May 28
ben@hemp.net commented on
KPLU Way Off on Pot Banking Story.
@2 Also, Verity did not "refuse to comment" to KPLU. Verity simply did not respond to Keith Seinfeld before he published the story. I had this same experience — as I said in the post, it took me several days (four, to be exact) and repeated attempts to get a response from Verity execs. As VP Storm said, "We decided to just not comment on it." I think I was a victim of that policy. However, not wanting to print conjecture, I was forced to keep hounding them. I guess Keith Seinfeld felt no such obligation.
May 28
ben@hemp.net commented on
KPLU Way Off on Pot Banking Story.
@2 If "word parsing" is how you translate the difference between Verity's stated response that they changed tack because of the KPLU story and the unexpected attention it drew, and KPLU's claim that they changed tack because an employee of the state Department of Financial Institutions strong-armed an employee of Verity during the former's annual review of the latter, then it would seem to be a case of "word parsing."
Also, bummer you interpret my link request joke as The Stranger being so upset as to "lean much too favorably towards Verity and away from the flow of facts." I think you need better word parsing. :) As I stated in the article, when I broke this news, I asked Verity's CEO if their decision was at the behest of NCUA or another regulator, and was told, quite clearly, no.
Verity may be lying publicly on this issue, but having no clear evidence to the contrary, I think it's better to run with what they said, or simply report the facts, without drawing a conclusion from those facts that may be a far-off guesstimate of the truth.