[HAM] Ethics

[Aaron Friesen]

Hmmm, trying to find the beginning of all this I see something from a certain jonesinthewilderness, not dwdiddy.  Are two people ganging up on Mr. Brown (with whom I've had no contact so no reason for dislike or disrespect)?  Or is one person trying to look like two?  With changing subject lines and apparently changing original authors, the lines between fact and fancy are blurred (again, again, again; a common theme on this forum--I had to get used to it).  
   
  Anyway, without Mr. Brown's participation there can be no debate.  There never was one and there isn't now.  The author cannot separate truth from fiction, evidently.
   
  The original poster clearly has some knowledge/ maturity problems.  Perhaps they are not very old?  Teenage, maybe?  If you're going to present yourself on a public forum, you've got to expect that you're going to be judged, not so much by what you say about yourself, but by what you say about others.
   
  If Mr. Brown completely ignores this silliness, and if we do, the author will likely dry up, wither, and blow away.  From the text of his posts, he's pretty dry and withered already.  Ooops, did I say something?
   
  I can't help but notice that no real names are forthcoming, except that of Mr. Brown, who the author wishes to bash unchallenged.  That's not honest.  
   
  My name is Aaron Friesen.  Match that, both of you.
   
  Usually I snip; not this time.

D W <dwdiddy at gmail.com> wrote: (a.k.a. jonesinthewilderness??)
  I am disappointed that with all the vitriol, there has been no real 
debate as the the question of ethics that I posed. I reported the 
events as they happened, and I violated no ethics whatsoever. As a 
past customer of BB Organ, I believe I was entitled to an explanation.
Bill chose to not respond and address this issue privately, like a 
gentleman, or like a man. I was left to draw my own conclusions. Is 
this the way to treat a loyal customer?

I have done nothing untoward by shining a light on what appears a 
questionable action at best, and a sleazy irrational act of spite at 
worst. I posed a question that Bill chose not to address. How this 
makes me a bad guy is beyond me. The consensus here indicates what a 
fool I was to have trusted BB Organ. In retrospect, I concur.
The personal attacks combined with the consistent lack of intelligent 
debate on the topic I raised are telling.
I asked for opinions as to why a dealer so many wish to defend should 
do what appears to be an unethical act. Nobody yet has volunteered 
any theory whatsoever defending Bill Brown's interference in MY deal 
from an ethical standpoint.
Instead, there seems to be a tendency to shoot the messenger. I 
merely reported this, and offered my opinion and asked for the 
opinions of others.
We all thought of Bill as trustworthy. I found out the hard way that 
this is apparently not the case, and I brought it here for 
discussion. I would have been unethical had I said nothing.

I did not intentionally provide the seller's contact info to BB 
Organ. I intended to email the photos from the ad, but there was a 
time factor and I immediately called to find out what the organ was, 
which I did not know, and it was quicker just to direct BB Organ 
directly to the CraigsList ad, 2000 miles away from BB Organ. I did 
not just fall off the potato truck. The thought crossed my mind that 
this was not a good idea, but I figured I could trust Bill and his 
company, and he would likely not buy it out from under me due to the 
distance. I had mostly assumed that Bill was a man of honor, so that 
there was no real risk.

Also, even though this has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the ethics of 
Bill Brown's intervention in this deal, I never had a chance to buy 
the organ for $100. Another caller got there first, and I moved to 
the front of the line by telling the seller the organ was likely 
worth much more, and if he would hold off on the sale I would be 
happy to find out for him, and that I really had no idea other than 
it looked like a B3, which I knew was worth some dough. The seller 
indicated to me that he would prefer to sell the organ to me for this 
and other reasons as well, such as that it would be put to use by a 
musician in a studio.
The seller was very grateful for my honesty, and I proceeded to 
research as quickly as possible what the model and value might be, 
with the agreement that I would get back to him a.s.a.p. and that the 
organ would not be sold. I got big points for this with the seller.
The information Bill Brown emailed to the seller the next day was not 
the same I had gotten from Rich at BB Organ, which I had passed on to 
the seller by the time he got the email. This made me look less than 
truthful to the seller, and I believe this was done intentionally by 
Bill. If there was no ill intention, why would Bill ignore my 
request for an explanation?

To assume I should have known what the organ is worth is ridiculous. 
I didn't even know what it was. I am a professional guitar player 
and wear several other hats. I rely on professional service and 
consultants routinely. This was by all appearances a very real 
spiteful and intentional breach of trust. This is NOT the act of a 
reputable business.

I would still like to hear an explanation from anyone claiming I am 
throwing dirt at BB Organ to explain why and how this interference in 
my own deal was consistent with an ethical practice? I brought this 
organ to the attention of BB Organ.

If Bill wished to amend the information that Rich had given me, a 
loyal customer, why did he not contact me? Why did Bill fail to 
explain his action?
I would be remiss for NOT making this public.

Bill's reputation is far from pristine, and those who say it is here 
are lying or ignorant of the truth.
This matter can be immediately be put to rest by explaining how this 
action is justifiable by a reputable dealer. Until such reasonable 
explanation is provided, I can only assume that the dealer we have 
all thought was reputable in fact is not.
The public has a right to know, and there is nothing unreasonable or 
unethical in exposing such an act. In fact there is a duty to do so, 
to warn others of a little known risk.
--
Subscription Options/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.zeni.net/hf/
Hammond-Leslie FAQ: http://theatreorgans.com/hammond/faq/
HammondWiki: http://www.dairiki.org/HammondWiki/
hammond at zk3.dec.com archives: http://zk3.hammondforum.com/
Beta Forum Port: http://www.hammondforum.com/forum/