🚀 go-pugleaf

Mr. Noland,

You have been digging up information on Lori from the start.  For instance,
right near the start you posted the following:

>If you have had personal experience [positive or negative] with Elgin
Computers, Ottawa Computer >Services or Ms Lori McConkey [president of
Ottawa Computer Services], please contact me by e-mail.  >Thank you.

I would like to know, what business is it of your what 'personal
experience' people have had with Lori???

You also posted:
>So much for freedom of speech on the Internet.

You are doing more damage to the issue of Freedom of Speech on the Internet
than anyone I know.  You posted personal information about Lori and you
stepped over the line.  That is NOT freedom of speech - it is simply being
mean and hurtful, because it does NOTHING to help achieve the goal you
state you seek to accomplish.

You also posted:
> Assuming that the letters are genuine, then IN MY OPINION, all users of
the Internet 
> should rush to support and defend Scott, in the name of freedom of speech
>and to ensure that the Internet remains a vital conduit for information
exchange
>by average citizens.  

The problem right from the start is the first word in that sentence,
"Assuming".  Because you were 'assuming', you went full-force to the aid of
Scott.  Unfortunately for Scott your goal had little if anything to do with
his goal.  Although Scott he had an issue with Elgin Computers, when I
spoke with him on the telephone he condemned the comments and actions you
have taken in regard to the personal attack on Lori;  he said that it was
'uncalled for'.

In the name of Freedom of Speech - cease and desist your actions
immediately - you are doing more damage than good.  Because Freedom of
Speech is for all of us - and the majority of us disagree with using it as
a conduit to unnecessarily hurt people.

I have read enough about Lori and OCS.  The fact remains that Lori and OCS
WERE not and ARE not the same legal entity as Elgin Computers.  To suggest
they are, or to continue posting personal and/or business information about
Lori or OCS is WRONG! - plain and simple.

Terry



J Alexander Norland <dt804@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in article
<6a4tl1$8je@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
> 
> 
> This is a response to Article #88179, ott.forsale.computing, by
"Hans@HDC", 
> <hans@hdc-ottawa.com>
> 
> ======================
> Please read disclaimers at the bottom of this article before proceeding.
> =======================
> 
> Dear Hans:
> 
> Thank you for your contribution to the debate; a call for moderation and
> reason is sorely needed in this thread.
> 
> I'd like to respond to a few points that you made [just a few, as I agree
with
> much of what you say] and close by summarizing my position in point form.

> 
> You say, 
> >"I'm sure that the propagaters of this thread feel slighted with their
> >experiences of the company(ies) involved. Perhaps even with just cause.
> >I also feel some sort of mediation other then a court of law would have
> >saved everyone a lot of grief. (This course is still open)."
> 
> You add:
> 
> >"Since the situation appears to have reached an impasse, I would suggest

> >all parties find some sort of mediation to resolve their dispute.
> >I hope for all that it will work out in the end."
> 
> I have called repeatedly for this very route.  The point is that the
> supporters of Elgin Computers(EC) have shown inordinate intransigence: I
have
> yet to see one word of moderation from that camp.  Here is a concrete
> suggestion: Would you be willing to use the good offices of the Canadian
> Ethical Computer Services Association to call an open meeting among you,
Lori
> McConkey on behalf of Ottawa Computer Services, Mr Fleury on behalf of
Elgin
> Computers, Mr Scott Wiper and myself?  If nothing else, initiating this
> meeting will establish who stands in the peace camp and who choses the
route
> of belligerence.  Please respond.
> 
> You say, 
> 
> >I do not agree with personal details coming to light, nor do I agree
> >with the descriptions of sexual orientation and ethnic backgrounds being

> >brought up to describe this person. All that is totally irrelevant to
> >the dispute. Again, that is not free speech. That is trampling on the
> >rights of the person described by those remarks. They are also privacy
> >issues, which have no right to be discussed on an open forum.
> 
> You'll probably be surprised to hear that I fully agree.  But note this:
to my
> recollection, the "descriptions of sexual orientation and ethnic
backgrounds"
> came to light because the supporters of Elgin Computers leaked a private
> letter that Mr Wiper sent; upon publication of the letter, I immediately
> condemned the text and Mr Wiper has apologized (by my counting) at least
three
> times.  In so doing, Mr Wiper did the honourable thing, IMHO.  As to
"personal
> details", I have already explained how this came about, and I shall
repeat
> this explanation below under points (4) and (5) below.
> 
> I shall end this segment of the article with a renewed call for
moderation and
> mediation.  The alternative, it would appear, is the repugnant level
> crystallized in the following text, addressed to me: 
> 
> *********
> Article #87933 (87956 is last):
> From: darrob@bigfoot.com (NOSPAM or your DEAD)
> Newsgroups: ott.forsale.computing
> Subject: Re: Elgin computers:  Correction
> Date: Mon Jan 19 16:37:57 1998
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Furthermore, do your homework and don't sit here with this petty
> bullshit.  You are making me FURIOUS with the drib drab... So now here
> is MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH! LISTEN UP!!!!!!!!
> 
> GET A FUCKING LIFE YOU NO GOOD HOMOPHOBIC WASTE OF A HUMAN! Go screw
> your wife if you can still get it up, maybe she will have a child and
> it will be GAY!
> 
> Go play somewhere else, PLEASE!  YOU ARE A WASTE OF YOUR FATHERS
> SPERM!
> 
> **********
> 
> If I read your article correctly, Hans, you did not condemn this
egregiously
> infantile expression of emotion.
> 
> I will now summarize my position, as it unfolded over the last ten days.
> 
> (1) Mr Wiper reported a consumer grievance and published two related
lawyer-letters that he received.
> 
> (2) Upon reading his text, I posted a very mild article, supporting his
right
> to disseminate consumer information without being menaced; I added the
obvious
> qualifier, IF HIS CLAIMS ARE VALID.
> 
> (3) At this point, the supporters of Elgin Computers (EC), could have
either
> ignored the issue, and it would have withered on the vine within a day,
or
> refuted the allegation with one sentence.  Rather, they chose to
exacerbate
> the debate, including the leaking of private correspondence.  IMHO, this
> indicated poor judgement, and this fact is important for consumers to be
aware
> of.
> 
> (4) Among the claims made by the supporters of EC were false statements. 
One
> noteworthy example was the claim by Mr Dillon that  "She [Lori] did NOT
go
> bankrupt".  Mr Dillon referred to "she", not to OCS or EC.  I started
checking
> Mr Dillon's statements and found them incongruous with official records. 
Had
> Mr Dillon said, "OCS did NOT go bankrupt", I would have checked for OCS;
but
> he didn't  --   he specifically said "she".  It would seem that the
supporters
> of EC believe that they can post falsehoods, but no one is allowed to
check or
> refute.  I do not accept this logic.  Incidentally, I disclosed no
personal
> information that was not absolutely relevant to the arguments made by
EC's
> supporters, even though I received a great deal of personal information
by e-mail; if EC makes good on its threat to sue, this info will inevitably
come to
> light.
> 
> (5) EC further maintains that "We also firmly believe that every business
is a
> reflection of the integrity of its proprietor(s) and employees".  If EC
is
> permitted to make integrity claims on behalf of its employees as part of
its
> commercial propaganda, then IMHO consumers are allowed to check on this
> "integrity".  I was therefore entitled to post my findings concerning the
Ms
> Harrison affair, complete with corroborating documentation [I also added
the
> rebuttal by EC's lawyer  -- I believe in truth and objectivity].  This
info, I
> believe, is relevant to consumers, especially in the light of EC's ads.
> 
> (6) Points (4) and (5) have explained why Lori McConkey the person is
relevant
> to the EC issue being discussed.  There is also the aspect of Lori
MCConkey as
> president of OCS, a topic which I'll address in a forthcoming article. 
For
> now I accept the statements made by EC's supporters and lawyer, to the
effect
> that EC and OCS are separate LEGAL entities.
> 
> (7) In closing I wish to underscore that having dealt with the issues of
> freedom of expression on the internet and consumers right to information,
the
> priority now should be: reconciliation and peace.  IMHO, EC would be
taking a
> self-defeating and irrational step if they sue; they should remember what

> happened in the McDonald affair in Britain.
> 
> ======================================
> 
> DISCLAIMERS:
> 
> (1) If you are tired of the postings concerning Elgin Computer, please
exit
> here.  Others may be interested and they, too, have rights.
> 
> (2) This article is written from the consumers viewpoint, to provide
consumers
> information in the public interest.  If you are a vendor, you will not
like
> this article, and please consider exiting now.
> 
> (3) This is a very long article.  If you abhor long articles, perhaps you

> should consider exiting now.
> 
> (4)  All statements made in this article are either my opinions, or facts
that
> I have tried my best to verify.  I stand to be corrected, of course.  The

> article is written with no malice, but with great sorrow: sorrow that the

> marketplace has to endure certain merchants who undermine consumer
confidence
> and economic prosperity for us all.
> 
> ===============================
> 
>