Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : PairGain Technologies -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RANDY DAVIS who wrote (27146)	11/17/1998 10:31:00 PM
From: DWCraig	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36349

I'm just guessing here, so please take this with a grain of salt: In my job (I'm a state bureaucrat in California), I occasionally get calls from lobbyists and/or the public. When I get these calls, I am immediately aware that anything I say is an expression of policy and that my words can be quoted and potentially used to the detriment of my department. For this reason, I always keep my answers within the context of already published material or clear policy guidelines. If the caller wants to learn something new and significant, something that hadn't already been made available to the public (especially on sensitive matters), I'd refer him or her to our public affairs office (PAO). If the caller said that he was doing an article for the Mercury Times, I'd direct the call to the PAO immediately. Why? Because a published article can be read by a lot of people. The PAO is going to get calls from the readers of that article, and it's their job to make sure the writer of the article gets the most accurate information available from our department. A press release or a media article gets wide circulation, and for that reason the policy people are usually very concerned that the message gets out 'right'. Apparently, Mr. MacBrayer felt that the information he provided Karl was not significantly new information (which would be a breach of responsibility to other shareholders), and assumed that his email would go no further, or be shared with a small group of Karl's immediate circle of friends. Had he known or suspected (and, of course, he should have) that his note would be 'published' on the SI thread, he probably would have referred the questions to IR. Finally, I think he compounded his problems by not referring the whole mess to IR. In short, I can see their point of view, sort of, and despite the decline in price (I've been long since above 30), I don't think PAIR management deserves to be taken out and shot. But, Karl, I do think you deserve an apology. --Doug