Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site nsc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!nsc!chuqui From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame Subject: Re: HOW TO DEAL WITH A JERK Message-ID: <3174@nsc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 13:59:57 EDT Article-I.D.: nsc.3174 Posted: Wed Sep 25 13:59:57 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 05:04:53 EDT References: <3165@nsc.UUCP> <1165@mhuxt.UUCP> <1002@houxf.UUCP> Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Organization: The Crystal Cave Lines: 92 Xref: watmath net.politics:11202 net.flame:12056 [disclaimer one: I've moved blocks of comments around to try to deal with them in a rational manner. I've also tried to NOT move them around out of context.] In article <1002@houxf.UUCP> 9234dwz@houxf.UUCP (Nomad # 73299651) writes: >If you Laurie ( and you too Chuq [ I didn't see a disclaimer ;-) ] ) >personally feel that you want to financially hurt X number of DEC >employees ( & their families) this way fine , go ahead, don't try >and justify it or blame Don Black for a point of view that's contrary >to your own for getting REAL SLEAZY !!!!! Since my name has been brought up, I'll try to keep people from putting words into my mouth by putting them in myself. First, Laurie speaks for herself. I don't review her comments, and don't plan to in the future. Last I looked, she had a mind of her own, and I won't demean her by passing in review to see whether or not she agrees with me. I am a constitutionalist. I was brought up in a print media household and I am a firm supporter of first amendment. If I felt that USENET qualified as a 'free press', I would find myself in the unenviable position of supporting Don Black's right to post his trash, just like I support Larry Flynt's slimeball activities in demeaning women. The reality of the situation is that USENET isn't a 'free press.' If Don Black was printing a newsletter with that tripe in it, I'd be the first to give him the right to do so (I, of course, would also happily burn any copy mailed to me.) I view USENET more as a wide-ranging company newsletter, since it is funded mainly by corporate coffers. As such, the supporters have the right (and responsibility) to restrict the editorial comment to things that they feel are acceptable to the reading community (this is the function of an editor in any publication -- Larry Flynt's editorial policy is a lot different than Hefner, which is a lot different than the Wall Street Journal). I certainly don't blame Don Black for holding his views, the wonder of this country is that everyone is free to make themselves act like idiots if they want. I do blame Dec for being unable or unwilling to control the inappropriate editorial material coming from their sites, just like I blame AT&T for used car ads in net.general. The reality of the situation is that what Don Black says DOES rub off on Dec, mainly because they seem unwilling to do something about it. I don't feel that the material he posts is appropriate for this net, and I'll stand up and applaude the day he leaves (this goes for a number of other people out there, too, but Don black is the subject right now). The first solution to this kind of problem is, of course, to simply not read his works. If he doesn't get any feedback he might decide to go away (everyone gets tired of yelling into the wind...). Assuming that you feel that his postings are so obnoxious that you have to take positive action against them, there are two things you can do: o write letters, either to SA's or other people at Dec, complaining about the postings. o if that isn't good enough, choose to not deal with the company that supports those activities. In other words, boycott. I decided to deal with the situation by (1) not reading the garbage, and (2) by deciding to not work for companies that support that sort of garbage being posted by their employees (Dec, with Black, Arndt, and Williams, is at the top of that list). Now, I don't expect Dec to lose a lot of sleep because I won't go to work for them, but I don't have to worry about being affiliated with a company that is publicly affiliated with views I find distateful. One way to protest, BTW, is to refuse, in writing a job offer from Dec and give Don Black and company as the reason, which is a different form of economic protest than simply not buying Dec products. For the record, I don't particularly support refusing to buy Dec products because of Black and friends. Also for the record, I'm only 1 of 13000 or so national employees, so even if I DID support a boycott on Dec, it probably wouldn't affect national semiconductor purchasing a heckuvalot. One thing you have to watch in a boycott of this form is the backlash -- by throwing an excessive amount of publicity their way, you give creedence to their blatherings. What I WOULD suggest is that EVERYONE simply start ignoring them. If they get absolutely no mail, no followups, no feedback at all, their comments will simply disappear into the morass. As long as they have people feeding back at them, they'll have fodder to continue their rantings. they aren't listening, folks, and you're just giving them excuses to continue talking. Leave them alone, and eventually they'll go away. >What would you do if anyone at >AT&T decided to use this forum to "persuade" all users not to use >any other long distance carriers or pull their resources from the net ? I'd let them pull their resources from the net, happily, and figure out how to survive without them. I'd also let the Justice department know about it, and our corporate communications group, and get my computers up on Sprint or MCI or something immediately. That would be a bluff I'd love to call. -- :From the shores of Avalon: Chuq Von Rospach nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid}!nsc!chuqui Closing your mind is not a prerequisite to opening your mouth. Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com