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.