Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    	Cathy, You are so right. I can agree with you 100%. I learned about
       my hobby from my father who learned from his father who's father was 
       taught the art of hunting for SURVIVAL and not just sport. You can 
       guess what I am talking about. NO ? Guns!/Hunting/Target shooting....
       and now the government is painting me a criminal for my choice of 
       gun (not weapon). I think this war on guns is just a media/popularity
       contest of ignorant ___ _____ who are afraid to face the fact that
       our Justice system is a pice of ____. Please feel free to fill in
       the balanks yourself since I did not want to offend anyone. Almost 
       every bit of the constitution is under attack. As we type their is a 
       campaign for a constitutional convention. The scary part is that
       this would be a first since the original draft. All doors would be 
       closed and a few ------ would rewrite the works. Everything becomes 
       law at the end of the convention. This is just the beginning. It's
       possable in this meeting to rewrite all aspects of government, not 
       just our freedoms/rights. How would you like to see a new form of 
       Gov. structure, a European parliament, Federalism - separate identity
       of the states. Sorry I know this is not soapbox, if you would like
       more info I'll send you the article I just read, it is scarry stuff.
       It is incredible how much I have learned about American history
       since my right to own and bear arms has come under attack. It is a
       sad time for all. 
                                                 John
                                                                 

    Hey guy, you'd better change your reading material....obviously gets
    you all upset.  Matter of fact, I'd love to see a European-style
    parliamentary system here.  Anyhow, as a gun owner, but also one
    who doesn't think the constitution has anything to do with whether
    I have the "right" or not, I would favor much stronger restrictions,
    much along the lines of what Canada is passing as we write.....28 day
    waiting period for instance.

    I think .1 is confusing Constitutional Amendments I and II. 
    
    I think .0 is just confusing.
    
    Ray

I think Cathy is saying that we can't talk turkey ("no fowl language").  Other
than that I'm not sure.

				Steve

    .4> Other than that I'm not sure.
    
    I am - unfortunately.
    
    Bubba

.6> "What goes around comes around".
.6> "Be careful of what you ask for you just might get it".

I have long since abandoned any "religion" but my childhood days are
not soon forgotten, and, one of my favorites was Galatians 6:7,

		"..for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall
		 he also reap."

However, most assuredly ... "Iacta alea est".

I've deleted all of my notes in 1616 and 981 in (HUMANE::DIGITAL, for
those of you who are lost in this little charade of words).  It was most
refreshing to get great commentary from those notes, both publicly and
off-line, both positive and negative.  I really don't care if everyone
agrees with me or with my value system.  It's through disagreement and
discussion that we all have the potential to learn and to broaden our
horizons.  Not only that, but, I made some fantastic new friends.

The "good" simply does not compensate for the potential negative consequences.

For the time being I guess I'll just have to prostitute myself and keep
my mouth shut in VAX Notes (send mail) for I have a family to support. 
They come first.  I'll fight this war some other way and with other weapons
but you may most assuredly and resolutely know that ... I will fight.

Saddened,
Jerry

    I don't follow DIGITAL, Jerry. If you'd care to summarize (in MAIL, I
    guess) then I'd love to read.
    
    A drive-about looks unlikely, by the way: job opportunities keep
    knocking on my door :)   :(.
    
    - Hoyt

    I'm STILL wondering what the heck is going on.  If there's something in 
    another confrence that is "leaking" into this one, then more details
    should be dropped in here so those of us who don't access the file, are 
    stuck wondering what caused this in the first place.  Either that, or
    the comments should be left in the appropriate file so we don't sit
    here like I am scratching my head and wondering "WHAT THE HECK IS GOING
    ON?"  
    
    I gather that someone made some comments and were asked to remove them.
    I gather that the comments contained some wording that someone found 
    inappropriate to notes.  
    
    That's all I can figure out, and without some sort of details, I gather
    that this particualr string of notes, isn't doing much for me in the
    way of "HUMAN_RELATIONS" 
    
    Not a complaint mind you, just a request to either give us some
    details.
    
    Skip

    
    
    
    I brief but terrifying explanation of .0 (by popular request). 
    
    It seems that a discussion took place somewhere in notes. 
    It seems that people were openly and honestly expressing there deepest
    feelings, fears, and concerns. 
    It seems that a certain governing body within the corperation did not
    like to opinions of one of the participants and toyed with the idea of
    fireing that person. 
    It seems that that persons opinions or 'space' meant nothing and that
    the opinions expressed showed a lack of....flexibility...
    It seems that though the person did NOT violate any Digital policies,
    they did express an (apparently) unpopular opinion. 
    
    
    My point was that no matter how much we hated those opinions, if we
    thought that the author was "out of his mind"...no matter WHAT those
    opinions evoked in us, that person had the RIGHT to express them in an
    open forum that ASKS for opinions. (again, I do not believe that there
    was a violation of dec policies in any of the opinions expressed)...
    
    But reading through the last few replies, it would seem that many
    'loud voice-opinionated' people have chosen, for the sake of keeping
    their jobs, to NOT contribute in the notes any more. 
    
    This is sad for all of us who enjoy hearing a variety of ideas and
    opinions, even though quite often I DO have to shake my head and wonder
    how in the world anyone could think some of those things!
    That's what keep us thinking. 
    
    SO it would appear that there is a monitor on many contributors and
    that any opinions expressed that do not meet corperate philosophy, will
    be subject to 'action'.....
    
    Isn't this the type of thing that creates an 'underground'?
    Is that what we want?
    As someone mentioned in a mail message to me (an extraction of a note
    that they had entered), how do you expect to change anyones opinion if
    you don't know what it is? 
    
    (PS, though I am quite AGAINST gun control, this discussion related to
    'freedom of speech', but yes, all of the amendments seem to be falling
    prey to interpretation.  :-(  
    
    cat

    Seems to me that not only are we being "told" what are opinions SHOULD
    be, but how we can express them. This is being said in notesfiles and also
    is being implied elsewhere in different circles.
    
    This reminds me of a manager I had a few years ago that said to our
    group:
    
    "I don't want you even THINKING that things are wrong..."
              
    I told him thought control was illegal in this country and he could go
    to....
    
    It scares and saddens me that Digital may be heading to a culture that
    will not let people openly DISCUSS differences in opinion. ACTING on
    these is where problems with policies and procedures may come into
    play.
    
    But TALKING about them? And that's all notesfiles are, electronic
    voices. 
    
    
    Steve Pitt

    I don't like the sound of this at all....
    
    Laurie.

	Yep, it seems like the most easily offended party (or
	parties) now have full veto power over anything anyone
	says.  Even to the extent of exerting influence over those
	with the power to hire and fire.

	Ah, well.  Perhaps this is the price we must pay to 
	be permitted our notesfiles on cars, weaving, photgraphy,
	and so forth.

	Just watch your step, everybody.

	Steve H

    re: last couple
    
          I am unaware of the incidences you allude to.  I
    believe, however, that paranoia is not a particularly helpful
    frame of mind to be in.  I further believe that those who 
    fear speaking up are the ones who are responsible for allowing
    those who go on to become bullies.  As was discussed in another
    notesfile a few months ago, the best way to stop a bully is
    to stop being a victim.  
          I won't let someone else's paranoia control my life.  I
    intend to stand by my principles, whatever they are, and generally
    speaking I'm willing to pay a price (as I have done repeatedly 
    throughout my life.)  But I also don't intend to martyr myself to
    principles.  Therefore I intend to look optimistically to a grander
    future, not a future bent on maintaining a disruptive past.  
    Moreover, if certain "toys" are taken away, there is nothing in 
    my imagination that can keep me from developing other "toys." 
    All is not lost.  Hanging on to something, making it really, really
    valuable, looking for perfection....all lead to a big, empty
    nowhere.  Be more courageous than this.  Sometimes you lose...but 
    far more often, you win...and the win is where it counts most.
    
    Frederick
    

>    nowhere.  Be more courageous than this.  Sometimes you lose...but 
>    far more often, you win...and the win is where it counts most.
>
>    Frederick

	Grand sentiments Frederick, but most of us gotta eat.

	One has to pick his battles, and if it's a choice between
	being non-PC in Notes and getting fired, it's easy to
	make the choice to shut up.

	Thanks,

	Steve H

RE:        <<< Note 1217.16 by CSC32::S_HALL "Gol-lee Bob Howdy, Vern!" >>>

�	One has to pick his battles, and if it's a choice between
�	being non-PC in Notes and getting fired, it's easy to
�	make the choice to shut up.

    So this is the digital way? So this is "doing the right thing"?
    Something somewhere, if the innuendo and allusion I'm picking up from
    this topic is true, has gone badly wrong.
    
    I often don't agree with things people say, but I defend their right to
    say it. I won't defend the *way* some people say things, but that's
    another issue; a fact that seems to have been lost here somewhere.
    
    So, come on, out with it! Enough rumour and hints. Let's have a
    statement from someone.!
    
    I also think this belongs in HUMANE::DIGITAL
    
    Laurie.

    re: .16 (Steve)
    
         Eat all you want, Steve.
    
         Rather than pick a battle, why not settle for a skirmish?
    You know, I don't know exactly what was being talked about here,
    for the entries have been a little vague.  But my point is this:
    We all want freedom--including freedom of the press, etc.  But
    freedom without responsibility is a child's view of freedom.
    Was the freedom alluded to in these notes that kind of freedom?
    If so, then perhaps the person(s) expressing that freedom would be
    wiser to temper their enthusiasm with some adult constraint.
    Freedom, yes, but freedom with responsibility is the adult version.
    What does responsibility entail?  It entails taking ownership--
    not only of awareness but awareness of impact.  How is the impact
    being received?  Are the principles stated such that others find the
    impact threatening or curtailing of their own freedoms?
         We've only gotten "one side" in here, and it's muddied at best.
    On the other side, is someone attempting to control or manipulate?
    Is someone attempting to demonstrate a form of power by intimidation
    or domination?  This person(s) has impact, too!  And they are equally
    responsible for that impact.  And if they also seek freedom, then they
    need to be responsible for their impact.
         Also, in regards to notes, there *are* certain policies in 
    place (established principles, etc.)  Even if they weren't violated,
    however, we are all subject to "performance" criteria.  Yes, perhaps
    it's prudent to not say something a supervisor can "punish" you
    with, by one means or another.  So send entries anonymously, if
    that's what it takes.  On the other hand, the paranoia goes a long
    way to disrupting lives, as well.  (A case in point was just after
    the collapse of the Soviet coup a couple of months ago.  I read
    something in notes from a Russian who claimed that Gorbachev plotted
    this all along.  Who needs this kind of police state in their lives?
    Do we really want to suspect everyone of something evil?  Come on!
    Even if there *are* little green men, living life as though they are
    just waiting to pounce on you is not really living at all!  Better to
    live gloriously, even if only for a limited time, than to live like
    that for too long a time.)
         As for eating, take your pick.  I've been down and I've been
    low...but I've always managed to eat.  So could you.  Either accept
    what you've got or work towards making it better.   There are lots 
    and lots of ways to make it better.  Hanging onto its negatives, 
    however, is not one of them.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    What *exactly* is going on?
    Why are people talking with fear in their notes?
    Why are people giving up noting?
    What has been decided, and by whom, to make noters afraid?
    
    Until someone convinces me of some global conspiracy, which I'm sure
    they won't, then as far as I'm concerned it's business as usual.
    
    Pete.
    p.s. If you never hear from me again, following this reply, then you
         know I was wrong.
    :-)

I find this all rather puzzling, since in my experiences those who are 
quickest to complain to management and Personnel are those who would label
themselves "non-PC".  I've seen several cases recently where such people
took such actions just because someone had the gall to disagree with them.

But Cathy's base note talks about "freedom of speech", and it's time once
again to trot out my lecture on the subject as it pertains to us as
employees.

The Consitution guarantees your right to stand in your front yard and use
speech to express any opinion you want.  (There are many who would try to
obstruct such a right, but so far they have been largely unsuccessful.)  But
in the workplace, as employees of Digital and using Digital's computers and
networks, there are significant restrictions on what you are allowed to say.
With the intent of making the workplace "safe" for all employees, Digital
states in P&P 6.54 (see VTX ORANGEBOOK) what types of expression are
considered improper.  That Digital allows us to push those rather vague limits
with impunity says a lot for how much the corporation is willing to be 
flexible.  But there are people who use Digital's resources to attack others,
and to make the workplace uncomfortable for those who belong to certain
groups, and Digital as the right and the responsibility to remove these people
from their "bully pulpit" in whatever manner seems most appropriate.  Most
folks see the light after a quiet word from their manager.  Others continue
to insult and offend, and thus further action is necessary.

I have yet to see or hear of a case of anyone being fired or threatened with
loss of job simply because they spoke their opinion, as long as they were
not doing so in an offensive and disruptive manner.  But those who would use
NOTES to strike out at those they despise or fear are quick to cry "foul!" when
they find themselves poisoned by their own venom.

Perhaps it would be better if Digital didn't allow us the freedom of expression
which we do enjoy; then these few people wouldn't be so quick to assume that
they could lash out without consequences.  But I think that would be a terrible
loss for us as a community.

			Steve

    
    
    re last:
    
    maybe the whole point here is in the word
    
                             OFFENSIVE
    
    OFFENSE is all relative.  Who is to say what is really offensive and
    what is not? THe person on the "receiving end"? The moderators? The
    policies and procedures manual?  Since "offense" is subjective, then
    do we not stand at risk? Would it not be easy for me to claim that
    I find your xyz offensive, and demand that your note be deleted? Or
    perhaps push further by gathering up several of your xyz opinions and
    persue it with personnel?  But what if you did not intend your opinion
    to be offensive but were rather stating your opinion? WHO makes the
    decision about when I can no longer express my opinion? SUrely we do
    not leave this decision to ANYONE. Isn't that an extreme level of power
    to be able to cut off opinions? Isn't that dangerous? 
    
    So your opinion is offensive to me. So you are threatened with loss of
    job. So you no longer express your opinion and everyone is happy. 
    
    We need to be tolerant of ALL differances, including differances of
    opinions. 
    As Steve said earlier, notes and just written words. What is next? WIll
    someone perhaps monitor my phone calls so that I don't express an
    undesirable opinion while on DEC property?  If I express an opinion 
    amongst friends, will someone be there to report me to personnel? Am I
    at risk of losing my job or being "spoken to by my manager" because
    I made the mistake of voicing an unpopular opinion? 
    
    Being as there are SOOOO many things that are relative to the person
    listening/reading/overhearing, I would say that we are ALL at risk of
    being 'watched'.  
    
    Cathy Pitt
     
    

    Okay, what is going on...
    In terms as vague as possible and still giving an idea of what is
    happening, (yes, it was explained to me off line by someone).  
    
    A recent incident conducted at a sight set off a flurry of notes both
    pro and con on the incident and how it was handled.  This was a DEC 
    sanctioned incident, ummm perhaps a better word would work here...
    let's say activity.  
    
    AS a result of this, some folks responded in there opinion that this
    activity was WRONG.  Other's responded it was RIGHT and still other's 
    felt it was RIGHT but handled in the WRONG way. Opinions on the
    activity varied, voices varied, and arguements varied.  This was fine, 
    this was life.  However, somewhere along the line, someone disagreed
    with some of the opinions being voiced.  Mind you, these were opinions, 
    not threats, nor harrassment.  (At least to my understanding) however, 
    somewhere along the managment line, someone didn't agree with one or 
    several of the opinions voiced.  Termination was threatened (?)
    (resulted (?)...I'm not clear on this).  And as a result, people now
    are in fear of speaking on the problems and issues invovled.  To my
    knowledge, there were no death threats, no violatiosn of corperate
    Personnel Policies and Proceedures.  The only violation I am aware of
    is that one opinion did not agree with another.  Rather then dealing
    with the problems that caused this "evil" opinion, someone somewhere
    decided to censor this voice and opinion.... by getting rid of it.
    
    Opinions are with us all, and one persons opinions about a race,
    group, sex, culture, religion, eye shape, hair color, hairy butt, etc. 
    should be just that.  So long as it doesn't interfer with the employees
    job performance, quality, and ability to get the job done.  I don't see 
    what the problem is.  Now however, if it results in death-threats,
    harrassment, worry, non-productivity, illness from stress, then rather
    then dumping the problem by shutting it up, it should be treated.  
    
    In other words, which is better, the ability to remove cancerous
    growths, or the ability to cure the cancer?  
    
    That's a good as I can explain it folks.  I was shocked and appalled
    when the situation was explained to me.  ANd althought I don't know for 
    certain, I suspect that the person who explained the situation to me, 
    could have been against the "silenced" opinion.  But was in fact more
    shocked by the fact that the opinion was instead silenced by
    threatened(?) or actual (?) termination, when it should have been
    confronted, dealt with openly, and taken care of in a far more
    "healthy" manner.  
    
    Skip

    It always amazes me how folks look a gift horse in the mouth.  We
    come to work to work not editorialize.  
    
    And yet we have an employer that allows us to communicate on our lunch
    and coffee breaks with others via a company resource.
    
    Just like they allow us to talk face to face.
    
    But we can't be disruptive, we can't swear, and it doesn't make good
    sense to argue about policies that our employee institutes.  There is
    a place for that and there is a way that it can be done properly.

    re: .23
    
>                                                    it doesn't make good
>    sense to argue about policies that our employee institutes.  There is
>    a place for that and there is a way that it can be done properly.
    
    Are you going to leave us guessing as to where and what they may be?
    

    We have the Open Door Policy for one.  We have personnel for another.
    
    And there is government agencies to which we can complain if we feel
    that an issue in the workplace is unconstitional or against the law.
    
    My point was arguing in notes between employees seems silly and very
    much the same as a shouting match in the smoking room.  

         It would be quite unique if freedom of speech actually DID
    exist in such areas as VAXnotes, as some people so erroneously
    assert.  That would mean that someone (or some company) literally
    would have no control over what use was made of their own property (in
    this case, the disks and nodes where the conferences reside).  It
    might also mean that certain types of individuals could (and sometimes
    already do) make Digital a very uncomfortable place to work. 
    
                                      Greg

    
    
    re .26
    
    then perhaps it would be appropriate for all of us to peruse notes
    and pick out the notes that we personally find offensive, and take
    names to personnel. 
    
    Point being that anyone can find SOMETHING offensive in SOME notes. 
    
    It's ok to stand by and tell folks to quit complaining about the fact
    that freedom of speech is NOT distributed equally in Digital, but I'm
    sure that the first time that I take YOU to personnel and your job is
    on the line, you'll think differantly. 
    
    Cathy
    

.27> Point being that anyone can find SOMETHING offensive in SOME notes.

...How true.  From my limited perspective, the "dividing line" often has
to  do  with  a  level  of maturity (or in some cases the lack thereof).
Now, to insure correctness in every form, this is NOT to say that anyone
who  is  offended  is NOT mature.  [I have this strange feeling that any
notes of this nature will be replete with disclaimers]

I'm reminded of an individual who told me that he and his wife had  been
trying for two years to have a baby:

The *thought* of abortion was absolutely abhorrent and offensive to him.
He could have easily  complained that such notes which advocate abortion
were offensive to him, and, believe me, they were.  He was (by  his  own
words)  mature  enough to recognize that everyone did not think the same
as he or share his emotions.

Similarly for an individual who's  father  was  killed  in  a  senseless
murder.    Discussions   which  were  anti-gun-control  were  absolutely
incomprehensible to her - but - again - she's mature enough to know that
she must work in her own way to achieve her goals, and, others will work
in their ways.

To "silence" one voice is the beginning of the end ...

These "issues" of abortion and gun control were  VERY  emotional  topics
for   these   two  people  -  it  was  absolutely  incomprehensible  and
reprehensible (to these  people)  that  anyone  could  advocate  no  gun
control and abortion.

Similarly, there are issues of religion, sex, politics, race, creed, and
sexual  orientation.   They  *are*  emotional.   How do you separate the
emotion from reality - maturity.

For me - I have my own "hot button" - the military.  I have been called,
in  VAX  Notes, a "liar" and a "fool" for continuing to serve my country
and wear  the  uniform  of  a  United  States  Marine.   Following  such
declarations  by  a  noter  there  was a "hurrah" from other noters - in
support of the "liar" and "fool" comments.  The moderators let it stand.
The  notes still stand to this day, over one year later (don't ask, send
mail and I'll point you to the conference).

It  is  incomprehensible  that  those  who  will  so  violently  protest
"personal  attacks" and "Valuing Differences" will condone such language
as demonstrated above, but believe me, I've seen it.

I chose to disassociate myself from those noters, deleted all  my  notes
and resorted  to READ_ONLY.  From my own perspective, I'll let the notes
stand as a shining monument to what I consider to  be  hypocrisy.   It's
*their* problem.  Not mine.  *They* will ultimately suffer indignity and
ill repute for their words.  Not me.  *They* must  defend  their  words.
Not me.

To what end would it  have  profited  me  to  have  the  notes  deleted?
Nothing.   To  what  end  would  it  have  profited me to "silence" that
person's diatribe?  Nothing.  To what end would it profit me  by  having
the notes stand?  Everything.

I most assuredly respect others "opinions" IRRESPECTIVE  of  whether  or
not  they  agree  with  me.   Irrespective  of  whether  or  not they're
"offensive" to me.  It's sort of like an electronic cocktail party -  if
I  don't  like  the  party  I certainly don't go running to the host - I
leave the party and go to another one.  I like to think that it's a mark
of maturity.

Your mileage may vary.

Bubba

    RE: -1
    
    Well said that man.
    
    Laurie.

    
    Bubba,
    
    Nice to see some wisdom on the net, for a change.
    Very well said indead.
    
    Pete.
    
    p.s. I often disagree with what people say, but I'll always be prepared to
         fight for their right to say it.
    

    Bubba,
    
    Excellent!  It never seeks to amaze me that people can not realize that 
    the world is filled with differences.  Accept it as such, and learn
    that just because I like beans and you don't, there's no reason why my 
    ability as a shipping clerk should be used to sort out your packages
    and have them mishipped.  In other words, we're all different, we all
    have our nits, pushed buttons, attitudes, dislikes, hates, and fears.
    
    We also all have our favoriate resturants, friends, loves, interests,
    likes, hobbies, desires, and dreams.  
    
    If the world could spend more time recognizing that we all have these 
    +'s and -'s instead of what the +'s and -'s are... accept it line up 
    on them and not be afraid of the ones we don't line up on... 
    
    Oh well, as you said, it's a matter of maturity.  I'm mature enough to
    recognize that no one else see's the world like I do, and they're all 
    intitled to see it the way they want... so long as they don't try to
    hinder my eyesight, I'll get along just fine.  Try to put blinder's on
    me... and it's quiet possible I'll start breaking heads, punching
    noses, and taking names.  It is maturity, and a matter of respecting
    ones right to their own opinion regardless of if that opinion is
    right/wrong/ or just different.
    
    Skip

Re: .27

It's been done.  Numerous times.  Nothing new here.  We have to rely on
Personnel being able to determine what is a "reasonable" accusation and
what is "frivolous".  It's exactly analogous to the fact that ANYONE can
sue anyone else for any reason.  There are not yet sufficient protections
in our legal system to discourage people from filing frivolous lawsuits, though
there are individual exceptions.  I have found, especially recently as the
people in management and Personnel become more "savvy", that they don't
usually react with jerked knees and will often tell frivolous complainers to
"see figure 1", so to speak.  I've seen that happen just recently.

I've learned a bit more about the particular case people are talking about
here, and though I don't know what precise problem prompted the action, and
don't know if it was perhaps handled improperly, I do know that the
individual affected has had a long string of offenses which have involved
VPs and corporate personnel in the past.  So I think there is some context
here which many are missing.  (Please don't ask me for the details, I'm not
free to divulge them.)  It was certainly not, in my opinion, a simple case
of "speaking one's mind."

					Steve

    
    
    re .33
    
    Steve,
    
    your accusations about "this person" are beneath even you
    
    You talk as though you are "in the know" and since "this person" has
    been "in trouble before" they deserved what they got and so no big
    deal to you that their opinions are zeroed out and they are forced to
    maintain silence.
    
    That's sick.
    Your inuendo was sick. 
    This kind of absolute attack on a persons' character
    is exactly the ONLY thing in
    notes that should NOT be tolerated and should rate a trip to personnel.
    
    Opinions are one thing. Personal attacks against individuals and their
    history with Digital are really REALLY LOW.
    
    I find .33 totally disgusting and yes, OFFENSIVE.
    
    Cathy
    

    re: .34 (Cathy)
    
         This isn't my "fight" so perhaps I'm intruding...however,
    based on both your entries, I don't see that what Steve said is
    so out-of-line.  
         I can agree that the message is more important than the messenger.
    But I also see where sometimes the messenger needs to be considered.
    Consider Lucy with Charlie Brown's football.  Consider David Duke
    running for governor in Louisiana (and giving out the message that
    he isn't racist, etc.)  I am all for humility, that is, having a 
    willingness to be open to something different than what history
    has indicated, but I have to tell you that if my experience is that
    someone cannot, in my mind, be trusted at a certain level, there is
    not much trust in what that person says.  That person would have to
    work to re-establish that trust from ground-level on upwards.
         I'm not saying this wasn't the case here, but as partially
    presented, it indicates that this "prior record" played an important
    role in consideration of the message.  I, for one, would probably
    be unlikely to listen very carefully to a message from a messenger
    who had previously broken my trust.  Does this fit?
    
    Frederick
    

    
    
    re .35.
    
    sorry. I don't by that. THis is not a case of "is this persons opinion
    to be given the same share of disk space as anyone elses opinion". 
    
    This is a case of insinuating to the whole noting community that this
    person 'deserved what he got'. 
    
    This is beyond exceptable noting practices. 
    Moderator or not, I stand by what I said. Steve was WAY out of line.
    
    Cathy

Re: .36

I did not say that the person "deserved what they got".  I merely said that
there was a lot more to the history of the situation than I think most people
here are aware of.

I do want to make it clear that I am dead set against the notion of firing
people because of what they say in notes.  I would much prefer that they
become a productive and positive contributor to the noting community. 
However, Digital as a corporation has certain responsibilities to its
employees as a whole, and if a person repeatedly violates policy and
refuses to cooperate with management, then management is often left with
no other choice.

I'll say it again - there is NO SUCH THING as "free speech" in notesfiles on
Digital's corporate network.

					Steve

    
    
    
    Steve,
    
    I disagree. I believe that there IS free speech in notes.  
    But only for some people. 
    
    If I was to say something like (THIS IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE FOLKS)
    
    **************************EXAMPLE TO FOLLOW***************************
    **THIS EXAMPLE IS NOT NECESSARILY THE OPINION OF THIS AUTHOR OR ANY
    ONE IN ANY WAY ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AUTHOR****************************
    
    
    Example:   Black women are the cause of all of the problems in this
    country and most of the problems caused throughout history.  
    
    *************END OF EXAMPLE***********END OF EXAMPLE******************
    
    
    Obviously, the following EXAMPLE, if entered as an opinion into a note,
    would result in a trip to beautiful downtown Mass, along with many many
    nasty replies from managers, along with threatening mail, along with
    the threat of losing my job. 
    
    But the same reaction should apply EVENLY no matter what we replace
    "Black Women" with,  (ie White Women, Black Men, White Men, Blue Eels,
    Managers (!!!)).  If we decide to supress 'opinions' about SOME people,
    then the same things should be supressed about ALL people. 
    
    BUT
    
    That exact comment is used to discuss another 'group' of people in 
    other Digital notes. No where was it challenged, nowhere did a
    moderator ask that it be removed, and I can't see where the author,
    (authors as it has been said many times in many notes) were asked to
    retract or apoligize.
    
    I am not trying to say whether the notes should be retracted or not,
    here, my point is that free speech DOES exist, but it all depends on
    WHO YOU ARE. 
    
    Freedoms, ANY kind of freedoms, should be applied equally and fairly. 
    DEC is missing the boat on both counts. 
    
    But the real issue here is Freedom of Speech and where to draw the
    line.
    There is an interesting article in US NEWS and World Report that
    applies:
    
    Going Overboard On-Line
    -----------------------
    
    Computer networks are becomming the nation's soapboxes, with people
    across the country speaking their minds electronically.  But now there
    are lively debates about how free expression should be in the computer
    age.  Prodigy, one of the nation's two largest computer networks, is
    facing criticism for trying to stop messages that it deems offensive.
    Recently, CompuServe, the other major network, was sued for libel by a
    rival computer company for carrying allegedly defamatory messages
    about one of the rivals' products. Last week, in what legal experts call
    a precedent-setting case, a federal judge likened computer networks
    to public libraries, ruling that CompuServe is not liable for
    information running on its system.  Despite the decision, Greard Vande
    der Leun, a lobbyist for computer networks, predicts that disputes
    aired on the nations growing network systems are likely to increase,
    causing more libel suits.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    US NEWS & World Report
    
    
    
    Cathy

    Digital Employee Interest conferences are not Public and not subject to
    the court decision cited in note .38. 

    RE:  <<< Note 1217.39 by RANGER::CANNOY "True initiation never ends." >>>

    >Digital Employee Interest conferences are not Public and not subject to
    >the court decision cited in note .38. 
    
         Right you are.  Most of the people who transmit on Prodigy don't
    work for that company, so a set of personnel policies would be somewhat
    more difficult to enforce.  Short of hiring huge numbers of monitors
    and terminating offending accounts, there is not much that they can do.
    
         Digital, however, provides the notes environment for interaction
    between employees, and can expect a certain type of behavior from the
    participants.
    
         You have no more of a right to free speech on Digital's network
    than you have a right to input a file on my home computer.
    
                                        Greg

Let's try a test.

Consider the following phrase, then assess the propensity for "problems"
resulting from saying such in VAX Notes.  Afterwards, we'll discussion
human relations and VAX Notes.



"I don't want to associate with < ------ >!!"

       If                                        Propensity for "problems"?
                                             (H=high, L=low, M=medium N=none)
<women > said by a man?
<men   > said by a woman?
<gays  > said by a heterosexual?
<het   > said by a gay?
<color > said by a white?
<white > said by a color?



"< ------ > is repulsive!"

       If                                        Propensity for "problems"?
                                             (H=high, L=low, M=medium N=none)


<homosexuality  > said by a heterosexual?
<heterosexuality> said by a homosexual?
<religion       > said by an atheist?
<atheism        > said by a religious person?
<liberalism     > said by a conservative?
<conversatism   > said by a liberal?

For what it is worth, I normally do not find many of the notes posted in any
forum upsetting or objectionable that many other individuals get into a flap
about. I guess I feel we are all entitled to an opinion no matter if it follows
the acceptable norm or not. But that's me and not you, so can only speak for my
self. Personal attacks of someone's opinion is usually motivated by what we
perceive our selves is right and wrong or unacceptable. But to the originator of
the note, may see nothing wrong with what was written because that person is
different from you an I and has their own opinion. Sometime we read things into a
note that were not really intended or there and hence becomes distorted.

John

	Like many people here, I can only guess about what actually
	happened to trigger the base note, but I 'll give my two
	centimes worth of comment on Steve Lionel's reply .33, and
	Cathy Pitt's reaction on that.

>    Steve,
>   
>    I disagree. I believe that there IS free speech in notes.  
>    But only for some people. 

	IMO, if the concerned party indeed caused "disturbance" repeatedly,
	then this _does_ make his case different from any similar but
	isolated event.
	For instance, if you (Cathy) have a child who is constantly using foul 
    	words, wouldn't you reprimand him or her ?  Does this mean that from 
    	now on you have to give the same treatment to any kid who happens to 
    	use a dirty word ?  I think that would be exagerated.  So, apparently 
    	the latter child gets more rights than the former.  IMO, it is not 
    	always right to judge on one "act" objectively, but the context and 
    	history of the act HAS to be taken into account.


	As for free speech in digital.  Digital is a company that pays our
	wages, and expects us to perform its business conveniently.  Many 
	actions that are perfectly legal and normal in daily life, may be 
	contrary to these business objectives, and thus will be suppressed
	by the company.  Digital can tell us how to dress and behave vis-
	a-vis certain clients.  Personally I find that a tie looks very silly,
	and I don't wear one in the office, but when I meet a client for the
    	first time, I put one on, even though the "thing" makes me feel very
        uncomfortable, and I think it's totally wrong to judge people (or 
        companies) on the way they look or dress.

	I 'll toss in another fictive example :  Suppose
	two people have to work together in a project team, because of the
	skills that are required .  One of them perceives the other as an
	annoyance because of racist prejudices.  What will the company do ?
	Force the two to work together ?  Remove one from the project team ?
	Which one ?  The one whose racist ideology causes the trouble ?  Or
	the one that is least critical for the job ?

	As was said before, the key word is maturity.  If person A above
	were mature enough to overcome his prejudice, there would be no 
	problem at all.  If he can't do so, then, whatever digital does about
	it,  will be seen by some as wrong.  There _is_ no good solution.


	Leo.    

    re last
    
    HI. I agree with most of what you say. 
    
    But I don't agree that notes is any place to "smeer" someone. I read
    Steve's note as that. 
    
    Secondly. You're right. Digital can tell us what to where etc. BUT the
    CANNOT say, "women can wear anything they want. Minorities can wear
    anything they want. HOmosexuals can wear anything they want. White
    males must wear blue suits and ties". 
    
    That's the differance. 
    
    Cat

    RE:                <<< Note 1217.45 by CSC32::PITT >>>
    
    >Secondly. You're right. Digital can tell us what to where etc. BUT the
    >CANNOT say, "women can wear anything they want. Minorities can wear
    >anything they want. HOmosexuals can wear anything they want. White
    >males must wear blue suits and ties". 
    
         ...and fortunately, Digital doesn't say this.
    
         Any subgroup of Digital employees can claim that some other group
    is getting away with murder.  The hard part comes about when it is time 
    to provide substantiation for the claim.  Having personally witnessed
    actions taken against members of several different sub-groups, I don't 
    believe that the assertion is true.  Individual members of every
    subgroup in the corporation have written notes which should have
    brought them some form of reprimand.  Sometimes they got what they
    deserved, and sometimes they didn't.  It was largely dependent upon
    whether or not somebody reported the infraction to a moderator or
    Personnel.  To claim that "my group is the only one being punished"
    is just plain silly.
    
         It has been said that anything which is repeated often enough will
    begin to be taken as the truth, regardless of its veracity.  That's a
    sad commentary on human nature.
    
                                       Greg

    
    
    
    ok. Sure. I'll buy that....White males are paranoid. They have all the
    same rights as anyone else within Digital. The same freedoms to say
    or do what they wish. The same freedoms to be fairly treated in the
    job market. The same freedoms to hold "white male awareness day"
    rallies without being threatened for there lack of "valuing
    differances" views.
    
    You're right. Paranoid. 
    I take back everything I said. There doesn't seem to be a problem at
    all...
    
    Cat
    

    Cat
    
    Since I followed the discussion that I believe you are referring to
    in Digital, I do have to say that I don't have a lot of sympathy
    for people who got upset when personnel got on their cases because
    they were making negative remarks about minorities. Valuing
    differences does not guarantee anyone the right to call some one
    a 'pervert' or a 'nigger' or any other loaded term.
    
    Bonnie

The rule I've always espoused is "Never write anything in NOTES which you
wouldn't want to appear on your resume'".

				Steve

	re. -1 		I like that, Steve...;')



	

    
    re .48
    
    Bonnie,
    
    so is it ok then to make negative comments about "majorities"?
    As there are "minorities", then that would imply that there are
    "majorities" (one who is not a minority??). 
    
    I certainly do see 'negative comments' directed towards "majorities"
    in many conferences. They seem to go unaddressed by personnel, the
    opinions expressed, in fact, often are protected and defended like a
    mother bear would protect her cub. 
    
    I have not heard anyone 'called' anything like 'nigger' or 'pervert'
    (oh wait, Womennotes does use that term many many times to refer
    to men......) or 'fags' or anything else that could be referred to as
    'name calling'.
    
    What I have heard are things like "I think that's sick". That, to me,
    is an opinion. An expression of one's personal belief.  
    
    Can you honestly say that Womennotes (as an example) does not ever
    refer to men in that tone? Womennotes have never insinuated that men
    are "sick" or perverse, etc.etc.etc??  
    And can you honestly say that no where at any time in Blacknotes that
    no one has ever out and out SAID that whites are the cause of all of
    the problems in the world?  
    
    OK. SO those are opinions. They were expressed. They were not deleted
    and did not result in a trip to personnel for the people who stated
    those opinions. 
    SHould they have? I guess maybe that that is the topic here. I don't
    think so. I think that, as I said, they were opinions. They did not
    promote hostility towards and group. (they didn't really come out and
    say that since whites are the cause of all of the problems in the
    world that they should be shot...).  But nobody complained. It was
    ok. 
    
    So if it was ok in that in that instance....well, you get my point.
    
    Freedom of speech is alive and well at Digital. It just depends whose
    speech and whose freedom we're talking about.
    
    Cat 

    Cat
    
    Please send me note numbers where men are so referred to in Womannotes.
    I have been remiss as a moderator if such notes have been allowed
    to stand in a conference I am responsible for.
    
    On the other hand, perhaps you are just objecting to people describing
    the world as it actually is and calling that negative comments?
    
    i.e. If one discusses the role of men in violence against women
    that is considered to be a negative comment about a majority?
    Why is it that when the victims speak out against those that
    have victimized them (not all x but always x) this is regarded
    as equvalent to those who victimize minorities?
    
    i.e. If X calls Y sick and Y is an oppressed minority, oppressed
    by generations of Xs you feel that this should be as protected
    as Y saying I hate it when X oppresses me?
    
    Sorry lady, you can't get away with calling groups of people
    'sick' be they men, women or green aliens in a Digital notes file.
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    
    ok Bonnie,
    
    so what I hear you saying is that it is ok for X oppressed minority to
    voice their opinions in the form of negative comments about there
    'oppressors', but it is NOT ok for Non 'oppressed' non minorities to
    voice their opinions?  
    
    Doesn't this seem a little prejudicial and unfair and, if I may,
    chicken-shit, to you, Lady??
    
    Cat

    
    
    re .52 (again!)
    
    >describing the world as it actually is?
    
    Why don't you explain how the world "acutally is" and I'll tell you
    if I think that that is what I'm saying. 
    
    Perhaps there are differant views on "how the world actually is".
    Perhaps it is the freedom to discuss those views that started this
    whole note.
    
    Or perhaps some people KNOW how the "world really is" and refuse to
    accept any discussion that might imply that they are wrong. 
    
    Cat
    

    
    
    
    ps
    
    If someone can tell me that sex with German Shephards is sick, then can
    someone who is in "the know" as far as notes etiquette goes, tell me
    what can be referred to as "sick" and what can't??
    (I don't partaicularily like German Shephards, Steve!!!!  ....now
    chows!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :-)
    
    No really, this is important. It is important to know WHO draws the
    line and who can decide what we can call what and what we can't talk
    about at all and why. And it is important for people to understand that
    the lines that are being drawn are really NOT equal or fair to all
    Digital employees.
    
    Cat
    
    

    nope in re .53
    
    It isn't okay for a white person to refer to people of color and
    say they are 'sick' 'lazy' 'stupid' etc.
    
    It is okay for people of color to say 'prejudice by white people
    has caused me pain.
    
    It is a difference in who holds the 'whip hand' but I really don't
    think you can see that.
    
    and no matter what you think of a particular minority, there are
    minorities that are protected by Digital Policies and Procedures
    and you can't make rude or insulting remarks about them in notes files.
    
    But again I think you can't see that.
    
    Bonnie

.52> If X calls Y sick and Y is an oppressed minority, oppressed
.52> by generations of Xs you feel that this should be as protected
.52> as Y saying I hate it when X oppresses me?

    Bonnie!!  How do I get the status of "oppressed minority" so that when
    someone calls me a "liar" and a "fool" I can apply for redress?  Oh! 
    I'm sorry, I have to wait for "generations" before I can do so.  Sorry,
    I missed that.

    When I don't like something that is said in one of the gay conferences,
    write the moderators and get a "we're discussing it" *three* *months* later
    ... how long do I wait?  Oh!  Generations?  I forgot.  Makes a *lot* of
    sense to me.  Right.

    Thanks, but, no thanks.

    It's no wonder that people like David Duke are beginning to get so much
    support!!

    I would say "God help us" ... but I don't believe in God ... no wonder.

    Bubba

    re .56
    
>    It is okay for people of color to say 'prejudice by white people
>    has caused me pain.
    
    And likewise it (should) be ok for white people to say "prejudice by
    people of color has caused me pain."   (Caucasians have no monopoly on
    prejudice.)
    
    Rich

    Rich,
    
    Of course that is true. What isn't okay is for any person to call
    another person or group 'sick' 'perverted' or any other statement
    of that type.
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    re .56  Bonnie,
    
    
    >there are minorities that are protected by Digital Policies and
    procedures and uou can't make rude or insulting remarks about them in
    notes files.
    
    
    
    Does this man that I *CAN* make rude and insulting remarks about those
    people not covered as a 'minority' in the P&P manual?????  
    
    
    I think not. The Policies and Procedures manual covers EMPLOYESS and
    the fact that Digital guarantees EMPLOYEES a harrassment free
    environment. It doesn't say that Digital guarantees he following
    minorities a harrassment free environment. 
    
    That's the point I'm trying to make.
    
    First of all: WHAT IS HARRASSMENT. If I say I don't like PURPLE PEOPLE
    AND HERE ARE MY REASONS...is THAT harrassment or am I expressing an
    opinion thta purple people would do well to listen to.
    
    Second of all: If it is NOT ok to insult, ridicule, harrass SOME
    employees in notes, then that should apply to ALL employees, as the
    harassER or the harrassEE, regardless of who has done what to who for
    the last bazillion years and who deserves what according to your
    political adgenda. Digital is not the place to make up for "years of
    oppression".....
    
    Cathy
    

>>    It is okay for people of color to say 'prejudice by white people
>>    has caused me pain.
    
	Actually, this is not okay.
    
    	It should be reworded as "prejudice by SOME white people...".
    
    	Statements like the above, without any malicious intention, 
    	sometimes inflame some people because they feel that the speaker
    	is making a personal attack against THEM.  While there are some
    	members of any ethnic group that may be prejudiced to others, 
    	it is unfair to give the impression that ALL members of that ethnic 
        are bigotted.
    
    	B.

    Cat,
    
    In 1217.52, Bonnie made a request of you, to support a quite
    outrageous claim you made.  You have written four replies since
    then, but not one of them has addressed her request in any way.
    
    Since my interest in this is the same as Bonnie's, I hereby
    reiterate her request.
    
    Thank you.
    
    						Ann B.

    Cat,
    
    You can if you wish make a rude and insulting remark about someone,
    and if that person doesn't complain you may well get away with it.
    I would not do so, nor would I recommend that someone do so. That
    is not the point of what I have been writing.
    
    In the Digital conference some people who apparently believed
    that homosexuals are 'sick' said so. They were told that they
    don't have the right to do that. Case closed. 
    
    Now a person may *believe* that about homosexuals or may believe
    all kinds of negative things about other minorities but Digital
    Policies and Procedures specifically protect certain classes of
    people which means that you can't *say* that in Digital notes files.
    The protected classes include race, gender, religious orientation, and
    sexual orientation. Company policy forbids making specific categories
    of remarks about those classes of people. If you believe that
    the protection should be expanded to include everyone then I 
    encourage you to work towards that goal.
    
    and thankyou Ann. Cat I request that you either substantiate your
    claim about Womannotes or retract your remark.
    
    Bonnie

    >No really, this is important. It is important to know WHO draws the
    >line and who can decide what we can call what and what we can't talk
    >about at all and why. 
    
    I can answer this -- and it's the answer to this that seems to have
    you so steamed:
    
    			Not you.
    
    This isn't a democracy, and it isn't anarchy, and you can't say
    what you want, and that's the reality of it.  There is no freedom of
    speech; life is unfair; and things are not going to change to suit
    you -- or me.
    

    
    
    
    .63
    
    
    
    pUleeeze......
    retract my note??  
    
    you're dreaming.
    
    I can point out MANY occurances of rude insulting notes against WHITE
    MALES in womennotes, and I don't HAVE to substantiate it or retract my
    statement.
    
    And no, I won't bother to wade through all that trash to prove my
    point. And I can't believe that anyone out there is not fallen over
    with laughter at your insinuation that womennotes is lillywhite and has
    NOT tore white males apart in great detail on many occasions.
    
    But if I were to point a note out to you that said "men are rapists and
    slime" you'd simply tell me that since "that's the way the world is"
    and "oppressed minorities have the right to address their feelings".
    
    I can't believe that you can't see what's going on here.
    
    AND, I do resent the implication that if someone wants to be treated
    with equal respect and by the same rules as other EMPLOYEES, that they
    have to petition personnel to be put on the list of protected people...
    that's pathetic. 
    And it's pathetic that some of us can sit in a 'protected status' and
    look down our noses as those 'unprotected people' and tell them that if
    they want to be treated 'like me' then they better fight for that
    right.  Absolutly pathetic.....
    
    Retract my statement?? I think not.
    
    Cat

    
    
    re .64
    
    
    Oh damn. I keep forgetting. Life isn't fair. 
    Ok so the next time one of my MALE colleagues and I both apply for the
    same job and I get it ONLY because I'm a woman, I'll tell him "life
    isn't fair" and I'll also tell him that if he wants to be treated like
    *ME* then he should go and complain to someone.....
    
    And the next time I answer the question "what makes women angry?" with
    "men make me angry cause they're rapist pigs", I don't want to hear
    any complaining from the   men in the audience, because "life isn't
    fair". 
    
    Hog Pucky. 
    Life *ISN'T* fair. 
    
    So do we (as protected minorities) take advantage of it or do we try to
    make it RIGHT?
    And do we (as UNprotected 'others') learn to live with it, or do fight
    for our RIGHTS???????????
    
    Cat
    
    
    

    in re .65
    
    The real reason that you won't substantiate your remarks is that
    you can't. I encourage anyone here who is not familiar with
    womannotes to open the file and detemine for your self the
    truth or falsity of the charges Cat Pitt is making. 
    
    Bonnie

    
    ok ok you're right. I'm wrong. No where in Womennotes are men EVER
    insulted.....MY MISTAKE.  I must have been reading some OTHER notes
    file...
    
    and why are you changing the subject??
    
    cat

    >So do we (as protected minorities) take advantage of it or do we try to
    >make it RIGHT?
    >And do we (as UNprotected 'others') learn to live with it, or do fight
    >for our RIGHTS???????????
    
I think the answer has to be based on whose ox is getting gored and how
badly.  Some issues aren't worth fighting over.

Some of us have tough hides and others don't.  That's a difference.

I find it easier to work with the rinocerous than the easily offended.  

I also believe that excessive sensititivity to another's words
is pathological.  

If I say it politely with words of more than two syllables, I may be
listened to.

Dick    
    
    

    RE: .66  Cathy Pitt
    
    > Ok so the next time one of my MALE colleagues and I both apply for the
    > same job and I get it ONLY because I'm a woman, I'll tell him "life
    > isn't fair" ...
    
    Better yet, turn it down (if you feel so strongly about it.)
    
    I'd turn it down (and would wait for a job based on qualifications.)
    You have the same option.

    Cat,
    
    Bonnie was not changing the subject; you were.  You wrote in 1217.51:
    
    	"I have not heard anyone 'called' anything like 'nigger'
    	or 'pervert' (oh wait, Womennotes does use that term many
    	many times to refer to men......)..."
    
    You have been asked, twice, and politely, to give references for
    this claim.  In none of the (now) seven replies you have written
    to this note have you done so.
    
    However, in reply .65, you drastically changed your claim.  You go
    from ~"perverts" is synonymous with "men" in Womannotes~ to:
    
    	"I can point out MANY occurances of rude insulting notes
    	against WHITE MALES in womennotes,"
    
    and at the same time you summarily refuse to back up your claim:
    
    	"and I don't HAVE to substantiate it or retract my
    	statement."
    
    Guess what.
    
    You do, unless you want the readers here to dismiss you as a
    fact-free typist suffering from verbal diarrhea.
    
    						Ann B.

    Cathy
    
    One of the reasons for the existance of VoD programs and for
    specific company regulations is to attempt to make life a little
    more fair. This is especially for those persons who have historically
    been discriminated against, harrassed etc by the majority culture.
    
    Personally I think this is a valuable and laudable goal. 
    
    Bonnie

    re last few
    
    The righteous indignation at accusations against what it and is not
    allowed in Womannotes is quite amusing (imho, of course).
    
    Bonnie, you may want to read the P&Ps again.  All of your talk about 
    so-called "protected classes" is a crock...I know it's not your
    intention, but perpetuating such 'sacred cow' dogma does a lot more 
    harm than good.
    
    It is my understanding that Digital's P&Ps apply to *everyone* when 
    they talk about discrimination, harassment, derogatory statements,
    etc., not merely a select few who happen to be in one of the categories.
    

    RE: .73  Deb
    
    > The righteous indignation at accusations against what it and is not
    > allowed in Womannotes is quite amusing (imho, of course).
    
    They're simply asking Cathy to substantiate her accusations (which she
    has been unwilling and/or unable to do.)
    
    Perhaps we should discuss ::Soapbox instead.  Then you can tell us how
    insults aren't allowed AT ALL there (so we can all have a good chuckle.)

    
    
    
    last few, for you information, I had to wait until my phone shift was
    over before I could wade through the tons of CRAP in womennotes and
    find the 'proof' that you accuse me of ducking.
    What a laugh. We want proof. We want it now. You don't have it yet?
    Then you must be hiding...
    
    crock crock crock...
    
    but we'll ignore that.
    
    and while you want to talk about 'ducking the question' I noticed that
    no one touched Jerry Beelers question way back when...
    
    but on with the little side track you insist on blowing up.
    Since I have only had a short time to read through reems of notes
    (but have no fear, it has become a major afterhours project for many of
    us interested in preserving both sides of the truth for when it is
    needed).....
    I would ask the jury to withhold the verdict on whether this until I
    have time to accomplish this useless goosechase....
    
    It is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO damned funny though......the whole POINT of my
    note is that people can't say a DAMNED thing without someone whining
    about it or being taken to personnel over it....
    and now,,,,,if I do not produce evidence that men are insulted in
    womennotes, then I must retract my statement...
    
    barf. 
    
    So I'll get your proof......but sorry...I DOOO have a job. It will take
    more than 15 minutes. 
    Oh, and I'm sure while we're on the track, that there is no place in
    the gay/bi/lesbian conference that HETS are insulted....
    no, I can't produce proof...so I guess we'll just have to speculate on
    that one....
    
    
    And the last few notes make me uncomfortable....please delete them...
    
    :-)
    
    cat
    
    (back to WN)
    

    re.63
    Bonnie,
    I have to go with Cathy on this one I spent 45 minutes reading -WN-
    and found myself so offended at the attitude displayed there against
    men in general that I felt to reply would be a waste of time.
    I have deleted -WN- and will never waste my time there again.
    
    
    -j(sick of being bashed for being male)
    
    BTW- I have never oppressed people of color although *some* whites
    have and continue to do so.
    
    

    
    
    Just for real quick, I found 34.41 amusing....
    
    author states that people who enjoy pornography are perverts, then goes
    on to describe how they are 'sick'.
    
    Now this would appear to cover the "can't call people perverts or
    sick". 
    Obviously, if the author had been describing her opinion of homosexuals
    instead of 'people' who enjoy pornography, they results would have been
    differant...
    
    don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that that particular note
    should have been blown out or banned. The author stated an opinion that
    I can choose to agree with or disagree with. In either case, If I
    personally enjoyed pornography, I would have been insulted at being
    called a pervert or 'sick'!
    But 'people' who enjoy pornography aren't on the 'protected
    list'.......  :-)
    
    Ok so I'm only up to note 34....give me a break!!!!
    
    Really ladies, I'm working on it....but this is a lot of pucky to wade
    through on such short notice....
    
    cat
    
    

    
    
    
    
                   "MALE VIOLENCE: THE RAPE OF OUR LIBERTY"
    
    Seemed to be a hot topic in womennotes. Lots of good points by people
    who believe the statistics that they read and feel that violence in our
    society is mostly MENS fault. Of course, were I a man (no I AM a woman,
    Suzanne), then I would be greatly offended by the implication in the
    title, let alone wading through wads of accusations.
    But the only notes I found deleted were apparently from someone who did
    complain about the stereotype and was told that his opinion was
    obviously wrong. (I would guess that he deleted his own entries out of
    frustration..)
    
    Ok. 
    
    ********EXAMPLE TO FOLLOW****************THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXAMPLE
    ONLY AND NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN OPINION ON THE SUBJECT MATTER******
    
    So NOW, we'll call one
               "Gay promiscuity:The Spread of AIDS on society"
    
    based on the same credentials. All opinions must be based on
    statistics and whether or not the noter FEELS that AIDS is epademic 
    proportions because of "gay promiscuity".
    
    Same thing.
    
    No???
    
    Somehow I didn't think so...
    
    cat
      

    
    
    
    
    and.....
    
    I found 970.44 to be EXTREMELY insulting and rascist. 
    
    But it's still there.......
    
    
    so, ladies, I am bored of this game. It's cold in here and my toes are
    numb.  I trust that this little excercise can conclude now. 
    *I did NOT bring up the one string entitled "why women are angry" where
    the first 30 notes were nothing by attacks on men as the sexual scourge
    of the Earth and that women cannot sleep at nights because of these
    beasts.  I did NOT bring it up because I know that for alot of
    "people", there is a very real fear, and so I don't wish to trivialize
    this.  But surely you can see how the average joe MALE would be
    insulted by this.  Or is your point (Bonnie) that Joe MALE doesn't have
    the right to be offended by this because "that's the way the world
    is??"*
    Anyways, like I said, I don't want to rathole, especially on that
    string. 
    
    I would like to return to the subject at hand that states that the
    Freedoms we have within Digital, whatever they are or are not, should
    be shared EQUALLY by ALL employees, whether or not they are listed in
    the Orange Book.
    
    Cat
    

    re .74  Suzanne,
    
    Still can't resist an opportunity at BOX-bashing, can ya?  8-)
    
    Anyway, my point to Bonnie/Ann/Cathy was that *no* conference I've read 
    is "lilly white" when it comes to perfection.  Sometimes it's by design, 
    sometimes it's just because moderators are human, too.  I've seen notes 
    remain that I would have deleted in a nanosecond; and I've seen notes get
    deleted that didn't violate anything but the moderators were simply
    trying to 'do the right thing'.
    
    Most conferences have definite "agendas" where opposing viewpoints are
    not tolerated very well...In WOMANNOTES it's perfectly okay to call men
    "sexist," "misogynist," "bigoted," etc., but it is not acceptable for
    men to say not-nices about women.  CHRISTIANers can call g/l/b's
    "perverts" and "abominations" at will; writers in 'gay' files can call
    fundamentalists (or anyone else who doesn't agree with them) "homophobes" 
    and it's all just peachy-keen.
    
    In SOAPBOX we have no agenda.  The current banner says, "To seek out 
    strange new opinions" and we sure do get a lot of 'em!  8-)  But in our 
    case, roolz iz roolz...and (I think I can safely speak for the other 
    mods here) we do our best to apply P&Ps and conference guidelines fairly.  
    Use certain language and you get deleted no matter what color, religion, 
    sex, etc. you are.  We don't have any 'sacred cows' to protect or
    agends to push - everything is 'fair game'...*within the rules and 
    guidelines*.
    

    RE: .77  Cathy
    
    > author states that people who enjoy pornography are perverts, then goes
    > on to describe how they are 'sick'.
    
    You don't bother mentioning this, of course, but the author was responding
    to an ACCUSATION that she'd called people who enjoy pornography "perverts."
    
    Her response was that "Perhaps perverts is the wrong word." 
    
    She then described how she thought people who enjoy pornography were
    victims ("addicted" to pornography and exploited by those who sell it.)
    
    She did say that she thought the depiction of sex in pornography was
    "perverted" (in the sense that pornography is *not* a 'celebration of
    sex' the way 'erotica' is.)  She also stated that she likes erotica.
    
    The note doesn't support your accusation against Womannotes, Cat.

    RE: .78  Cathy
    
    > "MALE VIOLENCE: THE RAPE OF OUR LIBERTY"
    
    This was borrowed from the front page title of a magazine article
    (published back when the topic was opened.)  I'm sorry I don't remember 
    which magazine it was, but it was a national, expensive publication 
    (with shiny pages, not newsprint) - I saw it in the magazine aisle in a 
    store at the time.  (It was not a feminist publication - or I would
    have received it in the mail.)  :-)
    
    The author of the basenote probably assumed that if a national magazine
    could publish with this coined phrase on the COVER, then it might be
    ok to use it as the title of a topic about the same subject: the problem
    of violence against women (something even George Bush acknowledges!)
    
    The problem was, indeed, discussed.  Horror of horrors.

    I predict this note to accrue 100+ entrys by tomorrow things are about
    to heat up.
    
    -j

    RE: .79  Cathy
    
    > *I did NOT bring up the one string entitled "why women are angry" where
    > the first 30 notes were nothing by attacks on men as the sexual scourge
    > of the Earth and that women cannot sleep at nights because of these
    > beasts. 
    
    Well, I can understand why you refrained from bringing this one up -
    and why I'm not discussing it, either.
    
    It was a topic where women described how they FEEL about the things
    they have seen and/or experienced in their lives.  People were writing
    very personal perspectives about their OWN feelings (until the topic was
    ratholed, of course.)
    
    I'd equate it to notes I've read from African Americans about their
    perspectives on what it's like to be a racial minority.  It provides
    an insight (for those willing to hear it.)  As a white person, I do
    find notes about the perspective of racial minorities to have value
    for me (but other white individuals' mileage may vary, just as some
    people's mileage may vary when finding value about the feelings of
    women.)
    
    If you didn't understand what the topic was about, you could have
    asked the people who wrote about themselves.

    
    re .81
    
    quote from note 34.41
    
    "If I said those who enjoy erotica are perverts, I meant that those who
    enjoy pornography are perverts".
    
    > geez I'm sorry. I obviously MISUNDERSTOOD.
    
    Thank you so much for pointing that out to me. 
    
    
    
    quote from you. > you don't bother mentioning this, of course,
    
    Not trying to pick a fight again, are we?? Naw....not you....I didn't
    think so...
    
    and I really WOULD like to discuss the topic at hand...you know....the
    topic as I brought up in the BASENOTE? 
    
    If you need more EXAMPLES of out and out insults against men in WN,
    then I'm sure some of the men who have been insulted enough to stop
    noting there will be happy to share.
    
    Otherwise, try to REREAD the basenote and contribute to the discussion
    at hand.  Don't jump in half way through a discussion only long enough
    to try and piss people off.
    
    cat
    

    
    
    re .83
    
    good try Jerry. But not this time. I'm gonna stick to the point at hand
    and not be dragged into another little pissing contest!  (You ARE a
    trouble maker aren't you!!)
    
    cat
    

    RE: .85  Cathy
    
    It went like this:
    
    "If I said those who enjoy erotica are perverts, I meant that those who
    enjoy pornography are. Perhaps perverts is the wrong word."
    
    She retracted the word "perverts" after being accused of using it, in
    other words.
    
    Geesh - is this really one of the worst things you could find in the file?

    RE: .80  Deb

    > Still can't resist an opportunity at BOX-bashing, can ya?  8-)

    You provide lots of opportunities away from the BOX, Deb!  :-)

    > In WOMANNOTES it's perfectly okay to call men "sexist," "misogynist," 
    > "bigoted," etc., but it is not acceptable for men to say not-nices 
    > about women.  

    This is a crock, Deb.  If we ever used such license, we'd probably all 
    be in jail the next day (at the very least!)

    We can occasionally get away with calling a particular negative stereotyped
    *phrase* an example of bigotry - but even that is pushing it.

    Most of the time, we get criticized for things we didn't say (like you're
    doing.)  If we actually wrote such things, we'd never hear the end of it!

    re .88
    
    I was only up to 34 (was that 34??) ....out of 4 differant womennotes
    versions....
    
    and don't forget, I AM under pressure...  :)
    
    But (not to change the subject)....I did go back and look for a note in
    another conference that I had read a few weeks ago that stated that
    "Whites are the major cause of problems throughout history". That one
    seems to be gone. 
    It's a shame that it was deleted. The opinion was well expressed. 
    I didn't mean for people to retract their opinions. I was simply
    using that one as a case in point.....I think that people's opinions
    should be freely expressed so long as they aren't direct cuts at
    individuals.  But as was pointed out earlier, it is not my decision.
    I'd still like to know who's decision it IS and why it is not
    administered fairly.
    
    Another point (still not avoiding the rathole..I'll get back to
    you...),
    I though that Jery Beeler made a great point somewhere back there.
    
    His question was based on the rewording of some simple phrases, and
    phrased by differant people, and the anticipated results.
    
    So let me ask some DIRECT questions.
    
    Is it ok for a white person to say : "Black people are the cause of all
                                          of the problems in this country"
    
    Is it ok for a Black person to say:  "White people are the cause of all 
                                          of the problems in this country"
    
    
    Do we base our answers  on whether
    we BELIEVE that one of those statements is a TRUTH??? If we BELIEVE
    that White people ARE the cause of all of the problems in the country,
    then is it acceptable for the Black person to make that statement?
    
    If we BELIEVE that the other statement is true, then is it ok for the
    White person to state that opinion.
    
    
    My cut at it is:  if it's OK for one person to make the comment, then
    it is equally ok for the other person to make the comment.
    Whether we percieve one to be truth and the other to be a false
    accusation and insult, is beside the point. The truth is differant to
    everyone. YOUR truth may not BE my truth. SO my opinion expressed as a
    TRUTH to me, may appear as a LIE/insult to you. 
    
    SO do I NOT express my opinion?  Then you cannot express yours
    either....
    
    ok rambling.....
    bored housewife you say???!!!!!! yup yup yup....
    
    cat
    
    

    RE: .89  Cathy
    
    Ok, I'm happy to get the topic back on track with you.
    
    > So let me ask some DIRECT questions.
    
    > Is it ok for a white person to say ...
    > Is it ok for a black person to say ...
    
    I'd like to frame my answer in terms of asking you how YOU would feel
    about a reversal of what YOU said about homosexuals (since this is the
    incident that sparked your basenote.)
    
    You made some comments about homosexuals being disgusting, etc.,
    correct?
    
    How would YOU like it if people stated how *disgusting* they find
    heterosexuality (and how children are just disgusting products of 
    disgusting sex acts between men and women)?  Would you be bothered
    if YOUR life (YOUR family, YOUR children) were described this way
    by a bunch of people in a Digital notesfile?  
    
    I mean this as an honest question (with no malice intended towards
    you at all.)  As you know, I'm a heterosexual (with a family) myself.
    
    What do you say?

.75> ..and while you want to talk about 'ducking the question' I noticed
.75> that no one touched Jerry Beelers question way back when...

Well, in actual fact it was "touched" ... ever so silently.  For the most
part there's something about an unanswered question that in fact goes a
long way toward answering that question.  There's a lot of questions that
people simply don't want to ask either because they're afraid to ask, or,
they're afraid of the answer.  I, for one, have never hesitated to ask any
question for I truly believe that the only "dumb" questions are those which
are not asked.  No, Ms Pitt, that question was indeed "answered".

Here's another one.  Suppose I'm starting a conference.  The conference is
very definitively and rightfully open to all members of this corporation
to participate in.  The conference is for heterosexual males and females,
and, specifically created to address their needs.  There's been so many
"flare ups" with respect to gay issues that there needs to be a "sanctuary"
where issues can be discussed without "danger" of these types of flare ups.

The conference consists of straight and gay moderators, both male and
female.  A segment of the "rules" is repeated below for your education
and edification.  Does anyone see anything wrong with rules of this nature?

	"Whenever it seems clear to the moderators that the needs of
	straight and the needs of gay are in conflict the needs of
	straight will take precedence and we will take whatever action
	seems appropriate to meet those needs. 
                                                                
	"Normally, votes by straight and gay moderators are counted
	together without regard to orientation.  If it should ever happen,
	however, that straight and gay clearly line up on opposite sides
	of an issue, the mods may elect to be guided by the straight's vote
	regardless of the absolute numbers involved."

The basenote talked about fairness.  If I 'm correct, Cathy says: IF A
can say X about B, then it is only fair that B can also say X about A.  Ob-
jectively, this statement is true, but "fairness" is also subjective IMO.

If in our society, people have less chance to obtain a job, a promotion etc..
because of color or sex, then the statement above is not fair anymore,
because A can say X about B from a situation of power and control, and can
also ACT accordingly.  I.e. A COULD mean statement X, just as an insult/joke/
satire, whatever, but it can just as easily be seen as a threat by B.  B on 
the other hand can say X about A, but in practice, that is not at all 
threatening to A.  Same if A says X about A and B says X about B.  No threat
in that.  A can say X about B, but he should make sure that the context and 
circumstances are such that B does not perceive the statement as a threat.  
(Unless it was meant as a threat, and then it should indeed be removed )
Does that answer your questions also, Jerry ?

I don't think it is fair to allow both to say the same thing under the same
circumstances.  So, you could say, forbid both A and B to say X.  That would 
seem fair, but unfortunately, human nature is such,  that it is impossible 
(and possibly undesirable) to control all jokes, or satire or downright silly 
remarks all the time.

It seems that "the strong", "accepted", "majority"-members do have to show
a little more selfcontrol, and a skin that is somewhat thicker than the "weak",
"oppressed" or "minority" members.  I don't think that that is a horrible 
injustice though.  

    
	As another illustration of what I 'm trying to say.  Suppose, a
    software engineer says : all salesmen are dumb, or a salesmen says :
    all software engineers are dumb.  That would be considered by every-
    one as just a silly remark, made by a frustrated person who 'd had a bad
    day.  But I don't think either SWE or salesmen would be bothered too
    much, as both have an equal status.  The same thing if someone said : 
    "All managers are dumb".   BUT, if a manager were to say, "All the people
    working for me are dumb", that would be different, and could be a
    definite cause for unrest within the workforce, as the manager has a 
    real power over his men.  Therefore, I consider it normal that the 
    manager would be reprimanded for making that statement in public.
    
    
Leo.

I would like to request that any discussion of what is and isn't allowable
in another conference take place in that conference, or in mail - not here.
HUMAN_RELATIONS is not to be used as a kangaroo court for putting other
conference's moderators on trial.  As for what is allowed in this conference,
if you have questions about it, send mail to the moderators.

					Steve

    I love a good discussion........
    
    
    		I'm Baaaaaack.
    
    
    		Hand
    		Wayne

    Wayne,
    
    Well, if you loved *all* discussion, I could see it, but as it is,
    I must ask:  What are you doing in *this* note?
    
    						Ann B.

    Wayne ... there's some unanswered questions in here ... any chance you
    could lend to the discussion on those points?
    
    Bubba

    
    
    re .90
    
    Suzanne,
    
    I don't recall saying that Homosexuals are disgusting.
    I bleieve that you misread the point that I was trying to make.
    
    my point was simply that SOME PEOPLE honestly deep down to their
    core believe that. Right or wrong, based on religion beliefs,
    childhood experiences, or ignorance, that is their belief.
    They are as much entitled to their opinion as the person who says
    that Heterosexuals are disgusting. 
    
    Expression of OPINIONS are necessary to resolve conflicts.
    If we don't know what people think and endeavor to find out WHY they
    think that, we can never resolve the differances. 
    
    Again, let me state that I do NOT beleive that personal attacks should
    be tolerated (ie YOU are disgusting), but opinions that are expressed
    in a discussion type of format are what notes are all about. 
    At least that's what I THOUGHT notes were all about.
    I could be wrong.
    
    Cat

    RE .95

    	The same as you, noting. But don't worry I won't note in
    Womennotes, I am many things but certainly not a masochist. 

    	Now, back to the topic. I have been on this earth long enough to
    watch individual rights turn into group rights and IMHO that fact alone
    has brought us to the brink of class and ethnic conflict. Group
    mentality to me is mob mentality. When a mob does something wrong it is
    the mob that is at fault not the individuals in the mob. Individuals
    that refuse to accept responsibility for their actions love groups (
    read mobs ). WE ARE ALL EQUAL and we all have opinions and guess what
    we don't even have to like each other but we do not have the right to
    hurt each other. I have opinions and I will express them, they may
    offend some but after all they are just opinions. The last time I
    checked I was not in charge so no one has to fear that my opinions will
    become law. Other people can express their opinions to me and not
    fear reprisals if we are playing by the same rules. That is the key
    point, *we must be conducting ourselves under the same rules*. 

    		I can be as sensitive as anyone out there or I can have as
    thick a hide. All Cathy is asking for is that we all play by the same
    rules, nothing more. 


    		HAND
    		Wayne 

	Well folks,

	I'm of the opinion that this problem will not be resolved.

	Those of us who are concerned about the Orwellian properties
	( "some animals are more equal than others" )of these policies 
	cannot win.  This cannot be resolved in our favor.

	But, even though there are folks who would use the power of 
	personnel to squelch any comment their oh-so-sensitive
	egos can't stand, there will be costs.

	The costs will be measured in the destruction or erosion of
	a company where people begin to leave in droves as 
	"political correctness" makes the workplace a grim,
	humorless grind.  The only people who remain will be the
	un-creative, the politically-correct, the plodders, the
	fearful.

	My advice to those who are currently tilting at this
	windmill is to back off.  You can't win.  Let 'em have their
	jack-boot utopia. Soon, they'll	 own it ( but they won't take 
	credit for the mess they create, you can bet on that ).

	Fondest regards,

	Steve H

    
    reply .90 (again..sorry!)!
    
    This is NOT the incident that sparked the basenote, but thanks for
    asking.
    
    Cat
    

    RE: .98  Wayne
    
    > All Cathy is asking for is that we all play by the same
    > rules, nothing more. 
    
    Cathy is asking to be able to "speak her mind" when it comes to her
    (or other peoples') negative opinions of some groups of Digital
    employees, such as gay employees.
    
    Digital says it doesn't want the kind of hostile work environment where
    people fear for their jobs (or are treated as outcasts) due to insults
    about their race, creed, sex, sexual orientation, etc.  Yet Cathy (and
    some others) want the freedom to do exactly that (due to concerns about
    freedom of speech or whatever) - not so?
    
    All this other stuff about whether it's ok for black people to say
    things about white people and white people to say things about black
    people is a lot of verbage that boils down to "Why can't I insult gays
    as a group if I feel like it?"
    
    My question is - "Why is it so important to you when you KNOW Digital
    - your/our employer - has already stated that the corporation doesn't
    want you to do this?"

    
    
    re .93
    
    >putting conference's moderators on trial
    
    ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
    ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
    
    geez Steve, perhaps YOU should reread some of this string. I don't
    believe that it was anyone BUT the moderators who were putting OTHERS
    on trial. I was the one that was told too PRODUCE EVIDENCE......
    WHO THE HELL IS ON TRIAL HERE?????????????????????????????????????
    
    
    But you're right, my intention was NOT to discuss any other notesfile
    or to discuss why things were allowed or left or not deleted.
    I was using the few notesfiles that I read as examples of
    same-behaviour that is not tolerated when convenient in other notes.
    
    Cat
    
    

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Dearest Suzanne,
    
    I don't want the freedom to insult anyone.
    
    I want the EQUALITY to do whatever YOU'RE doing.
    
    Cat

Re: .103

You have it, Cathy.  Nobody will complain if you write rational, calm,
well-thought-out, articulate, grammatical and correctly spelled notes which
don't insult or make unsubstantiated claims.

For what it's worth, here are two excerpts from Personnel Policy 6.54

 For the purpose of this policy, improper use includes, but is not
 limited to the use of Digital owned and/or operated systems, networks
 and conferences for the purpose of gaining unauthorized access to
 internal or external computer systems or accounts, for personal
 purposes that are contrary to Company philosophy or policy, for
 purposes that interfere or compete with the Company's business
 activities, or for purposes of individual financial gain.   Examples
 of misuse include, but are not limited to, transmitting sexual or
 ethnic jokes or slurs, soliciting other employees, developing chain
 letters, making defamatory statements, disclosing private facts about
 any individual or organization, inappropriate disclosure of Company
 Proprietary or Confidential Information, permitting unauthorized
 access, etc.


 In addition, these [NOTES] conferences may not be used to promote behavior
 which is contrary to the Company's values or policy (i.e., they may
 not promote discrimination, disrespect for the individual, violence,
 etc.).  It is the responsibility of employees who utilize such notes
 files to do so in a manner consistent with both the letter and spirit
 of this policy and the Company's values.  The Company reserves the
 right to terminate any notesfile it believes is inappropriate or in
 violation of this policy.


And here are excerpts from policy 6.03 which was updated earlier this month:

 | Harassment refers to conduct or behavior which is personally
 | offensive, or threatening, impairs morale or interferes with the
 | work effectiveness of employees.  Harassment may be illegal and
 | may subject the company and the individuals who engage in the
 | harassment to significant liability.  However, behavior does not
 | have to rise to the level of illegal conduct to violate this policy.

 | This policy refers, but is not limited to, harassment in the
 | following areas: (1) age, (2) race, (3) color, (4) national
 | origin, (5) religion, (6) sex, (7) sexual orientation, (8)
 | disability status and (9) veterans status.  Examples of such
 | harassment include, but are not limited to conduct or comment
 | that threatens physical violence; offensive, unsolicited remarks,
 | unwelcome gestures or physical contact; display or circulation of
 | written materials or pictures degrading to any gender, racial,
 | ethnic, religious or other group listed above; and verbal abuse
 | or insults about, or directed at any employee or group of employees
 | because of their membership in any of the groups listed above.

I see that sexual orientation has been added to the list of "areas" called
out in the policy, it did not previously appear there (though that did not
make that "area" fair game for offensive remarks.)

					Steve

    Steve,

    	I have a legitimate question for you.

    	Question: Can I feel harassed and offended if I am being forced to 
    value anothers behavior or culture that I find repulsive under threat 
    of termination.


    	The guide lines are broad and open for interpretation.

    		HAND
    		Wayne

Re: .105

Wayne, you, as well as Cathy, seem to be missing an important point.  Digital
doesn't really care one whit what your OPINIONS are.  You can find anything
or anyone repulsive which strikes your fancy, feel free.  Digital certainly
won't terminate you because you think that way.

But when you EXPRESS those opinions in the workplace, then Digital has an
interest and places restrictions on what expressions of opinion you are allowed
to make on company property and/or time.

Yes, you can feel harassed and offended for any reason you choose.  Though
I don't think anyone is "forcing" you to "value another's behavior or
culture", if you think that's what's happening, then go right ahead and
feel offended.  You're also free to complain to the person or persons who
you think are doing the "forcing" that their actions make you feel 
uncomfortable.  No problem there.  But if you go beyond that and make
derogatory comments about individuals or groups, then you've stepped over the
line and may face recriminations. 

To sum up - there are no "Thought Police".  If you have a negative opinion
which you keep to yourself, there's no problem.  But if you find it necessary
to express that negative opinion in a manner which could be considered
offensive, there's a problem.

I find the policy quite clear about this, and don't quite see why you don't.

				Steve

    Deb,
    
    The policies and procedures as Steve posted them appear to be
    just as I referred to them in my previous notes.
    
    Bonnie

    ok, I can't stay out of this anymore.
    
    re -.1  Steve-
    
    The policy is quite clear as you state. The policy addresses ALL
    EMPLOYEES. The groups are listed so as to ensure they are not excluded.
    The policy states "include but NOT limited to."
    
    The problem comes in when one of the groups listed DOES use language
    that is offensive to someone outside of that group. When this happens,
    noone else can address that because of the ATTITUDE that the group is
    "protected". 
    
    AGAIN- if one group is protected, then so are ALL employees. 
    if ALL employees are not protected, neither are any special groups.
    
    Question:
    
    If religious groups can't be discriminated against, and a religious
    belief indicates a culture is immoral, ( implied that sanctioning this
    culture REQUIRES compromising religious principles) how do you "protect" 
    both the religious group and the group belonging to that culture?
    
    This applies to a lot of issues. Abortionists v. right to lifers, etc.
    One method is to talk about the issue, not the individuals involved.
    
    *I* feel that there are times that the non-politically correct view 
    is not allowed to be discussed.There is a REAL danger in this country of 
    not allowing free flow of ideas because of this.  
    
    
    Steve Pitt
                              

    
    
    Steve,
    
    I don't think that YOU are catching MY point.
    
    First, contrary to what some of the more narrow minded noters here have
    implied, I did not start this string because I'm angry that I can't
    get into notes and say that I hate XYZ cause they are 'something I
    don't like'.  
    I don't WANT to start a note on WHY I HATE XYZ and list all the
    negatives of XYZ. I don't see that it would serve a meaningful
    purpose, or even have a chance for educational discussion. 
    
    
    But I don't think that that's what I said. 
    
    Second,(ly?)
    I didn't start this string because of ANYTHING that I have said in the
    past or anything that occured with anything I have said in the past.
    
    
    Third, I don't EXPECT Digital to care one whit what my opinions are.
    I don't even expect YOU or half of the noters out there to care one
    whit about what my opinions are. 
    But that is your decision to decide that a particular opinion holds no
    value for you and will not serve to provoke any thoughts on a subject.
    
    HOW CAN I MAKE THIS ANY CLEARER.  All I care about is that ALL
    EMPLOYEES CAN HAVE THE SAME LEVEL OF FREEDOM TO EXPRESS THE SAME MANNER
    OF OPINIONS IN THE NOTESFILE, no matter WHAT that manner of opinion is.
      
    I don't want to be dragged to personnel for saying the same thing to
    you as YOU said to me. (I use you and me to imply employees in
    general).
    
    
    .92 (I think) raised some interesting points. Food for thought.
    (I am chewing it over!!)
    
    Cat
    

    re .106

    	Steve,

    		The policies are BROAD, but in any event if people
    conducted themselves as in your note there would not be a problem.
    Cathy and others, myself included do not want to say things that would
    be considered offensive and demeaning. What we are saying is that other
    people who are in protected groups are doing this and getting away with
    it. We want the same rights they have. If they can we can, if we can't 
    they can't. Can we spell *FAIR*.

    		HAND
    		Wayne

I can spell FAIR.  I try to enforce the corporate policy uniformly in the
conferences I co-moderate.  I can't speak for other conferences and other
moderators.  I agree that not everyone interprets the policy the same way.
I agree that in some conferences, some groups are "more equal" than others;
I tend not to participate in those conferences.

But in my experience, those who scream the loudest about "freedom of speech"
want to rebut someone's "Hey, I think that people who are <whatever> are ok!"
with a "People who are <whatever> are slime!"  Not the same thing, folks.

In the past, I had myself fallen prey to the "protected subgroups" argument.
I now see that there really isn't any such, at least for the terms of this
discussion.  (In hiring practices, maybe.)

Here's my advice.  If you participate in a conference where you feel that the
moderators allow material derogatory to individuals or groups of people, you
should first discuss it with the moderators.  If you don't get satisfaction
and want to make the effort, discuss it with someone in Personnel.  I won't
guarantee that you'll get the results you want.  You may instead choose, as
I have, to just stop reading the particular conference.  Does wonders for your
blood pressure (as well as productivity!)

We're going through a difficult transition in our society, when many subgroups
are speaking out about the prejudices they feel others harbor against them.
In many instances, people in these groups will use generalities and make
broad accusations against other subgroups.  The key is to filter out the
rhetoric and look to see if perhaps the concerns are valid, as in many cases
they are.  Many people will find their "comfort envelopes" stretched, that 
can't be avoided.  Wishing that these issues and their proponents are just
going to go away is not going to be successful.  I suggest people open their
eyes, their ears, their minds and their hearts.  Listen and look.  Don't
take everything personally.  Keep cool.  Who knows, you may make some new
friends!

				Steve

    RE: .110  Wayne
    
    > What we are saying is that other people who are in protected groups 
    > are doing this and getting away with it. We want the same rights they 
    > have. If they can we can, if we can't they can't. Can we spell *FAIR*.
    
    You *have* the same rights we have, Wayne.  You just don't realize it.
    
    If you were never, ever allowed to say anything about women that
    bothered people (as an example,) then you'd never have been given
    the flak about your notes that you've received.  Right?  :-)
    
    It may interest you to know that I see women trashed around the net
    in ways that I would never DARE (or even WANT, for God's sake) to
    trash men.  I've seen people call women inferior, with all sorts of
    pseudo-scientific stuff about how our brains are incapable of certain
    cognitive functions.  Talk about insulting!  I'd never say something
    like that about the construction of men's brains in a million years
    (whether it were allowed or not.)
    
    Perhaps your mistake is in assuming too much when it comes to what
    some people say.  If I say that the government is male-dominated -
    well, for cripe's sake, take a look at the Presidency, the cabinet,
    and the Legislature sometime.  Lots of male business suits in that
    crowd.  Very few (in the single digit percentiles) of women there.
    So, technically, "male-dominated" is an accurate description.
    
    Does it mean that I think all or most men are scum (or that I hate 
    them)?  If you think that, then you're assuming one heck of a lot 
    about what I'm saying (and thinking.)
    
    If I say I'm angry that government is male-dominated - well, so what?
    Does my anger at an unbalanced system mean that I think all or most
    men are scum (or that I hate them)?  No!  It means that I wish the 
    government were different than it is today.
    
    I've seen a heck of a lot of people on the net criticize their
    governments, Wayne.  Am I not allowed to do this, too?
    
    Am I not entitled to the same rights as everyone else on the net?

    re .91  Jerry,

    You have such a wonderful knack for writing notes which produce
    deafening silence, don't you??

    Anyway, I wouldn't try starting your hypothetical conference with
    the ludicrous and asinine rules outlined in .91.  That is one of the
    most blatant examples of prejudice I've seen lately, and wouldn't be
    allowed under Digital P&Ps in a million years!  (And just for
    arguments' sake, I feel the same way if the gay/straight roles were
    reversed in your example.)

    Now please...how about a realistic example?

    RE .111
    
    	Steve,
    		Our positions have move a few steps closer. Your note takes
    a very reasonable approach.
    
    
    RE .112
    
 >  You *have* the same rights we have, Wayne.  You just don't realize it.
    
	As an American I have the same rights, But as a DEC employee they
    have been restricted.
    
>    If you were never, ever allowed to say anything about women that
>    bothered people (as an example,) then you'd never have been given
>    the flak about your notes that you've received.  Right?  :-)
 
    	Care to explain....
       
    
>    Perhaps your mistake is in assuming too much when it comes to what
>    some people say.  If I say that the government is male-dominated -
>    well, for cripe's sake, take a look at the Presidency, the cabinet,
>    and the Legislature sometime.  Lots of male business suits in that
>    crowd.  Very few (in the single digit percentiles) of women there.
>    So, technically, "male-dominated" is an accurate description.
	
 	There is a difference between a statement fact and stating an
    opinion.
       
>    Does it mean that I think all or most men are scum (or that I hate 
>    them)?  If you think that, then you're assuming one heck of a lot 
>    about what I'm saying (and thinking.)
 
    	I think nothing of the kind Suzanne.
    
       
>    If I say I'm angry that government is male-dominated - well, so what?
>    Does my anger at an unbalanced system mean that I think all or most
>    men are scum (or that I hate them)?  No!  It means that I wish the 
>    government were different than it is today.
 
    
    	This is the crux of the matter. You should be able to have this
    opinion without repercussions.
       
>    I've seen a heck of a lot of people on the net criticize their
>    governments, Wayne.  Am I not allowed to do this, too?
    
    	Of course you are as far as I'm concerned.
    
>       Am I not entitled to the same rights as everyone else on the net?
    
		If you don't Suzanne then it's time you, Cathy, myself, and
    the others who feel the same way get together and fight for them. That 
    is what we are talking about.
    
    
    		HAND
    		Wayne

    RE: .113  Deb
    
    > You have such a wonderful knack for writing notes which produce
    > deafening silence, don't you??
    
    Careful, Deb - it's tricky to assign "meanings" to silence.
    
    I've seen the same person describe how effective his silence has been
    at sending the message that another person is being "ceremoniously
    ignored" (or whatever) - but then claim that silence (lack of response)
    to *his* notes was a definite sign of the merit of his argument (and/or
    some other significance that serves his cause.)
    
    It reminds me of one of my favorite movie lines (by Pee Wee Herman
    after toppling off his bicycle):  "I meant to do that."

    RE: .114  Wayne
    
    > As an American I have the same rights, But as a DEC employee they
    > have been restricted.
    
    I've seen no evidence that you have less rights than anyone else at
    Digital.
    
    >> So, technically, "male-dominated" is an accurate description.
	
    > There is a difference between a statement fact and stating an
    > opinion.
    
    If I define "male-dominated" as "men outnumbering the women by an
    overwhelming percent (such as 95%) in the US legistlature," then it's
    my definition (but the percentage IS a fact.)  I'm talking about the gov't
    itself, remember, NOT the total number (and percentage of women) voters.
    
    >> If I say I'm angry that government is male-dominated - well, so what?
    >> Does my anger at an unbalanced system mean that I think all or most
    >> men are scum (or that I hate them)?  No!  It means that I wish the 
    >> government were different than it is today.
    
    > This is the crux of the matter. You should be able to have this
    > opinion without repercussions.
    
    The "repercussion," though, is that this statement is sometimes treated
    as an insult to men and results in charges that I have more rights than
    someone like you has at Digital (which is what you have been saying in
    this topic.)
    
    >> Am I not entitled to the same rights as everyone else on the net?
    
    > If you don't Suzanne then it's time you, Cathy, myself, and
    > the others who feel the same way get together and fight for them. That 
    > is what we are talking about.
    
    If I have the same rights on the net, then I should be able to criticize
    the government *without* it being treated as an example of my having
    MORE rights than you have at Digital.

    RE .116

    	Suzanne,
    		IMHO you are so intent on disagreeing and arguing that when
    someone agrees with your statements you feel compelled to take them to
    task. Whatever floats your boat Suzanne.


    		HAND
    		Wayne

    RE: .117  Wayne
    
    > IMHO you are so intent on disagreeing and arguing that when
    > someone agrees with your statements you feel compelled to take them to
    > task.
    
    You missed the entire point of my previous note, and now you've missed
    the point of the one I just wrote.
    
    If you don't understand what I write, I wish you would ask me about it 
    (rather than condemn me for what you *think* I wrote.)
    
    > Whatever floats your boat Suzanne.
    
    You missed the boat, Wayne.  I'd try again, but I doubt it would do
    much good.

    The commercial is now over. Back to out regularly scheduled program.


    			HAND
    			Wayne

.113> You have such a wonderful knack for writing notes which produce
.113> deafening silence, don't you??

A big 10-4 on that suggah'.  The off-line mail has (for the most part) 
been very supportive.  There's been some "we're_not_going_to_discuss_that
in_notes, we_have_our_reasons" type of mail ... *that* answers my question.
    
For those who do not respond ... they have neither the courage of their
conviction or no courage or no conviction ... for myself ... I'll do my
best to stand up for what is right.  I'm going to ba A GREAT DEAL MORE
CAREFUL, but, I'll not stop talking.  My note, .91, is the absolute
epitomie of what can be said by one group but cannot be said by another
group.  Some people just don't want to talk about it.  If you ignore
it, it will obviously go away.  Or, they're too embarrased.  Or, they
just don't know.  Or, they just don't care.  Or, they don't have an
answer.  Or, all of the above.

When "diplomatic relations" cease, history has taught us that wars
normally follow.  I don't like war.  Went to one.  Didn't like it. 
Don't want to go to another one.    From all external appearances
"diplomatic relations" have ceased between what may be perceived as
warring factions at Digital.  The handwriting is on the wall.   Some
people can't seem to comprehend that.

I'm reminded of the times we were under fire ... you'd call in the
coordinates and pass on the unit that you were engaging ...  the
intelligence people would tell you that you can't possibly be engaging
that unit ... "we don't have any reports of them being in your area".
Well, what the Hell do you want me to do - rip their chevrons off and
send 'em back to you?

Same thing appears to be happening right now ... in Digital.  The
problem doesn't exist.  We'll not talk about it.

Bubba

    RE: .120  Jerry Beeler

    Perhaps some people have remained silent about your question
    because they didn't remember what it was.  In your notes about
    the lack of response (and your speculations about other people's
    motives for their silence,) I don't recall a single pointer to
    the actual note.

    Good news, tho!!  I went back note by note and finally found it.
    And I'm willing to answer it (now that I know what it is.)

    .41> "I don't want to associate with < ------ >!!"

    .41> ...If < ... > said by a <man, woman, etc.)

    .41> Propensity for "problems"?

    "Associate" sounds, well, SOCIAL (as opposed to WORK-related.)
    If someone announced that they don't want to socialize with members of
    some other group, I don't see the big deal (no matter who said it.)

    .41> "< --some other group-- > is repulsive!"

    .41> ...If < ... > said by a <man, woman, etc.)

    .41> Propensity for "problems"?

    This one is a potential problem in notes (no matter WHO says it.)
    I would expect to have my note deleted if I said men were repulsive
    - even if I believed it with all my heart (which I most definitely
    do not.)

    If anyone in the company objected to ANY GROUP WHATSOEVER saying that
    another group is repulsive, the offending note should be deleted on
    request.

    In case you need this spelled out further, Jerry, I would consider it
    reasonable for someone to object to a homosexual saying this about
    heterosexuals, and blacks saying it about whites, too.  Ok?????

    RE: .120  Jerry Beeler

    > My note, .91, is the absolute epitomie [SIC] of what can be said by 
    > one group but cannot be said by another group.  

    No, actually, it is an absolute crock, Jerry.

    Here's what you wrote about an hypothetical conference:

    .91> The conference is for heterosexual males and females, and, 
    .91> specifically created to address their needs.  There's been so many
    .91> "flare ups" with respect to gay issues that there needs to be a 
    .91> "sanctuary" where issues can be discussed without "danger" of these 
    .91> types of flare ups.

    You don't elaborate about what the "danger" is for heterosexuals, so I
    can't imagine what you think our "needs" might be.  Remember, there is
    *NO* "heterosexual community" (except for society itself.)  Heterosexuals
    (as individuals) are quite divided about gay rights.  Myself, I'm very
    much for it.  Others are not.  What do you think binds heteros together
    as a group (beyond coincidence and the similarity that many/most of us
    have had romantic relationships that tended to be male-female?)
     
    .91> The conference consists of straight and gay moderators, both male and
    .91> female.  A segment of the "rules" is repeated below for your education
    .91> and edification.  Does anyone see anything wrong with rules of this 
    .91> nature?

	> "Whenever it seems clear to the moderators that the needs of
	> straight and the needs of gay are in conflict the needs of
	> straight will take precedence and we will take whatever action
	> seems appropriate to meet those needs. 

     Without knowing what the heterosexual group's needs are, it's
    impossible to know what action might be appropriate to meet the
    needs.  If one of the needs was to be able to say that gays are
    repulsive, I'd regard it as inappropriate.  I've never seen a
    conference that states as a "rule" that the group (for whom the
    conference was started) can say other groups are repulsive!  
                                                                    
    	> "Normally, votes by straight and gay moderators are counted
	> together without regard to orientation.  If it should ever happen,
	> however, that straight and gay clearly line up on opposite sides
	> of an issue, the mods may elect to be guided by the straight's vote
	> regardless of the absolute numbers involved."

    Your parody falls here - it's supposed to be votes by MEMBERS, not
    just moderators.  Noters in general.
    
    Votes by NOTERS????  What a concept, eh?

    BTW, as a moderator of Soapbox, do you allow the members to VOTE on
    conference issues often?  I'm not talking about elections for noter
    ombudsmen, but POLICY ISSUES.  Do you let noters set their own policies
    (or do you and the other moderators lay down the laws there about what
    you will or will NOT *allow* noters to do?)  Do you allow voting in ANY
    notesfile that you moderate (I admit that I'm not aware of whether or
    not you moderate anything other than Soapbox.)

    If you don't allow noters to vote on POLICY ISSUES in any notesfile you
    moderate, then I hope to high heaven you aren't faulting some other
    conference for the way they regard votes cast in voting processes that
    the moderators are NOT REQUIRED IN ANY WAY to offer to noters.

    Remember, even the conference(s) that allow voting DO NOT let noters
    vote on whether or not groups can call other groups repulsive.

    Allow me to now speculate on a type of "majority" conference that might
    have these rules (without a problem):

    Let's say that a group of people who want to promote "The Family" decide
    to have a conference (and they fear that singles or gays may come along
    to bother them, although I seriously doubt this would happen.)

    If they wanted to vote on policies that would help them in their pursuit
    of promoting "The Family" and stated that "Pro-family" conf members'
    votes would have the edge if a policy issue was polarized between these
    noters and those, um, NOT trying to promote "The Family" - I can see
    where it would be accepted without a lot of flak.

    It's not difficult to discuss any of this, Jerry, if a person has the
    time and interest for it.  I have a moment of time for this (although
    I'm running low on interest, since I think your point has fallen flat)
    - but I'm willing to spare another couple of moments if you want to
    continue this.
    
    I'll interpret YOUR silence in a way that best suits me, of course. :-)

    
    	By the way, Jerry, you might want to try to keep your remarks
    	very general (about notesfile moderating policies) since an
    	H_R moderator has requested we not discuss such things here.

    	I tried to keep my questions as rhetorical as possible when
    	asking you about your own moderator polices in my reply .122.

    	Your silence about Soapbox will be regarded as adherence to
    	this H_R mod request.

    Suzanne,

    		"You just don't get it", denial and constant pounding on
    people that there is not a problem won't advance the cause of
    communication. You IMHO do not communicate you refute with a vengeance.
    Everybody who disagrees with you is not wrong. Come on give a little.
    We have relational problems in DEC. WE need communication to solve them
    not denial.


    			HAND
    			Wayne

    Wayne, do you think it will help communication much if you continue
    to center your arguments around general assessments of my character?
    
    If you want to talk about the topic, fine.

=    Suzanne,

    		I am not questioning your character just your methods. I'm
    just saying "let us talk note argue".


    		HAND
    		Wayne

    
    	Wayne, would you rather I refrain from disagreeing with you?
    

But what's to discuss?

a. We don't have "freedom of speech" in notesfiles at DEC; we are limited and
constrained by the "Orange Book"

b. As with many of DEC's "policies", the actual interpetation of the policy is 
(in the first instance) the responsibility of the conference moderator(s). 

c. Most conference moderators try very hard to be fair, and to apply the local
conference rules _and_ the provisions of the Orange Book to all notes/noters.

 In a sense, (b) & (c) give us at best an imperfect solution; DEC has no full-
time moderators or noters (appearances to the contrary) and the state of the 
file on a given day or on a given topic reflects a moderator's personality and 
'stress load' (approaching or passing deadlines, personal stress, lack of sleep,
personal feelings about the subject or noters involved...), especially in non-
work-related files (or whatever the Newspeak term for them is these days). A
human will not be perfectly consistent on a day-by-day basis, and there will be
"ammunition" to show how some rule/constraint is being used against whatever 
the current hot topic is. But I do believe (and this is a surprising endorsement
coming from me) that Bonnie R and Steve L [explicitly, because they have been 
named earlier in this string] are doing their best to abide by the spirit of
my points (b) and (c) above.  

 In the absence of a rigid policy of what is and isn't allowed (which policy 
would tend to degenerate into "Everything is either obligatory or forbidden"),
then we have to live in this imperfect world.  Hey, maybe what we need is an
Expert System which could scan the notes, see if the notes violated any of the
rules, and allow/disallow the posting based on that. Yeah, then the rules would
be available as OPS-5 code in Note 1 of the conference, and everyone would be 
happy, right?????  

					Peace
					Nigel

    re .127

    	Not at all. I would like to migrate to a give and take so that
    defensive arguments would not erupt. When discussions get defensive
    there is very seldom a solution. When a person makes a statement we
    need to found out why they feel that way and acknowledge their point
    rather than jump all over that person and tell them they are incorrect.
    If they are correct then admit it. I don't think I am out of line with
    this kind of thinking. It just seems to me you spend a lot of energy
    picking apart other people's points in their notes rather than give
    them credit for bringing up valid points for discussion.


    *******This of course was given as my HO***************


    		HAND
    		Wayne

    ps: I think we can go back to the regular topic now.

    Wayne, a "solution" to a disagreement is not always possible.
    
    You seem to think some "groups" in Digital have more rights than you
    do, and I've tried to show you that this isn't the case.  You've
    responded by arguing about the way I tried to show this to you.
    
    At some point, it's wisest to agree to disagree.  

.128> In the absence of a rigid policy of what is and isn't allowed...
    
    Let's hope that we don't ever get to the point of such a "rigid"
    policy. That will indeed be the "beginning of the end".
    
    Bubba

    re .120  Jerry,

    Good point about how wars start when people stop discussing their
    differences.  Of course, sometimes they start even when the two
    parties *are* talking...like Pearl Harbor.  But are sneak attacks
    that common?

    Oh and btw, please accept my sincere apology for calling your 
    'hypothetical' conference rules "ludicrous" and "asinine"...I had
    no idea how real they were.  Sad, very sad...

    RE: .132  Deb
    
    > Oh and btw, please accept my sincere apology for calling your 
    > 'hypothetical' conference rules "ludicrous" and "asinine"...I had
    > no idea how real they were.  Sad, very sad...
    
    Not to worry, Deb.  His description was only a biased distortion of
    a real conference - no such policy exists in any conference I've
    ever seen.
    

    So, meanwhile, Jerry's questions (from way back) have been answered.
    
    Now what?

         After a load of discussion, the same facts remain:
    
         1. Some people are writing intolerant comments about other people
            at Digital in VAXnotes.
    
         2. The offending individuals come from every sub-classification
            of Digital employee.
    
         3. Some offenders are being reprimanded by moderators, Personnel or
            fellow noters while other offenders are offending with impunity.  
            Largely, the reprimands are dependent upon whether or not  
            someone in that particular conference is willing to object to the 
            infraction.
    
         4. No one is being singled-out for punishment, though it strangely
            seems to appeal to some people's martyr syndrome to say that they 
            are the only ones not allowed to be ignorant.
    
         5. Every example of intolerance from one group can be countered
            with an example from another group (this is the easiest way to
            prove the martyrs wrong).
    
         6. There is no "freedom of speech" on privately-owned networks.
    
         7. Some people need to stifle their need to degrade
            whole classifications of people who just happen to be
            somehow different from themselves.
    
                                            Greg
 

.132> Oh and btw, please accept my sincere apology for calling your 
.132> 'hypothetical' conference rules "ludicrous" and "asinine"...I had
.132> no idea how real they were.  Sad, very sad...

    Apology not necessary.  Those "rules" were taken from an existing
    conference and "straight" replaced <people #1> and "gay" replaced
    <people #2>.  My point has been adequately demonstrated.  As per the
    request of our illustrious moderator I'll not carry this any further,
    but, if anyone wants to see the text ... send me mail and I'll
    point you to the conference and note where they stand today.

    "Sad" is not exactly the word that I would use ...

    Bubba

    RE: .136  Jerry
    
    > Apology not necessary.  Those "rules" were taken from an existing
    > conference and "straight" replaced <people #1> and "gay" replaced
    > <people #2>.  
    
    Those "rules" were taken out of context inaccurately, as pointed out
    to you earlier.
    
    > "Sad" is not exactly the word that I would use ...
    
    As moderators of Soapbox, I'm sure you and Deb could have chosen much
    worse terms to use against others than "ludicrous," "asinine" and
    "sad."

    Thanks for keeping the conversation relatively calm and polite.

    RE: .-1
    
    Just for the heck of it ... write a note ... leave it there ... or ...
    delete it.  If you want to change something, you can change the wording
    in a later note and/or retract what you said, but, continued entry of
    the same note, in the same place, with different wording is getting quite
    bothersome.
    
    Thanking you in advance for your consideration of your fellow noters,
    
    Bubba

    
    	Just wanted to see if you were paying attention, Jerry.  :-)
    
    	Your silence towards my refutation of your point left me wondering
    	if you'd read any of the notes.
    
    	I guess so.  :)

    re .138  Jerry,
    
    Yeah, that is an annoying habit some people have.  Another one is not
    listening to moderators and mentioning particular conferences in almost 
    every note.
    
    Not to mention that people who omit noses on their smiley faces are
    being offensive to the olfactorally-challenged.  8^)
    

    RE: .140  Deb
    
    > Yeah, that is an annoying habit some people have.  
    
    Yes, well, I'm sure I regret being "annoying" to you as much as others
    regret seeming "ludicrous," "asinine" and/or "sad" to you - but it's all
    beside the point.
    
    As you and Jerry have demonstrated, you have no fewer rights than any
    other person at Digital has (when it comes to what you're allowed to
    say about other people or conferences.)
    
    Thanks again for the relatively calm discussion.

    
    
    I'm sorry. I must have temporarily gone to the Bahamas...
    would you guys mind recapping the last few...
    
    What I *THOUGHT* I read was Jerry changing the wording of some
    exisinting note to prove a point, Deb called him....an ASS???? (;),
    Suzanne saying that that was not a real note, Jerry saying something
    that (I'm sorry....but you lost me Bubbah...) then something else
    then something else, then Suzanne saying that Jerry and Deb have
    just proven that they have the same level of freedom of speech as
    anyone else does.
    
    Ok so that was MY recap...can someone please explain what REALLU
    happened?!!
    
    (no really.....I'm confused.....!!
    
    Cat
    

.142> Ok so that was MY recap...can someone please explain what REALLU
.142> happened?!!

Well, that's what really happened.  Problem is that some notes between
were entered/deleted/re-entered/deleted/re-entered/etc ... now, had
you been around to see *that* charade you would have reason to be confused.

.142> (no really.....I'm confused.....!!

And rightfully you should be.  That was the intent of some of the notes,
to hide the facts ... VAXmail will be ah' comin' youah' way.

General Bubba

    
    >General Bubbah
    
    General? When did THAT happen? I MUST have been asleep at the
    wheel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    >Deleted/re-deleted/re-entered
    
    Why do I think that I've missed all of the good stuff?
    
    
    So on with the discussion...or whats left of it...
    
    Seems to me that some folks some place back (many times) have made the
    comments that "see, everyone DOES have the same level of freedom  of
    speech", or that the level of freedom of speech is dependant on the
    level of generousity tht the moderator is feeling that day, or that
    your comment can sometims slip by if no one happens to read and
    complain.
    
    So I still find it strange that in a country that goes out of its way
    to allow 'groups' like the Nazis, and the KKK and the Black Panthers,
    to exist, and goes out of its way to protect their freedom of speech
    and demonstration, that we, working at this itsy bitsy company go to
    such extremes to stifle opinions like "I don't like xyz"! 
    
    But, as has been demonstrated, this IS a two part problem.
    
    Problem 1: the inability to discuss certain subjects or express certain
    opinions due to their sensitive nature and the fact that some fellow
    workers are insulted even by the very existance of the discussion.
    
    Problem2: the inability of some groups of people (the group varies
    depending on the discussion) to discuss, express an opinion to the same
    level that other groups can. IE--same level of freedom of speech.
    
    I have not seen any valid arguments yet to say that this (problem 2)
    does not exist, though I have seen some JUSTIFICATION of why problem 2
    exists.  
    
    IS there justification of why any freedoms are not distributed equally?
    Can we use 'one freedom' to tip the scales to a better balance?
    Are 'freedoms' the 'tool' to use to even the game out??
    Do two (three, four, five, six) wrongs make a right??
    
    IMHO (I hate that note talk stuff!!) no. We can't ever justify an
    inequity. We can't ever play with our freedoms like they are a barter
    tool to be granted and taken away and distributed based on someones
    level of generosity that day. 
    
    But...I feel like I'm running for governor..so I'll shut up now...:-)
    
    So I have lots more questions, but I'll save em for later..assuming
    that we can keep this topic on track and discuss the issue at hand, and
    not get rat holed (again!).
    
    Cat
      
     
    

    RE: .144  Cathy Pitt

    > So I still find it strange that in a country that goes out of its way
    > to allow 'groups' like the Nazis, and the KKK and the Black Panthers,
    > to exist, and goes out of its way to protect their freedom of speech
    > and demonstration, that we, working at this itsy bitsy company go to
    > such extremes to stifle opinions like "I don't like xyz"! 

    We don't have "free speech" on the networks of a private company.  If
    you want the same free speech guaranteed 'groups' like Nazis, you'll
    have to go outside a private business environment.

    > Problem2: the inability of some groups of people (the group varies
    > depending on the discussion) to discuss, express an opinion to the same
    > level that other groups can. IE--same level of freedom of speech.

    NO one has proven that this particular inequality exists.  No one has
    any more right at Digital to call another group 'inherently disgusting
    or repulsive' than any other person, for example.

    Many other comments exist in gray areas.  Do minorities have the right
    to say they are very unhappy with the way they are treated in society?
    Sure.  I've also seen many, many people claim that the so-called
    'majority' is treated badly in society these days.  Do they have the
    right to say this.  Sure.

    People may disagree with either of these comments, but both have been
    written successfully on Digital's networks.

    I've yet to see proof that Digital sanctions any comments by one 'group'
    that they most definitely refuse to sanction for another.

    Jerry, since you've already quoted the last paragraph of this policy
    (with claims about it being an example of something other groups are
    not allowed to do) - we might as well see it in context:  [The name
    of the conference has been withheld.]
    
                -< Changing Policies by Vote of the Community >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Policies for administering <conf name> can be established in either of
    two different ways:
    
    The moderators may create policies via an informal process whenever we
    think we see the need, and these ad hoc policies will remain in effect
    for an indefinite period thereafter.

    Any member of this community acting in good faith may also propose
    changes to file management policy, including rescinding those policies
    established administratively by the mods.  The moderators will enforce
    any such change if it is ratified by a formal vote of the community and
    does not violate law or corporate policy.
    
    If you wish to propose such a change, draft the proposal such that it
    is clearly understandable and enforceable as written.  If you need
    advice or help with writing the proposal, please send mail to the
    moderators.
    
    When the proposal has been written to your satisfaction, post it as a
    basenote.  This will start a 7-day discussion period (which may be
    waived by the mods if timing is critical) during which time any members
    wishing to register to vote may do so by introducing themselves in one
    of the three "Intros" strings.  When the discussion period is up, the
    intro strings are locked and the 7-day voting period begins.
    
    Votes are cast by writing a response in the proposal string.  The body
    of the response may be blank or contain further discussion or argument
    pro or con, but to be counted as a valid vote, the title of the note
    must take this form:  the vote (yes/no/abstain), open parens, your
    registration number, close parens.  E.g., "yes (2.1)", "abstain (3.0)",
    etc.  (The votes are tallied by a procedure file.)
    
    Votes may be freely changed during the balloting period by writing a
    new note and blanking the title of your old note:  MOD NOT .n/TIT=""
    
    At the close of the balloting period, the voting string is locked, the
    intro strings are unlocked again, and the votes are counted.  The
    proposal will always FAIL unless ratified by 67% (.5 rounds up) of
    those casting "yes" or "no" votes.  Although "abstain" votes may also
    be cast, only "yes" and "no" votes will be counted in the total, since
    otherwise an "abstain" takes on the value of a "no" without the
    clarity.
    
    Normally, votes by xxxx and xxxx are counted together without regard to
    xxxx membership.  If it should ever happen, however, that xxxx and xxxx
    clearly line up on opposite sides of an issue, the mods may elect to be
    guided by the xxxx's vote regardless of the absolute numbers involved.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    P.S. As far as I know, the clause in the last paragraph has never been
    utilized in the 5 or 6 noter issue elections that have been held in the
    past 5-6 years.