9234dwz@houxf.UUCP (Nomad # 73299651) (09/23/85)
I wholeheartedly agree with Jeff Sonntag about Laurie Seftons
suggestion to financially castigate Don Black through DEC
salespersons. I, personally, find this level of attack way,way
below the level of previous rabble rousing ( RE Scott & Alex
out in California) and totally out of place in this forum (the
NET not net.flame). The net is primarily an ideas function, not
of action, and boycotts of any kind are childish squealing at
not being able to get your own way. 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 ?
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 !!!!!
Do not take this article to be a pro or con view of any of Don Blacks
articles ! If anyone (large corporations included) wants to know my
opinion please send $ 19.95 to P.O. Box 395 etc etc
Dave Peak
@ ihnp4!hotel!dxp
"All the net's a stage and all the men and women merely ham actors !"
- Rev Peak (apologies to Bill S.)chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/25/85)
[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.
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (09/26/85)
Laurie,
Silencing Black by putting the squeeze on him thru his
employer is guaranteed to give him the "Via Dolorosa"
and Crucifixion scene that would validate his paranoia.
Let the man rave on and meet him with the facts as you
know them. No cheap shots at DEC or Black thru DEC.
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}janw@inmet.UUCP (09/27/85)
[{ucbvax,decwrl}!sun!alan]
> He is posting in a civilized fashion to the appropriate forums.
If this were true, you would be right. But what is a "civilized"
fashion ? The person you are speaking about does not use swear
words; he spells correctly, he even writes "ad nauseam" when almost
everyone misspells "ad nauseum". He adopts a smooth tone.
Is this civilized ?
BUT he speaks, e.g., of 5.7 odd million "Americans"; the quotation
marks are his, and he means American Jews. Just think of this:
Gentiles are Americans, Jews are "Americans". Viciously insulting an
ethnic or religious group is *not* within the norms of contemporary
American civilization.
But remember, norms change, and they change by *usage*.
This is what makes such language dangerous: it creates a pre-
cedent. The *substance* of what a person says is covered by the
principle of free speech; besides, in this case it is beneath
contempt (even though Gary Samuelson managed to write an article
about it that is truly beautiful in its calm logic). But the
*form* can and should be regulated - I don't mean by law but by
everyone being conscious of the offended norm.
In Congress, speech is free; yet members get censured for
unparliamentary accusations.
In recent elections Jesse Jackson was censured severely for what
he said in a semi-private setting; something not one-tenth as
odious as the expression above. And he *apologized*, too.
True, politics is one thing, free discussion on a net is anoth-
er. So, we are freely discussing the definition of "civilized".
For better or worse, such are current civilized norms. Are
you proposing to start changing them with this case ?
Jan Wasilewsky
P. S. I am not in favor of the approach recommended by Laurie.
Though economic boycott is legitimate, it would tend to make a
martyr for a cause unworthy to have one. A phony martyr, too,
since his group (whatever it is) would find him another source
of income. We are not dealing with one individual. Think of
these alleged JDL bombings: they made publicity both for JDL
(which is bad, but they might relish it) *and* for the bombed
Nazi outfit - which is worse, and they should have known better.
Fringe groups thrive on notoriety; their main problem is to
achieve *name recognition*. So, don't help them unless you want
to. rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (09/27/85)
Chuq,
Yours is a prescription for the eventual destruction of
the net. We must tolerate the wind and noise of Mr Black
if we are to even pretend to know anything about freedom
of thought or expression no matter who pays for it.
Your methods are petulant and childish ( as are many corp
orations who would probably agree with your Big Squeeze
tactics).
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (09/27/85)
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 !!!!! I agree that this is not a good or valid method of dealing with Don Black. Although I disagree with almost all of Mr. Blacks postings, his right to speak, his right to make a living, and his right to have crackpot ideas should and must be protected.
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (09/30/85)
> Jan Wasilewsky > Think of > these alleged JDL bombings: they made publicity both for JDL > (which is bad, but they might relish it) *and* for the bombed > Nazi outfit - which is worse, and they should have known better. 'They should have known better'? Oh, I get it. You actually think that the JDL did it? Can you think of any good reasons why the JDL would want people to think that they are terrorists? Can you think of any good reasons why the Nazi outfit would want people to think that the JDL are terrorists? Unless more evidence comes out, the only reasonable assumption is that the Nazis did it themselves. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j Silly quote: "There are a few off-the-wall extremists, who are shunned by us moderates." - Don Black