 |
 |
I have watched this discussion with interest and would like to thank Barbara and Janet for keeping this community alert. Th net is fertile ground for perhaps the type of activity that is being discussed and this group in particular is more susceptible than most. I agree that a direct answer to a direct question would end all this. Janet313 wrote: > dear ken > > you wrote: > >maybe we should have a warning message > >for each new user of the list, with the "rules and > >regulalions" to adhere to, to avoid misunderstandings. > > from what i have seen of some of the 'salespeople' recently > they are not ones to follow any 'rules and regulations' anyway > i remember one whose comment about 'professional behaviour' > was totally absurd, given the context of his controversial net 'empire' > > >we cannot rely on what is called "common sense" > >because even the smartest people require education. > > and even the least educated people can display common courtesy > which is all anyone has asked for > > >Even though I agree that this is not the proper place to > >advertise products for profit, we may miss out on > >something that could help a lot of PWP's if we try > >to stifle anything that LOOKS like a sales pitch. > > ken, do you really think that a potentially successful > product/treatment would show up here anonymously first? > > if you had developed something that looked promising > what would you do with it? > maybe go to one of the pd organizations for advice? > maybe have it professionally tested and confirmed? > > for example > what has tom reiss tried to do with all his work > re visual cues for parkies and his famous 'blue' glasses? > has he ever tried to 'pitch' them here? > would he ever, > without letting us know in advance > that he was going to be making a profit or not? > > >The worst of all problems is the rush to accuse > >and blame, and the slew of defenders who often pop up. > > i don't see any 'rush to accuse and blame' here > there have been no accusations made or blame laid > only a simple question has been asked > which has been ignored once > and is still being ignored > > if you had found a 'neat' website and wanted to let us know about it > and if someone asked you if you made money from it > what would you do? > you would tell us and probably even apologise > for not making it clear from the beginning > simple > > >Right or wrong it takes time away from what > >we're here for, and it doesn't even give us a laugh. > > i agree completely > tami's answer to barb's question of several days/weeks ago > would have ended this discussion > > however, if anyone wants to ignore the whole thing > the message header is very clear and > the delete button is always handy > > this can be an interesting learning experience for all of us > if we choose to look at it that way > > we are pioneers in a brand new communications medium > there are no 'rules and regulations' here > > anonymity can be a blessed relief to those who lack a 'voice' > or > anonymity can be a sheepskin concealing a wolf > or > ....? > > >It wasn't easy taking Tami's side on this issue, > >knowing that most of her accusers are folks I've known > >much longer, such as Barb Mallut, and Arthur Hirsch. > >whose opinions I respect. > > barb, art, and i have expressed suspicion and have asked a question > no accusations have been made > > i'm impressed that you put the effort that you did > into thinking about the situation > it's more proof of your kindness and concern for others > > we are all entitled to our opinions based on what we observe > we are all entitled to voice our opinions > > >Yes Tami was a litttle sarcastic and sharp tougued > >but I attribute that to her feeling wrongly accused. > > this is where you and i differ in opinion > i attribute her reaction to feeling 'caught out' > > >What she does next will tell us what we need to know. > > exactly > but what she has done in the past may be a pointer > i.e. she has not answered barb's simple question > > again, > i have only voiced suspicions > i have not drawn any conclusions > and i still would love to be proved wrong in my suspicions > and would be more than happy to apologise if that is the case > > when smithkline beecham first made > anonymous overtures to this list in september > i reacted with the same suspicion in re concealment of profit motives > they obviously had a re-think and have come back openly > > i despise deception and dishonesty > i admire openness and truth > and i feel compelled to sound the alert > to those i care about whenever i detect either one > > your cyber-sis > > janet > > janet paterson / 50-9 /sinemet-selegiline-prozac / [log in to unmask]