ignatz (07/04/82)
I have NEVER flamed on the net before, but this incident has hit a PARTICULARLY sore point with me...so, continue, fellow professionals, and find out what prompts a normally non-political consultant, with a confirmed habit of staying out of ephemeral political frays, and a strong desire to maintain his professional demeanor, to finally expose himself to the wrath of the net... and please note that this is ME, not my company or my client site, speaking... I consider net.jokes.q an aberration which cannot be eliminated; therefore, contain it in a known place and avoid it, if you wish. I don't defend the right of the .q list to exist; I maintain that the people who submit to it WILL submit the stuff anyway, probably to net.jokes, now...leading to someone banning THAT group, etc. May I, in an open letter to the 'secretaries who went up 3 levels of managment' and thus caused all the hooraw, state that, were I the manager in question, would seriously consider disciplinary action for the breach in the 'chain of command', or whatever you want to call it. Ignorant Miss Grundyism and disrespect for established methods of tendering questions and complaints once again causes unnecessary grief. WHAT gives those secretaries the right to jump their supervisors and complain? I don't give a rodent's rear about how offended they were. (They should be mature enough to disregard it for the meaningless dross it was...). NOTHING justifies skipping levels of authority like that, except the intervening managers ignoring properly tended queries. The manager in question should have immediately responded...by telling them to go to their supervisor, as they should have. He(she) should have told them that the matter was now of interest...and a report would be expected FROM THE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE in the hierarchy. The manager should then have tendered a lecture on the staff principle, and how the people with the greatest technical knowledge of the situation are the supervisors and managers below him(her). Finally, a slap on the wrist would be in order for wasting my time... Of course, the manager--whoever they may be--blew it. What rational person makes policy decision without knowing what's going on? Humph. I'm disgusted. Thank Ghod that I don't normally have to play the political game like this. When will people substitute rational thought for irresponsible and improper exercise of their 'rights' so they can indulge in their desire to prove how important they are?????? I must need vitamins and Cappuchino, to flame like this. No one will listen; they'll go to the director of their Lab and complain that I'm violating their right to be irrational. But sometimes, I just can't keep laughing at the way people waste their--and my--time and work with silly trivialities. I want to cry. If you've a response to this, unless it's of general interest, send it to me. I've already wasted enough of other peoples' time and attention on this. Dave Ihnat Analysts International Corporation (contract site) Bell Telephone Laboratories, Naperville ihuxl!ignatz (312) 979-6747
wilner (07/05/82)
I agree with Ihnat. Why is it that those in authority seem always to give audience to immature people who want to censor, and never consider the mature majority who are willing to let the unconventional have their freedom. On the occasion of this country's 206th birthday, I would like everyone on the net (and especially system administra- tors) to ask themselves whether their attitudes and actions toward net.jokes.q enhance or diminish personal liberty. --Wayne Wilner (houxs!wilner)
jj (07/05/82)
Dave Inhat's reply to the net prompts me to question the principles of management that he seems to espouse. I do not particularly disagree with the other ideas set forth, although I feel that tolerance of stupidity is something that has to be considered carefully, and its consideration be weighted by its cost. (Yes, I make mistakes, but I try not to. Some people clearly don't make that effort.) I still feel that the proper way to control misuse is to make the misuser feel the brunt of the complaint. Any other system is inherently unstable. The principle of management that Mr. Inhat mentions is that of the strict hierarchy. This type of management works only if the layers of management between the person and the "high level manager" are assumed to work correctly. This assumption is often wrong, and therefore usually fatal. An additional comment from my experience: My management has invited comments on sexual harrasment. They have stated that someone with a complaint or a question should feel free to talk to whomever. Of course, if the privelege is abused, it will be withdrawn. It is possible (although I certainly have NO knowlege of the particular situation) that this was the case. I am certain that my management would, for the most part, react the same way. I think that one should consider the situation facing the person who is complained to. 1) The manager is faced with an item that is certainly offensive, and of no worth whatsoever(according to his/her judgement.) 2) This person knows exactly nothing of the source except that it provides gems like the one that is currently in question. 3) The person bans the distribution medium. Why shouldn't he/she? There is NO reason to keep it that he/she knows of. 4) After panic, mass unhappiness, and chaos, with the most useful and productive people in the area loosing every bit of prestige they once had with local management, the medium is restored, on a trial basis, with a warning that a report has to be written every month to justify the existance of the medium. 5) Someone gets tired of the report writing. End of useful medium. To those who started this whole thing by deliberately posting items to newsgroups known to cause trouble: May you have the luck of the Shah of Iran, the charisma of Richard Nixon, and the life of Scarlett O'Hara! enough already!