Conference 7.286::digital

    RE: -1
    
    Thank you for that Jamie.
    
    The gag I'm presently suffering from doesn't prevent me from commenting
    on *your* notes.
    
    One nit, there is a new, important and particularly odious step missing
    from that "standard approach....
    
    Laurie.

re .1

|    One nit, there is a new, important and particularly odious step missing
|    from that "standard approach....

What is that please Laurie.

Simon

    ...and while your  about it, what gag?
    
    Dave.

    Ok. Why the hell should I allow someone to forcibly silence me?
    
    Yesterday, I received what I believe to be a threatening mail,
    bordering on blackmail. I will refrain from revealing the source, but
    I'd just like you all to know why I've suddenly dropped out of the
    loop.
    
    The mail complained of "harassment", and *ordered* me to cease writing
    about a certain subject specifically, or any facet of a certain
    subject, including intelligence, motivations or character.
    
    In this mail I was told I have been lying.
    
    The mail also contained a note now deleted from this conference (1650).
    In this extract I was *told* that I am guilty of harassment and insult,
    and that that definition was not a subject for debate.
    
    Then I was told that if any future note insulted, there would be no
    response, but formal channels would be used to pursue the matter,
    without stopping until the matter was *satisfactorily* resolved,
    however high up the chain that had to be.
    
    Since the point at which insult and harassment is perceived ranges
    between knee-jerk and hair-trigger, this is effectively a gag, enforced
    by career-threatening blackmail.
    
    I am not happy about this, but I have no option but to comply.
    
    I'd like to take this opportunity to publically thank the literally
    dozens of people who have sent me supportive mail over the issue that's
    been recently prominent here, and all those people who have shared
    similar experiences with me. I'd also like to thank those who have been
    patient enough to follow this string, and to comment on it, both here,
    and in mail. However, all the support in the world (confidential as it
    is) will not save my job from malicious and venomous vandalism, and
    spite.
    
    Laurie.

    Oh well done edp. Having failed to prove your point by logical
    argument you are now hiding behind the skirts of personnel crying
    foul.

    One can but admire that sort of ingenuity, skill and courage in a grown
    man. And such a innovative move too.
   
    Jamie.

    I just thought I'd say hello ;-)
    
    Anyone remember Gerbil in EF91? Well this sounds awfully familiar...
    
    JJ.

Re .4

I cannot believe this.  Who would do such a thing ?

No need to answer that, we all know who it is.  He certainly knows how to
win people over to his side of the argument with reasoned debate huh ?

It's only a matter of time before his antics steer him into *real* trouble.
I should ignore his mail Laurie, I have read a good deal of the stuff he puts
into notes; and there is a *great* deal of it.  In all cases, to my knowledge
it is he who has started being acrimonious and making personal attacks on 
people for no other reason than they have entered arguments countering his 
line of argument.

I would ask him, for his own sake, to consider the following points.

  o These people who claim to have been 'attacking' you are people you are
    going to have to work with if you intend to continue working in Digital.
    It's better that you learn to live with them.

  o When you make your representations to whatever authorities you expect to 
    listen to you, I'm sure that they'll take a less than happy view of the 
    amount of time you obviously spend noting rather than getting on with the
    job that you are paid to do.

Del.

re: .all

If you are trying to disprove the title of this topic, you are headed in the
right direction.

Let's stick to the topic at hand, if people are incapable of doing this,
the moderators will take further action.

Bob - co-moderator DIGITAL

    Re: .8
    
    � #6 Calling in management for notes disputes is an example of the
    � crybaby attitude that has clogged our courts, created so many special
    � interest groups and has generally ruined the American ideal of
    � self-reliance and mutual respect.
    
    I beleive this attitude can also be directly attributed to the
    popularity of ABC's _thirtysomething_ (-;
    
    have a nice day,
    
    douglas
    
    ps:  thank god it was cancelled!
    

re: .10,
    
>    I beleive this attitude can also be directly attributed to the
>    popularity of ABC's _thirtysomething_ (-;

    	I liked that show because I found it to be uncharacteristically
    deep, moving, believeable, and non-sensationalistic like most of the
    late night soaps.  My only criticism of that show was that it focussed
    too much on the lives of the adults in those family situations, and,
    as any parent knows, the focus of any family is typically on the younger
    and more demanding members of the family (at least until they go to bed).
    
    	I'm not sure what made you think of _thirtysomething_ when you
    were looking for scapegoats for America's propensity for litigation.
    Are you sure you aren't confusing _thirtysomething_ with some of the
    law firm soaps like _LA_LAW_ or the newer _LA_LAW_ clone show (the
    of which escapes me since I haven't watched it), or, possibly
    Judge Wopner's Court (whatever that show is called)?

>    ps:  thank god it was cancelled!
    
    	I wish it was back on the air, but then I think the producers
    all left for Hollywood, so I expect to see even bigger and better
    things from them next.

				    -davo

    Re: .11
    
    I picked _thirtysomething_ because the word "crybaby" reminded me of
    all the conversations between Melissa and Ellen about men and/or the
    lack of them.
    
    later,
    
    douglas

    Gee, I never watch thirtysomething, but I do watch Star Trek, the Next
    Generation.  Can we digress into a discussion of that?	:-)

Re: <<< Note 1662.13 by CNTROL::MOONEY >>>

.13> (user) has filed a charge of Harassment against me. As
.13> Digital takes a charge of harassment very seriously and it
.13> may be grounds for a possible termination and I feel the
.13> charge against me is completely groundless. I would like to
.13> request a meeting of you (your boss), the accuser and his
.13> boss. So that you and his supervisor may decide if the
.13> charges are correct and what further action is required.
.13> 
.13> I'm sure such a meeting will be just a rathole session with
.13> both supervisors viewing the whole subject as foolish but my
.13> guess is after his boss sits in a few such meetings, he will
.13> take corrective action of his own.

Of course such a meeting could prove difficult to have face-to-face...
the harasser and the harrased are likely located at different points on
the globe... for that matter, their managers may be someplace else as
well.

Lee

      To try and get back on the subject. The orginal question was
      does Digital ignore notes or does digital policy apply
      to notes. Of course.  The implied question was can anything
      one writes in a notes conference be grounds for a written
      harassment charge? IMHO NO!

      By using Notes you have entered an open forum on the give and
      take of opinions about you and your ideas. If something entered
      is truly nasty toward anyone, the mod's are there to remove it.

      However if you file a Harassment charge on anyone I think the
      following process must be followed to conclusion.

      My first request is go into the orange book on VTX and ACTUALLY
      read the section on Harassment don't assume you know it. Also
      I suggest reading the new open door policy, since it has
      changed and you NO LONGER can take any complaint to anyone you
      feel like.

      Having done this myself for the first time in quite awhile and
      having read most of the messages, I have a slightly different
      opinion of the situation then I have earlier.

      While dragging in management over anything that happens in
      NOTES is bad for all us who wants NOTES to continue, The
      charge of harassment is serious enough that anyone making such
      a charge should NOT be let off the hook lightly.

      If anyone files such a charge against you, that comes to the
      attention of your own boss. I'd suggest you either tell or
      email the following to your boss.


      (user) has filed a charge of Harassment against me. As
      Digital takes a charge of harassment very seriously and it
      may be grounds for a possible termination and I feel the
      charge against me is completely groundless. I would like to
      request a meeting of you (your boss), the accuser and his
      boss, and both groups personel reps. So that you and his
      supervisor may decide if the charges are correct and what
      further action is required.


      I'm sure such a meeting will be just a rathole session with
      both supervisors viewing the whole subject as foolish but my
      guess is after his boss sits in a few such meetings, he will
      take corrective action of his own.

      Please all actually read the sections on Open Door and Harassment,
      My understanding of it is, if a person filing such a charge does
      not like the results of such a meeting, he CAN NOT TAKE the issue
      further up the chain of YOUR management only his own.

      /mike

    RE: .16  /mike

    > To try and get back on the subject. The orginal question was
    > does Digital ignore notes or does digital policy apply
    > to notes. Of course.  The implied question was can anything
    > one writes in a notes conference be grounds for a written
    > harassment charge? IMHO NO!

    Based on the specific descriptions of these charges given in this
    topic (and in the former "Digital Ignores Notes" topic) - it doesn't
    sound like *ANY* "formal harassment charges" have been filed.

    What's happening instead SOUNDS as though noters (and their managers) 
    are being *threatened* with possible formal harassment charges (if
    certain demands aren't met, such as the requirement that the noter 
    NEVER be allowed to criticize the complaining party in any way in notes.)

    Contrary to popular opinion, "harassment" is not totally and completely
    defined by the person who claims s/he's being harassed.  The charge has
    to be "reasonable" (and the complaining person's involvement is subject
    to scrutiny.)
    
    If two people are arguing loudly, for example, it doesn't qualify as
    harassment if one person suddenly says "If you say another word to me
    right now, I'll consider it harassment.  Meanwhile, let me tell you
    what an &^%#(&%^% I think you are, jerk!!!" and the other person does
    actually say another word.
    
    Other than a death threat (or threat of physical violence,) two people
    arguing (in notes or ANYWHERE ELSE IN DIGITAL) won't qualify as real
    harassment for either party.
    
    It sounds like the threat of harassment charges is being employed as
    a notes debating technique.

re: .12,

>    I picked _thirtysomething_ because the word "crybaby" reminded me of
>    all the conversations between Melissa and Ellen about men and/or the
>    lack of them.
    
    	Interesting.  At least now I know what triggered your statement,
    The thing is though, I don't know if what we are seeing here is quite
    the same thing as the sorts of conversations between Melissa and Ellen.
    The difference is that Melissa and Ellen were usually able to effectively
    vent their frustrations about men (or whatever) by talking it out with
    each other.  Instead, what *seems* to be happening here is due more to
    a lack of effective conversations between frustrated noters leading to
    pent up frustrations and ultimately resulting in escalations of seemingly
    petty issues to upper levels of management.

    	It seems to me that in order for this to remind you of the show
    _thirty_something_, that either Ellen or Melissa would have had to
    have been isolated enough such that they felt they had nobody to vent
    their frustrations to.  Extreme cases of this feeling of isolation can
    be lead to very dangerous situations if allowed to fester - the mass
    murderer in Kileen (sp?) Texas is rumored to have felt a similar sort
    of isolatation.  As sappy as some of the _thirty_something_ shows
    would occasionally get, it is tradgedies such as the one in Texas
    and Iowa City (which happens to be my home town where my father is
    luckily *still* a living and breathing professor) which put an entirely
    different light on "crybaby" conversations of the sort depicted in
    the _thirty_something_ program.

    				   -davo

p.s.	Not to imply that anyone here is anywhere near being pushed to
    	such an extreme, but only to point out that there is some value
    	to venting ones frustrations to someone with a sympathetic ear
   	(or two ;^).

    RE: thirtysomething
    
    This conference is beginning to look like another show entirely.

                          (####)
                        (#######) 
                      (#########) 
                     (#########)
                    (#########) 
                   (#########)
   __&__          (#########) 
  /     \        (#########)   |\/\/\/|     /\ /\  /\               /\
 |       |      (#########)    |      |     | V  \/  \---.    .----/  \----. 
 |  (o)(o)       (o)(o)(##)    |      |      \_        /       \          /
 C   .---_)    ,_C     (##)    | (o)(o)       (o)(o)  <__.   .--\ (o)(o) /__.
  | |.___|    /____,   (##)    C      _)     _C         /     \     ()     / 
  |  \__/       \     (#)       | ,___|     /____,   )  \      >   (C_)   <
  /_____\        |    |         |   /         \     /----'    /___\____/___\ 
 /_____/ \       OOOOOO        /____\          ooooo             /|    |\
/         \     /      \      /      \        /     \           /        \

Enough is enough, why don't you guys (you know who you are) leave EDP alone 
and go annoy someone else (how about me?), that way you won't receive 
threatening mails.

/Dave.

    So to send threatening mails is OK then is it Dave?
    
    To involve management/personnel is OK is it Dave?
    
    To jeopardise the whole noting community for personal reasons is OK is
    it Dave?
    
    To use blackmail as a noting technique when your self-perceived
    intellect has failed to come up with the required literary goods is OK
    is it Dave?
    
    Bullying is OK is it Dave?
    
    I know you Dave, and you don't believe any of those things. This has
    gone on for too long, and too many people have been hurt too many
    times. The ball is rolling, and it isn't going to be stopped that
    easily. Too much is now in the open, and too many people are involved.
    
    I for one, do not, and will not accept that because I have repeatedly
    bested an individual in an open forum of debate, that that person has
    the right to retreat into a situation where I either shut up or face
    career-threatening consequences. No person has the right to do that
    simply because they are incapable of admitting they were wrong.
    
    Or are you trying to tell me to accept the threats, and live with them?
    
    Laurie.

    RE: .18

    I really don't have a problem with the fact that Melissa and Ellen (and
    anyone in this conference for that matter) are expressing their
    emotions.  *Emotional release is always good*!  The problem I have with
    crybabies is that they more so than anything express their emotions
    using "you-language" rather than "I-language".

    "I-language" is a reflection of the empowerment of the individuals'
    philosophy that allows them to take responsibility for all their life
    experiences. After all as Huxley said, "Experience is not what happens
    to a man, it is what a man does with what happens to him". People who
    use "I-language" realize that they can re-shape their environment to fit
    their needs, versus sitting around and abandoning themselves to be
    forever controlled by someone on the outside of their mind.

    "you-language" is a form of avoiding responsibility for one's own
    thoughts, feelings and action by placing the blame on someone else.
    "you-language" denies the reality that each individual has a choice in
    how they react to external stimulus. So many of us get lost in the
    notions that just because our emotional reactions are automatic, then
    they must be automatically correct. The user's of "you-language" fool
    themselves into believing that they didn't have any involvement in the
    act of being offended, or hurt, or harassed.  It's the words or the
    other person. "I couldn't help but react that way". The "you-language"
    user will disengage their own minds for the sake of appearing to be a
    victim, while simultaneously enslaving themselves to the reflex
    reaction of ignorance.

    Note 1650.* contains classic examples of this kind of bull-do-do. Scope
    note 1650.104 for the number of sentences that begin with "you" or
    "your ????" versus the number that begin with "I". This reply is typical
    of the majority of the reply stream. I found that my reaction to most
    of these replies was "why aren't these people practicing psychology,
    they seem to always know the other person's (i.e., the "you") thoughts,
    motivations, and intent". I personally am wondering how one can do that
    in the "vacuum of communication" that has been going on.
    
    later,
    
    douglas
    
    

    Anent .22: Douglas, I think you touch on a potentially important topic,
    but your language is a bit abstract.  (Perhaps I should say I found
    your use of language a bit abstract 8^)  Would you care to into more
    detail about "you statements" and "I statements"?

Does the word "Coventry" suggest anyhting to anyone?

re: .24

It's the name of one of our customers.   What else should it mean?

Bob

  I should have defined what I meant by filing Formal Harassment
  charges. IMHO contacting anyone, system manager or supervisor
  to say so&so is harassing me, please make them stop, is filing
  a Formal complaint. You have contacted management with a harassment
  complaint. They should followup and review the complaint, including
  informing you that such a complaint is taken seriously and that to
  pursue the complaint. A face to face meeting will be held to see if
  the complaint is justified.

  I realize such a face to face meeting might be difficult, but it should
  be a right for the accused. After all their job may now be on the line,
  don't they have a right to meet and discuss the complaint with the accuser,
  his boss and his personel rep?

  Notice the policy also recommends that you contact your own boss before
  filing a complaint. Again the new policy is clear that Digital does not
  take Harassment charges lightly. Nor should anyone else.

  Again back on subject, I would like hear other opinions as the policy
  is not clear on this subject. Do others feel that ANY converstion
  insulting or otherwise that stays in Notes and does not digress to email
  can be viewed as Harassment?  As I think this is the base noters real
  question.

  /mike

    	The root of alot of these problems is that people don't realize
    	that you cannot influence and antagonize at the same time.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

re .24:
>Does the word "Coventry" suggest anyhting to anyone?

Probably not to many, perhaps most Americans.

Definition from a dictionary:

  Coventry [From _Coventry_, town in Warwickshire, England.]  A place to
  which persons are said to be sent when excluded from social relations;
  the social situation of one socially ostracized or deliberately ignored,
  because of objectionable conduct.

    The term "Coventry" is recognized in the US with the meaning given in
    .-1.  I don't know how widely it is known, though.  I suppose we could
    take a survey in JOYOFLEX, and I'd guess the %age would be rather high
    there.
    
    The place, and its cathedral, is also known for the bombing it took in
    WWII when Churchill decided he couldn't defend it without revealing
    that the German codes had been broken.  I've heard conflicting stories
    about the last part of that.

Isn't that where Lady Godiva took her ride?

    
    Yes way back in the 11 century.

    Jamie.

    As the author of 1650.104, mentioned in a previous note, I'd just like
    to say that I think all this "I and you" stuff is a load of
    meaningless psycho-babble. The fact that I authored the note, is an
    implicit "I".
    
    Laurie.

    RE: .32

    The contents of my reply (.22) is not intended to be "psycho-babble". I
    intended the reply to be dime-store philosophy. How you see it, that's
    your responsibility.
    
    The ideas I express in the reply come from my philosophy and my duty to
    always examine myself as the most powerful force in shaping my world. I
    do not and have never claimed to be any kind of psychological
    professional.  Nor do I claim to have any insight into the actual
    thoughts of any of the participants in this mud-slinger-fest. The minds
    of the persons doing the finger pointing are *TOTALLY*, *ABSOLUTELY*,
    *UNDENIABLY* inaccessible to me!  The only symbols from your minds that
    I have to make judgments on are the words you have put in this reply
    stream. Reply .22 represents what I believe to be a damned accurate
    model of this "electronic black-eye of non-communication." I learned,
    all to painfully through personal experience, that arguing from a
    philosophical viewpoint is a lot more powerful than a psychological
    one.  The later is like small arms fire.  The former is a nuclear bomb.

    If the folks involved in this "discussion" (and I use that term only
    out of politeness), stopped being modern day Freuds, Jungs, or Dr.
    Joyce Brothers and tried to achieve the understanding of Rand, Sartre
    or Aristotle then maybe this "discussion" would find that it soon had
    no more fuel to keep burning.
          
    later,

    douglas

    PS:  If you believe that my arguments are such a crock of horsesh*t then
    why to you sanction their validity with your statement:

    �  The fact that I authored the note, is an implicit "I".              

    Remember, I will only judge your words. Please don't tell me my
    intentions, without at least asking me first. Merci.

    I hate to say this, but I don't know what on earth you're talking
    about. It certainly doesn't tally with the execution or motives of my
    notes herein.
    
    Another example, methinks, of the culture difference between the UK and
    the US.
    
    Cheers, Laurie.

    This tastes like water, Laurie.
    
    
    ?a

At the risk of picking at scabs, I would respectfully suggest that:

-- "Anything you say [in notes] may be used against you." What you write
   here is no different than any other communication, except
	-- there is a permanent record.
	-- you can't easily convey emotional queues, so it's easy to
	   misunderstand someone else's writing, and easy for others to
	   misunderstand you.

-- You can be accused of harassment because of what you write in notes.
   You can also be fired because (in whole or in part) of what you write
   in notes.  Several examples come to mind; none will be discussed here.

-- Harassment is defined by the person who feels they have been harassed.
   Whether Digital (management) does anything about it depends, as has
   been noted, on whether they agree with you.  If they don't, you can
   always take the issue outside the company.  If the courts agree with
   you, the company may be held liable for damages.  As far as management
   is concerned, they have to balance the risks of ignoring true harassment
   against the risk of believing false harassment.

-- If you believe you have been harassed, whether by something written in
   notes, or by electronic mail (the "gag" message referred to previously),
   or by any other form (telephone, personal visits, etc.), I would suggest:
	-- do NOT discuss it publicly. Especially, do not reply in kind.
	-- keep a written diary. Keep it off company property.
	-- discuss it with friends and family.
	-- discuss it with your manager and/or personnel rep.
	-- follow up on the discussion with e-mail to the manager/rep
	   "Thank you for taking the time to discuss XXX with me. As I
	    said, I believe that XXX was harassing me by YYY."
   The written record is your evidence of the steps you took.
   (By the way, the above is my observation from the recent Judge Thomas
   confimation hearing, and does not represent my understanding of Digital
   policy.)

As I noted above, people HAVE been fired because of what they wrote in notes.
People have also been falsly accused of harassment, and nothing horrible
happened to them.  Good documentation can be useful in the latter case.

Martin.

    
    � Harassment is defined by the person who feels they have been harassed.
    
    I find this statement incredible. If this is so, then anyone could
    accuse anyone else of harrassment within notes without the slightest
    shred of evidence to support their claim. Any individual could claim
    harrassment by another purely for malicious purposes (not, of course
    that I'm suggesting anything like that has recently happened in here,
    perish the thought). If this is Digital policy then it should be
    changed, as it is quite obviously too open to abuse.
    
    JJ.

    I think that the author of .38 is harassing me, just because I fired a
    magic missile at him yesterday!

    Jamie.

    Aha, fell into my little trap Jamie, I knew it was you all along!
    
    JJ.

    Confused? You won't be after tonight's episode of...
    
    Jamie.

    re .38
    
    >� Harassment is defined by the person who feels they have been harassed.
    
    >I find this statement incredible. 
    
    That's what the word means.  It isn't a question of anyone's policy,
    that is how we use the word.  It's also why I (personally, not in any
    official capacity) disregard claims of harassment based on such
    childish things as name-calling.  I can't, won't be bothered.
    
    Dick
    

.38>    � Harassment is defined by the person who feels they have been harassed.
.38>    I find this statement incredible. If this is so, then anyone could
.38>    accuse anyone else of harrassment within notes without the slightest
.38>    shred of evidence to support their claim. Any individual could claim
.38>    harrassment by another purely for malicious purposes ...
    					  ^^^^^^^^^
    
    Ah, yes, but.  If someone were so misguided as to do this, they would
    run into the problems of lacking evidence etc. discussed by Martin, and
    thus should properly be given little serious attention.
    
    On the other hand, if such an event did occur, it would provide
    evidence for a countcharge of harassment would it not?  So the risk of
    it backfiring would be substantial.  Note added emphasis above.  The
    risk appears comparable if not greater than the likelihood of reward. 
    I'd figure this is sufficient to let the original statement stand as a
    first approximation.  Harassment is defined by the recipient, and their
    complaints are judged according to standards that are reasonable for
    them, not necessarily the population at large.  A court (I believe in
    California) recently ruled that a woman was in fact harassed by actions
    that were not felt to be objectionable by male standards but could have
    been felt to be so by a reasonable woman.  I hope I remembered and
    expressed that correctly, it was reported as a landmark in expanding
    the legal definitions of harassment, and seems consistent with the
    earlier quote here.

A notable moderator once told me that personnel has an interesting way of dealing
with conflicting charges and countercharges of harrassment which they don't feel
motivated to investigate:

They tell the parties that they are *both* on warning for harrassment, and that
if either contacts the other for any non-work reason, they will be subject to
further disciplinary action.

I'll let you imagine what that means.
				/AHM

    re .-1
    
    So the action substantially is to make the less powerfull party the
    loser.
    
    SO if someone is to bitch about their manager, nothing happens.
    
                                    Tom