Conference 7.286::digital

    
    I also suspect that many times, a person will interpret
    
    	"That's a stupid idea because..., and we've already told you it's a
         stupid idea, and we're so-o-o tired of hearing that stupid idea,
         so shut up!"
    
    (which is a perfectly acceptable reaction), as meaning
    
    	"You're stupid, so shut up!"
    
    (which would be a seriously immature reaction).
    
    I've never known a person who exhibited the behavior described in .0
    who lasted very long in one position. I don't know anyone who's gotten
    themselves fired for it; they usually just shuffle slowly off to bother
    another group.

re .2

That's precisely what has happened to David, causing him to write .0.

A couple of days ago, his "Link the Leaders of the World" suggestion appeared
in WORLDWIDE, the conference for "Developing International Products."  Since
this was the fourth conference it had appeared in, since the suggestion is only
marginally related to developing international products, and since the idea has
gotten a fairly cold reception everywhere else it has appeared, I deleted it.

Note that this was not done without giving him quite reasonable feedback on
the suggestion here in _this_ conference, in replies 1115.2, .5, .16, and .19.

He's also burned up about a reply which I will admit was rude -- 1108.1, in his
"Unmasking incompetent managers" topic.  I pointed out that incompetence begins
with not paying attention to what's going on -- not paying enough attention to
the policy on posting notes in conferences to know that anything posted in an
unrestricted conference may be forwarded even without his explicit permission.
Many of his incompetent managers are incompetent for precisely the same reason
-- not paying attention.

I suspect that David is running up against this a lot.  At least one other
participant in this conference has told him that his replies are so long-winded
and say so little that he's stopped reading them.

David needs to learn how to present his ideas more succinctly.

He also needs to learn how to deal with rude responses to his ideas.  Trying
to defend bad ideas with "valuing differences" is silly.

/john

IMHO:

Bigots are ignorant and/or scared people.  They strike out against others 
because they are unable to come up with a reasoned, logical approach to the
problems facing them.  

You do not solve the problem by firing bigots, but by educating them and 
helping to dispell their fears.

However, there is no place in Digital for the persistant bigot, if he 
insists in bringing his ignorance to the workplace.  If an employee 
discriminates against another by reason of faith, race, creed or sex, 
then this should be dealt with promptly with warnings and dismissal if 
necessary.  

But, do not get overheated by the offhand stupid remark and let's keep
things in perspective. For example, I do not bother to read the WF or
Soapbox notes because of the blatant bigots roaming the databases. I do
not get too excited about it; in a community of over 100 thousand, there 
are bound to be some idiots.  Where they find the time to write so much
rubbish is another question!?!  

Educate bigots if possible.  Ignore them if they are too stupid to educate.
Take cool, logical, action if they refuse to be educated or allow you to
ignore them.

Shalom
Baruch

Bigotry and intimidation are not the same thing.  Indeed, labeling
intimidation as bigotry can be a good intimidation tactic.

Intimidation is an effective tool.  The choice to reject it is primarily
an ethical one based on long term goals.  In the short term it works quite
well.  Bigotry isn't a tool at all ... it's an attitude.

And, as John points out, labelling something as intimidation can itself
be a way of avoiding discussing an issue.

Bigotry and intimidation and other onerous things exist at DEC.
They are also formally rejected by DEC policy.  And my experience
is that DEC gets a good report card on following through on this
despite the clear fact that they continue to exist --- progress
yes, perfection no.

Given that a supportive policy and confirming company action exist,
I think you have to get to the level of specifics to make much
progress; that is, identify actual incidents and fix them.

    	1)  Of course Digital's policy does not condone bigotry.
    	    However,
    	2)  bigotry is intolerance specifically in matters of race
    	    or religion.  Occasionally it is used in reference to
    	    politics.   It is not a generic term to be used concerning
    	    people or ideas which differ from a standard.
    
    	People are free to have their own ideas and to express them.
    	Do not, however, expect your ideas to be taken up automatically
    	by others.  There are no prizes involved here.  We convene for
    	an exchange of information and opinion.
    
    	An idea may be sound or puckish, but when premises are vague
    	or erroneous and the exposition is tortuous and imprecise it
    	is to be expected that readers or listeners will ignore or
    	misinterpret.  When the presenter argues position rather than
    	explaining interests it is likely the audience will respond
    	aggressively.  You may type in lowercase, but the decibel level
    	is most assuredly high.
    
    	By posting in any notes, by speaking in any gathering you invite
    	replies.  Those replies will come from the people based on what
    	they believe and as a reaction to what you've said and how you've
    	said it.
    
    	Before dismissing the responses of others with inflammatory
    	labels such as bigotry or short-sightedness it would better
    	to examine whether the initial message had value and if it
    	had been presented skillfully.
    
    	When my work is not received as I thought it would be, I must
    	reexamine my own words and actions and must not castigate others
    	for reacting negatively to the stimuli I fabricated.  I failed
    	in not understanding my audience and in crafting a substandard
    	message.
    
    	Begin at the beginning.
    
    
    
    
    
    	Ralph
    	Corporate Public Relations

    
    Per American Heritage Dictionary
    
    	Bigot - A person who is rigidly devoted to his own GROUP, RELIGION,
    	RACE, or POLITICS and is intolerant of those who differ.
    
    There are those in Digital devoted to their own Digital Group, and
    those devoted to game playing in Digital office politics, who are
    intolerant of those who differ from them and their thinking.
    
    Those differences can be ANYTHING.
    
    To put down people, just to keep them silent, because one does not
    value differences, any differences, is an act of intolerance.
    
    Doing so is against the do what's right philosophy of Digital, it is
    NOT in line with the valuing differences, any differences, preached by
    Digital, and as an act of intolerance, verbally attacking people
    personally, rather than intelligently discussion pros and cons of the
    content of ideas and opinions, is bigotry (even if more subtle than the
    typical stereotypical definition of the term).
    
    The value of the thinking by EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE should be valued by
    Digital, with the merits of that thinking discussed, pro and con, and
    NOT tainted by personal attacks directed against the author, showing
    intolerance based on ANY DIFFERENCE, be the author black, white, red,
    yellow, purple; Moslem, Christian, Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto,
    Atheist; thin, fat; tall, short; male, female; Democrat, Republican,
    Socialist, Communist, beachcomber; long-winded, short-winded; or in
    just the act of creating and expressing ideas and opinions not
    pre-approved by either the establishment or anyone else for that
    matter.
    
    Every employee should argue passionately BUT SOLELY on the content of
    ideas and opinions presented to them, period.
    
    Any manifestation of intolerance should be banned from Digital, for it
    breeds disharmony and discord.  Why would any sane employee submit an
    idea for building a more successful Digital if he or she is going to
    PERSONALLY be subject to derision JUST FOR SUBMITING AN IDEA, or just
    for writing too long, or just for being overweight, or just for being
    female, or just for being black, or just from being from France, or
    just for being young, or just for being left-handed or just for...well,
    you get the drift. 
    
    Bigotry does mean intolerance of those who differ
    based on ANY DIFFERENCE.
    

    Entered on behalf of a read-only noter who wishes to remain anonymous:
    ===========================================================================
    
    regarding:
    
>    To put down people, just to keep them silent, because one does not
    >value differences, any differences, is an act of intolerance.
>    
>    Doing so is against the do what's right philosophy of Digital, it is
>    NOT in line with the valuing differences, any differences, preached by
>    Digital, 
    >
    
    	What if I said to you:
    
    		"My difference is that I am a racist and a sexist.
    		I believe passionately that all white males are inherently 
    		bad people.  When I am someday a manager, I will not hire
    		white males, I will not promote any white males who I
    		happen to inherit, and in fact, I will rate them all "5"
    		and drive them from my realm.
    
    		That is my difference.
    
    		Value it."
    
    Do you REALLY believe that Digital preaches that it is not only "what's
    right", but actually *legislated* that you must value that difference?
    
    I think not.
    
    And if you DO believe that that is the intent of the Val.Diff. policy,
    then you must also submit to the notion that we all must value bigots,
    for THAT is their "difference".
    
    	Now, to be a little bit more relevant to this topic:
    
    Can you really believe that there are NO stupid ideas?   Furthermore,
    can it really be possible that there are no stupid people employed
    here?    It is NOT bigotry to shoot down a stupid idea.   I have no
    idea what prompted your original .0, so my comments are not directed
    at you in any way. 
    

    RE: 1125.7
    
>>>    Bigotry does mean intolerance of those who differ
>>>    based on ANY DIFFERENCE.
    
	David, you seem to be intolerant to the suggestion that the
        presentation of your ideas is "long-winded".  Does this mean
        your a bigot?  I think not. It seems concepts and ideas (such as 
        bigotry and "valuing differences") are being stretched and twisted to
        serve as a cloak of protection against the comments by those who are 
        not able to accept your ideas.
    
    	Granted I do not know the entire situation (ie Are you being
        verbally harrassed for your ideas?), but it seems noters who are
        entering legitimate comments concerning your ideas are being
        labeled as bigots.  This is not fair to noters who express comments
        contrary to your ideas. 

    I think the problem here is that we are failing to use propoer Digital
    procedure.  
    
    If you wish to say "Kevin, you're stupid, we're ignoring you, Shut up!"
    
      We say  "Kevin, Help me to understand this"
    
    If we want to say Kevin is stupid, we should all hate Kevin.
    
      We say "How can we help Kevin?" 

    If Kevin continues to try to communicate and we don't want him to
    
      We say "Kevin, let me give you some feed back"
    
    If Kevin continues this obvious conflict instilling act
    
      We say "Kevin, we'll take this offline"
    
    Even if late on we discover that we were wrong and Kevin was right,
    
      We say "Kevin has a communication problem"
    
    Now, don't we all feel better?
    
    -Kevin
    

    
    I know an employee (not me for you know what I would do - see below)
    who went to a meeting to discuss a problem and as part of the group,
    was expected to floor some ideas.
    
    The employee floored an idea and a manager considered it stupid, and
    since only a stupid person would submit and debate a stupid idea, told
    the employee in the meeting that if said employee didn't shut his
    F*$%#@&! mouth, the manager was going to punch it.
    
    The employee, via personal attack in verbal intolerance with implied
    violence, was effectively silenced -- the employee never filed a
    grievance, quit submitting ideas, and didn't call the police to file
    charges.
    
    I have seen, and know several employees who have experienced
    intolerance to keep them from expressing their ideas and opinions to
    help build a more successful Digital.
    
    The issue is not me, nor any of my ideas.  The base note addresses ALL
    in Digital who are not protected from intolerance.
    
    There is a difference between:
    
    "I think your idea is stupid because it fails to addresss this... and
    would cause...and that....
    
    And
    
    "You are stupid."  With the attitude prefacing those words based on
    intolerance because of any of a THOUSAND potential discriminating
    factors.
    
    Don't think this is a problem in Digital?
    
    DELTA in nine months, despite much fanfare, has only about 500
    employees authoring and submitting ideas to corporate to help build a
    more successful Digital.  Why are not the other 24,500 U.S. field
    employees "getting involved" in creating and driving change, especially
    considering our profits are descending into the basement?
    
    And what about the other 100,000 throughout the world?
    
    Let's have employee relations conduct a survey of ALL employees and ask
    them, "What do YOU feel is impeding real and excited employee
    involvement in creating and driving change to build a better and more
    successful Digital?  What is impeding you from expressing your ideas
    and opinions for change in Digital to any and all appropriate groups
    and managers?"
    
    Again, I defend everyone's right to say an idea is stupid, hopefully
    with some intelligent discussion of exactly why it is stupid.
    
    But even stupid ideas lead to success.
    
    And to get one gem, as anyone familiar with brainstorming proven
    techniques, takes a hundred of so-so, okay, mediocre, and stupid ideas
    to be created, submitted, reviewed, and discussed intelligently.
    
    No one should be a recipient of derogatory adjectives thrown at them
    personally.  Period.
    

>    No one should be a recipient of derogatory adjectives thrown at them
>    personally.  Period.

Practice what you preach.

What do you call telling me that I "epitomize that lack of tolerance and
disdain for valuing differences so prevalent in so many."

/john

    
    People who stand up and voice opinions will get attacked. If you don't
    do that you don't get attacked.
    
    Accept it as part of the territory, thicken your skin and move onward.
    
    Also, please realise that others can see and make their own judgements
    on so-called bigoted attacks and the responses thereto.
    
    
    						- andy

Re: .11

>    The employee floored an idea and a manager considered it stupid, and
>    since only a stupid person would submit and debate a stupid idea, told
>    the employee in the meeting that if said employee didn't shut his
>    F*$%#@&! mouth, the manager was going to punch it.
>    
>    The employee, via personal attack in verbal intolerance with implied
>    violence, was effectively silenced -- the employee never filed a
>    grievance, quit submitting ideas, and didn't call the police to file
>    charges.

In the context given, I don't see this as bigotry, just downright poor
human relations. Could it be that you have chosen the term bigotry
because that term tends to have higher visibility?

>    [...]
>    
>    Don't think this is a problem in Digital?
    
This is a problem with the human race and goes far beyond Digital
boundaries. Instead of showing courtesy and respect some seem to want to
profane and degrade others.

>    DELTA in nine months, despite much fanfare, has only about 500
>    employees authoring and submitting ideas to corporate to help build a
>    more successful Digital.  Why are not the other 24,500 U.S. field
>    employees "getting involved" in creating and driving change, especially
>    considering our profits are descending into the basement?
>
>    And what about the other 100,000 throughout the world?
>    
>    Let's have employee relations conduct a survey of ALL employees and ask
>    them, "What do YOU feel is impeding real and excited employee
>    involvement in creating and driving change to build a better and more
>    successful Digital?  What is impeding you from expressing your ideas
>    and opinions for change in Digital to any and all appropriate groups
>    and managers?"
    
DELTA, I feel, is an issue separate from what you have raised in the
basenote.
    
>    Again, I defend everyone's right to say an idea is stupid, hopefully
>    with some intelligent discussion of exactly why it is stupid.
>    
>    But even stupid ideas lead to success.
>    
>    And to get one gem, as anyone familiar with brainstorming proven
>    techniques, takes a hundred of so-so, okay, mediocre, and stupid ideas
>    to be created, submitted, reviewed, and discussed intelligently.
    
You'll find no disagreement here. Yes, there are many ideas varying
degrees of value and all should be able to voice their opinions no matter
what they are.

>    No one should be a recipient of derogatory adjectives thrown at them
>    personally.  Period.

In the situation that you described above some action should have been
taken either by the offended employee or by other responsible employees.
Someone should have noted the location, time of meeting, names of all
that were present and the matter should have been taken to personnel.

                                -=[     ]=-

The situation you have described is one that involves human interaction,
not corporate philosophy. Digital is made up from many kinds and
backgrounds of people, and at any given moment they may be experiencing
some real problems.

Digital (or any other company) is not a utopia that ensures we all act
like perfect ladies and gentlemen. Since Digital employees are from the
human race some may come to work frustrated, annoyed, spiteful,
self-centered and uncaring. Some people can contain themselves and don't
allow these shortcomings to affect others. A few cannot. Those that
cannot need to receive help or be helped to the exit door.

Please don't expect Digital to be 'the great equalizer' of our social
ills or you will be sorely disappointed.

Lee

    IMO this topic IS mislabeled.  Someone is not a bigot because he/she
    disagrees with you and says so.  That person may or may not be attempting 
    to intimidate you, and may or may not be succeeding.
    
    Let's see - what could we call a person who, despite pleas to desist,
    continues to beat a dead horse ?
    
    karl

    
    Re:
    
>    Let's see - what could we call a person who, despite pleas to desist,
>    continues to beat a dead horse ?

    Let's see now; how about... STUPID. Sorry I couldn't resist.
    
    Dave

<<< Note 1125.16 by SMAUG::GARROD "An Englishman's mind works best when it is almost too late" >>>
>..........Sorry I couldn't resist.
    
    I wish you had.  It paints my reply harsher than I meant it.
    
    karl

    I *know* that this is going to get me jumped on, but ...
    
    I happen to prefer the environment where people can say what they
    think without a lot of window-dressing and issue-skirting.  I would
    rather someone call me an idiot to my face, get it over with, and
    go on, rather than spending thirty minutes dancing around verbally.
    To me, tolerance works both ways.  Yes, we have to respect each
    other as human beings, but we also have to respect the fact that
    human beings aren't always perfect.  I can deal with that fact.
    
    I don't condone intentional abuse, character assasination, prejudice,
    bribery, insider trading, or anything else with malicious intent.
    But I don't think that Digital's role in life is to form us into
    perfect human beings.
    
    Finally, if this whole note is *really* just about John Covert's
    actions, then I have this to say:  We all have the right to free
    expression.  But we don't have the right to unlimited access.  I
    don't expect to be able to air my views in as many places as many
    time as I want.  If I went up to the head of Publications and said
    that I wanted my paper on VMS tuning reprinted 500,000 times and
    mailed to every employee and customer just because I was entitled
    to my own opinion on how it should be done, I would get tossed out
    on my ear.  Company resources are required to store notesfiles, and
    employee time is required to sift through them.  It's the moderator's
    job to see that these resources are used efficiently.
    
    If Dave wants to put extensive replies in the notesfiles, I think he
    should be welcome to do so.  I have the control over whether or not
    I read them, so if I don't want to, then it's my choice not his.
    But as a moderator I would not allow him to post notes or replies in
    inappropriate places, any more than I would allow him to draw funny
    pictures in crayon on my office wall.  Everything has it's place.
    It's not bigotry, or intimidation, just plain common sense.
    
    Regards.

    
    REF:   <<< Note 1125.15 by SALSA::MOELLER "Up your old quota" >>>
        
    >><<IMO this topic IS mislabeled>>
    
    Changed.
    
    The broad issue is "allowed expressed intolerance" in Digital of ANY
    employee whose ideas ANY other given employee disagrees with.
    
    And whether this is bigotry.  And whether this flies against Digital's
    ethics and valuing differences philosophies.  And whether any form of
    expressed intolerance instills an atmosphere of fear that impedes all
    employees from freely expressing their ideas that might lead to change
    that would lead to building a better and more successful Digital.  And
    lastly, if there is such expressed intolerance, and subsequently fear,
    then how can "the system" ever change in Digital unless the creativity
    within all employees is allowed, and encouraged, without fear from
    being personally the recipient of expressed intolerance, as opposed to
    intelligent criticism and debate of JUST the content of ideas and
    opinions.
    

    David, I'm not intolerant of your opinions I'm critical of them, and
    you should know the difference.
    
    I don't know whether you're black or white, religion, or whether you
    like VMS or ULTRIX, or none of the above.  My window into David Carnell
    is only what he's written in NOTES.
    
    I don't like what I see.  David, to me, your ideas represent all that
    is offensive and unsound on the phony "reform Digital" movement.  As a
    person you may be terific guy and we may both meet in Hawaii some day.
    
    Long notes that run-on about "process" and Digital-to-Digital
    interactions, and the methodology or methodologies, are worse than 
    useless because they sap energy from real efforts that have as a payoff
    better service, better products, and better profitability.  

    REF:  <<< Note 1125.20 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Patrick Sweeney in New York" >>>
                                 -< feedback >-
    
    >><<I don't like what I see.  David, to me, your ideas represent all
    that is offensive and unsound on the phony "reform Digital" movement>>
    
    Thank you for the feedback directed specifically to me and all my ideas
    ever presented.  The base note, however, addresses a specific topic of
    intolerance at large, and indeed all my subsequent replies, sticks to
    the subject.
    
    Yet you persist the trend in singling ME out for expressing your
    dislike of the ideas presented, totally skirting the issue on whether
    or not there is intolerance with many pockets of Digital affecting many
    employees.
    
    When do you think you'll address the content of the topic for
    discussion, pros and cons, rather than me personally?
    
    Your reply illustrates the issue -- discussing the author negatively
    rather than the pros and cons of the topic.
    

    David,
          that isn't true. Pat has only singled you out in this topic
    because *you* did.
    
    Pat has to my certain knowlege, been equally scathing of others ideas
    in the past.
    
    Andy

.21>    Your reply illustrates the issue -- discussing the author negatively
.21>    rather than the pros and cons of the topic.
    
Mr. Carnell, could you please detail the mechanism by which we can be
critical of ideas presented in notesfiles *without* offending the author
of those ideas?

Example: 

  X:    "Digital needs to develop CPU's powered by rutabagas."
  
  Y:    "That suggestion is nonsense."
  
  X:    "You are attacking me. I am hereby offended."

Is Y's response critical of the idea posed by X or is it a personal
attack?

Lee

    Regarding the bigger issue...
    
    In cases of bigotry based on race, religion, handicap, and so forth,
    the recourse exists inside and outside the company.  So far I haven't
    read that anyone is complaining that Digital is reluctant to use these
    policies on such bigots.
    
    Where there has been verbal abuse, there's got to be an examination of
    what was said to whom by whom and when on a case by case basis. 
    Harassment as defined in the P&P is when offensive behavior continues
    after one has been warned.
    
    We're trusted to act like adults here.  We ought to respect all people,
    that doesn't mean we ought to avoid direct face-to-face conflict over
    business issues.  Digital seems to value the absence of conflict over
    results.
    
    Champions of controversial ideas draw criticism like a lightening rod.
    We can't have a policy that threatens people with being fired for not
    being nice.

	This is a fascinating subject. People have long speculated
	whether tolerance should extend to the toleration of intolerance.
	If so, it clearly has limits - there are degrees of intolerance
	that cannot be tolerated.

	Personally, I value feedback. If I write too much, exaggerate,
	and fail to persuade as a result, I want to be told (chorus of
	"Shut Up!!!"). If 9 people out of 10 think David is wasting their
	time, they should say so. Then he can either give up, or find a
	better way to communicate his ideas.

	Btw, congratulations on your new, crisper notes, David! They are
	much easier to read, and I do absorb everything you say, now.

	Surely the truth is somewhere in between. David has written some
	real "proposal documents" which few people can honestly have
	read from end to end. On the other hand, Patrick seems to be
	a salesman (judging from his notes), and in my experience
	sales people do not have a lot of patience, and like things
	short and sweet. Not a good match, then.

	I think the moderators are doing a good job in this conference.
	Anything that they allow is probably within the limits.

	/Tom

	There is a big difference between attacking someones idea and
	attacking the person who has the idea. Do people sometimes attack
	both the idea and the messenger both? Of course. I don't believe that
	the default assumption should be that an attack on ones idea is
	an attack on ones person or their character. 

	This is especially true in written communication, like notes,
	where the usual visual and auditory clues are not present. Things
	often appear much harsher or personal in Notes then they are
	intended. One should assume that an attack on ones idea is not
	intended to be a personal attack unless it is clear to a calm
	person that it is actually meant to be personal. 

	Let's also remember that some people do have naturally abrasive
	personalities. That's not a good thing to have but it's something
	we all have to deal with. Some peoples ideas of calm logical
	disagreement are remarkably similar to other peoples angry personal
	attacks. Valuing differences would seem to indicate at least awareness
	of such things. Especially in the multi cultural environment that
	makes up this conference.

	I would like to see people draw this discussion away from specific
	people. It appears that people are getting upset with one an other.
	This appears to be getting in the way of further useful communication.
	Perhaps writers finding themselves getting angry or believing 
	themselves under attack should consider a cool down period? I
	find it works well for me in those situations.

			Alfred

    This whole discussion reminds me of my children arguing over-
    
    	'She's looking at me....'
    	'No I'm not...'
    	'yes you are...'
    	'I am now...'
    	'NO you're not'
    	'Daddyyy...'
    
    I'm not implying that anyone is being childish, just making an
    observation.

    If in a discussion between 2 or more individuals, one of them decided 
    he did not like what one of the other people was saying.  There are a
    variety of actions that "offended" person can take:  he could
      a) put his hand over the "offending" person's mouth, 
      b) drop a soundproof cage over him, 
      c) physically removed him from the room, 
      d) tell him to "shut up or get his mouth punched in.", 
      e) tell him how stupid he was,
      f) or any other number of aggressive acts meant to ridicule the
         offender.
    
    That same person could also take less aggressive tacts, such as:
      a) remove himself from the converstation,
      b) give their opinion about the topic of conversatation (it offends me),
      c) say, "I really am tired of talking about this, can 
         1) we talk about something else,
         2) those interested go someplace else,
         3) those not interested go someplace else,
    
    Now, if we move to the notes file, where we also attempt to communicate
    among a number of people.  Let's say the same situation occurs.  What
    are our choices?  Most people take the non-aggresive action, and hit 
    next unseen.  A minority enter opinions.  Another minority (but vocal),
    enter aggressive notes which sometimes label the author with some not
    pleasant label (yep, I've done it).  And a smaller, but more powerful
    minority have the power to drop the glass cage or remove you from the
    room or in note's speak, tell you to take a hike or they'll block you
    out.
    
    After all that, my question is, when does a moderator have the right to
    just remove a note he might not personally like.  (I think this may
    have been discussed before?)  To clarify -- Yes I do think the removal
    of a non-offensive note to be equivalent to a physical action.  (Where
    are those notes-police when you need them?  Opps, this is the 
    notes-police we're talking about.)
    
    Yep, I do think John overstepped good moderator actions.  John could
    have referred all responders to the other note files, and said the 
    "offending" note would be deleted in xx days after that.  (Hey, we all 
    want to save disk space.)
    
    Was the analogy needed?  Maybe not, but I was trying to show that if we
    think about our actions in notes as similar in-person actions, maybe
    we'd all respond a little differently (me included).  (But hey, flexing
    those muscles feels good, don't it?)

David has made another suggestion, contained in topic 1133.0 and elaborated
upon by examples in 1133.1 and 1133.2.

In 1133.3 I state concrete reasons why I do not like another one of his
suggestions.

He has sent me mail accusing me of "intolerance" and telling me he will not
be "intimidated."

/john

    REF:     <<< Note 1125.29 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
           -< Does David invite comment on his suggestions, or not? >-

    >><<David has made another suggestion, contained in topic 1133.0 and
    elaborated upon by examples in 1133.1 and 1133.2.

    >><<In 1133.3 I state concrete reasons why I do not like another one of
    his suggestions>>
    
    Thank you for your feedback, once more directed personally at me rather
    than JUST the pros and cons of the topic.
    
    Your act of singling me personally out, here again, and in 1133.3,
    further illustrates my issue.
    
    If you argue the pros and cons of an idea, great!  But when you direct
    the dialogue at the author personally with put-down words and
    connotations (wasting time, for example in 1133.3), then I submit you
    are guilty of intolerance, of attempting to silence those with whom you
    do not agree, and this flies against corporate's policy on valuing
    differences.
    
    Perhaps Alan Zimmerle who owns for Digital worldwide, both the Valuing
    Differences and the Employee Involvement charter, can enter a reply
    here with the official position of Digital on this issue.
    

>Your act of singling me personally out, here again, and in 1133.3,
>further illustrates my issue.

Stuff and nonsense.

Nowhere in 1133.3 do I single you out personally.

/john

	JOHN, WHY ARE YOU BOTHERING WITH THIS????
I have long since given up on reading Dave's notes. I read the first screen
to see if there is an interresting idea then hit KP,.  I have also given up
on trying to figure out were he gets the engery to enter all of these
long notes. 
P.S. I'll admit that I read all of 1133.1 because it was somewhat entertaining.
peace, please
Curtis

    Gee, I'll vote too.  Continue your discussion in private.  John, no 
    one would've known what David was talking about if you hadn't said
    something.  I thought he was asking a general question.

1	Ok, I think I see what is happening here.  Over the past several
2    months, David Carnell has taken it upon himself to post quite a few
3    controversial ideas in this and other notsefiles, and has also done
4    a good job (IMHO) in inspiring others to do likewise (myself included).
5    In the process of making waves, however, David has developed somewhat
6    of a reputation for entering long notes, and many people simply refuse
7    to read them.  Why is this?  Well, I offer a *brief* analysis...
8
9	Take noting out of the written environment for a momment.  Imagine
0    we are all meeting in a huge room.  Now imagine that each of us is given
1    "the floor" in this global discussion for a brief statement or two, and
2    you may begin to realize why long notes can be somewhat disruptive to
3    the meeting.  Long notes, regardless of how well-thought out, or useful
4    they are, become like fillibusters in a noting discussion.  One method of
5    avoiding this problem is to make sure your entire note fits onto a single
6    VAXnote screen (16 lines of text maximum) in an easy to read format. -davo