To try to put all this acrimony in perspective, let me pose two hypothetical
scenarios.


1.  A lab buys a new piece of equipment.  The tech can't get it to work
properly, even after extensive discussions with the vendor, because the
equipment does have a defect which the company will not resolve (an
improperly seated microswitch).  A few months later there is a discussion
about this equipment on Histonet.  The tech sends an e-mail detailing her
experiences.  The salesman writes a complaint letter to the Hospital's CEO
demanding that the tech be told to stop commenting, because her incompetence
is the cause of the problem.

 a.  Does the tech have the right to make the comments she did?
 b.  Does the salesman have the right to complain to the CEO?
 c.  How should the tech respond to the salesman's letter?
 d.  Should there be an apology.  If so, by whom to whom?


2.  A lab buys a new piece of equipment.  The tech can't get it to work
properly and contacts the vendor by phone.  The vendor immediately flies 500
miles at company expense to train the tech and make sure the equipment works
properly.  He spends two days doing that, and when he leaves the equipment
is working fine.  A month later the salesman notices that the tech has sent
an e-mail to Histonet criticising both the company and the vendor, even
though he didn't bother to use the equipment after the vendor left.  The
salesman contacts the hospital's CEO and complains, requesting the tech not
make those comments.

 d.  Does the tech have the right to make the comments he did?
 e.  Does the salesman have the right to complain to the CEO?
 f.  How should the vendor respond to the tech's e-mail trashing the
company's reputation?
 g.  Should the vendor send an e-mail to Histonet explaining what happened?
 d.  Should there be an apology.  If so, by whom to whom?


Bryan Llewellyn