🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

===============================