Claude Rouelle?

[MikeWaggoner at UW]

I think people may be too hard on posting anonymously. If you have a point or question to make, but think there may be bad repurcussions for your team if you make it, maybe posting anonymously is the right way to do it. I think the current topic is crap, but it isn't completely out of the blue, and a paranoid person might think their team could be hurt by making such an accusation.

I don't think calling names of the people that post anonymously is the right or mature way to handle it; obviously other people's views will be tempered by the fact the original poster didn't post their details.

[Big Bird]

The issue I have is that a valued member of the FSAE community was specifically named and linked to conflict of interest, by means of a topic heading in bold print for all visitors to the FSAE.com to see. The potential ramifications of this are pretty nasty for all concerned. The person who raised this writes well enough that it is obvious to me he was aware of the harm he could cause to Claude, yet doesn't want any fallout himself. A bit of a double standard really.

I applaud Driven for at least removing some of the inflammatory material, including the conflict of interest line in the topic title. Replacing some of it with barbs towards those of us who disagreed is of dubious merit though.

The topic could have been raised in a much more responsible manner by naming a topic "Conflict of Interest" and discussing possible problems without mentioning specific names and companies. If he had a specific problem with Claude he should have forwarded a letter of concern to the relevant people, not posted it for all to see on a public forum.

As for name calling, implying that all who disagree are mentally challenged indicates that Driven doesn't exactly set new standards of mature or responsible behaviour himself. The condescending tone is repeated through most of his posts.

Honestly I don't generally care if posts are made anonymously. But is someone is to post such deliberately inflammatory and dangerous material, then I repeat, they should at least stand behind their convictions.

[Driven]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by Big Bird:
As for name calling, implying that all who disagree are mentally challenged indicates that Driven doesn't exactly set new standards of mature or responsible behaviour himself. The condescending tone is repeated through most of his posts.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've no problem with people who disagree with my argument. Anyone who understood what I said (it was pretty clearly explained) and disagreed with me, that's fine. If you didn't comprehend and/or misrepresented my argument, then you can consider that line to be an appraisal

As Charlie reminded us, it's the internet, not the UN. Peace.

[Brent Howard]

Driven,

I think everyone fully understood your argument and disagreed with you fully. Not only was it, in my opinion, completly wrong, it was also poorly worded and offensive to Claude.

Claude attempting to sell MoTeC systems, if he does, is not a conflict of interest....it's their seminar. And as far as design judging, did all top 10 teams have MoTec? I have heard alot of great things about PE systems. If your issue with Claude is more pointed then say that. Did he specifically point to your ECU/datalogger and say...Well you would have made semi's had you run MoTeC?? As it stands you have simply made a point with absolutly zero supporting evidence.

Brent

[Driven]

Brent,

For reasons I have mentioned, I am not going to debate this issue further. If you would like to continue debating it... be my guest. I would suggest, though, that you find out what a "conflict of interest" is first. It does not specifically state wrongdoing. It does not say that it is impossible to execute your duties fairly. As I mentioned, I did not accuse anyone of unfairness. Let me give you a clue. Your latest post works against your line of argument. Check your definitions.

Perhaps you thought my posts were poorly worded because you didn't understand a few of the terms, no?

Another clue: (my earlier post - did you read it?) "Conflict of interest depends upon the situation and not on the character or actions of the individual."

Honestly, check your definitions. You're doing your side of the argument no favors.

[Brent Howard]

conflict of interest
n. pl. conflicts of interest
A conflict between a person's private interests and public obligations.

Your point is....

I think that we all can learn from Claude in that he has been able to make a good living doing exactly what he loves to do. If your going to debate terminology like a lawyer please back it up with something.

if the only point of your post though was to prove that Claude is employed in the automotive industry and also is interested in cars.....good job. I fully agree.

Brent

[Driven]

Good boy. Now sleep on it. Maybe you'll have it figured out by the morning.

[Mike T.]

Wow. It's nice to see that you know you are so much more of an enlightened man that the rest of us, Driven. I think you deserve a gold star for your brilliance.

[Denny Trimble]

Or maybe a Flying Birdie?

__________________
........................./´¯/)
......................,/¯..//
...................../..../ /
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·Â¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´(..´......,~/'...')
.........\.................\/..../
..........''...\.......... _.·Â´
............\..............(
..............\.............\

It feels good to behave like a 12 year old... I'll have to do it more often.

[Sam Zimmerman]

With Denny, even flipping someone off must be done with the finest of detail.

You crack me up buddy.


(edited because my grammer sucked )