Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ihnp4!gargoyle!ddsw1!karl From: karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Re: Flamage re Mark Ethan Smith/Netiquette Message-ID: <445@ddsw1.UUCP> Date: 7 Jan 88 08:24:50 GMT References: <229*manis@instr.camosun.bcc.cdn> <6466@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Reply-To: karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) Followup-To: /dev/null (The Garbage Can, where this belongs) Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Mundelein, IL Lines: 75 Summary: Foul! I have made no such statement or shown said intent! In article <6466@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> era@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: [ Long explanation of Flamers and napalm and discrimination, etc deleted ] > >I don't know if the gov't. told Judge Kennedy that I was a >homosexual or transexual (I'm not), or that I'm a Jew or a woman >or emotionally disabled (I am), but whatever it was, Judge Kennedy >found nothing wrong with federal coworkers telling me to eat fecal >matter. But I've been noticing that quite a few people were upset >about the recent posting by the pseudo. Is everybody emotionally >disabled like me? Look at Colin Jenkins and Tom Mandel and >Karl Denninger--they see nothing wrong with people telling me to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >eat fecal matter. Obviously this is the way to treat people who >are different, this is the environment the disadvantaged must live >and work in, and there is protection in our laws for property, for >profits, and for profanity. There is no protection for people or >for economic, human, and civil rights. There are laws, but Judge >Kennedy, as the swing vote on the Supreme Court, will make sure >they are not enforced. Tilt, unfair, where did MY name come from! Mark, what you have said is pointless. The only question which you might fairly ask (if you were trying to prove/disprove discrimination) is: "Does Karl Denninger feel it is more or less wrong for someone to tell Mark E. Smith to eat fecal matter than any other person". But no, that was not what you said. Besides; where in the world did you get the idea that I condoned, endorsed, or 'saw nothing wrong with' people telling others to eat shit, and why was my name brought into this in the first place? Please leave my name out of these things unless you will provide enough information so I can at least know what you're claiming I have done! (Now, since you got me to hit 'F') >For example, suppose you are an employer, and the law forced you to >hire a woman, a minority person, a disabled person, or a person >with a different sexual preference. Suppose that person is the most qualified, and I hire him/her/it due to this fact, and no other. They simply can do the job I need done, and won't bitch about the working conditions (which may or may not include that I am a real asshole under pressure and might tell them to 'eat shit' when things get tight and they screw up [NOTE: this is an EXAMPLE and not how it is done around here]) >You simply tell them to eat >fecal matter until they either quit, or they file a complaint. If >they quit, you've won. Nope -- I've lost the time and effort I put into that employee. This is substantial, and real. No one in their right mind would do this and think they had 'won'. When you fire someone you *always* lose, if a person quits or leaves due to harassment you lose twice. >If they need the job too badly, you just >keep it up until they file a complaint, and then call them >disruptive for filing the complaint and fire them. And an employee can make enough of an a** of him/herself that they deserve to be fired complaint or no. Complaining formally (ie: you file complaint) does not give you the right to disrupt the workplace as well, for example. -- Karl Denninger | Data: +1 312 566-8912 Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. | Voice: +1 312 566-8910 ...ihnp4!ddsw1!karl | "Quality solutions for work or play"