AP Visit: I'm going to Costa Rica

[LuckyMux]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Nat's integrity is not the issue here, AP's is.

[/ QUOTE ]

and this is why he shouldn't be taking money from them

DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

I do, but you miss my point.

If Nat were a journo for the NY Times, or a member of congress, etc. then sure, it could be seen as a possible conflict of interest and would have to be declared.

But he isn't. He's a private citizen who can do what the hell he likes. And some airfares and expenses are hardly 'taking money from AP'.

AP invited him on a fact-finding mission. Of course they would offer to pay, what's the alternative? "Hi Nat, come and see us - just drop everything you're doing and get your hand in your pocket for the air fares and hotels. We're a bit skint at the moment..."

And you forget one crucial fact: Who did the right thing by declaring that AP was offering to pay for the trip in the first place?

Ah, yes. That would be Nat.

[ikestoys]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Nat's integrity is not the issue here, AP's is.

[/ QUOTE ]

and this is why he shouldn't be taking money from them

DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you interested in getting to the bottom of this more than Nat? Do you think you have a more vested interest than Nat here? If so, stfu and pay your own way there.

Otherwise, just stfu.

[/ QUOTE ]

For somebody going to medical school, you really need to brush up on your logic. Nat getting to the bottom of this has nothing to do with accepting money from AP. Nobody is directing their anger towards Nat, because we all love him for his work in uncovering this fiasco. Nat asked us for our opinion about the situation, and we gave him our opinion. Don't confuse opinion with hate.

Regardless Ikes, I've seen you destroy threads with your "logical" arguments, and I'm not getting into a pissing match with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reread the OP. Nat didn't ask for your opinion on his integrity, hell he didn't even ask for your opinion on whether he should go. He asked for questions that you would like him to ask. The thread soon devolved into a discussion of whether or not Nat would be compromised by taking money for his time to go to Costa Rica. That ALONE is a huge insult for Nat, and since you've actually been around, something you should realize. This thread has managed to take away a completely legitimate step in our investigation away because a few retards "followed the money", decided this was just like "All The Presidents Men" and came to a few ridiculous and insulting conclusions.

[waveydavey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Nat's integrity is not the issue here, AP's is.

[/ QUOTE ]

and this is why he shouldn't be taking money from them

DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

I do, but you miss my point.

If Nat were a journo for the NY Times, or a member of congress, etc. then sure, it could be seen as a possible conflict of interest and would have to be declared.

But he isn't. He's a private citizen who can do what the hell he likes. And some airfares and expenses are hardly 'taking money from AP'.

AP invited him on a fact-finding mission. Of course they would offer to pay, what's the alternative? "Hi Nat, come and see us - just drop everything you're doing and get your hand in your pocket for the air fares and hotels. We're a bit skint at the moment..."

And you forget one crucial fact: Who did the right thing by declaring that AP was offering to pay for the trip in the first place?

Ah, yes. That would be Nat.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is all well and good, but if his report was to reach a wider audience, or come under increased scrutiny for whatever reason, then a good case could be made for conflict of interest. Therefore the scope of his visit has a bearing on the implication of receiving any money from AP. Is he a private citizen satisfying his own curiosity and that of several interested parties or is it, or will it turn into, something more?

You and I may think his integrity is beyond reproach, and would want him to be suitably recompensed for his hard work, but he's right when he says "Most people don't know me."

[KCW12]

I've been reading this thread with interest so far, but I feel the need to speak out now. I can't believe that people actually think Nat accepting money for the trip somehow discredits his report. Do you have any idea how much it would cost for him to pay his own way there? Not to mention the money he would lose by taking days off work, wasting his time when he could be doing other things with his life, etc. It is 100% standard in these situations where a company is inviting someone to take a trip to their HQ to reimburse them for their expenses. This is not my opinion, it is a FACT that this is how these things usually work.

Think of it this way: AP apparently wants Nat to come visit them. Whether or not they intend to put forward a false image of their company's direction to positively influence his report is not the issue here. What matters is that they WANT him to come. Do you think the chances of him doing so would be very high if they made him pay for the entire trip himself? It would make no sense for Nat to go if he wasn't being reimbursed, and I honestly would find it quite a bit more suspicious (i.e. possible bribes, threats, etc.) if he agreed to go under those circumstances.

And guys, before you criticize him for accepting money, ask yourself: would YOU pay your way down there if you were in his situation? I don't think any person here would answer yes to that.

[g-p]

nat feel free to say you represent me while in CR

[adanthar]

All,

There are definitely a couple of aspects to this that would be better resolved by somebody on the ground in CR asking detailed questions.

With that in mind, because plane tickets and hotel rooms cost money, with the exception of Nat's recent mystery backer, the choices are 1)to spend AP's money or 2)to not go.

Alternatively, 3)as I've said 800,000 times, somebody else can proceed with the 'drive AP out of business' campaign. We've already said that's not what we're interested in, so if you think we suck, by all means, take the research we've given you and do it yourselves.

[ibluffoldladies]

Lucky,

I don't think anybody has a problem with AP paying for his trip as long as there aren't any legal ramifications. The problem is the gray area where there is extra money offered above the travel costs. I think people who are personally effected by this should all chip in a little money for him (I would if I were a cheated high roller).

Anyways, we all love Nat, and there is no disputing that.

[ibluffoldladies]

[ QUOTE ]

Reread the OP. Nat didn't ask for your opinion on his integrity, hell he didn't even ask for your opinion on whether he should go. He asked for questions that you would like him to ask.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. He didn't ask this in the OP. But later,

[ QUOTE ]
My ultimate goal is not to sink the company. I want them to pay for their mistakes. I also want them to be a good company going forward.

Am I off base here?


[/ QUOTE ]

[ikestoys]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Reread the OP. Nat didn't ask for your opinion on his integrity, hell he didn't even ask for your opinion on whether he should go. He asked for questions that you would like him to ask.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. He didn't ask this in the OP. But later,

[ QUOTE ]
My ultimate goal is not to sink the company. I want them to pay for their mistakes. I also want them to be a good company going forward.

Am I off base here?


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
After a groundswell of questioning from a bunch of people with next to nothing invested in losses or role in the investigation.

[waveydavey]

[ QUOTE ]
After a groundswell of questioning from a bunch of people with next to nothing invested in losses or role in the investigation.

[/ QUOTE ]
And maybe Nat got something useful from that groundswell of questioning from a bunch of people with next to nothing invested in losses or role in the investigation, like myself. And then again maybe all he got was a headache.