It has been brought to my attention that most people, save Toby Marchant, me and the other 11 select recipients are unaware of the "audacious content of the original subject matter".
That will remain the case as far as I'm concerned.
What I'm prepared to publish is my original email as evidence of my restraint and good intentions. The original subject matter is obviously contained in the email received by me at 08.28 am on March 26, 2012. See the email here.
Two of the recipients were Michael Hobbs of the Australian Financial Review and Ian McIllwraith of Melbourne's The Age. These two journalists have been the most active reporters on PaperlinX in recent times. I haven't met either of them however we have spoken from time to time.
Contrary to what may be incorrectly inferred from my email there is no suggestion that either of them would leak this information.
Journalists are the best keepers of secrets. It was sent as relevant background information on a private and confidential basis, and remained that way.
Posted April 8, 2012 Twitter: @PaperlinXsuX
Dear Mr Marchant
Re your letter of 27 March.
I note it was an open letter resulting in legitimate commentary in the Australian press, see here, and a leak resulting in further commentary in the trade press, see here. Please note I was invited to comment on the latter, before publication, but declined.
Given the audacious content of the original subject matter and the obvious good intent of my communication to a select and highly responsible group of 11 persons, excluding you and me; your “open” response surprised me. Was press coverage your intention?
Retraction and Apology
I consider that my original communication, the subject of your letter of 27th March, was an example of my restraint in managing this blog. Goodwill, not malice, was my intention.
As nothing was published by me there is nothing to retract.
I accept your response and sincerely apologise if you misunderstood me. There appears to be confusion on your part. It may assist to revisit Debunking Alleged Personal Attacks.
The Role of suX
In brief discussions with Messrs Orr, Boon and more recently Clarke the impression I get is the Board totally misunderstands, or chooses to misunderstand, why suX exists and conveniently ignores the painful truth of what is happening at PaperlinX.
The Board’s recent problems are of its own making. Untruths, obfuscation, omissions and wilful dissembling by you and others don’t help its cause.
I’ve been told the name “PaperlinX-suX” is offensive. It derives from an accepted means of modern corporate complaint in which the US term “sucks” is a commonly used.
What started as simply protecting the rights of hybrid holders has now grown to corporate complaint and I expect it will remain so until there are dramatic changes at PaperlinX.
The Best Corporate Complaint Sites - see here.
Forbes Magazine has ranked corporate complaint sites by Ease of Use, Updates, # of Posts, Hostility Level, Relevant News and Entertainment Level. The top site is a major US insurer and the remaining top sites are globally recognised brands. All sites have been in existence for over a decade.
It is reasonable to conclude that this trend will soon emerge in Australia. As we now have corporate responsibility for continuous disclosure, soon we’ll have continuous accountability.
Regarding your response
I accept what you say as being true and correct. However why did you bother to respond in such detail?
Sometimes less is more, which rule I’ve probably just broken. Accordingly I don’t intend to respond to your letter in detail as you obviously have more pressing things to do than deal with me.
Besides, I’d have expected you to be aware that concurrent with your letter the Company had on foot a mega blast Concerns Notice. Or didn’t you know about that and went off half-cocked without reference to anyone? Remember, Melbourne is still HO.
Don’t blame the messenger
I expect your imminent retirement statement will include a new excuse: “concerted personal attacks” etc.
This will accompany your litany of excuses to date:
2. Legacy issues;
3. European crisis;
4. Falling demand for fine paper; and recently
5. Lack of capital.