🚀 go-pugleaf

jshauser@flash.net wrote in article <881499013.27711@dejanews.com>...
> Susan,
> 
> What is controversial regarding the link? I would specially like to know.
> Is information about a contemporary issue such as the legalization of
> marijuana controversial especially in view of the fact it is on many
> State ballots for the medicinal usage? Is this link illegal? Why?

My understanding is that it was the graphic on the page in question that
raised some eyebrows.  Not the content.  It's a matter of taste, not
illegality.  As I tried to explain before, the pages you're linked to
wouldn't have even been considered as a factor if there hadn't been other
equally qualified candidates.  Like it or not, the tastefulness of any page
you're linked to does, to some extent, reflect on your page.  When you
place your site in a position to be judged by entering a contest, these may
be considered.

> If your web assistants dicussed my homepage regarding this link, why was
> I not included in the dialogue via phone, email etc? Is this an
> appropriate way to treat a customer? Are other customers treated in this
> manner. Are we discussed, censored without our knowledge?

Discussed?  Yes, we discuss many customer related issues.  We are after all
in a service oriented business here.  Censored?  No.  Absolutely not.  That
said, as a private enterprise, we obviously reserve the right to say what
will and won't be permitted to reside on our property/servers.  There is
nothing on your page to my knowledge that even remotely crosses that line.

> Why was I told my homepage will NOT be considered for the site of the
year
> award and future contests unless I remove the link?

I cannot imagine why anyone at FN would say such a thing.  I can only hope
that there was a serious misunderstanding here.  Let me assure you that we
will be discussing this with all the parties in question and if we find
that we were even remotely ambiguous about our position, an apology will be
forthcoming and corrective action will be taken.

> It appears there is an censoring process occurring at Flashnet whether it
> is formal or informal it is occurring. I find this absolutely
> outrageous!!!!!

> Whether this employee is a former policeofficer or a current one, the
> mere fact that it was mentioned to me is totally inappropriate. Let me
> say, I understood him to say current. Did I become upset? You bet, this
> is the most unprofessional, inappropriate manner to treat a customer
> especially the in view of discussing a LINK. In addition, the web
> assistants, who may have had concerns passed the information to a third
> party at your company and then to me without all the facts perhaps. I
> stand by my homepage and this link!!!!

Again, my understanding is that our web assistant wanted to pass along her
congratulations and some  insight into the decision making process. 
Evidently, this broke down in the translation somewhere.

> I have concerns about staying with Flashnet as an ISP. I am concerned
> about the security of my homepage and how unprofessional I have been
> treated by your company. I realize Flashnet is growing and just recently
> made public its stock. Often when companies do this it is for access to
> capital for growth. I have recommended Flashnet to many people in the
> past. I have numerous friends and collegues using Flashnet and please
> note they are as outraged about this as I am.

Concerns about the security of your home page?  I'm afraid you've lost me
there.  And I fail to see what the stock offering has to do with any of
this.  I can assure you that we want to get to the bottom of this as much
as you do, but let's do stay on topic here if we can.

 Susan

--
Susan Forbes
Flashnet Communications
Technical Support Manager