A commenter (Mark) identifying himself as Mr. Harcrow has taken issue with the content of my [original] post. Since he deleted the comment I will not repost it to comment on it.
I will try to summarize and address his concerns. I hope to do so fairly.
1. I have the facts wrong.
My response: I look forward to correction in any factual errors I have made.
2. Misrepresenting oneself as the VA is wrong.
My response: Well, I agree. I will point out that I did not claim SMI was misrepresenting themselves as the VA. Readers can make their own judgement about that. The scan of the actual mailer, with the Seal of the United States, the words "Verterans Affairs" and "Official notice", combined with a total absence of a business name does not seem purpose-built for transparency or clarity.
BTW, it is not entirely clear to me that the Seal is lawfully usable in that manner:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 33 > § 713
§ 713. Use of likenesses of the great seal of the United States, the seals of the President and Vice President, the seal of the United States Senate, the seal of the United States House of Representatives, and the seal of the United States Congress
(a) Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
3. I (Mark) have not sent any email or mailer advertising a rate reduction.
My response: I didn't say you did, nor did I say you generated the mailer at all. The mailer itself has the words "rate reduction" on it. The readers may decide for themselves whether or not an advertisement with the words emblazoned with the words "rate reduction" is, _prima facie_, an advertisement for rate reduction. The rate reduction aspect seems to be the smallest of the problems of this mailer, anyhow.
4. I assume you searched for the mortgage company, found my name, and thought I sent the mailer to you.
My response: Close. Since no business name was given I searched for the address, found the company at that address (SMI), found another page related to SMI (http://www.vamortgageconnection.com/contact.php) by address and email, which had Mr. Harcrow's SMI email address on it.
To be fair, the site referenced above no longer gives the 4230 LBJ address and no longer lists the SMI email address. This, combined with some of the content of Mr. Harcrow's removed comment, suggest he has moved on to greener pastures. I accept this, even though the SMI page still lists him as a staff member:
http://www.smimortgage.net/StaffProfiles.aspx?ID=308844
I did not claim you sent the mailer. I did claim:
* the mailer claimed to come from the 4230 LBJ address
* where SMI claims to reside,
* where your company/site VA Mortgage Connection claimed to reside (now changed)
* and on the VAMC site MH's SMI-based email address was given.
That is the sum total of my claims directly or tangentially related to Mr. Harcrow.
5. Deceptive practices are wrong; slander in this type of forum is wrong.
My response: Deceptive practices are disagreeable and ultimately unproductive. Slander is illegal, which is why I didn't do it. The phrase Truth is an absolute defense come to mind. If you believe any of the facts in my post are incorrect, point out the counterfactual information and I will correct it. The approach you are taking appears to be "You claim I did this. I didn't do this, the other people in my office did it." Fine with me. I never claimed you personally did it. I claimed your email address was on a VA-related website related to SMI.
BTW, the TDSML complaint link on your contact page is STILL broken. Specfically, it's missing the http:// prefix so it looks like a relative URL to the server. Your webmaster will know what this means.
10 comments:
You're very kind in your reply.
My opinion is that the facts you've presented display a very intentional effort by the person(s) involved to knowingly ...convey, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof...
I also suspect it's legal so slap the words "Free Ferret Chow!" on an envelope as long as you never actually offer it in the materials - it's probably in the same vein a "You've already won!"
But, that's just my opinion.
I saved my post for my records and decided to send it again. I wish to really have nothing to do with blog but unfortunately when you're called a "scumbag" its hard to look the other way. All I have is my word but if you would like further proof that I wasn't the sender try calling the number on the letter. You will get the person on the phone that sent it since every Loan Officer there has their own number. Please call the number and reply back...give us your thoughts so the whole world can that my name shouldnt have been on this blog. Period. I do appreciate the fact you took time to explain the situation better but still feel my name hasnt been 100% cleared. Please call the number and clear my name for good. Thanks, Mark
As you can tell I'm wet behind the ears when it comes to blogging. I resent the original blog. Looking forward to hearing back from you Bloggermouse so we can clear my name. Thanks, Mark
I didn't call you a scumbag. I called the people who sent the mailer a scumbag. You claim to not be the sender and I accept that. This means you *cannot* be the scumbag I refer to, no? Seems clear to me, as I am sure it will be to all three of my readers.
You will notice that I have updated the original post with your objection and "overstriked" the section about you and your email. This is how content is adjusted in the blogging world. I do not believe this adjustment was necessary, as nothing counterfactual was on the page. I did it in good faith.
No one is forcing you to post here, and we have already decided you are not that scumbag.
Your point about the number is a good one. Unfortunately I no longer have the original and the scan was only of the front since it was unopened when I scanned it.
The original scan does show the original zip origin (46802) and the bulk mail permit (1520). I am providing this information to the US Treasury (they control use of the seal), the Postmaster of the originating zip code and the Texas Department of Savings and Mortgage Lending. I am certain they will be able to figure out what happened, who did the mailing, and whether or not it was over the line.
Since your concern now seems to center on the word "scumbags" in the title and not the factual information presented in the post, I will make another concession and replace the word "scumbags" with "kittens". Surely, this solution could offend no one. Except kitten haters.
Note: no one is claiming you are a kitten hater. Just sayin'.
And the link on your Contacts page is still broken.
My kitten was reading over my shoulder and she suddenly leaped on the keyboard and pawed it and the mouse. She removed your blog from my Favorites.
Go figure. Okay, she's distracted by nonexistent noises right now, so I'll add it back. Whew, that was close. I'm thinking she is with KADL (Kitten Anti-Defamation League). Hey, did you see that, she deleted this so I am posting it again.
Happy Labor Day Weekend, Bloggermouse.
Hey, mark here. anyway i can get you to delete this post? i have given you the facts and I wasnt the sender. i rather people not think of me in a bad light due to this post. Can you help?
Post a Comment