>> ... is not a statement of fact, it is one of opinion.

I certainly recognize the distinction, Charles. However, your post said:

>> These are the facts ...
>> ... Is he cooperating with the Club's investigation? I think not.

This implied some knowledge on your part that he was not cooperating. I suspect that most readers infer that a stated opinion has some basis in fact.

>> Since I had not previously seen this individual's name
>> previously involved in the investigation ...

There are a number of names of people involved which have still not been publically revealed.

>> ... I perhaps incorrectly assumed that he did not cooperate with the investigation.

No "perhaps" about it. The published reports make clear that there are individuals involved who have not been named. There are others, as well, whose role has not been published at all. Any "assumptions" about who may or may not have cooperated are unwarranted.

>> I can certainly choose where I get my chips.

I haven't and wouldn't suggest otherwise. Doesn't everyone else have the same right?

>> For someone who is involved with chips on an ongoing basis, I would
>> think that they would want to support the hobby with membership in the Club.

That, of course, is also a matter of personal choice. I collected coins for a long time without ever joining the ANA and trading cards for years without even knowing if there was/is a national organization of card collectors. At one time, I collected US Navy ship cancellation covers and joined the USCS (Universal Ship Cancellation Society). I am a life member of the CC>CC. I joined the latter two organizations because it appeared that there was some advantage to me in joining. That's the only reason most people will join any organization.

While the concept of "supporting the hobby" is altruistic (and a worthy basis for joining our club), it is simply unrealistic to expect most people to do so unless they also see at least some benefit to themselves in joining.

>> If they don't want to, that is there choice. I will also
>> choose not to do any business with them.

I have no problem with that. Your chips, your money, your choice. And I wouldn't even fault you for making that choice (though I can tell you that if you follow that policy without exception, you will occasionally miss out on some good chips).

>> Finally, we are talking about "white collar" crimes here.
>> The people who appear to be nice in order to get what they want.
>> They are the scam artists, the accountants, lawyers, brokers
>> and others who gain trust by being nice ...

I know the type quite well and put a number of them in state prison.

>> ... and then take off with everyone's money to South America or somewhere.

Actually, very few of them flee the country. Most stay right where they are and many end up getting caught.

>> My point is that being nice doesn't equate to ethical behavior.

No doubt about that. Being a mean person doesn't necessarily mean unethical behavior, either. But, I think our common experience tells us that there is a high degree of correlation both ways -- and most people rely to some extent on that correlation.

>> Does anybody remember Eddie Haskel from Leave it to Beaver?

OK, I'll bite. I remember him. How does he fit in here? He was neither nice nor ethical.

----- jim o\-S