Mr Westergaard, when you write that "'Truth' does not matter" and that basically Pluvia's "motives" are the issue...
It seems you are implying that there is the possibility Pluvia is telling the truth?
So, for the sake of argument, let's assume the following:
A. Pluvia's intent was to tell the truth, and to the best of his knowledge at the time of his posting he was providing accurate information.
B. There is nothing in the SI membership argeement that prohibits one from having a non-investment related financial interest in a company or a company's competitors.
C. A salesperson's mission is to pursuade a potential buyer into a purchase, and one of those techniques is the use of comparitive analysis.
If, for the sake of argument, you admit A, B, and C, then isn't the real issue the fact that the company you're representing can't take the fact that someone actually dared to take sales away, and whether it was or was not somewhat "sleazy" is irrelevant?
Good touting,
Tom |
