I just got off the phone with Michael Busselen, a senior vice president and
general manager of Fleishman-Hillard in their San Diego office.
Michael called me to apologize for the threats against the Well and
Politech that Fleishman-Hillard's mail admin Chuck Magner made yesterday.
"The language, tone and approach was never that of the firm as a whole. We
humbly offer our apology," Michael said. "It was not reflecting the full
and endorsed viewpoint of the firm."
Michael said that he did not want to send email for fear of being deluged
with less-than-complimentary messages if his email address were released.
It seems that the messages Fleishman-Hillard did receive were noticed ("the
Blackberries were buzzing all night long.")
Michael also described the snafu involving Marna McClure's frustrations
with Politech. It turns out that a Fleishman-Hillard employee hired before
Marna (Melissa McClure) had the email address mccluremat_private, and
Marna was assigned mcclurem2at_private when she was hired as an office
manager. Then Melissa (who had indeed subscribed to Politech in 1998) left
the firm -- without unsubscribing first -- and Chuck-the-mail-admin told
Marna that she could have the more desirable mccluremat_private address.
Sometime in the last few weeks, Chuck assigned Marna the additional
mccluremat_private address -- without telling her he had actually done
so -- so she started to receive Politech messages. She didn't know that
address was now hers, and tried to unsubscribe her mcclurem2at_private
address. That, naturally, didn't work.
Marna replied to me yesterday in frustration, saying: "I will report this
as spam if you do not get me off your email list immediately."
She sent Chuck her correspondence with me (Michael put it diplomatically:
"She copied our less-than-eloquent IT manager") which led to the memorable
conversation we had yesterday. Chuck told me at the time: "I consider it an
honor and privilige to use all the technology tools available at making you
go away, I will be contacting you personally as soon as possible."
(http://www.politechbot.com/p-03367.html)
I have not heard back from Chuck or Marna since the Politech messages went
out. The only contact I've had with Fleishman-Hillard has been with
Michael, who offered a gracious apology.
Some Politech members have blocked mail from fleishman.com or blocked
fleishman.com employees from connecting to certain sites. Michael has asked
that the blocks be lifted, which I completely endorse.
Michael said that Fleishman-Hillard has not blocked the Well or Politech
from its company's computers: "Chuck's not in a position to unilaterally
block emails or make any such decisions. He got a little ahead of himself."
Michael also said "the simplest lesson here is that when we change or alter
email addresses, we need to make sure notification takes place."
I thank Michael for the phone call and and Politech members for the show of
support.
-Declan
---
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 08:16:45 -0400
From: "J.D. Abolins" <jda-irat_private>
Subject: Re: FC: Politech members reply to Fleishman-Hillard PR firm's threats
To: declanat_private, politechat_private
Declan,
I am late with my comments but I add my vote of support for you.
In my decade long work with the Internet and a longer period with other PC
communications, I've seen many tangles like the recent "spam" accusation.
For one reason or another, a person is subscribed to a maillist, the person
can't unsubscribe or the person leaves and the net administrators can't
figure out how to stop the maillist subscription, and the people freak out.
True, they have a problem with the maillist account but it is not a spam
problem.
Alas, the word "spam" is veering into the bin of polemics to use without
regard for the real meaning. Thus, any emails that one doesn't like or that
cause an inconvenience are called "spam", drawing upon the moral
connotations of the word.
To be a bit extra "charitable" to the F-H PR firm's net administrator, it
*may* be that person is competent with the immediate operations of the
networks. I have know many net and systems administrators who learned how
to run the equipment and the software but were weak on the human (e.g.;
legal, political, and social) aspects of computing. Computer training
course rarely teach people these aspects. After all, the measure of quality
for much of the training is that the systems run. So sometimes I have heard
shocking claims made about subjects such as privacy and info law made by
some systems administrators. They ventured into areas which they have not
really examined. It is easy to fall into the "False Authority Syndrome"
(see Rob Rosenberger's excellent paper on FAS at
http://www.vmyths.com/fas/fas1.cfm).
Thank you for maintaining the excellent Politech list.
J.D. Abolins (Disclosure: I have sometimes slipped into FAS myself)
Meyda Online Info Security & Privacy Studies
http://www.MeydaOnline.com
---
From: Charlie Oriez <coriezat_private>
Organization: Lumber Cartel [tinlc]
To: declanat_private
Subject: Fleishman-Hillard seems to have an open spam relay of their own
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 07:45:04 -0600
You'll recall that the FH admin asked that complaints about Politech
should be sent to dorkslayers, which is an open relay database. My
tests gave the politech/well.com mail server a clean bill of health.
However, it seemed only fair to check FH as well, since they were
encouraging relay tests on machines belonging to others.
I found some FH spam posted in news.admin.net-abuse.sightings from
early last year and did minimal tests on the mail server the spam
came through. Note it is not conclusive. The server could be a
honey pot (a machine which appears deceptively open but eats the spam
without transmitting it).
I did confirm that IPA still belongs to FH and is still listed as a
mail server. They own that entire /24 according to whois and
nslookup showed that IPA as mail.fleishman.com. I then asked ordb
(another open relay db) to confirm the test by running their own
tests, but it seems that someone else beat me to it. "The address
you supplied is already in the queue, and will be checked during the
next run. (207.193.111.249)".
The FH spam from Jan 2001:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=207.193.111.249&hl=en&group=news.admin.net-abuse.*&sa=G&scoring=d
Relay test 7>>> RSET
<<< 250 OK - Reset
>>> MAIL FROM:<spamtest@[207.193.111.249]>
<<< 250 OK - mail from <spamtest@[207.193.111.249]>
>>> RCPT TO:<relaytest%abuse.netat_private>
<<< 250 OK - Recipient <RELAYTEST%ABUSE.NETat_private>
Relay test result Hmmn, at first glance, host appeared to accept a
message for relay.
THIS MAY OR MAY NOT MEAN THAT IT'S AN OPEN RELAY.
Some systems appear to accept relay mail, but then reject messages
internally rather than delivering them, but you cannot tell at this
point whether the message will be relayed or not.
You cannot tell if it is really an open relay without sending a test
message; this anonymous user test DID NOT send a test message.
---
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:27:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Mozena <mozat_private>
To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>
Subject: Re: FC: Fleishman-Hillard PR firm blocks all mail from well.com,
Politech
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> >>cause not only our users at the desktop by having to spend valuable work
> >>time deleting your unsolicited emails, but also our IT department by
> >>having to create filters to eliminate your junk. I have advised Ms
> >>Mcclure and everybody else in our company to report all unsolicted emails
> >>from you and those originating from well.com to;
[snip]
Furrfu. As somebody who does PR both professionally in the tech
industry to pay the mortgage and pro-bono for CAUCE and other
anti-spam efforts to keep my karma in balance, this disgusts me
on so many levels.
The stereotypical knock on antispammers is that we see no problem
with destroying the village in order to save it -- e.g. John
Gilmore's net.stigmata .sig and over-the-top response -- and the
stereotype of PR flacks is that we really don't understand what
we're talking about, but are happy to spam the world in order to
"get the word out." Mr. Magner has managed to reinforce both of
those stereotypes in one brief e-mail.
There *are* PR people who do understand what they're talking
about, even in the tech industry, and do their best to not talk
at people who don't want to listen. There *are* anti-spammers who
are concerned about both the damage that spam does to the Net as
well as the collateral damage caused by efforts -- some of them
admittedly over-the-top -- to reduce the spam volume.
Apparently, Mr. Magner is neither of the above. But he doesn't
speak for me, and I suspect it'll be interesting to see to what
degree he actually speaks for Fleishman-Hilliard, which generally
exhibits more clue than this.
(In the interests of full disclosure, F-H is a competitor to
$EMPLOYER.)
--
John Mozena
Co-founder and VP for PR
Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail
(CAUCE, www.cauce.org)
---
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 19:27:47 -0600
To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>
From: "Richard Johnson" <rdumpat_private>
Subject: Re: FC: Fleishman-Hillard PR firm blocks all mail from well.com,
Politech
Cc: postmasterat_private
At 23:33 -0700 on 09/04/2002, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> [On second reading, it's not entirely clear whether Chuck is blocking all
> mail from the Well and Politech himself or just encouraging everyone at
> Fleishman-Hillard to do so. In any case, it's a sad case of self-appointed,
> anti-spam vigilantes run amok... --Declan]
As a self-appointed spam vigilante, of the hard-core variety, I really must
object. I resent your comparison, on behalf of all legitimate anti-spam
vigilantes (tanlav) everywhere.
According to the message you quote, "Magner, Chuck" <magnercat_private>
is upset because one of his users was having trouble unsubscribing from the
Politech mailing list. Her mail is being forwarded from the address under
which she subscribed to her new address, and she was trying to unsubscribe
the wrong address. Rather than calmly asking that the situation, which is
quite common on long-running lists, simply be fixed, Mr. Magner used it as
an excuse to:
o Threaten to have his users report the Politech list to SPEWS.
Anyone who knows how SPEWS operates (see <http://www.spews.org/faq.html>)
will get a huge belly-laugh out of that nonsensical threat.
o Threaten to have his users report the Politech list to MAPS.
Since the reports won't, nay, can't be proper MAPS nominations (see
<http://www.mail-abuse.org/rbl/notifyfaq.html>), he's just wasting
his users', and more importantly, MAPS's time.
o Threaten to have his users report the Politech list to Dorkslayers.
Read the Dorkslayers site, and laugh a bit more with me.
o Threaten to have his users report the Politech list to Spamhaus.
That's a sad waste of Stiff.Lynfed's time. You know Stiff -- he's
the as-yet-uncannonized saint who is getting China to clean the
American criminal spam gangs off their networks:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=hbNf8.22%24MY.866%40psinet-eu-nl>
Steve Linford (his name was mistranslated in that article :-) has real,
effective, volunteer anti-spam work to do <http://www.spamhaus.org/>,
which won't be helped by false reports from Mr. Magner's users.
o Threaten to have his users report the Politech list to the blacklist
at nofalsenegatives.stopspam.samspade.org.
The utter stupidity of that threat (just try looking up any IP in that
list) almost make me think Mr. Magner is joking. Almost. But it seems
he really did fall for the joke himself.
To Mr. Magner's credit, he didn't threaten to report the Politech list to
the FBI, CIA, FTC, and Interpol, in the manner of a raving loon (a term of
art in the anti-spam community). However, his missing raving loon
designation doesn't excuse the nonsensical threats he did make.
In short, it seems that Mr. Magner is not vigilant enough to be a bona-fide
anti-spam vigilante. Please don't tar the rest of us with his brush.
Unlike like the hard, parallel, and pointed bristles in the brushes used by
us real anti-spam vigilantes, Mr. Magner's bristles are weak, kinked, and
come out at all kinds of weird angles.
As a result, I judge that Mr. Magner is simply too ineffective to be a part
of our vigilante club (tinvc).
In the meantime, I note that Mr. Magner includes a bogus legalistic mess in
his message (see <http://www.river.com/users/share/etiquette/#legalistic>
for why that's beyond silly). As a matter of course, we block domains that
send us such insulting, wasteful and useless dreck, especially when it
comes along with a bad attitude. Whoops, looks like fleishman.com has a
problem:
| fleishman.com REJECT # 2004-04-09, legalistic craptrap
Hey, I told you I was a vigilante. ;-)
Richard Johnson
---
Reply-To: <karmstroat_private>
From: "Kirsten Armstrong" <karmstroat_private>
To: <politechat_private>
Subject: fleishman hillard - can't we all just get along?
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:02:58 -0700
hi declan,
please disregard if this thread is already dead, otherwise i'm chiming in as
one of 'them' - a pr person.
something like this happened to me once, a sales rep in my company flamed an
editor after a negative product review. hey, i don't have to tell this list
everyone's entitled to their own opinion. the ed gave me a heads up and
asked if this was an official response from the company. of course it
wasn't, and i couldn't believe i was actually being asked this question
instead of simply reading the letter to the editor in the next issue. in
the end the letter ran, negatively affecting the whole company's reputation
thanks to one person shooting their mouth off.
chuck from fleishman is clearly a back-office guy, most likely not someone
who has day-to-day media contact - just wanted to point that out so maybe
people won't be so quick to jump to that familiar 'all pr people are morons'
conclusion. however it would seem reasonable to expect someone in his
position to be able to look at an e-mail header and figure out which address
is being used. and the would-be unsubscribers really should know better -
from the thread it looks like they couldn't figure it out on their side and
started threatening you. really inexcusable - i bet their clients think one
of the things they're paying them for is being able to handle basic business
communications in a professional manner.
i think the point, if there even is one, is that a company's reputation is
the sum of every point of contact it has with the public. you can't control
it by designating spokespeople or limiting who's authorized to talk with the
press. hard to believe any pr agency has trouble understanding that. some
very smart people work at fleishman, but they may not have any idea that
this is going on. even so, this seems simple enough to resolve, if they
haven't already. one of the higher ups can cut here ->
dear declan,
the situation regarding unsubscibe requests to politech
has come to my
attention. please accept my apologies for the unprofessional conduct
displayed by a few fleishman employees. we have confirmed that people who
are on your list requested to be on it, and that unsubscribing is a simple
task. because of changed e-mail addresses some individuals had difficulty
getting off the list. i apologize for the way this was handled, and that
the situation was wrongly escalated with threats of forwarding your
information to anti-spam organizations. we have no intentions of taking any
such actions, and have taken steps internally to ensure that this will not
happen again.
we at fleishman-hillard value our relationships with the
media, and
consider politech to be an important resource for the internet community.
we would be deeply grateful for your understanding that these actions do not
reflect the views of our many talented professionals who are committed to
excellence in internet based communications.
sincerely,
whoever
thanks for listening,
- kirsten
---
From: "Allen Smith" <easmithat_private>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 21:40:48 -0400
To: list-managersat_private, spamcop-listat_private
Subject: Joe-Job: FC: Fleishman-Hillard PR firm blocks all mail from
well.com, Politech
Cc: declanat_private, lichcat_private, postmasterat_private
I will additionally add that, from personal experience, politech has a full
random-cookie confirmed subscription procedure, via Majordomo. This email is
sent to list-managers to let people know that they may wish to unsubscribe
all fleishman.com email addresses (with notification of exactly what idiot
at Fleishman-Hillard is responsible), and to the spamcop list so that false
accusations from fleishman.com can be recognized. Further information can be
found at http://www.politechbot.com/p-03367.html and
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03369.html.
---
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:54:34 -0400
To: magnercat_private, postmasterat_private
From: Nick Simicich <njsat_private>
Subject: Fwd: MEDIA: [declanat_private: FC: Fleishman-Hillard PR firm blocks
all mail from well.com, Politech]
I just read the below correspondence record between you and Decian.
I run a number of legitimate, opt-in mailing lists. I do it as a hobby as
well, and I also have a policy that requires that a user make an effort to
unsub themselves before I will help them, and, if there is an issue where
they have subscribed from one address and are unsubbing another, I also ask
that they make an attempt to use the system I have put in place that allows
them to do the cross-unsubscribe.
It is a hobby on my part, and I don't have the time to do a lot of manual
work - the automated systems are able to deal with all cases I have run
into when the instructions are followed. I've also had instances where
subscribers have tried to harass other subscribers by unsubbing them, by
trying to manipulate me into doing the deletions, even representing
themselves as "the administrator of a domain, please unsub everyone at my
site" when in fact no such relationship existed.
So my policy is either you (a) unsub yourself or (b) you work with me in
identifying the software failure that stops you from unsubbing yourself, at
which point you (a) unsub yourself. I believe that this is a common policy.
You are acting foolish, in my opinion. I believe that if you report any
mail from politech as spam, you are committing fraud. You have, after all,
solicited the mail.
However, it is unfortunate that I can't risk my own domains and net
connection with spam complaints - nor am I willing to deal with people who
deal with unwanted legitimate mailing list mail by making unwarranted spam
complaints rather than simply unsubscribing. I am therefore going to have
to take the step of blocking all main from your domain so that you can't
subscribe in the first place.
---
From: Rick Kelly <rmkat_private>
Subject: Re: FC: Fleishman-Hillard PR firm blocks all mail from
well.com, Politech
To: declanat_private
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 20:09:02 -0600 (MDT)
Declan McCullagh said:
>[On second reading, it's not entirely clear whether Chuck is blocking all
>mail from the Well and Politech himself or just encouraging everyone at
>Fleishman-Hillard to do so. In any case, it's a sad case of self-appointed,
>anti-spam vigilantes run amok... --Declan]
While not earthshaking, the rmkhome.com domain (about 18 machines) is now
blocking fleishman.com at the IP level for their whole /24.
Also, I am a UNIX consultant, and I will block them at other sites that I
work at.
--
Rick Kelly rmkat_private www.rmkhome.com
---
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 21:24:27 -0500
To: declanat_private
From: Mick Williams <host@cyber-line.com>
Subject: Re: FC: Politech members reply to Fleishman-Hillard PR firm's
threats
Cc: magnercat_private, mccluremat_private, cravenlat_private,
Mcclurem2at_private, boudreamat_private,
mooneyrat_private,
pendergbat_private
Declan,
I thought they sounded familiar. Rob Allyn works here in their Dallas
office. They're the ones that gave us Laura Miller for Dallas Mayor!
And as everyone has pointed out, I've been a list member since 1996(?) and I
had to sign up personally. I have no intention of opting out!
I wonder how Ms. Miller feels about her "PR" firm bashing Politech members?
Anyone in Dallas want to go to a City Council meeting every Wednesday?
When her "Mayorness" statrs screwing up the city, now you know who to blame:
Those fine folks at Fleishman-Hillard!
Mick Williams
Host
Mick Williams Cyber Line
http://www.cyber-line.com
---
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:36:13 -0400
From: Nick Bretagna <onemugat_private>
Reply-To: afn41391at_private
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: magnercat_private
CC: mccluremat_private, cravenlat_private, boudreamat_private,
mooneyrat_private
Subject: Spam?
So,
a) The people at your company are complete imbeciles who can't figure out
how to unsubscribe.
b) Your so-called "tech" guy is a drooling half-wit who can't comprehend
the difference between simple difficulties getting off a mailing list and
"unsolicited e-mail" -- in other words, between deliberate SPAM and
inadvertent borderline spam (hint: there is a considerable difference
between something you never asked to receive and something you're
discontinuing).
c) Your so-called "tech" guy is also a congenital idiot who can't figure
out how to tell your (once more:) moronic imbecile employees how to
unsubscribe himself (What is this guy, an MCSE fresh from DeVry's, that he
doesn't know about Politech???).
...and so, as a "so-called" PR firm, you figure it's a good idea to piss on
one of the most respected and well appreciated tech journalists on the net?
Offhand the only names that might be worth more are Jerry Pournelle and
John Dvorak, and that's iffy in both cases.
I have to say, I think most people with the slightest knowledge of tech
issues will now know they should be avoiding your firm in droves. It's
clear you really haven't the slightest knowledge of tech issues even in
your tech department. Hopefully, you weren't figuring on any tech accounts
as a part of your future cash flow. Those will not be included in any
future revenues.
p.s., as someone else noted:
While Chuck is considering "it an honor and privilige to use all the
technology tools available", he might consider starting with spell-check.
BWAAAAAAhahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
What an Idiot.
You people must be one of the bigger clutch of morons to incorporate out
there.
I certainly hope so. I can't imagine how society could continue to function
if not.
CLUE <-Get one, they're absolutely FREE !!!!
--
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Nicholas Bretagna II
<mailto:afn41391at_private>mailto:afn41391at_private
"Formerly, we suffered from crimes.
Now, we suffer from laws."
- Tacitus -
---
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 20:30:14 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1at_private>
Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
To: declanat_private
CC: politechat_private, magnercat_private, mccluremat_private,
cravenlat_private, Mcclurem2at_private,
boudreamat_private,
mooneyrat_private, pendergbat_private
Subject: Re: FC: Politech members reply to Fleishman-Hillard PR firm's threats
Declan and all,
Thanks Declan for this heads up on Flieshman-Hillard. We were
reviewing some PR firms and Flieshman-Hillard was on the list
for our consideration. After reading this, they no longer are....
I am sure we will NOT recommend them either to anyone when
ask, as we often are...
---
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 00:23:44 -0700
From: Tim McGraw <tmcgrawat_private>
Reply-To: tmcgrawat_private
To: pendergbat_private, busselenat_private, wickenddat_private,
sabatinmat_private
CC: declanat_private, magnercat_private, mcclurem2at_private,
mccluremat_private
Subject: Fleishman-Hillard Comments Hurt Responsible List Managers
Marna McClure of your San Diego office susbscribes to Declan McCullagh's
fine "Politech" newsletter for four years and in a fit of passion
reveals to the world how little about high-tech Fleishman *really* knows
(with ample help from Chuck Magner, some kind of poor excuse for a mail
administrator).
I report spam every day. I know what spam is. Declan's newsletter is not
spam. To suggest that you would block The Well.com - the original
"Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link" founded nine years before anyone ever
logged on to the Internet - is a supreme embarrassment for Fleishman.
The only way you will ever recover from this is to have Marna & Chuck
make a PUBLIC apology to Declan. There is no need to go through all the
press release hassles - just have them post it to
news.admin.net-abuse.email - anyone who would need to see it will
certainly see it there.
McClure and Magner have done a great disservice to the public at large
for uttering "Declan McCullagh's Politech" and "spam" in the same
sentence. Declan's is not only one of the longest-running and
prestigious newsletters of its kind, but a very well-managed one at that.
You should have all Fleishman-Hillard mail administrators worldwide read
the following so they can tell legitimate newsletters from and for
professionals apart from diploma offers, casino scams, penny stock pump
'n' dumps or "Viagra without a doctor":
http://mail.abuse.net/manage.html
Tim McGraw
510-845-9063
persuasivecopy.com
---
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 16:27:16 +0700
From: Vanja <vanjaat_private>
To: declanat_private
Cc: politechat_private, magnercat_private, mccluremat_private,
cravenlat_private, Mcclurem2at_private,
boudreamat_private,
mooneyrat_private
Subject: Re: FC: Fleishman-Hillard PR firm blocks all mail from well.com,
Politech
-- quote --
spamcop.net
nofalsenegatives.stopspam.samspade.org blacklist
http://mail-abuse.org
Dorkslayers Zero Tolerance List http://www.dorkslayers.com/
Spam Prevention Early Warning System http://www.spews.org/
Spamhaus Block List http://www.spamhaus.org/
"I consider it an honor and privilige to use all the technology tools
available at making you go away, I will be contacting you personally as
soon as possible."
-- end quote --
Chuck,
Thanks for an AWESOME laugh. It really made my day.
Declan and Politech have been around probably longer than you have used
computer. And you *seriously* think that your word will have ANY value to
anti-spam community, which knows Declan and Politech very well? You just
risk being blacklisted yourself.
Well, Fleishman-Hillard is blacklisted on my mail servers, for starters.
And you'll be surprised how powerful the "word of mouth" really is. The
word just got out.
Vanja
---
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 00:24:31 +0200
From: "Wojciech S. Czarnecki" <ohirat_private>
To: waynejat_private, sawyerkat_private, walgreeaat_private,
mooneydat_private, bakeraat_private, kscottcat_private,
chavezfpat_private, divitojat_private, hagmandat_private,
bauerssat_private, davidaat_private, flemingjat_private,
garcialat_private, blairpat_private, howardlat_private,
fogertyjat_private, divitojat_private, steinfkaat_private,
Karchertat_private
Subject: Follow: Fleishman-Hillard PR firm blocks all mail from well.com,
Politech
X-PGPkey: http://www.xox.pl/klucze.txt [adminiat_private key]
X-keyFP: FD E7 55 A2 D5 13 A9 CD 25 82 4D 75 EF 4E 3C 66
Dear Sirs and Madams,
At your website I saw a proud statement that
> We live out this goal by adhering to the following
> ten basic principles:
>
> 1. Respect for the individual
> 2. Teamwork is everything
> 3. Quality service is first and foremost in everything we do
> 4. New business drives the firm
> 5. Results make us grow
> 6. Existing clients come first
> 7. Fleishman-Hillard requires a personal commitment
> 8. Entrepreneurship is a way of life
> 9. Personal success is measurable and attainable
> 10. We are committed to the highest ethical standards
Sad to inform you that, in my opinion, at least seven out of
these ten points are - euphemistically spoken - invalid.
Thinking above proud wishes in the light of the wrongs that your
computer-illiterate employees made to (politech at) well (dot com) I see:
Ad. 1,10) Neither M(r)s. Marna McClure nor Mr. Mr. Chuck Magner have shown
respect for Politech list owner. Such threats, and especially
their wording are breathtaking. It all has nothing in common with
ethics. Boorishness is far too light word to name it.
Conclusion: in my opinion, the 1st and 10th principles weren't ones
Ms. Marna McClure nor Mr. Chuck Magner abide to.
Induction: in my opinion, this principle is not one significant to
Fleishman-Hillard crew.
Ad. 2) In my opinion, both M(r)s. Marna McClure and Mr. Chuck Magner
have shown that meaning of the "teamwork" term is somewhat
unknown to them. They neither could advise each other how to do
such simple thing as to unsubscribe [2] from the list; nor they
were able to accomplish it in team with Mr. Declan McCullagh.
Apparently, their meaning of "teamwork" is equal to
"someone else has to do it for me".
Conclusion: in my opinion, the 2nd principle wasn't one M(r)s. Marna McClure
and Mr. Chuck Magner can understand.
Induction: in my opinion, this principle is not one significant to
Fleishman-Hillard crew.
Ad. 3,4) In my opinion, neither Mrs. Marna McClure nor Mr. Mr. Chuck Magner
could follow a few simple steps needed to unsubscribe from the list.
The few simple steps that any 8yo farmboy knows how to do.
Conclusion: in my opinion, the goal stated by 3rd principle can NOT be
achieved by individuals not accustomed to frightening computers
and terrifying internet. As we go to the 4th principle:
how one wants to do NEW businesses, how one can
nowadays claim "quality" in ANY business if one can't
type on keyboard nor does click-clack thru the Web?)
Induction: in my opinion, this principle is just a slogan.
Ad. 5) In my opinion, bad PR is first step to disaster.
Its even more true for PR firm.
(Though this one stated principle is true. At least if author tought
"good results".)
Ad. 6) Could be. True.
Ad. 7) Could require. True.
Ad. 8) Good basis.
Ad. 9) This point does not say about boorishness, computer-illiteracy,
and about ones that endanger its business' PR by showing above
traits open to the the well-known, well-managed and at first
very useful list. (Read by some tens thousand people, AFAIK).
Thank You for Your attention,
Sincerely Yours,
--
Wojciech S. Czarnecki
<< ^oo^ >> OHIR-RIPE
P.S. bcc-eed to declan at well dot com
---
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 19:05:22 -0700
To: magnercat_private, mccluremat_private, cravenlat_private,
Mcclurem2at_private, boudreamat_private,
mooneyrat_private,
pendergbat_private
From: Bill Caughey <res00plfat_private>
Subject: Please be sure to block my domain too...
You folks may know something about something, but you don't have a clue
about the internet. Watch and count carefully, your wee little snit with
Declan and Politech is going to end up being some of the most expensive
email exchanges ever recorded. Now please be sure to block my domain too!
Public relations indeed!
-b-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bill Caughey (COY)
Redlands, SoCal
res00plfat_private
---
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Politech dinner in SF on 4/16: http://www.politechbot.com/events/cfp2002/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Apr 10 2002 - 12:51:42 PDT