RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Ely, Don]

How odd...  I didn't pay for any of my certs... 

-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:51 PM
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=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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Ely, Don]

We blame you for having the balls to even dream of asking for assistance on
a list where 90-100% of the Exchange MVP's reside after bashing them many
times over...  Get over yourself.   

-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.

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 t

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Ely, Don]

I'm curious as to who asked him to be an MVP.  Maybe he could spill the name
for verification...  That is; if Deckler has the balls to do so...  Do you,
Greg?

Talk's cheap! 

-Original Message-
From: Hague, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: 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 

RE: exchange2003 features in a Windows2000AD

[Jason Clishe]

Also depends on what OS Exchange itself will be running on. If it's on
Win2K, you'll also lose VSS.

Jason 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Microsoft
Exchange List Server
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 6:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: exchange2003 features in a Windows2000AD

Hi all,

What do you think are the features I am going to lose if I deploy
Exchange2003 in a Windows2000 AD(native) domain instead of a Windows2003
AD domain?

So far, based on the following article I could lost the InetOrgPerson
objects :
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;822591&Product=e
xch2003

thx
-Eric

_
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]

RE: exchange2003 features in a Windows2000AD

[Martin Blackstone]

RPC over HTTP 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Microsoft Exchange
List Server
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: exchange2003 features in a Windows2000AD

Hi all,

What do you think are the features I am going to lose if I deploy
Exchange2003 in a Windows2000 AD(native) domain instead of a Windows2003 AD
domain?

So far, based on the following article I could lost the InetOrgPerson
objects :
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;822591&Product=exch2
003

thx
-Eric

_
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]

exchange2003 features in a Windows2000AD

[Microsoft Exchange List Server]

Hi all,

What do you think are the features I am going to lose if I deploy Exchange2003 in a 
Windows2000 AD(native) domain instead of a Windows2003 AD domain?

So far, based on the following article I could lost the InetOrgPerson objects :
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;822591&Product=exch2003

thx
-Eric

_
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]

RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?

[Jason Clishe]

It was a solution, yes. However, it was not the answer to the question I
asked.

Jason 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Wilkie
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:50 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?

But the answer given to you was a solution. It was not one that you
agreed with or was suitable for your environment, but it was a solution.

-Original Message-
From: Jason Clishe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:48 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc: Jason Clishe
Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?


I disagree. I presented a scenario and asked a "yes" or "no" question. I
supplied enough information for a "yes" or "no" answer.

I did not ask for assistance with a design or a solution, just a simple
question about whether or not Exchange has the capability to do what I
asked. 

Jason

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil Hobson
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?

I think Ed's answer was appropriate given the amount of information you
gave out in your first post.

Neil

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe
Posted At: 22 December 2003 15:22 Posted To: Swynk Exchange (30 days)
Conversation: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?
Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?


The document management suggestion was inappropriate because we have a
single document that 2 people have modify rights to and another dozen or
so people can read. So deploying a DMS is an expensive solution when the
problem boils down to preventing 2 people from modifying one particular
file at the same time. Especially if there is an inherent method within
Exchange to prevent the problem from happening in the first place, which
is really all I wanted to know.

Thank you for your answer though.

Jason 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:11 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?

The answer was correct.  What Ed left out was the "No." at the front in
answer to your question of whether there is any way to prevent multiple
editors of an attachment to a public folder.

Did you go look at the 80-20 web site and see what features there
product offers?  What exactly makes the suggestion of a product which
may solve your problem inappropriate?  There are also lots of others
with different feature sets as Ed alluded.

As for little value to the thread, complaining because you didn't get
the answer you wanted regardless of the veracity of the answer really
has low value.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:19 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc: Jason Clishe
Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?

"Deploy a real document management system"? Not only does this
suggestion not asnwer the question I asked, it is completely
inappropriate for my particular situation, and adds little value to this
thread.

Jason

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley
[MVP]
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:00 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?

Deploy a real document management system, one that has the capability to
check out and check in documents.

http://www.80-20.com is one that integrates with Exchange.  There are
many others that may or may not integrate with Exchange.

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 Jason Clishe
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:04 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?


When a user has a Public Folder attachment open, other users can also
open the same attachment and make changes. Is there any way to prevent
this? For example, to force the document to open as read-only when
someone else has it open?

Jason



_
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: mailt

Re: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Walker, Heath]

You are lucky. I just wet my pants. 

--
Sent from my BlueBerry Wireless Handheld


-Original Message-
From: John Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Exchange Discussions <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mon Dec 22 16:56:10 2003
Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

I have to pee.



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: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 4:45 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

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Christopher Hummert]

If you shake more then twice, you're just playing with yourself 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Parker
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 2:56 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

I have to pee.



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: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 4:45 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 you

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[John Parker]

I have to pee.



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: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 4:45 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, l

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Jim Helfer]

"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
> > > 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 
> > 

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Greg Deckler]

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=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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[John Parker]

I know!
I could have written the next popular OS



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: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:46 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics


How unethical of you to waste your work time reading these. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Fretz
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:41 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

I've lost almost 6 hours today alone, just waiting for the next whitty
Deckler comeback.  I'm still waiting.

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 3:33 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics


With some of the long diatribes as of late, has anyone thought of adding up
the lost man hours in this lastest flame war?



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: Rachel Pickens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:31 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics


This is my definition. Whats yours?
http://tinyurl.com/ys84n

-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:19 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=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]

_
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: mail

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Martin Blackstone]

How unethical of you to waste your work time reading these. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Fretz
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:41 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

I've lost almost 6 hours today alone, just waiting for the next whitty
Deckler comeback.  I'm still waiting.

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 3:33 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics


With some of the long diatribes as of late, has anyone thought of adding up
the lost man hours in this lastest flame war?



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: Rachel Pickens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:31 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics


This is my definition. Whats yours?
http://tinyurl.com/ys84n

-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:19 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=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]

_
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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Eric Fretz]

I've lost almost 6 hours today alone, just waiting for the next whitty
Deckler comeback.  I'm still waiting.

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 3:33 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics


With some of the long diatribes as of late, has anyone thought of adding up
the lost man hours in this lastest flame war?



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: Rachel Pickens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:31 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics


This is my definition. Whats yours?
http://tinyurl.com/ys84n

-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:19 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=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]

HTTP error 404 and OWA

[M2web]

I have a FE/BE configuration with Exchange 2003. When I use the URL
http://FE server/Exchange, I get the Window's Security popup but after login
I get two frames each of them with HTTP error 404, File or Directory not
found. I do not have URLScan nor have I run IISlockdown tool.

Any help would be appreciated.


_
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]

Outsourcing email?

[Boyd, Nathan]

List,
 
What do you think of using an outsourced Spam service like Postini?
 
For our environment it is a choice of using Postini internally (via existing
Trend IMSS) or sending all mail via Postini.
 
What do people think of sending mail to another service?  Personally I have
concerns with SEC and HIPPA; I also worry about rising costs once we are
with them, response times for emergency etc.
 
Nathan

_
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]

RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5

[Veld, Paul]

"I cannot prove that an apple is red"


Of course not..Granny Smith's are GREEN.

_
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]

RE: adprep /forestprep versus exchange2000

[Microsoft Exchange List Server]

Hi all,

W2kAD (w2k+sp4)
Exchange2000+Sp3

We plan to upgrade both our W2KAD(native) and W2KDcs to W2K3AD and W2K3 respectively.
We already have exchange2000+Sp3 already installed in our domain.

Could you please tell me if this article is needed, I am not sure if this article 
("mangled" ldapdisplay) can be ignored because of our exchange2000+SP3.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314649&Product=exch2k if the 
article is needed do you think that the changes can be done using "adsi editor" 
instead of the ldf?

Thx
-Eric

_
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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[John Parker]

With some of the long diatribes as of late, has anyone thought of adding up the lost 
man hours in this lastest flame war?



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: Rachel Pickens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:31 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics


This is my definition. Whats yours?
http://tinyurl.com/ys84n

-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:19 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=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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Rachel Pickens]

This is my definition. Whats yours?
http://tinyurl.com/ys84n

-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:19 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=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]

RE: Public Folder replication problem

[Veld, Paul]

Jim,

We have a similar environment and experienced a similar problem
with public folder replication.  We ( in consultation with PSS ) ended
up doing the following to try and narrow down where the problem was ... 

Turn up diag logging to MAX for every 'Replication' setting and
also 'Non-Delivery Reports' ( this was done for the first test on the
Ex5.5 server in the site and the E2K bridgehead in the same site.  The
second test was done on the two bridgeheads in different sites ).  We
then created a new folder to force a hierarchy replication.  We then
checked for Event 3018 ( outbound replication message ) and Event 3028 (
inbound replication message ) to ensure that was working correctly.  We
then posted content to the folder to force content replication and
looked for Event 3020 ( outbound content replication ) and Event 3030 (
inbound content replication ) to ensure that was working OK.  Some other
Events to look for are 3014 / 3024 ( outbound / inbound backfill request
), 3019 / 3029 ( outbound / inbound backfill response ) and 3017 / 3027
( outbound / inbound status replication messages ).

If this test is OK, there may be a problem with the system not
recognizing the content is out of date - you may need to trigger a
status request.  This is apparently more common when E2K is the
receiving server - due to changes in public folder behaviour between
Ex5.5 and E2K.  Check out KB articles 321082 and 813629 about forcing
E2K to send Status Request Messages.

Regards,

Paul.


-Original Message-
From: Becker, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, 23 December 2003 7:06 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Public Folder replication problem


We are experiencing a mysterious problem with E2K public/system folder
replication.

We've got a multi-site org with Ex5.5 & E2K in each site as we're
mid-transition.  All servers are fully SPed and patched.

In one particular site we have several folders that are replicated to
servers in the other sites.  Unless a replica of these local public or
system (Free/Busy) folders exists on the local Ex 5.5 server,
replication of these folders does not "happen" to the other sites.  All
other sites send and receive public folder content just fine.  The site
in question also receives other site PF content just fine.

We have evidence of SMTP messages being sent between the pub store
objects ([EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED]) every 15
minutes that are trackable under System Manager | Tools.  I presumed
these emails consisted of pub folder content replication since the
messages are to and from the public stores and the timing matched the
replication interval for the Always schedule.  Is that true?  If so,
what might cause a remote site not to update their local replica of my
folders?

I've searched Technet, found precious few articles about ways
replication can be broken, but none of them apply.  There is nothing in
the event logs anywhere indicating a problem.  SMTP traffic is moving
smoothly amongst the sites otherwise.

Any suggestions as to what Diagnostics Logging might aid in determining
a problem?  Helpful Q articles?  Any other ideas?


Thanks,

Jim Becker

Manager of LAN Services
State University of New York
System Administration
[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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Greg Deckler]

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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics AGAIN MORE SPAM

[Slinger, Gary]

Looks like someone's volunteering to demonstrate the effects of MAILSTORM...

 

-Original Message-
From: Troels Majlandt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 15:16
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: SV: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics AGAIN MORE SPAM

AGAIN MORE SPAM 

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af Greg Deckler
Sendt: 22. december 2003 20:57
Til: Exchange Discussions
Emne: 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.

> Very true.
> 
> But surely the greater motivational force in these cases would be "If 
> they don't go for product X in which I am an expert they will not employ
me."
> rather than "If they don't go for product X in which I am an MVP then 
> there will be a slightly smaller online user community for me to help 
> and so my chances of retaining my MVP status will be diminished."
> 
> There is a much more powerful conflict of interests at work with any 
> paid consultancy than the MVP programme could ever produce.  If I had 
> a million dollars (cue Barenakedladies tunes lodged in heads) to spend 
> on upgrading my mail system to Exchange 2003 but was worried it would 
> be a more troublesome process than it appears and so had decided to 
> hire Ed as a consultant to advise me on whether or not to proceed 
> would it be the MVP award, even if it meant a lot to him, or the 
> chance of getting his hands on (part of) the million dollars that I 
> should be concerned might make him recommend the upgrade even if it was
not in my interests?
> 
> The MVP is orders of magnitude smaller than the greats vats of cash 
> sloshing round this industry and is trivial in comparison as are any 
> conflicts of interest it might otherwise be able to produce.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 22 December 2003 18:58
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: 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.
> 
> 
> 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=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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics AGAIN MORE SPAM

[Slinger, Gary]

Looks like someone's volunteering to demonstrate the effects of MAILSTORM...

 

-Original Message-
From: Troels Majlandt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 15:16
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: SV: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics AGAIN MORE SPAM

AGAIN MORE SPAM 

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af Greg Deckler
Sendt: 22. december 2003 20:57
Til: Exchange Discussions
Emne: 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.

> Very true.
> 
> But surely the greater motivational force in these cases would be "If 
> they don't go for product X in which I am an expert they will not employ
me."
> rather than "If they don't go for product X in which I am an MVP then 
> there will be a slightly smaller online user community for me to help 
> and so my chances of retaining my MVP status will be diminished."
> 
> There is a much more powerful conflict of interests at work with any 
> paid consultancy than the MVP programme could ever produce.  If I had 
> a million dollars (cue Barenakedladies tunes lodged in heads) to spend 
> on upgrading my mail system to Exchange 2003 but was worried it would 
> be a more troublesome process than it appears and so had decided to 
> hire Ed as a consultant to advise me on whether or not to proceed 
> would it be the MVP award, even if it meant a lot to him, or the 
> chance of getting his hands on (part of) the million dollars that I 
> should be concerned might make him recommend the upgrade even if it was
not in my interests?
> 
> The MVP is orders of magnitude smaller than the greats vats of cash 
> sloshing round this industry and is trivial in comparison as are any 
> conflicts of interest it might otherwise be able to produce.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 22 December 2003 18:58
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: 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.
> 
> 
> 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=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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Joe User]

Merry Christmas folks.



Cheers,
Joe User (still looking for the perfect email client)

-obey-your-master-




_
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]

RE: OWA - File not found when logging out

[Pat Richard]

Okay

Got things pretty much squared away by restarting all the services including
System Attendant, and it looks like everyone can get logged in. The one
remaining issue is that one user has several (4-5 afaik) emails in his Inbox
that come up as FILE NOT FOUND when viewing them in OWA. They all have valid
subjects, etc. I'm checking into that further

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pat Richard
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:03 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA - File not found when logging out

Okay, bad, bad evil things just happened. I re-ran the IISLockdown tool to
undo the normal settings. Now, NO ONE can get logged into OWA, including
Admin. I just keep getting prompted for user/pass. Outlook still works fine,
and mail still seems to be flowing. Remote users are burning up the phone
line

I checked the permissions on the files before doing this, and everything
looked fine. Is there a way to reinstall OWA on SBS without a lot of grief? 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Edgington, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 1:00 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA - File not found when logging out

This is definitely a permissions problem (we had the same trouble)... I
remember having to modify the permission on this file... but I will need to
look for my notes.

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 9:36 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA - File not found when logging out

404 errors like that might be related to URLScan.  Do you have that
installed?  If so, the default settings on URLscan shouldn't clobber the
logoff.asp page though...

> -Original Message-
> From: Pat Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 9:37 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: OWA - File not found when logging out
> 
> 
> Greetings!
> 
> We've got a client with a fairly new 2000 SBS box. Exchange
> SP3 and the
> post SP3 rollup are installed.
> 
> For some reason, when logging out of OWA, the logout page ("To 
> complete the logout") is missing. The file
> (/exchweb/bin/USA/logoff.asp) DOES
> exist in the folder, it's just not displayed, with the server 
> reporting it as a 404 error. All other features of OWA work fine (as 
> far as I can tell - no reported issues).
> 
> Anyone seen this before? I'm not aware of anyone tinkering with the 
> server, and the IIS stuff looks ok.
> 
> I've tried Googling and KB'ing this, but didn't come up with anything.
> 
> Thoughts, comments, suggestions, and death threats are all 
> welcome.
> 
> _
> 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]



_
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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics AGAIN MORE SPAM

[Steve Hanna]

You don't understand the definition of "spam" 
so I suggest that you may also STFU.

--steve




> -Original Message-
> From: Troels Majlandt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:16 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: SV: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics AGAIN 
> MORE SPAM
> 
> 
> AGAIN MORE SPAM 
> 
> -Oprindelig meddelelse-
> Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af Greg Deckler
> Sendt: 22. december 2003 20:57
> Til: Exchange Discussions
> Emne: 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.
> 
> > Very true.
> > 
> > But surely the greater motivational force in these cases 
> would be "If 
> > they don't go for product X in which I am an expert they 
> will not employ me."
> > rather than "If they don't go for product X in which I am 
> an MVP then 
> > there will be a slightly smaller online user community for 
> me to help 
> > and so my chances of retaining my MVP status will be diminished."
> > 
> > There is a much more powerful conflict of interests at work 
> with any 
> > paid consultancy than the MVP programme could ever produce. 
>  If I had 
> > a million dollars (cue Barenakedladies tunes lodged in 
> heads) to spend 
> > on upgrading my mail system to Exchange 2003 but was 
> worried it would 
> > be a more troublesome process than it appears and so had decided to 
> > hire Ed as a consultant to advise me on whether or not to proceed 
> > would it be the MVP award, even if it meant a lot to him, or the 
> > chance of getting his hands on (part of) the million dollars that I 
> > should be concerned might make him recommend the upgrade 
> even if it was not in my interests?
> > 
> > The MVP is orders of magnitude smaller than the greats vats of cash 
> > sloshing round this industry and is trivial in comparison 
> as are any 
> > conflicts of interest it might otherwise be able to produce.
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 22 December 2003 18:58
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: 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.
> > 
> > 
> > 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=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]

_
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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Jim Helfer]

 

  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 



-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
> >

SV: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics AGAIN MORE SPAM

[Troels Majlandt]

AGAIN MORE SPAM 

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af Greg Deckler
Sendt: 22. december 2003 20:57
Til: Exchange Discussions
Emne: 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.

> Very true.
> 
> But surely the greater motivational force in these cases would be "If 
> they don't go for product X in which I am an expert they will not employ me."
> rather than "If they don't go for product X in which I am an MVP then 
> there will be a slightly smaller online user community for me to help 
> and so my chances of retaining my MVP status will be diminished."
> 
> There is a much more powerful conflict of interests at work with any 
> paid consultancy than the MVP programme could ever produce.  If I had 
> a million dollars (cue Barenakedladies tunes lodged in heads) to spend 
> on upgrading my mail system to Exchange 2003 but was worried it would 
> be a more troublesome process than it appears and so had decided to 
> hire Ed as a consultant to advise me on whether or not to proceed 
> would it be the MVP award, even if it meant a lot to him, or the 
> chance of getting his hands on (part of) the million dollars that I 
> should be concerned might make him recommend the upgrade even if it was not in my 
> interests?
> 
> The MVP is orders of magnitude smaller than the greats vats of cash 
> sloshing round this industry and is trivial in comparison as are any 
> conflicts of interest it might otherwise be able to produce.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 22 December 2003 18:58
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: 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.
> 
> 
> 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=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]

SV: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics MORE SPAM

[Troels Majlandt]

MORE SPAM 

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af Greg Deckler
Sendt: 22. december 2003 20:48
Til: Exchange Discussions
Emne: 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 
> cutthroat activity in this business to = sit 

Public Folder replication problem

[Becker, Jim]

We are experiencing a mysterious problem with E2K public/system folder
replication.

We've got a multi-site org with Ex5.5 & E2K in each site as we're
mid-transition.  All servers are fully SPed and patched.

In one particular site we have several folders that are replicated to
servers in the other sites.  Unless a replica of these local public or
system (Free/Busy) folders exists on the local Ex 5.5 server,
replication of these folders does not "happen" to the other sites.  All
other sites send and receive public folder content just fine.  The site
in question also receives other site PF content just fine.

We have evidence of SMTP messages being sent between the pub store
objects ([EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED]) every 15
minutes that are trackable under System Manager | Tools.  I presumed
these emails consisted of pub folder content replication since the
messages are to and from the public stores and the timing matched the
replication interval for the Always schedule.  Is that true?  If so,
what might cause a remote site not to update their local replica of my
folders?

I've searched Technet, found precious few articles about ways
replication can be broken, but none of them apply.  There is nothing in
the event logs anywhere indicating a problem.  SMTP traffic is moving
smoothly amongst the sites otherwise.

Any suggestions as to what Diagnostics Logging might aid in determining
a problem?  Helpful Q articles?  Any other ideas?


Thanks,

Jim Becker

Manager of LAN Services
State University of New York
System Administration
[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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Greg Deckler]

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.

> Very true.
> 
> But surely the greater motivational force in these cases would be "If they
> don't go for product X in which I am an expert they will not employ me."
> rather than "If they don't go for product X in which I am an MVP then there
> will be a slightly smaller online user community for me to help and so my
> chances of retaining my MVP status will be diminished."
> 
> There is a much more powerful conflict of interests at work with any paid
> consultancy than the MVP programme could ever produce.  If I had a million
> dollars (cue Barenakedladies tunes lodged in heads) to spend on upgrading my
> mail system to Exchange 2003 but was worried it would be a more troublesome
> process than it appears and so had decided to hire Ed as a consultant to
> advise me on whether or not to proceed would it be the MVP award, even if it
> meant a lot to him, or the chance of getting his hands on (part of) the
> million dollars that I should be concerned might make him recommend the
> upgrade even if it was not in my interests?
> 
> The MVP is orders of magnitude smaller than the greats vats of cash sloshing
> round this industry and is trivial in comparison as are any conflicts of
> interest it might otherwise be able to produce.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 22 December 2003 18:58
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: 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.
> 
> 
> 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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Roger Seielstad]

We already have. There is no conflict of interest if I'm employeed to
provide support and administration of Microsoft technologies (which I am)
and am rewarded by Microsoft for contributions in the same realm in which
I'm paid to participate.

--
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 1:32 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 t

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Greg Deckler]

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 cutthroat activity in this business to =
> sit at one table and hammer this all out so for this generation at =
> least, it's live and let live.
> 
> Let it go, man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barry J. Horner
> NT Server/Exchange/WWW Administrator
> Central Community College - Grand Island, NE
> (V) 308.398.7361(F) 308.398.7399
> [

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics SPAM

[Hiatt, Jack (MARC)]

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=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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics SPAM

[Shotton Jolyon]

There are admins?

Anyway, just setting a rule is quicker or sorting by topic (and who does not
filter out discussion lists into threaded folders?) and mass deleting.

But I quite enjoyed the direct action approach.

-Original Message-
From: Sirius F. Crackhoe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 December 2003 19:31
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics SPAM



Yo tickturd... Was it really necessary for you to reply to all these
messages with SPAM? Just unsubscribe yourself... Or gripe to the admin's
like the rest of us. 


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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics SPAM

[Sirius F. Crackhoe]

Yo tickturd... Was it really necessary for you to reply to all these
messages with SPAM? Just unsubscribe yourself... Or gripe to the admin's
like the rest of us. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Troels Majlandt
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 2:24 PM
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 Jeremy T. Slater
Sendt: 22. december 2003 19:54
Til: Exchange Discussions
Emne: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics


Of course they don't... And we'd prefer not to get involved as well, so
kindly, take this off the list.

-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 une

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Shotton Jolyon]

To the extent that either side in this debate is guilty of this fallacy,
both are.

It is not really an appropriate area for proof.

-Original Message-
From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 December 2003 18:58
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics


Nobody has ever proven that my bathtub isn't Cthulhu's summer retreat
either.  Therefore we must accept that my bathtub is Cthulhu's summer
retreat.

This is the essence of the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam fallacy.


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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Barry Horner]

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. 

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 cutthroat 
activity in this business to sit at one table and hammer this all out so for this 
generation at least, it's live and let live.

Let it go, man.






Barry J. Horner
NT Server/Exchange/WWW Administrator
Central Community College - Grand Island, NE
(V) 308.398.7361(F) 308.398.7399
[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]

SV: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics SPAM

[Troels Majlandt]

 
SPAM
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af Martin Tuip [MVP]
Sendt: 22. december 2003 19:51
Til: Exchange Discussions
Emne: 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.

> -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
>

SV: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics SPAM

[Troels Majlandt]

 SPAM

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af Chinnery, Paul
Sendt: 22. december 2003 19:50
Til: Exchange Discussions
Emne: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

My sentiments exactly, Erik.  I think your post says it all regarding MVP's or any 
other certification/award/whathaveyou.

Paul Chinnery
Network Administrator
Mem Med Ctr


-Original Message-
From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:46 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
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.

> -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 wo

SV: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics SPAM

[Troels Majlandt]

 
SPAM
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af Erik Sojka
Sendt: 22. december 2003 19:46
Til: Exchange Discussions
Emne: 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.

> -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 clea

SV: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics SPAM

[Troels Majlandt]

 SPAM

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af Shotton Jolyon
Sendt: 22. december 2003 19:52
Til: Exchange Discussions
Emne: RE: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

I really must apologise for that moment of panic.

And apologise for this apology which I am sure is of no use to anyone.

Where will it all end?  I feel like I'm watching the intro to Monty Python and the 
Holy Grail.

And the Vikings sketch.

Anyway.

Sorry.

-Original Message-
From: Bowles, John (OIG/OMP) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 December 2003 18:33
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics


Don't Feed the Troll!!!


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=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]

SV: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics SPAM

[Troels Majlandt]

 
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 

SV: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics SPAM

[Troels Majlandt]

 
SPAM
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af Greg Deckler
Sendt: 22. december 2003 19:53
Til: Exchange Discussions
Emne: 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

SV: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics SPAM

[Troels Majlandt]

 SPAM

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af Jeremy T. Slater
Sendt: 22. december 2003 19:54
Til: Exchange Discussions
Emne: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics


Of course they don't... And we'd prefer not to get involved as well, so kindly, take 
this off the list.

-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
> > > Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
> > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gr

SV: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics SPAM

[Troels Majlandt]

 
SPAM
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af Ken Cornetet
Sendt: 22. december 2003 19:56
Til: Exchange Discussions
Emne: 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=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=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_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTE

SV: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics SPAM

[Troels Majlandt]

  
SPAM
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af Tom Meunier
Sendt: 22. december 2003 19:56
Til: Exchange Discussions
Emne: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

Argumentum ad ignorantiam doesn't work.  Pretty common (and simplistic) logical 
fallacy, mostly used in supporting religious dogmatism.  "I cannot prove that $deity 
doesn't exist, therefore $deity exists."

 I must say that if you were to hire 
Ed Crowley for his employer's prevailing wage, for the amount of hours he spends 
providing free technical support in Microsoft's online communities, he has 
demonstrably "paid for it."


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler 
> Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:32 PM Posted To: MSExchange 
> Mailing List
> Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
> Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
> 
> 
> 
> 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.

_
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]

SV: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics SPAM

[Troels Majlandt]

 SPAM

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af Tom Meunier
Sendt: 22. december 2003 19:58
Til: Exchange Discussions
Emne: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

Nobody has ever proven that my bathtub isn't Cthulhu's summer retreat either.  
Therefore we must accept that my bathtub is Cthulhu's summer retreat.

This is the essence of the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam fallacy.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler 
> Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:53 PM Posted To: MSExchange 
> Mailing List
> Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
> Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
> 


> 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.
> 

_
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]

SV: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics SPAM

[Troels Majlandt]

 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=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]

SV: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics - SPAM

[Troels Majlandt]

 SPAM

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af Shotton Jolyon
Sendt: 22. december 2003 20:13
Til: Exchange Discussions
Emne: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

Very true.

But surely the greater motivational force in these cases would be "If they don't go 
for product X in which I am an expert they will not employ me."
rather than "If they don't go for product X in which I am an MVP then there will be a 
slightly smaller online user community for me to help and so my chances of retaining 
my MVP status will be diminished."

There is a much more powerful conflict of interests at work with any paid consultancy 
than the MVP programme could ever produce.  If I had a million dollars (cue 
Barenakedladies tunes lodged in heads) to spend on upgrading my mail system to 
Exchange 2003 but was worried it would be a more troublesome process than it appears 
and so had decided to hire Ed as a consultant to advise me on whether or not to 
proceed would it be the MVP award, even if it meant a lot to him, or the chance of 
getting his hands on (part of) the million dollars that I should be concerned might 
make him recommend the upgrade even if it was not in my interests?

The MVP is orders of magnitude smaller than the greats vats of cash sloshing round 
this industry and is trivial in comparison as are any conflicts of interest it might 
otherwise be able to produce.

-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 December 2003 18:58
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: 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.


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=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]

SV: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics SPAM

[Troels Majlandt]

 
SPAM
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af Roger Seielstad
Sendt: 22. december 2003 19:59
Til: Exchange Discussions
Emne: 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.

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 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
> > 
> > _
> 

SV: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics SPAM

[Troels Majlandt]

 
SPAM
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af Greg Deckler
Sendt: 22. december 2003 20:05
Til: Exchange Discussions
Emne: 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 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.
> > >

OT: My Ethics are still good!

[Bob Sadler]

I just received a phone call from the "Who's Who" list, and they wanted
to put me in their upcoming edition.  Of course, I said, in order to
make it ethical, I would first have to pay you to put me in your
edition.  They insisted though that this was an AWARDED position based
upon my credentials in my field, and you couldn't "buy" your way into
the "Who's Who".

Well, I told them right then and there that I know my ethics, and if I
can't buy the award, it must be unethical!

Thanks Greg!  I have seen the light


Bob Sadler

_
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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Shotton Jolyon]

Very true.

But surely the greater motivational force in these cases would be "If they
don't go for product X in which I am an expert they will not employ me."
rather than "If they don't go for product X in which I am an MVP then there
will be a slightly smaller online user community for me to help and so my
chances of retaining my MVP status will be diminished."

There is a much more powerful conflict of interests at work with any paid
consultancy than the MVP programme could ever produce.  If I had a million
dollars (cue Barenakedladies tunes lodged in heads) to spend on upgrading my
mail system to Exchange 2003 but was worried it would be a more troublesome
process than it appears and so had decided to hire Ed as a consultant to
advise me on whether or not to proceed would it be the MVP award, even if it
meant a lot to him, or the chance of getting his hands on (part of) the
million dollars that I should be concerned might make him recommend the
upgrade even if it was not in my interests?

The MVP is orders of magnitude smaller than the greats vats of cash sloshing
round this industry and is trivial in comparison as are any conflicts of
interest it might otherwise be able to produce.

-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 December 2003 18:58
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: 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.


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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Greg Deckler]

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 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
>

OT - Enabling a user for Live Communication Server

[Ken Cornetet]

Off topic (more or less, but hey, IM used to be part of exchange...)

Does anyone have code for enabling a user for LCS? I'd like to
incorporate it into my user provisioning code. The Docs that come with
the LCS SDK are pretty thin.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Hanna
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:53 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Flame Warriors



Given our current message volume.
I'm sure we all remember these... 

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html

--steve
PS: Dude, STFU.




Steve Hanna
Network/Systems Administrator
Niagara Plumbing Supply Company Ltd.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is nothing common about sense.


_
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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Roger Seielstad]

> 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 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=exchange&t
ext_mode=&lang
> =english
> To unsubscribe:

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Greg Deckler]

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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Tom Meunier]

Nobody has ever proven that my bathtub isn't Cthulhu's summer retreat
either.  Therefore we must accept that my bathtub is Cthulhu's summer
retreat.

This is the essence of the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam fallacy.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler
> Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:53 PM
> Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List
> Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
> Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
> 


> 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.
> 

_
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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Ken Cornetet]

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=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=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_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=eng

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Tom Meunier]

Argumentum ad ignorantiam doesn't work.  Pretty common (and simplistic)
logical fallacy, mostly used in supporting religious dogmatism.  "I
cannot prove that $deity doesn't exist, therefore $deity exists."


I must say that if you were to hire Ed Crowley for his employer's
prevailing wage, for the amount of hours he spends providing free
technical support in Microsoft's online communities, he has demonstrably
"paid for it."


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler
> Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:32 PM
> Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List
> Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
> Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
> 
> 
> 
> 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.

_
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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Jeremy T. Slater]

Of course they don't... And we'd prefer not to get involved as well, so
kindly, take this off the list.

-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
> > > 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 de

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Greg Deckler]

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 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 currenc

RE: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Shotton Jolyon]

I really must apologise for that moment of panic.

And apologise for this apology which I am sure is of no use to anyone.

Where will it all end?  I feel like I'm watching the intro to Monty Python
and the Holy Grail.

And the Vikings sketch.

Anyway.

Sorry.

-Original Message-
From: Bowles, John (OIG/OMP) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 December 2003 18:33
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics


Don't Feed the Troll!!!


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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Roger Seielstad]

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
> > > accepti

Re: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Martin Tuip [MVP]]

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.

> -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
> > > S

Flame Warriors

[Steve Hanna]

Given our current message volume.
I'm sure we all remember these... 

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html

--steve
PS: Dude, STFU.




Steve Hanna
Network/Systems Administrator
Niagara Plumbing Supply Company Ltd.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is nothing common about sense.


_
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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Chinnery, Paul]

My sentiments exactly, Erik.  I think your post says it all regarding MVP's or any 
other certification/award/whathaveyou.

Paul Chinnery
Network Administrator
Mem Med Ctr


-Original Message-
From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:46 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
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.

> -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
> > > 

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Bowles, John (OIG/OMP)]

Mr. Dickler please report to the office...thank you.

_
John Bowles
Exchange Engineer
OIG/HHS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Greg Deckler
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 pret

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Erik Sojka]

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.

> -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 certifica

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Shotton Jolyon]

We can all be childish.

I think Ed has a case that there is no perceived conflict of interest - his
employer is happy and the majority of this list is happy for him to be a
Microsoft MVP.

Many of us are the sort of people that might employ his services and we are
not deterred in the least by the fact that he's an MVP.

Is there a real conflict of interests that we fail to perceive?  Well
obviously we can't see it.  We don't see that he is offered or given
anything by Microsoft that is in the same order of payment as his normal
salary is assumed to be, we don't believe any significant obligations are
placed upon him and we don't believe that retaining the title is a matter of
such importance to him that he would deliberately mislead anyone over
anything.

You seem to be tacitly acknowledging this when you phrase your questions in
general terms.  Ask the question "Does the MVP programme create a real or
perceived conflict of interests?" and you will not generate many positive
responses.


-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 December 2003 18:32
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.


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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Greg Deckler]

Yes, I will never be able to find an EXACT example. The point was that he
was busted for "conflict of interest" violations.

> 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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Roger Seielstad]

That is the kind of thing Tom Meunier would know, isn't it?

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.


> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:33 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> 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=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]

_
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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Ed Crowley [MVP]]

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=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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Ed Crowley [MVP]]

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
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 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 ethi

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Shotton Jolyon]

I suggest you think of a way to spend less time deleting it.

-Original Message-
From: Jason Rader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 December 2003 18:37
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics


Can't this be moved to personal emails.  I spend far to much time deleting 
this crap.

Jason


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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Jason Rader]

Can't this be moved to personal emails.  I spend far to much time deleting 
this crap.

Jason


From: "Schwartz, Jim" <[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 13:33:11 -0500
Gift - Something that is bestowed voluntarily and without compensation
Award - To grant as merited or due
Compensation - Something, such as money, given or received as payment or
reparation, as for a service or loss.
I don't see MVP status as being a gift. Seems to me that it would be an
award for people that spend their own time (cost of time is greater than
hard cash) to help others understand technology. In many cases I have seen
most of the MVP's give their time and efforts to helping people understand
what they are already running (Exchange) in Exchange related newsgroups and
lists.
-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 a

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Schwartz, Jim]

Gift - Something that is bestowed voluntarily and without compensation
Award - To grant as merited or due 
Compensation - Something, such as money, given or received as payment or
reparation, as for a service or loss.

I don't see MVP status as being a gift. Seems to me that it would be an
award for people that spend their own time (cost of time is greater than
hard cash) to help others understand technology. In many cases I have seen
most of the MVP's give their time and efforts to helping people understand
what they are already running (Exchange) in Exchange related newsgroups and
lists.

-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

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Greg Deckler]

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=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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Greg Deckler]

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=exchange&text_mode
> > =&lang
> > =english
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMA

RE: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Bowles, John (OIG/OMP)]

Don't Feed the Troll!!!

_
John Bowles
Exchange Engineer
OIG/HHS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Shotton Jolyon
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:31 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics


Shotton Jolyon would like to recall the message, "Greg's Utterly Fascinating
Views on Ethics".

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=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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Shotton Jolyon]

Sorry - speed read this before I replied - based my answer on your statement
that you *have* your jacket - read "resign" as "rule".

My point about probity with public funds stands but that case does show that
in some areas people are more ethical than you.  (You do have that jacket,
right?)

-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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Ed Crowley [MVP]]

Okay, how much must I pay to become ethical in Decklerfantasyland?

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 10:27 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: 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=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]

Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Shotton Jolyon]

Shotton Jolyon would like to recall the message, "Greg's Utterly Fascinating
Views on Ethics".

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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Ed Crowley [MVP]]

The university employee was terminated because he violated rules imposed by
his employer.  I follow the rules my employer imposes as well; they are well
aware--and proud--that I'm an MVP.  I do not recommend that any MVP
candidate accept the title and gift if it will interfere with his employment
contract.  Next argument? 

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 10:22 AM
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-
> > 

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Erik Sojka]

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 
> 

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Greg Deckler]

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=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[John Matteson]

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  
> 

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Shotton Jolyon]

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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Ed Crowley [MVP]]

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=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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Greg Deckler]

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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Christopher Hummert]

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=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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Mark Jeremy]

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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Ed Crowley [MVP]]

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=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]

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Greg Deckler]

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=3Dexchange&text_mode
> > =3D&lang
> > =3Denglish
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> __

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Ed Crowley [MVP]]

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,

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Ed Crowley [MVP]]

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=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 

RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Shotton Jolyon]

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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]