Likewise, and more importantly sinc, you haven't proven your statement true. It is only a "real or perceived" conflict of interest in your own mind. You haven't proven anything beyond 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 4:52 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&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
