4 ms·

I'd like to know why. Sounded cogent to me.

bradleyland 15y ago
Specifically, the portion where they rebut significant attacks on the internal character of the company by pointing out that their bottom line is great. Is that's all they're about? The bottom line? The entire thing reads like PR-speak. Why even bother with such a non-response.
whakojacko 15y ago
Sounded like standard bland pr-speak to me. They didn't specifically address any of his points and it comes off as extremely impersonal. I hope for RIM's sake they are sending around a much more detailed memo internally. For instance, the second sentence: "It is obviously difficult to address anonymous commentary and it is particularly difficult to believe that a 'high level employee' in good standing with the company would choose to anonymously publish a letter on the web rather than engage their fellow executives in a constructive manner" seems to just strengthen the original author's point 8
- robtoo 15y ago
  "It is obviously difficult to address anonymous commentary and it is particularly difficult to believe that a 'high level employee' in good standing with the company would choose to anonymously publish a letter on the web rather than engage their fellow executives in a constructive manner" says the unsigned blog post.
  - 18pfsmt 15y ago
    Most of us do this everytime we post to HN and let our logic stand for itself. I feel this is the most reasonable way to conduct ourselves, and I have come to hate browsing blog comments after being spoiled by HN.
    - Helianthus 15y ago
      It's definitely reasonable; but we are also not explicitly speaking for a corporation.
      - 18pfsmt 15y ago
        The OP was not speaking for a corporation, near as I could tell, but was speaking as a concerned employee. The response from RIMM was equally anonymous, yet it wreaked of the PHB mentality that got RIMM where it is in the first place.
      - nl 15y ago
        we are also not explicitly speaking for a corporation Not always the case; eg: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1932272 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1932272, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1502909 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1502909 etc

Specifically, the portion where they rebut significant attacks on the internal character of the company by pointing out that their bottom line is great. Is that's all they're about? The bottom line? The entire thing reads like PR-speak. Why even bother with such a non-response.

whakojacko 15y ago

Sounded like standard bland pr-speak to me. They didn't specifically address any of his points and it comes off as extremely impersonal. I hope for RIM's sake they are sending around a much more detailed memo internally. For instance, the second sentence: "It is obviously difficult to address anonymous commentary and it is particularly difficult to believe that a 'high level employee' in good standing with the company would choose to anonymously publish a letter on the web rather than engage their fellow executives in a constructive manner" seems to just strengthen the original author's point 8

robtoo 15y ago
"It is obviously difficult to address anonymous commentary and it is particularly difficult to believe that a 'high level employee' in good standing with the company would choose to anonymously publish a letter on the web rather than engage their fellow executives in a constructive manner" says the unsigned blog post.
- 18pfsmt 15y ago
  Most of us do this everytime we post to HN and let our logic stand for itself. I feel this is the most reasonable way to conduct ourselves, and I have come to hate browsing blog comments after being spoiled by HN.
  - Helianthus 15y ago
    It's definitely reasonable; but we are also not explicitly speaking for a corporation.
    - 18pfsmt 15y ago
      The OP was not speaking for a corporation, near as I could tell, but was speaking as a concerned employee. The response from RIMM was equally anonymous, yet it wreaked of the PHB mentality that got RIMM where it is in the first place.
    - nl 15y ago
      we are also not explicitly speaking for a corporation Not always the case; eg: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1932272 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1932272, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1502909 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1502909 etc