Re: "ISDN Tariff Trick" -Reply -Reply

[Romanus Berg <BERGR@usec.com>]

  The stance taken by the nameless person at AOL is
  disappointing because it restricts the freedom with
  which people will share their knowledge...
  When I posted my (naive) question I asked myself
  if the topic was fair game.  This is why I asked for
  sources of info and did not expect any explicit
  explanations (at least not posted to the entire
  group.) 
  I was delighted at the friendly and helpful
  responses, and concluded that discussions of
  dubious relation to BA were certainly fair game
  given that (and I don't want to speak for anyone
  else here) this is  a friendly, "private" discussion
  among the similarly interested (not to mention that
  I am being raped by BA.) 
  For what it is worth I will refrain from asking
  questions or posting material not necessarily
  relevant to the group from now on.
  
  
  >>> <SILKMALON@aol.com> 11/01/96 09:38am
  >>>
  it is one thing for mr. goldstein to have a
  disagreement concenring technical
  matter, contracts, and regulatory policy. it is
  entirely something else for
  anyone to use this forum to engage in personal
  attacks, libel, and
  harrassment.
  
  to allay mr. goldstein's worst fears, i am not an rboc
  nor do i represent the
  interests of such an organization. my original point,
  which seemd to go right
  by mr. goldstein, is that companies like bbn need to
  be careful about
  representations in about how they form contracts
  with service providers. i
  never envisioned that fairly obvious comment
  would trigtger the response i
  received from mr. goldstein.
  
  mr. goldstein believes his isdn "trick" is within the
  confines of tariff and
  contract considerations. if so, then my question was
  answered. we can all
  move on. as he correctly noted, it's no secret --
  never has been.
  
  but, the obvious was not my point, although that
  subtlety seemed lost on mr.
  goldstein. no matter.
  
  however, the fact that i raised this question does
  not give bbn, its agent --
  mr. goldstein, or anybody else for that matter
  license to harrass or libel.
  certainly, free speech in this society has long been
  limited by libel and
  slander standards -- in fact, such restrictions are
  essential to free speech.
  
  mr. goldstein has the right to his opinions, and his
  responsible for his own
  actions. in feely slapping bbn's name to his
  comments, he draws in his
  employer. i'm not sure his employer is aware or
  would agree. for this reason,
  i have forwarded mr. goldstein's remarks to his
  corporate counsel, and asked
  whether mr. goldstein's "style" and position is the
  bbn's. as president of my
  technology firm, mr. goldstein has gone some
  distance to convince me none of
  my company's offices ever nationwide will ever do
  business with bbn when
  there are other options.
  
  i have also instructed mr. golstein on several
  occasions to stop sending
  e-mail to me. he refuses, and now seems to be
  extending his personal agenda.
  
  if mr. goldstein is incapable of acting in the
  professional manner one would
  expect from bbn in a forum such as this, then i
  recommend certain guidelines
  be established for this forum.
  
  there are ways to debate and discuss issues freely
  without dragging down the
  quality of the exchange done to the high school
  level.
  
  if someone has a differing view to what i just
  wrote, i'd be interested in
  discussing it.