Allen, "You are misinformed..."
You have to remember the rules. Iomega cannot count any deal as an OEM unless we see(a particular one of us sees, anyway) a device with our own eyes with an Iomega product welded inside and somebody else's name on the outside. Drives attached to the outside DO NOT COUNT. Anybody else (Castlewood in this case, previously Sony, previously SyQuest - remember Legend - previously any number of companies) can count as an OEM anyone who they want to, as long as they call it something impressive like a "Strategic Partner."
Also, Iomega requires at least five independent confirmations of such OEM's, and it must be clear in every announcement that the Iomega drives are being added into the devices (of whatever kind) are costing the OEM FULL RETAIL PRICE. If any of these conditions are not met, it is imperative that you note that support for Iomega is slipping and will soon be nonexistant. This also does not apply to other ("non-evil") companies. As long as Castlewood has announced their "Strategic Partners," it doesn't matter whether the "Partners" issue any statement to the same end, we must believe Castlewood. Remember, if an executive of aanother company takes an executive of your company out to lunch (or picks up the tip), this is (in all cases but one) SIGNIFICANT, and deserves unflagging adoration and respect.
Cameron
This epilogue is very long, but it seems appropriate here, since we must always be mindful of exactly what we say and how it must be interpreted,.
"This is especially for those of you who have or have had or are about to have offspring (GENDER, notwithstanding) who have learned the fine art of maneuvering non-socially-owned, natural-resource-depleting, environmentally destructive modes of single-human-non-conforming transportation..
Have a nice day!
Dad: Son, come in here, we need to talk..
Son: What's up, Dad?
Dad: There's a scratch down the side of the car. Did you do it?
Son: I don't believe, if I understand the definition of "scratch the
car," that I can say, truthfully, that I scratched the car..
Dad: Well, it wasn't there yesterday, and you drove the car last
night, and no one else has driven it since. How can you explain the
scratch?
Son: Well, as I've said before, I have no recollection of scratching
the car. While it is true that I did take the car out last night, I
did not scratch it..
Dad: But your sister told me she saw you back the car against the
mailbox at the end of the driveway, heard a loud scraping sound, saw
you get out to examine the car, and then drive away. So again I'll
ask you, yes or no, did you scratch the car?
Son: Oh, you mean you think you have evidence to prove that I
scratched it. Well, you see, I understood you to mean did "I" scratch
the car. I stand by my earlier statement, that I did not scratch the
car..
Dad: Are you trying to tell me you didn't drive the car into the
mailbox?
Son: Well, you see sir, I was trying to drive the car into the
street. I mishandled the steering of the car, and it resulted in
direct contact with the mailbox, though that was clearly not my intent..
Dad: So you are saying that you did hit the mailbox?
Son: No sir, that's not my statement. I'll refer you back to my
original statement that I did not scratch the car..
Dad: But the car did hit the mailbox, and the car did get scratched
as a result of the contact?
Son: Well, yes, I suppose you could categorize it that way..
Dad: So you lied to me when you said you did not scratch the car?
Son: No. No, that is not correct. Your question was "Did I scratch
the car?" From a strict legal definition, as I understood the meaning
of that sentence, I did not scratch the car... the mailbox did... I
was merely present when the scratching occurred. So my answer of "No"
when you asked "Did I scratch the car" was legally correct, although I
did not volunteer information..
Dad: Where did you learn to talk like a complete idiot?
Son: From the President of the United States.." |
