I have the impression that they graciously agreed to refund my money in full at least in part because my complaint on my blog is second only to their own site as a search engine result for those who enter \u201cSterling Who\u2019s Who\u201d on Yahoo! and Google.<\/p>\n
Their main accusation of defamation of character relates to my assumption that the currently-existing \u201cSterling Who\u2019s Who\u201d is the same company as the one with that name that existed in 1995 and was sued<\/a>. I do not think this was an entirely unreasonable assumption. To my own way of thinking, it would be rather ill-advised to name one\u2019s own new company after one that had been the subject of ongoing litigation. But neither Sterling Who\u2019s Who nor any other organization is required to live up to my assumptions. Perhaps it is a result of the fact that articles continue to appear about \u201cSterling Who\u2019s Who\u201d without making any distinction between past and present companies of the same name that leads to my confusion and presumably that of others as well. The recent article in Courthouse News<\/a><\/i> seems to be about the currently-existing Sterling Who\u2019s Who; many of those who list themselves as members are referring to the company that existed in the 1990s.<\/p>\n As an anonymous poster on my blog has pointed out, the Sterling Who\u2019s Who that currently exists was formed in 2004<\/a>. I apologize for my assumption that a company with the same name working in the same field was in fact the same company. Clearly there was no intention on my part to defame the currently-existing company\u2019s character. It is only natural to assume that there is continuity under a company name unless one is explicitly informed otherwise.<\/p>\n I was told that they are different companies by the person who answered the phone number on their web page during the lunch hour of Veterans Day Monday. He said he was the president of the company. Some might find this suspicious. But one can interpret the fact that I did not first get a secretary or automated system as a positive thing rather than a suspicious one, if one wishes to, indicative of the hands-on, personally involved leadership of this company.<\/p>\n The company claims to be a premier publisher, and that perhaps contributed to my sense that this was an older company<\/a>. How can a brand new company be the \u2018premier\u2019 anything? But once again this presumably simply reflects my lack of understanding of the world of \u201cWho\u2019s Who\u201d. After all, how can one publish about the \u201cWho\u2019s Who\u201d of other fields if one isn\u2019t in that category oneself. It is natural for a Who\u2019s Who publisher to place themselves in the Who\u2019s Who of publishing. After all, all that seems to be required is payment of the appropriate fee for inclusion. It would be silly of them not to begin by nominating themselves. I should have realized this.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-3381747829545036525?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"