John, This "education/lying thing" is difficult to evaluate and judge correctly. As a multi-year investigative analyst and systems architect I am used to interviewing high level management regarding 'things that had gone wrong'. In general, at least once within an interview the subject would either misrepresent or actually lie about some aspect of the problem area. One gets almost a bit cynical after a while, but finally accepts the fact that 'this is life'.
It didn't mean that he wasn't an effective manager - most of the time s/he was being 'protective'. [Yes, men _and women.] And, indeed, we witness our own President, denying former 'romantic' affairs, Whitewater, questionable 'donations' efforts, etc. without a quiver. It is difficult to believe that he is being perfectly honest in all these areas. But yet, he _is our president and things 'seem' to be going well, so . . . ? However . . .
There is a 'line', and I don't know where it is, that, when crossed, the game dramatically changes. President Nixon, for example, clearly crossed that line, and it was obvious, even to the American public.
I was already a significant shareholder in IPMCF when these particular information searches by me got triggered off by unfolding events - primarily the Forbes article. This led me back to again review Furlong's resume. It was then that I noticed, for the first time, that under 'education' he had listed Colorado State University, "graduate work", 1960-1961. I needed no further incentive to start my own particular search methodology. My CSU yearbooks yielded nothing - nothing at all. I went on, via phone, to the Registrar's Office. And, 'for the record', his attendance is recorded at CSU for _only the Spring Quarter of 1960, enrolled as a "freshman", with no major declared. This found, I pursued on to Central Washington College and the Colorado School of Mines. The rest is history.
Well, John, to me, the 'line' had been crossed. Had I not been a shareholder I would never have bought, but, having already a position in the issue I was in a quandry. Do I sell, just based upon _that news, and that news alone? Is that all it takes to 'scrap' a man? Or, do we hope that the rest of the story is 'true' and that this is just an 'anomoly', acceptable within the framework of 'normal business events'? Difficult call!
In retrospect, I should have fully acknowledged that the 'line' had indeed been crossed and that it was 'bail time'. The worst part of it was that I actually both wrote Lee Furlong and attempted, multiple times, to telephone him for a response on this subject - all to no avail. He absolutely refused to communicate with me. Now, _that is where I really went wrong. I should have known, at that point, that there was no further justification in 'following that man' and his wonderful 'story'.
I tend to be 'judgemental'. I realize this. Sometimes, in this realization I attempt to bend over backwards to try and offset this 'deficiency'. In this particular instance my initial instincts were absolutely correct; my 'sentence' of 'leniency' was in error. I wish that I could tell you that I would not make this mistake again.
Rod [Hollywood Beach, Ca.] |
