Re: Speaking of ethics (was Re: Wal-Mart (andIBM)

[Guest guest]

It seems to me that Francesca's accusations as stated below are entirely

false.

(See discussion below including my postscript question about whether

recipe contributors lose the rights to their recipes.)

Maybe Francesca's unfounded ethics charges are a sort of " shoot the

messenger " action. I.e., maybe Francesca favors Wal-Mart's business

practices and is choosing to support Wal-Mart by attacking me. It's hard

to see why else she dredged up things I wrote in 2002 and early 2003 on

other topics and posted as she did this morning. Here's what she says:

> ... as part of this argument, I have taken exception to

> YOUR ethics in the past with respect to the way you conduct business.

> In the posts below you promote yourself in your signature line in the

> first one (a violation of our rules here).

(I think Francesca meant the second linked-to post:

/message/6252)

I confess I haven't read this list's rules recently, and I do understand

that they change from time to time, but my recollection is that in the

past when I mentioned my business in my signature lines I had consulted

the rules and it had seemed clear that sig file mentions weren't

violations of any list rule.

If somehow the rules had changed before that post and I'd missed noticing,

then it seems the worst you could say is that I made an inadvertent

error--not that one could reasonably take " exception to [my] ethics. "

If my having replied last night to Rodney's suggestion (that I try

operating a business before I criticized Wal-Mart) was a violation of some

new rule, I apologize for having inadvertently broken the new rule. It

seemed natural to reply to Rodney and seemed wrong to leave the impression

hanging that I was criticizing a business while having no business

experience whatever, no understanding of how businesspeople might feel

pressure to lessen business problems by cutting corners or worse.

> In the second [first] one you had an objection

> to our publishing a (free) cookbook....

I don't believe I ever expressed (or harbored) any objection to

Francesca's publishing a free cookbook. (See the link below to my post

No. 5171, to read what I said regarding recipe inclusion there.)

I do recall being puzzled to read somewhere that *she* expressed an

objection to *my* beginning work on a cookbook, saying (as best I recall)

either that she thought it was wrong for people to make money or that she

thought it was wrong for people to make money in ways that involved CR.

> ... strictly for the (undisclosed in your

> post) reason that you hoped to publish one using our recipes and making

> money from that venture. I knew this for a fact because you contacted

> me off-list about doing that.

In October, 2002, I had posted a concern that Francesca, by organizing her

online cookbook in the way she was contemplating, might be legally

stipulating that a recipe originator who agreed to inclusion in her

cookbook would be giving up all rights to future decisions regarding that

recipe:

/message/5171

I had indeed thought of contacting some recipe originators to ask about

including recipes in another sort of cookbook. And maybe I could have

clarified or strengthened my point in post 5171 if I'd thought to mention

" my " cookbook as part of the discussion of legal technicalities--but

certainly no subterfuge was involved in my not having thought to do so.

Whether or not *I* ever published, some recipe originators might not want

to give up the rights to further use of their recipes, and it seems only

right that people be informed. Some wouldn't care, of course, but some

would.

My lack of subterfuge is evidenced by my having brought up my own cookbook

idea with Francesca off-list. I went to her in an open and trusting

manner, thinking that her " " list name indicated that she'd

be supportive with ideas and with warmth, and I was genuinely surprised to

find otherwise.

There's no reason to think that my having considered legal ramifications,

and/or my having contributed thoughts to Francesca's and the list's

decisionmaking base, could rationally lead to any sort of ethics charge.

Even if somehow there were any reason, these matters are truly minuscule

compared to the massive harm done by Wal-Mart practices--another reason to

think that the accusations against me were made in order to shoot the

messenger.

Lynn

P.S. By the way, how has the recipe legality matter been decided? Do

recipe contributors here give up the right to agree to future publication

elsewhere? Do they give up the right to sell, license, lend, or donate

their recipes? Do they give up the right to publish elsewhere themselves?

If so, is this made crystal clear to prospective recipe contributors?

What is the text of the controlling legal document?

----- Original Message -----

From: " Francesca Skelton " <fskelton@...>

< >

Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 5:31 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Speaking of ethics (was Re: Wal-Mart

(andIBM)

Lynn: In all fairness, as part of this argument, I have taken exception

to

YOUR ethics in the past with respect to the way you conduct business. I

commend you for not mentioning your business til now but that was not

always

the case in past posts of yours.

In the posts below you promote yourself in your signature line in the

first

one (a violation of our rules here). In the second one you had an

objection

to our publishing a (free) cookbook strictly for the (undisclosed in your

post) reason that you hoped to publish one using our recipes and making

money from that venture. I knew this for a fact because you contacted me

off-list about doing that.

/message/5171

/message/6252

on 4/2/2004 2:25 AM, Lynn at dayrain@... wrote:

> It seems that although they're expert regarding profitability, they're

not

> particularly interested in ethics. And/or maybe the ranking process is

> skewed; maybe a company only gets a small number of points for decency

in

> dealing and operating.

I am running a business (supplement sales, with most of my customers drawn

from the CR community), and I agree that business is difficult.

[Guest guest]

Commercial activity and anti-commercial activity are

two sides of the same coin. Such issues have little

or nothing to do with CR. They are disruptive.

Francesca simply serves as a volunteer to moderate the

List. We all thank her.

Commercial and anti-commercial messages are not about

CR, so we can all stay on topic and all be friends

(forever and ever!).

-- Warren

PS: Dr. Spindler just published an article

covering the details of how rats age 60 to 65

in human years live an average 42 percent longer

after starting on late-life CR.

In human years, that is an extra 10 or 15 years.

Very nice! CR might actually be terrific for the

older folks after all. Email me off-list for a

post-script formatted copy of the article. I plan

on emailing out all copies on Wednesday next week,

after I collect the requests.

[Guest guest]

I do not shop at Wal Mart and I am not a stockholder and have no stake in

being pro or con as Lynn suggests.

I also have the personal e-mails that were written between myself and Lynn

back when the cookbook was being discussed. I have re-read them and IMHO I

was kind and patient (however I told her that I didn't think it was a good

idea). If anyone is interested is seeing these, contact me off list.

Our rules clearly state that members who post only to gain financially are

considered spammers. Lynn has posted very rarely and only with some

connection to her business which raises my antennae . So Lynn, if you

something to contribute about CRON, which is ON TOPIC, by all means, prove

me wrong.

I apologize to everyone if we have strayed too far afield. Running a group

has its difficulties. I suggest we get back to the business of CRON and any

further discussions of Wal Mart or personal conflicts be off-list.

on 4/2/2004 12:29 PM, Lynn at dayrain@... wrote:

> Maybe Francesca's unfounded ethics charges are a sort of " shoot the

> messenger " action. I.e., maybe Francesca favors Wal-Mart's business

> practices and is choosing to support Wal-Mart by attacking me. It's hard

> to see why else she dredged up things I wrote in 2002 and early 2003 on

> other topics and posted as she did this morning.

My lack of subterfuge is evidenced by my having brought up my own cookbook

idea with Francesca off-list. I went to her in an open and trusting

manner, thinking that her " " list name indicated that she'd

be supportive with ideas and with warmth, and I was genuinely surprised to

find otherwise.