Hello,
On Wed, 01.04.2009 at 08:58:40 +0200, Artur Grabowski <a...@blahonga.org> wrote:
> Where do they come from? Suddenly there's this astroturfing campaign
> about... what? forcing Theo to do business with someone he has no
> intention of doing business with anymore?
this is a bit besides the issue, methinks. There are several issues
being discussed, and alluded to, here:
1. Theo not wanting to do business with Wim anymore.
2. The reasons(s) given why Theo does not want to do business with
Wim anymore.
3. Theo's handling of the case.
4. Wim's handling of the case.
5. People voicing opinions about the case.
6. "Fairness"
[ Sidebar: ]
While not strictly required by law, fairness in business is of
utmost importance to me.
I'm going to discuss mainly the second issue.
If a business relationship breaks up for whatever reason, one mainly
has two options:
* Declare the relationship terminated, and give no reason.
XOR...
* declare the relationship terminated, and give a lengthy explanation.
It is certainly Theo's prerogative to choose to do business with
whomever he wants to (ignoring any potential contract issues for the
moment), but if he gives a reason in the first place, the reason has to
be sound and verifiable, like with any other statement, too.
This is currently not the case.
I can only see two statements on the table which (at least) I can't
reconcile:
Theo's statement that Wim hasn't paid for a very long time, and Wim's
statement that he has paid in full, and in a timely manner (sometimes
in advance, too). Wim has published his version of this story on his
homepage, decorated with numbers, but I haven't seen anything
comparable from Theo, except for these messages on this mailing list.
Without having audited both side's paperwork, there is no way to say
what actually happened, or should have happened, unless one declares
one set of arguments void. I have no reason to believe that Theo or Wim
have pulled their stories entirely out of thin air, and I also don't
believe in both person's attempts to feed me their respective "Fox News
style" opinion and demand exclusive truth for it, too.
If I have missed something important, please point it out to me.
I'd like to note that I don't want to "take sides", but I am very
interested in getting some sanity back into this discussion.
So, I'd say that everyone interested reads through Wim's statement and
then thinks about how much sense this all makes to him, or her. Leaving
out most if not all of the "moral" discussion about how to use, or not
use, the disputed money, and instead concentrate on "contract and
accounting issues" would imho help.
My current personal assessment is that this story is far from being as
black and white as it's being painted by the protagonists, and some of
the audience, too. And last but not least, please keep in mind that
"believing" something is the opposite of "knowing" something. I'd
rather know and not believe (because I have no way to know).
Kind regards,
--Toni++
