You PROVE it. Prove to me that accepting gifts from vendors and then turning around to clients and providing information and services about and from those vendors is NOT a real or perceived conflict of interest. You prove that false. Prove it. It is your opinion, not a fact. Everything you cite is made up in your own mind. Again, you are mixing up fact and opinion. What you believe is not necessarily what is true. That appears to be especially true in that special place known as Deckler-Land. By the way, surrounding your claimed invitation to be an MVP, who invited you and when? I don't recall you ever offering much positive peer support in the forums, but I do recall that you were considered to be a heckler way back before Exchange was even a product with a SKU. I find it hard to believe that you would ever have been welcomed as an MVP. Care to prove this assertion as well? 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 10:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics You can be offended all you want, it does not change the FACT that accepting a direct gift from a vendor creates an obvious problem with basic conflict of interest rules. I don't make these rules up all I have stated is that a real or perceived conflict exists. If the argument held no water, then there would be no reason to be offended. It's not exactly a gift. It's a recognition for a contribution pefrormed. There are, admittedly, strings attached, although there are none that I consider to be ethical issues. I completely resent your entire assertion that I am somehow unethical because I accept the title and gifts associated with being an MVP. I will defend my standards of ethics against anyone's, including your poorly defined and indefensible set. In fact, I was nearly fired from my current job because I defended ethical behavior, but the system worked and I am still here. (This was completely unrelated to anything surrounding Microsoft or MVP.) So, let's get back to the real argument. Please either (1) prove how being an MVP is unethical, or (2) go away and let this thread rest. I tire of your repeated extrapolations, digressions, and less-than-brilliant treatises. 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 9:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics The flaw here is that that Cisco Certified has clearly defined things that must be met and requires a payment to the vendor to achieve. You must PAY to get the required material. You must PAY to take the tests. You must PAY for the certification. MVP is a gift. There are no explicit requirements and there is no exchange of currency. This is the CLEAR difference between certifications and gifts like MVP. Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title warrants a level of trust and respect. Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions regarding is unethical. Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. Just another opinion :-) Best Regards,=20 Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading.=20 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mo de =lang =english To unsubscribe
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Well, titles can be very handy - we have an honours system in the UK that would seem to back that up. But they are not as valuable as personal reputation as is evidenced by the number of people that refuse these titles on point of principle - often very publicly. (As you have done with your MVP, it occurs to me.) I'd wager that Ed, for example, is proud of his online reputation. He would not want to be seen as being under the influence of Microsoft and if the MVP programme put him in that position or even if he felt it made a significant number of people consider him to be in that position I suspect he would not be pleased. Now 8 out of 10 list members who expressed a preference said their cats couldn't give a rat's rectum about Ed having an MVP so his reputation is intact and he's happy to continue to be an MVP. It is this issue of reputation that keeps the argument alive - not any great love or covetousness of the award. You could slag off Microsoft, Exchange, the MVP programme or the dreadful Christmas sweaters that people are wearing right now and any fuss you managed to produce would die down fairly quickly but it is the suggestion that reputations are tarnished by the acceptance of an MVP award that has got people's backs up to the extent they are. There are plenty of people on here who are not and are never likely to be MVPs but they are still prepared to argue the toss - they have no conflict of interests here, no business built on an ethical manifesto, no supplier plying them with trinkets, no particular reputation of their own to defend and no reason to defend the MVP programme. That they do suggests that they are genuine in their belief that it is harmless. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 December 2003 19:57 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics John, you post some intelligent stuff I have to say. Yes, there is an order of magnitude argument to be had in all of this and you argue it well. I base my position on a couple of premises, but the main argument is: Titles are absolutely priceless and have the potential to be much, much more corrupting than any monetary gift. For proof, I will simply point to this entire discussion now 8 years old. At the mere mention that there *might* be a conflict of interest problem with the MVP title, which is what I posted 8 years ago, it has generated thousands upon thousands of hateful emails, dragged on over 8 YEARS and people STILL cannot let it go. That, in and of itself, proves how corrupting an influence it is. People are SO covetous of it that they cannot abide even the mere SUGGESTION that there might be an ethical conflict. The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
No. John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: Martin Tuip [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:51 PM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: Re: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Does that make the shop unethical now for not considering any other vendor ? -- Martin Tuip MVP Exchange Exchange 2000 List owner www.exchange-mail.org www.sharepointserver.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- - Original Message - From: Erik Sojka [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:45 AM Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the types of consulting engagements. One such type: I want to put in a new email system. Please tell me which system from all of the major players would fit in my environment. Another such type: I've already decided that Lotus Notes is the email system for me. Please draw from your vendor-specific expertise and help me with my deployment. There are others of course. You seem fixated on the ethical problems that might arise with a vendor-biased consultant being hired for the first of my examples. In this first example, you are completely correct in pointing out the very real conflict of interest. I cannot and should not expect completely neutral recommendations from a person who markets themselves as an expert in $vendor's technology. Logic would dictate that the consultant would recommend the technology that they are affiliated with. You have completely and repeatedly ignored the possibility of the second (and IMO more frequently occurring) type. If I am already running a $vendor shop, I want to hire the best talent I can. I would expect that the best talent I can find would be familiar with $vendor technology. The decision to use a particular vendor has already been made. By me. Without any prodding or cajoling by said consultant. (Remainder of post clipped and recycled) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Man, I can't EVEN believe that I allowed myself to get sucked back into this infernal list again. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays everyone. And the New Year thing. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
YFR. 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 10:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Actually, I have had plenty of people step forward, privately and support me. But they don't want to get involved in the list discussion. I don't need to. I'm not the one spouting ridiculous opinions about ethics. It's clear that you've lost the argument when you can't prove your case, and To whom is it clear? Noone has EVER proven wrong that accepting direct gifts from vendors when you are in an industry that provides services to clients and customers for that vendor that it is NOT a conflict of interest. instead challenge me to prove you wrong. Since you can't prove your assertion, it is not a fact, and therefore it is an opinion. Since your opinion is yours alone (noone else has stepped forward to agree with you) then you have a very small minority opinion. An opinion, I'm afraid to have to explain to you, are only as important as the stature and number of those who hold it. So, it would seem that my position prevails, and your opinion is marginal. Unless you can prove the contrary, you have no basis for arguing that there is an ethical problem with the MVP program. 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 10:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics OK, I can be childish as well. You PROVE it. Prove to me that accepting gifts from vendors and then turning around to clients and providing information and services about and from those vendors is NOT a real or perceived conflict of interest. You prove that false. Prove it. It is your opinion, not a fact. Everything you cite is made up in your own mind. Again, you are mixing up fact and opinion. What you believe is not necessarily what is true. That appears to be especially true in that special place known as Deckler-Land. By the way, surrounding your claimed invitation to be an MVP, who invited you and when? I don't recall you ever offering much positive peer support in the forums, but I do recall that you were considered to be a heckler way back before Exchange was even a product with a SKU. I find it hard to believe that you would ever have been welcomed as an MVP. Care to prove this assertion as well? 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 10:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics You can be offended all you want, it does not change the FACT that accepting a direct gift from a vendor creates an obvious problem with basic conflict of interest rules. I don't make these rules up all I have stated is that a real or perceived conflict exists. If the argument held no water, then there would be no reason to be offended. It's not exactly a gift. It's a recognition for a contribution pefrormed. There are, admittedly, strings attached, although there are none that I consider to be ethical issues. I completely resent your entire assertion that I am somehow unethical because I accept the title and gifts associated with being an MVP. I will defend my standards of ethics against anyone's, including your poorly defined and indefensible set. In fact, I was nearly fired from my current job because I defended ethical behavior, but the system worked and I am still here. (This was completely unrelated to anything surrounding Microsoft or MVP.) So, let's get back to the real argument. Please either (1) prove how being an MVP is unethical, or (2) go away and let this thread rest. I tire of your repeated extrapolations, digressions, and less-than-brilliant treatises. 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 9:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics The flaw here is that that Cisco Certified has clearly defined things that must be met and requires a payment to the vendor to achieve. You must PAY to get the required material. You
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Mr. Deckler argues that the IT profession will collapse into a heap unless it adopts HIS standards of ethics. 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 Ken Cornetet Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Whoa! Guys! Stop! UNBIASED *That* is the crux of the problem with this debate! Taking gifts (including titles) WOULD BE UNETHICAL *IF* the client had the expectation of the professional neutrality. Most IT professionals DO NOT FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY, therefore taking gifts IS NOT UNETHICAL AS LONG AS the client has no expectation of neutrality. Mr. Deckler argues that the IT profession would be better off adopting a stricter ethical standard, and that may be true. BUT, to judge ethical behavior today, we must use standards as defined by the IT profession TODAY, and that standard currently says vendor whoring is fine, SO LONG AS THE CLIENT ISN'T EXPECTING NEUTRALITY. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:59 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Um, yes it DOES make it unethical. You are accepting a direct gift from a vendor and then turning around and supposedly giving unbiased technical advice to a client. That is the definition of real or perceived conflict of interest. It does not mean that you WILL act unethically, but it is OBVIOUSLY a breach of ethical conduct and conflict of interest rules. Sort of. There are no well documented criteria that you apply for and then meet, there are informal criteria that leads to an invitation.=20 As I said, others must decide whether the criteria meet the expertise they are looking for. That does not make it unethical, as you know. I seriously doubt any customer will give you a blank check simply based on being an MVP, but I know I can have a higher degree of trust for the info (usually) a MVP provides in lists like this. Best Regards,=20 Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:42 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Just so that the record is set straight and Deckler doesn't feel the need to write a 2,000-word response to this technical inaccuracy, the title of MVP isn't awarded based set standards. It's rather subjective, I must confess. 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 Dan Bartley Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title warrants a level of trust and respect. Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions regarding is unethical. Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. Just another opinion :-) Best Regards,=20 Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading.=20 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=3Dexchangetext_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=3Dexchangetext_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
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Greg, you can take (and have taken) your crusade to ridiculous extremes. I daresay EVERYONE who you would respect has some potential conflict of interest. Have you disclosed to every customer every stock you hold, and the stock holdings of every mutual fund you own? Have you disclosed every trinket or favorable treatment you've received from any vendor at any time? Anything like that can be construed as a potential conflict of interest. You argue in overbroad generalities and don't draw any lines. Therefore, your arguments have no merit because they are of no use to anyone. Again, how does my being an MVP constitute even a potential conflict of interest? How does your standard of potential conflict of interest apply to everyone? Sooner of later, you're going to have to admit that a conflict of interest must be determined by the person involved, and not by your arbitrary, overbroad--even silly--generalizations. 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 11:05 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics As long as Inovis' HR department has no rules regarding accepting gits, etc. then you are personally and *technically in the clear with regards to your job. However it does not change the basic definition of conflict of interest. You are employed at a company and paid by that company but are accepting gifts from another company which may cause your loyalties to go astray. Perhaps you are so concerned with providing this peer support that you do so on the company's time or with company equipment (Inovis). This is the whole reason why companies have conflict of interest rules and put caps and limitations on gifts. You can be offended all you want, it does not change the FACT that accepting a direct gift from a vendor creates an obvious problem with basic conflict of interest rules. I don't make these rules up all I have stated is that a real or perceived conflict exists. If the argument held no water, then there would be no reason to be offended. Prove it. And don't use the words obvious or apparent I'm paid to be a Windows Sysadmin. I'm a Microsoft MVP. Explain to me exactly how that's a conflict of interest. The reality is that you can't, because it isn't. Now, if I was selling Microsoft and Novell solutions and held my MVP status, there could be some validity to the argument that there is a *perceived* conflict of interest. There ISN'T a conflict of interest until it affects my judgement or my recommendations to a customer. Then again, MVP status is awarded for contributions to peer technical support, which has nothing to do with selling anything. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics You can be offended all you want, it does not change the FACT that accepting a direct gift from a vendor creates an obvious problem with basic conflict of interest rules. I don't make these rules up all I have stated is that a real or perceived conflict exists. If the argument held no water, then there would be no reason to be offended. It's not exactly a gift. It's a recognition for a contribution pefrormed. There are, admittedly, strings attached, although there are none that I consider to be ethical issues. I completely resent your entire assertion that I am somehow unethical because I accept the title and gifts associated with being an MVP. I will defend my standards of ethics against anyone's, including your poorly defined and indefensible set. In fact, I was nearly fired from my current job because I defended ethical behavior, but the system worked and I am still here. (This was completely unrelated to anything surrounding Microsoft or MVP.) So, let's get back to the real argument. Please either (1) prove how being an MVP is unethical, or (2) go away and let this thread rest. I tire of your repeated extrapolations, digressions, and less-than-brilliant treatises. 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 9:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics The flaw here is that that Cisco Certified has clearly defined things that must be met
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I see your humor is on a par with your logic. 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 11:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics If truth be told, I actually LOVE to starve children. It is one of my guilty little pleasures. Some day I hope to have my own children to starve. My wife's cool with it, she likes to starve children as well. Greg, you wrote: First, I never said I was a master logician. This is simply another = in a long line of dozens of mischaracterizations of my posts that proves = the fact that you either cannot read, cannot comprehend what you read, = choose to embellish what you read or assume things about what you read. 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. People mis-characterize and read things into my posts that are not = there. Personal attacks are generally the clearest sign that someone has lost = an argument and has nothing better to say. So now I am a wife beater, a = liar, I starve children and I get beat up a lot. I keep learning things = about myself that I never knew before, I love this list. And, I just gotta say...a starving child reference?!?!?! I mean...what? = So now I'm taking food out of the mouths of children because I believe = that accepting a vendor honorarium is unethical? I...I...I literally = don't even know what to say to something that incredibly inane. That one = takes the cake. The original question I posed to you was: Oh - are you an MCSE? Would having those initials behind your name = enhance your credibility, marketability, business ventures and/or = profits? Would obtaining such a title be unethical and wrong? If = having those credentials put food in your children's mouths and a roof = over their heads, would your attitude change any? Did I state you starved children? Speaking of mischaracterizations, = choosing to embellish, assuming things about what you read and not = comprehending I asked you if having a specific vendor-based credential put food in to = YOUR children's mouths, would your attitude change? You can = mischaracterize, embellish, whatever to suit your needs. You should be absolutely exhausted by now from all the running in = circles you do. Stick to your guns and stay stuck or as someone else so = eloquently stated, STFU.=20 Actually, you remind me a singing and dancing Charles Durning from the = Best Little Wh0rehouse in Texas. O - I love to dance a little = sidestep.. You're shucking and jiving so much trying to win your = arguments you're doing the same things you accuse others of which = results in serious damage to any credibility you may have had. I = originally gave you credit for sticking to your beliefs but now must = retract that statement. Doctors screw up and someone dies. Lawyers screw up and someone goes to = prison or is freed to commit further crimes [you write the final chapter = on this one]. Any person involved with the medical, dental, physical, = psychological arenas [and their assistants, etc] screw up and a life is = on the line. That's the reason for federal and/or congressional = intervention along with written laws and ethics - to guide behavior so = as to NOT put a life in jeopardy. You know what happens when I screw = up? Pamela the personal assistant doesn't get her e-mail from Aunt = Betty about what pie to bake for their holiday dinner. Just have Aunt = Betty send her recipe right after I get the mail server running = again. Professionalism, honesty, competence, experience and skill count and go = a long way in this business. Being professional means policing your = own, being proficient, earning respect and being an example for others = to emulate and from there you can create the infrastructure of ethics. = You'd better hit the silk now because your plane has way too many holes = in it to fly and the hole you're landing yourself in apparently has no = room for the traits I just mentioned.. Our profession hasn't been = around long enough to begin this debate and if you think otherwise, then = go ahead and label yourself ahead of your time - your ego can handle = it. There's entirely too much
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
So you're admitting you can't prove your point? So you don't always deal in facts and logic, but your own personal opinion? Will you take the next step and agree that you opinion is not necessarily supreme? 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 1:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Sure, you can't prove the something is *NOT* white. But you also cannot prove that something IS white if the person you are talking to will not look at it and say Yup, it's white alright. or even agree with your definition of white. Perhaps, your white my blue? The point was that asking me to prove that something is a conflict of interest is pointless unless you can agree to some ground rules. By not accepting and agreeing to a basic definition for conflict of interest, there are no ground rules and hence it becomes impossible to prove anything. If you are always going to debate the actual meaning of the term conflict of interest, then no one will ever convince you that ANYTHING is a conflict of interest, let alone white. Asking someone to demonstrate a negative is a logical impossibility, and a dishonest debating/argument tactic. You wouldn't win any awards if you tried to sell me a product with that kind of logic. Jim _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Name a 80's dance band that successfully used the word Parthenogenesis in a song, for $5.38 and an ethical conflict from Microsoft. -Original Message- From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics VH1 - Where are they now :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics And just who's survey list did you use to verify this? Billboard or the AT40 list? John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:33 PM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I said TOP 10 Classic Hit :) Tom M. of Texas is the winner if anyone cares. The song was Jessie's Girl by Rick Springfield. Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Rob Hackney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics : Speaking of MOOT, can anyone tell me what top 10 classic rock single contains the word MOOT? Do you mean in the band name, song title or lyrics? Eg: Moot The Hoople - Ballad of Mott the Hoople (1973)? This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
It's Nemesis from Shriekback. Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: East, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Name a 80's dance band that successfully used the word Parthenogenesis in a song, for $5.38 and an ethical conflict from Microsoft. -Original Message- From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics VH1 - Where are they now :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics And just who's survey list did you use to verify this? Billboard or the AT40 list? John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:33 PM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I said TOP 10 Classic Hit :) Tom M. of Texas is the winner if anyone cares. The song was Jessie's Girl by Rick Springfield. Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Rob Hackney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics : Speaking of MOOT, can anyone tell me what top 10 classic rock single contains the word MOOT? Do you mean in the band name, song title or lyrics? Eg: Moot The Hoople - Ballad of Mott the Hoople (1973)? This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Tell me you Googled that. -- be - MOS One more such victory, and we are lost. --Pyrrus -Original Message- From: Eric Fretz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 1:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics It's Nemesis from Shriekback. Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: East, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Name a 80's dance band that successfully used the word Parthenogenesis in a song, for $5.38 and an ethical conflict from Microsoft. -Original Message- From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics VH1 - Where are they now :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics And just who's survey list did you use to verify this? Billboard or the AT40 list? John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:33 PM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I said TOP 10 Classic Hit :) Tom M. of Texas is the winner if anyone cares. The song was Jessie's Girl by Rick Springfield. Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Rob Hackney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics : Speaking of MOOT, can anyone tell me what top 10 classic rock single contains the word MOOT? Do you mean in the band name, song title or lyrics? Eg: Moot The Hoople - Ballad of Mott the Hoople (1973)? This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_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=exchanget ext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I'm not telling =) Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: East, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 1:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Tell me you Googled that. -- be - MOS One more such victory, and we are lost. --Pyrrus -Original Message- From: Eric Fretz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 1:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics It's Nemesis from Shriekback. Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: East, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Name a 80's dance band that successfully used the word Parthenogenesis in a song, for $5.38 and an ethical conflict from Microsoft. -Original Message- From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics VH1 - Where are they now :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics And just who's survey list did you use to verify this? Billboard or the AT40 list? John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:33 PM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I said TOP 10 Classic Hit :) Tom M. of Texas is the winner if anyone cares. The song was Jessie's Girl by Rick Springfield. Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Rob Hackney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics : Speaking of MOOT, can anyone tell me what top 10 classic rock single contains the word MOOT? Do you mean in the band name, song title or lyrics? Eg: Moot The Hoople - Ballad of Mott the Hoople (1973)? This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_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=exchanget ext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=; lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
The first message I posted in this thread is in your PST file. I have reprinted it several times. Everything since then has been in-kind responses to yours. 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 2:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Was that where you reprinted that I posted a message on Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 and you then chose to post messages that were rude, lacked basic civility and had nothing to do with the subject posted? You can retrace this conversation all you want and it is always going to come back to myself posting a question to the list and you repeatedly acting rudely until you finally forced me to respond to your blatant mis-characterization of my beliefs. I have no interest in bringing up this topic that was discussed ad nauseum eight years ago but I am always going to respond to posts that misrepresent and mischaracterize my beliefs. That which I have reprinted several times now. 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 10:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics And what was before that? Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:36:07 -0800 - NINE HOURS PRIOR TO YOUR EVIDENCE From you: Ed, Your lack of professionalism is truly staggering. Let the record show that you started the name calling and personal attacks. Besides, I don't see how the comment you posted varies substantially from your subsequent diatribes. 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 10:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Too easy: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:52:58 -0800 For those of you who haven't been around, Mr. Greg Deckler has repeatedly broadcast his diatribes that those of us who are MVPs should be likened to employees (his word) of Microsoft and anything we tell you should be considered to be propaganda straight from Bill Gates. Well, my response is the kind of unprofessional response he deserves, having made his bed. Sorry to have troubled the rest of you. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! Where did I do that? Please replay the transcript. 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 10:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics No Ed, you blatantly mis-characterized my position and forced me to clarify what I believe. I am not going to let you or anyone else interpret what I believe and provide bogus information to someone when I can tell them directly what I believe without going through a third-party. All I did was to admit that I am a vendor whore. It is you who launched into a weak but wordy defense of your silly position. 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 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_ mo de =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=exchangetext_mo de =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
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
...circling that drain. I like that. 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 Jim Helfer Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 2:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics The Lurkers Support Me in E-mail! I knew it was coming, and here it is at last! Another piece of the kook puzzle falls into place. I am so happy. We are still a few steps away from the Every who is against me is just as bad as Hitler gambit, but we are surely circling that drain. Jim H -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Actually, I have had plenty of people step forward, privately and support me. But they don't want to get involved in the list discussion. I don't need to. I'm not the one spouting ridiculous opinions about ethics. It's clear that you've lost the argument when you can't prove your case, and To whom is it clear? Noone has EVER proven wrong that accepting direct gifts from vendors when you are in an industry that provides services to clients and customers for that vendor that it is NOT a conflict of interest. instead challenge me to prove you wrong. Since you can't prove your assertion, it is not a fact, and therefore it is an opinion. Since your opinion is yours alone (noone else has stepped forward to agree with you) then you have a very small minority opinion. An opinion, I'm afraid to have to explain to you, are only as important as the stature and number of those who hold it. So, it would seem that my position prevails, and your opinion is marginal. Unless you can prove the contrary, you have no basis for arguing that there is an ethical problem with the MVP program. 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 10:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics OK, I can be childish as well. You PROVE it. Prove to me that accepting gifts from vendors and then turning around to clients and providing information and services about and from those vendors is NOT a real or perceived conflict of interest. You prove that false. Prove it. It is your opinion, not a fact. Everything you cite is made up in your own mind. Again, you are mixing up fact and opinion. What you believe is not necessarily what is true. That appears to be especially true in that special place known as Deckler-Land. By the way, surrounding your claimed invitation to be an MVP, who invited you and when? I don't recall you ever offering much positive peer support in the forums, but I do recall that you were considered to be a heckler way back before Exchange was even a product with a SKU. I find it hard to believe that you would ever have been welcomed as an MVP. Care to prove this assertion as well? 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 10:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics You can be offended all you want, it does not change the FACT that accepting a direct gift from a vendor creates an obvious problem with basic conflict of interest rules. I don't make these rules up all I have stated is that a real or perceived conflict exists. If the argument held no water, then there would be no reason to be offended. It's not exactly a gift. It's a recognition for a contribution pefrormed. There are, admittedly, strings attached, although there are none that I consider to be ethical issues. I completely resent your entire assertion that I am somehow unethical because I accept the title and gifts associated with being an MVP. I will defend my standards of ethics against anyone's, including your poorly defined and indefensible set. In fact, I was nearly fired from my current job because I defended ethical behavior, but the system worked and I am still here. (This was completely unrelated to anything surrounding Microsoft or MVP.) So, let's get back to the real argument. Please either (1) prove how being an MVP is unethical, or (2) go away and let this thread rest. I tire of your repeated extrapolations, digressions, and less-than-brilliant treatises. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I'd wager that Ed, for example, is proud of his online reputation. Thanks for the nice words. I would like to add that nobody who knows me thinks that I hesitate to criticize anything I feel deserves it, be it Microsoft or anything or anyone else. Here's one example: I've caught flack for some things I've said about Exchange clusters, which, in retrospect, were probably unfair. But that flack did not come from the MVP Program, but from within the ranks of my employer. 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 Shotton Jolyon Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Well, titles can be very handy - we have an honours system in the UK that would seem to back that up. But they are not as valuable as personal reputation as is evidenced by the number of people that refuse these titles on point of principle - often very publicly. (As you have done with your MVP, it occurs to me.) I'd wager that Ed, for example, is proud of his online reputation. He would not want to be seen as being under the influence of Microsoft and if the MVP programme put him in that position or even if he felt it made a significant number of people consider him to be in that position I suspect he would not be pleased. Now 8 out of 10 list members who expressed a preference said their cats couldn't give a rat's rectum about Ed having an MVP so his reputation is intact and he's happy to continue to be an MVP. It is this issue of reputation that keeps the argument alive - not any great love or covetousness of the award. You could slag off Microsoft, Exchange, the MVP programme or the dreadful Christmas sweaters that people are wearing right now and any fuss you managed to produce would die down fairly quickly but it is the suggestion that reputations are tarnished by the acceptance of an MVP award that has got people's backs up to the extent they are. There are plenty of people on here who are not and are never likely to be MVPs but they are still prepared to argue the toss - they have no conflict of interests here, no business built on an ethical manifesto, no supplier plying them with trinkets, no particular reputation of their own to defend and no reason to defend the MVP programme. That they do suggests that they are genuine in their belief that it is harmless. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 December 2003 19:57 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics John, you post some intelligent stuff I have to say. Yes, there is an order of magnitude argument to be had in all of this and you argue it well. I base my position on a couple of premises, but the main argument is: Titles are absolutely priceless and have the potential to be much, much more corrupting than any monetary gift. For proof, I will simply point to this entire discussion now 8 years old. At the mere mention that there *might* be a conflict of interest problem with the MVP title, which is what I posted 8 years ago, it has generated thousands upon thousands of hateful emails, dragged on over 8 YEARS and people STILL cannot let it go. That, in and of itself, proves how corrupting an influence it is. People are SO covetous of it that they cannot abide even the mere SUGGESTION that there might be an ethical conflict. The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Happy holidays, Greg. 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: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 7:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Man, I can't EVEN believe that I allowed myself to get sucked back into this infernal list again. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays everyone. And the New Year thing. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics SPAM
And they're misdirected. Spam is another name for UCE, unsolicited commercial e-mail, which the thread in question definitely is not. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!™ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hiatt, Jack (MARC) Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics SPAM these are worse than the debate. -Original Message- From: Troels Majlandt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 Dec 2003 14:23 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: SV: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics SPAM SPAM -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af Greg Deckler Sendt: 22. december 2003 19:58 Til: Exchange Discussions Emne: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics The second scenario still presents the potential for a conflict of interest. If you are accepting gifts from vendors then you may not be forthcoming with all information about problems or issues with the system that might cause the client to choose NOT to migrate, hold off on migration, etc. Still the potential for conflict of interest. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the types of = consulting engagements. =20 One such type: I want to put in a new email system. Please tell me = which system from all of the major players would fit in my environment. Another such type: I've already decided that Lotus Notes is the email = system for me. Please draw from your vendor-specific expertise and help me = with my deployment. There are others of course. You seem fixated on the ethical problems = that might arise with a vendor-biased consultant being hired for the first of = my examples. In this first example, you are completely correct in pointing = out the very real conflict of interest. I cannot and should not expect completely neutral recommendations from a person who markets themselves = as an expert in $vendor's technology. Logic would dictate that the consultant would recommend the technology that they are affiliated with. =20 You have completely and repeatedly ignored the possibility of the second = (and IMO more frequently occurring) type. If I am already running a $vendor = shop, I want to hire the best talent I can. I would expect that the best = talent I can find would be familiar with $vendor technology. The decision to use = a particular vendor has already been made. By me. Without any prodding = or cajoling by said consultant. =20 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Why not ban him? Surely there is a anti-spam filter on this list? This person seems to be interested in 'stoking' the fires of a few so confrontation may incur. Erik L. Vesneski Intel Lead - WCDC/ISO www.pmigroup.com mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 6:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Wrong. You brought it up by throwing stones my way. I don't pick fights, I finish them. So why did you feel the need to change the thread to post the exact same nonsense you've been spouting all along? Don't say that we keep bringing this up. All I in the second post in the original thread was that I'm a vendor whore. You took over and started with your silly, unjustified position. 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: Thursday, December 18, 2003 7:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics OK, for some reason beyond my comprehension people seem to have this odd fascination with my views on ethics in IT. They are so fascinated that every time I post something to this list, they bring it up. In the interests of trying to move past this, you can get your fix of my crazed views on ethics in the form of a free monthly newsletter, The IT Ethics Newsletter. Details can be found at http://www.infonition.com/ethics I have not yet covered the Conflict of Interest topic but I'm sure that it will come up eventually. Until then, here is how I see the two sides. Greg: Accepting direct gifts from third parties, especially significant gifts such as large dollar items and titles, presents a real or perceived conflict of interest between an IT professional's client (either the customer or company that he or she works for) and that third party. This is why companies have limits on the type and dollar amount of gifts that employees can accept from third parties. Because MVP is primarily a title and titles are priceless, there are obvious grounds for a potential conflict of interest. And it does not matter if the conflict of interest is real or perceived. The whole point of ethics and conflict of interest rules is to help keep people from getting into ethical trouble and to remove even the specter or impropriety. The Other Side: The MVP title is not unethical. In fact, it does not matter what you do or who you accept gifts from or what the type or dollar amount of those gifts, it will never, ever constitute a conflict of interest. Furthermore, there is really no such thing as a conflict of interest. This whole conflict of interest nonsense is, in fact, an evil plot propagated by the secretive Illuminati. Obviously, the Illuminati have corrupted Greg's brain and the brains of all of the corporations that have rules against accepting gifts. Don't become another victim! Even if God himself comes down and points out that something is obviously a potential conflict of interest, argue with God because the Illuminati have obviously gotten to him. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Ban him? Why? I hold him single handedly responsible for this lists entertainment value surpassing that of its technical value. -heath -Original Message- From: Erik L. Vesneski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 7:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Why not ban him? Surely there is a anti-spam filter on this list? This person seems to be interested in 'stoking' the fires of a few so confrontation may incur. Erik L. Vesneski Intel Lead - WCDC/ISO www.pmigroup.com mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 6:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Wrong. You brought it up by throwing stones my way. I don't pick fights, I finish them. So why did you feel the need to change the thread to post the exact same nonsense you've been spouting all along? Don't say that we keep bringing this up. All I in the second post in the original thread was that I'm a vendor whore. You took over and started with your silly, unjustified position. 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: Thursday, December 18, 2003 7:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics OK, for some reason beyond my comprehension people seem to have this odd fascination with my views on ethics in IT. They are so fascinated that every time I post something to this list, they bring it up. In the interests of trying to move past this, you can get your fix of my crazed views on ethics in the form of a free monthly newsletter, The IT Ethics Newsletter. Details can be found at http://www.infonition.com/ethics I have not yet covered the Conflict of Interest topic but I'm sure that it will come up eventually. Until then, here is how I see the two sides. Greg: Accepting direct gifts from third parties, especially significant gifts such as large dollar items and titles, presents a real or perceived conflict of interest between an IT professional's client (either the customer or company that he or she works for) and that third party. This is why companies have limits on the type and dollar amount of gifts that employees can accept from third parties. Because MVP is primarily a title and titles are priceless, there are obvious grounds for a potential conflict of interest. And it does not matter if the conflict of interest is real or perceived. The whole point of ethics and conflict of interest rules is to help keep people from getting into ethical trouble and to remove even the specter or impropriety. The Other Side: The MVP title is not unethical. In fact, it does not matter what you do or who you accept gifts from or what the type or dollar amount of those gifts, it will never, ever constitute a conflict of interest. Furthermore, there is really no such thing as a conflict of interest. This whole conflict of interest nonsense is, in fact, an evil plot propagated by the secretive Illuminati. Obviously, the Illuminati have corrupted Greg's brain and the brains of all of the corporations that have rules against accepting gifts. Don't become another victim! Even if God himself comes down and points out that something is obviously a potential conflict of interest, argue with God because the Illuminati have obviously gotten to him. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
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 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? Well, this character Greg, wants us all to believe his ethics are without question. So, let's take a look at his ethics page and see what he's supposed to be doing. First, Greg's point of vendor conflict is answered here: To never accept compensation from vendors for recommending products One must ask then Greg, have you ever been to a seminar, conference, or LUNCH where the vendor presenting paid for the meal, the snacks, the coffee? Second, Greg's list of ethics claim: To disclose any and all influences that may affect our recommendations Greg, does this mean that if I were to speak to you over the phone, you would tell me just how many times your Cisco, Microsoft, Bay Networks, etc., Rep. has called? Or are you saying that you never meet with the vendors to discuss how their products can benefit your customers? Do you ever read trade magazines that discuss the use of one vendors products over another? Will you then tell me all the magazines you read, what date, publication, page number, etc? Third, Greg's list goes on to say: To be fair and accurate when resolving disputes, problems or issues [and] To conduct ourselves in a professional manner at all times One must ask then Greg, exactly how does your statement of: Wrong. You brought it up by throwing stones my way. I don't pick fights, I finish them. work into these statements? 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, HE'S going to finish it. I can see now why people flock to your organization Greg. The point is, don't say something matters a great deal to you, and then give this list plenty of examples showing that apparently it doesn't. You want to wave a flag around and say I have ethics and yet not live by those same ethics, then be prepared to be inundated with the onslaught. I would trust Ed, Tom, Tony, and even Don, further then I would trust someone yelling about how ethical they are and at the same time say they'll finish any fight. It's time to throttle back now greg, and realize this. You are a Sales Manager for a company that apparently you are supposed to be drumming up business for. Just how much business do you think you have generated on this list after acting in the manner you did? Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Walker, Heath [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 8:08 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Ban him? Why? I hold him single handedly responsible for this lists entertainment value surpassing that of its technical value. -heath -Original Message- From: Erik L. Vesneski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 7:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Why not ban him? Surely there is a anti-spam filter on this list? This person seems to be interested in 'stoking' the fires of a few so confrontation may incur. Erik L. Vesneski Intel Lead - WCDC/ISO www.pmigroup.com mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 6:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Wrong. You brought it up by throwing stones my way. I don't pick fights, I finish them. So why did you feel the need to change the thread to post the exact same nonsense you've been spouting all along? Don't say that we keep bringing this up. All I in the second post in the original thread was that I'm a vendor whore. You took over and started with your silly, unjustified position. 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: Thursday, December 18, 2003 7:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics OK, for some reason beyond my comprehension people seem to have this odd fascination with my views on ethics in IT. They are so fascinated that every time I post something to this list, they bring it up. In the interests of trying to move past this, you can get your fix of my crazed views on ethics in the form of a free monthly newsletter, The IT Ethics Newsletter. Details can be found at http://www.infonition.com/ethics I have not yet covered the Conflict of Interest topic but I'm sure that it will come up eventually. Until then, here is how I see the two sides. Greg: Accepting direct gifts from third parties, especially
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I can understand that you are obviously too immature to own up to the fact that you are the one that instigates these discussions and then turn around and accuse others of instigating such discussions. I can also understand that when you have nothing to say that you post what you consider to be philosophical or poetic statements when in fact you are posting meaningless dribble that makes you look like an...well, let's just stick with immature. ...makes you look immature. Not only can't you prove the obvious, you can't understand the obvious. 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: Friday, December 19, 2003 12:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Ed, this is so utterly wrong that it defies all rational thought. Yes, you first stated something along the lines of Why are you asking us vendor wh0res. And I ignored this post and simply asked you to play nice. The thread continued, still largely the topic of migrating from GroupWise 6.5 to Exchange 2000. Then, you posted this next little gem, and I quote: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:52:58 -0800 For those of you who haven't been around, Mr. Greg Deckler has repeatedly broadcast his diatribes that those of us who are MVPs should be likened to employees (his word) of Microsoft and anything we tell you should be considered to be propaganda straight from Bill Gates. Well, my response is the kind of unprofessional response he deserves, having made his bed. Sorry to have troubled the rest of you. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! Now, to this I simply had to respond because this is a blatant mis-characterization of my position. Yes, I believe that accepting titles from vendors is not only wrong, but extremely damaging to the IT community at large in the eyes of the public that we serve. My response to you corrected your mis-characterization of my position and indicated that yes, we have different opinions on this topic, but that we should at least be able to be civil. From this, then, the whole topic disintegrated into misery. Thus, it is a proven FACT that you, not I, started this entire re-hashed discussion about ethics in IT. Could I have ignored your post. Perhaps, but I am simply not going to allow such a blatant mis-characterization of my beliefs to go unchallenged. Now, given these facts, I could easily make the call you a liar. But, I am not going to tell you that. I am going to tell you that you are wrong, because you are and I can prove absolutely that you are wrong. But, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, show some civility and not claim that you are *purposefully* posting incorrect and wrong information. Instead, I prefer to believe that you simply are not recollecting things correctly. You brought up the this topic of ethics, you mis-characterized my position, you brought up a discussion now 8 years dead, you kept on hounding me until I was forced to respond. You, you, you and finally, you. It's all you man. So why did you feel the need to change the thread to post the exact same nonsense you've been spouting all along? Don't say that we keep bringing this up. All I in the second post in the original thread was that I'm a vendor whore. You took over and started with your silly, unjustified position. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Go back to your on-time on-budget 50 user projects, that are done in the most ethical way. From: Greg Deckler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:20:54 -0800 I can understand that you are obviously too immature to own up to the fact that you are the one that instigates these discussions and then turn around and accuse others of instigating such discussions. I can also understand that when you have nothing to say that you post what you consider to be philosophical or poetic statements when in fact you are posting meaningless dribble that makes you look like an...well, let's just stick with immature. ...makes you look immature. Not only can't you prove the obvious, you can't understand the obvious. 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: Friday, December 19, 2003 12:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Ed, this is so utterly wrong that it defies all rational thought. Yes, you first stated something along the lines of Why are you asking us vendor wh0res. And I ignored this post and simply asked you to play nice. The thread continued, still largely the topic of migrating from GroupWise 6.5 to Exchange 2000. Then, you posted this next little gem, and I quote: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:52:58 -0800 For those of you who haven't been around, Mr. Greg Deckler has repeatedly broadcast his diatribes that those of us who are MVPs should be likened to employees (his word) of Microsoft and anything we tell you should be considered to be propaganda straight from Bill Gates. Well, my response is the kind of unprofessional response he deserves, having made his bed. Sorry to have troubled the rest of you. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! Now, to this I simply had to respond because this is a blatant mis-characterization of my position. Yes, I believe that accepting titles from vendors is not only wrong, but extremely damaging to the IT community at large in the eyes of the public that we serve. My response to you corrected your mis-characterization of my position and indicated that yes, we have different opinions on this topic, but that we should at least be able to be civil. From this, then, the whole topic disintegrated into misery. Thus, it is a proven FACT that you, not I, started this entire re-hashed discussion about ethics in IT. Could I have ignored your post. Perhaps, but I am simply not going to allow such a blatant mis-characterization of my beliefs to go unchallenged. Now, given these facts, I could easily make the call you a liar. But, I am not going to tell you that. I am going to tell you that you are wrong, because you are and I can prove absolutely that you are wrong. But, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, show some civility and not claim that you are *purposefully* posting incorrect and wrong information. Instead, I prefer to believe that you simply are not recollecting things correctly. You brought up the this topic of ethics, you mis-characterized my position, you brought up a discussion now 8 years dead, you kept on hounding me until I was forced to respond. You, you, you and finally, you. It's all you man. So why did you feel the need to change the thread to post the exact same nonsense you've been spouting all along? Don't say that we keep bringing this up. All I in the second post in the original thread was that I'm a vendor whore. You took over and started with your silly, unjustified position. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 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? Well, this character Greg, wants us all to believe his ethics are without question. So, let's take a look at his ethics page and see what he's supposed to be doing. First, Greg's point of vendor conflict is answered here: To never accept compensation from vendors for recommending products=20 One must ask then Greg, have you ever been to a seminar, conference, or LUNCH where the vendor presenting paid for the meal, the snacks, the coffee? Second, Greg's list of ethics claim: To disclose any and all influences that may affect our recommendations=20 Greg, does this mean that if I were to speak to you over the phone, you would tell me just how many times your Cisco, Microsoft, Bay Networks, etc., Rep. has called? Or are you saying that you never meet with the vendors to discuss how their products can benefit your customers? Do you ever read trade magazines that discuss the use of one vendors products over another? Will you then tell me all the magazines you read, what date, publication, page number, etc? Third, Greg's list goes on to say: To be fair and accurate when resolving disputes, problems or issues [and] To conduct ourselves in a professional manner at all times=20 One must ask then Greg, exactly how does your statement of: Wrong. You brought it up by throwing stones my way. I don't pick fights, I finish them. work into these statements? 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, HE'S going to finish it. I can see now why people flock to your organization Greg. The point is, don't say something matters a great deal to you, and then give this list plenty of examples showing that apparently it doesn't. You want to wave a flag around and say I have ethics and yet not live by those same ethics, then be prepared to be inundated with the onslaught. I would trust Ed, Tom, Tony, and even Don, further then I would trust someone yelling about how ethical they are and at the same time say they'll finish any fight. It's time to throttle back now greg, and realize this. You are a Sales Manager for a company that apparently you are supposed to be drumming up business for. Just how much business do you think you have generated on this list after acting in the manner you did? Bob Sadler -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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
This is better than the movies! And it's free! -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 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? Well, this character Greg, wants us all to believe his ethics are without question. So, let's take a look at his ethics page and see what he's supposed to be doing. First, Greg's point of vendor conflict is answered here: To never accept compensation from vendors for recommending products=20 One must ask then Greg, have you ever been to a seminar, conference, or LUNCH where the vendor presenting paid for the meal, the snacks, the coffee? Second, Greg's list of ethics claim: To disclose any and all influences that may affect our recommendations=20 Greg, does this mean that if I were to speak to you over the phone, you would tell me just how many times your Cisco, Microsoft, Bay Networks, etc., Rep. has called? Or are you saying that you never meet with the vendors to discuss how their products can benefit your customers? Do you ever read trade magazines that discuss the use of one vendors products over another? Will you then tell me all the magazines you read, what date, publication, page number, etc? Third, Greg's list goes on to say: To be fair and accurate when resolving disputes, problems or issues [and] To conduct ourselves in a professional manner at all times=20 One must ask then Greg, exactly how does your statement of: Wrong. You brought it up by throwing stones my way. I don't pick fights, I finish them. work into these statements? 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, HE'S going to finish it. I can see now why people flock to your organization Greg. The point is, don't say something matters a great deal to you, and then give this list plenty of examples showing that apparently it doesn't. You want to wave a flag around and say I have ethics and yet not live by those same ethics, then be prepared to be inundated with the onslaught. I would trust Ed, Tom, Tony, and even Don, further then I would trust someone yelling about how ethical they are and at the same time say they'll finish any fight. It's time to throttle back now greg, and realize this. You are a Sales Manager for a company that apparently you are supposed to be drumming up business for. Just how much business do you think you have generated on this list after acting in the manner you did? Bob Sadler -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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
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 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? Well, this character Greg, wants us all to believe his ethics are without question. So, let's take a look at his ethics page and see what he's supposed to be doing. First, Greg's point of vendor conflict is answered here: To never accept compensation from vendors for recommending products=20 One must ask then Greg, have you ever been to a seminar, conference, or LUNCH where the vendor presenting paid for the meal, the snacks, the coffee? Second, Greg's list of ethics claim: To disclose any and all influences that may affect our recommendations=20 Greg, does this mean that if I were to speak to you over the phone, you would tell me just how many times your Cisco, Microsoft, Bay Networks, etc., Rep. has called? Or are you saying that you never meet with the vendors to discuss how their products can benefit your customers? Do you ever read trade magazines that discuss the use of one vendors products over another? Will you then tell me all the magazines you read, what date, publication, page number, etc? Third, Greg's list goes on to say: To be fair and accurate when resolving disputes, problems or issues [and] To conduct ourselves in a professional manner at all times=20 One must ask then Greg, exactly how does your statement of: Wrong. You brought it up by throwing stones my way. I don't pick fights, I finish them. work into these statements? 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, HE'S going to finish it. I can see now why people flock to your organization Greg. The point is, don't say something matters a great deal to you, and then give this list plenty of examples showing that apparently it doesn't. You want to wave a flag around and say I have ethics and yet not live by those same ethics, then be prepared to be inundated with the onslaught. I would trust Ed, Tom, Tony, and even Don, further then I would trust someone yelling about how ethical they are and at the same time say they'll finish any fight. It's time to throttle back now greg, and realize this. You are a Sales Manager for a company that apparently you are supposed to be drumming up business for. Just how much business do you think you have generated on this list after acting in the manner you did? Bob Sadler -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=exchangetext_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
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
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
All, Please stop with the rants and raves. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Greg, I hope that you are not typing these long marathon e-mail responses on your clients' time. That could be an ethical dilemma. Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:51 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
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics was where I went astray. As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED, not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know when to shut up. As for the name-calling that goes on this list, I suggest you shut up, sit back, and learn. Sure, Ed, Tony, and Don (and a few more) can certainly be grating on someone's nerves, but I will promise you, they know more about Exchange Systems then you could wish to know in a lifetime. While I don't choose to instruct in the same way these people do, I certainly understand where they get to the point and call someone an idiot for not looking up an issue like How do I turn on my computer before posting it to the list. Remember, the people on this list are under ZERO obligation to help you, or anyone else. When they do choose to help, they can save your butt more times then not. But they WILL NOT, nor should the be expected to, put up with damn fools that ask a question that would be answered faster if that person would have taken the time to research the question themselves. Sure, I don't like being called Lazy, but I promise, it took only once from ED to make me understand that I better research the hell out of something before I bring it here. Even then, I don't expect Ed, or the rest, to be nice when it's a stupid ass mistake I made myself and have no one to blame but myself. You don't like the people in this list, change to a different list. But don't complain about the free service you get here, just because you don't like it when someone calls you a stupid fool for not doing your homework before you got here. Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:51 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
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Dude, STFU. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:51 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
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I am so very, very touched by your concern. Never fear, I keep such activities as this list well separated from hours billed to clients. Greg, I hope that you are not typing these long marathon e-mail responses on your clients' time. That could be an ethical dilemma. Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Since he's only a Sales Manager, I wouldn't think he would have billable hours to clients. It's not like he's an MVP :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I am so very, very touched by your concern. Never fear, I keep such activities as this list well separated from hours billed to clients. Greg, I hope that you are not typing these long marathon e-mail responses on your clients' time. That could be an ethical dilemma. Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics was where I went astray. As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED, not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know when to shut up. As for the name-calling that goes on this list, I suggest you shut up, sit back, and learn. Sure, Ed, Tony, and Don (and a few more) can certainly be grating on someone's nerves, but I will promise you, they know more about Exchange Systems then you could wish to know in a lifetime. While I don't choose to instruct in the same way these people do, I certainly understand where they get to the point and call someone an idiot for not looking up an issue like How do I turn on my computer before posting it to the list. Remember, the people on this list are under ZERO obligation to help you, or anyone else. When they do choose to help, they can save your butt more times then not. But they WILL NOT, nor should the be expected to, put up with damn fools that ask a question that would be answered faster if that person would have taken the time to research the question themselves. Sure, I don't like being called Lazy, but I promise, it took only once from ED to make me understand that I better research the hell out of something before I bring it here. Even then, I don't expect Ed, or the rest, to be nice when it's a stupid ass mistake I made myself and have no one to blame but myself. You don't like the people in this list, change to a different list. But don't complain about the free service you get here, just because you don't like it when someone calls you a stupid fool for not doing your homework before you got here. Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:51 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
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Well, here we have an interesting turn of events. I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. Well, ok, then let me re-phrase what I said, and I will make it short and sweet, so your attention span doesn't have a chance to wander. Shut up or leave the list. Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics was where I went astray. As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED, not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know when to shut up. As for the name-calling that goes on this list, I suggest you shut up, sit back, and learn. Sure, Ed, Tony, and Don (and a few more) can certainly be grating on someone's nerves, but I will promise you, they know more about Exchange Systems then you could wish to know in a lifetime. While I don't choose to instruct in the same way these people do, I certainly understand where they get to the point and call someone an idiot for not looking up an issue like How do I turn on my computer before posting it to the list. Remember, the people on this list are under ZERO obligation to help you, or anyone else. When they do choose to help, they can save your butt more times then not. But they WILL NOT, nor should the be expected to, put up with damn fools that ask a question that would be answered faster if that person would have taken the time to research the question themselves. Sure, I don't like being called Lazy, but I promise, it took only once from ED to make me understand that I better research the hell out of something before I bring it here. Even then, I don't expect Ed, or the rest, to be nice when it's a stupid ass mistake I made myself and have no one to blame but myself. You don't like the people in this list, change to a different list. But don't complain about the free service you get here, just because you don't like it when someone calls you a stupid fool for not doing your homework before you got here. Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on 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
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I get this strange idea that someone wasn't chosen to be an MVP and is very very angry about it :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on 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
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
: Speaking of MOOT, can anyone tell me what top 10 classic rock single contains the word MOOT? Do you mean in the band name, song title or lyrics? Eg: Moot The Hoople - Ballad of Mott the Hoople (1973)? This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Okay, not a Microsoft wh0re. I'm just someone whose shoddy ethics will bring about the end of the computer industry. To set the record straight, I originally characterized myself, not you, a vendor whore. Wouldn't want to limit my income potential, you know. 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 9:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics was where I went astray. As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED, not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know when to shut up. As for the name-calling that goes on this list, I suggest you shut up, sit back, and learn. Sure, Ed, Tony, and Don (and a few more) can certainly be grating on someone's nerves, but I will promise you, they know more about Exchange Systems then you could wish to know in a lifetime. While I don't choose to instruct in the same way these people do, I certainly understand where they get to the point and call someone an idiot for not looking up an issue like How do I turn on my computer before posting it to the list. Remember, the people on this list are under ZERO obligation to help you, or anyone else. When they do choose to help, they can save your butt more times then not. But they WILL NOT, nor should the be expected to, put up with damn fools that ask a question that would be answered faster if that person would have taken the time to research the question themselves. Sure, I don't like being called Lazy, but I promise, it took only once from ED to make me understand that I better research the hell out of something before I bring it here. Even then, I don't expect Ed, or the rest, to be nice when it's a stupid ass mistake I made myself and have no one to blame but myself. You don't like the people in this list, change to a different list. But don't complain about the free service you get here, just because you don't like it when someone calls you a stupid fool for not doing your homework before you got here. Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Then you live your ethics, and let the rest of us live ours. Then, when the IT industry goes to hell in a handbasket, you can blame us all for it's demise. We (speaking collectively here) don't believe that MVP's are unethical for receiving a small stipend or gift (whatever it might be). You do. That's fine, but stop trying to force it upon the rest of us. Our views aren't going to change, and your views aren't going to change, so let it rest. Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics was where I went astray. As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED, not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know when to shut up. As for the name-calling that goes on this list, I suggest you shut up, sit back, and learn. Sure, Ed, Tony, and Don (and a few more) can certainly be grating on someone's nerves, but I will promise you, they know more about Exchange Systems then you could wish to know in a lifetime. While I don't choose to instruct in the same way these people do, I certainly understand where they get to the point and call someone an idiot for not looking up an issue like How do I turn on my computer before posting it to the list. Remember, the people on this list are under ZERO obligation to help you, or anyone else. When they do choose to help, they can save your butt more times then not. But they WILL NOT, nor should the be expected to, put up with damn fools that ask a question that would be answered faster if that person would have taken the time to research the question themselves. Sure, I don't like being called Lazy, but I promise, it took only once from ED to make me understand that I better research the hell out of something before I bring it here. Even then, I don't expect Ed, or the rest, to be nice when it's a stupid ass mistake I made myself and have no one to blame but myself. You don't like the people in this list, change to a different list. But don't complain about the free service you get here
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I said TOP 10 Classic Hit :) Tom M. of Texas is the winner if anyone cares. The song was Jessie's Girl by Rick Springfield. Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Rob Hackney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics : Speaking of MOOT, can anyone tell me what top 10 classic rock single contains the word MOOT? Do you mean in the band name, song title or lyrics? Eg: Moot The Hoople - Ballad of Mott the Hoople (1973)? This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
If people would just quit responding to him, he would go away. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Then you live your ethics, and let the rest of us live ours. Then, when the IT industry goes to hell in a handbasket, you can blame us all for it's demise. We (speaking collectively here) don't believe that MVP's are unethical for receiving a small stipend or gift (whatever it might be). You do. That's fine, but stop trying to force it upon the rest of us. Our views aren't going to change, and your views aren't going to change, so let it rest. Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics was where I went astray. As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED, not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know when to shut up. As for the name-calling that goes on this list, I suggest you shut up, sit back, and learn. Sure, Ed, Tony, and Don (and a few more) can certainly be grating on someone's nerves, but I will promise you, they know more about Exchange Systems then you could wish to know in a lifetime. While I don't choose to instruct in the same way these people do, I certainly understand where they get to the point and call someone an idiot for not looking up an issue like How do I turn on my computer before posting it to the list. Remember, the people on this list are under ZERO obligation to help you, or anyone else. When they do choose to help, they can save your butt more times then not. But they WILL NOT, nor should the be expected to, put up with damn fools that ask a question that would be answered faster if that person would have taken the time to research the question themselves. Sure, I don't like being called Lazy, but I promise, it took only once from ED to make me understand that I better research the hell out of something before
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
That what they said about herpes :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics If people would just quit responding to him, he would go away. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Then you live your ethics, and let the rest of us live ours. Then, when the IT industry goes to hell in a handbasket, you can blame us all for it's demise. We (speaking collectively here) don't believe that MVP's are unethical for receiving a small stipend or gift (whatever it might be). You do. That's fine, but stop trying to force it upon the rest of us. Our views aren't going to change, and your views aren't going to change, so let it rest. Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics was where I went astray. As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED, not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know when to shut up. As for the name-calling that goes on this list, I suggest you shut up, sit back, and learn. Sure, Ed, Tony, and Don (and a few more) can certainly be grating on someone's nerves, but I will promise you, they know more about Exchange Systems then you could wish to know in a lifetime. While I don't choose to instruct in the same way these people do, I certainly understand where they get to the point and call someone an idiot for not looking up an issue like How do I turn on my computer before posting it to the list. Remember, the people on this list are under ZERO obligation to help you, or anyone else. When they do choose to help, they can save your butt more times then not. But they WILL NOT, nor should the be expected to, put up with damn fools that ask a question that would be answered
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Do'h! Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Since he's only a Sales Manager, I wouldn't think he would have billable hours to clients. It's not like he's an MVP :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I am so very, very touched by your concern. Never fear, I keep such activities as this list well separated from hours billed to clients. Greg, I hope that you are not typing these long marathon e-mail responses on your clients' time. That could be an ethical dilemma. Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title warrants a level of trust and respect. Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions regarding is unethical. Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. Just another opinion :-) Best Regards, Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Actually, I recall (perhaps inaccurately, though) that he claims he was offered an MVP but he refused it. I do not know any actual facts other than his own claims on this matter, however. 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 Bob Sadler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I get this strange idea that someone wasn't chosen to be an MVP and is very very angry about it :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on 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
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
And just who's survey list did you use to verify this? Billboard or the AT40 list? John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:33 PM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I said TOP 10 Classic Hit :) Tom M. of Texas is the winner if anyone cares. The song was Jessie's Girl by Rick Springfield. Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Rob Hackney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics : Speaking of MOOT, can anyone tell me what top 10 classic rock single contains the word MOOT? Do you mean in the band name, song title or lyrics? Eg: Moot The Hoople - Ballad of Mott the Hoople (1973)? This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Maybe he turned down the MVP thing so he could accept gifts from MS without being consumed by guilt... Jeff Hague Anyone up for a sprited debate about brick level backups? -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Actually, I recall (perhaps inaccurately, though) that he claims he was offered an MVP but he refused it. I do not know any actual facts other than his own claims on this matter, however. 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 Bob Sadler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I get this strange idea that someone wasn't chosen to be an MVP and is very very angry about it :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on 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
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Again, your ignorance of the facts makes you look foolish. I was asked to be an MVP and turned it down. That's what started this whole mess 8 years ago. I get this strange idea that someone wasn't chosen to be an MVP and is very very angry about it :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on 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=20 you want, if you can't even pass the ethics test of your own making. =20 I didn't post any of those points on your website, someone from YOUR=20 company did, and you are the one claiming to hold them near and dear. =20 How interesting that you choose to respond ONLY to one point, and then make irrelevant statements about people calling you names. =20 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=20 that you are stupid. I now consider you incapable of having any type=20 of intelligent discussion based on the fact that you choose to ignore=20 2/3rds of what was posted, or should I just assume that you chose not=20 to discuss those points because you couldn't keep your I have my
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
VH1 - Where are they now :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics And just who's survey list did you use to verify this? Billboard or the AT40 list? John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:33 PM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I said TOP 10 Classic Hit :) Tom M. of Texas is the winner if anyone cares. The song was Jessie's Girl by Rick Springfield. Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Rob Hackney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics : Speaking of MOOT, can anyone tell me what top 10 classic rock single contains the word MOOT? Do you mean in the band name, song title or lyrics? Eg: Moot The Hoople - Ballad of Mott the Hoople (1973)? This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Just so that the record is set straight and Deckler doesn't feel the need to write a 2,000-word response to this technical inaccuracy, the title of MVP isn't awarded based set standards. It's rather subjective, I must confess. 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 Dan Bartley Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title warrants a level of trust and respect. Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions regarding is unethical. Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. Just another opinion :-) Best Regards, Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
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
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
But according to the commercials on TV it's hip to get herpes. You can do all these cool things like rafting and mountain climbing when you have herpes. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics That what they said about herpes :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics If people would just quit responding to him, he would go away. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Then you live your ethics, and let the rest of us live ours. Then, when the IT industry goes to hell in a handbasket, you can blame us all for it's demise. We (speaking collectively here) don't believe that MVP's are unethical for receiving a small stipend or gift (whatever it might be). You do. That's fine, but stop trying to force it upon the rest of us. Our views aren't going to change, and your views aren't going to change, so let it rest. Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics was where I went astray. As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED, not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know when to shut up. As for the name-calling that goes on this list, I suggest you shut up, sit back, and learn. Sure, Ed, Tony, and Don (and a few more) can certainly be grating on someone's nerves, but I will promise you, they know more about Exchange Systems then you could wish to know in a lifetime. While I don't choose to instruct in the same way these people do, I certainly understand where they get to the point and call someone an idiot
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Oh gosh, I had no idea we've been talking about this for 8 years! And because you were able to resist the great Satan, now you come here and tell us all that those damnable MVP's here are leading us into sin! I see the light! OK, thanks, move along now. Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Again, your ignorance of the facts makes you look foolish. I was asked to be an MVP and turned it down. That's what started this whole mess 8 years ago. I get this strange idea that someone wasn't chosen to be an MVP and is very very angry about it :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on 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=20 you want, if you can't even pass the ethics test of your own making. =20 I didn't post any of those points on your website, someone from YOUR=20 company did, and you are the one claiming to hold them near and dear. =20 How interesting that you choose to respond ONLY to one
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Now there's a twist on it I haven't thought of. You mean if I get herpes my Chronic Back Pain will go away? :) To hell with this scheduled neurosurgery, I'm gonna go get Herpes! Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics But according to the commercials on TV it's hip to get herpes. You can do all these cool things like rafting and mountain climbing when you have herpes. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics That what they said about herpes :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics If people would just quit responding to him, he would go away. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Then you live your ethics, and let the rest of us live ours. Then, when the IT industry goes to hell in a handbasket, you can blame us all for it's demise. We (speaking collectively here) don't believe that MVP's are unethical for receiving a small stipend or gift (whatever it might be). You do. That's fine, but stop trying to force it upon the rest of us. Our views aren't going to change, and your views aren't going to change, so let it rest. Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics was where I went astray. As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED, not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know when to shut up. As for the name-calling that goes on this list
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Not to mention all of the herpes outbreak medication commercials that you can star in Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics But according to the commercials on TV it's hip to get herpes. You can do all these cool things like rafting and mountain climbing when you have herpes. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics That what they said about herpes :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics If people would just quit responding to him, he would go away. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Then you live your ethics, and let the rest of us live ours. Then, when the IT industry goes to hell in a handbasket, you can blame us all for it's demise. We (speaking collectively here) don't believe that MVP's are unethical for receiving a small stipend or gift (whatever it might be). You do. That's fine, but stop trying to force it upon the rest of us. Our views aren't going to change, and your views aren't going to change, so let it rest. Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics was where I went astray. As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED, not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know when to shut up. As for the name
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
That's it. The greg filter is being applied :) John Parker, MCSE IS Admin. Senior Technical Specialist Alpha Display Systems. Alpha Video 7711 Computer Ave. Edina, MN. 55435 952-896-9898 Local 800-388-0008 Watts 952-896-9899 Fax 612-804-8769 Cell 952-841-3327 Direct [EMAIL PROTECTED] Be excellent to each other ---End of Line--- -Original Message- From: Eric Fretz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Not to mention all of the herpes outbreak medication commercials that you can star in Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics But according to the commercials on TV it's hip to get herpes. You can do all these cool things like rafting and mountain climbing when you have herpes. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics That what they said about herpes :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics If people would just quit responding to him, he would go away. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Then you live your ethics, and let the rest of us live ours. Then, when the IT industry goes to hell in a handbasket, you can blame us all for it's demise. We (speaking collectively here) don't believe that MVP's are unethical for receiving a small stipend or gift (whatever it might be). You do. That's fine, but stop trying to force it upon the rest of us. Our views aren't going to change, and your views aren't going to change, so let it rest. Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics was where I went astray. As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Nice. Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: John Parker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics That's it. The greg filter is being applied :) John Parker, MCSE IS Admin. Senior Technical Specialist Alpha Display Systems. Alpha Video 7711 Computer Ave. Edina, MN. 55435 952-896-9898 Local 800-388-0008 Watts 952-896-9899 Fax 612-804-8769 Cell 952-841-3327 Direct [EMAIL PROTECTED] Be excellent to each other ---End of Line--- -Original Message- From: Eric Fretz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Not to mention all of the herpes outbreak medication commercials that you can star in Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics But according to the commercials on TV it's hip to get herpes. You can do all these cool things like rafting and mountain climbing when you have herpes. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics That what they said about herpes :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics If people would just quit responding to him, he would go away. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Then you live your ethics, and let the rest of us live ours. Then, when the IT industry goes to hell in a handbasket, you can blame us all for it's demise. We (speaking collectively here) don't believe that MVP's are unethical for receiving a small stipend or gift (whatever it might be). You do. That's fine, but stop trying to force it upon the rest of us. Our views aren't going to change, and your views aren't going to change, so let it rest. Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I HAVE tried to let it rest. Ed brought up this whole topic from a message posted as Migrating from GroupWise 6.5. Don't blame me for bringing the topic up because I DIDN'T BRING THE TOPIC UP. And no, I never said that MVP's would cause the demise of the computer industry. What I said was, today we have a choice to either regulate ourselves or to wait for government to regulate us. That is what I said. I am more than happy to wait around for government to regulate us, that's why I don't bring up this whole ethics discussion. The computer industry is not going away, it will simply be more regulated. If we do it ourselves, we have a say in those regulations. If we do not, then government gets to have that say. Then you live your ethics, and let the rest of us live ours. Then, when the IT industry goes to hell in a handbasket, you can blame us all for it's demise. We (speaking collectively here) don't believe that MVP's are unethical for receiving a small stipend or gift (whatever it might be). You do. That's fine, but stop trying to force it upon the rest of us. Our views aren't going to change, and your views aren't going to change, so let it rest.=20 Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading.=20 I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO =20 Do I get credibility now? =20 In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are=20 Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed=20 it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps=20 your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics=20 was where I went astray. =20 As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own=20 website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that=20 should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED,=20 not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your=20 company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. =20 One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this=20 list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never=20 decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know=20 when to shut up. =20 As for the name-calling that goes on this list, I suggest you shut up, sit back, and learn. Sure, Ed, Tony, and Don (and a few more) can=20 certainly be grating on someone's nerves, but I will promise you, they know more about Exchange Systems then you could wish to know in a=20 lifetime. While I don't choose to instruct in the same way these=20 people do, I certainly understand where they get to the point and call someone an idiot for not looking up an issue like How do I turn on my computer before
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Sort of. There are no well documented criteria that you apply for and then meet, there are informal criteria that leads to an invitation. As I said, others must decide whether the criteria meet the expertise they are looking for. That does not make it unethical, as you know. I seriously doubt any customer will give you a blank check simply based on being an MVP, but I know I can have a higher degree of trust for the info (usually) a MVP provides in lists like this. Best Regards, Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:42 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Just so that the record is set straight and Deckler doesn't feel the need to write a 2,000-word response to this technical inaccuracy, the title of MVP isn't awarded based set standards. It's rather subjective, I must confess. 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 Dan Bartley Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title warrants a level of trust and respect. Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions regarding is unethical. Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. Just another opinion :-) Best Regards, Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
The flaw here is that that Cisco Certified has clearly defined things that must be met and requires a payment to the vendor to achieve. You must PAY to get the required material. You must PAY to take the tests. You must PAY for the certification. MVP is a gift. There are no explicit requirements and there is no exchange of currency. This is the CLEAR difference between certifications and gifts like MVP. Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title warrants a level of trust and respect. Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions regarding is unethical. Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. Just another opinion :-) Best Regards,=20 Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading.=20 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
What started this whole mess is your unique (that wasn't my first choice of adjectives) point of view on ethics and your insistence that it is the correct and only viewpoint. 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 9:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Again, your ignorance of the facts makes you look foolish. I was asked to be an MVP and turned it down. That's what started this whole mess 8 years ago. I get this strange idea that someone wasn't chosen to be an MVP and is very very angry about it :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on 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=20 you want, if you can't even pass the ethics test of your own making. =20 I didn't post any of those points on your website, someone from YOUR=20 company did, and you are the one claiming to hold them near and dear. =20 How interesting
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
You've never proven that it is a breach of ethics, much less egregious. And your admission of even a slight change of your point of view shows just how fatuous your argument is. 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 9:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics 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
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Dude? This particular topic was started by *you* on 12/18. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I HAVE tried to let it rest. Ed brought up this whole topic from a message posted as Migrating from GroupWise 6.5. Don't blame me for bringing the topic up because I DIDN'T BRING THE TOPIC UP. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
All I did was to admit that I am a vendor whore. It is you who launched into a weak but wordy defense of your silly position. 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 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I HAVE tried to let it rest. Ed brought up this whole topic from a message posted as Migrating from GroupWise 6.5. Don't blame me for bringing the topic up because I DIDN'T BRING THE TOPIC UP. And no, I never said that MVP's would cause the demise of the computer industry. What I said was, today we have a choice to either regulate ourselves or to wait for government to regulate us. That is what I said. I am more than happy to wait around for government to regulate us, that's why I don't bring up this whole ethics discussion. The computer industry is not going away, it will simply be more regulated. If we do it ourselves, we have a say in those regulations. If we do not, then government gets to have that say. Then you live your ethics, and let the rest of us live ours. Then, when the IT industry goes to hell in a handbasket, you can blame us all for it's demise. We (speaking collectively here) don't believe that MVP's are unethical for receiving a small stipend or gift (whatever it might be). You do. That's fine, but stop trying to force it upon the rest of us. Our views aren't going to change, and your views aren't going to change, so let it rest.=20 Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading.=20 I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO =20 Do I get credibility now? =20 In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are=20 Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed=20 it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps=20 your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics=20 was where I went astray. =20 As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own=20 website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that=20 should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED,=20 not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your=20 company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. =20 One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this=20 list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never=20 decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know=20 when to shut up. =20 As for the name-calling
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Um, yes it DOES make it unethical. You are accepting a direct gift from a vendor and then turning around and supposedly giving unbiased technical advice to a client. That is the definition of real or perceived conflict of interest. It does not mean that you WILL act unethically, but it is OBVIOUSLY a breach of ethical conduct and conflict of interest rules. Sort of. There are no well documented criteria that you apply for and then meet, there are informal criteria that leads to an invitation.=20 As I said, others must decide whether the criteria meet the expertise they are looking for. That does not make it unethical, as you know. I seriously doubt any customer will give you a blank check simply based on being an MVP, but I know I can have a higher degree of trust for the info (usually) a MVP provides in lists like this. Best Regards,=20 Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:42 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Just so that the record is set straight and Deckler doesn't feel the need to write a 2,000-word response to this technical inaccuracy, the title of MVP isn't awarded based set standards. It's rather subjective, I must confess. 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 Dan Bartley Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title warrants a level of trust and respect. Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions regarding is unethical. Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. Just another opinion :-) Best Regards,=20 Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading.=20 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=3Dexchangetext_mode=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=3Dexchangetext_mode=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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
How am I changing position? I have always stated that the problem with MVP is that it is a gift. If you paid for it and it were not a gift, then it is something that you PAID for, just like MCSE or any other certification. Explain how this is a change in my point of view? You've never proven that it is a breach of ethics, much less egregious. And your admission of even a slight change of your point of view shows just how fatuous your argument is. 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 9:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics 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
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
It's not exactly a gift. It's a recognition for a contribution pefrormed. There are, admittedly, strings attached, although there are none that I consider to be ethical issues. I completely resent your entire assertion that I am somehow unethical because I accept the title and gifts associated with being an MVP. I will defend my standards of ethics against anyone's, including your poorly defined and indefensible set. In fact, I was nearly fired from my current job because I defended ethical behavior, but the system worked and I am still here. (This was completely unrelated to anything surrounding Microsoft or MVP.) So, let's get back to the real argument. Please either (1) prove how being an MVP is unethical, or (2) go away and let this thread rest. I tire of your repeated extrapolations, digressions, and less-than-brilliant treatises. 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 9:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics The flaw here is that that Cisco Certified has clearly defined things that must be met and requires a payment to the vendor to achieve. You must PAY to get the required material. You must PAY to take the tests. You must PAY for the certification. MVP is a gift. There are no explicit requirements and there is no exchange of currency. This is the CLEAR difference between certifications and gifts like MVP. Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title warrants a level of trust and respect. Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions regarding is unethical. Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. Just another opinion :-) Best Regards,=20 Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading.=20 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Yes, it seemed silly to me to have a discussion in no way related to Migrating to GroupWise 6.5 taking place under that title, so I chose to create a thread that more accurately depicted the discussion. This was done so that people could more easily weed it out and ignore it if they wanted. Dude? This particular topic was started by *you* on 12/18. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics =20 =20 I HAVE tried to let it rest. Ed brought up this whole topic=20 from a message posted as Migrating from GroupWise 6.5. Don't blame me for=20 bringing the topic up because I DIDN'T BRING THE TOPIC UP. =20 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
No Ed, you blatantly mis-characterized my position and forced me to clarify what I believe. I am not going to let you or anyone else interpret what I believe and provide bogus information to someone when I can tell them directly what I believe without going through a third-party. All I did was to admit that I am a vendor whore. It is you who launched into a weak but wordy defense of your silly position. 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 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Unbiased? In what world? I am an Exchange and Windows consultant. My customers want our and Microsoft's best practices. I really can't see how there is any conflict of interest being an MVP with regard to the job I do. In fact, it's a benefit because it gives me access to resources I wouldn't have otherwise, so I can do a better job for my custmers. I can see how your argument might hold water in some circumstances, but you fail to prove how it creates a fundamental conflict of interest that isn't best judged by each MVP individually and according to his own standards and conscience. 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 9:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Um, yes it DOES make it unethical. You are accepting a direct gift from a vendor and then turning around and supposedly giving unbiased technical advice to a client. That is the definition of real or perceived conflict of interest. It does not mean that you WILL act unethically, but it is OBVIOUSLY a breach of ethical conduct and conflict of interest rules. Sort of. There are no well documented criteria that you apply for and then meet, there are informal criteria that leads to an invitation.=20 As I said, others must decide whether the criteria meet the expertise they are looking for. That does not make it unethical, as you know. I seriously doubt any customer will give you a blank check simply based on being an MVP, but I know I can have a higher degree of trust for the info (usually) a MVP provides in lists like this. Best Regards,=20 Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:42 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Just so that the record is set straight and Deckler doesn't feel the need to write a 2,000-word response to this technical inaccuracy, the title of MVP isn't awarded based set standards. It's rather subjective, I must confess. 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 Dan Bartley Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title warrants a level of trust and respect. Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions regarding is unethical. Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. Just another opinion :-) Best Regards,=20 Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading.=20 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=3Dexchangetext_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=3Dexchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
It's obvious. 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 10:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics How am I changing position? I have always stated that the problem with MVP is that it is a gift. If you paid for it and it were not a gift, then it is something that you PAID for, just like MCSE or any other certification. Explain how this is a change in my point of view? You've never proven that it is a breach of ethics, much less egregious. And your admission of even a slight change of your point of view shows just how fatuous your argument is. 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 9:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics 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
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
You can be offended all you want, it does not change the FACT that accepting a direct gift from a vendor creates an obvious problem with basic conflict of interest rules. I don't make these rules up all I have stated is that a real or perceived conflict exists. If the argument held no water, then there would be no reason to be offended. It's not exactly a gift. It's a recognition for a contribution pefrormed. There are, admittedly, strings attached, although there are none that I consider to be ethical issues. I completely resent your entire assertion that I am somehow unethical because I accept the title and gifts associated with being an MVP. I will defend my standards of ethics against anyone's, including your poorly defined and indefensible set. In fact, I was nearly fired from my current job because I defended ethical behavior, but the system worked and I am still here. (This was completely unrelated to anything surrounding Microsoft or MVP.) So, let's get back to the real argument. Please either (1) prove how being an MVP is unethical, or (2) go away and let this thread rest. I tire of your repeated extrapolations, digressions, and less-than-brilliant treatises. 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 9:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics The flaw here is that that Cisco Certified has clearly defined things that must be met and requires a payment to the vendor to achieve. You must PAY to get the required material. You must PAY to take the tests. You must PAY for the certification. MVP is a gift. There are no explicit requirements and there is no exchange of currency. This is the CLEAR difference between certifications and gifts like MVP. Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title warrants a level of trust and respect. Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions regarding is unethical. Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. Just another opinion :-) Best Regards,=20 Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading.=20 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Yeah, you turned it into two threads instead of one. Good thinking. 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 10:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Yes, it seemed silly to me to have a discussion in no way related to Migrating to GroupWise 6.5 taking place under that title, so I chose to create a thread that more accurately depicted the discussion. This was done so that people could more easily weed it out and ignore it if they wanted. Dude? This particular topic was started by *you* on 12/18. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics =20 =20 I HAVE tried to let it rest. Ed brought up this whole topic=20 from a message posted as Migrating from GroupWise 6.5. Don't blame me for=20 bringing the topic up because I DIDN'T BRING THE TOPIC UP. =20 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Yes, I know that it is obvious that I have not changed my position and that you, yet again, are wrong. It's obvious. 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 10:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics How am I changing position? I have always stated that the problem with MVP is that it is a gift. If you paid for it and it were not a gift, then it is something that you PAID for, just like MCSE or any other certification. Explain how this is a change in my point of view? You've never proven that it is a breach of ethics, much less egregious. And your admission of even a slight change of your point of view shows just how fatuous your argument is. 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 9:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics 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
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Where did I do that? Please replay the transcript. 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 10:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics No Ed, you blatantly mis-characterized my position and forced me to clarify what I believe. I am not going to let you or anyone else interpret what I believe and provide bogus information to someone when I can tell them directly what I believe without going through a third-party. All I did was to admit that I am a vendor whore. It is you who launched into a weak but wordy defense of your silly position. 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 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Where's the conflict if Ed consults on Microsoft products? They come to him for MS products! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics You can be offended all you want, it does not change the FACT that accepting a direct gift from a vendor creates an obvious problem with basic conflict of interest rules. I don't make these rules up all I have stated is that a real or perceived conflict exists. If the argument held no water, then there would be no reason to be offended. It's not exactly a gift. It's a recognition for a contribution pefrormed. There are, admittedly, strings attached, although there are none that I consider to be ethical issues. I completely resent your entire assertion that I am somehow unethical because I accept the title and gifts associated with being an MVP. I will defend my standards of ethics against anyone's, including your poorly defined and indefensible set. In fact, I was nearly fired from my current job because I defended ethical behavior, but the system worked and I am still here. (This was completely unrelated to anything surrounding Microsoft or MVP.) So, let's get back to the real argument. Please either (1) prove how being an MVP is unethical, or (2) go away and let this thread rest. I tire of your repeated extrapolations, digressions, and less-than-brilliant treatises. 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 9:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics The flaw here is that that Cisco Certified has clearly defined things that must be met and requires a payment to the vendor to achieve. You must PAY to get the required material. You must PAY to take the tests. You must PAY for the certification. MVP is a gift. There are no explicit requirements and there is no exchange of currency. This is the CLEAR difference between certifications and gifts like MVP. Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title warrants a level of trust and respect. Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions regarding is unethical. Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. Just another opinion :-) Best Regards,=20 Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading.=20 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Greg wrote: 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. Well if you aren't smoking crack / eating babies / whatever else it is you're not doing then maybe you should start because your arguments are getting weaker. Your initial assertion is based on a sound principle and you had a case to argue from that principle although you would never convince many people. But now you genuinely seem to be proposing that *buying* a title would be more ethical than *earning* one. That is plain potty and I can't believe that you will stick to that when you consider it again. I don't expect you to give an inch on this list but privately you must be thinking that was a bit of a blunder if you are thinking at all. The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Ok campers! Here's the point spread as it stands at the moment. Ed: 49,996 Greg: -5 (Points were deducted for circular arguments and redundant posts) Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:12 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Yeah, you turned it into two threads instead of one. Good thinking. 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 10:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Yes, it seemed silly to me to have a discussion in no way related to Migrating to GroupWise 6.5 taking place under that title, so I chose to create a thread that more accurately depicted the discussion. This was done so that people could more easily weed it out and ignore it if they wanted. Dude? This particular topic was started by *you* on 12/18. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics =20 =20 I HAVE tried to let it rest. Ed brought up this whole topic=20 from a message posted as Migrating from GroupWise 6.5. Don't blame me for=20 bringing the topic up because I DIDN'T BRING THE TOPIC UP. =20 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Too easy: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:52:58 -0800 For those of you who haven't been around, Mr. Greg Deckler has repeatedly broadcast his diatribes that those of us who are MVPs should be likened to employees (his word) of Microsoft and anything we tell you should be considered to be propaganda straight from Bill Gates. Well, my response is the kind of unprofessional response he deserves, having made his bed. Sorry to have troubled the rest of you. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! Where did I do that? Please replay the transcript. 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 10:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics No Ed, you blatantly mis-characterized my position and forced me to clarify what I believe. I am not going to let you or anyone else interpret what I believe and provide bogus information to someone when I can tell them directly what I believe without going through a third-party. All I did was to admit that I am a vendor whore. It is you who launched into a weak but wordy defense of your silly position. 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 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Oh for the love of God will you take this crap off list... Are you really this challenged that you need to blow your own horn in a virual pissing match on a mailing list? Open a window, stick your head out and breathe the fresh air... Might do you some good. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics You can be offended all you want, it does not change the FACT that accepting a direct gift from a vendor creates an obvious problem with basic conflict of interest rules. I don't make these rules up all I have stated is that a real or perceived conflict exists. If the argument held no water, then there would be no reason to be offended. It's not exactly a gift. It's a recognition for a contribution pefrormed. There are, admittedly, strings attached, although there are none that I consider to be ethical issues. I completely resent your entire assertion that I am somehow unethical because I accept the title and gifts associated with being an MVP. I will defend my standards of ethics against anyone's, including your poorly defined and indefensible set. In fact, I was nearly fired from my current job because I defended ethical behavior, but the system worked and I am still here. (This was completely unrelated to anything surrounding Microsoft or MVP.) So, let's get back to the real argument. Please either (1) prove how being an MVP is unethical, or (2) go away and let this thread rest. I tire of your repeated extrapolations, digressions, and less-than-brilliant treatises. 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 9:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics The flaw here is that that Cisco Certified has clearly defined things that must be met and requires a payment to the vendor to achieve. You must PAY to get the required material. You must PAY to take the tests. You must PAY for the certification. MVP is a gift. There are no explicit requirements and there is no exchange of currency. This is the CLEAR difference between certifications and gifts like MVP. Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title warrants a level of trust and respect. Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions regarding is unethical. Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. Just another opinion :-) Best Regards,=20 Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading.=20 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Greg wrote: What I said was, today we have a choice to either regulate ourselves or to wait for government to regulate us. That is what I said. I am more than happy to wait around for government to regulate us, that's why I don't bring up this whole ethics discussion. The computer industry is not going away, it will simply be more regulated. If we do it ourselves, we have a say in those regulations. If we do not, then government gets to have that say. Are you really suggesting that the government would start regulating the industry - right down to our level? You're a US citizen, right? What the hell kind of political revolution are you anticipating over there? I cannot envisage a US government imposing micro-managerial regulation of that sort on any industry that wasn't directly responsible for public money or lives, let alone one of the areas in which it is a world leader. If you were to regulate the industry which would you want to see eliminated first, experts in a particular product being acknowledged by the supplier of that product for their work helping the user community of that product or blithering idiots spreading all sorts of misinformation out of sheer ignorance? If a government was to regulate the on-line support community I think it is far more likely that MVP programmes would be mandatory than forbidden. The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Prove it. It is your opinion, not a fact. Everything you cite is made up in your own mind. Again, you are mixing up fact and opinion. What you believe is not necessarily what is true. That appears to be especially true in that special place known as Deckler-Land. By the way, surrounding your claimed invitation to be an MVP, who invited you and when? I don't recall you ever offering much positive peer support in the forums, but I do recall that you were considered to be a heckler way back before Exchange was even a product with a SKU. I find it hard to believe that you would ever have been welcomed as an MVP. Care to prove this assertion as well? 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 10:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics You can be offended all you want, it does not change the FACT that accepting a direct gift from a vendor creates an obvious problem with basic conflict of interest rules. I don't make these rules up all I have stated is that a real or perceived conflict exists. If the argument held no water, then there would be no reason to be offended. It's not exactly a gift. It's a recognition for a contribution pefrormed. There are, admittedly, strings attached, although there are none that I consider to be ethical issues. I completely resent your entire assertion that I am somehow unethical because I accept the title and gifts associated with being an MVP. I will defend my standards of ethics against anyone's, including your poorly defined and indefensible set. In fact, I was nearly fired from my current job because I defended ethical behavior, but the system worked and I am still here. (This was completely unrelated to anything surrounding Microsoft or MVP.) So, let's get back to the real argument. Please either (1) prove how being an MVP is unethical, or (2) go away and let this thread rest. I tire of your repeated extrapolations, digressions, and less-than-brilliant treatises. 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 9:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics The flaw here is that that Cisco Certified has clearly defined things that must be met and requires a payment to the vendor to achieve. You must PAY to get the required material. You must PAY to take the tests. You must PAY for the certification. MVP is a gift. There are no explicit requirements and there is no exchange of currency. This is the CLEAR difference between certifications and gifts like MVP. Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title warrants a level of trust and respect. Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions regarding is unethical. Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. Just another opinion :-) Best Regards,=20 Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading.=20 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
If I send $1 to my MVP buddy, then it's less ethical. What is the exact dollar figure that I should pay Microsoft in order that my ethics breach no longer is a problem? 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 10:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Yes, I know that it is obvious that I have not changed my position and that you, yet again, are wrong. It's obvious. 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 10:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics How am I changing position? I have always stated that the problem with MVP is that it is a gift. If you paid for it and it were not a gift, then it is something that you PAID for, just like MCSE or any other certification. Explain how this is a change in my point of view? You've never proven that it is a breach of ethics, much less egregious. And your admission of even a slight change of your point of view shows just how fatuous your argument is. 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 9:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics 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
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I've argued the theory on this too many times now. Let me provide a specific example. At time, I wear a Novell leather jacket. I received this jacket at the end of a project for the State of Ohio. Basically, the State of Ohio gave Novell something like $1 million for implementing a G-NOC. I worked on this project and at the end Novell gave out about 50 of these leater jackets to people that worked on the project in this big huge ceremony that was held. The director at the State of Ohio was forced to resign over accepting his leather jacket because of conflict of interest rules. So, the State of Ohio had ALREADY paid Novell ALL of the money and THEN Novell gave out these gifts and the director at the State of Ohio was STILL found to have violated conflict of interest rules. Does that make anything more clear? Where's the conflict if Ed consults on Microsoft products? They come to him for MS products! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics You can be offended all you want, it does not change the FACT that accepting a direct gift from a vendor creates an obvious problem with basic conflict of interest rules. I don't make these rules up all I have stated is that a real or perceived conflict exists. If the argument held no water, then there would be no reason to be offended. It's not exactly a gift. It's a recognition for a contribution pefrormed. There are, admittedly, strings attached, although there are none that=20 I consider to be ethical issues. =20 I completely resent your entire assertion that I am somehow unethical=20 because I accept the title and gifts associated with being an MVP. I=20 will defend my standards of ethics against anyone's, including your=20 poorly defined and indefensible set. In fact, I was nearly fired from my current job because I defended ethical behavior, but the system=20 worked and I am still here. (This was completely unrelated to=20 anything surrounding Microsoft or MVP.) =20 So, let's get back to the real argument. Please either (1) prove how=20 being an MVP is unethical, or (2) go away and let this thread rest. I tire of your repeated extrapolations, digressions, and=20 less-than-brilliant treatises. =20 Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T =20 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics =20 The flaw here is that that Cisco Certified has clearly defined=20 things that must be met and requires a payment to the vendor to=20 achieve. You must PAY to get the required material. You must PAY to=20 take the tests. You must PAY for the certification. =20 MVP is a gift. There are no explicit requirements and there is no=20 exchange of currency. =20 This is the CLEAR difference between certifications and gifts like MVP. =20 Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP=20 or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned=20 title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view=20 the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title=20 warrants a level of trust and respect. =20 Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions=20 regarding is unethical. =20 Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. =20 Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of=20 brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone=20 whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the=20 truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. =20 Just another opinion :-) =20 Best Regards,=3D20 =20 Dan Bartley =20 =20 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics =20 I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit=20 reading.=3D20 =20 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: = http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=3Dexchangetext_mode =3Dlang =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=3Dexchangetext_mode=3D= lang=3Denglish
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Your blunder is in assuming that Deckler is thinking. His arguments have consistently been devoid of logic and fact, and constantly come from his own personal opinions about what ethics should be and mean. 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 Shotton Jolyon Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Greg wrote: 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. Well if you aren't smoking crack / eating babies / whatever else it is you're not doing then maybe you should start because your arguments are getting weaker. Your initial assertion is based on a sound principle and you had a case to argue from that principle although you would never convince many people. But now you genuinely seem to be proposing that *buying* a title would be more ethical than *earning* one. That is plain potty and I can't believe that you will stick to that when you consider it again. I don't expect you to give an inch on this list but privately you must be thinking that was a bit of a blunder if you are thinking at all. The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Greg Will you PLEASE just go here http://tinyurl.com/3kdu - I'm sure this will explain EVERYTHING and quit posting your comments to the list! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
And here I was expecting goatse -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Jeremy Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Greg Will you PLEASE just go here http://tinyurl.com/3kdu - I'm sure this will explain EVERYTHING and quit posting your comments to the list! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:36:07 -0800 - NINE HOURS PRIOR TO YOUR EVIDENCE From you: Ed, Your lack of professionalism is truly staggering. Let the record show that you started the name calling and personal attacks. Besides, I don't see how the comment you posted varies substantially from your subsequent diatribes. 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 10:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Too easy: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:52:58 -0800 For those of you who haven't been around, Mr. Greg Deckler has repeatedly broadcast his diatribes that those of us who are MVPs should be likened to employees (his word) of Microsoft and anything we tell you should be considered to be propaganda straight from Bill Gates. Well, my response is the kind of unprofessional response he deserves, having made his bed. Sorry to have troubled the rest of you. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! Where did I do that? Please replay the transcript. 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 10:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics No Ed, you blatantly mis-characterized my position and forced me to clarify what I believe. I am not going to let you or anyone else interpret what I believe and provide bogus information to someone when I can tell them directly what I believe without going through a third-party. All I did was to admit that I am a vendor whore. It is you who launched into a weak but wordy defense of your silly position. 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 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_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=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
The point is that it would no longer be a gift if you paid for it. Yes, it is ethical to pay for an MCSE certificate. There are clear rules defined for what you must achieve and the amount that you must pay. Everyone knows what those rules are. The MVP is a subjective gift and accepting it is a clear violation of ethicds. Making it something that you can pay for takes it out of the realm of being a gift. Oh MVP, yeah you pay for that, that's OK. Now, paying for it is just the first step. To *really* be ethical, it would have to have non-subjective selection criteria, blah blah blah, but if I cannot even convince people that there is a conflict of interest, I am not even going to attempt any ethical arguments that start to get even remotely tricky. Greg wrote: 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. Well if you aren't smoking crack / eating babies / whatever else it is you're not doing then maybe you should start because your arguments are getting weaker. Your initial assertion is based on a sound principle and you had a case to argue from that principle although you would never convince many people. But now you genuinely seem to be proposing that *buying* a title would be more ethical than *earning* one. That is plain potty and I can't believe that you will stick to that when you consider it again. I don't expect you to give an inch on this list but privately you must be thinking that was a bit of a blunder if you are thinking at all. The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
That's an issue of public funds not an issue of professionalism. Standards are rightly higher in the public sector. There was, I would imagine, never any question of people not being allowed to have those jackets but the regulations are such that a ruling was necessary. This is motivated by politics as much as ethics; people do not like paying taxes and want to be as certain as they can be that projects that spend money raised in this fashion are not doing it from any other motivation than the desire to serve. The fact that these jackets *were* allowed would tend to weaken rather than strengthen your argument against MVPs. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 December 2003 18:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I've argued the theory on this too many times now. Let me provide a specific example. At time, I wear a Novell leather jacket. I received this jacket at the end of a project for the State of Ohio. Basically, the State of Ohio gave Novell something like $1 million for implementing a G-NOC. I worked on this project and at the end Novell gave out about 50 of these leater jackets to people that worked on the project in this big huge ceremony that was held. The director at the State of Ohio was forced to resign over accepting his leather jacket because of conflict of interest rules. So, the State of Ohio had ALREADY paid Novell ALL of the money and THEN Novell gave out these gifts and the director at the State of Ohio was STILL found to have violated conflict of interest rules. Does that make anything more clear? The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Only that politicians and political rules are stupid. John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:22 PM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I've argued the theory on this too many times now. Let me provide a specific example. At time, I wear a Novell leather jacket. I received this jacket at the end of a project for the State of Ohio. Basically, the State of Ohio gave Novell something like $1 million for implementing a G-NOC. I worked on this project and at the end Novell gave out about 50 of these leater jackets to people that worked on the project in this big huge ceremony that was held. The director at the State of Ohio was forced to resign over accepting his leather jacket because of conflict of interest rules. So, the State of Ohio had ALREADY paid Novell ALL of the money and THEN Novell gave out these gifts and the director at the State of Ohio was STILL found to have violated conflict of interest rules. Does that make anything more clear? Where's the conflict if Ed consults on Microsoft products? They come to him for MS products! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics You can be offended all you want, it does not change the FACT that accepting a direct gift from a vendor creates an obvious problem with basic conflict of interest rules. I don't make these rules up all I have stated is that a real or perceived conflict exists. If the argument held no water, then there would be no reason to be offended. It's not exactly a gift. It's a recognition for a contribution pefrormed. There are, admittedly, strings attached, although there are none that=20 I consider to be ethical issues. =20 I completely resent your entire assertion that I am somehow unethical=20 because I accept the title and gifts associated with being an MVP. I=20 will defend my standards of ethics against anyone's, including your=20 poorly defined and indefensible set. In fact, I was nearly fired from my current job because I defended ethical behavior, but the system=20 worked and I am still here. (This was completely unrelated to=20 anything surrounding Microsoft or MVP.) =20 So, let's get back to the real argument. Please either (1) prove how=20 being an MVP is unethical, or (2) go away and let this thread rest. I tire of your repeated extrapolations, digressions, and=20 less-than-brilliant treatises. =20 Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T =20 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics =20 The flaw here is that that Cisco Certified has clearly defined=20 things that must be met and requires a payment to the vendor to=20 achieve. You must PAY to get the required material. You must PAY to=20 take the tests. You must PAY for the certification. =20 MVP is a gift. There are no explicit requirements and there is no=20 exchange of currency. =20 This is the CLEAR difference between certifications and gifts like MVP. =20 Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP=20 or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned=20 title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view=20 the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title=20 warrants a level of trust and respect. =20 Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions=20 regarding is unethical. =20 Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. =20 Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of=20 brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone=20 whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the=20 truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. =20 Just another opinion :-) =20 Best Regards,=3D20 =20 Dan Bartley =20 =20 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics =20 I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit=20 reading.=3D20 =20 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: = http
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Not sure where you are from, but yes, every occupation that impacts the welfare of the public has local, state and federal legislation. Here is one example for starters: http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh/lpExt.dll?f=templatesfn=main-h.htmcp=PORC Greg wrote: What I said was, today we have a choice to either regulate ourselves or to wait for government to regulate us. That is what I said. I am more than happy to wait around for government to regulate us, that's why I don't bring up this whole ethics discussion. The computer industry is not going away, it will simply be more regulated. If we do it ourselves, we have a say in those regulations. If we do not, then government gets to have that say. Are you really suggesting that the government would start regulating the industry - right down to our level? You're a US citizen, right? What the hell kind of political revolution are you anticipating over there? I cannot envisage a US government imposing micro-managerial regulation of that sort on any industry that wasn't directly responsible for public money or lives, let alone one of the areas in which it is a world leader. If you were to regulate the industry which would you want to see eliminated first, experts in a particular product being acknowledged by the supplier of that product for their work helping the user community of that product or blithering idiots spreading all sorts of misinformation out of sheer ignorance? If a government was to regulate the on-line support community I think it is far more likely that MVP programmes would be mandatory than forbidden. The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Apples and oranges. Ed is not the IT director of Ohio (nor does he play any kind of similar role in any of his consulting engagements, I'd imagine). If Consolidated Widgets, Inc. hired Ed to do $vague_technical_work and the IT director of CWI then received a leather jacket from a vendor, then I can see there being an ethical problem for the IT director. Not for Ed. In your example, were any of the *conslutants* fired over the jackets? -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I've argued the theory on this too many times now. Let me provide a specific example. At time, I wear a Novell leather jacket. I received this jacket at the end of a project for the State of Ohio. Basically, the State of Ohio gave Novell something like $1 million for implementing a G-NOC. I worked on this project and at the end Novell gave out about 50 of these leater jackets to people that worked on the project in this big huge ceremony that was held. The director at the State of Ohio was forced to resign over accepting his leather jacket because of conflict of interest rules. So, the State of Ohio had ALREADY paid Novell ALL of the money and THEN Novell gave out these gifts and the director at the State of Ohio was STILL found to have violated conflict of interest rules. Does that make anything more clear? Where's the conflict if Ed consults on Microsoft products? They come to him for MS products! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics You can be offended all you want, it does not change the FACT that accepting a direct gift from a vendor creates an obvious problem with basic conflict of interest rules. I don't make these rules up all I have stated is that a real or perceived conflict exists. If the argument held no water, then there would be no reason to be offended. It's not exactly a gift. It's a recognition for a contribution pefrormed. There are, admittedly, strings attached, although there are none that=20 I consider to be ethical issues. =20 I completely resent your entire assertion that I am somehow unethical=20 because I accept the title and gifts associated with being an MVP. I=20 will defend my standards of ethics against anyone's, including your=20 poorly defined and indefensible set. In fact, I was nearly fired from my current job because I defended ethical behavior, but the system=20 worked and I am still here. (This was completely unrelated to=20 anything surrounding Microsoft or MVP.) =20 So, let's get back to the real argument. Please either (1) prove how=20 being an MVP is unethical, or (2) go away and let this thread rest. I tire of your repeated extrapolations, digressions, and=20 less-than-brilliant treatises. =20 Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T =20 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics =20 The flaw here is that that Cisco Certified has clearly defined=20 things that must be met and requires a payment to the vendor to=20 achieve. You must PAY to get the required material. You must PAY to=20 take the tests. You must PAY for the certification. =20 MVP is a gift. There are no explicit requirements and there is no=20 exchange of currency. =20 This is the CLEAR difference between certifications and gifts like MVP. =20 Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP=20 or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned=20 title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view=20 the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title=20 warrants a level of trust and respect. =20 Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions=20 regarding is unethical. =20 Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. =20 Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of=20 brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone=20 whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the=20 truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. =20 Just another opinion :-) =20 Best Regards,=3D20 =20 Dan Bartley =20 =20 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent
