sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (11/09/83)
It might be helpful to remember that places of employment are, at best, benevolent tyrannies, and not democracies. While I think it's sad that AT&T Denver removed all netnews, I also feel that it's their prerogative to follow any policy they like. I think that 'net.general' is an inappropriate place to discuss, um, corporate dirty linen. Talk to your boss, send a message to your management, talk to someone who can make a difference. But don't try to make a public issue out of it. This will only polarize the situation, and it won't change a thing. /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer
jbray@bbncca.ARPA (James Bray) (11/09/83)
I disagree that net.general was an inappropriate place to bring this up. I found it quite interesting. As for the comment about the nondemocratic nature of corporations: if that sort of roll-over-dead perspective was universal, there would have been no civil rights movement, women's liberation, gay rights, liberation theology... Just because one works in the Belly of the Beast seems no reason to worship it in all its many forms... And while it is true that corporations are generally nondemocratic, and the Phone Company is not rumored to be an exception to this rule, there are a growing number of companies which are worker-owned and controlled, in addition to being like all companies worker-operated... Perhaps net.politics might be more appropriate at this point; in any case, it would appear our Denver friends will be unable to participate. --Jim Bray UUCP decvax!bbncca!jbray, Arpa jbray@bbncca
rjk@mgweed.UUCP (11/12/83)
It's too bad that computer system managers have to become police units. The immediate supervisor is to blame if he cannot control his people, not the provided means of communication. As far as "free speech" - think again. I've found that free speech occurs at that point where you pay your own salary. Randy King
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (11/15/83)
This is really a deplorable situation. And to think I actually have
considered trying to get a job there because they might pay more money than
my current government job! ( :-) for those folks here at HAO!)
I'd also like to mention that failure of Denver AT&T (whatever that is
really called after the Big Breakup) management to come to terms with
USENET has made the "Distribution" feature practically useless here in Colorado,
since they have always been too paranoid to connect with non-Bell sites which
excludes all other local sites. Thus, articles posted with distribution "co"
have reached less than half (rough estimation, I admit) of the netnews
readers in this state, and a lot less percentage than that in this local
area (Boulder, 25 miles or so from Denver, and even less from the part of
town where Bell is; lots of their employess [I've met a few via the net] live
here).
Those folks there in Denver, be sure and bring up at your ARG
meeting that there are qualified potential employees out here looking on this
in an extremely bad light. I for one could never work for a company that is so
closed-minded that they would actually eliminate all of USENET over one
offensive joke.
GREG
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!brl-bmd | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!kpno}
!hao!woodsfaunt@hplabsc.UUCP (Doug Faunt) (11/16/83)
I disagree. We are all, to some degree or other, potential employees of that site, and this type of attitude is something I would like to know about. Also, it is an object lesson in what can happen at a site and will give other sites incentive to keep up a certain level of responsiblity, and perhaps prevent this from happening elsewhere.