Re: Here are the 2 posts by Cedroc that were removed

posted on Nov 06, 10 02:36PM by Glorieux:

The following should be read in conjunction of my original postingBanning and Censorship on this Forum of Nov. 05, 10 09:08PM

Hello, Glorieux:

I thank you for producing the above two postings of Cedroc.

With your permission I limit my comments to his last contribution only, since this was the “straw that broke the camels back”, which led to Cedroc‘s banning, and which also arose my ire in the first place.

Cedroc: “Century has reserved a Booth for interviews for a CEO replacement on Thursday Nov 4th Noon till 3.. They requested a longer session but unfortunately being there's only one Subway on Blaine WA Booths are at a premium”

Glorieux: “In my opinion, this information is false and ridicules the headquarters of our company. A year ago, we were technically bankrupt. Money saving decisions like our headquarters’ location helped save us from doom. The sarcasm is also less than funny for us shareholders to read but that could just be differing senses of humour.”

Glorieux, you said:

(a)“In my opinion, this information is false and...” A phone call to Peter Ball or to SUBWAY would have put you in the position to actually know if this statement is true or is a lie.You did not make the call yet accused Cedroc with spreading falsehoods.Agoracom may have some rules about this.

(b)“ … and ridicules the headquarters of our company…”I am sorry, if the very idea of interviewing a CEO candidate in a SUBWAY offended your sensibilities in regard to corporate decorum, but may I suggest we should leave this problem to CMM’s management to deal with.Besides, I myself do not see it as a problem at all, as I stated it in my previous post. Moral: If you don’t like it, too bad, but do not shoot the messenger.

Summing up:

Glorieux please re-read my original posting of Nov 05, 10 09:08PM. That is my position in the above matter, and I don’t wish to add anything further to it. If anything, perhaps the entry “..(But now here I am speculating)…” may be now removed, because what was speculation then has now became a fact, as Glorieux’ s statement now shows that his interpretation of the SUBWAY story as an embarrassment was indeed a factor in the condemnation of Cedric.

You also wrote:“ I am sure if I write to Agoracom that I can get my decision reversed if it is the will of the community so I will put it to a vote. If this post gets 20 votes or more, Cedroc will remain banned as the community will have spoken.

If someone objects to this, please feel free to suggest another method of measuring the community's will.

Respectfully,Glorieux”

I feel free to suggest the following:

I was unaware that were you planning to ban Cedroc. Had you have proposed to put his banning to a vote before the event; I may have gone along with it.

What you are proposing now to vote on Cedroc banning after the facts is not right, and is self-serving. It also may have bad optics, as it may be seen by some that you trying turn this affair into a popularity contest.

You know fully well that you are highly regarded investor and a great poster in many forums, including this one and you would win any such contest by a landside. Most of the votes would be cast on the basis of your popularity and not on the merits of the issue at hand.

In final analysis you are the hub leader, and I propose that you re-examine Cedroc’s story again and make your decision alone, uphold the ban or reverse it.

Best regards,

durban1