[BBLISA] nnrp clarification on limitations

[Dean Anderson]

I'd be oh so happy to take this offline, but Lutner wants to use SORBS. So
BBLISA is my only means of communicating with him.  So, the following is
for Sean only.  Well, actually, it does have relevance to BBLISA:
Reputation of vendors is a relevant and often-asked question on the BBLISA
list.


On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Sean Lutner wrote:

> 
> On Feb 15, 2005, at 6:29 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
> 
> > Yes, we just take shots at people.  That's why I'm so well known for
> > taking shots a people, rather than having been "shot at" by a slew of 
> > bad
> > characters including court-proven liars.
> 
> In this thread, I felt that you were taking shots at me, and I fired 
> back. In a previous thread I was trying to be helpful and you 
> interrupted the thread with your personal views about how evil the 
> people behind a link I posted were. I have never taken shots at you 
> without provocation, and in most cases I feel I am well within reason 
> to say that I'm merely defending myself.

Associating with disreputable people has consequences.  One of the
consequences is that people will point out that you associate with
disreputable people.  That is not a shot. It is a fact. It is relevant to 
the reputation of the people making the recommendation, and the businesses 
they recommend.

Indeed, many of the questions on the BBLISA list are about reputation.  
Often of the form of "where can I find a reputable source for....".  Your
associates have a bad reputation, and one that isn't just a personal
opinion.  They (and you) associate with COURT-PROVEN _liars_.  It is not
just my "personal opinion" that they are liars. They have been found to be
so in a court of law. And not on only just one occasion, but multiple
occasions. You can't dismiss that as "my personal opinion".  My report of 
this is not a personal attack, nor "a shot". It is a statement of fact.

Your associations are relevant to our consideration of your 
recommendations.  Your assocations have consequences.

But sometimes associating with disreputable people has even more serious
consquences. For example, you might have read or heard about Bernie Kerik,
a former business partner of Rudy Guiliani, and former NY Police
Commissioner who was proposed to be Secretary of Homeland Security. His
nomination was withdraw after it was learn that Kerik was associated with
Mafia figures.  Guiliani dissolved his business association with Kerik
because Guiliani didn't want to associate with associates of Mafia
figures. You see, your associations affect the perception of your
character, and "good character"  is a requirement for public office and
other things. Its also a requirement for certain kinds of licenses and
other things.

> > But first, I suppose it should be pointed out that no one has "taken a
> > shot at you". If you think that, then you are mistaken and simply don't
> > know what a "shot" is.
> 
> If you truly did not intend your comments as an affront against me then 
> I apologize for taking them as such.

If you don't think associating with disreputable people is an affront to 
society, then having someone point out your associations should not be an 
affront against you.


-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000