[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I spoke on the phone with someone high up at AP. While this is not a confidential source of mine, he asked me to not name him specifically. I'm going to honor that wish.

Either way, we talked for about 15 minutes and he explained their stance, I explained my stance, etc, etc. He was very nice and thanked me for my work. Among other things, he said that "geek" was not a correct term to be used here and if someone said that it was not what AP meant.

In addition, he said that AP will clean up and go after the person (persons?) who are responsible.

He said lots of other things, but I don't remember a lot of it word for word and I don't want to misquote. The general gist of the convo was that "AP takes this stuff seriously" followed by "Great, I'd be happy to help" and so on. So the bottom line is that he said all of the right things and, if he's telling the truth, then I believe that AP will come out of this an improved and effective organization. If he's feeding me a pile of crap then we're right back where we've been for the last month.

Lastly, he said they would involve me as a helper or reviewer in some capacity in the audit. I don't know what I'll get to see, but I assume I'll hear more about this as time goes on. I will keep 2p2 updated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did he reiterate/reaffirm the story about an internal non-management employee engineering the whole thing as a demonstration of Absolute's vulnerability and framing Scott Tom?

[/ QUOTE ]
I did point out specifically that if Scott Tom was being framed that it was one of the most elaborate set ups I've ever seen, including anything from a movie. I told him a few short reasons why and I said one or two things that have not been posted yet explaining why I felt that way.

He didn't specifically admit or deny Scott Tom was involved. I didn't press him for an answer on this phone call because he wasn't going to give it to me anyway. We just have to wait for that.