You didn't read your own code of ethics.
It states if you have a bias, you disclose it. David HAD a bias in his
original post and DID NOT disclose it. He DID subsequently disclose
that bias AFTER I had called him on it and I commend him for it.
This is the problem with codes of ethics - it's exceedingly difficult to
write a code of ethnics that makes it possible to beat someone over the
head who is being ethical - but is being ethical in a way that is insulting.
Now, if you would like to discuss the ACTUAL ethical issue instead of
trying to use your code to beat me over the head because you didn't
like the tone of my response - great!
Otherwise, seems to me that I'm not the only one on a high horse
this morning....
Ted
On 7/10/2014 8:56 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
<soapbox>
I believe strongly that ALL IT admins would be well guided by reading
the SAGE ethics guide
http://www.pccc.com/base.cgim?template=sage_code_of_ethics
Can't recommend it highly enough and I think it would guide well in this
gray areas on how to handle things.
I didn't like that a poster with good intentions was attacked because he
couldn't discuss specifics. To me, that's when I look at the credibility
of the speaker to gauge the credibility of the story. Further, I can't
think of a single tenant of the ethics guidelines that DFS didn't
maintain in his posting AND his credibility in the anti-spam community
is as excellent (as long as you ignore his commercials:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccIzZS_wD6U).
Anyway, there are a lot of bad actors out there that we need to focus on
stopping. Attacking good actors just because we don't like their
"acting" (and DFS' acting is horrible) just helps the bastard spammers.
Please keep this in mind in the future.
</soapbox>
Regards,
KAM
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
