byso said:
So dan you don't question why penn would put him on the board anyhow. Considering it would create so many issues.
That is a completely separate issue. Furthermore, how do we know any of these issues are in fact real and present and not the imaginings of a journalist or one board member with an axe to grind?
We need to collectively decide whether we are to believe the reporting by journalists or not. We can't pick and choose the articles we want to believe because they suit our own individual agenda or beliefs.
Either everything written by journalists is
a) complete truth
or b) a fabrication or part truths
The issue I have with all of this is that this is none of our, or the medias business and should never be public knowledge, this is a private holding and not a public entity. The one journalist so many of us profess to despise is the one so many of us believe when the subject matter is that which is contained in this thread. We simply can't have it both ways.
Also as I said earlier, whilst we need Kaspersky as a sponsor, they have no right to make demands of staffing and board members, furthermore they should not be taking these things out in the media. A sponsor is just that a sponsor, they do not have a decision based interest in this business, though they do have a right to withdraw funds if they think their brand has been damaged. Of course, they would need to be careful as long as the contract was correctly drawn up they would need to prove that their brand has been damaged through this action, which is something I find very difficult to believe, and think this very article is more damaging for their brand than the original.
but then again, I may be talking too much sense