Conference 7.286::digital

>  These things really do bother me, and it's harder to avoid them,
>  because they're much more public than a picture hanging in someone's
>  cubicle. 

    I hardly ever notice personal name fields. I generally just read the
    note. Only if a note is particularly good or bad do I even bother
    reading who wrote it. Let alone the personal name field. In mail I
    notice them even less. Things hanging in a cubicle or on the outside
    wall are *much* harder to ignore.

>  I don't feel that Digital has any obligation to protect an employee's
>  First Amendment right to freedom of expression, particularly when it's
>  impossible to avoid the offending material, and where such display
>  occurs entirely within Digital's communication network. I feel that
>  Digital, and all its employees, would be well-served by strict
>  guidelines on the use of personal names in mail and notes.

    As above I don't believe that personal name fields present the
    slightest difficulty in ignoring. Also I'm more concerned about things
    that go outside the company than stay inside.

    I also believe that strict guidelines are almost always a bad idea. The
    guidelines we have now seem more than adequate. If there are personal
    name fields that bother you I suggest you follow existing procedures to
    deal with it. In this time of low morale the last thing we need is
    stricter rules and limits on free expression. Especially with such
    trivial and easy to ignore things as personal name fields.

    			Alfred

Although, I do not doubt that you are offended by these sayings, I find
your argument a bit much.
For instance, you claim that a religious/political message used within
a personal name is more offensive than a sexist poster in someone's cube.

Really?

In your second paragraph you state that the personal names are harder to 
avoid, well I'll go along with that but, "assaulted"?
come now, I read the same messages and although I too disagree with them
being there, I just disregard them. 
After all, I think part of getting along with one another is the ability
to not be so sensitive that it causes us to become upset at things that
really cause no harm. BTW, I do not believe that these things cause 
emotional harm to the extent that people lose the ability to work, and
one would have a tough battle to convince me otherwise.
Besides, this is just another aspect of diversity within the DIGITAL
community, some are religious and others are not. Both groups also have
their vocal members.
I'm rambling but, I guess all that I'm trying to say is to try to not
be so offended by these things.

- George

    I've seen a lot of stupid things in this notes file, but this takes the
    cake.  I think we as DEC employee's have enough to worry about without
    bleeding heart trouble makers making mountains out of mole hills.
    There is a string in here named "How are you holding up".  It caused
    a lot of controvery and about a 300 Heated notes concerning such
    topics.  This one has just begun, but I have a feeling the results are
    going to be the same.   I suppose you would pull over every car with
    a political or religious bumber sticker and tell them you are offended
    by it.  A personal name is just that "PERSONAL".  If you don't like it
    ignore it, if you can't ignore it I suggest you get professional help. 

    One time only personal name, this reply!  :-) :-) :-)
    
    Really, some people are easily offended.  I agree we don't need more
    rules, allow people to use common sense.  Those who wish to offend will
    do so, those who read these notes and are concerned will review the
    implications of their choices.
    
    'Nuff said...
    
    Otto.

... Personal Name Police :^)

/harley

    
    PNP, err maybe that should be Political Network Police  
    
    Unless your name, rank , opinion, attitude, moral belief, and method
    of delivery are totally meaningless (offensive to knowone) you
    are not allowed on the net.
    
    I stopped using personal names....people never "get" it.
    

Well, I too get ticked off by religious adverts.  I mainly get
ticked off because a friend of mine was ordered to desist from
using "Jesus rides a Harley" because some christian somewhere
on the net was offended.   Seems like a double standard to
this here atheist.

But should we have rules and regulations?  Nope.  Should
we have nom-de-notes police?  Nope.  Am I doing anything
other than waiting around for MMS to finish grinding through
my source files?  Nope.

    I agree with Dave, (although the thought of a savage pencil scares
    me, iam tolerate to it).

    btew, i only found how to sit my personal name just few months ago, 
    and i still regret all the those notes i wrote before without any
    personal name on them ;-(

    \nasser
    who_has_a_ball_of_fun_changing_his_personal_names

    What's the difference between this and the ability to select (or NOT
    select) HBO, MC or Showtime on the tube and watch an "R" Rated movie.
    
    The old saying still holds - "If you can't take the heat...  Well,
    you get the idea.
    
    Gary
                  

>  I don't feel that Digital has any obligation to protect an employee's
>  First Amendment right to freedom of expression, particularly when it's
>  impossible to avoid the offending material, and where such display
>  occurs entirely within Digital's communication network. 

I disagree.  Even if the corporation has no legal obligation, it certainly has 
a moral obligation to protect the rights of its employees - regardless of which
part of the Constitution you're discussing.  There must naturally be some rational
limitations to this (such as the right to keep and bear arms...), but I don't think
a strict personal name policy is rational.  As long as a personal name is neither
profane, discriminatory, nor blatant harassment in its intent, then I think it's
clearly oppressive to introduce such a policy.

Like television, if you don't like what's on, change the channel.  I don't like
some of the personal names I've seen, but there's a big difference between not
liking something and being offended by it.  For example, if someone want's to
put something silly like "Ross Perot is God" or "Jesus Loves Me, But He Can't
Stand You", I really believe it's egocentric to declare such things as offensive
and therefore censor them.

In fact, I'm offended by the suggestion of limiting free speach to the extreme of
dictating what personal name they may use, beyond the tenets of common decency.
The existing rules of the road cover offensive materials, whether they are in the
content of the note, or the personal name.  We don't need more rules.

Instead, ask the Notes product people for an option that prevents the display of
personal names, if you're so sensitive about it...that would be something 
constructive.

tim

I think that the developer(s) who decided to include a field for 'pen names' in 
NOTES and MAIL deserve the appelation of 'genius'.

For here you have 32 to 40 characters to distill down something you are 
trying to communicate, or feel strongly about. Really makes you think !

Even node NAMES communicate something !

These hidden layers of meaning help the reader get a picture of who they are
dealing with on the other end, and what is important to that person. You may
like it, or you may not, but you are richer for the knowing.

Imagine what kind of a place it would be without these extra levels
of communication: A very dull , grey, non-interesting place.

(but, 'Politically Correct')

Perhaps this is the real motive behind such a complaint.

		PC? NOT!
		Rod

    
    i think we have too many PC's in DEC.
    
    \nasser

    Re .0:
    Dear Anonymous,
    	Since I take extreme offense to your note, should I require you to
    be censored?  I think not!  If you want censorship, you might consider
    living in a country that promotes it.
    	I hope you will excuse me for being this rough, but censorship is a
    hot button with me and most people (who enjoy freedom).  If you don't
    believe that, count replies in favor and apposed to your note...

    Jim Morton

One of the things that I have always valued about DEC
which is still here at Digital, is the diversity of the workforce.

Part of working in a non-homogeneous workforce successfully is having the
maturity to accept the fact that not everybody is the same as you are, and
even to enjoy those differences without being threatened by them.

I love seeing personal names.  Some make me laugh.  Some of those were intended
to.  Some I disagree with.  So what?  I'll even support your right to sport a
personal name like "Censor Personal Names!" if you want to.  What I will not
support is actually doing it.

If you want to work in an environment where uniformity is rigidly enforced, go
work for IBM.  Please don't threaten one of the few reasons I have to smile
some days.

Kevin

RE: .0

If you find any aspect of a fellow employee's behavior offensive, be it a 
personal name in NOTES or something else, you always have the option to 
complain to them, or to their management, or to Personnel, if you think the 
behavior is egregious enough to warrant it.

I really think Digital, and all its employees, would be well-served by 
everybody cutting each other a bit more slack.

--PSW

P.S. - One thing that *I* personally find offensive is people who advocate 
putting rules and restrictions on other people's behavior, but are too cowardly 
to put their own name on their statements.  But you don't see me advocating a 
ban on anonymous notes in the DIGITAL conference.

Well, while I personally think the names are great, and would HATE to see 
them be eliminated, (or censored) where does DEC's legal obligation to 
protect its employees from discrimination end?  I think the law is stupid 
in many respects, however, I strongly suspect that since harrassmment is 
in the eye and ear of the receiver, not the source, the author may be 
able to support her or his view.

It really galls me to even think of supporting something so PC.  I know for 
a fact that intent has nothing to do with sexual harrassment.  Sexual 
discrimination must be shown to have an effect, but harrassment does not.  
This also is supposed to protect a person that feel harrassed by a second 
person harrassing a third.

It is too bad that a minority can control the will of a majority, but that 
is the way of the land.  Of course this is all related to U.S. law only.  
Does the author of .0 also wish to censor the personal names of an employee 
working outside the U.S.?  I would be less reticent about supporting the 
authors wishes if he or she would step up to the bar and give a way to 
publicly reach themselves.

Matt

    
    Put me down for another vote against such PC nonsense.  The base noter
    should get a life and a clue, in that order.
    
    Ed

    re .12
    
    Why do I get the feeling Nassar's context switch has too long a delay
    line in it.... :-)
    
    
    re .0
    
    Bah!
    
    q
    

the next step would be the opinion police,,,jeez
suggest to watch some comedy shows or listen to some tapes or meditate to 
loosen brain a little bit.

Just before the election, I saw guy say with straight face to some people
all the terrible things he had done in his life "but I never killed
anybody and I never voted republican". I almost split a gut laughing.
I suppose offensive to some. No humour in GRAY world, always raining
on parade, so sad. 

Since it seems like this is getting a little one-sided... ;-)

> It is too bad that a minority can control the will of a majority, but that 
> is the way of the land.  Of course this is all related to U.S. law only.  

Careful - one of the VERY strong balancing acts in the Constitution and
particularly the Bill of Rights is *against* "mob rule", sometimes referred
to as "the tyranny of the majority".  One of the things that makes this
nation so strong and adaptable is precisely that the minority is *not*
silenced, unlike so many places in the world.  (Silencing minorities
is the stuff revolution, rather than evolution, is made of...)  Any
particular person may find particular things distasteful, but there
are almost invariably people on the opposite side of the issue.

Having said that, I think there is a difference (maybe a large difference)
between non-technical conferences that people chose to read, and technical
conferences or business-related mail messages that aren't really a matter
of "choice".  (Note that .0 referred initially to work-related conferences -
not soapbox or whatever.)  The former you read by choice or not (like chosing
not to watch a particular TV station or program you might not like, and which
there is rightfully relatively little limitation on), while the latter isn't
voluntary.  DEC employs people to work *together* for commercial gain,
and putting little barbs in personal names seems like it definitely has
the potential to work against what the company is trying to accomplish.

The "cutting people slack" should definitely go *both* ways - i.e. common
courtesy in not sticking controversial or "barbed" things in personal names,
and cutting some slack to people within reason the other direction as well.
(The lack of tolerance and insensitive comments on a number of instances
in this file was a real surprise to me, and I know there are quite a few
conferences that make this one pale by comparison.)

FWIW - I absolutely agree with the comments about both "politically correct"
and any beaurocratic nonsense about "enforcement", or even guidelines
for that matter.  It seems like all that should be needed (of course
I'm probably just being naive as usual) is a little more common courtesy
and thoughtfulness about the fact that we're all in this together - or we
won't be before too long.

    iam really a smart dude, i just re read .0 and i thought of a really
    good solution that gives .0 what they want i.e. not see the p.n. 
    (personal name) of the note that .0 is reading it and at the same 
    time let the other DECeees write a p.n. if they want !

    this is how it works:

    first .0 opens a window dedicated to notes, she/he does nothing in it
    but noting. now position the window to be on the left of your
    physical screen like below, and never, i say never, move this window
    away from its position on the screen, lets assume for illustration
    that a note number is 5.2, and assume a p.n. is "Boo" (this is for 
    illustration only, this procedure will work for any p.n. used by any 
    DECeee, and will also work for DECeees that dont even use a p.n. ,
    this is how flexible my solution is, so the screen before the 
    procedure should look like this:

               +-------------------------+
        bad    |+---------+              | <-- monitor (item a)
        p.n.---->"Boo" 5.2|    other     |
               ||---------|  windows all |
               ||bla bla..|   over here  |
               ||bla bla..|  where real  |
               ||bla bla..|   work is    |
               ||bla bla..|     done     |
               |+---------+              |
               +-------------------------+
              /    key board            /
             /_________________________/             

    ok, now the real trick comes in, what .0 does now is go to the
    office supply cabinet and get a nice and big sissor and a black scotch tape,
    then come back to his/her cube and set down and cut a piece of scotch 
    tape of length say about 40 characters (the max size a p.n. can take, add 
    few inches here and there just in case future version of notes
    increases the name size), so, now .0 will very carefully STICK this piece 
    of scotch tape over the p.n. name of the existing note that shows 
    up there, STICK it right on the screen itself, i.e. on the glass itself 
    of the monitor that sits in front of you (item (a) above). 

    .0 needs to open a note file to start with so that the stick will
    go to the correct position on the screen.

    and THAT IS IT!!! now every time .0 opens a new note, the p.n. name will
    always be UNDER the scotch tape! and .0 will never, i say ever, see
    any other DECeees p.n. again !! this is as long as .0 uses this particular
    monitor to work from and not move the window in question to a different 
    place on the screen using the mouse !

    the screen should now look like this afterwards:

               +-------------------------+
      tape     |+---------+              | <-- monitor (item a)
      covers--->|||||  5.2|    other     |
      bad      ||---------|  windows all |
      p.n. !   ||bla bla..|   over here  |
               ||bla bla..|  where real  |
               ||bla bla..|   work is    |
               ||bla bla..|     done     |
               |+---------+              |
               +-------------------------+
              /    key board            /
             /_________________________/             


    now, every one is happy, DECeees are happy, .0 is happy, we are all
    happy and all at the price of just a small piece of scotch tape !!

    i always said that if we stick (pardon the buns) our heads together
    we solve any problem that faces us.

    \bye
    \nasser
    

    RE: -1

    	That would never work \nasser it's to simple.  I find people who
    haven't got the courage to put their name on what they write are 
    usually just out to start trouble.  If that's all they have to do they
    should see their supervisor/manager and ask for more work to do because
    it's obvious they have to much time on their hands.

    Joe

Or someone kind with source code to VAX Notes, Mail, whatever could create 
politically correct versions that replace other people's personal names with, 
e.g., the text "Censored by Recipient" (or perhaps, flexibly, with whatever 
the user chooses) for hyper-sensitive readers.

But then, of course, someone would be offended that someone else can 
prevent them this way from expressing their thoughts...

Even Nasser's low-tech patch (literally) could be seen as an attempt to
limit one's right for free speech. ;-)

...petri

    Personally, I find you thin-skinned, "sensitive", easily offended,
    politically correct types, VERY offensive. Your being so easily
    offended is offensive to ME and I want the monitors and other thought
    police to remove all the notes from you so easily offended no-names.
    Better yet, just stay out of the notes files and avoid all this 
    "offensiveness".
    
    

    To add a bit more balance here, I have always taken the position that
    personal name strings ought to be treated the same as any other text
    in a person's note, and subject to the same corporate policies as
    the note text.  Would those who advocate so-called "freedom of 
    speech" (something which does NOT exist in notesfiles on Digital's
    corporate network) think it would be ok to include racial epithets
    or explicit sexual comments in personal names?
    
    I am not bothered by statements of positions I disagree with contained
    in personal name strings, but I would certainly object to a PN that
    contained something that would be disallowed in the text of a note
    itself.
    
    One might also liken PNs to buttons that one wears while at work,
    except that the PN may have a wider audience.  What's appropriate
    there?
    
    As for work-related and other conferences, few people use different
    PNs for different conferences.  I find some people's choice of PNs
    to be unprofessional, and it affects my opinion of them.  There have
    been a few times where, in my capacity as a moderator, have asked
    a noter to repost a note without a particular PN which I felt was
    inappropriate.
    
    Yes, personal names can be a lot of fun.  But they can also be abused.
    Don't push the privilege too far.
    
    				Steve

    
    I think someone should extract all the notes in this string
    and send them to Donna Shalala (Clinton's secretary
    for HHS), and the top PC officer in the country.  
    
    This is a joke.  I don't mean it.  I was only kidding.  
    :-), :-), :-)   Please don't sick the thought, notes,
    personal, eco-, or any other police on me.
    
    Glenn 

    re: intolerance...
    
    On the news the other night, I heard a public official quoted;
    
    	"Intolerance will not be tolerated!"
    
    Dave

	And I repeat:

	"And some wonder why this company is in the state it's in"

	This PC crap is just that, crap.

							mike

    I'm sure some people find my PN offensive (especially those who
    continue to think that pooring (is this a good \Nasser?) money down the
    UNIX drainhole will improve the worth of this company). Others probably
    think I'm out of touch with the computer marketplace and therefore
    don't value my technical opinion on anything. But I don't care, my PN
    strongly represents my current opinion and I wouldn't think much of a
    company that wanted to censor it.
    
    Dave 

    I'm reminded of a comment attributed to Brian Reid - something
    about having the VMSNOTES conference shut down because it
    discussed obscene and perverted practices.
    
    (This comment was made during a "netnews - vital info or
     pure smut?" flap that was going on at the time).
    

    I guess some people don't have enough to do.
    
    Though I do find some personal names offensive, they are a useful
    tipoff as to what to expect of that person.  When somebody in my group
    includes a daily bible quote as their personal name it helps me decide
    whether or not to make anti-religious jokes in their presence.  
    
    You can guess from my personal name what that decision might be.  ;-)
    

    my PN is there because you shouldn't do it. horse lovers will know.

    Go humpa wet hedgehog

	re .21 - Nasser, your a riot! (and a genius too, perfect solution) 
		 don't ever change.

    
    Amen .33!
    	
    Thank you also, /nasser
    
    	/john

	As someone, somewhare, sometime once said "You can't please all
the people all the time."

	I think that you could say almost anything, and someone somewhere will
be offended. The basic problem is how to achieve a "balance". Some people
believe in instituting a program of "Political Correctness" and require 
everyone to say what is correct rather than what is on their mind. Fine,
except that I'd rather hear what is on that persons mind so I can head for
the hills before they pull an AK-47 from their buffel bag and start shooting!

	If someone really goes over the top in something they say or do, then
confronting that person is the only way to resolve the issue, not instigating
yet more strignent censorship rules. Deal with the problem, don't mask the
symptoms and hope it will go away.

	Not knowing what specifically set .0 off in the first place, its
hard to say how to fix the problem. Some noter may need an attitude adjustment
or the author of .0 needs to lighten up. Who knows, we don't have enough
information to solve the problem. But I think that anon author should deal with 
this problem personally and specifically. Censorship hurts us.

JMHO
-John-

Since I'm basically a rebel and 'question authority' almost daily, I certainly 
disagree with .0's suggestion of additional rules and policy dealing with
censorship. And it really bothers me that someone had to remove the
"Jesus Rides a Harley" personal name. That's ridiculous.

I enjoy reading personal names. I only wish I could be as creative as some and 
wish others would not use personal names that exceed the number of characters
in the personal name field.

Regards,

Jim

Dear Anonymous,

Tell me, do you lead a very solitary life?
Is it lonely up there in heaven?

Open up your mind, this organization is the real world.

Please come down to earth and enjoy the process
of how people within Digital work, communicate and relate.

If you can't: Get professional help
          
		or

              Stay home and close the curtains.

Regards, Wim.

    This conversation would make more esense if the author of .0 had
    included a few examples of what s/he found offensive.
    
    Is "Jesus saves!" offensive?
    Is "Jesus saves! Juneau scores on the rebound!" offensive?
    
    I've seen heated discussions in other conferences over some 
    silly p_n which unfortunately offended somebody's political
    sensibilities. Or religious sensibilities. Or whatever. 
    (Personally, I'd like to see 'thick skin' as a mandatory
    re-requisite to Notes participation ;-) )

    Ditto to many replies but mega dittos to .24. I've said it
    before and I'll say it again, these PC folks will be the
    death knell to not only DEC but perhaps the U S of A.
    
    BTW - If Jack Kerouac offends anyone I'm offended by your
    opinion.
    
    Jim C.
    

	There are already policies in place to deal with offensive or
	harassing behavior, whether that behavior occurs in a VAXnotes
	or mail personal name string, or elsewhere.

	I suggest that if something bothers you, send mail to the author
	and talk it over with him or her. Often, that will solve the problem.
	If not, then you have other avenues to pursue.

					Tom_K

	PS. I changed my PN for this reply, just for you.

    I think that a note such as this where the author will not own up to
    their convictions is not real worthy of discussion.  If the base noter
    sants to step into the ballgame and elaborate, I would be interested in
    hearing more.
    
    
    Mike

    RE: .43
    
    But you don't understand ... it *has* to be done annonymously. Would
    you want everyone doing a SEARCH for every last note you've ever
    written to find a p/n that they could find offensive??
    
    My favorite p/n of all time was `Eat dessert first; life is uncertain'
    (Thanks to Grins, wherever she may be now)
    
    -sunny-

    Perhaps the author of .0 could inform us as to whether the anonymous
    "offended" party is reading this string.  Maybe he/she has gotten the
    point by now.
    
    -- dg
    
    (Guess I'd better change my P/N back to normal now)  :-)

    RE: Basenote - I have to admit, I've heard of sillier issues
        for people to get all worked up about. I can't really
    	recall where or when, but I must have. Now, if such
        things are offensive to the originator, and if someone
        somewhere got some clever personal_header Police in place,
        what's next? "No Offensive Bumper Stickers in Digital
        Parking Lots"? "Employee's who forget to remove their
        badge after work and enter any alcoholic beverage establishment
        have had it"? I'd suggest you have Scotty Beam-You-Up for
    	a Warp Factor Eight Trip to reality.
    
    - J -

    RE: Basenote 
    	
    Sad,really sad.	
    Perhaps you should lock yourself in a nice PC safe closet. 

    OK, we get the idea. Most of you don't like the thought of censorship
    and are very willing to malign the quality of life lived by a person
    who is troubled by Notes personal names. The solution, suggested by in
    .20, among others, is probably the best way to approach this problem,
    dealing with individuals and managers.

    Finally, I reached the end of this string...
    
    It's been noted before that there's already a policy in place and
    offenders should be dealt with according to Corrective Action and
    Discipline.  Of course, that requires a complaint, AND a complainant. 
    I seriously doubt that anonymous complaints will be acted upon.
    
    It seems to me that the personal name feature was intended to make
    business communications more up-front for people that don't always sign
    their notes, like a business card.  Do any of you have your personal
    name emblazoned on your business card?
    
    Mark

    Oh, and all of you that responded "Nonsense" and "Get a life":
    
    If you received a real complaint from another employee about some
    aspect of your communications with them, is that what your reply would
    be? 
    
    Think before you "speak".

    
    
    .21.....Nasser, you are terrific, I think I'm in love....}-)!
    

    I guess there are PC's that could offend some people, but you can just
    ignore them...What really bothers ME, is that you won't come to the
    front.. YOU had YOUR idea posted, but did it anonomously.. To me, that
    says that YOU really don't believe in what you stated.. Where I come
    from, they're just punks....... Stand UP for what you believe in!!! Or
    just stay in the backround and be quiet.... 
    
    
    Joe.... 

    
    	Shhhhhhh! I think I know who the author of the base note is.
    
    	It's Major Frank Burns from M.A.S.H. 4077.
    
    	Mike
    	(PN left out for fear of retribution)
    

1)  I'm really disheartened by most of these replies.  The base
    noter states that s/he finds some personal names offensive,
    and the majority of replies are:
    	Tough sh*t
    	Get a life
    	Hit next unseen

    Is this the way employees have to deal with things they find
    offensive?   I guess Digital really has become a pretty
    pathetic place to work.   

2)  Also, I don't understand this PC reference.  The base noter
    doesn't ask for PConly personal names, in fact currently Digital
    understands only PCness.

    Try 'writing' around with a personal name like:
    	'<race of people> are lazy.'
    	'<sex of people> should stay home, and stop taking jobs
         away from <other sex of people>'
    	'<christian deity> is my refuse'
    	'<german leader> was right'

    I would be willing to wager that you, your manager and your
    personnel rep will shortly be enjoying a meeting.

    	- Lee

re Note 2340.54 by RTL::LINDQUIST:

> 1)  I'm really disheartened by most of these replies.  The base
>     noter states that s/he finds some personal names offensive,
>     and the majority of replies are:
>     	Tough sh*t
>     	Get a life
>     	Hit next unseen
> 
>     Is this the way employees have to deal with things they find
>     offensive?   I guess Digital really has become a pretty
>     pathetic place to work.   
> 
> 2)  Also, I don't understand this PC reference.  

        Don't you understand that there's a cultural war going on? 

        The (cowardly un-American) anonymous base noter used terms
        and phrases such as (I reluctantly quote) "human dignity" and
        "sexist" and has railed against "religious statements" and
        argued against the "First Amendment right to freedom of
        expression."

        This is contrary to everything that made this nation and
        corporation great.

        Get a life.
        Hit next unseen.

        Bob

    
    re .0, .50 & .54.
    
    There is a big difference in disagreeing with a PN and being
    offended by it.  You should learn the difference or you will
    constantly be "offended" both within and without dec, or, you 
    could GET A LIFE. 

    
    RE: .50-That may very well be the response the complaintant receives
    from me if the complaint was deemed trivial or unsubstantiated.  The
    only reason for this type of complaint is to get someone in trouble
    because the complaintant probably has a miserable existance and only
    gets satisfaction out of making someone else's life miserable.
    
    
    RE: .54-If someone had the personal names that you had written, I would
    not complain to anyone.  It would, however, let me know just what kind
    of person I was dealing with.
    
    
    Mike

��                     <<< Note 2340.56 by SMAUG::CARROLL >>>
��    constantly be "offended" both within and without dec, or, you 
��    could GET A LIFE. 
    Thank you. I have a life.  

    Is your statement intended to be an insult?

    
      Where does one go to get a life ?  (Curious)
    

    
    
    	Uh Oh! I think I see Mr. Write Lock comming.
    
    	Mike
    

Well, I think everyone agrees that there is a line you should not
cross in any professional communications, including Notes.

The point of contention here is where the line is.

Personally, I think that one should always err on the side of tolerance,
and not let yourself be offended by what was probably intended to provoke
only a smile, or at most, thought.

I believe that personal names fall into exactly the same category
as the body of a note, or mail, etc.  If you believe my personal name steps
over that line, then you should use existing procedures to resolve it.
No new procedures/standards are required.

I think that some of the lack of understanding here is vagueness about what 
.0 finds offending.  

I can't offhand think of anything that would really offend me, so my assumption
is that the base noter is being much more sensitive than I would be.

Kevin Farlee

PS

Re: "Jesus Rides a Harley", you could probably make a strong case that you do
indeed know someone named Jesus (not an uncommon name in some communities,
pronounced "hay-soos"), and that he indeed does ride a Harley...

    re .58
    <Is your statement intended to be an insult?>
    
    Excellent question.  No, it was not intended to be an insult.  I often
    forget to put a :) on things.  However, It is hard to convey my INTENT
    in an electronic medium.  Although my intent was not to offend, the
    receiver may assume just the opposite.  Such is the problem with any
    form of communication.  Here is the crux of the problem.  Without the
    :), some could take it as an insult.  But was one intended?  Thats 
    the problem the author of .0 needs to come to grips with.
    
    Glad to se you have a life, spread the word to those who don't :)
    (I didn't forget this time).
    
    I am not saying never be offended, but be offended by those things
    that are really important.
    

    .62  SMAUG::CARROLL

    i think you bring out a very point about electronics communications
    problems and notes communication problems in particulars, is that we 
    dont know if people who wrote what they wrote have a smirk on their 
    faces when they wrote it or if they really mean it without the smirk, 
    that is why i think smile faces were invented, but the problem with the 
    p.n. name is that if you want to put smile faces in it, that takes away 
    from what small space you have to write your p.n. to start with !!

    iam not sure what is the solution to this problem, may be they should
    have made it like in the enet, where you have a .signature at the bottom
    of the note, not at the top, where you can have many lines to write your 
    p.n. stuff and that gives you more lay away to express what you really mean
    and put many smile faces around if that is what you want to do.

    hope this helps.

    \nasser

    

That's one thing I've noticed about Nasser.  He never has smiley's in his
notes so we know he is serious all the time.  That must make him very PC, 
but he is confusing me, because a few days ago I was listening to his show 
and he told one of the callers that he likes PC's because he can do so much 
work on them, then in this note he says he thinks there are too many PC's, 
so now I am confused, and I don't know whether to believe him or if he was 
pulling my feats, or if he jus tforget what he says and I don't so I will 
spill chick now and find a nother.

\bye_nasser
steve

Mr. Moderator,

Could you please make sure the base noter gets a copy
of \nassar's scotch tapes note. It might help.

Keep up the good work \nassar and down with smileys !

/Paul.

    
>    It seems to me that the personal name feature was intended to make
>    business communications more up-front for people that don't always sign
>    their notes, like a business card.  Do any of you have your personal
>    name emblazoned on your business card?
    
    Mark, people who read notes don't often get a business card from everyone
    else who notes, so I do the next best thing - It's in my elf entry!

	Heather	

    Good for you Heather, that's an excellent idea.  It strikes me that
    "Noters" are in some kinda informal club, like ham radio operators. 
    Those folks really enjoy exchanging personalized cards (I forget what
    term they use for them).
    
    Mark

    
    I think some of you "get a life" folks are missing the point.
    It's fine that you disagree with the base noter's proposal that
    there should be strict guidelines for personal names.  I agree
    with you, but it's not necessary to deliver your disagreement
    wrapped in an insult.  Many of the replies to this base note are
    blatantly insulting in either word or attitude or both.
    
    A simple statement disagreeing with the proposal made by a dozen
    or so noters will let the base noter know what the prevailing 
    sentiment is.  Any more than that makes me wonder what drum you're
    beating.
    
    Steve
    

    I find it interesting how easy it was for noters to attack and/or
    insult the "annonymous" noter of .0.  Something about being
    annonymous makes them seem less like a real person?
    
    Elaine

    .70

    Elaine, after you said this you got me a little thinking and i started to 
    get a bit worried, so i walked over to all my bosses cubes and 
    sneaked a look at their workstations to see if any had a scotch tape on 
    it and luckily there was not , so i feel much better now, you are right , 
    sometimes it is scary responding to a unanimous note when you dont know 
    who you are talking to behind it.

    \bye
    \nasser

>    I find it interesting how easy it was for noters to attack and/or
>    insult the "annonymous" noter of .0.  Something about being
>    annonymous makes them seem less like a real person?

I also find it interesting how easy it is for an anonymous person
to slag off fellow employees because they don't agree with a viewpoint
or comment expressed within a personal name.  Admittedly, some
extreme examples of religious or political statements may be genuinely
offensive, but I find that a proposal to restrict everyone for what
is largely a trivial matter is unnecessary and petty.

Chris.

    My eyes played tricks on me and I coulda sworn I read your P_N as 
                            "free like a baird"
    
    But as I was just going to put the tape on my screen, fortunately I
    looked again.
    
    :-)
    

re Note 2340.71 by STAR::ABBASI:

> so i walked over to all my bosses cubes and sneaked a look at their
> workstations to see if any had a scotch tape on 

        How many bosses do you have?

    I think .0 should reconsider her/his "there oughtta be a law" reflex
    and take lessons in dealing with stress and perceived abuse from .21
    
    nassar, 
    you_always_make_me_smile_and_for_that_I_and_many_others_thank_you_
    you_are_hereby_nominated_as_an_official_deC_cult_hero_live_long_and_
    prosper!
    
    /dlw

    RE: .71
    
    /nasser,
    
    Do you think if I call my boss (who works 900-1000 miles away from
    where I sit) and ask him if he has scotch tape on his terminal, that he
    would know what I'm talking about?
    
     What if he says yes? -:)
    
    /bye
    
    /kevin 

    Well, after the last few, I don't want to insult anyone without knowing
    it.  :-)  But Pahleeeesssse.  If you can't tell someone to their face
    that you think what they did was offensive then I find you are nothing
    more then spineless.  Sorry, but it's a simple fact.  How can someone
    know they insulted you if YOU don't tell them.  We are all grown ups
    (he he) we should communicate to each other.  We don't need no stinkin
    thought police! :')
    
    - Mike C.  

>
>    Well, after the last few, I don't want to insult anyone without knowing
>    it.  :-)  But Pahleeeesssse.  If you can't tell someone to their face
>    that you think what they did was offensive then I find you are nothing
>    more then spineless.  Sorry, but it's a simple fact.  How can someone
               ^^^^^^^^^
>    know they insulted you if YOU don't tell them.  We are all grown ups
>    (he he) we should communicate to each other.  We don't need no stinkin
>    thought police! :')
 
    PLEASE Mikey !!! i just could not stay cool and you say we are 
    a spineless ! please ! how can say such a thing ? do you think if we were 
    just spineless then any one who contributed to earlier rebuffless would 
    be able to just do it nilly Wiley like this? if such a debilitating 
    condition is not enough do you really think a spineless would dare 
    rebuffled .0 without knowing who .0 is???  would spineless do this? 
    this alone is enough to prove that we are not spineless, if any, it 
    indeed.

    in all my life in DEC no one ever, i say never, called me spineless
    and i did not think i'll live to this day and this is probably worst that 
    being told iam not a PC many long months ago in this very open forum 
    too and i thought that was bad until iam told now to be spineless too.

    i would like to officially therefore request from the able moderators of 
    this note file to please delete the previous note and pan Mike Catania 
    from this note file for 345 days on an end for saying we DECeeees are 
    a punch of spineless.

    we are NOT SPINELESS !!

    iam soory if iam sounding off the wall a little here, but you hit a very 
    senstive nerves in me when you said i was spinless.

    thank you very much,
    \bye
    \nasser

    RE: -1

    	\nasser I don't believe .77 was talking about you when he said
    spineless.  I believe he was talking about the anonymous author in 
    .0 unless of course you where that author.

    Joe

    
    Nasser,  Why ever few notes do you request that a note be deleted when
    you whined so much about your note being deleted in womannotes?  Double
    standards?  It seems that way to me.  Sorry if I am mistaken.
    
    
    Mike

    Dear Anonymous,
    
    I will pray for you.
    
    
    -anonymous2
    
    
    
    8^)
    
    

    Personally, I've always wished that Notes had a feature to provide
    conference-specific personal-names as well as a default.  Occasionally
    I'll have a very silly Notes P_N and forward an interesting business
    note to my manager without resetting it to something more "dignified".
    
    FWIW, I think existing P&P deals sufficiently with "offensive
    speech"/"harrassment"/etc. that we don't need additional policies for
    personal names.  
    
    However, I also found many of the replies to the base noter's concerns
    pretty offensive in tone.  Not that I want to censor anybody, but from
    the tone/volume at least I know who I'm dealing with. ;^)
    
    I just find that screaming abuse and insults at people isn't very 
    conducive to a rational conversation about issues (- neither is hiding
    behind anonimity, but given the type of response showing up here I'm
    not too surprised that someone would be reluctant to identify
    themselves.)  There are some valid points on both sides.  Let's talk.
    
    - Dave

    Re .50 From XLIB::SCHAFER,
    Re .54 From RTL::LINDQUIST,
    Re .68 From GSFSYS::MACDONALD,
    Re .82 From KOLFAX::WIEGLEB,

    	I'm sick and tired of TOUCHY FEELY.  I'll tolerate ANYONES view. 
    I'll accept as a right, that a person can think and say as they want,
    as long as it doesn't break any laws.  But I am sick and tired of
    people telling me what I CAN'T SAY OR DO... just because it hurts their
    feelings.
    	Normally I'm very considerate, but enough is enough...  If you
    don't like what I say, don't listen.  If I violate PP&P, then take
    action, BUT DON'T TELL ME WHAT I CAN OR CAN'T SAY, OR HOW TO THINK.
    	To tell the truth, I hope this does hurt, maybe then you'll
    understand how people feel about "THOUGHT POLICE".
    	As far as "GET A LIFE", that is what I feel, and I'll say it to
    anyones face, if necessary.

    	Concerning the possible P.N.'s mentioned by Lee in .54, So what! 
    Sticks and Stones!  I doubt that Management would tolerate them, but
    who am I to tell someone what to say or do.  I personally don't like
    those names, but I'm not going to impose MY VALUES on others.  I hope
    others will show the same consideration...

    Jim Morton
    	And not ashamed to put my name to any note I write.

    .0 may have a valid issue if the personal name contains obscenity, etc. 
    But I've never seen one that would fall into this category.

    But .0 indicates "political and religious statements" are offensive.  I
    guess many people have responded to the equally offensive concept of
    censoring "political and religious statements".  I would suggest .0
    read the Constitution and Bill of Rights to understand why people might
    react so aggressively to the solution that .0 presented. 
    
    Who on this planet could judge "political and religious statements" 
    without letting their own personal biases come into play?  The 
    "solution" would be far worse than any perceived problem IMO.  There 
    is a simple, one-word solution, tolerance.  They're only words and as
    people have pointed out, you learn something about the person.  From
    the ones I've seen, I've learned we have some pretty witty people
    around here.
    

This kind of thing worries me. 

Recently a friend sent something to someone. That someone mistakenly sent it
to a dist list where someone sent it on to... get the picture. So, a short
time later personnel calls up the originator of the mail to say someone
complained to personnel that what was said in the mail was offensive.
Personnel would not say who was offended. They didn't care that the offended 
person wasn't supposed to ever have gotten the mail in the first place. 

I relocated to France almost a year ago. Here (in a socialist country) people
seem to be much more inclined to respect your personal freedoms! Some simple
examples include being able to drive faster (if I drive too fast and die, I
won't do it again!), sexual nudity and situations on TV (if you don't like
it, don't watch), drinking wine with lunch and dinner (and much less alcohol
abuse here) and topless beaches (only American men stare).

Seems to me this is a scary trend in the US that everyone can be so easily 
offended by everyone else who isn't of similar mind/culture/backgroud/thoughts 
as oneself. Personally I'm enjoying working in an office with people from 30 
different countries and backgrounds and where I can give a compliment to a 
female co-worker without worrying if it will be taken the wrong way.

Lee_who_has_had_his_p/n_since_1987_when_a_friend_gave_him_a_button_during_
some_difficult_personnel_times_and_who_would_rather_his_kids_watch_sex_on_TV_
than_watching_programs_where_everyone_casually_kills_everyone_else...

��  <<< Note 2340.83 by CSC32::MORTON "Aliens, the snack food of CHAMPIONS!" >>>
��                        -< And I still say GET A LIFE >-

��    	I'm sick and tired of TOUCHY FEELY.  I'll tolerate ANYONES view. 

��    	To tell the truth, I hope this does hurt, maybe then you'll
    I'm confused by this contradiction, but feel free to
    live up to your claim and tolerate my view.

    Personally, I don't care what people write as their personal
    name.  I generally get a good laugh at most, often in not
    the way the author intended.

    What I don't like is the tens of replies in this string that
    say 'I disagree with you, and therefore you are a jerk'.
    Can't people disagree without being insulting?

>> <<< Note 2340.84 by GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ "X-------- Apply tape here --------X" >>>

>    read the Constitution and Bill of Rights

The Constitution/BoR protect the right to be heard.  But as with so many
checks and balances in the legal system, rights to freedom of speech are
balanced against the rights others.  (Just for example, you do not have
the right to stand on a street corner in a quite neighborhood in the middle
of the night with a loudspeaker and excercise your "rights" at the expense
of everyone else's right to not be disturbed at 3AM.)

I continue to believe that some tolerance is in order on both sides.  The
company can and will fire you for being abusive to a customer even though
that doesn't break the law, for example.  "Business corrspondence" (such
as work-related notes files, as opposed to this one) aren't random open
public forms - they are set up for *business* reasons.  One can definitely
argue that "Digital", "SoapBox", etc., do not fall in that category (and
I would agree - people chose to read those, rather than reading them because
they have to in order to reasonably perform their job functions).  On
the other hand, one would be very hard pressed to state a product-related
conference was an "open public forum" in the same way.

> There is a simple, one-word solution, tolerance.

Yes, there is, and it cuts *both ways*.  This whole discussion comes
across as "I know my rights to free speech".  Fine.  Do you know your
*responsibilities* to your co-workers to work in a cooperative environment
when conducting business as well?  People seem all too willing to defend
their own rights and ignore the rights of others.

    RE: last few..  a lot of food for thought!
    
    
    Nasser:  Ban me frm notes..    Pffffft! as bill the cat would say! :-)
    
    Seriously!

You got me thinking a little bit about some things.  I think human nature
comes into play during these kinds of situations.  Sorry about calling anyone 
spineless, it was very insensitive of me.  Some people will always have a
different opinion than your own.  I like Rock Music you like classical, or I 
like this song and you think it stinks (Do you know what I'm talking about).  
I guess this is where the valuing difference's view comes into effect. Before 
I make you or anyone else crazy with this, let me explain.  Certain things
that someone does are going to make someone somewhere mad.  Now whether that
thing breaks a rule or law depends on the situation.  Like robbing a bank,
that is clearly is breaking the law.

Obcenity is one of those not so black and white issues.  There is no clear
line to be drawn.  One persons obcenity is another persons comedy.  A
different situation would be a person who smokes a cigarrette in his cube
disregarding the rights of others.  To that person he does not see any harm.
To the person next to them all they see and smell is disgusting cigarrette
smoke!  Now we all know in Digital you should smoke in the smoking
room, and not in your cube.  So you tell that person.  Now if the person has
some respect for you they will obide by your request.  If not they will keep
on smoking.  That would be the time to get management involved.  Unfortunatly
sometimes the person that complains will more than likely be perceived as the
trouble maker and not the person who caused the complaint in the first place.
    
So I can see the reason in some cases for anonimity.  The keyword here is
"Respect".  If we don't have repect for each other we are doomed as a company   
and as a society.  But as the song says "You can't always get what you want, 
but if you try sometimes, you get what you need!"

Have a nice weekend all!
    
    - Mike


    

    i agree with Mike too.

    i also think there is more angles to this than meets the eyes.

    let me explain: you only get upset from what another ones says if you 
    care about them, right? i mean if a dude says something, and you dont care
    about the dude at all, you will not care what is said and you it will
    ruffle your feathers as they say.

    this means that the fact the we get upset about what others PN's says
    a lot, it says that we CARE about each others and values each others
    opinions, this means we DECeees care about other DECeee's , this is
    a good sign actually not a bad one, and one that we should values more
    and even prosper.

    i just wanted to outline this way of looking at it because i
    dont think any DECeee has outlined this point of view in the
    earlier discussions and related issues surrounding it.

    i hope this helps.

    \bye
    \nasser


    

    RE: . 87
    
    I think you completely misunderstand what I was trying to say so let me
    try again.
    
    I do not disagree with .0 to a certain degree, however, the use of
    "political and religious statements" does disturb me.  I really do hope
    that .0 posts some examples of these offensive statements.  Others
    have asked for them also.  I reject your comparison of a personal name
    with somebody who is clearly violating the law (disturbing the peace). 
    Your example is a *clear* violation that 99.9% of the people would
    agree with.  Deciding what is "offensive" in a personal name is
    certainly not as clear cut.  Who would you propose implement such
    censorship?  Please answer.  
    
    You suggest tolerance on both sides and I agree.  However, I don't see
    the imposition of somebody elses political or religious sensitivities
    on another as "tolerance".  Quite the contrary IMO.
    
    Is .0 also offended by "political and religious statements" in the
    press and on TV and radio?  Where is the line drawn?  Maybe NO
    statements should be allowed?  I think .0 must ask themselves if their
    sensitivities are within the bounds of most reasonable people.  If most
    reasonable people would not be offended, then I believe .0 may be
    overly-sensitive to certain statements.
    

RE: .90

>  I reject your comparison of a personal name
>    with somebody who is clearly violating the law (disturbing the peace). 

Digital isn't required to allow all freedom of expression in all contexts
that the first amendment requires (as in the example I gave earlier of
being abusive to a customer.)  A business is run for certain goals, and
the company has the right to employ only those people willing to help
further those goals and not undermine them in some way.

Different forums have different "implied tolerance" levels.  Discussing
(or posting in a personal name) politics or religion with people you
chose to associate with explicitly or implicitly (e.g. a non-work-related
notesfile) has a different level than a work-related conference on
the one hand (or than someplace like the Boston Common on the other,
perhaps.)  I (for one) anyway believe that pretty much anything short
of personal attacks or whatever are perfectly reasonable for "wide open"
conferences - that isn't an issue (at least for me).

>    Your example is a *clear* violation that 99.9% of the people would
>    agree with.  Deciding what is "offensive" in a personal name is
>    certainly not as clear cut.  Who would you propose implement such
>    censorship?  Please answer.  

I suspect the only "censorship" in the vast majority of cases is a matter
the moderator's judgement.  However, just because a moderator isn't asked
to "censor" something doesn't mean that it doesn't cause people to react
in ways that will cause unnecessary friction.  As I pointed out, we are
(at least for the time being) all in this together, and unnecessarily
provoking co-workers doesn't help.  (I tend to have a fairly high tolerance
level for this type of thing, but obviously the poster in .0 felt strongly
enough to say something.)

Just to pick an example, since several people seem to be asking for one...
One name I've seen that I've seen that's perfectly reasonable for a conference
like this one, but that I would question a little for use in a work related
conference, is something like "the nth day of the Clinton disaster" (or
the same thing with respect to Bush when he was president.)  Thought-provoking
personal names are one thing, but ones that seem to be designed simply irritate
or provoke others are something different.  (For example, would you walk into
a work-related meeting with a variety of co-workers that you had never seen
and be willing to say some politically or religiously divisive statement,
then try to get on with "business as usual"?  Would you be willing to start
all of your business-related correspondence with it?  If you wouldn't, you
might ask why you think it's OK in a personal name that also appears in
a work-related context.)  FWIW - the particular personal name I singled
out doesn't bother me, but I could easily imagine that someone who was
a strong Clinton supporter during the campaign might be quite irritated
by it.  The question for work-related conferences is whether or not it's
potentially disruptive (and the example I have seems like it has the
potential, even if it doesn't actually offend anyone.  In that case, it
seems like the poster's "tolerance" should err on the side of caution,
just as in a more open forum like this one, people should expect to have
to ignore [or not - but not "get censored" in any case], comments they
don't agree with.  They can always chose to remove this conferences from
their notebooks.)

>    You suggest tolerance on both sides and I agree.  However, I don't see
>    the imposition of somebody elses political or religious sensitivities
>    on another as "tolerance".  Quite the contrary IMO.

Who's imposing what on who?  Noone said you aren't free to excercise your
freedom of speech at work in forums where people have chosen to participate.
Don't co-workers also have some right not to be afronted by non-work-related
statements while they're conducting business?
    
>    Is .0 also offended by "political and religious statements" in the
>    press and on TV and radio?

I just though I'd point out one last time that there is a difference between
what you *chose* to listen to or watch, and things that are required in
the course of business dealings.  You can chose not to listen to particular
stations or whatever if you don't agree with them.  (FWIW - I'm a very strong
advocate that the government or a company or whatever isn't responsible
for "protecting people from themselves" by not allowing freedom of expression
on broadcast media that people can chose not to tune in to.  It's one thing
to warn people, including by cultural norms, that they may or may not like
something in a given area [e.g. "some readers may find parts of public
conferences confrontational"].  It's another to put things in work-related
"mandatory" conferences, or in billboards across the street from their
residence, for another example, that they may find extremely distasteful.)

    
    Amazing how much emotion there is in this topic.  I'm not sure
    how many are offended by the political exampble in .91, but I
    agree that  the statements are on target.  
    
    I have a feeling, however, that the personal names and sigs that
    really stir the fires, are the ones that are religious in nature.
    From the point of view of some, any mention of a biblical verse
    reference or a quote would be quite offensive, in a conference that
    is being read as a part of one's job.  Many believe these references
    are an attempt to "plant a seed" in the minds of the reader, 
    concerning the writer's religous beliefs.  They clearly are.  
    
    But I have to wonder what those individuals that would be so
    offended feel when they pull up behind a car at a traffic light,
    that has a bumper sticker, such as, "Jesus Saves".  Are the feelings
    the same?
    
    Any information that passes on Digital's network belongs to Digital,
    this is not a democracy.  That should be clear enough.
    
    I love to read some of the witty personal names and sigs that I
    see, but I would have to say that strong views on any social
    element are better left to other mediums.  You can't "preach" your
    views, whatever they may be, to your co-workers, without showing
    a lack of respect for their views.  I have some extremely interesting
    dicussions about religion and politics with my friends, but I don't
    think I could ever put a "bumper sticker" in this context.
    
    Dennis
    

    
    Re: .83
    
    Normally I wouldn't reply but since I'm one of the one's that
    you directed .83 to and you want to take the gloves off ...  
    
    I suggest that *you* get a grip. No one told you what to think or not
    to think but just that you (or perhaps others) didn't need to be
    *intentionally* insulting in doing it.  If you can't see the difference
    between that and telling you how and what to think then perhaps you
    have a bigger problem than you think .0 does.
    
    Steve
    

	Geeez, lets give this a rest..

							mike

I suggest that the author of .0 has probably garnered more 'bad vibes'
from all of these replies than any perceived ill from VAXnotes personal
names.

Sort of like the arsonist getting burned by the fire that they set.

Lee

    Actually, by whinging about this anonymously, the author of .0 has
    asked for all he/she got. My reaction, in view of the anonymity, is
    "get a life".
    
    Laurie.
    
    PS. .28 is a good one.

    
      Since asking where to get a life in .59, I've got no
     answers.  Leads me to suspect there's noplace you can.
     (If anybody DOES know, given the way DEC has been lately,
     I'll take two.)  Which means we're stuck where we are -
     some people have skins thick as pachyderms and you can
     say anything to them - they don't even notice.  Others
     are very thin-skinned and are offended even when you
     don't know you're offending them.  And like the USA today
     everywhere, it just makes life difficult for both.  I bet
     it gets worse before it gets better.
    
    

Well, I suggest that you can 'Get a Life' here in balmy Rochester, NY.

    that is interesting because i can swear too i only started to hear the 
    'go get a life' verb when i came aboard and became a DECeee many many years 
    ago. 
    but i could swear i hear it more more in the masssusussteets/new_hamshire 
    common-wealth estates more than any where else i been to.

    any way, if someone tells a DECeeee to go get life tell them to go stuck 
    it up in the socks.  that always works for me and it puts them in their
    places too.

    hope this helps.

    \bye
    \nasser

    Here is where you get a life.  It is called TFSO.  (The Florida 
    Standby Option).  8^)

    I don't have time to read this whole chain, but -

    - why couldn't the base noter be bothered to identify him/herself?

    - has anyone noticed the base noter could be kidding?

    
    Anyway, it's life in the USA today - blame everybody else
    for offending your sensibilities.  I'm as put off by religion
    as the next guy, but I don't see where I have a right to tell
    anyone else what opinions they can advertise.  DEC may be a
    workplace but it's got _human beings_ in it, too, right?

    I got a better idea.  It's called 

	"LIVE AND LET LIVE"  

    and take responsibility for your own life, not others'.

    MHO

I think this discussion has run its course and have write-locked it.

			Steve