Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!agate!shelby!portia.stanford.edu!elaine3.stanford.edu!mcgrant From: mcgrant@elaine3.stanford.edu (Michael Grant) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: lawsuit flame (Was: NeXTStep 2.0 Completed) Summary: oh, quit it Keywords: lighten up Message-ID: <1990Dec2.223709.9995@portia.Stanford.EDU> Date: 2 Dec 90 22:37:09 GMT References: 356@atncpc.UUCP> Sender: news@portia.Stanford.EDU Organization: Stanford University - AIR Lines: 31 ygnus.COM (David Vinayak Wallace) writes: > Date: 26 Nov 90 17:24:20 GMT > > In the future, If you want to flame someone, it is usually useless to > attack thier employer's actions, most employees could care less what > the "dudes upstairs" do to amuse themselves. > >This is an irresponsible attitude, especially in the Valley. Were >Ashton-Tate producing Napalm(tm), would a Quaker work there? > >Sorry to come on like a flame but this sounds too much like the "good >german" argument for me to take it quietly. Lay off. The two examples you gave are clearly questions of much more serious (i.e. life-threatening) nature. Frankly I would be quite offended to be compared to a 'good german' in this instance. The fact of the matter is that the merits of these lawsuits are more debatable than the benefits of Napalm. So, first of all, there's no moral compromise going on in this guy's case. Secondly, why don't you just face facts that paying the bills takes a little more priority in most people's minds than petty differences with their employers? How do you know that this guy WOULDN'T quit if A-T started producing assault rifles? Perhaps this lawsuit YOU think is so important isn't all that important to HIM. And he's perfectly justified in believing so. Michael C. Grant Information Systems Lab mcgrant@portia.stanford.edu