Conference 7.286::digital

RE:    <<< Note 2784.0 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
   
     Hmm, do you really think a threat is the constructive path to take?

                                   Greg     

    What is John being accused of ?
    
    L.

    I have to agree with .1 that threats may not be the best way to get
    your point across.  However, if you insist:
    
    	Robert (or Bob) Palmer @MLO
    
    Also, I know how much you pride yourself on correct spelling,
    punctuation, etc.  I'm sure you will will want to correct the first
    paragraph of the basenote.  My suggestions are shown in brackets.
    
    >>I'll send it [to] Bob Palmer to[o] if somebody will give me his
    >>electronic mail address.
    
    
    Best regards,
    Chet

    >>> I sent the following mail to Ron Glover, Dick Farrahar, and John
    >>> Murphy.  I'll send it Bob Palmer to if somebody will give me his
    >>> electronic mail address.         ==
                                          ^
                                         /|\
                                          |
        If you're going to send provacative messages, at least learn to 
        spell.

    Terry

    ... and I didn't notice the grammar problem.

    re .2 (curious minds)

    Outside observer's view -

    The conference in question has a policy that a noter can be banned from
    participation if s/he continues to repost notes which have been hidden
    by the moderators because they violate conference rules.

    John apparently was banned for doing this.

    He thereupon set up a batch job (apparently, or else he hasn't been
    doing any work) to continually repost an otherwise innocuous note in
    defiance of the ban. As soon as the moderators would delete it, it would
    reappear. This has been ongoing for a couple of days.

    The resultant Mother Of All Turf Wars seems to be behind whatever
    escalation may have occurred. 

    
    
    	re .4.....ahem.
    
    
    
           <<< HUMANE::DISK$DIGITAL:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
    
                        -< The Digital way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 2784.4                  Digital, Policy, Notes                       4 of 5
15377::PILGRM::BAHN "Living in Virtual Reality ..."  11 lines  17-NOV-1993 16:51
                -<  I doubt that inflammatory mail will help.  >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    >>> I sent the following mail to Ron Glover, Dick Farrahar, and John
    >>> Murphy.  I'll send it Bob Palmer to if somebody will give me his
    >>> electronic mail address.         ==
                                          ^
                                         /|\
                                          |
>>>>        If you're going to send provacative messages, at least learn to 
>>>>        spell.                      ^
                                        |
                                      
    					
    			(couldn't resist...)  ;)
    
    
>>>>    Terry
                                                            

    re .0
    
    i have learned that i cannot save DEC from itself. i have also learned
    that i cannot save friends from DEC either. FWIW.

And in the end, all this will really do is convince the powers that be that
EINF are more trouble, or maybe more dangerous than they're worth.

Why, oh why, can't we just work on negotiating with each other, rather than 
running to "management" everytime something like this happens? Not that I think
Mr. Covert should be fired because of problems with Notes Conference 
moderators ...or even threatened with this. And I'm personally uneasy with
policies that state people can be "banned" from notes conferences. But, every 
conference has rules, like 'em or not. For me, if I decide to participate in
a notes conference, I feel that I'm also agreeing to abide by the rules. Or, if
I don't like the rules, try to change them.

Kind of reminds me of the problesm I ran into as a condo trustee. Some people
complained and complained that rules existed, that we, as trustees, could tell
residents what they could and could not do on common property. The reality there
was when they moved into the condo. complex, they made an agreement to abide
by the rules. And that we did our best to make decisions that would benefit the
community as a whole, not only specific individuals. They weren't easy 
decisions.

I'm not into censoring people or demanding that those that have grievances 
should remain quiet. But everytime I read of someone sending mail to Ron
Glover or some other sr. management person because they don't like how someone
uses the authority given to them (and yes, I think moderators have some level
of authority regarding the way a conference runs), I just feel depressed.

FWIW and YMMV,

joan

    	re .9
    
    	Some of the most sensible thoughts I've seen in here in a while.

Sounds like somebody oughta grab a copy of the notes sources and implement
kill-files ala news...  Then if you're not interested in person or subject
X, into the kill file it goes...

Personally, If I was in SR management and somebody came whining about a dispute
such as this I'd send them both off to several weeks of courses such as
negotiating skills, magic of conflict, collaborative politics, etc. and let
them learn something from it...

>policies that state people can be "banned" from notes conferences. But, every 
>conference has rules, like 'em or not. 

Sorry, but just because something is a 'rule' does not make it right, or even
legal.  It also does not make it 'wrong' or illegal.  The rule itself needs to
be looked at (banning someone for life from a notes conference without any
recourse for the banned).

>For me, if I decide to participate in
>a notes conference, I feel that I'm also agreeing to abide by the rules. Or, if
>I don't like the rules, try to change them.

Perhaps trying to change them WAS what John was doing.  How else can you bring
the <?> to people's attention?

>was when they moved into the condo. complex, they made an agreement to abide
>by the rules. 

So, make a rule that says a specific race cannot buy into the condo and see
what happens.  

>I'm not into censoring people or demanding that those that have grievances 
>should remain quiet. But everytime I read of someone sending mail to Ron
>Glover or some other sr. management person because they don't like how someone
>uses the authority given to them (and yes, I think moderators have some level

Some people might consider it abuse in some cases.  I am not saying it was in 
this case.  However, people can and should question authority (and supposed
authority) when they think it necessary.

    	re .7

        I wouldn't have been able to resist either.  I even
        looked that one up in the dictionary.  My spelling isn't 
        too bad, but my reading leaves something to be desired.

                                              ;^)
    

    we seem to have forgotten one very angry & upset digital employee in this
    hilarious discourse on spellings et al. I'm new to notes and a fairly
    new to the organisation too - if this is the way the people react
    publicly to someone's anger (justified or not) - "LEMME OUT OF HERE".
    ( I read the wrong note and the wrong people probably - I think there's
    a separate conference on humour ).

    	Well, first I'd like to say that Eric wins the contest for king of
    career-limiting moves, hands down. Congratulations, Eric! I also agree
    that mail such as this will likely stir up more problems rather than
    help the situation..although it might be quite the eye-opener for some
    of them (and I'd love to see the looks on their faces when they read
    it!).
    	If Paul's explanation a few replies back is the reason behind this,
    then it doesn't sound like grounds for immediate termination to me.
    Instead, it sounds like something which would probably incur written
    disciplinary action to force him to cease and desist...with the threat
    of termination if it continues. It's then John's choice on how to
    proceed, whether this action is worth losing your job over or whether
    some other action might be more appropriate.
    	And I can't believe the number of replies to this note only
    discussing the spelling of Eric's note. Pathetic. You people must be
    real joys to live with.

    
    
    	re .14
    
    	Bye!
    

>    we seem to have forgotten one very angry & upset digital employee in this
>    hilarious discourse on spellings et al. I'm new to notes and a fairly
      :

You problem stems from your second statement. I think most people's reaction
to this is "Oh Jeeze, not again..."  Spelling comments are as good as any.

May I suggest that people who want to discuss this foolishness do so in
Soapbox. It seems to be posted there as well.

    Re negoitation:
    
    Since Digital rarely holds conference moderators accountable for
    mistakes or discrimination or following policy, the moderators have no
    motivation to negotiate.  Bringing somebody to a negotiating table
    requires applying pressure to give them reason to negotiate.  Given the
    situation with conferences, that pressure must be applied on Digital. 
    Digital has something to lose -- management time, lawsuits, et cetera. 
    Moderators don't.
    
    
    Re threat:
    
    What threat?  In my letter, I say I will support John.  That's a
    threat?  In the face of Digital's unwarranted threat of firing an
    employee for doing something not related to work, offering support is
    not a threat.
    
    
    Re grammar, spelling:
    
    There's no grammar or spelling error, just a typo -- "to" should have
    been placed before "Bob Palmer".  (N.B.:  I type 120 words per minute;
    sometimes words get shuffled in the cache before they are written out
    to the keyboard.)
    
    
    				-- edp

    edp, I'm a moderator of a conference, and as far as I know Im somewhat
    accountable for it contents....but not knowing what the detail problems
    of the subject matter are here, all I can say is that if a moderator(s)
    feel that a note is in question on its contents then yes we have the
    rights to set it hidden and tell the writer of the note why, very
    simple.....
    
    looking at what was stated in .6 (I think) it sound like two kids
    having a deep debate....
    
    kid 1: is SO
    kid 2: is NOT
    repeat over and over....
    
    
    but for me to really form an opinion I would need more detail on what
    was written....
    
    Chris

      re: .14 through .18

      I apologize for my original sarcasm and the rathole that it 
      introduced.  The letter in .0 came across to me as agression.
      Of course, that was just my interpretation, but the letter's 
      intended reader could have the same reaction.  I wish that I 
      had said that in the first place.

      Terry

>every conference has rules, like 'em or not. For me, if I decide to 
>participate in a notes conference, I feel that I'm also agreeing to abide 
>by the rules.

 There are several issues here, some of which have been touched upon by
other noters. Agreeing to abide by the rules has with it a prerequisite
that the rules are acceptable to the participants, the company, and the
courts. Let's take a hypothetical conference called WMCnotes for example.

 WMCnotes is a conference for discussing "issues of interest to white
male Christians." All of the moderators are WMCs. The rules
(which are clearly stated) say that no personal attacks will be tolerated.
A note containing a personal attack will be hidden or deleted at the discretion
of the moderator. The rules also state that nonWMCs' notes can be hidden or 
deleted at any time.

 This latter rule is unacceptable to both corporate policy and the courts
because it discriminates. Saying to a noter "if you choose to participate
in WMCnotes, you have to abide by their rules" does not hold any water,
because the rules are discriminatory. Thus it is clear that the validity of
the rules is at issue.

 Now let's look at the first rule. Let's say that by some strange coincidence
some non-WMCs decide to note in WMCnotes and some heated exchanges result.
Personal attacks are exchanged. The moderators hide (or delete) some notes,
mostly those of non-WMCs, but also a small number of WMC authored notes.
However, a few notes which clearly violate the no personal attacks rule
are allowed to stand. Some of the non-WMCs whose notes were hidden write
to the moderators demanding that these other notes that are in violation of the
no personal attack policy be removed. The moderators do not respond. 

 Here is a situation where an acceptable rule (no personal attacks) becomes
part of an unacceptable situation due to inconsistent application of the rules.
Thus the consistent application of acceptable rules is also at issue.

 The bottom line here is that fairness requires that all the relevant
facts be considered: the behavior in question, the rules in question, and
the application of the rules in similar circumstances.

 It seems obvious to me that escalation of these concepts should not be
necessary, but the sad fact is that there will always be some who will not
'do the right thing' unless they are forced by a higher authority. (This
is why we have the judiciary, to "force" the legislature and executive branch
to do the right thing.) The difference is that the analogy breaks down in
the corporation because the corporation doesn't have to support EINF. And
if this sort of situation continues, you can bet they won't.

 The Doctah

	Well, maybe John can tell us how and why he kept putting the note back
in. Based on the info we have it's hard to say one way or the other what, if
anything should be done. If we just go by what we have, some form of discipline
should happen. But don't fire him. Not for that anyway.


Glen

    So, Eric, did you send the memo to Bob Palmer?  What response have your
    received from Bob, Ron Glover, or any of the other folks who got the memo? 
    Finally, why did you feel it necessary to start with this particular
    group of people rather than sending your message to another group of
    people--the moderators of the notefile, for example?
    
    Chet

               <<< PEAR::DKB100:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< SOAPBOX.  Just SOAPBOX. >-
================================================================================
Note 901.26                  Digital, Policy, Notes                     26 of 40
SOFBAS::SHERMAN "C2508"                              21 lines  18-NOV-1993 10:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I, too, have seen too many examples of HRM interpreting and enforcing
    policies as they personally see fit. This has, at times, involved
    certain managers stepping outside the bounds of company policy. When I 
    have questioned this, the official response has been: "If you
    personally haven't been harmed (i.e. terminated), you have no case."
    This creates a huge, undefined area in which the company feels free to
    operate; they don't want to be bothered with employee problems as long
    as the company probably can't be successfully sued for said problems.
    This attitude, in turn, reinterprets company policy to mean: "Employees
    have no basis for complaint as long as they don't win in court." I
    submit this is unsatisfactory.
    
    Look at the Policy Manual. It plainly states that all policies in the
    Orangebook are merely 'guidelines' for management, and, except in the
    cases of 'highly-placed individuals,' the company feels free to
    reinterpret and disregard what is in the Orangebook as it feels fit.
    
    Perhaps this preface needs to be rewritten to state that _all_
    employees will be held accountable to the same standards.
     
                   

    Re .23:
    
    > So, Eric, did you send the memo to Bob Palmer?
    
    Yes.
    
    > What response have your received from Bob, Ron Glover, or any of the
    > other folks who got the memo?
    
    None yet.
    
    > Finally, why did you feel it necessary to start with this particular
    > group of people rather than sending your message to another group of
    > people--the moderators of the notefile, for example?
    
    I'm supposed to complain to the moderators of a conference that Ron
    Glover improperly threatened to fire an employee?  That doesn't make
    any sense.  My complaint is addressed to the people who can do
    something about it.               
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To get PGP, FTP /pub/unix/security/crypt/pgp23A.zip from ftp.funet.fi.
For FTP access, mail "help" message to DECWRL::FTPmail or open Upsar::Gateways.

    RE:  .25
    
    Ron Glover has threatened to fire John Covert??  That's not what you
    said.
    
    From .0
    
    >>Now Digital has threatened to fire John Covert because of his actions
          ^^^^^^^
    >>in a Notes conference.
    
    Chet

    I wonder how many people know the story behind EDPs Notes personal name.

    is it the old rumour about a field svc tech running diagnostics on a 
    piece of DEC gear while a research monkey was still hooked up to
    the machine?  thereby frying the monkey (which we had to pay for)?????

    actually its nova::war_stories, note 47.* - and I've heard this story
    from customer in academia enough to believe it...
    
    thank god it wasn't a human....

re. 0:

In strategic negociation courses, this is what they would call a loose-loose
situation.

Why don't you open (with John) , your own notesfile with the following rules:

rule 1: there are no rules
rule 2: you may scream, shout, insult in this notesfile. If you want , you may
        also be polite
rule 3: You may repost your notes as often as you want (as long as disk space
	permits).
.
.

Come on, guys!! Think of all the things you could have done in the time that you
have spend on this "problem". You could have sold an extra Alpha, spend another
hour with your customer, improve that report you have to deliver , etc. etc.

Save these discussions, till we're back in the black...


Couldn't resist

Timo

   >>> rule 1: there are no rules
   >>> rule 2: you may scream, shout, insult in this notesfile. If you want , 
   >>>         you may also be polite
   >>> rule 3: You may repost your notes as often as you want (as long as 
   >>>         disk space permits).

       rule 4: You may go down ratholes about spelling, grammar, and notes 
               personal names whenever you like and regardless of the 
               situation.

   Besides having better things to do with our time, disagreements about the 
   policies of employee interest notes conferences are best kept within 
   employee interest notes conferences ... or, at worst, within inter-personal 
   E-mail and/or speech.  When the conflicts "escape" to third parties who are
   more likely to be interested in our business than in "truth, justice, and 
   the American way," the authenticity and value of employee interest notes 
   conferences becomes questionable.  These "turf wars" can threaten what we 
   probably all see as an important benefit of working for Digital.

   Terry

    >>Note 2784.31                 Digital, Policy, Notes               31 of 32
    >>CLARID::HOFSTEE "Digital has it now! You'll get it " 26 lines 19-NOV-1993 03:59
    >>                            -< Cut it out please! >-
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Absolutely correct.  My apologies.
    
    Chet

    
    
    This entire issue is an absolutely ridiculous waste of time
    for anyone but John.  This is between John and Digital. 
    
    Apparently John chose an action for dealing with a problem
    that was outside of the process set up for doing that.  That
    is John's choice to make, and he will be responsible for
    that action.  Not knowing what the issue was about, it's hard 
    to conceive of *anything* wrt using Notes that would be worth
    losing one's job over.  I hope he doesn't lose his job, but
    it still remains his choice.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    

re Note 2784.31 by CLARID::HOFSTEE:

> Why don't you open (with John) , your own notesfile with the following rules:
> 
> rule 1: there are no rules
> rule 2: you may scream, shout, insult in this notesfile. If you want , you may
>         also be polite
> rule 3: You may repost your notes as often as you want (as long as disk space
> 	permits).

        I don't believe that corporate policy permits a notes
        conference with absolutely no rules.  At a minimum, the
        moderators must enforce the expressed (e.g., John Sims' memo
        of 30-Jan-1992) and implied general corporate rules for notes
        and electronic communication.  Disputes over those rules
        alone are enough to cause a lot of rancor from time to time.

        Bob

RE: .31 & .32

	You echoed my thoughs as I was reading this silly discustion.

RE: .35
	No, Let EDP and john open their Own conferance with no rules
	It shouldn't take too long and we won't have to read about their
	SILLY problems.

There was once a conference which had "no rules".  It filled up with
personal attacks, sexual harassment of other employees, was shut down and
the "owner" fired.  I considered this justified.

A couple of years ago, there was a situation in one of the conferences I
moderate where a noter decided he didn't agree with my request that he edit
a note he had entered and he set up a batch job to keep reposting it every
time I deleted it.  He also had the hubris to send a complaint about me to
my supervisor and my PSA (I had cheerfully provided their names).  My
supervisor, after reviewing what went on, sent back a scathing reply scolding
the noter for wasting her (and my) time with this.  Personnel contacted his
manager and got him to stop.  He did stop and went on to become a reasonably
productive contributor to the conference.

Digital does hold moderators responsible for the contents of the conferences
they moderate (as any moderator of DIGITAL would tell you.)  Moderators do
have wide lattitude in what they are allowed to reject, as long as it is
done on a content basis and not on a personal discrimination basis.  (However,
I am aware that the moderators of WOMANNOTES have received some special
dispensation from Personnel on this last bit, as, I am told, they have been
allowed to "ban" individuals from the conference.  That conference does seem
to attract more than its share of men with chips on their shoulder, so
perhaps it is justified.)  In particular, moderators cannot be FORCED to
accept an entry in the conference if they believe it to be inappropriate.

My opinion, both as a moderator and as a noter in general, is that anyone who
sets out to "test" a moderator in the fashion that John is alleged to have
done has stepped over the bounds of what is reasonable and is guilty of
harassment.  I would expect the normal disciplinary measures to be followed
in such circumstances, complete with the various levels of "warning".


				Steve

    I don't know which conference is in question, but I hope John Covert
    has given his permission to have his employment status discussed 
    publicly in this string.
    
    ----
    The following is general, and not about any particular person or event.
    
    I've moderated some of the more controversial conferences over the
    years.  They seem to attract a fair amount of acting out from a very
    small group of people who view everything legalistically, and who are
    always focused on 'their rights' as if every one of our actions was
    taking place in a courtroom with the goal being that one person will
    "win" and the other "lose".
    
    Moderators have taken on the job in order to reduce everyone's
    headaches and wasted time as well as minimize risk to Digital.  I
    wouldn't consider it a fun job, but as long as we have employee
    interest notes, it seems like a necessary one.  
    
    The way I see it, you can either have a free-for-all with pure anarchy,
    or you can have gestapo-like moderation, or the moderators can do their
    best to create some policies for the conference and ask people to
    try to live by them.  There are always "gray area" decisions that need
    to be made by moderators.  Tact goes a long one when implementing
    such efforts.   At the same time, there seems to be a small group of
    people who want to put enormous amounts of energy into playing "You
    can't control me here and if you do I will tell!".  They are more
    interested in power struggles than in accepting some limitations and
    conditions in the interests of people getting along well enough to
    exchange some interesting information with one another.
    
    When I was a child, I figured out that different parents had different
    rules for different yards.  It was much easier to go play in a
    different yard than to try to argue with someone else's parents about
    their rules if I didn't like the rules.  Anyone can see the limitations
    of the analogy, but at the same time it had the practical effect of
    helping me learn to pick the battles I wanted to fight, and choose how
    much energy I wanted to put into fighting and arguing versus playing
    and having fun -- even when I knew I was "right".
    
    I have pretty much stopped participating in most of the so-called
    valuing differences notesfiles because of the constant power struggles. 
    (I'm not saying this is all that goes on there; I'm just saying it's
    too enervating for me).  
    
    Notes seems like the wrong place to be testing the first amendment
    over and over and over again.  It reduces so much good energy to a
    stalemate.  Who benefits from winning a power struggle?  Rarely is it
    the conference readers.
    
    Holly 

      As human beings, we all have a strong need (probably based in a 
      survival instinct) to be right and/or to make someone else wrong. 
      This is nothing profound or even meaningful.  It's just the way 
      that we are.

      Giving into that need ... living as if the need to be right is 
      really important to our survival is something altogether 
      different.  It's counter-productive.  When we insist on being 
      right, we limit ourselves and others.  We stifle useful discourse 
      and eliminate the possibilities that might have been derived from 
      conversation.

      Terry

        .39

      >It's counter-productive.  When we insist on being 
      >right, we limit ourselves and others.  


    yea, sure, may be then those blacks in Alabama way back should not have
    insisted on riding in the front in that bus where while only supposed to
    sit. what blacks did then was counter productive because they insisted on 
    being right, what they did is limit themselves and others.

    you argument sure make lot of sense.
    
    i just hope you dont one day end up making the rules i have to live by.
    
    \nasser

>>> yea, sure, may be then those blacks in Alabama way back should not have
>>> insisted on riding in the front in that bus where while only supposed to
>>> sit. what blacks did then was counter productive because they insisted on 
>>> being right, what they did is limit themselves and others.

    Standing for what you believe to be right in the face of no agreement from
    others is much different than insisting upon being right.  When you take a
    position, you automatically create a space for opposition.  When you make 
    commitment to what you believe in, you open a space for others to share 
    your committment.

    I believe that's the civil rights movement was and is about a committment
    to human dignity and mutual respect ... not about who's right and who's
    wrong.  I had no intention of encouraging complacency or resignation.  If
    I came across that way, I failured to communicate.

Terry

   <<< Note 2784.41 by 15377::PILGRM::BAHN "Living in Virtual Reality ..." >>>
                -<  Guess I didn't express myself clearly ... >-
    
    >Standing for what you believe to be right in the face of no agreement from
    >others is much different than insisting upon being right.  

    wow! another deep statment i must admit, i had to spend a whole 3 minutes 
    to try to figure out what you are trying to say !

    you mean someone who insists on being right does not actually believe in
    them being right but they insist on being right because they believe 
    they are not right ?  it is like someone who insist that their bed time
    milk is cold when the milk temperature can be measured by thermometer 
    to be 120 centigrade without a shadow of doubt? or something like this?

    and why would someone insists in being right if others would agree with
    them on what they are insisting on being right ?

    may be next time when someone believe they are right they should not
    insist on being right, instead they should go stick a fork in
    themselves of all the limiting to themselves and others they are doing.

    and how can you not stand on what you believe to be right if you can't
    insist on what you believe in to be right?

    >I believe that's the civil rights movement was and is about a committment
    >to human dignity and mutual respect ... not about who's right and who's

    discrimination against black was WRONG, and the ones who did it were
    WRONG, and blacks insisted that they are right when they requested
    equal treatment. you can't tell me that the people who did not give
    blacks equal rights were not WRONG ! 

    if no one was doing something WRONG then the need to insist on being
    right when you believe others are being WRONG will not even come up.

    you have to be careful not to dismiss someone's claims on insisting on
    being right nilly willy like this.

    hope this helps.

    \nasser

    I thought Terry and I were saying similar things -- I was saying it's
    important to *pick your battles* and not turn every disagreement into a
    first amendment battle about one's right to free speech.  
    
    (From what I've read of the history of the civil rights movement, the
    leaders cautioned people to pick their battles very carefully, and not
    to waste energy on individual bigots, but instead to focus on visible
    situations that counted the most. )
    
    I have more confidence in people who try to set or change general
    policies in the company than I do in people who argue with everyone,
    everywhere, about everything, and challenge the authority of anyone who
    tries to make a decision they don't like.
    
    With so many notesfiles to choose from, and the ability to create more
    at will, it seems that one can always find a likeminded group of
    co-workers to talk with!
    
    I suppose I could spend a lot of time going into one of the
    fundamentalist religious notes files and arguing with people there
    about my thoughts regarding a woman's right to have an abortion, but
    why?  It makes more sense to discuss it in a neutral place where both
    viewpoints will probably be represented (womannotes, your local state
    notesfile if it's election related, medical, etc) than to go create a
    fight with people who have already heard most of the arguments.  Better
    still, I could go work with a group of likeminded people outside the
    company and raise money or address envelopes or do something to
    actually further a cause that is important to me!  

      That says what I meant better than I was able to.

      Terry

    Steve,

    "... I am aware that the moderators of WOMANNOTES have received some
    special dispensation from Personnel on this last bit, as, I am told,
    they have been allowed to "ban" individuals from the conference."

    This "special dispensation from Personnel" is something of which *I*
    was unaware, and I am one of the moderators of Womannotes.  You may
    have misinterpreted Personnel's judgement, which is that we are entitled
    to our rules, as long as they follow P&P 6.54, and are applied fairly.

    It happens, from time to time, that our application of our rules is
    (allegedly) submitted to Corporate Personnel for scrutiny, with charges
    of unfairness.  Contrary to many loud claims, no such unfairness has
    ever been found -- I would guess.  You see, neither I nor any of the
    other moderators hear much from Personnel; certainly we have never
    received any warning, any caution, or any urging of improvement in our
    handling of `our' conference.

    							Ann B.

    Some basic facts are missing from the previous replies.  Most assume
    (quite understandably) that the note text that John posted (and reposted) 
    was felt to violate the rules of the notes file in some fashion. 
    
    THIS IS NOT CORRECT!  The note itself was completely innocuous, as
    proven by the fact that when I (at John's request) reposted the note,
    the moderators allowed it to remain.  As far as I am aware, the sole
    problem that the moderators had with the note was John's name on it.
    
    For those who are interested, the note (note string, actually) invites
    people to attend an audition on November 29th for a community theater 
    group in Sudbury Mass.  John and I are members of this group, along
    with at least one of the moderators.  I would be *very* happy to 
    forward that note to anyone who is interested in community theater.
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry
    
    PS -- I'm not involved in John's problem other than reposting his
    notes.  If you wonder why John asked me to repost it, I presume it
    is because I am a noter who is also a trustee of the theater group.
    I know John through the group, but I also know the moderator who
    was deleting his note -- in fact, I've been an assistant producer
    under both of them.  
    
    PPS -- I would be very happy to post the notes here so that people
    can see them.  However, I understand that the DIGITAL moderators
    don't allow public service announcements.

    Re: .46
    
    I think Paul Beck summarized the complete chain of events of the
    alleged situation in reply .6 to this string. You are elaborating on
    the latest note text in the chain, correct?

    I was referring to John's most recent note -- I was not referring in
    any way to the preceeding note in this particular topic, if that's
    what you were asking, or to any preceeding note posted by John.
    
    Many of the notes in this topic (not including .6) refer to sanctions
    for reposting a note that the moderators objected to, as if that was 
    what was going on in this particular case.  I thought it appropriate
    to correct that impression, as well as adding additional information
    about the nature of the note itself, since I was a direct observer.
    My own first question when I read .0 was "but what did John post?"  
    I thought other people might be curious as well.
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry
    
    PS:  Thank you for asking -- I regret that this was unclear.

    Re: .48
    
    In my view, it does not matter why the moderators rejected a note.
    Repeatedly reposting a rejected note is harassment in my book.
    
    				Steve

    
    >    Repeatedly reposting a rejected note is harassment in my book.

    I tend to agree. Though I also consider rejecting a note based on
    who the author is rather than content to be harassment.

    		Alfred

	Unless that person was banned before they started posting the note in
question.


Glen

>	Unless that person was banned before they started posting the note in
>question.

	No, you miss my point. I concider the banning harassment. You might
	not and personnel might not but I do.

			Alfred

    Employees should know that:
    
    	Employee organization information is protected by federal law.
    	Employers MUST allow employees to communicate in regard to
    	organizing.
    
    	Employee organization is protected.  It is illegal to fire
    	employees for participating in organizing activities.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Does this federal law require the employer to facilitate this
    communication? 

    >Does this federal law require the employer to facilitate this
    >    communication?
    
    just curious, WHY would an employer NOT want to facilitate
    employees communications? 
    
    what is wrong with employees communications?
    
    inquirng minds wan'a know....
    
    \bye
    \nasser

    Re: Note 2784.55 by STAR::ABBASI
    
�    just curious, WHY would an employer NOT want to facilitate
�    employees communications? 
    
    I can imagine a situation: if the employer thought the communications
    were detrimental to the business.
    
    	BD�

re .53,

� Employee organization information is protected by federal law.  Employers
� MUST allow employees to communicate in regard to organizing.
    
Yes, but posting such a note in the PATHWORKS conference, for instance, would
be inappropriate.  I assume the moderators of the conference would return your
note.

Paul

    re:                      <<< Note 2784.54 by YIELD::HARRIS >>>

>>    Does this federal law require the employer to facilitate this
>>    communication? 
    
-CITE-
    29 USC Sec. 158

-EXPCITE-
    TITLE 29
    CHAPTER 7
    SUBCHAPTER II

-HEAD-
    Sec. 158. Unfair labor practices

-STATUTE-
    (a) Unfair labor practices by employer
      It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer -
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        (1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
      exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 157 of this title;
        (2) to dominate or interfere with the formation or
      administration of any labor organization or contribute financial
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      or other support to it: Provided, That subject to rules and
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      regulations made and published by the Board pursuant to section
      156 of this title, an employer shall not be prohibited from
      permitting employees to confer with him during working hours
      without loss of time or pay;

    
    Are Notesfiles equlivalent to a bulletin board?
    
    Can a notice regarding a union meeting be hung on a bulletin
    board inside a company building? 
    
     (Please cite case law)

    Re .54:
    
    > Does this federal law require the employer to facilitate this
    > communication? 

    An employer must allow employees to use bulletin boards to communicate
    in regard to employee organization, provided that bulletin boards are
    otherwise used for employee communication (in certain regards).
    
    I consulted with a lawyer from the National Labor Relations Board and
    described Notes conferences, the Digital conference, the nature of the
    notes it contains, and so on.  She told me to tell Digital it was
    illegal for them to delete my note.
    
    Digital has continued deleting my organization notice in spite of that.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To get PGP, FTP /pub/unix/security/crypt/pgp23A.zip from ftp.funet.fi.
For FTP access, mail "help" message to DECWRL::FTPmail or open Upsar::Gateways.

No, "Digital" has not continued to delete your notice.  The moderators of this 
conference have done so.

DEC states that conference moderators have responsibility for whatever's 
posted.  The moderators of this conference have, according to a reply
somewhere in here, checked with DEC as to whether your note contravenes
DEC policy.  DEC has said that it does, and so the moderators have
deleted the note.

You may quarrel with that decision.   However, since the ultimate decision
was made by some power-that-be within DEC, it is inappropriate for you to
continue to harass the conference moderators by reposting the same note.
Instead, you should argue your case with whoever made the ruling.

Expecting the moderators to suddenly give way and permit your note is
foolish; you are expecting them to make a stand to support your position
contrary to DEC's ruling on the matter.     This has nothing to do with
what the law says; it's about whether or not the moderators are willing
to fight for your right to post whatever you want to post.   I can't say I blame
them for not being willing to do so.

Were I the moderator, I probably wouldn't have deleted the note.  Maybe I would
have write-locked it and said "send replies directly to the author".   Then again,
maybe I *would* have deleted the note just because its tone seemed to me to be 
unnecessarily in-your-face.   That's not a comment on the content, simply
the form.   

(Btw, I'm European -- "union" isn't an evil word as far as I'm concerned, so 
 don't think my reply is based on knee-jerk anti-collectivism).

    Posting a notice on a bulletin board regarding a meeting to form an
    employee organization is one thing (even if Digital is "required by
    law" to allow it, which I'm not that interpretation of the law is
    valid), but posting what I would call inflamatory, accusatory and
    potentially libelous statements directed at Digital on a company-wide
    electronic conferencing system is another thing entirely. 
    
    I agree with the last reply.  Please stop badgering the conference and
    deal with the person or people who made the decision to not allow your
    notes.
    
    Jim

Perhaps multiple postings are a way of proving intent.

Suppose a 'labor organizer' tacked up a single message on a physical
bulletin board somewhere in the company, and the 'bulletin board monitors'
pulled it down.  If the 'labor organizer' were to take legal action
against the employer, it would be difficult to prove that the employer
knowingly and actively tried to prevent the 'labor organizer' from
communicating his message.

However, if the 'labor organizer' were to replace that message, and clearly
identify that message as being protected by a specific set of laws, and
the 'bulletin board monitors' still removed the message, the 'labor organizer'
might be able to make a case.

In addition, if the 'labor organizer' were to replace that message every
time the 'bulletin board monitors' removed the message (and its attached
warning), I believe the 'labor organizer' could build a very strong case.

If I were the 'bulletin board monitors', I would strive to cover my butt
to be sure that I was not in violation of the cited law(s).  If I had
received direction from my management and/or the legal department to
continue removing the messages, I'd want that direction in writing.

On the other hand, if I were the 'labor organizer', I'd also want to
cover my butt to prevent being fired, or at least to have clear grounds
for a lawsuit against the employer in order to recover my financial losses 
when I was fired.

It appears to this conference follower that the latter has been taken care
of by the 'labor organizer', and I hope that the 'bulletin board monitors'
are covering their butts as well...

I'm sorry to see the moderators placed in the middle of this, it is one
of the risks of hosting/moderating a conference such as this, and I hope
it doesn't discourage them from continuing to provide us all with this
service.

I'm also concerned that by forcing this issue that management/legal will decide
that it is in the company's best (i.e. legal) interests to remove such
controversial conferences from the network.  However, if they were to make
such a decision, I believe it would send a very powerful and *VERY NEGATIVE*
message to employee population.

I don't enjoy watching this kind of 'fight', but I am impressed to see an
individual stand up for what they believe is right, against a bureaucracy
as big as Digital.  And I am pleased to see them taking measured steps
to protect themselves while doing so.  And when I consider the fact that
this persons actions were taken with the intent of trying to *HELP* this
company turn around, I must applaud that person.

Eric, you've got guts.

I don't know if you are right.  I don't know if you can win.  I don't
know if your ideas and efforts will even make a difference.  But I am
impressed with your effort.

	Joe

    It doesn't matter what Digital's P&Ps are when it comes to this matter.
    If the NLRB and edp are right, I should think the DIGITAL moderators
    are committing a federal crime when they delete his basenote.  "I was
    just following orders" would not be a defense in this case, should he
    wish to take legal action.
    
    Needless to say, I don't know who's right here, and I'm glad I don't
    moderate this conference...

Re: .65

That's a big IF.....


		Steve

    The moderators apparently also deleted another note I entered earlier
    today, which described the legal situation and did not solicit
    responses.  They have not responded to mail I sent inquiring about
    this.  Apparently they are going beyond policy and deleting more than
    notes that solicit but deleted this note for some other reason related
    to employee organization.

    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To get PGP, FTP /pub/unix/security/crypt/pgp23A.zip from ftp.funet.fi.
For FTP access, mail "help" message to DECWRL::FTPmail or open Upsar::Gateways.

    Anent .66 (Steve Lionel): Well, which lawyers have you guys consulted
    with?  Or have you just trusted Worldwide Personnel?

    re .64
    
>I don't enjoy watching this kind of 'fight', but I am impressed to see an
>individual stand up for what they believe is right, against a bureaucracy
>as big as Digital.  And I am pleased to see them taking measured steps
>to protect themselves while doing so.  And when I consider the fact that
>this persons actions were taken with the intent of trying to *HELP* this
>company turn around, I must applaud that person.
    
    The primary reason for forming the organization is clearly stated in
    the first paragraph of the "organization" memo, and it isn't to help
    Digital turn around.  It is to protect employees from Digital.  This
    has nothing to do with Digital's bottom line.  It has to do with
    revenge for the 3G's firings and the DCU incidents.  Let's not be
    naive.
    
    	Jim

>    
>    The primary reason for forming the organization is clearly stated in
>    the first paragraph of the "organization" memo, and it isn't to help
>    Digital turn around.  It is to protect employees from Digital.  This
>    has nothing to do with Digital's bottom line.  It has to do with
>    revenge for the 3G's firings and the DCU incidents.  Let's not be
>    naive.
>    
Jim,
	Maybe you are right about that.  I don't actually know if I've
seen the original 'organization memo'.  It's kind of hard to debate the
content of a document that keeps disappearing...  is anyone willing to
forward me a copy and join Eric and the 3G's in circulating anti-company
socialistic propaganda via company content restricted email?  (That's
a joke people - I don't want to be accused of soliciting such mail
either...)

	Joe

    re .69:
    
    > The primary reason... is to protect employees from Digital...
    > It has to do with revenge for the 3G's firings and the DCU incidents.
    
    Hmm... so when employees propose to protect themselves from harsh and
    seemingly arbitrary actions by some of Digital's management, it is an 
    act of "revenge" against Digital?  What interesting logic!
    
    The logical flaw, of course, comes in the unstated assumption that
    "Digital" is equivalent to "Digital's senior managers".  
    
    Now, who can guess why it *does* have something to do with the bottom 
    line when Digital's employees live in fear of Digital's management?
    
    		Larry Seiler

    Re .69:
    
    > It is to protect employees from Digital.  
    
    That's a proximate reason, but not the primary reason.
    
    > This has nothing to do with Digital's bottom line.
    
    It has plenty to do with Digital's bottom line.  I'm fed up with
    management rushing projects through both because it makes engineering
    painful and because it hurts our products.  We cannot and will not have
    a strong bottom line until the current methods change.
    
    > It has to do with revenge for the 3G's firings and the DCU incidents.
    
    It is more a matter of trust than revenge.  How can any of us know
    Digital won't turn on us the way it turned on the 3 Gs?  Revenge?  I
    don't belong to DCU; I haven't been personally involved in that.  But I
    learn from it.  Digital is messing up, and we have to do something
    about it.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To get PGP, FTP /pub/unix/security/crypt/pgp23A.zip from ftp.funet.fi.
For FTP access, mail "help" message to DECWRL::FTPmail or open Upsar::Gateways.

Actually, this is a heck of a gimmick.

Suppose you get wind that you are on the next list for TFSO....
You make a very public show of employee organization and perform
a lot of arm-waving in regards to this activity.

Bingo....... it is illegal for Digital to TFSO you.

This could catch on!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?        ;^)

    
    Bingo....... it is illegal for Digital to TFSO you.
    
    not true at all..
    
    bc
    

    Actually,that person would be "fortunate indeed" to get TFSO,most
    likely his or her hind end would be fired.
    
    Ken

    Speaking of which, has anyone heard from E. in the past week?

               <<< Note 2784.76 by AKOCOA::BBARRY "Laudabamusne Rex" >>>
    
        Speaking of which, has anyone heard from E. in the past week?
       
    
    Yes.

    Thanks, it has been a bit quiet on that front...
    
    /Bob

    What's happening:
    
    12 days ago, I gave Digital (Glover, Ramirez, my managers, et al) a
    three-page letter with questions about what parts of the note violated
    policy, whether I could pamphlet the cafeteria, why I was told to deal
    with an Open Door Manager based in Delaware, et cetera.  At the
    beginning of my letter, I specifically asked them to let me know how
    long they expected it to take to answer my questions.  Ramirez
    suggested I do this.  To date, I have not received a response to that
    question, let alone any of the others.
    
    I filed the charge with the National Labor Relations Board and am going
    in Thursday to present the documentation and make an affidavit.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To get PGP, FTP /pub/unix/security/crypt/pgp23A.zip from ftp.funet.fi.
For FTP access, mail "help" message to DECWRL::FTPmail or open Upsar::Gateways.

    There's a memo from Jose Ramirez in the DCU notes file reminding us
    all that solicitation is against policy.  It would be amusing if it
    weren't so pathetic -- I've personally been asking what "solicition"
    is for years, so that we can know whether they'll claim we're doing it.
    No answers yet.  When I get a spare moment I'll ask Jose specifically
    -- I asked others in the past, most especially Ron Glover.
    
    	Larry Seiler

It's obvious.

No solicitations of any type are allowed.  Period.

What's less obvious is what will cause disciplinary action.  It would appear
that disciplinary action occurs when someone complains about a solicitation,
regardless of what sort of solicitation it is.

I won't solicit your opinions on this opinion.

/john

    However, I assume that solicitations for business purposes are
    allowed...just non-business solicitations are not allowed.
    
    This seems straightforward to me but I admit I've seen solicitations
    alot and many don't get dealt with.  It usually depends on the
    moderator's level of interest.  That doesn't make it appropriate,
    though.
    
    

    
    RE .80:
    
    I've asked Jose to clarify; no response yet.
    

    as long as you didn't solicit a clarification...
    
    ed

re .83

Ho ho!

    I take it no one got any answers from Jose?  I sent him questions about
    the salary freeze (he was listed as the person to ask) but never got an
    answer.  I wanted to know how much it was expected to save, and what
    affect it had on senior managers (who, I presume, get much of their
    compensation in the form of bonuses, which aren't frozen).  But
    that's a story for another note.  
    
    In response to John Covert's comment that *all* solicitation is
    prohibited -- well, yes, but I founder on the details.  For example:
    
    	1) I like to eat celery.
    
    	2) Celery is good for you.
    
    	3) Please eat celery.
    
    Which of the above are solicitations in the eyes of our policy?
    Most would agree that the third is a solicitation.  However, at
    various times statements equivalent to the first two have also been
    called solicitations.  That was why it was so pathetic that Jose's
    "explanation" of the policy explained NOTHING about what management
    is going to call a solicitation.  Common sense and dictionary
    definitions don't get you anywhere -- it's been tried.  The only
    rule I have been able to observe is that it's solicitation if you
    express an opinion, someone complains, and the HR person handling
    the complaint decides you shouldn't have expressed that opinion.
    This is hardly the sort of situation that gives one confidence in
    senior management.  Ah, well.
    
    	Larry Seiler

    
    Opinions are like buttocks...everyone has one!!

    Only one?  
    
    Do you sit comfortably?

    actually... the phrase is not "like buttocks"...
    
    it's more like what's between 'em
    
    tony

    I should have said to "read-between-the-lines", I guess!!

	... any A%%^&*e can have one!

    The oneI always heard:
    
    Opinions are like a$$__les, everybody's got one, and unless it's your
    own, they all stink.

.89  >    actually... the phrase is not "like buttocks"...
    
     >    it's more like what's between 'em
    
.90  >    I should have said to "read-between-the-lines", I guess!!


umm.. no, I guess that makes it reading between the buttocks.

:)

    
    glad my money is elsewhere. 
    
    actions like this smell of coverup and truth supression.

    re: .94
    
    Digital P&P does NOT prohibit cross-posting of notes.  As such, none of
    the moderators of this conference would delete such a note.  In the
    future, please get your facts straight before you insert your foot into
    your keyboard.
    
    Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL

��    <<< Note 2784.96 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow!" >>>

��    re: .94
��    
��    Digital P&P does NOT prohibit cross-posting of notes.  As such, none of
��    the moderators of this conference would delete such a note.  In the
��    future, please get your facts straight before you insert your foot into
��    your keyboard.

    Perhaps you should check the facts.  

    The note I mentioned is the posting of a mail message,
    apparently from Ron Glover. I thought the policy did prohibit
    posting mail messages, at least without the author's
    permission. 

    Of course, IN MY OPINION, the moderators of this conference
    routinely violate P&PP by facilitating the posting of
    anonymous notes; so it would apparently be decided by
    capricious whim whether P&PP would be enforced in this case.

    Also, I had another question.  There is an alt.dcu newsgroup
    on the Internet.  Would I be violating a memo-policy if I
    posted to that newsgroup during the 'quiet time'?  From an
    account on a Digital machine?  From a private
    Internet-provider account, even while a Digital employee?

    re. 94
    
    Using terms like "nazirators" to describe a group of volunteers
    who are doing there best to mediate in what are sometimes
    difficult circumstances is really asking to have a foot 
    placed forcefully on some of your personal equipment - and unlike
    bob i'm not referring to your keyboard. 
    
    Methinks you've heavily (and I hope unthinkingly) overstepped the 
    mark on this one.
    
    re roelof

��<<< Note 2784.98 by HLDE01::VUURBOOM_R "Roelof Vuurboom @ APD, DTN 829 4066" >>>
��                       -< Painful is as painful does... >-

��    re. 94
��    
��    Using terms like "nazirators" to describe a group of volunteers
��    who are doing there best to mediate in what are sometimes
��    difficult circumstances is really asking to have a foot 
��    placed forcefully on some of your personal equipment - and unlike
��    bob i'm not referring to your keyboard. 

    Gee, one could read this as a threat of physical violence. 
    Is that how it's intended?

    Anyway, here's an extract from PP&P:

         Messages mailed or posted over the Digital network are
         the responsibility of the original author.  Posting
         these materials in a notesfile/conference without the
         explicit permission of the author is prohibited and is a
         violation of this policy.

    To me this says that even 'messages posted over the Digital
    network' cannot be posted in a conference without the
    author's permission.  

    Over in the SMAUG::DCU conference, note 1.15 there is posted
    a memo, apparently from Ron Glover.  Of course, the current
    fine-moderators would delete it, if I cross posted it, so I'll
    just give you my summary.

         The DCU board of directors has requested a two week
         'quiet time' prior to its board of directors election. 
         The memo has two points -- Corporate personnel prohibits
         any 'campaigning' during the dcu declared 'quiet time',
         and mentions additional restrictions published in a memo
         dated March 7, 1994.

    It's hard to express how little I care about the DCU, but
    what I'd like to know is 
    	1) How many memos are there that supercede Personnel
    	   Policies and Procedures?

    	2) Why is the moron tail wagging the digital dog?

    How would an employee know if they were violating some memo
    written by Ron Glover, Jos� Ramirez, or others, while they
    were following P&PP to the letter?   Would Digital expect
    to prevail in a wrongful discharge lawsuit brought by an
    employee terminated under these circumstances?  

    And, is every action, edict and flatulent declaration of
    the DEFCU going to be rubber-stamped by corporate personel?

    Personnally, I'd expect more.  I'd expect a written policy of
    when employees can be solicited.  It might mention things
    like: during break times, outside of office areas, etc.  I
    would expect this policy to be available in a known place to
    employees, with additions available at the same place.  I
    would expect this policy to apply to folks interested in
    saving whales, electing Ollie North, or running for president
    of their local coffee fund.   

    I'm dismayed by a capricious set of memos that apply to only
    the DEFCU, and by memos superceding published policy.

    On the other hand, it's not like my respect for 'corporate
    personel' declined because of these recent actions.

re: .97, .99

Let's take this off line, before I find myself in the unusual position of
having to write-lock a topic I'm actively participating in.

Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL

    
    So who modified .94 to remove the offending term "nazirators"? The
    author, or thought control?
    
    In the immortal words of that excellent magazine, "The Private Eye",
    I THINK WE SHOULD BE TOLD!
    
    Regards,
    
    Max.
    
    

�� <<< Note 2784.101 by ELGIN::RASOOLM "The computer in front is an ALPHA AXP" >>>
��                                -< Who dunnit? >-

��    
��    So who modified .94 to remove the offending term "nazirators"? The
��    author, or thought control?

    I changed it.  Not because I thought it was incorrect, but
    because it seemed people missed (what I thought) were the
    more important points:

    	How can employees follow policies they don't know about?

    	Why is 'corporate personnel' a shill for the DCU?

	    	- Lee

��    Knowing Lee from the distant past, I woulda got a good chuckle out of
��    the original .94 because I could have imagined different ways he would
��    say it :-)  Written communication just doesn't hack it...
    Hey, thanks for the comments.

    I guess most folks are just too weary to care what 'corporate
    personal' does, to get excited here. 

    I did get several responses by mail. The best of which
    basically said:
    	'Face it Lee, PP&P is whatever management wants it to be.'

    Sad, but true.

RE: .103

My own personal assessment of the 3G vs. the DCU affair is, a pox on 
both their houses.  My money will be walking to another bank as soon 
as it is economically convenient for it to do so.

--PSW

    
> My own personal assessment of the 3G vs. the DCU affair is, a pox on 
> both their houses.  My money will be walking to another bank as soon 
> as it is economically convenient for it to do so.
    
    I don't understand this criticism.  Your money moving out of DCU.  Why?
    
    If it's because you found out you didn't like what DCU is doing, that's
    due to the efforts of the 3G's.  So why a pox on them?
    
    If your perception is that the DCU isn't good enough for your money,
    that's one thing, but why shoot the messenger?  Is it for not playing nice?
    
    How should the 3G's acted so as to have your support?
    
    - Sean

    Hey Sean:
    
    Don't pick on anyone for taking their money out of Digital Commercial
    Bank.  {I wish the regulators in the CU, if they had the guts, would
    review DCU's business practices.  They would find it does not function
    as a credit union is supposed to function.} We live in a free country
    and can put our meager hard-earned dollars in a place where it's
    appreciated.
    
    I don't blame the 3G's.  I blame the current BoD who have made the
    members of the credit union pay for previous management mistakes.
    
    

    > Don't pick on anyone for taking their money out of Digital Commercial
    > Bank.

    I'm not!  I did this myself.  After the Relationship Banking flyer.*
    
    What I was questioning was his "pox on both houses."  I didn't
    understand what the 3G's did that bothered him, since he took his
    money out of DCU (I'm assuming based on what they brought to light).
    
    - Sean
    
    *Taking the money out was hard only for the reason that the 3G's have
     worked so hard to change what I didn't like about DCU and I wish I 
     could have ridden that out to vote again.

    Please take further discussion of DCU to the DCU notesfile.  Thanks.
    
    				Steve