Conference quark::human_relations-v1

In reference to the title of .0: 

	It isn't necessarily sex in the workplace (i.e., two people who
tend to run into each other in the course of going about their jobs also
being sexually involved) that creates a conflict of interest: it's when
one of the persons is in a position to influence Personnel decisions made
about the other (decisions relating to reviews, promotions, raises, etc.).

	The person with the "conflict" could be a manager, supervisor,
personnel rep or maybe even a financial analyst.  Under the circumstances,
that person should probably think about trying to transfer to a different
group, so as to avoid any temptation to use his/her influence unfairly.

    The title was my selection, since the note's author did not
    supply one.  If you can think of a better one, I'll be happy to
    change it.
    				Steve

    I don't know the current Corp policy on this, but a few years ago two
    of my colleagues got married. the ruling was that man and wife cannot
    work in the same cost center, so one was required to work at another
    cost center (which meant another office 100 miles away since there was
    only one SWS cost center in the office).
                                   
    It was explained that this was to give an enforcable policy that prevented
    one partner from either being involved in the others review, or signing
    their expenses.
    
    /. Ian .\

    I think we've covered this before, but I'm fairly certain that the
    policy only prohibits relatives from working in a direct-report
    relationship - simply being in the same CC (at the same level,
    especially) is ok.  We have one married couple in our CC, and I
    know of other situations.
    
    My opinions on the original question are:
    
    	1.  It is none of your business unless you have evidence to
    	    prove that you (or others) are being harmed by the
    	    relationship.
    
    	2.  There is no DEC policy against "co-fraternization", unlike
    	    some branches of the military.

    	3.  If it really bothers you so much that you are unable to
    	    work effectively in your current position, you should
    	    consider going somewhere else.
    
    Perhaps this sounds harsh, but just who is being harmed by the
    relationship?
    				Steve

        Having had to get a VP-waiver to work with my wife, I've had a
        little experience with this. Steve is basically right except
        that the corporate policy is also intended to preclude having
        the situation where if one spouse was promoted one step they
        would be responsible for the other. The reason being that
        you would then be in the position of not being able to promote
        one of them without transfering the other one.
        
        In my case, if I was the obvious "heir" to the person to whom
        the operators reported when suddenly my wife's CC merged with
        ours and she was one of the operators. We established that I was
        not interested in promotion up the management chain but rather
        the software technical path, and thus as my wife was not a s/w
        engineer or programmer no position into which I would willing be
        promoted would involve her working for me. On that basis the F&A
        VP was willing to permit my wife to join our CC. 
        
        During all of this her cost center stayed on the books with her
        as the only employee for a number of months.
        
        JimB. 

Personally, if I observe two colleagues of opposite sex spending a lot
of time together, particularly if they travel together as you mentioned,
I tend to suspect they have had sexual encounters together.

Of course, they may not have, but somehow if I suspect they have, then
if it turns out they have, I'm glad I suspected because then I don't
feel I was "fooled".

Not that my suspicion causes any special gossip.  I don't go telling
fourth parties that I think these two are sleeping together.  However,
if I get sufficiently chummy with one of the two, I might admit my
suspicion to them.  That way, again, if they're doing something on
the sly, "they didn't fool me!".

I guess it's tied in with my sexual philosophy.  Some people present
a public picture of themselves as spending a lot of time with such-and-such
a colleague and of-course-there's-nothing-going-on.  But my sexual
philosophy tells me otherwise.  It tells me, if any two attractive
people of opposite sex spend a lot of time together, they're probably
turned on, and might do something about it.

(gee, we could start a topic or two on this one!)

/Eric

    re: .8
    
    It takes a little more for me to believe that people are having sexual
    encounters together than simply spending a lot of time together. My own
    experiences show a good example: I have a VERY good friend back in Los
    Angeles.  We're very close.  We can both count on one another when
    necessary.  We both value the other person's opinion very much.  We
    love each other, and tell each other so.  When I'm in Los Angeles, we
    ALWAYS see one another.  And we do not have a sexual relationship; in
    fact, I'd say that neither of us have an interest in that.  We both
    value the friendship for what it is and neither of us would do anything
    to possibly disrupt that.  We don't have interest in a 'relationship'
    either.
    
    This may be a bit unusual, but I can think of many woman that I've
    spent lots of time with and not had sexual encounters with.  I can
    think of a few that I have.  Time alone, though, does not make the
    difference.
    
    I think my sexual philosophy is a bit different than yours: I don't
    really care much who's in bed with who.  If two people find each other
    attractive, they're welcome to each other (as long as one of them isn't
    'involved' with me, of course).  What two adults do with one another is
    their business and their business alone; I have no reason to judge them
    based on what they feel they want or need.
    
    I guess people's personal lives are just that: their personal lives. As
    long as it doesn't directly affect me, I don't really care.
    
    	-- Jeff

        Why is it better to suspect that people who have not been having
        sexual relations are than to not have suspect ones that actually
        have? In either case you're wrong. In either case you are not
        privvy to their secrets. In either case it is, presumably, none
        of you business. Why does the existence of someone else's
        privacy constitute your being "fooled"? 
        
        The sexual philosophy refered to in 244.8 may or may not
        accurately describe the behavior of its author, but as a general
        belief about how people behave it is over-simplified and wrong.
        Although it may cause one some sort of vicarious thrill to see
        sex where it isn't, there just is no reason at all why members
        of the opposite (or appropriate) sex can't associate without
        having sexual feelings for each other or why all or even most
        such feelings have to be either expressed or acted upon.
        
        Sex, as important and as profound as it is, is the center in our
        culture of a lot of over-emphasis and unnecessary obsession. It
        is dealt with as a commodity so much that we feel that it is
        something which you "get" or amass. Because we are so involved
        in promulgating greed and acquisitiveness, we begin to feel that
        sex like any other valuable commodity is something we should
        hoard and grab whenever it is available. 
        
        All of this emphasis on sex and on getting lots of it is just
        not good for you. Like all greed it puts much more emphasis on
        what you don't have than on what you do. You can become so
        involved in "getting it", that you don't appreciate it once you
        have it. It also drowns out the many different and beautiful
        aspects of interpersonal relationships that are possible.
        Everything just becomes a stepping stone towards the real goal,
        a base to be rounded on the mad dash for home. 
        
        There is far more to inter-personal relationships, even to
        relations with the opposite sex than having sex. Sex isn't love,
        friendship, companionship, warmth, intimacy, romance, or
        comfort, although good sex is directly connected with all of
        these. 
        
        The author of 244.8 may never let a sexual opportunity go by,
        nor believe that others do, but that is not the only way that
        people behave. I, for one, have no desire to have sex outside of
        my marriage. (You are forgiven if you don't believe this, it
        took me quite a while to realize it myself. We are taught to
        lust after sex, but not to appreciate it so we have a hard time
        even recognizing how we feel at times.)
        
        Although I am not looking for nor engaged in extramarital sexual
        affairs does not mean that there aren't women other than my wife
        in my life. I have a number of lady friends, some of them very
        close. There are a couple in whom I recognize the spark of that
        same chemistry that helps to bind me to my wife. Although we are
        not lovers in the classical sense, I am not at all ashamed to
        say that I love them. 
        
        With one or two I am on quite intimate terms, and if the author
        of 244.8 were to see us together, he would no doubt be
        absolutely certain that we had "had sexual encounters together".
        At one noters party, I know I heard a hushed buzz of confussion
        as to who had come with whom and what our relationships were
        regarding a fellow H-R member and myself. This isn't all that
        surprising, actually, as I've come to realize that I feel and
        act towards the young lady in question as if she were an
        ex-lover--but she isn't. 
        
        I think there's a tendancy to divide the members of the opposite
        sex into those in whom we have no sexual interest and those in
        whom we do. Among those who excite our interest there are those
        we are persuing, those with whom we are involved, and those with
        whom we have been involved. We discount the class of those with
        whom for one reason or another we will never be involved with.
        
        Because of this taxonomy, when we see two people of opposite
        sexes who are very comfortable with each other, emotionally and
        physically, we assume that they are or have been lovers (in the
        sense of sexual involvement). It needn't be the case. While it
        is true that it is hard to be completely comfortable with
        someone with whom you anticipate sexual involvement, actually
        getting so involved isn't the only path to comfort.
        
        It is possible to be friends without being in love. It is
        possible to be in love without being romantically involved. It
        is possible to have romance without real intimacy. It is
        possible to be intimate without being physical. It is possible
        to be physical without being fully involved sexually.
        
        The world would be a better place, we would be more comfortable,
        and those we care about would be happier if we could keep all of
        these things separate. Jealousy is a real and legitimate force.
        Sexual involvement can have negative affects on existing and
        more important relationships. Promiscuity can result in unwanted
        complications, illness or children. There are lots of reasons to
        feel that extramarital sex is a poor idea or just plain wrong.
        But that's no reason to not romance our friends as well as our
        spouses, not to hug or kiss the ones we love, not to love the
        very special people we meet, not support and care for and share
        with those who are important to us. 
        
        Physical intimacy is in our blood. Watch the other apes, the
        other primates. They touch and groom and stroke. It is good for
        us physically and psychologically. Holding hands, giving a
        massage, or brushing hair are very satisfying and touch inner
        needs in our being. Hugging and kissing convey an enormous
        wealth of feelings and meanings. To denigrate them to the status
        of fore-play is to do violence to our very natures.
        
        Being demonstrative in other ways is just as deep in our blood.
        We are terribly visual as well as physical beings; we look; we
        stare; we communicate through our eyes. Glances looks and stares
        are important just like touches. We are, like all the primates,
        curious and communicative. Listening, talking, and inquiring are
        important. We should share our feelings and our concerns with
        each other.
        
        Love and romance are an important part of being human. We should
        love and express our love. Gifts, gestures and communications of
        our feelings through touches, looks, or words spoken or written
        should be shared and shared widely. 
        
        By concentrating on sex alone and focusing these many aspects of
        our lives on just the one goal, we make ourselves poorer. It is
        understandable if you see me walking hand-in-hand with a friend
        or even kissing them and whispering "I love" you and think that
        what you're seeing is just the signs of sex, but it is sad. The
        world doesn't have to be that narrow.
        
        JimB.

   RE: .8
    
    When you typed your opinion I sure hope you were prepared for some
    flaming.  Personally speaking if you feel that the only relationship
    there can be between a woman and a man is sexual, you have another
    thing coming to you.  Of course this says little about the
    relationships that you have, being that, a relationship with the
    opposite sex is far from platonic.
    
    Maybe because I have grown up in a family with 6 brothers and no
    sister that I get along better with men.  99.9 percent of my
    friends are males.  As a matter of fact my closet friend is a male and
    I might love him, but in a sense that I don't believe you would
    understand.
    
    RE: .10  I don't think I could have said it better myself.  It
    is nice to know that there are actually other men out there that
    can have this type of relationship with a woman and still be
    married.  It means a lot to know that I'm not alone in this world.
    
    Unfortunatley I have to cut this short because our system will be
    going done for the day but I just could not pass up letting a little
    steam off to .8.  Maybe he should actually try to have a *friedly,
    platonic* relationship with someone from the opposite sex and discover
    the rewards, among other things from it.  I've also learned that
    there are more important things in life to worry about then what
    the guy next door is doing with so and so.
    
    Jude
    

    Re .10:
    
    I'm glad to know that there are men like you around, too.  Part
    of me responded "how wonderful!"  But I'd prefer that they remain
    other people's husbands.  What's so sacred about "the act" that
    it needs to be the only thing reserved?  Reminds me of high school
    days when people did "everything but."  I'd feel 100% less "cheated
    on" faced with clean one-night stands.
    
    I guess the last paragraph clinched it.  As a wife, I have the feeling
    that *I* would get that same "sad" impression that Eric might get.

    .12 

    Well, in this case (.10), no one has a need to get the sad impression
    of sexual involvement. Um, you see, JimB is talking about me. 

    Jim and I are very close, dear friends. We love each other a lot. We
    tell each other that frequently. I love his wife and his kids, too. We
    all see a lot of each other. I take some of the little boys to lunch
    once a week and play in a role-playing game once a week at their
    house.

    Jim and I are able to talk to each other about things we've never told
    anyone else. We're very physically comfortable with each other. We hold
    hands a lot and hug a lot and kiss frequently, because we love each
    other. On social occassions, you may find us cuddled up on a couch, and
    talking, but not necking. In fact, in our social group, you're apt to
    find *lots* of people doing that together, but that's another note. ;-)
    We disagree on a lot of things, but we agree on many more. We're
    friends. We're important to each other. 

    We're not sexual partners, although, I too have heard speculation that
    we might be or are. Neither of us would even consider risking the love
    and friendship that is shared by all the adults involved, by starting a
    sexual relationship. 

    It also bothers me, that the immediate conclusion some people reach, is
    that we're lovers. I've run across this before, in other friendships,
    and once in the workplace. I like men as people. I have had a lot of
    very close friends over the years who were male. I never let that stop
    me from liking them. ;-) A friend is precious and to be cherished. A
    companion doesn't have to be a lover, a lover isn't necessarily a
    friend. I too, wish good old-fashioned friendship were more in vogue
    between members of the opposite sex. 
    
    Tamzen
                 

        RE: .12
        
        The other answer to the question "What's so sacred about 'the
        act' that it needs to be the only thing reserved?" is that it is
        NOT the only thing that is reserved. Another very major thing is
        unconditional commitment. I'm committed to both my wife and my
        other friends. My commitment to my wife is absolute and of
        ultimate priority. Any commitment that conflicts with that gets
        the short end. Similarly my commitment to my children is of a
        paramount nature, and commitments to my kids outweigh my
        commitments to my friends.
        
        I may love Tamzen and others very dearly. I may say "I'll always
        be there for you", but it is both understood and at times stated
        explicitly, "... pending any commitments I have to my wife". We
        always hope that conflicts don't arise, but if they do there is
        a clear and defined outcome established at the outset. You can
        only make one absolute commitment. (Actually, I claim that you
        can make two, because an absolute commitment to God can't
        conflict with an absolute commitment to your spouse, as God
        explicitly charters marriage, but you can only have one absolute
        commitment to a human being.) All others must be subordinate to
        that one. Many make it to their spouse. Others to themselves.
        Still others never make one.
        
        I also danced around what I meant by "sexual involvement" and
        the line between cuddling or kissing (which can get pretty
        damned sexual and involving) and "having sex". I did so in part
        because the conference has a guideline about not discussing sex
        explicitly and as a moderator I feel I need to be fairly
        circumspect, but also in part because the line is fuzzy. 
        
        It is not merely "the act" which I feel would be wrong outside
        of marriage. Any number of lesser sexual acts would be wrong,
        and an even larger number would be innappropriate because they
        would set the very strong expectation (both of mind and of
        hormones) that acts that are wrong would follow. Although I
        don't view it as adulterous, it is still wrong to get somebody
        thoroughly sexually aroused with no intent of doing anything
        about it. It is at the very very least quite rude. 
        
        Kissing, cuddling and hand holding are not "just sex". They are
        signs of and strengtheners of warmth, companionship and
        affection. There is, without denial, a sexual component to them,
        and also one of deep emotion, and commitment. So far as I am
        concerned they needn't presage serious sexual involvement but
        can be valuable in and of themselves. Similarly the emotional
        attachment and commitment they imply needn't be absolute and
        needn't conflict with the vows of marriage either in spirit or
        in letter. 
        
        JimB. 

    Just to get back to the point of 244.0 (no offence, the rest was
    quite interesting too!)...
    
    A lot was said in the early replies to this note about the
    disadvantages of "sex in the workplace". I would like to quote 
    an example of the advantages, and I know it to be true folks, 'cause
    "I was that programmer"!)
    
    A few years ago I was working in Brussels for a well known computer
    manufacturer (not Digital, actually it was H*n*yw*ll) in a group
    of about 9 people...
    
    I quite quickly formed a "relationship" with the progect managers
    secretary.   We started to sleep together, and it must have been
    obvious to most people eg - we BOTH missed the train in the morning
    and were late, we BOTH got stuck in a traffic jam  etc, etc,
    
    The boss said nothing, appart from the odd comment about the length
    of lunchbreaks, which was pretty general to everybody.  
    
    I had no influence over affecting her salary or anything like that,
    but she started working for me in times when her boss had no work
    for her to do, and I taught her first to type in programs, then
    to compile them, to correct the errors, and later to design and
    write her own.  The boss saw that we worked well together and left
    us alone, we did 3 man years of scheduled work in 11 months and
    the company paid for a software engineer and a secretary! 
    
    She left the company with me and now works as an analyst programmer
    in her own right, and the boss now types his own memos!!!
    
    Andy Lane.

    There are no policies forbidding affairs with co-workers, and in
    my opinion they would be illegal if they existed.  DEC can only
    implement policies that relate to the business, they can govern
    the personal lives of employees.  (That's what all the broohaha
    about drug testing at other companies is about).  However, IF an
    affair is causing a manager or supervisor to treat subordinates
    unfairly and the unfair treatment can be proven, the supervisor
    had better watch out!  NOTE: Only the unfair treatment needs to
    be proven, the fact that it is caused by an affair is not really
    the issue.  Of course any supervisor/manager having an affair with
    a subordinate had better be real careful anyway, if they ever break
    up on unfriendly terms (s)he will probably find themselves on the
    wrong end of a sexual harrasment suit!
    

� ... they would be illegal if they existed.  DEC can only implement policies 
� that relate to the business, 

  Isn't American law nice and liberal? In the past I have worked for companies
  (in other countries) that have "moral turpitude" dismissal clauses in
  the contract. The usual justification is that if an employee becomes known
  for moral turpitude then that reflects on the company they work for ("isn't
  XYZ Corp a terrible firm, why they even employ notorious adulterers!")
  and that is a perfectly justifiable business reason to dismiss them.
  
  /. Ian .\

    Further thought: Digital's P&P are subservient to local and national
    law.
    
    If two employees are having an adulterous affair, then maybe there isn't
    a Digital Policy about this, but in many states of America, and in many
    foreign countries, adultery is illegal (a couple were arrested for it
    in New Hampshire recently, though of course neither worked for DEC).
    
    I believe therefore that if a manager/supervisor becomes aware of an
    adulterous affair, it may be legally incumbent on them to present the
    evidence to the relevant officials. And if convicted of this crime,
    I presume DEC may use that as justification to dismiss them...
    
    In other states cohabitation and other practices are illegal: similarly
    if two employees do this and their supervisor/manager finds out, is
    [s]he not legally required to take action (regardless of DEC's P&Ps)?
          
    /. Ian .\

    re .18
    
    I am not responsible for reporting vilations of the law in my town,
    state, or country, nor am I responsible for reporting breaches of
    company policy. I am not a policeman. I can think of precious few
    "crimes" which I would feel compelled to report.  I'm sure that
    where there are such laws, there are some who would turn in their
    fellows in turn for not having turned in someone else. I don't want
    to live anywhere like that.
    
    The CIA (or NSA, or one of those agencies) is currently instituting
    a program where employees are supposed to report violations of
    restricted lifestyles by their fellows... suspect behavior includes
    drinking "too much", adultery, homosexuality, etc. I'm sure that
    restricted behavior will soon include "deviant thought."
    
    I think the whole concept reeks.

.19>                                     ...suspect behavior includes
.19>drinking "too much", adultery, homosexuality, etc.

    I think this is more to minimize the risk of being blackmailed into
    giving up "National Secrets" than because 'they' think that these are
    bad things.  Given the paranoid nature of the CIA, NSA, etc., I don't
    find it all surprising that they would want to keep an eye on employees
    that could be a security risk.  It goes with the territory.  When you
    have that "black badge" you basically give up any right of privacy.
    Just because 'they' want to monitor this kind of behavior doesn't mean
    that everyone else is going to do it as well.
    
.19>I am not responsible for reporting vilations [sic] of the law in my town,
.19>state, or country, 

    You sound like a great neighbor.  If I wanted to have controlled
    substance at a party in my house, I wouldn't have to worry about
    you calling the cops.  Of course, if someone were to break in, I
    suppose you would just watch them steal me blind...
    
    Perry

    re: .19
    
    In the state of New Hampshire, you can already be jailed for failing
    to report suspected child abuse. 
    
    --bonnie

    This note and my previous two should perhaps have a smiley face... and
    maybe not.
    
    re .19: what has the fact that you are [not] a police officer got to
    do with your moral and/or legal obligation to report any and all breaches
    of the law to the proper authority?
    
    Is this another of these differences between America and the civilized 
    world. ie America thinks that because there is a police force then all 
    citizens are relieved of the duty to preserve law and order, whereas the 
    rest of the world feel that if you know of a crime and don't report it 
    then you are guilty of aiding and abetting the criminals which is itself 
    a crime.
             
    /. Ian .\

    I believe even in the USA if you know of a crime and don't report
    it you are guilty of complicity, right?  and that is a crime which
    (again I am now lawyer and treading on thin ice here) caries the
    same penalties as those associated with the crime you know about.?
    
    And I agree anyway that we need to do our part to maintain law and
    order.  But I must admit, neighbors have had parties at which
    restricted substances were present and I did not turn them in but
    I would definitely call the cops if I saw a robery in action.
    
    (I also call the cops on kids riding dirt bikes on the street because
    the noise bothers me)
    

re: .22

Colonel, there are a lot of foolish laws on the books in the U.S. (left
over from our Puritan heritage maybe:-)), the law against adultery and/or
fornication being one (along with laws, in various states, against such
things as having sex with the lights on, having sex in some way other
position than the "missionary" variant, etc.).

Most people don't report violations of these laws to the police because
either (A.) they don't agree that there should be such laws--the majority
position I would guess--or (B.) they would have a hard time getting "the
goods" on the violators in a way that would not draw down the wrath of
the majority upon their own heads (in other words, much as they'd like
to snoop into it, they don't dare).  It's unfortunate that most people
are content to see such laws go unenforced, rather than wiping them off
the books completely.

The issue in a Digital context is not that 2 people may be having sex
"out of wedlock", but that one person might be unfairly benefiting in
terms of reviews/raises/promotions because of a sexual relationship
with his or her supervisor or manager.

    re .21  Finally, an intelligent law.  However, I think
    I'd wait 'till after the abuser's legs were 'accidentally'
    broken, then call the cops. Some crimes simply must be
    stopped ASAP.

    Clarification : by abuse I mean either sexual abuse or
    excessive force. I don't object to a parent giving their
    child a swat in the ass, but a fist in the mouth is too
    much. The worst sort of abuse is psychological. I once
    heard a woman threaten her child "Do you want me to not
    love you anymore ?" It took all of my self control not
    to break her neck. Playing head games against a two-year-
    old is despicable. 

    Re my earlier replies: it started as a slightly impish playing of the
    Devil's Advocate. I agree these sort of laws are crazy, and I doubt
    if I would report anybody for breaking them. However they are laws,
    and they do overrule any statement or philosophy in DEC's P&P. 
    
    However the reply that "... I'm not a policemen ..." touched a hot button
    with me. I am very much down on that attitutde. The function of the
    police force is not to relieve the citizen of the moral and legal
    obligations of enforcing the law. The law is as old as man, police forces
    however are a rather modern invention. Basically they exist only to
    investigate cases brought to their attention by the citizens, who through
    their taxes pay the police wages. Also remember that recently the US
    Supreme Court ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect
    people. In fact the basic rule that every citizen is responsible for
    seeing that people who break the law are caught, and to defend themselves
    hasn't changed since the days when if you observed a crime you "raised
    a hue and cry" to bring out the rest of the citizenry to pursue and
    capture the blackguard. This role of the citizen is actually stronger
    in the US than in Britain today, for we long since abandoned the Grand
    Jury, and America retains it. Remember that in its simplest form a Grand
    Jury was a gathering of all the eligible jurors (land owners back then)
    of a parish to debate whether any crimes had been committed, and if
    so could a true bill be sworn against the likely perpetrator.
    
    If anybody really thinks that it is the responsibility of the police
    to enforce the law, then juries should be replaced by police judiciary
    panels, and Habeas Corpus should be repealed. I'm not sure you would
    need courts of appeal either: the police decide who's guilty and then
    execute sentence. On a more realistic note, think of societies in which
    the police are responsible for actively looking for crimes and criminals
    - such as Russia.
    
    /. Ian .\

    This sounds, Mr. Moderator, like a new topic:  What is our
    responsibility to other people regarding enforcement of
    our society's laws?  We can get into all sorts of tangents
    here, such as what's been labelled (unfairly, I think) the
    "New York City Syndrome", where someone is killed/raped/mugged
    in the middle of a crowd and noone does anything but watch.
    
    Actually, a better topic title would be "Isolation in Modern Society".
    
    --Louise

RE: -.1

Seems to me I tried starting such a note, more along the lines of citizen's
arrest, and profoundly told to go to SOAPBOX...

Jim.

    Jim:  it probably depends on the angle of the discussion.
    I think it relates to human relations - but it could also
    get specific (regarding certain news stories) or highly
    inflamatory.  It would fly if discussed from the human
    angle.
    
    --Louise

    So what's wrong with SOAPBOX?
    
    - M

     re .32:
     
     > So what's wrong with SOAPBOX?
     
     That's a topic for SOAPBOX, not TOUCHYGOOGOO.NOTE.
     
     --Mr Topaz

    I don't know... Seems in many US cities, Washington, DC being one
    of them, self defense is *effectively* against the law.  Also, police
    and courts actively discourage citizens from "taking the law into
    their own hands"; this includes defense and assistance to others
    under assault.
    
    Yes, yes; there are always exceptions and boundary conditions. 
    But the practicle reality is still the same.