Dude, STFU --steve
> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 7:52 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 > > > People mis-characterize and read things into my posts that > are not there. > This one I have to do in-line. > > > First of all, I've seen plenty of statements by people who > accurately depict > > reasons that your opinion is bunk. You've either not read or not > > comprehended them. > > > > No one in 8 years has proven the statement flawed or > illogical that when > you work in an industry and accept gifts from vendors in that industry > that it presents a real or perceived conflict of interest. > This has been > the point since day one, is the point today and will be the > point tomorrow > and the next day and the next. > > > I've seen your comments repeatedly over the years, and > continue to disagree > > with them. Its also painfully obvious to a casual observer > that you're using > > incorrect statements in defense of your position. > > > > > "And ethics are not passed as laws. There is no law that > > > a company's employees cannot accept gifts. The ethics that > > > lawyers and doctors follow are also not laws." > > > > While this is technically accurate, in fact it is > inaccurate. Both these > > professions require licenses to practice. Lawyers who > decide to cross a > > relatively arbitrary line involving a conflict of interest > can and have been > > disbarred - in other words, their license to practice law > is revoked. > > Doctors, too, can have their medical license suspended or > revoked. In either > > case, they are not allowed to practice their profession without that > > license. Ergo, those professions' codes of ethics *are*, if somewhat > > indirect, law. > > > > Yes, I understand and know all that, but that was not the > point. Ethics go > far, far beyond mere laws. Lawyers can be disbarred for > ethics violations > but not face any criminal prosecution. Yes, they can also be > disbarred AND > face criminal prosecution, but the point was made in response to an > argument that indicated that ALL ethics must be legislated. Don't take > things out of context. > > > Your most asinine statements, however, are your explicit > statements that > > being awarded a vendor sponsored honor automatically > removes any and all > > objectivity for those on whom the honor is bestowed. The > fact that you > > repeatedly use that argument shows me how weak your > argument really is, > > especially since you can't show a single instance of where > this actually has > > happened. > > > > I don't say this. I say that it is a real or perceived conflict of > interest and hence a violation of basic ethics. I have stated > repeatedly > that MVP's may well NEVER cause anyone to ACT unethically. > And guess what? > It is irrelevant, it is still a real or perceived conflict of > interest. > What part of this are you missing? > > > Because the MVP community is both under NDA's to Microsoft > and also has > > private community newsgroups, you don't see that MVP's as a > group are some > > of the most critical of Microsoft's products and policies. > > > > But none of that matters to you, because we're all just in > Microsoft's > > pockets anyways. Its not like 12 of the 24 servers I've > deployed this year > > run non-Microsoft OS's or anything.[1] > > > > Again, it does not matter if MVP is the greatest thing since > sliced bread, > results in world peace and gives every starving kid a home. > None of that > changes that it is a real or perceived conflict of interest. Again, it > matters not one bit if MVP's act unethically or not, it is a > conflict of > interest plain and simple. I would be willing to bet that > most if not all > of the MVP's do NOT act unethically because of the title. Guess what? > Doesn't matter. Still an violation of basic conflict of > interest rules. > > > So, I think its fair to say that you've not come even > remotely close to > > proving to anyone where this alleged conflict of interest > is, and how it > > negatively impacts our objectivity. > > > > I didn't say that it negatively impacts your objectivity, I > said it has > the *potential* to impact your objectivity. Why? Because it > is a real or > perceived conflict of interest. > > > And, in the interest of full disclosure, two of the three > accolades in my > > signature line are from Microsoft, obviously the last two. > The first (MTS) > > was bestowed by my employer. Does that mean I'm instantly > biased towards my > > employer? > > > > You obviously fail to understand what I am talking about. > > Roger > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis Inc. > > > > [1] 8 OpenBSD and 4 Linux, with 2 more Linux boxes due > early next year > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t 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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
