Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    How can you blow something so out of proportion?  Hill's claims
    aren't for asking her out, but rather for Thomas' continueous language
    concerning "explicit sex acts" and how he proposed to commit a
    few of them himself with her.                               
    
    Where I see the stupidity in all this is that the legislation will
    have to spell out for these sex harrassers exactly what "sexual
    explicitness is" as if an average intelligent being didn't know.
    
    How a man and how a woman can differ in what the "offensiveness"
    is regarding "porno" sex is just too interesting.  And if it is
    actually true that men would find it appealing, and more so, even
    welcome, obscene  gestures or remarks from women, then I believe
    that is a pity.  That would impress me that every man is nothing
    more than a sex hungry, looking for action anytime, anywhere and
    anyplace, any woman so desires.
                                   
    How 'bout a date may be flattery; however, how 'bout I stick this
    up your *** and you'll love it like no other is criminal.  And of
    course, we're talking about in the work place, not in the privacy
    of your own home.

    re: .1
    
>    How can you blow something so out of proportion?  Hill's claims
>    aren't for asking her out, but rather for Thomas' continueous language
>    concerning "explicit sex acts" and how he proposed to commit a
>    few of them himself with her.                               
    
    If I understand .0 correctly, this note does not pertain to the
    Hill/Thomas situation directly, but rather to statements regarding
    some people's idea of proper behavior in the workplace.  For example,
    consider the following extract from 659.0:
    
So what's "unwelcome" and what's "inappropriate"?  Susan Webb, Consultant
spoke on NPR and said that compliments of any kind are inappropriate in the
work place.  "Don't tell me I look pretty, tell me I did a good job."
    
    

> So what's "unwelcome" and what's "inappropriate"?  Susan Webb, Consultant
> spoke on NPR and said that compliments of any kind are inappropriate in the
> work place.  "Don't tell me I look pretty, tell me I did a good job."
    
    I heard this quote on NPR. The context was clearly that Susan Webb felt
    that men should treat their male and female co-workers alike. That is,
    the prime concern should be the quality of work. 
    
    This does not mean that there is no place for pleasantries. This does
    not mean that it is inappropriate to ask someone out. This only means
    that you maintain some perspective on why you're at work.
    
    It is unsettling that so many men take the occasion of charges of
    clearcut sexual harrasment to express concern about their ability to
    offer an innocent compliment, or even to engage in the gentle opening
    rounds of what was known, in a qauinter era, as courtship. This falls
    clearer either in the "you still don't get it" category, or such men
    are nefariously, if not particularly subtly, trying to tie these two
    activities together.
    
    Kit  

    Kind of hard to defend either party as I see it. Yes, horassment is no
    no in the work place. But after 10+ years? And the Thomas calls Hill
    and she could tell him to take a hike but did she go out with him agian
    in 1987? I donno. I kinda think that both sides are loony as a toon.
    Some of Hills co-workers seem to say she is working on an Oscar. 

    Funny too, it the king of porn is sitting on this case. Teddy Kennedy!
    Drop shorts on anyone lately Ted? Drive any women home lately? That
    might be pregnant? 

re:1

    >How can you blow something so out of proportion?  Hill's claims
    >aren't for asking her out, but rather for Thomas' continueous language
    >concerning "explicit sex acts" and how he proposed to commit a
    >few of them himself with her.                               
    
I thought I made it clear that I wasn't addressing the Hill/Thomas
situation but rather the comments from two people one of whom stated that
there is no room for personal compliments in the workplace.

If someone tells an employee that they will either go to bed with them or
lose their job, I don't think there are too many people in the US workplace
right now who would argue that this is NOT sexual harrassment.  But what I
hear prominent women saying now, one woman who helped draft the original
sexual harassment definitions, is 'Any unwelcome word act or deed'
constitutes sexual harassment.  I feel that this would do more harm than
good because it implies that women cannot take care of themselves even when
there is no real threat.  And it implies that the solution for women is to
go get another man to deal with a problem as trivial as 'Would you like
to go out with me?'  This, in my opinion, is very sad.

patrick

    "any unwelcome word, act or deed" is a very shadowy thing to grasp.
    
    If someone says or does something in the workplace that makes me 
    uncomfortable based on my gender, it's probably unwelcome.
    
    One of the hallmarks of sexual harassment is that the person who feels
    uncomfortable expresses this discomfort to the perpetrator, and the
    perpetrator continues to do whatever it is, with FULL AWARENESS of the
    victim's discomfort.
    
    If there was ANY question at all in anyone's mind whether or not the
    comment, proposition, suggestion, or whatever was inappropriate and
    harassing (of course certain acts, like threats of firing if sex does
    not occur, are not even something that needs questioning in my mind) 
    THAT is the line where it is definitely harassment.
    
    -Jody
    

>    If there was ANY question at all in anyone's mind whether or not the
>    comment, proposition, suggestion, or whatever was inappropriate and
>    harassing [appositive omitted] THAT is the line where it is definitely 
>    harassment.

 I'm confused. Are you saying that if there's a question, then it definitely
IS harassment? Doesn't this mean that by definition it isn't a question
anymore? Seems to me that if there's a question, the safest route is to
discontinue that line of behavior OR ascertain that no problems exist before
continuing...

 The Doctah

>>    If there was ANY question at all in anyone's mind whether or not the
>>    comment, proposition, suggestion, or whatever was inappropriate and
>>    harassing [appositive omitted] THAT is the line where it is definitely 
>>    harassment.
>
> I'm confused. Are you saying that if there's a question, then it definitely
>IS harassment? Doesn't this mean that by definition it isn't a question
>anymore? Seems to me that if there's a question, the safest route is to
>discontinue that line of behavior OR ascertain that no problems exist before
>continuing...

    To clarify.
    
    If there is any question on the perpetrator's part or any bystander's
    part as to whether it is or is not harassment, if the person who
    received the comment, or action, or suggestion SAYS to the perpetrator
    "look, I don't like this, please stop", and they don't stop....
    
    there is no longer a question.  It is harassment.  The harasser has
    been informed of the victim's discomfort.  It is clear-cut.
    
    -Jody
    
 

 Thank you.

    Granted that sexual horrasment is a valid cause. But in the case of
    Hill, where some folks think that this can be fiction in her behalf.
    Can other case's arise like this as to "poison pill" someone else who
    doesn't have the same political beliefs? Imagine this! Where allot
    of state and local goverments wish to televise local court trials,
    hearings, etc. Someone trunps up some good fiction, the defendant gets
    his face smeared ALL over the country side. Who the hell is going to
    hire this person after they get their face smeared all over the
    freeking country side? Someone has ruined another life for they had
    visions that they were being controled or influenced by a demon? A
    witch? A worlock? A dog name Sam?? 
    
    Imagine that you have been flirting with a co-worker, you both compete
    for a new opening, you get the job, he/she doesn't. You find yourself
    in court for sexual horrasment. Your face is strewn across the country
    side on TV. You loose your job, loose your family, you are found "Not
    Guilty" of such crimes. Now what?? Start over? Find a new carrier? 
    Oh, by the way..... The co-worker has replaced you? Going to sue
    him/her? No money� 

>    for a new opening, you get the job, he/she doesn't. You find yourself
>    in court for sexual horrasment. Your face is strewn across the country
>    side on TV. You loose your job, loose your family, you are found "Not
>    Guilty" of such crimes. Now what?? Start over? Find a new carrier? 
    
    I thought that it was just proven that the American public doesn't
    think it's such a big deal. If my tax dollars are going to be put into
    something like the confirmation hearings, the least you could do is pay
    attention.
    
    Ray

    
    This is so hard to define.  Recently I had my hair cut off short after 
    years of shoulder length, and some of the men at work who I normally have 
    very little contact with in the course of my work actually detoured out of 
    their way to tell me how nice they thought it looked.  There were no
    sexual overtones and I felt quite flattered, but someone else might find 
    this attention "unwelcome" - does this then become harrassment?
    
    One of my friends had a baby recently and said that while she was
    pregnant she found that men at work who she normally rarely spoke to
    would come up and pat her "bump", asking how she was.  She said that
    she felt awkward with the physical contact (ie, the act of them patting
    her stomach) and found it unwelcome, but never said anything for fear of 
    offending someone who was, after all, only enquiring after her health and 
    that of her unborn child.  But, although the contact was unwelcome, can
    you call it "harrassment" even though she didn't tell them that she didn't 
    like it?  Just out of interest, - men noters, would you pat a pregnant 
    colleague's stomach?
    
    Sam
                                      

    >would you pat a pregnant colleague's stomach?
    
    Only upon request.			- Vick
    
    P.S.  I know this differs from man to man, but I have never found
    anything sexy about a pregnant woman.  That is to say, I've never found
    the fact that she is pregnant to enhance her sexual appeal.
    			

    re.15 P.S.
    
    I wondered 'bout that.  with those girly mags with the nude pregnant
    women in them on display.                                  
    
    But anyway, I can recall only one time that my husband actually
    just blurted out and said that I was absolutely beautiful and in
    a wanting sort of way. 
    
     It was when I was 4-6 mos. pregnant with our first.  I got all
    fancied up in some gown and had my hair up for when he got home
    from work.  It's strange that this particular incident stays in
    my mind, but it's stays in his mind too.

    re. patting pregnant tummies
    
    This was probably _the_ most irritating thing that happened to me when
    I was pregnant.
    
    Men and women, perfect strangers, co-workers, family and friends seemed
    to think that my bulgy tummy was somehow community property.  I never
    got the feeling that their were sexual overtones [but maybe I was being
    dense] -- it always felt to me that the general attitude was that I
    stuck it out there, it must be for touching.
    
    Strangers got the ol' hairy eyeball.  Family, friends and co-workers
    were politely requested -- once -- to cut it out.  The second time a
    known person patted my tummy, I patted theirs back.  There generally
    wasn't a third occurence.
    
    Yes, touching me when I've asked not to be touched is harrassment. 
    Touching me in a way that I've asked not to be touched is harrassment.
    
    Sure I felt harrassed -- actually I was more p*ssed than anything else. 
    I never felt threatened or frightened, but I certainly felt powerless
    to convice [mostly] well-meaning human beings that I really _was_ fully
    human and equal and competent and not just some ambulatory incubator.
    
      Annie

re .17

>    Men and women, perfect strangers, co-workers, family and friends seemed
>    to think that my bulgy tummy was somehow community property.

In a loose sense it is.  By this I mean that they were expressing, however 
clumsily, an unconscious affinity with the unborn, and affirming their common 
humanity.  It is the artificial social constructs of the workplace that make 
such touching out of place; they were responding at a much deeper level.

    re .18
    
    Tooooo funny, David!  
    
    I think Annie (.17) handled the situation very well.  The *only* part
    of a woman's body that's even remotely "community property" is her hand 
    when she extends it for a handshake.  Otherwise, keep yer cotton-pickin' 
    paws off!
    
    	deb

    I guess it depends upon the patter and pat-tie. Me, I keep hands to
    home unless invited to. At work, it would be considered unprofessional.
    I do ask when they are due, if they look like its the last term, just
    as a conversational. I can only remember, like many of us, when our
    wives were due with our children and what a wounderful experience it
    was to watch them change and blossom. I donno, I guess there is one of
    those boarder liners, and could be either blaintent, or interperted 
    incorrectly. Remember none of us where there when she was patten and
    can miss the many messages.
    
    George

<In a loose sense it is.  By this I mean that they were expressing, however 
<clumsily, an unconscious affinity with the unborn, and affirming their common 
<humanity.  It is the artificial social constructs of the workplace that make 
<such touching out of place; they were responding at a much deeper level.
    
    I agree with that statement, minus only the one word 'artificial'. 
    And I think you would agree to remove that word 'artificial' if you
    were not such an absolutist!  
    It turns around the reply 180 degrees from being an insightful reply to
    being an incite-ful reply.
    Who the hell do you think you are to decide that somebody else's social
    constructs are artificial?
    It is really sad to see such solid thinking, co-mingled with such
    opinionated bias.
    				herb

    re.18
    
    I see.  A _very_ loose sense indeed.  By the same logic it would be 'an
    expression, however clumsy, of an unconscious affinity ...' to fondle
    or stroke folks organs of generation ... after all that _is_ where the
    baby came from.
    
    Touching any part of me when I have not sanctioned being touched is
    invasive and rude and denies _my_ humanity.
    
    Unless it disturbed the flow of a presentation, or something, I found it
    no more and no less annoying to have my stomach gratuitously fondled at
    work than I did in supermarkets, shopping malls, ball parks, or even my
    own home.
    
      Annie

Fine, forget it.  If you can't see past the superficial then that's your 
problem.  As for Herb's nonsense - all social constructs are artificial.  
They don't exist in and of themselves until someone makes them up.  The 
forthcoming baby, on the other hand, is real and speaks to us at a much 
deeper and more meaningful level.  I said what they did was a clumsy way to 
express it, but obviously you want perfection so I'll say no more.

    Mr Simpson:  
    
    I believe what you MEANT was:  all people, men and women, are moved by
    the miracle of childbirth, and want to be a part of it, however
    fleetingly.
    
    What you SAID was:  it's okay to touch a pregnant woman's body, even if
    you're only an acquaintance, or even a stranger.
    
    The first is a noble sentiment; the second is an unacceptable boundary
    violation.  The noble sentiment does NOT give you the right to touch
    another's body without her explicit permission, regardless of the deep
    and meaningful level with which the impending birth speaks to you.
    
    					andrew

    <I believe what you MEANT was...>

    no, don't think so.
    what I _think_ he meant is ...
    
    "whatever i say is correct and I will countenance NO corrections
    (because my huge ego is too insecure to admit of mistakes). And,
    furthermore, you Phillistines are hopeless so I won't participate in
    this discussion any more."
    
    p.s. 
    there is a social construct that stipulates that people try to be courteous
    to each other. Since he is likely to view this as an artificial
    construct, it's not surprising that he has no misgivings about ignoring
    its dictims.
    				herb

    There is something cosmic about the attraction I feel for a beautiful
    nubile woman.  It is something very real at a deep and meaningful
    level.  It says something about the continuation of my species, of my
    own personal genes.  I feel an urge to take that woman in my arms and
    make love to her...
    
    Can I, David, huh, huh, can I???  I mean, do I have to ask her
    permission or anything artificial like that?
    
    					- Vick

    "Nubile"?!?!?  well, yes, many men find the nubile terrifically
    attractive.  I'll certainly not argue with you there.  Certainly
    there's something cosmically life-affirming about becoming a women,
    hence 'of marriageable age', ...
    
    but if you mean with-child, "gravid" might be a better choice of words
    
    and, still, the "better" people generally seek agreement prior to
    love-making.
    
      Annie
    

    I admit that I feel a strong urge to touch/pat the stomach of
    a pregnant women. It feels to me like saying hello to the baby.
    However, I always ask if it is okay. Most of the time I'm allowed
    to.
    
    Bonnie

    re.24
    
    no sir, I do not seek perfection.
    
    yes, I can see past the superficial.  it is not a 'social construct' to
    wish to maintain my bodily integrity. it is a pretty basic need and
    it's real.
    
    I understood then, as I do now, _why_ I was being touched -- the urges
    behind it and the wonder -- I experienced it myself.
    
    being at one and the same time a person affected by the wonder and a
    person in need of basic human dignity presented me with a high-relief
    depiction of the inherrent conflict.
    
    when I see children at the market they speak to a deep need in me to
    hold my own -- they did even before mine died.  This, too, is something
    primal.  Yet, I have encountered no forgiveness in the actions or eyes
    or parents or grandparents when I instinctively reach out to touch the
    soft ringlets of an infant.  The drive to protect one's young from the
    unknown is pretty deep and meaningful as well.  And there's a conflict.
    
     Annie

    Annie,
    I guess my sarcasm was lost in your translation.  I was not referring
    to pregnant women.  I was referring to attractive, perhaps voluptuous was
    a better word, women.  I was extending David's logic to rape.  I think
    I was on your side in implying that your personal space should not
    be sacrificed to primitive urges.
    
    - Vick

    no, no, Vick,
    
    Whilst I didn't realise you were being sarcastic, I certainly didn't
    believe you were being serious.
    
    I was trying to be lite ... I guess I should caption my notes. It
    strcuk me as hilarious that, in drawing your analogy, you had moved
    from the realm of pregnant women to that of girls with the potential to
    become so. [few appreciate my sense of humour ...]
    
    saying the 'better people ...' was along the same lines as saying 'none
    of the best people do' when faced with spitting on the MBTA.
    
    
      Annie

    While some correctly perceived how what I said related to a sense of
    community and common humanity some nevertheless managed to pervertedly
    extrapolate it into a negation of individualism.  I have to wonder,
    though, to what extent this is a mindless and petty attempt at
    retribution for wrongs real or imagined sufferred elsewhere, and how
    much it is simply mindless.

    re.33
    
    I have endeavoured to illustrate to you the dichotomy of feeling
    involved for me in the situation described. I have acknowledged that your
    perceptions are quite valid, but given voice to my experience that
    these are not the only perceptions at work.
    
    You have extrapolated this to be pettiness, perverse extrapolation,
    possible retribution for other wrongs which may even be imagined, or
    [more kindly] simple mindlessness.
    
    Why have you built something so huge out of this?  A question was
    asked, I answered, I expanded upon my answer.  The simple truth is that
    I never minded people touching my belly; I just hated it when they did
    it without asking first.  Doing so didn't make them awful or callous.
    It merely made them [as you said] clumsy, thoughtless, and rude.
    
    Why is this hard to accept?  Are you entirely without understanding of
    what I've tried to get across?  Or are you just entirely out of
    sympathy with my position?
    
      Annie

    >While some correctly perceived how what I said related to a sense of
    >community and common humanity some nevertheless managed to pervertedly
    >extrapolate it into a negation of individualism.  
    
    Give us some slack, David.  Most of us here are intelligent enough to
    perceive what you mean.  You aren't so deep that we commoners fail
    to fathom you.  The extrapolation was not far-fetched.
    
    >I have to wonder,
    >though, to what extent this is a mindless and petty attempt at
    >retribution for wrongs real or imagined sufferred elsewhere, and how
    >much it is simply mindless.
    
    Wonder away.  You really need to learn that just because someone
    disagrees with you does not make them stupid or mindless or petty.
    I don't understand why you don't understand that.  It's simply the
    human condition.  For myself, I like a good debate and, as people here
    know, I will weigh in on the side of some unpopular propositions.
    
    Tell you what, David.  Try this:  The next time you feel that
    uncontrollable urge to insult someone, why don't you take a deep breath,
    count to ten, and write instead something like:  "Well, you may be
    right, but I think (and this position is supported by much reputable
    research) that ..."  You get the idea?  i.e.  instead of "I can't
    believe you are stupid enough to really think that.  Anyone who has
    read anything on the subject knows..."  It's just polite human
    discourse.  Think how you would word your arguments if you were in
    front of your dissertation committee defending your thesis.  Would you
    really be offensive and rude to the professors who attempt to debate the 
    major points of your thesis?  Would you really expect to pass if you
    were?
    
    I would venture to say that most of the readers of this notesfile are
    well above average IQ (for whatever that's worth) and education.  Don't
    underestimate us.  I am generally acknowledged, at least, not to be a
    moron.  
    
    Please stop reaching out your avuncular paws to embrace those who agree
    with you as smart little boys and girls and stop cudgelling, with
    demeaning insults, those who deign to disagree with you.  It is most
    annoying, really.  
    						- Vick
    

    in re .35 in re .33
    
    Or inother words, David do you have to *try* to be so offensive?
    or is it your natural speaking style.
    
    You really (as I've said before) would function a lot better in this
    environment if you could be less hostile.
    
    Bonnie

    I'll bleat about what I want to bleat about.  You bleat about what you
    want to bleat about.  
    					- Vick

    I STRONGLY, STRONGLY urge everybody in this conference to ignore
    the writings of BIGUN::SIMPSON.
    Many of us have tried to politely, and courteously convince the author
    of those entries that they are coming across as rude, confrontational,
    hostile, patronizing,... did I forget something.
    It is clear, that the author is either unwilling or unable to accept
    the words that have started kindly and have become increasingly
    strident as our patience wears thin.
    I will not respond to anything else that man writes. I urge everybody
    else to do the same.
    As someone who in the past has been the recipient of such a boycott, I
    know how much it hurt me. I believe he deserves it.

This topic is again "open for business".  Thanks for your patience.

			Steve

It's being escalated - are you sure you want to continue?

           <<< Note 660.18 by TRODON::SIMPSON "PCI with altitude!" >>>

re .17

>    Men and women, perfect strangers, co-workers, family and friends seemed
>    to think that my bulgy tummy was somehow community property.


>>clumsily, an unconscious affinity with the unborn, and affirming their common 
humanity.  It is the artificial social constructs of the workplace that make 
>>such touching out of place; they were responding at a much deeper level.

I don't get why this is so upsetting to you people.  What I understand this
to say is that because of our Puritan backgrounds and upbringing we cannot
look at two men hugging without wondering . . .
We equate human touch as a prelude to sex . . .
People in our society touch when someone has lost a loved one or when they
want sex.  IMO we are not by nature that type of beast, we are IMO beings
that would naturally express ourselves and communicate with touch if our
society hadn't set up an artifical barriers and made this a taboo.  If this
is what is being said above I agree 1000%.

patrick

    Re .41: I believe the upset is not so much about the _theory_ that
    humankind would be touchy-feelie if Society hadn't made it otherwise,
    but in the (inferred or deduced, whether accurately or not) idea that
    this makes it OK - or at least understandable - for people to touch a
    pregnant woman's stomach. (As for how natural it really is to touch,
    that depends on the critter; in some animal societies, only those tied
    by blood have free access to caress, groom, or wrestle, while in others
    it's determined by social status, dominance, and so forth. Sounds kind
    of like people, doesn't it.)
    
    Now, I could believe that some people are drawn to touch by some inner
    need for contact, or awe at the miracle of life, but I also think some
    do it out of curiosity, and some out of a mistaken idea that it's a
    compliment, and still others for who knows what reasons. And, in my
    opinion, in no case should they do so without getting permission from
    the touchee first.
    
    Besides, it's dangerous to annoy a pregnant person. She might punch you
    out. ;-)
    
    -b

    When I was pregnant (18 yrs. ago) a young woman at work asked me if she
    could touch my stomach.  She said, "Would you mind?  I've never touched
    a pregnant woman's stomach before."  I was really surprised.  I didn't
    feel that she had any more right to find out how my stomach felt when I
    was 7 months pregnant than she would if I wasn't pregnant.  It was
    still my body and my stomach and I'd prefer *not* to have someone, who
    isn't a lover touching my body.  In fact, I was somewhat incredulous
    that she had the gall to ask me.  We weren't friends outside of work or
    anything.  Anyway, I said, "Actually, I would mind.  I really don't
    want people feeling my stomach, even if I am 7 months pregnant." And,
    she got very upset and thought I was a bitch for not letting her.  I've
    always felt it was an odd incident.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    well, at least you were asked. I fail to see anything to be outraged
    about..

    re .44
    
    On the one hand, perhaps the woman who <was very upset> doesn't have a
    very good sense of others' boundaries. Perhaps the woman comes from an
    environment where 'belly patting' is common, and perhaps felt that any
    other mindset constituted a fairly aggressive rejection. 
    
    On the other hand perhaps the woman who <was very upset> does have an
    adequate sense of others' boundaries, but she sensed some sort of
    body/verbal innuendo/overtone that she interpreted (or mis-interpreted)
    as being <bitchy>, and to which she reacted with intensity.

    				herb

What I think we're discovering is that a lot of behaviors which we THOUGHT
were perfectly acceptable, in fact have been objectionable for a long time
but the "recipients" of the behaviors have not previously expressed their
objections.  And now a number of people are speaking out, and folks are
caught wondering "why the rules are changing", when in fact they haven't
changed, they've just become more obvious.

In my opinion, it's no more appropriate for me to walk up to a woman and 
pat her bulging tummy than it is for me to pat her breasts.  It's her body;
I don't own it and "society" doesn't own it (various attempts at governmental
regulation to the contrary).

What the recent events are teaching us is that we all have to sit down and
reevaluate our behaviors and actions towards others, and consider whether
certain behaviors which had not previously been objected to are in fact
objectionable.  (The current Doonesbury comic strip is enlightening here.)

It's not just men's behavior towards women which needs to be looked at, though
that is the current focus, but everyone's behavior towards everyone else.
There are a number of people whose behavior towards both men and women is,
to my view, offensive, but they write it off as "the way they are".  What's
really changing is that those on the receiving end are less likely to just
sit back and take it.  And I think that's for the better.

				Steve

    
    Having just read all replies starting with .17 I would just like to ask
    why everyone is so upset with reply .18? Being totally unbiased due to
    the fact that this is the first time I've read them I must say that I
    don't think .18 was saying that people have every right to touch a
    pregnant woman's stomach just that he understands the urge to do so.
    And I don't think any of his following replies were offensive to anyone
    but *I* think he had reason to be offended by some replies pretaining
    to him!!!! And no, I don't know any of yall and probably never will. I
    apologize if I in turn have offended anyone, I just wanted to state things
    as I see them.
    
    Regards,
    Trudy

    The following is an extract of his writing in 658. The stuff in <> was
    being quoted in those entries.
    Draw your own conclusion.

================================================================================
flimsy 

================================================================================
...ideological  objections will be based upon the similar distortions of
reality that have served <them> so badly elsewhere 
I don't respect <that conference> enough to bother noting there.
================================================================================

I thought you were more discerning, <name>.  Obviously I was wrong.  

You are projecting your own insecurities onto my words.  

Damn right you didn't.  You read what you wanted to read, saw what you wanted 
to see.  

================================================================================

Go immediately and take an intensive remedial  course in English comprehension.

This is crap.  

Again, you leapt to conclusions and came a-giant-cropper.

================================================================================

Generally I find people complaining about 'rudeness' and suchlike are trying to
distract attention from their embarassment at having their nonsenses thoroughly
trashed.  

Such fundamental  intellectual laziness is insulting to the original author and
to every reader.

================================================================================

You clearly have never studied this area.  

At the same time, to give the lie to your repeated assertion 

================================================================================

You're putting me on, right?  This *has* to be bait.  

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

No reputable scientist today will deny any of this.  You're a century out 
of date.

No way, this is too obviously bait.
================================================================================

I offer these slices as a hint to the genuinely interested and the monstrously
ignorant (like good friend <name>) who wish to deny the reality not only of
an Everest of evidence, published in the most reputable scientific journals of
the world, but simply of their own eyes as well.

================================================================================
... and it is with a degree of wry amusement that I note how much my
expectations of  hysteria, woolly thinking, distortion, wilful
misunderstanding, dissembling and  deceit have been exceeded.

This is a sterling case of poor thinking.  

It would serve little purpose, either in the public domain or here,  for such
important ideas to be presented in such a way that they cannot be  understood
or debated by 'rabble' such as you.

monumental specimen of irrational thinking:

These quotes all contain the same assumption.  To make that assumption Mr
<name> requires either:

	1.  The distinct inability not only to read but to think about what was 
said;

	2.  The author has no regard for truth (This is also known as telling 
lies).

================================================================================
...its  immediately apparent that the objections are based on prejudice,
ignorance and  poor thinking.  

It is prima facie absurd ...

================================================================================
<name>, you really are a most tiresome fellow.  Did you take a course in 
sloppy thinking?


A sterling example of how to ignore context and thus distort meaning to suit 
your own ends.

Really?  Oh, you do surprise me!  Go away and teach your grandmother to suck 
eggs - you'll have more luck and a better reception.

================================================================================
Before you dismiss the evidence as pseudo-scientific why don't you study it
first?  Or is that too logical?
================================================================================

    And these are only the one's that haven't been deleted.  But David has
    been quite well-mannered lately and I really wish people would let the
    matter rest.
    						- Vick

    A small recognition/acknowledgement might work wonders.
    
    Perhaps a bit of contriteness, an apology...?

Congratulations, Herb.  I had wondered how low you were prepared to stoop and 
now I know.  Perhaps I should do the same, pull your quotes out of context, 
including some of your mail, go for the largest possible bias, follow you 
around between topics pursuing vendettas... but no.  That's not me.  Whatever 
else you might say, I have integrity.

HUMANE::DIGITAL note 1650.112 makes for interesting reading

			Steve

    Steve,
    
    	Can it be pulled over to this file?

            <<< HUMANE::HUMANE$DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 1650.112                 Digital Ignores Notes                   112 of 147
TRODON::SIMPSON "PCI with altitude!"                 95 lines   5-NOV-1991 05:51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re .110

>In my view, that is the way that "Digital" (whoever that is) ought to
>behave.  Most of the employees of Digital are adult persons, and ought
>to be able to handle their own disagreements without running to Mummy Dec
>every time someone calls them a nasty name.    Employee-interest 
>notesfiles should be something which Digital permits, but does not
>participate it.

>Stated differently, notesfiles should be too trivial to require the official
>intervention of the personnel department.

I think notesfiles are a very important part of Digital, and are not trivial.

Let me elucidate on a matter of some more weight than .0.  I'm interested in 
the panel's thoughts:

Not long ago in another (nameless) conference I had a note deleted and 
returned to me by the (nameless) moderator.  He said that the phrase "As for 
()'s stupid proposition that..." constituted an ad hominem attack.

I explained to him that since ad hominem literally means "to the man" a 
statement about the proposition was not an attack on the person, and 
reentered the note.

He redeleted the note and informed me that saying a proposition was stupid 
*necessarily* implied that the person who made the proposition was stupid.

I replied that this was not logical, since there are many possible reasons 
why a proposition may be deemed stupid, and that the person making it being 
stupid was only one.  Therefore, not only is it not necessary to draw that 
inference, it was poor thinking, and reposted the note.

He came back and said that any reasonable person would draw that conclusion, 
and deleted it again.

I reposted it and we exchanged names of managers before he deleted it again.

He also complained that my reposting of my note constituted harassment.  I 
have legal advice (in my country) that it strengthens my position, and told 
him so.  I do not know what the legal position is in that part of the US.  He 
further went so far as to dare me to complain, referring to my "bluff".  I 
wasn't bluffing (he's a moderator - what option do I have if I think it 
important?).

His manager rejected my complaint without making any reference to my argument 
and complained vehemently about how I was wasting company time and 
resources.  The moderator in question apparently is also God's gift to 
moderators.

I said that since the manager refused to deal with the issue would they 
please supply me with the chain of management so I could escalate (as is my 
right under corporate P&P).  That's when the nastygrams to my manager began.  
Needless to say, I never received any management chain.

Now, why do I think this important?

If I have in fact made an ad hominem attack then I have also violated P&P.  I 
think I have shown adequately even in summary that I have not.

Note that this is a question of substance, not of style.  If a debate is 
becoming overly contentious then there are three accepted methods of dealing 
with it before resorting to deleting notes.  They are:

        1.  Moderator inserts a note in the string asking for calm.
        2.  Moderator writelocks the topic (usually for a set period of time).
        3.  Moderator sends mail to specific noters.

The moderator in question used none of these options.

If I have not made an ad hominem attack then my note has been deleted 
unjustifiably, because the reason state does not stand any test of logic put 
to it.  But there are further, more important implications.

If management and/or personnel allow the moderator to fabricate reasons to 
delete any person's notes then that grossly violates the spirit and letter of 
P&P.  It says, effectively, that the moderator is not governed by P&P or by 
their implied and stated ethics.  It says that he can capriciously and 
maliciously delete notes without good reason and that he will be supported in 
his actions by those tasked with ensuring that P&P are adhered to.

It also says, effectively, that I am responsible for how other people 
interpret what I say, which is an impossible burden.  If anyone did infer 
that because I said ()'s proposition is stupid that () is stupid then that is 
their error, not mine.

I'm not in the habit of complaining about noters.  This is the first time 
I've complained to management, and the three (yes, I can count them on one 
hand) times I sent mail to specific noters the issue was resolved by mail.  
As a moderator myself I'm appalled by the inconsistency and lack of logic 
applied to this issue in this case, and by the implications I have described.

So, while I think Eric sometimes goes over the top, his accusation that 
management and/or personnel don't always apply the rules consistency and 
fairly except when it suits them is not entirely unfounded.


re .50

>    And these are only the one's that haven't been deleted.

Let's get one thing straight.  In all my time in this conference I have only 
ever had one note deleted, and that because of one phrase.  So if you're 
really that keen to let things rest then stop disseminating falsehoods like 
this.

    I don't feel _i_ need an apology. I do feel that the conference might
    like some recognition of contriteness/<whatever>

Re: .57

Herb, no, I don't think apologies are required.  I believe it is often best to
leave personal pride behind and "turn the other cheek".

Re: .56

David is correct - he has only had one note deleted from this conference for
use of offensive language.  That he refused to modify the one phrase and
used a batch job to repeatedly repost the note is another thing entirely, and
one which, as he mentions, is currently being addressed by Personnel, and I will
not discuss it further here.

					Steve

    I did not look to see if you had deleted any notes, David, but
    since Herb's list of offensiveness did not include the note in which
    you quite directly (ad hominem) called me a moron, I thought maybe you
    had deleted it or someone else had.  I still haven't looked to find it,
    and don't intend to waste my time doing it.  But your plea of outraged
    innocence is pretty laughable.
    						- Vick

re:           <<< Note 660.62 by TRODON::SIMPSON "PCI with altitude!" >>>
                       -< some bits that Herb left out >-
<some text deleted>
    
>I am not in the business of educating the ineducable.  I will say just one more 
>time: 'a monumental specimen of irrational thinking' means that the statement 
>is irrational and does not attack the person and is therefore not ad hominem.  
    
    I would think 'a monumental specimen' refers to the thought or the
    statement in question, and 'of irrational thinking' is a judgement of the
    person making that statement;  and is therefore 'ad hominem'
    
    
    tony

re .63

"Specimen: n, Individual or part taken as example of a class or whole, esp. 
individual animal or plant or piece of a mineral etc. used for investigation 
or scientific examination."  (Oxford)

I left out the medical definition, OK?  An example of irrational thinking is 
attributable to a number of reasons, only one of which is that the person who 
created it is in fact irrational.  Therefore you cannot properly infer that 
the irrational thought was made by an irrational person, and it is not ad 
hominem.

    If you can get over the notion that this discussion requires much
    intellect, or much in the way of definition, i think you might get some
    appreciation for how people are feeling.
    To paraphrase McLuhan (sp?)
    
    the medium IS the message (for most human beings)
    
    In this case the medium is the kind of vocabulary and communication
    style you have been using.
    
    Your own words cited in .49 and elsewhere are far more elequent in this
    matter than I know how to be. The communication style is adversarial
    the language is filled with epithets and other pejorative remarks.
    
    Whether you intended to be insulting or not is something you can
    comment on. Whether the effect was insulting or not is something that
    others _have_ commented on.
    Several people -including me- have attempted to gently and
    considerately try to communicate to you the negative impact and effect
    your language has had. You remained adamant. Maybe even escalated the
    matter.
    
    I believe that your intransigeance on this matter is going to result in
    even more isolation than you are currently likely to be feeling.

    Isn't "ad hominem" Latin for "grits"?
    
    Ray

    "ineducable" is pretty ad hominem in my book.  
    
    					- Vick

Please, folks.  Keep the personal battles out of the notes conference.

				Steve

              <<< ERIS::NOTES:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MODERATORS.NOTE;4 >>>
                    -<  * Discussion of Moderator Issues * >-
================================================================================
Note 1.2                          Introduction                            2 of 4
RSTS32::KASPER "Shrink to an icon"                  167 lines  20-APR-1988 14:16
                              -< The Guidelines >-
    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    				.
    				.
    				.
    
    
     2. Speaking badly of others
        
        When discussing different approaches to a problem or issue, please
        be careful to confine your discussion to the issues and not the
        person.  Although you may disagree vehemently with another person's
        viewpoint, courteous responses are expected.
            
        Suppose that someone makes an argument which you feel is wrong. You
        could respond in any one of the following manners: 
            
                "You'd have to be out of your mind to believe that!"
                "That argument is stupid."
                "That argument is wrong."
                "I disagree with that completely."
                
        The first two are unacceptable. There is no reason to criticize
        the person or to ridicule the argument. Merely stating that it
        is wrong or that you don't believe it, and explaining why, should
        be sufficient. It is, of course, more politic to say that you
        disagree, but it *is* acceptable to say that an argument or
        statement is wrong, provided you explain your reasoning.
       
    
    				.
    				.
    				.

And M. Kasper made the same error in logic you and Steve made.  This is 
really a bit of a joke.  I just sit here, secure on my argument, which no-one 
even tries to dismantle, looking down and laughing at your confusion.

    I believe you have a lot to learn about interpersonal relations,
    particularly communications. Logic is not very relevant to this
    discussion.
    Just as body language -such as facial expressions- are essential to
    face to face communications, language style is very relevant to
    correspondence.
    Why can't you accept that we have no axe to grind on this and are
    trying to be not only honest but also helpful? (kind of rhetorically
    speaking)
    Remember, my private correspondence on this was quite courteous, and
    not the slightest bit patronizing.
    
    				herb

    p.s.
    The reason nobody tries to dismantle 'your argument' is that
    NOBODY CARES!!! Your argument is IRRELEVANT.
    

Herb, P&P prohibit me from responding in full to your notes.  Suffice to say 
that in dealing with me you have not been kind, helful or honest.  For 
reasons no-one can fathom you are vividly demonstrating that you do indeed 
have an ax to grind, because no-one else sees fit to flog this horse beyond 
death.

Mind you, it is true that logic seldom plays any part in your discussions, I 
grant that.  In this specific case no-one is attacking my argument because it 
is unassailable (and central).  Ignoring it is the sort of dissembling PC 
double-think I despise: label a statement ad hominem in spite of all the 
evidence and argument that it is not, thus attempting to taint the author 
through the same, self-referential error.  I doubt many people are deceived.

    Could you elaborate on that please, Hoyt?
    
    
    			herb
    

    David,
    	I chose to ignore your argument, not because it was unassailable,
    all arguments are assailable, and not because it was ad hominem, it
    was not the argument that was ad hominem, but the vicious verbiage you
    chose to cloak it in.  I chose not to eat your wonderful chef's salad,
    because you had laced it with excrement.  So don't pat yourself on the
    back, David.  Go publish a scientific paper or write a scholarly book.
    We're small fish here.  Go bully bigger game.
    
    					- Vick

    I will not associate myself with the notion that "we're small fish here"
    
    I think it is rather likely that many of us are comparably bright as
    SIMPSON and that many of us may well be rather better educated than
    Simpson.
    
    What really sets us apart -it seems to me- is that our language -at
    least typically- reflects that we understand we are social animals as
    well as thinking machines.

    ?????PC???????

    Herb,  I was being sarcastic.  
    			
    			- Vick  Ph.D. Univ. of Chicago, Mathematics, 1976,
    				articles in Journal of Symbolic Logic, and
    				other less well known publications.

    >?????PC???????
    
    It's all relative, Herb.  :^)
    
    					- Vick

    re .79

    i consider myself orthogonal to both of you

    >    i consider myself orthogonal to both of you
    
    That neither astounds nor displeases me.   - Vick

    <For  reasons no-one can fathom you are vividly demonstrating that you
    <do indeed  have an ax to grind, because no-one else sees fit to flog
    <this horse beyond  death.

    My intent is to continue to flog the mule until he either stops braying
    or apologizes.

Herb, for someone who assumes he is at least as intelligent and/or educated 
as I am you are taking a remarkably long time to understand that neither 
option is going to occur.

Vick, nice try at shifting the goal posts but no cigar.  The issue is that 
the reason given for deleting one note because of one phrase is untenable by 
any reasonable test.

>The issue is that 
>the reason given for deleting one note because of one phrase is untenable by 
>any reasonable test.
    
    David,  You are likely the only person for whom that is the issue.  Which 
    note got deleted is entirely irrelevant.  The note that got deleted may
    not have been the MOST offensive of your notes, but it proved to be the
    LAST offensive note, which is what matters to me.
    							- Vick

    For me, Simpson, that last entry (.86) means, that if you have indeed
    ceased and desisted from using inflammatory language, some of the
    people in this conference might be willing to forgive -or at least
    overlook- your past "sins"/"trespasses".  (Perhaps choosing to
    interpret them as gaucheries or social clumsinesses rather than
    arrogance and hostility.)
    
    These people might well act on the assumption that henceforth you will
    continue to behave in a way consistent with being an adult who
    recognizes language styles as being something more fundamental than
    "artificial social constructs" that can be ignored at will.
    
    I rather imagine that others might remain chary of resuming
    communications with you.

re .87

>    I rather imagine that others might remain chary of resuming
>    communications with you.

And if there's a God in Heaven you'll be first among them.