Re: My good name

["Renard Martin" <rmartin@mnsinc.com>]

  Give us all a break and drop it man.  I have enjoyed this list over the
  past six months because the kind of crap your trying to start did not exist
  here until you showed up.  Fred has always been a very supportive member of
  this group so no one is sure what our trying to prove by attacking him.  It
  ain't gonna work around here so drop it and move on to something more
  constructive.
  
  
  Renard (Marty) Martin
  mailto: rmartin@mnsinc.com
  Herndon, VA USA
  
  ----------
  > From: SILKMALON@aol.com
  > To: Multiple recipients of list <isdn@essential.org>
  > Subject: Re: My good name
  > Date: Monday, November 04, 1996 1:12 PM
  > 
  > well, thanks fred for continuing the dialog. i didn't know the isdn list
  had
  > nothing better to discuss than how you feel.
  > 
  > let's take this one at a time.
  > 
  > fred says:
  > "he attempts, in public, to speak ill of myself and my employer, BBN
  Corp."
  > 
  > response:
  > i make no attempt to speak ill of him or his employer. his employer, bbn,
  is
  > facing a difficult challenge in competitive markets. the last thing his
  > company needs is to be dragged into a problem concerning how it purchases
  > bandwidth. or, have one of its consultants calling total strangers
  stupid,
  > psychotic, on drugs, etc.
  > 
  > 
  > fred says:
  > "Mr. Maloney wrote me a rather nasty personal message saying that I had
  > committed some kind of
  > fraud against the telephone company and that BBN had violated its
  contracts
  > with the phone company by using ISDN DOV.  He insinuated that he'd
  "tattle
  > on me" (my words) to BBN's corporate law department, since my activities
  are
  > in his opinion illegal. "
  > 
  > 
  > response:
  > i had no desire to offend mr. gdolstein. he conveniently leaves out his
  > stream of messages and their abusive tone. as for the personal stuff, his
  > peronal commentary about me -- admittedly toned down -- are
  interpretative,
  > generally untrue or wholly out of context, irrelevant or unimportant.
  > 
  > let's move on to stuff that matters.
  > 
  > i never said his company committed fraud, and mr. goldstein knows that.
  his
  > statement is simply not true, and potentially slanderous.
  > 
  > as for the technical matters, mr. goldstein is right. but, that was never
  at
  > issue as i told him on numerous occasions, nor is it  secret. 
  > 
  > 
  > when asked, mr. goldstein claimed he speaks for bbn. i said that if he
  did,
  > then bbn contracts counsel should be aware that he is representing his
  > company, and may want to review the statement about how they contract
  > services.
  > 
  > 
  > if offering his view of the regulatory process, mr. goldstein is
  evidently
  > unaware that contracts need not be formal written agreements. he is
  correct a
  > tarrif takesprecedence over a contract to the extent rights have been
  > reserved to the agency. and, of course, you never negotiate with a common
  > carrier when a tariff is approved.
  > 
  > but, that's not the point. as he says,  " ... the regulatory agencies
  worry
  > about the rest."
  > 
  > THATis precisely my point. and, agencies act on whether the
  representations
  > and service conditions have been properly fulfilled by both parties --
  the
  > consumer and the service provider.
  > 
  > a consumer may purchase services under a tariff, but cannot violate the
  > conditions of a tariff. if they do, they may be subject to civil action
  and
  > penalty.
  > 
  > these are not annoying legalities -- they have very real dollar impacts
  on
  > companies.
  > 
  > that simple point seems to go right by mr. goldstein.
  > 
  > mr. goldstein happens to select one quotation of mine in which i state
  mr.
  > goldstein  " ... has the right to his opinions, and is 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."
  > 
  > if they agrees-- great! if they don't, then they have a right to know his
  > presentation of their views. mr. goldstein now clarifies that he does
  not, as
  > he puts it speak ... "*for* BBN."
  > 
  > fine -- end of story. that it took him this long to say that seems odd.
  but,
  > hey, why not?
  > 
  > at jamie's request, i did not forward mr. goldstein's remarks to his
  > corporate counsel. however, i am still interested in knowing whether the
  > personal e-mail mr. goldstein sent to me is the way bbn's likes its
  > consultants to treat people. mr. goldstein certainly 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.
  > 
  > but, i have that right, and mr. goldstein's decision to share that fact
  with
  > this group is his decision -- not mine. in any case, i don't see the
  > relevance, so please, don't complain to me that i dragged that one up.
  > 
  > as for my name and my company, my views, like mr. goldstein's are my own.
  i
  > do not introduce my company's name as it is not relevant, just as mr.
  > goldstein now admits he does not speak for his employer.
  > 
  > and while i won't urge, as mr goldstein does concerning me, that he
  should
  > not be contacted, i do agree with mr. goldstein that we should return to
  the
  > ISDN discussion, already in progress.