Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site allegra.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alan
From: alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.singles
Subject: Re: They say we're moving ahead!
Message-ID: <2597@allegra.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Jul-84 16:53:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: allegra.2597
Posted: Thu Jul 12 16:53:32 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Jul-84 04:47:03 EDT
References: <3776@fortune.UUCP>, <761@ihuxn.UUCP>, <881@pyuxa.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 49

> I think you should put this incident in with all of the others
> of the same ilk that have happened around here over the past
> 15 years.  If you drive the lesser roads in NJ, you will often
> see these hot dog stands at various places along the road.  Now,
> what happens is that some jerk-off of a diner, resturant, or eatery
> owner decides that the person selling the hot dogs is hurting his
> business.  What does he do?  Off to the local government to get the
> hotdogger sent on his way.  Since the complainer is probably paying
> a healthy tax on his property, who do the locals back?  You guessed it.

I have seen this happen, too.  The township of Berkeley Heights, at the
urging of the local business community, has been hassling Bell Labs for
providing certain services to its employees.  It seems the shop owners
would be happier if we wasted our time and gas driving into town.  Sure,
I understand their motivation, but as a tax-paying resident of Berkeley
Heights, I resent the inconvenience.

> Lately, however, it has been getting tougher and tougher for these
> greeedheads to move the offending entreprenuer.  In this latest
> flap, it seems the local beanery operator has hit on a new idea
> to get rid of the competition.  Traffic hazard indeed!  I hope
> the lady in question wins this one as I still beleive in free
> enterprize.

I hope the lady sues their sexual organs off!  The explanation given is
grossly sexist, and should be condemned.  However, as T. C. points out,
the explanation given has little to do with the actual reasons involved.
The underlying motivation is greed, not sexism.

> The real question on this news item is one of who can sell food
> where.  The issue of being too sexy is a smoke screen to accomplish
> the the real question.  If the lady were to move on tommorrow, and
> some big hairy pug-ugly guy take her place, the slop joint owner
> would find some other excuse to get him moved (Too ugly, stops
> traffic).  I can remember at least ten or twelve of these cases
> in the past few years.

I couldn't agree more.  The sexist explanation is reprehensible, and
should be objected to, but it's really just a diversion.  There's no
point in reading more into it than is there.

And for those of you who have slandered the fair state of New Jersey,
it may be the armpit of the nation, but I call it home...

-- 

	Alan S. Driscoll
	AT&T Bell Laboratories