SPAM -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af Roger Seielstad Sendt: 22. december 2003 19:51 Til: Exchange Discussions Emne: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I don't know about the other MVP's, but I certainly paid for my MVP status. It wasn't cash, rather is was my time, which I think even for the salaried amongst us has some cash value. For the consultants amonst us, there is a very definite cash value attached to it. Therefore, you've just managed to prove that there isn't a difference between MVP status and certifications, which you've said aren't conflicts of interest. So, I'm in with Ed on this one - your arguments don't hold. Roger -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 1:02 PM > 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, the other doesn't. > > > > > > > I am not "quibbling" with what you said, I'm instead > taking offense > > > > at what you said. You see, you can't claim to be the > "all ethical" > > > > sort you want, if you can't even pass the ethics test > of your own > > making. > > > > I didn't post any of those points on your website, > someone from YOUR > > > > company did, and you are the one claiming to hold them > near and dear. > > > > > > > > How interesting that you choose to respond ONLY to one > point, and > > > > then make irrelevant statements about people calling you names. > > > > > > > > Since I didn't call you names sir, perhaps you should > go back and > > > > re-read the whole message. It's not that I consider > you a liar, or > > > > that you are stupid. I now consider you incapable of > having any > > > > type of intelligent discussion based on the fact that > you choose to > > > > ignore 2/3rds of what was posted, or should I just > assume that you > > > > chose not to discuss those points because you couldn't > keep your "I have > > my Ethics" > > > > argument and all this would be moot? > > > > > > > > Speaking of MOOT, can anyone tell me what top 10 > classic rock single > > > > contains the word "MOOT"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob Sadler > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:50 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics > > > > > > > > > > > > So you are going to quibble with things that "I" said? > You people > > > > are so whacked out that it is utterly incomprehensible. > So where > > > > were you when I was called a "liar" or a "wife beater" > or "stupid" or > > "idiot" > > > > or that I "starve children". All of that is OK in your whacky > > > > bizarro world, but explaining to someone that if you > start a fight > > > > (in email for Christ's > > > > sake) that I will finish that fight. Oh that is > TERRIBLE! How could > > > > you SAY such a thing. Never mind the "liar", "stupid", "idiot" > > > > stuff, THAT, sir, is uncalled for. > > > > > > > > Bob, you amaze me. > > > > > > > > > You know, I'm just as happy to NOT read this dribble, > but when > > > > > someone > > > > > > > > > points out so wonderfully how ethical they are, and > we can all go > > > > > to=20 www.infonition.com/ethics.shtml to prove it, > then someone > > > > > like me just > > > > > > > > > might go there and read, and low and behold what is > it we find? > > > > >=20 > > > > > Well, this character Greg, wants us all to believe > his "ethics" > > > > >are=20 without question. So, let's take a look at > his ethics page > > > > >and see=20 what he's supposed to be doing. > > > > >=20 > > > > > First, Greg's point of vendor conflict is answered here: > > > > >=20 > > > > > To never accept compensation from vendors for recommending = > > > > products=3D20 > > > > >=20 > > > > > One must ask then Greg, have you ever been to a seminar, > > > > >conference,=20 or LUNCH where the vendor presenting > paid for the > > > > >meal, the snacks,=20 the coffee? > > > > >=20 > > > > > Second, Greg's list of ethics claim: > > > > >=20 > > > > > To disclose any and all influences that may affect our=20 > > > > >recommendations=3D20 =20 Greg, does this mean that if > I were to > > > > >speak to you over the phone,=20 you would tell me > just how many > > > > >times your Cisco, Microsoft, Bay=20 Networks, etc., > Rep. has called? > > > > >Or are you saying that you never=20 meet with the vendors to > > > > >discuss how their products can benefit your=20 > customers? Do you > > > > >ever read trade magazines that discuss the use of=20 > one vendors > > > > >products over another? Will you then tell me all > the=20 magazines > > > > >you read, what date, publication, page number, etc? > > > > >=20 > > > > > Third, Greg's list goes on to say: > > > > >=20 > > > > > To be fair and accurate when resolving disputes, problems or > > > > >issues=20 [and] To conduct ourselves in a > professional manner at > > > > >all times=3D20 =20 One must ask then Greg, exactly > how does your > > > > >statement of: "Wrong.=20 You brought it up by > throwing stones my > > > > >way. I don't pick fights, I=20 finish them." work into these > > > > >statements? > > > > >=20 > > > > > This is just what I don't need in a vendor. Someone > who believes > > > > >he's > > > > > > > > > always right, and if he is going to have a fight with his > > > > >customers,=20 HE'S going to finish it. I can see now > why people > > > > >flock to your=20 organization Greg. > > > > >=20 > > > > > The point is, don't say something matters a great > deal to you, > > > > >and=20 then give this list plenty of examples showing that > > > > >apparently it=20 doesn't. You want to wave a flag > around and say > > > > >"I have ethics" and=20 yet not live by those same > ethics, then be > > > > >prepared to be inundated=20 with the onslaught. > > > > >=20 > > > > > I would trust Ed, Tom, Tony, and even Don, further > then I would > > > > >trust=20 someone yelling about how ethical they are > and at the > > > > >same time say=20 they'll finish any fight. > > > > >=20 > > > > > It's time to throttle back now greg, and realize > this. You are > > > > >a=20 Sales Manager for a company that apparently you > are supposed > > > > >to be=20 drumming up business for. Just how much > business do you > > > > >think you=20 have generated on this list after acting > in the manner you > > did? > > > > >=20 > > > > > Bob Sadler > > > > >=20 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > List posting FAQ: > http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > > Web > Interface: > > > > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=3Dexchange &text_ > > > mo > > > de=3D= > > > & > > > lang=3Denglish > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=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] _________________________________________________________________ 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]
