Conference quark::mennotes-v1

	re: .0

	Well, it's a natural consequence of the state of law in
	our time.

	The way it *should* have been handled, is:

	1) The lieutenant should have been reprimanded officially
	   for using inappropriate language.  A repeat performance,
	   it should have been stressed, would result in discipline
	   ( like demotion, suspension, etc. ).

		and,

	2) The junior employee should have been reprimanded for
	   insubordination.  Her reply was not proper, and refusal
	   to perform the task was not acceptable.

	That's as far as this should have gone.

	But, in the post-Anita Hill world, this is what we can 
	look forward to.  And not just for rude remarks between
	employees.

	A well-known ex-Deccie here was known for wearing provocative
	clothing and running to personnel regularly with complaints 
	when she "caught" someone looking at her.

	So, look for increasing tension as the oh-so-sensitive 
	types ( who find a slight in every glance, every gesture,
	every intonation ) fill the courts and management offices
	with hundreds of complaints, real and imagined.

	And, look for men and women who don't know each other well
	to keep an icy distance....

	After all, who can afford to defend himself against *any*
	charge in court ?  Not most of us..and especially not
	against charges of "harassment" based on glances or words
	not intended to harass.

	Steve H

    On the other hand, if we ever get to hear the EMT's side of the story,
    we could see an entirely different picture.
    
    Perhaps the Lt. made a point of having female EMTs do sweeping chores
    (in spite of the fact that 'anyone could be asked' to do this.)  Perhaps
    he had a history of making female EMTs do the sweeping over and over
    and over (no matter how clean it got.)  When she protested that the
    bay really was clean, perhaps he started yelling at her about being
    "on the r**" without the claimed insubordination.  Who knows?
    
    I'd like to hear both sides of this incident.

    
    I'm sorry, but this basenote feels really unpleasant to me.
    
    As a woman, does this mean I can be expected in the world to shirk work
    any time I don't like it and scream like the dickens?
    
    And also, as a women, when something unfair *is* demanded of me
    (something that might not be asked of a man), does it mean that no one
    will listen because I'm obviously oversenitive, lying, or don't know
    what I'm talking about?
    
    I have never shirked what I felt was my responsibility, and sometimes
    more.  I did things in offices that the men didn't have to do, and did
    them fairly cheerfuly when asked nicely, even though it wasn't in my
    job description.  I've swept, soldered, strung cables, made coffee,
    answered phones, slung around boxes and inventory.
    
    We now have two data points - does this mean I'm the exception or she
    is?  Am I the trend, or is she?
    
    -Jody
    

    RE: .3  Jody
    
    > As a woman, does this mean I can be expected in the world to shirk work
    > any time I don't like it and scream like the dickens?
    
    Are you sure (based on the 'hearsay' report in .0) that the woman
    actually did this?
    
    As a woman, wouldn't you prefer that you were able to present your
    side of an incident (rather than be *presumed* to have 'screamed like
    the dickens' based on a popular negative stereotype about women?)
    

    
    Suzanne, I'm assuming that as .0 stated, this is LOOKED AT AS, or SEEN
    AS "a reflection of the problems that are beginning to surface
    everywhere".
    
    I'm basing my response on that.
    
    I think since you know me, you know I'd rather people hear my side than
    judge me based on somebody else's actions, but that's not always the
    case.  Ideally, each new situation is seen as different, and
    unconnected from past situations. 
    
    I guess I'm just wondering how many of the people who read this
    notesfile feel the same as .0, and how I fit into their vision if they
    believe .0 is indeed indicative of further trends....
    
    -Jody

    RE: .5  Jody
    
    > Suzanne, I'm assuming that as .0 stated, this is LOOKED AT AS, or SEEN
    > AS "a reflection of the problems that are beginning to surface
    > everywhere".
    
    > I'm basing my response on that.
    
    You based your response on the presumption that the woman was guilty
    of shirking work (without hearing her side of it.)  If you meant this
    as a generalization, it's just as bad (or worse.)
    
    > I think since you know me, you know I'd rather people hear my side than
    > judge me based on somebody else's actions, but that's not always the
    > case.  Ideally, each new situation is seen as different, and
    > unconnected from past situations. 
    
    I hope you'd also rather people hear your side than simply believe 
    what others say about you (and your work,) too.
    
    > I guess I'm just wondering how many of the people who read this
    > notesfile feel the same as .0, and how I fit into their vision if they
    > believe .0 is indeed indicative of further trends....
    
    It's inevitable that some people will use this case (and others like
    it) as excuses for the usual prejudice against women in the workplace.
    If you buy into the idea that the woman in .0 is guilty of shirking
    her work, what's to keep someone from assuming the same thing about
    you (at some point in your life)?

>    It's inevitable that some people will use this case (and others like
>    it) as excuses for the usual prejudice against women in the workplace.

And some to use this case to further the 'women are victims, no matter what'
for the usual prejudice against males anywhere.

>    If you buy into the idea that the woman in .0 is guilty of shirking
>    her work, 

Perhaps she WAS shirking her work.  It DOES happen, right?  

-Joe

    
    
one more try.
    
    re: .6
     
    
>    You based your response on the presumption that the woman was guilty
>    of shirking work (without hearing her side of it.)  If you meant this
>    as a generalization, it's just as bad (or worse.)
    
    No, I based my response on the posit "what if people see it this way? 
    what does this mean to me?"  It has nothing to do with what I think.
    What I think has nothing to do with what I'm expressing here, I'm
    inviting people to share what THEY think.
    
    
>    I hope you'd also rather people hear your side than simply believe 
>    what others say about you (and your work,) too.
    
    Suzanne, you know how I feel.  Of course I would.  I'm not talking
    about ME here, I'm asking how people in this notesfile feel about this,
    and where I fit in, if they believe .0 to be representative of a trend.
    
    
>    It's inevitable that some people will use this case (and others like
>    it) as excuses for the usual prejudice against women in the workplace.
>    If you buy into the idea that the woman in .0 is guilty of shirking
>    her work, what's to keep someone from assuming the same thing about
>    you (at some point in your life)?
    
    I'm not buying into anything.  I'm saying if people do feel .0 is true,
    what does that say about me, and what I've done.  Or if .0 is true
    *and* my experience is true, which do they feel is the trend or the
    norm?
    
    People will always assume what they assume, that's how life works.
    
    I'm bowing out for a while now....
    
    -Jody

    RE: .7  Joe
    
    >> It's inevitable that some people will use this case (and others like
    >> it) as excuses for the usual prejudice against women in the workplace.

    > And some to use this case to further the 'women are victims, no matter 
    > what' for the usual prejudice against males anywhere.
    
    Nope.  It's part of the very popular "men (especially white men) are the 
    REAL victims (of discrimination, etc., etc.)" that presumes all/most
    charges of sexual harassment are necessarily instances of "the bitch
    (no bitch in particular, just 'the bitch') is lying."
    
    >> If you buy into the idea that the woman in .0 is guilty of shirking
    >> her work, 

    > Perhaps she WAS shirking her work.  It DOES happen, right?  
    
    Perhaps the Lt. was engaged in an incidence of systematic mistreatment
    of women in the group he supervises.  Perhaps the 'silent treatment'
    of all the other men in the department (and now the POLICE department,
    too) is a message to women to keep silent themselves about what has
    been happening.  It DOES happen, right?
    
    (Until we hear both sides of the story, we don't know what happened.
    Agreed?)

    >Comments....???
    
    	Not enough information to comment; only one side has
    	been presented, through another's filter.
    

    RE: .10
    
    >>Comments....???
    
    > Not enough information to comment; only one side has
    > been presented, through another's filter.
    
    Thank you.
    

>    Nope.  It's part of the very popular "men (especially white men) are the 
>    REAL victims (of discrimination, etc., etc.)" that presumes all/most
>    charges of sexual harassment are necessarily instances of "the bitch
>    (no bitch in particular, just 'the bitch') is lying."

In your opinion. Any facts to back up the 'very popular' claim?  No matter
how often you state this, it does not make it so.  Your responses here have
given me the indication that you believe the man is at fault.  

>    (Until we hear both sides of the story, we don't know what happened.

Well, then... No one should comment on this case at all... 

>                  <<< Note 844.11 by CSC32::WSC641::CONLON >>>
    
>    > Not enough information to comment; only one side has
>    > been presented, through another's filter.
>    
>    Thank you.
    
Didn't stop you from commenting, though did it? 

    RE: .12  Joe
    
    > In your opinion. Any facts to back up the 'very popular' claim?  
    > No matter how often you state this, it does not make it so. 
    
    The same applies to your cliche ("...to further the 'women are victims,
    no matter what' for the usual prejudice against males everywhere...")
    
    > Your responses here have given me the indication that you believe 
    > the man is at fault.  
    
    As I've stated more than once in this topic, we don't know what really
    happened (except that only one side is available to us here and that
    we've been asked to comment on this one side only.)
    
    >> (Until we hear both sides of the story, we don't know what happened.

    > Well, then... No one should comment on this case at all... 
    
    Agreed.  So let's stop until more info is available.

>    
>    > Your responses here have given me the indication that you believe 
>    > the man is at fault.  
>    
>    As I've stated more than once in this topic, we don't know what really
>    happened (except that only one side is available to us here and that
>    we've been asked to comment on this one side only.)

That did not stop you from speculating about the MAN's motives/actions
back around .3 or so.  We do not have enough facts to comment, but we can
slur the man involved, right?

    RE: .13  Joe
    
    > Didn't stop you from commenting, though did it? 
    
    It didn't stop me from pointing out (more than once) that we only
    had one side of the story after others had already commented before
    me.
    

    
>    > In your opinion. Any facts to back up the 'very popular' claim?  
>    > No matter how often you state this, it does not make it so. 

But of course.... Everything I write is my opinion... That my opinion
peridocially coincides with fact is a benefit :-).

    The response of the rest of the police and firefighting crew would
    suggest there was an over-reaction by the woman. People say insensitive
    things all the time. It's part of life. If I was being blasted by my
    superior I'd take the problem off-line first and then maybe file a
    grievance or something. This is about a situation being escalated into
    a forum that a woman can only achieve. Sexual harassment seems to be
    non-existent as a recourse for men. There is a perceptible bias in the
    "system" against men and some woman will use any excuse to exploit it.
    

    RE: .15  Joe
    
    > That did not stop you from speculating about the MAN's motives/actions
    > back around .3 or so.  We do not have enough facts to comment, but we can
    > slur the man involved, right?
    
    If the man is "slurred" by mere suggestions (using the word "Perhaps...,")
    then the woman was already being slurred far worse.  Thanks for making
    this point so clear.
    
    Even the one side we've seen (so far) has claimed that the guy said
    something to his employee about being "on the r**...."  If a manager
    at Digital said this to an employee, I'm sure we'd all agree that it
    would be highly inappropriate (right?)  If this is true (that he
    said it,) the Lt. is at least guilty of this (if nothing else.)
    
    Until we hear more about the case, we don't really know, though.

    Having read .0, it seemed to me that, in essence, the Lieutenant said
    "Hey, I'm stupid, kick me..." so that's exactly what she did!

    In the wake of Hill/Thomas plus the ratio of male/female public servants
    listed in .0, I have to believe Sexual Harrasment must have been covered
    in those specific departments.  For a situation to happen as posted in .0
    at this point in time, the objective person has no pity for the Lieutenant
    (which is one rank below Captain).  As Men, we MUST police ourselves for
    any Harrasment-type behavior and in this the Lieutenant failed his duty...

    Don

>    Even the one side we've seen (so far) has claimed that the guy said
>    something to his employee about being "on the r**...."  If a manager
>    at Digital said this to an employee, I'm sure we'd all agree that it
>    would be highly inappropriate (right?)  If this is true (that he
>    said it,) the Lt. is at least guilty of this (if nothing else.)

"IF NOTHING ELSE"?  Care to elaborate?  Was the woman guilty of insubordination?
If a woman at Digital said 'No, I am not going to do that' to her boss, she
would be guilty of insubordination (if nothing else).  right?

    RE: .18
    
    > The response of the rest of the police and firefighting crew would
    > suggest there was an over-reaction by the woman.
    
    Are you referring to the claim that none of the male police or
    firefighting crews are currently willing to speak with ANY female
    co-workers???  (Talk about over-reacting!)
    
    If a black employee in your building lodged a complaint against a
    white manager and white employees across THE ENTIRE BUILDING (and
    perhaps spreading to a number of other Digital buildings) suddenly
    stopped speaking to ALL black employees, wouldn't you regard this
    as a pretty severe problem of racism?  (Who would you think is
    over-reacting:  the person who lodged a complaint, or the buildings
    filled with people who no longer speak to ANY co-workers who happen
    to belong to a different race?)

    
>    If a black employee in your building lodged a complaint against a

And now, the topic that wasn't going to be discussed, gets dragged into
a racism rathole.  

How about a literary club that contains only women, will not allow men, and
will only discuss literature by women?  Is that sexist?  Only taking in 
literary ideas for one specific, chosen gender?

    RE: .21  Joe
    
    >> *****If***** this is true (that he said it,) the Lt. is at least 
    >> guilty of this (if nothing else.)
    
    > "IF NOTHING ELSE"?  Care to elaborate?  
    
    The side of the story we've already seen (not her side) claims he 
    said "on the r**" to his employee.  Did he really say it?  We don't
    know.  *****If***** he did say it, then he's guilty of having said
    it (right?)  Does he admit it?  We don't know, so far.  The people
    telling his side of the story seem to think he did.
    
    > Was the woman guilty of insubordination?  If a woman at Digital said 
    > 'No, I am not going to do that' to her boss, she would be guilty of 
    > insubordination (if nothing else).  right?
    
    We haven't heard her side of the story yet, though, so we don't know
    if this really happened (any more than we know what he really said.)
    
    Why didn't you use the word "IF" to describe the woman's actions?
    Do you presume she is guilty until proven innocent?

    RE: .23  Joe
    
    So, I take it that you think it's perfectly reasonable for a group
    of firefighters and policemen to risk the lives/safety of the citizens
    they are sworn to serve by refusing to speak to ALL co-workers of
    another race or sex (if someone of that race or sex happens to get
    into a 'harassment' dispute with a supervisor)?
    
    I don't suppose it would occur to anyone that such behavior is an
    over-reaction.  Of COURSE male firefighters and police officers
    risk everyone's lives to make a political point.  (They're guys.)

    In my opinion, every male firefighter and/or police officer who is
    staging a "refuse to speak to any co-worker who happens to be female"
    should receive disciplinary action.  If the behavior continues, the
    guilty parties should be threatened with demotion and/or loss of pay.
    
    If workers at Digital refused to speak to all members of a certain
    sex or race, I'm fairly certain that Digital wouldn't put up with
    such behavior (especially if lives were threatened.)
    

    MZZZZ CONLON
    
    I don't blame these people for protecting themselves from losing their
    jobs. This woman had other avenues at her disposal but she chose to
    escalate the problem to the legal arena. I have to emphasize that "she
    chose to escalate" beyond the realm of her workplace and into the
    courts. Once that happens the people around you have a tendencey to be
    over-cautious because the sense of losing control of a situation
    becomes that much greater. 

    
    
    > should receive disciplinary action
    
       Yeah I could see the verbal warning now, " For having not talked to
    someone you are now reprimanded and subsequently ordered to talk to
    these people again". Hells bells Suzanne you may have stumbled onto
    something here , wives can get court orders to force their hubbs to
    talk to them :-) :-)
    
       On a more serious note I believe the issue is deeper than this one 
    incident ( albeit unproveable).. I was a fireman for four glorious
    years.. In this short  period of time I saw the devistating effects
    of Affirmative action and quota hiring.. The standards were dropped by
    as much as 1/2 for lifting requirements when the applicant was a woman.
    This erks the males sense of fair play, and subsequently we rode the
    women alot harder than the others, this was wrong, but when you use a
    politically correct Wedgie to open the doors of opportunity, it is
    simply human nature. After awhile the women were accepted into the
    clique, although they were viewed as special status types, not real
    fireman....So I suspect this firewoman in the basenote got the blunt
    of years of frustration caused by the ridiculous AA policies that
    permeate(sp) are shallow society...
    
    David ( Fire rescueman )
    
      

    RE: .27  
    
    > I don't blame these people for protecting themselves from losing their
    > jobs. 
    
    If they are unwilling to do their jobs, they should be disciplined.
    If this doesn't work, they should be fired.
    
    > This woman had other avenues at her disposal but she chose to
    > escalate the problem to the legal arena.
    
    The male firefighters and police officers have other avenues at their
    disposal, too (other than risking the lives of the people they are
    sworn to serve.)
    
    > I have to emphasize that "she
    > chose to escalate" beyond the realm of her workplace and into the
    > courts.
    
    I have to emphasize that these male workers have CHOSEN to refuse to
    do their jobs.  If it continues, it should be regarded as insubordination
    (if they have been ordered to go back to normal work behavior.)
    
    > Once that happens the people around you have a tendencey to be
    > over-cautious because the sense of losing control of a situation
    > becomes that much greater. 
    
    If all it takes is one lawsuit to get these workers to stop doing their
    jobs adequately, these men have a very serious problem that should be
    addressed by their management.

    I am fascinated by the exchange taking place here. I have reread the
    basenote and I still do not see that it touts one side or the other.
    The story makes statements of fact but does not attribute them to
    either "side". It seems to me that much of the discussion thus far has
    been a considerable reach beyond the details outlined in .0 When I hear
    that "this is just another instance of blah-blah-blah", I think of
    feuds and longterm resentment. I don't believe that adds much to our
    culture.
    
    As for the specific case in question, it would seem that a review board
    in the department thought the lieutenant's behavior was sufficiently
    poor to warrant 10 days off without pay. In my own limited knowledge of
    such things, this is a very stiff penalty and penalties within the
    system are not handed out lightly or casually. What I am trying to say
    is that I have heard the verdict and entrust the lietenant's superiors
    enough to not have to hear all the evidence. While the Hill-Thomas
    affair may indeed have some effect on this case and others like it, I
    for one don't believe that it was an unjust effect or that it was
    particularly extreme. I base my opinion solely on what I have read in
    newspapers and other accounts on the conservative nature of internal
    review boards. Further details of this particular case may tell a very
    different story. Conjecture about those details seems fruitless.
    
    Karl

    RE: .28  David
    
    If part of your job is to communicate with your co-workers and you
    refuse to do so (based on a person's race or sex,) then it's a problem
    that should be handled by disciplinary action.  Digital would take
    such action against employees here for this, I'm willing to bet.
    
    > ...and subsequently we rode the women alot harder than the others, 
    > this was wrong,...
    
    If you cried and gave the women the 'silent treatment' after someone
    complained about the 'harder than the others' treatment, it would have
    been rather silly (especially since you *knew* you'd been giving the
    women an especially hard time,) wouldn't it?
    
    > So I suspect this firewoman in the basenote got the blunt
    > of years of frustration caused by the ridiculous AA policies that
    > permeate(sp) are shallow society...
    
    The EMT in the basenote may have been treated unfairly by men who
    took out their anger on her simply because she happened to be a woman,
    as you suggest.  I suppose these poor men can't be blamed for acting
    out their own victimization on her (and it's all her fault for not
    being willing to "take" all their sh*t.)

    
    
    Suzanne,
    
    > digital would take such action
    
     Digital would do whatever would make Digital look best. Companies are
    amoral, whats your point.. By the way my favorite quote is from Dante's
    inferno  " The deepest part of hell is reserved for those that remain
    neutral during a moral crisis"..
    
    
    David

    
    
    Suzanne,
    
    > sh*t
    
     If your not ready to play with the big dogs don't get off the porch:-)
    Seriously tho' men ( white males in particular) are sick of the Whining
    that goes on. As a fireman I had my feelings hurt by crude and
    insensitive remarks.... I survived without a law suit.. Women are
    getting into jobs that they are NOT the best qualified for.. The men in
    this single reporter basenote should not take there well justified
    frustration out on the AA firewomen.... Those persons who cry foul
    because this lack of communication does to the fire departments
    abiblity to perform, should also ask themselves what happens to the
    teams ability when you hire  UNQUALIFIED politically correct
    firewomen..
    
    incoming,
    David

    RE: .32  David
    
    >> digital would take such action
    
    > Digital would do whatever would make Digital look best. Companies are
    > amoral, whats your point..
    
    Well, as bad as police departments look these days (what with the
    beating of Rodney King and the beating death of a man by police in
    Detroit recently,) the Fire and Police departments would look even
    worse if they condoned the behavior of the firefighters and police
    officers who are refusing to speak to ALL co-workers who happen to
    be female (if this, indeed, happening.)
    
    Actually, considering the NON-source of the story, I'm beginning to
    doubt that this is actually happening.  It sounds more and more like
    malicious gossip to me.

    Suzanne,
    
    Once again you're making a better example than you are an argument.
    
    fred();

    RE: .33  David
    
    > Seriously tho' men ( white males in particular) are sick of the Whining
    > that goes on.
    
    Treating women especially badly (and possibly even refusing to SPEAK
    to all women co-workers) is whining, in and of itself.
    
    > As a fireman I had my feelings hurt by crude and
    > insensitive remarks.... I survived without a law suit..
    
    Bully for you.  Now you can join nearly ALL the women and minorities
    who have had to put up with white male whining (of the sort you've
    described as doing yourself) without law suits either.
    
    > Women are getting into jobs that they are NOT the best qualified for..
    
    So are men.  Any man who would risk lives by refusing to speak to a
    co-worker of a different sex or race is UNqualified for the job.
    
    > The men in
    > this single reporter basenote should not take there well justified
    > frustration out on the AA firewomen.... Those persons who cry foul
    > because this lack of communication does to the fire departments
    > abiblity to perform, should also ask themselves what happens to the
    > teams ability when you hire  UNQUALIFIED politically correct
    > firewomen..
   
    The men are UNQUALIFIED right now.  They've demonstrated this by
    their behavior.  So should we stop allowing males to get these jobs 
    or what?  (If I were a taxpayer in the city described in the basenote,
    I'd demand that we stop paying taxes for these jerks and go out and
    hire some QUALIFIED individuals to take their places.)

    RE: .35  Fred
    
    > Once again you're making a better example than you are an argument.
    
    If you had an argument at all, you wouldn't need to rely on cheap
    oneliners.
    

    re .37

    >If you had an argument at all, you wouldn't need to rely on cheap
    >oneliners.

    Why should I bother when you are doing such a magnificent job of
    proving the point being made by .0  Any other reply is just going
    to give you more fodder for continuing your tirade.

    fred();

    
    
    > the men are unqualified right now
    
     Lets pretend that the fight is over, all the men have had frontal
    labotamies and no longer consider themselves the victims of the A
    pick pocket squads.. These men are blissful now, THE WOMAN are still
    the second best choice, we still have to lower are standards by as
    much as half, your moral high groung arguement is shot down and the
    true selfishness is exposed. Think about the mother with three children
    trapped upstairs, then think about the qulaifiers for selecting
    fireman.  See my point??
    
    David ( an unselfish fireman )
    

    RE: .38  Fred
    
    > Why should I bother when you are doing such a magnificent job of
    > proving the point being made by .0  
    
    Did you really think that the divisiveness around gender and race
    issues needed proving?
    
    Thanks for the vote of confidence anyway, though.
    

    RE: .39  David
    
    > Lets pretend that the fight is over, all the men have had frontal
    > labotamies and no longer consider themselves the victims of the A
    > pick pocket squads.. 
    
    Men would no longer see themselves as the penultimate victims??
    It's hard to imagine, but ok.  :>
    
    > These men are blissful now, THE WOMAN are still the second best choice, 
    > we still have to lower are standards by as much as half, your moral high 
    > groung arguement is shot down and the true selfishness is exposed. 
    
    If people think women are automatically second best *because* they are
    women, it amounts to the same old prejudice and bigotry against women.
    
    If pure, brute strength is the biggest requirement, why have humans in
    these jobs?  Adult human males are weak as kittens compared to gorillas.
    We had to lower the standards substantially for any humans to qualify
    at all (when humans are such a relatively weak species.)
    
    > Think about the mother with three children trapped upstairs, then think 
    > about the qulaifiers for selecting fireman.  See my point??
    
    I don't know.  This mother might worry that male firemen might rape
    her and the children before getting them out of the building (since
    many men have so little control over the aggression brought on by
    testosterone.)

    David,
    
    regarding your "woman trapped upstairs" scenario:
    
    HUH??
    
    Are you insinuating a male firefighter would be better qualified
    because he'd get some miraculous protective gene that kicks in at just
    the right moment?
    
    
    I know plenty of women who, upper body strength wise, could trounce the
    average male in a fair contest.  If someone's got "What it Takes" why
    indulge in something like "the woman are still the second best choice"?
    
    The law of averages says men are more likely to have more upper body
    strength...that doesn't mean there aren't women who have plenty.  No
    need to lower the standards, but there's no need to act like an
    oranguntang just because someone breaks up the club by actually
    qualifying.
    
    
    Daniel

>    In my opinion, every male firefighter and/or police officer who is
>    staging a "refuse to speak to any co-worker who happens to be female"
>    should receive disciplinary action.  

Of course, it was only REPORTED that they would not speak.  

>    If workers at Digital refused to speak to all members of a certain
>    sex or race, I'm fairly certain that Digital wouldn't put up with
>    such behavior (especially if lives were threatened.)

But of course a LIST of people not to talk to is ok?
    

>    I don't suppose it would occur to anyone that such behavior is an
>    over-reaction.  Of COURSE male firefighters and police officers
>    risk everyone's lives to make a political point.  (They're guys.)

A sexist comment, to be sure.

>    If they are unwilling to do their jobs, they should be disciplined.
>    If this doesn't work, they should be fired.

Is speaking to your coworkers a job requirement?  What about someone physcially
incapable of speech?  The report did not mention if they would not speak in a
professional capacity (or did it??) or just idle chat.

    
>    The male firefighters and police officers have other avenues at their
>    disposal, too (other than risking the lives of the people they are
>    sworn to serve.)

Like defend themselves in court.
    
>    I have to emphasize that these male workers have CHOSEN to refuse to
>    do their jobs.  If it continues, it should be regarded as insubordination
>    (if they have been ordered to go back to normal work behavior.)

Yep, let's make those males the perpetrators yet again.  Please show that the
males are NOT oing their job OR that the lack of speech is/has endangers
lives.

>    If all it takes is one lawsuit to get these workers to stop doing their
>    jobs adequately, these men have a very serious problem that should be
>    addressed by their management.

From the description given, it does not seem like it is the men who have the
problem.

>    I am fascinated by the exchange taking place here. I have reread the
>    basenote and I still do not see that it touts one side or the other.
>    The story makes statements of fact but does not attribute them to
>    either "side". 

Ah, but this is NOTES and as such the smallest of tidbits is good enough
for volumes of "it's x... no, it's y" type 'discussions'.  :-) Perhaps a way
to let off a little steam/stress in these troubled times.

>    As for the specific case in question, it would seem that a review board
>    in the department thought the lieutenant's behavior was sufficiently
>    poor to warrant 10 days off without pay. 


And what of the woman and the insubordination (apparent)?  I bet that nothing
can be done now because any such action coul/would(in my opinion) be viewed
as retaliation for the harassement charge.  All in my opinion of course and
certainly subject to any facts coming to light on this.

>    The EMT in the basenote may have been treated unfairly by men who
>    took out their anger on her simply because she happened to be a woman,
>    as you suggest.  I suppose these poor men can't be blamed for acting
>    out their own victimization on her (and it's all her fault for not
>    being willing to "take" all their sh*t.)

Did I miss something?  .0 talks about 1 man... so why is this 'men' all of
the sudden?

>     If your not ready to play with the big dogs don't get off the porch:-)
>    Seriously tho' men ( white males in particular) are sick of the Whining
>    that goes on. 

Could we leave race out of this one?  It's tough enough with it being gender
related :-).

>    insensitive remarks.... I survived without a law suit.. Women are
>    getting into jobs that they are NOT the best qualified for.. 

                                             ^^^^

I have problems with this.  If they are qualified, they should be able to get
and hold the jobs as long as they are qualified.  I do not see they have to
be 'best' qualified.  I think basically if you are hireing N people, only
one is actually BEST.

>    
>    I don't know.  This mother might worry that male firemen might rape
>    her and the children before getting them out of the building (since
>    many men have so little control over the aggression brought on by
>    testosterone.)

Is this a serious comment?!?!?!?!?!  What a SEXIST remark!!!!!!!

>    
>    Are you insinuating a male firefighter would be better qualified
>    because he'd get some miraculous protective gene that kicks in at just
>    the right moment?

Well, if the upper body strength is there, I doubt the genes kick in at
the last moment.

>    I know plenty of women who, upper body strength wise, could trounce the
>    average male in a fair contest. 

Are they firefighters?  I think the point is that the person on top of the
ladder should have the upper body strength needed for the job to get done,
regardless of the gender of that person (or at least I hope that the point).

    
    
    > could we leave
    
     okay.
    
    > if they are qualified
    
      The problem is just this, as political correctness invades the
    definition of qualified, the standards/qualifications for a position
    are changed.. I had to be able to clean jerk 60 lbs to qualify, Sally
    Joe Fem had to clean jerk thirty ( but could have a waiver).. Now
    unless someone can guarantee me that this AA fireman will never be in
    a situation that does not require a greater physical effort than this,
    then hang it up, your not qualified, your catered to...
    
    David ( a fireman who met the standard and would be happy to work with
        any women that did the same)....

    
    > the presumption of inferiority is bigotry
    
     The need for an adjusted standard is an admission of inferiority. It
    does not however make them inferiorer people..
    
    > the fireman might rape
    
      What an assanine remark.. Not even worthy of a rebuff..
    
    David

    
    > are you insinuating a male fireman
    
     No. Where do you shop for your straw men?
    
    David

    RE: .44  Joe
    
    > Of course, it was only REPORTED that they would not speak.  
    
    Of course.  (If it's really happening, any/every male firefighter 
    and/or police officer who is doing it should receive disciplinary
    action.  Like I said.)
    
    > But of course a LIST of people not to talk to is ok?
    
    If such a list existed, it wouldn't be the same as refusing to speak
    to all persons of a certain race or sex in the course of doing one's
    job.

    RE: .45  Joe
    
    >> I don't suppose it would occur to anyone that such behavior is an
    >> over-reaction.  Of COURSE male firefighters and police officers
    >> risk everyone's lives to make a political point.  (They're guys.)

    > A sexist comment, to be sure.
    
    It's sexist that the (possible) actions of these men (to refrain from
    speaking to ALL co-workers of a certain sex) is both justified and
    (seems to be) completely condoned.  Imagine the howl that would take
    place if the 10-15% women firefighters and police officers suddenly
    refused to speak to all male co-workers.

    RE: .46  Joe
    
    >> If they are unwilling to do their jobs, they should be disciplined.
    >> If this doesn't work, they should be fired.

    > Is speaking to your coworkers a job requirement?  What about someone 
    > physcially incapable of speech?  The report did not mention if they 
    > would not speak in a professional capacity (or did it??) or just idle 
    > chat.
    
    The 'report' sounded to me like a description of men who would no longer
    speak to any co-worker who happens to be female.  If communication is
    part of one's job (and it sure sounds like it for both firefighters and
    police officers,) then refraining from speaking to all co-workers of a
    certain race or sex is failing to do the job.

    RE: .50  Joe
    
    >> I don't know.  This mother might worry that male firemen might rape
    >> her and the children before getting them out of the building (since
    >> many men have so little control over the aggression brought on by
    >> testosterone.)

    > Is this a serious comment?!?!?!?!?!  What a SEXIST remark!!!!!!!
    
    It's a demo (to show the reaction it would get if someone suggested
    that men were "second best" in this job for some reason.)  I happen
    to think it's extremely sexist to declare women "second best" as a
    group.  Now you see how I reacted (to myself) when I saw this.  It's
    a terrible thing to see.
    
    Demos help show others the seriousness of what they're suggesting.

>    It's sexist that the (possible) actions of these men (to refrain from
>    speaking to ALL co-workers of a certain sex) is both justified and
>    (seems to be) completely condoned.  Imagine the howl that would take
>    place if the 10-15% women firefighters and police officers suddenly
>    refused to speak to all male co-workers.

Yours was still a sexist comment, despite the attempt to side track.

>    It's a demo (to show the reaction it would get if someone suggested
>    that men were "second best" in this job for some reason.)  I happen
>    to think it's extremely sexist to declare women "second best" as a
>    group.  

Sorry, but it sure does not come across as demo.  

    
    
    > it's extremely sexist to declare woman " second best"
    
     Suzanne no matter how many times you say it, it just will not make it
    so.. I never said that as a group woman were second best, I said they
    were the second best choice given the REDUCED STANDARDS they had to
    meet... Now stop distorting my words or I will sick  Fred Haddock and
    Zarlenga on you .. :-)
    
    David

    RE: .61  Joe
    
    > Yours was still a sexist comment, despite the attempt to side track.
    
    Joe, I've already explained to you what I was getting at with my
    comment.
    
    You're being rather over-sensitive (or is it "Oh-so-sensitive") and
    over-reacting, don't you think?  Get over it.
    

    RE: .54  David
    
    > I had to be able to clean jerk 60 lbs to qualify, ...
    
    This is pitiful.  Humans are pathetically weak compared to gorillas,
    don't you think so?
    
    I thought firefighters had to clean jerk far more than 60 lbs to
    qualify.  When I worked in television, we had to move 75 pound lights
    on a ceiling grid (by taking it off the grid, then riding on a high
    scaffold to a point elsewhere in the room and putting it back up on
    the grid) - and ALL the women on the production crew, including me,
    could do it.  Not all the men could do it (some had bad backs.)
    
    Funny, though.  One of our supervisors always tried to stop the women
    from moving the lights (even though we were all capable of doing it
    correctly and efficiently.)  I guess the guy needed some excuse to
    claim the women were "less" than the men there, so he'd stop us if
    he caught us doing our jobs.  (We just had to be careful that he wasn't
    around when it was time to do it.)

>    Joe, I've already explained to you what I was getting at with my
>    comment.
 
It was still a sexist comment.
   
>    You're being rather over-sensitive (or is it "Oh-so-sensitive") and
>    over-reacting, don't you think?  Get over it.

Can I quote you the next time a woman claims a comment made by a male
is sexist?  Sexism is sexism.

>    correctly and efficiently.)  I guess the guy needed some excuse to
>    claim the women were "less" than the men there, 

Did the guy actually MAKE any such claim to anyone?

>    he caught us doing our jobs.  (We just had to be careful that he wasn't
>    around when it was time to do it.)

Surely he must have suspected after the nth "Really, it was elves" :-) :-).

>Sexism is sexism.

 yeah, but it's only bad sexism when a man does it. It's neutral when a woman
does it.

    
    
    > This is pitiful. Humans are pathetically weak compared to gorillas
    
     Well Suzanne when you can get a gorilla to drive the truck and fire
    up the pump, let me know, I'll be the first to tell the guys they do
    not have a gripe about the girls anymore...
    
    > I thought
     
      Not before writing this you didn't..
    
    > had to clean jerk far more that 60 lbs
    > why I had to lift 75lbs
    
     Always trying to show that yours is bigger, what a man:-)
    
    
    David

    RE: .67  Joe
    
    >> correctly and efficiently.)  I guess the guy needed some excuse to
    >> claim the women were "less" than the men there, 

    > Did the guy actually MAKE any such claim to anyone?
    
    Yes, he did.  He was openly discriminatory towards women on the crew
    (so much so that the MEN on the crew were ready to report him to the
    studio's highest level manager.)  Although most of the men started
    out not believing women could ever be as good as men at these jobs,
    they ended up seeing how wrong they were (and they became the most
    active in fighting against those who continued to discriminate and/or
    trash women co-workers in the studio.)
    
    The women actually STOPPED the men from taking the discrimination
    issues up the ladder (to avoid stirring up this one supervisor even
    more.)  We knew that most everyone there knew the truth about our
    work (and we also knew that the supervisor wouldn't allow himself to
    continue looking like such a jerk to his male co-workers forever.)
    Eventually, this guy did come around.
    
    >> he caught us doing our jobs.  (We just had to be careful that he wasn't
    >> around when it was time to do it.)

    >Surely he must have suspected after the nth "Really, it was elves" :-) :-).
    
    He assumed the men did it (unless he saw us doing it.)

    RE: .68  The Doctah
    
    >> Sexism is sexism.

    > yeah, but it's only bad sexism when a man does it. It's neutral when 
    > a woman does it.
    
    Please explain to Joe what is meant when you make a statement you don't
    actually support (as a method of making a certain point.)
    
    Joe doesn't seem to understand this particular technique, but perhaps
    it would help him if you explained it.

.0> The Lt. was suspended 10 days w/o pay. She has since filed suit against
.0> the Lt. and he FD. She continues to work as an EMT.

    These days, it can be harassment to treat an adult like an adult.
    Adults have to handled like timid, sensitive children, or else they
    might be "offended" and thus, traumatized.

    The Lieutenant made the classic mistake of speaking his mind ... BIG
    mistake with the current harassment laws on the books.  In doing so,
    he offended the fragile, sensitive, delicate young woman.

    He should have documented the insubordination, then, after enough
    instances, fired her.  He should not have been so careless as to speak
    his mind and vocalize his reaction.  I bet he handles his next encoun-
    ter with a "professional victim" differently.

    Live and learn.

.28> Yeah I could see the verbal warning now, " For having not talked to
.28> someone you are now reprimanded and subsequently ordered to talk to
.28> these people again". Hells bells Suzanne you may have stumbled onto
.28> something here , wives can get court orders to force their hubbs to
.28> talk to them :-) :-)

    You laugh, David, but under current harassment laws, not talking to
    someone CAN MOST CERTAINLY BE HARASSMENT.  That's one of the more
    obvious cases.  It can also be harassment to exclude a particular person
    from non-work-related conversations, even those that happen on breaks
    that are usually considered your own time, such as lunch.

    We've come a long way, baby!

    1984 arrived only a few years later than expected.

.42> I know plenty of women who, upper body strength wise, could trounce the
.42> average male in a fair contest.  If someone's got "What it Takes" why

    A large, obese woman is not necessarily a strong woman.  Or are you
    talking about female body-builders?

    I'm surprised that anyone would even consider arguing that women and
    men are physically similar w.r.t. upper body strength.
    
    It just ain't so...

    Mike, read it again.  I didn't say "all women" now did I?
    
    I said very plainly that I know *plenty* (subset of "all") women who
    were stronger than the "average" (subset of "all") man.
    
    I did not say they were overweight.  I said they were fit.  Fitter than
    the *AVERAGE* (again, just to be clear, subset of "all") man.
    
    Can I be any clearly for your benefit?
    
    Daniel

    re .8
    <I'm bowing out for a while now....>
    
    Now _there_ is a comment worthy of the HoF!

    RE: .69  David
    
    > Well Suzanne when you can get a gorilla to drive the truck and fire
    > up the pump, let me know, I'll be the first to tell the guys they do
    > not have a gripe about the girls anymore...
    
    When the boys can lift as much as gorillas, you can tell them that
    they aren't merely weak humans anymore.  :>
    
    >> had to clean jerk far more that 60 lbs
    >> why I had to lift 75lbs
    
    > Always trying to show that yours is bigger, what a man:-)
    
    You misquoted (and missed the message) once again.  The women were
    perfectly able to move the lights, but we weren't officially allowed
    to do it (by one supervisor, at least.)  We did it anyway because it
    was part of our jobs.
    
    If the "clean jerk" standards were changed by someone in the fire
    department, it isn't the fault of the women who worked there.  It
    doesn't make them unqualified (except in the eyes of some of the
    jerks who seem to need an excuse to look down on women.)

.75> Mike, read it again.  I didn't say "all women" now did I?
    
    ----->daniel, read it again.  I didn't say "all women" either.

    If nobody said "all women," then Daniel's statement stands as perfectly
    true and reasonable.
    

    
    
    Suzanne,
    
     Proctology works, try it before the thing dies in place :-)
    
    
    David

    
    David, did someone hurt your sensitive, delicate little feelings?
    
    Chill.
    

    
    
    > David, did someone hurt your sensitive, delicate little feelings?
    
     No..  If they did you can bet you would be the first person I would
    ask to kiss it and make it all better :-)
    
    
    David            p.s. you have lost your focus.

    
    You do sound 'chilled' now, David.
    
    Good going.
    

    
    
    > You sound 'chilled' now, David.
    > good going
    
      Thanks, I find it helpful to chant my mantra whenever I get upset
    over a ludicrous note . All I say is "  I am a
    man, I have the power to oppress a woman, ahhhh ohhhhhh "
    
    David

    RE: .84  David
    
    > ...when I get upset...
    
    Actually, David, your mantra sounds more like this:  "I am a man, so
    the note that upset me must be ludicrous.  It has to be!"  :>
    
    You have my sympathies.
    

    
    So, meanwhile, the male populations of an entire fire department and
    a police department may possibly be refusing to speak (in a work-
    related capacity) to ALL persons of a certain sex or race, and some
    here believe that these men (if the 'report' is true) are not the ones
    with the problem.
    
    If it's ok to punish all the women (in the fire and police departments)
    for a lawsuit filed by one woman, then I guess it's ok to punish all
    the men at both these departments if it turns out that the Lt. is guilty
    of repeatedly harassing the EMT.  (Fair is fair.)

    re:.79
    
    A for effort, F for content.
    
    Daniel implied that women are as strong as men.
    
    They're not even close, on average, or at the uppermost end.

    RE: .87  Mike Z.
    
    > A for effort, F for content.
    > Daniel implied that women are as strong as men.
    
    He implied no such thing.  Here's what he really said:
    
    .42> I know plenty of women who, upper body strength wise, could trounce 
    .42> the average male in a fair contest. 
    
    > They're not even close, on average, or at the uppermost end.
    
    Your statement is a non-sequitor.  Daniel's statement stands as perfectly
    true and reasonable.

    
>    Daniel implied that women are as strong as men.
    
    
    Bzzzt.  Wrong.  Welcome to formal logic and I'll explain it just one
    more time for you:
    
    "Women are as strong as men"  implies "(All) Women are as strong as
    men."  "X is Y" is the A (universal) statement.  You said I said this
    and you are clearly wrong.
    
    *I* said that I know *PLENTY* of women who are stronger than the
    *AVERAGE* male.  Both of those are very clearly  LIMITED samples (The I
    statement)  "Some women are as strong as some men" is translation into
    formal logic.
    
    Are you so desperate to win points that you're going to start
    re-inventing the rules of logic?
    
    
    Daniel (and I haven't used an arrow in the sig for MONTHS in case you
    haven't noticed.)

     re.0
    
    This kind of thing really saddens me.  Both people were wrong.
    One used language he shouldnt have, and the other refuse to
    do work which she was supposed to do.  A reprimand to both 
    parties is all that should have taken place.  It's really
    sad that the entire fire and police departments are now
    caught in the act.  As if we have enough head games to deal
    with.  Now we have to worry about the possibility of people
    who are trained to serve the public not even communicating
    to each other.  This is rather childish and stands to show
    how incredibly immature the entire group of folks involved
    is in dealing with reality.  I just hope it isnt in my
    home town.  
            

    Kee-ristmas!  Can't we have a little more light and less heat in
    here?

    I feel that the basenote raised some important issues, but they've
    been buried by diggings from numerous ratholes...

    [flame retardant: none of the following is meant to *defend* the
    actions of the people involved; I'm just trying to *explain* what I
    believe are the social dynamics of the situation]

    Now, then:  the issue seems to be that the men aren't speaking to the
    women.  Some think this is an act of retribution by the men against
    a woman who dared to speak out.  Others think this is an overcautious
    response by men who fear for their jobs by stepping over the line.

    In this *particular* case, I think it's neither.  I think it's more
    a form of paralysis brought on by the fact that the men's world has
    been turned upside down.  In traditionally all-male circles (e.g. the
    military or in quasi-military organizations like police and fire
    departments) there is a *lot* of verbal roughousing and dominance play,
    often *very* crude and *very* explicit:

    	"Wake up, men!  Drop yer c*cks and grap yer socks!"
    	"Whassamatta, don't got the b*lls to pull the pin?"
    	"This is my rifle, this is my gun........."

    Most boys grew up doing stuff like this to each other, so by the time
    they get to boot camp or police academy, it's old hat.  Those few men
    who avoided this sort of tussling when growing up got a rude shock upon
    initiation.  In any case, it was either "shape up or ship out".  Either
    you got to be just as good at dishing out the abuse as taking it, or
    you quietly retreated and sought some other line of work.

    Needless to say, those men in the latter category don't talk much about
    their experiences.  Part of the definition of a "real man" is being
    able to put up with this kind of abuse from other men.  Failing that,
    one is not a "real man".  Our society decrees that human males who are
    not "real men" are defective; therefore, men who don't want to put up
    with peer abuse carry their shame in silence.

    Enter the situation of the basenote.  The comment "Are you on the r**"
    seems to me like a gender-adjusted equivalent of the kind of hurtful
    comments men make at each other all the time in anger or frustration.
    Only this time, the victim doesn't want to take it *AND* she has some
    societal support for complaining about it... which she does, using all
    the force that she and the society around her can muster.

    A man in this situation faces the following quandry:  he can't treat
    a woman like "one of the guys", because what passes for normal
    interaction among men can get him in deep trouble when used on a woman.
    He can't treat her like a delicate flower of a lady either, because
    she's supposedly a firefighter or police officer and therefore must
    be able to contend with the rigors of the job.

    While many readers of this file can recognize that the above are not
    the only two options available, for the majority of the male population
    they *ARE*.  Treating women as true equals is something that's taken
    *me* years of conscious effort to do, and I *still* don't think I've
    got it quite right!  Absent any role models of enlightenment, a man in
    the above situation might very well find himself paralyzed, not knowing
    *which* way to turn.  Meanwhile, nobody is giving him any *productive*
    guidance.  They're just telling him "You can't do this, you can't do
    that".  If nobody teaches him about other paths he may have overlooked,
    it's small wonder that he'll retreat into confused silence...

    --jim

    

    RE: .90
    
    > Both people were wrong.
    > One used language he shouldnt have, and the other refuse to
    > do work which she was supposed to do. 
    
    One thing - let's keep in mind that we don't know if the Lt. really
    said what was claimed in the basenote *or* if the EMT really refused
    to do a particular task at work.
    
    If such a refusal did take place, we also don't know if it occurred
    after the Lt. had asked the EMT to re-clean a clean ambulance bay for
    the 10th time (as a way to "ride" or harass her,) for example.
    
    In other words, we still don't know what actually happened.  I do agree
    that it's very sad that entire fire and police departments have taken
    sides in a very childish way (whatever the true story of the original
    incident turns out to be.)

    Assuming the base note is an accurate account, we aren't exactly
    talking about sterling attitudes on *either* party, but it is clear
    that the EMT was out of line to cop that kind of an attitude for what
    was a presumably regular request.
    
    Like Suzanne, I'd like to hear a more official accounting of the story
    and input from both invovled parties.  For instance, the charge of
    actual sexual harrassment, in the present context, seems truly baffling
    simply because nothing in the basenote indicates any behavior of that
    sort.  Presumably, the EMT has some incident that she is calling sexual
    harrassment, but I don't what it is in the basenote.
    
    The current situation, IMHO, calls for someone in an official position
    to step in and tell the employees to start acting like grown-ups. 
    People need to communicate on the job and the silent treatment is rathe
    childish.  If the men involved are afraid, could the basenote clarify
    of what?  The dispute between the EMT and the LT seems to be just that:
    a dispute between two people over job performance.
    
    Daniel

    Daniel,
    
    As for me, based on the one-sided nature of the 'report' in the basenote,
    I'm very skeptical about the supposed 'attitude' of the EMT.  The 'report'
    makes it sound as though she displayed this 'attitude' before the Lt. ever
    said a word about 'the r**' (and almost made it sound as though she goaded
    him into saying it, thereby almost justifying what he said.)
    
    The 'report' also (very nearly) justifies the actions of the entire fire
    and police departments (by claiming they're merely trying to save their
    poor selves from "trumped up charges.")
    
    It reminds me of some of the first stories released about the Tailhook 
    convention (when the aviators claimed "These women knew what was going on 
    there when they decided to go (and now they're complaining unfairly about 
    us)", etc., etc.)
    
    It'll be interesting to see more information about it (if the city/town
    is ever willing to let the story get out.)

    	Suzanne....as is typical of you ...everything is anti-women.
    
    	In the basenote I explained as I was told that she was requested to
    sweep out the ambulance bay. Upon re-inspection, she had not moved the
    ambulance out of the bay and had swept around them, whereupon she was 
    instructed to do so and to resweep the bay. FINI!!!!!!End of
    instruction!!!! 
    	She, reacting to possibly his attitude of dissatisfaction of her
    work, told him she didn't need this sh*t and she was gonna do it. It
    doesn't matter if he screamed and jumped up and down, her reaction came
    first and was insubordinate. Male or Female....wrong response. Do the
    job, then complain to a higher authority or the union.
    	He, in reaction was wrong. No if ands or buts.....wrong in today's
    climate. Wrong in tomorrow's climate. Plain and simple wrong.
    
    	Based on your noting history, in my opinion, she could have pulled
    a gun, shot him and dead and you would defend her to the end of the
    world. I can't imagine living in your one way world, that to me, places
    men at blame for every ill, regardless of circumstance. In your mind,
    is it for one second concievable that this woman might be as wrong for
    her actions as the Lt for his? Is it so unimaginable that a woman can
    be wrong? Is it so unimaginable that she just might be the worst EMT
    ever to sew on a patch dealing with the best fire Lt ever, who just
    made the first mistake he's ever made on the job? 
    
    	You also accuse me of one sideness....I gave you the information as
    told to me to the best of my ability. In that same paragraph, you
    contradicted yourself by saying it sounded like she ...."displayed this 
    attitude before the Lt. ever said a word about 'the r**'........Go back
    and reread the basenote.....she did have that attitude and was
    insubordinate BEFORE he said the 'r' word. Apparently you read only
    what you want or the above quote would never have been made. 
    
    	And you wonder why men are the way they are? 
    
    K  

    re .-1

    I agree with everything you say.

    In addition, I have been wondering what your motivation was in 
    posting .0 in the first place. I think you have been around this
    conference long enough to have predicted that the response would have
    been about what it has been. So I wonder.

    RE: .95  K. Upton
    
    You probably don't realize this yet, but you just changed your story:
    
    .0> The Lt. came back to
    .0> inspect and found that the bay was not clean and ordered her to move
    .0> the medical units and resweep the bay. She replied, "I'm not going to
    .0> do it again, it's good enough, and I don't give a sh*t!" 
    
    Now you say:
    
    .95> She, reacting to possibly his attitude of dissatisfaction of her
    .95> work, told him she didn't need this sh*t and she was gonna do it. 
    
    First, you had her outright refusing to do it.  Now, you have her
    willing to do it (but showing some 'attitude' before she gets to it.)
    
    Surely you don't expect a third-hand (or fourth-, fifth- or who knows?)
    account to be taken as credible when you can't even repeat the story
    the same way twice.  (In short, you blew it.)
    
    > Based on your noting history, in my opinion, she could have pulled
    > a gun, shot him and dead and you would defend her to the end of the
    > world. 
    
    Your ignorance about this is your own problem, not mine.
    
    > I can't imagine living in your one way world, that to me, places
    > men at blame for every ill, regardless of circumstance. 
    
    You're just incapable of comprehending it when a person writes (over
    and over): "We don't know what happened."  I guess the sky would fall
    on your head if you had to accept that things are not the way you
    presume/assume them to be.
    
    > You also accuse me of one sideness....I gave you the information as
    > told to me to the best of my ability. 
    
    You weren't there.  Your story is at least second- or third-hand,
    at best (and yes, it is very one-sided.)
    
    > In that same paragraph, you
    > contradicted yourself by saying it sounded like she ...."displayed this 
    > attitude before the Lt. ever said a word about 'the r**'........Go back
    > and reread the basenote.....she did have that attitude and was
    > insubordinate BEFORE he said the 'r' word. 
    
    How I did I contradict myself by describing what YOU wrote??  In any
    case, I was right.  You did mean it to sound as though the mean EMT
    yelled and swore at the poor little Lt. before he ever said anything
    about "the r**."  Thanks for the confirmation.
    
    > Apparently you read only
    > what you want or the above quote would never have been made. 
    
    I gave your story the benefit of the doubt by saying it only SOUNDED
    like you were accusing the EMT of yelling, swearing and showing
    attitude to the poor Lt. before he made his remark.  Again, thanks
    for making it clear how one-sided your story was (and is now,) even
    if you can't get the story straight.

>.95> She, reacting to possibly his attitude of dissatisfaction of her
>.95> work, told him she didn't need this sh*t and she was gonna do it. 
    
 >   First, you had her outright refusing to do it.  Now, you have her
 >   willing to do it (but showing some 'attitude' before she gets to it.)

typo?

    Why don't we wait to discuss all this further when the real facts
    are known.  All we have now is a changing one-sided story from
    someone who wasn't present.
    
    Without the facts, this story is just gossip.
    

    RE: .98  hamp
    
    > typo?
    
    I considered that, too, except that the change in story is more than
    just the lack of a word.
    
    First, he had her saying she didn't "give a sh*t" - now he has her
    saying she didn't "need this sh*t."  (He put the first claim about
    her words in quotes.)
    
    In any case, the story has changed (not that it ever had credibility
    as a 'n'-hand story in the first place.)
    
    It's gossip, nothing more.
    

>    
>    If it's ok to punish all the women (in the fire and police departments)
>    for a lawsuit filed by one woman, 

Since when is NOT talking to someone punishment?  Oh yeh... it is 'against'
a woman, so it MUST be punishment.  Right.....

>then I guess it's ok to punish all
>    the men at both these departments if it turns out that the Lt. is guilty
>    of repeatedly harassing the EMT.  (Fair is fair.)

Is there ANY indication that the LT repeatedly harrassed the EMT?  Any claims
by ANYONE, other than yourself, that such was going on?  Or is this another
one of the 'demos'?  Or just another made up 'fact', and on a non-Friday 
no less?

    RE: .101  Joe
    
    > Since when is NOT talking to someone punishment?  Oh yeh... it is 
    > 'against' a woman, so it MUST be punishment.  Right.....
    
    When an entire department stops talking to ALL the members of a certain
    race or sex (who happen to be a minority,) it's a form of punishment.
    If you think it isn't, why not ask personnel what would happen if all
    the white men in your building stopped talking (I'm talking about business
    related matters) to ALL your female and/or African American co-workers.
    
    > Is there ANY indication that the LT repeatedly harrassed the EMT?  
    
    You must not have seen the title of my note.  If the Lt. is guilty
    of even ONE instance of harassment, then all the men should be
    punished (if it's ok to punish all the women for one lawsuit.)
    
    Of course, if any of these men were punished in any way for the
    Lt's actions, the howling and crying about "being painted with a
    broad brush (as a man)" would go on for decades.  No one would
    dare do such a thing.

>    
>    If such a refusal did take place, we also don't know if it occurred
>    after the Lt. had asked the EMT to re-clean a clean ambulance bay for
>    the 10th time (as a way to "ride" or harass her,) for example.
 
Huh?  Being told to do your job is now harrassment??? 

Let's see.  SOmeone says "sweep up".  That person does does not.  They are
told a second time to do so.  They do not.  A third time... they do not.
How is THAT harassement???????????????????????????????????  They are NOT doing
their jobs!!!!!
   
>    In other words, we still don't know what actually happened.  I do agree
>    that it's very sad that entire fire and police departments have taken
>    sides in a very childish way (whatever the true story of the original
>    incident turns out to be.)

Then perhaps you would stop the innuendos about the guy's part (gee, we do not
know if this was the 10th time he harrassed here... I am sure we could come up
with some interesting innuendoes about what the woman was doing it all for).

>    I'm very skeptical about the supposed 'attitude' of the EMT.  The 'report'
>    makes it sound as though she displayed this 'attitude' before the 

Actually, the report states that the LT's comment was made  AFTER the comment
by the EMT.  I fail to see where anyone could get 'confused' on this.

>    The 'report' also (very nearly) justifies the actions of the entire fire
>    and police departments (by claiming they're merely trying to save their
>    poor selves from "trumped up charges.")

So, what about people who really WERE trying to avoid such trumped up charges?
Naw.... Doesn't fit in with the "perpetual victim" motif....

>    It'll be interesting to see more information about it (if the city/town
>    is ever willing to let the story get out.)

Yes, before someone has the LT pegged at 32,767 incidents of sexual
harrasement, 2 rapes, and sleeping on duty.

<================================================================================
<Note 844.99          Male/Female Division in Public Service            99 of 103
<CSC32::CONLON                                         6 lines   1-DEC-1992 15:49
<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<   Why don't we wait to discuss all this further when the real facts
<    are known.  All we have now is a changing one-sided story from
<    someone who wasn't present.
<    Without the facts, this story is just gossip.
    
    
    That reply is about 95 entries late.
    (When you grossly misunderstood and attacked the reply of one of the
    very few people who is likely to have contributed positively to the
    level of the discussion.)

>
>    In addition, I have been wondering what your motivation was in 
>    posting .0 in the first place. I think you have been around this
>    conference long enough to have predicted that the response would have
>    been about what it has been. So I wonder.

This is MENNOTES, NOT  =WN=.  I fail to see why some men should let some
women stifle what topics can be talked about.

    RE: .103  Joe
    
    > Huh?  Being told to do your job is now harrassment??? 
    
    Harassment can occur in the course of a day's work (or didn't you
    know that?)
    
    > Let's see.  SOmeone says "sweep up".  That person does does not.  
    > They are told a second time to do so.  They do not.  A third time... 
    > they do not.
    
    Please remember to include words like "suppose this happened," since
    we don't yet have the facts.
    
    > How is THAT harassement???????????????????????????????????  They are 
    > NOT doing their jobs!!!!!
    
    Please remember to include words like "If this happened," since we
    don't yet have the facts.
    
    > Then perhaps you would stop the innuendos about the guy's part (gee, 
    > we do not know if this was the 10th time he harrassed here... I am sure 
    > we could come up with some interesting innuendoes about what the woman 
    > was doing it all for).
    
    We don't yet have the EMT's story about all this.  We do have the
    story that is very (one-sidedly) sympathetic to the Lt., however.
    When we have the EMT's story, then I won't speculate on what might
    have happened (from her perspective.)
    
    Since the side of the story that is sympathetic to the Lt. agrees that
    he did say something about her being "on the r**," I doubt this is the
    worst of his actions (or at least I'm very skeptical about it.)

    Yes, men ought never be denied the right to act like an ass. Sometimes,
    tho, it would be nice to see men show they are sophisticated enough to
    be able to refrain from exercising that right.
    
    Most tom cats quickly learn that polecats are not to be trifled with.
    can't win

>                      <<< Note 844.99 by CSC32::CONLON >>>>
>
>    Why don't we wait to discuss all this further when the real facts
>    are known.  All we have now is a changing one-sided story from
>    someone who wasn't present.

Why don't you set a sterling example for the rest of us?  You could start
with stopping the 'innuendo' about the man (references to his repeated
harrassement, etc).  If there are no facts, why do you keep discussing
it and making up 'facts'.  No need to answer.  It is rhetorical.

>    Without the facts, this story is just gossip.

Sure hasn't stopped you from making up facts.  Then perhaps you are just
'baiting' people on here; but that is just my opinion.

>    
>    It's gossip, nothing more.
>

So what are you discussing then, if you consider it 'contrived'?  

>    
>    When an entire department stops talking to ALL the members of a certain
>    race or sex (who happen to be a minority,) it's a form of punishment.
>    If you think it isn't, why not ask personnel what would happen if all
>    the white men in your building stopped talking (I'm talking about business
>    related matters) to ALL your female and/or African American co-workers.

Then do you believe that those women who want to make a conference for
women only be taken to personnel?  Why not?  It is a group of women wanting
to spepcifically exclude male members, based on gender.  That then is
punishment, right?

    There seems to be a little bit of information missing from all of this,
    and without it, it seems doomed to going back and forth without much
    progress.
    
    The basenote mentions that the EMT filed a sexual harrassment charge
    against the Lt.  What it doesn't do is say *why*  If she filed a
    charged, then she had to cite an example of what he did that was sexual
    harrassment in her view.  Even if the charge proves to be baseless, she
    had to give grounds for making it in the first place....what were those
    grounds?  Do they have merit?  If yes, how are they being pursued?  If
    no, how is the workplace situation being handled and what will happen
    to the EMT?
    
    Does anybody know?
    
    Daniel

    RE: .109  Joe
    
    > Why don't you set a sterling example for the rest of us?  You could start
    > with stopping the 'innuendo' about the man (references to his repeated
    > harrassement, etc).  If there are no facts, why do you keep discussing
    > it and making up 'facts'.
    
    I've never made the claim that my speculations were "fact."  ON the
    contrary, I stated specifically (over and over) that there were no facts.
    
    By contrast, you've discussed the EMT's alleged behavior as if you
    were referring to nothing but purely factual material.  I guess you
    consider this OK for you to do.  (Nice double standard you've got
    there.)
    
    > Sure hasn't stopped you from making up facts.  Then perhaps you are just
    > 'baiting' people on here; but that is just my opinion.
    
    You don't get it.  When I say, "Perhaps such-n-such happened," it's
    treated as if I've claimed facts.  When you talk about the EMT's alleged
    actions without allowing at ALL that the facts are not known, it's
    fine (and wonderful.)  
    
    You've been trashing the EMT as not doing her job repeatedly (without
    having any such facts,) but you can't stand that a woman might even
    QUESTION the actions of the Lt. (and the mere possibility that he really
    did harass anyone.)  
    
    The basenote says the Lt. was suspended without pay for 10 days (which,
    if true, was a punishment given to him by people who DO have the facts
    of the case.)  Not that this seems to matter to you.  The Lt. can't
    possibly be guilty of anything, in your eyes (so I guess you believe
    it must have been a set-up, or whatever, and OF COURSE, the woman must
    necessarily be guilty of not doing her job.)  A man wrote the basenote,
    so it must be true - right?

>    > Huh?  Being told to do your job is now harrassment??? 
>    
>    Harassment can occur in the course of a day's work (or didn't you
>    know that?)

Yes, I know that.  I also know that WOMEN can harrass as well as men.
That does not make being told to do your job harrassement, or didn't you
know that?)
    
>    Please remember to include words like "suppose this happened," since
>    we don't yet have the facts.

Rather amusing since the entire MALE population of the pol/fire dept have
already been branded GUILTY by you, accused of not doing their jobs, and
subject for their version of TFSO. 

>    We don't yet have the EMT's story about all this.  We do have the
>    story that is very (one-sidedly) sympathetic to the Lt., however.
>    When we have the EMT's story, then I won't speculate on what might
>    have happened (from her perspective.)

Well, we do not have the LT full story either, do we?  So can derogatory
comments be made about the EMT?

>    Since the side of the story that is sympathetic to the Lt. agrees that
>    he did say something about her being "on the r**," I doubt this is the
>    worst of his actions (or at least I'm very skeptical about it.)

But until then, your innuendo stands?  Well you are consistent.  And of course
ignoring the EMTs initial comments.

    RE: .111  Joe
    
    >>When an entire department stops talking to ALL the members of a certain
    >>race or sex (who happen to be a minority,) it's a form of punishment.
    >>If you think it isn't, why not ask personnel what would happen if all
    >>the white men in your building stopped talking (I'm talking about business
    >>related matters) to ALL your female and/or African American co-workers.

    > Then do you believe that those women who want to make a conference for
    > women only be taken to personnel?  Why not? 
    
    When you have an example of ALL the women in a certain department or
    building refusing to speak (I'm talking about business related matters)
    to ALL male co-workers, let me know.
    
    (In the mentioned in the basenote, the "no speaking policy" spread to
    the police department.  Show me a case where all the women in ANOTHER
    building or department, or company perhaps, stopped talking to all male
    co-workers about business related matters.)

>    consider this OK for you to do.  (Nice double standard you've got
>    there.)

Guess who taught it to me?  So, what FACTS have I made up?  Maybe I should
just call them 'demoes'... That excuse seems to work for you.
    
    > Sure hasn't stopped you from making up facts.  Then perhaps you are just
    > 'baiting' people on here; but that is just my opinion.
    
    
>    The basenote says the Lt. was suspended without pay for 10 days (which,
>    if true, was a punishment given to him by people who DO have the facts
>    of the case.)  Not that this seems to matter to you.  

of course, it matters.  I am sure you are also aware of the fact that
punishments are oft given with the intent of showing a COURT that the
company (or whatever) is taking the thing seriously, NOT that the punishment
was warranted.

>The Lt. can't
>    possibly be guilty of anything, in your eyes (so I guess you believe
>    it must have been a set-up, or whatever, and OF COURSE, the woman must
>    necessarily be guilty of not doing her job.)  A man wrote the basenote,
>    so it must be true - right?

Did I ever say it was a set up?  NO!
Did I ever say the man was not guilty of ONE harrasement charge?  NO!
Did  >I< make any statements against the EMT?  Any innuendo against the EMT?

So, a man wrote the basenote... He must be WRONG, correct?

    > Then do you believe that those women who want to make a conference for
    > women only be taken to personnel?  Why not? 
    
>    When you have an example of ALL the women in a certain department or
>    building refusing to speak (I'm talking about business related matters)
>    to ALL male co-workers, let me know.

Well, you do not know if ALL the men aren't talking to ALL the women, do you?
You are talking stricting about gossip, to use your own words.

>You are talking stricting about gossip, to use your own words.
                 ^^^^^^^^^
                   yeh, I know :-=)   "strictly".

    RE: .114  Joe
    
    > Yes, I know that.  I also know that WOMEN can harrass as well as men.
    > That does not make being told to do your job harrassement, or didn't you
    > know that?)
    
    You don't have enough facts to make the claim that the Lt. was merely
    asking the EMT to do her job, so it's kinda senseless to keep harping
    on this point.  If he committed harassment against her, he obviously
    went beyond this.  Do you need more help with this point?
    
    >Rather amusing since the entire MALE population of the pol/fire dept have
    >already been branded GUILTY by you, accused of not doing their jobs, and
    >subject for their version of TFSO. 
    
    As you probably don't recall, I also qualified these comments by making
    them apply to any of these men who *are* actually refraining to speak
    to all women at work.  (Perhaps I didn't repeat this to you often enough.)
    
    > Well, we do not have the LT full story either, do we?  So can derogatory
    > comments be made about the EMT?
    
    In addition to the entire topic's worth of derogatory comments made
    about her already (especially by you)???  Enough is enough.
    
    > But until then, your innuendo stands?  Well you are consistent.  
    > And of course ignoring the EMTs initial comments.
    
    The EMT is not a noter, so WE HAVEN'T SEEN HER INITIAL COMMENTS.  WE
    HAVEN'T HEARD HER STORY AT ALL.
    
    Joe, why is this such a difficult concept for you to comprehend?

.89> "Women are as strong as men"  implies "(All) Women are as strong as
.89> men."

    "Women are X"  implies  "(All) women are X."

    Thank you so much.  I shall be quoting you in WN, note 308 the next
    time the WNers circle the wagons around the few remaining noters who
    still argue that "Men are X" doesn't mean "(All) men are X."

    RE: .120  Mike Z.
    
    So meanwhile, Mike, if you *do* hold that "...women are..." means
    "(ALL) women are...," then you must know by now that you made a
    very clear mistake earlier in this topic when you characterized
    Daniel's personal experience of knowing a particular subset of
    woman as being a statement that "women are..."
    
    Where's your admission about this mistake?
    

    RE: .116  Joe
    
    > So, what FACTS have I made up? 
    
    What facts do you have that WEREN'T made up?  You talk about the
    EMT's actions (and STATEMENTS) as if you think you know exactly
    what they were.
    
    The EMT's so-called "initial comments" have been changed by the
    basenote author since he first posted the basenote, so it's rather
    absurd for you to keep referring to them as though they're real.
    (Not that it will stop you, of course.)
    
    > of course, it matters.  I am sure you are also aware of the fact that
    > punishments are oft given with the intent of showing a COURT that the
    > company (or whatever) is taking the thing seriously, NOT that the 
    > punishment was warranted.
    
    So we can't consider that the people who DO have the facts might have
    considered the Lt. guilty of harassment.  Ok.
    
    > Did  >I< make any statements against the EMT?  Any innuendo against the 
    > EMT?
    
    YES!!!!  You've stated over and over that she didn't do her job, etc.
    without having the facts.  You may not realize it, but these do amount
    to being statements against her.

    
    
     I should have listened to the advise given me earlier " David, just
    ignore her"..... I give up, Suzanne enjoy hating and baiting every man
    you encounter that disagrees with you.. 
    
    David the semi retired 
    

    David - if you're trying to insult the South on my account, don't
    bother.  My family came from Massachusetts (except for my Mom being
    born in Nashua, NH on the way back to MA during my Grandparents'
    vacation.)
    
    You can hate me anyway, of course.
    

    
    
     I meant to say north east:-)
    
    > you can hate me anyway
    
      I pity you..
    
    David

    RE: .125  David
    
    > I meant to say north east:-)
    
    Yeah, right.  :>
    
    >> you can hate me anyway
    
    > I pity you..
    
    Not to worry.  I now believe that we *will* see something very close
    to equal rights in the next few decades (so all this garbage about
    all men at a particular workplace refusing to speak to all women 
    co-workers can be put to rest once and for all.)
    
    I hope it happens soon enough to occur in the lifetimes of everyone
    here (because it really *will* make things better for us all when
    we finally get there.)
    
    Peace.

    Suzanne, The next time someone tells you that they have no problem with
    equality and women's rights, but that they have a problem with your
    style of noting, listen to them. 
    
    Mike

    
    
    >   I now believe
    
      I believe that you are partially correct. I believe that what you
    would call equality will be viewed as un-equality by those that are
    unjustly blamed and punished for the charade..
    
    David 

    RE: .128  David
    
    > I believe that what you
    > would call equality will be viewed as un-equality by those that are
    > unjustly blamed and punished for the charade..
    
    It's pretty clear that you believe "equality" can be defined as what
    men and women had before (in the days when men and women each had
    "their places" and women were more willing to stay in theirs.)
    
    Equality (per my definition) would mean that no one would need to be
    blamed or punished in any way (including the punishment that is still
    meted out to women for the sin of being born into a class of people who
    must continue to fight to gain such rights.)

    By the way, David, if anyone blames you for the injustice of
    discrimination, they are quite justified in doing so (since
    you've admitted having mistreated the women you worked with in
    the fire department.)
    
    You weren't the first person to do this (God knows,) but you're
    certainly guilty of perpetuating it (and mistreating co-workers
    based strictly on their sex or race.)  You even said you knew
    it was wrong.
    
    It *was* wrong, and you should hold blame for having done it.
    You certainly can't claim you're just this poor innocent white male
    who is being blamed for something he never did (that's for sure.)

    Har har har.  Listen to the harangue.  Are you stuck on a mobius loop,
    Suzanne?
    
    Mike

    re .127
    amen

    
    
    Suzanne,
    
      You do not understand me.. I am not trying to turn back the clock, I
    am suggesting that in this enlightened age we must find a better way to
    solve the problem than " An eye for an eye"...
    
    Viva La difference,
    David

    RE: .131  Mike Smith
    
    > Har har har.
    
    You forgot something.  (Where's your belch?)
    

    
    
     Suzanne,
    
      I explained the motivation behind it.. I would treat anyone that
    used AA as a foothold the same way.. By the way I just finished getting
    my butt kicked in racquetball a few minutes ago.. The young lady that
    did it is sitting right next to me and I value her alot. She did not
    ask for extra points because of gender, she whipped me fair and square
    and I respect that....
    
    David( a modified feminist)
    

    RE: .133  David
    
    > You do not understand me.. I am not trying to turn back the clock, I
    > am suggesting that in this enlightened age we must find a better way to
    > solve the problem than " An eye for an eye"...
    
    If we were going for "an eye for an eye," your eyes would be in serious
    danger right now, David.  Fortunately for you, it isn't the goal in any
    sense.
    
    Meanwhile, some action must be taken to solve the problem.  It simply
    isn't good enough to do nothing (hoping it will all work out ok in
    another few hundred years.)  The women's movement has already been
    working on this situation for over 200 years in Europe and almost
    150 years in the U.S.  It's long past time for a resolution.

    One way to make a serious attempt to solve the problem would be for you
    to stop harassing this conference.
    
    You, almost single handledly, prevent any possibility of accommodation
    to modern thinking by traditional men. 
    
    You, almost single handedly, provide a raison d'etre for anti-feminism

    RE: .135  David
    
    > I explained the motivation behind it.. I would treat anyone that
    > used AA as a foothold the same way..
    
    Some men assume that ANY women in a male-dominated job must have
    gotten there through AA, so they punish the women in exactly the
    same way you described as having done to the women you knew (even
    if the women went through the job search in exactly the same way
    the men did.)  It's a matter of blatant prejudice on the part of
    these men (yet they still see themselves as 'innocent' in the
    same way you seem to do.)
    
    > By the way I just finished getting
    > my butt kicked in racquetball a few minutes ago..
    
    When men get their butts kicked in a hiring situation, some men find
    it absolutely necessary for their personal survival to convince them-
    selves that it was an AA situation (even when it wasn't.)  Then later,
    they punish their women co-workers even more.
    
    Whether AA is involved in a hiring or not, the women applying for the
    jobs go through the same process the men go through.  It's absolutely
    pathetic to realize that some men go out of their way to punish these
    women (for having been born women.)
    
    It's something I hope we can stop in the next few decades.  It's so
    very wrong (as you've even admitted yourself.)

    RE: .137  Herb  "It ain't easy bein' green"
    
    > One way to make a serious attempt to solve the problem would be for you
    > to stop harassing this conference.
    
    Herb, haven't you started that private conference yet (with the
    thousands upon thousands of personal remarks to me that keep burning
    a hole in your keyboard)?
    
    Put it in a sock.

    
    
    
    > your eyes would be in serious danger right
    
      Just because we do not see eye to eye does not mean you have the
    right perspective Suzanne.. I have told you several times that I 
    support equal rights for everyone. I have also explained a bizzillion
    times that two wrongs do not make a right, no matter how many horror
    stories you can demonstrate through out history. The only logical
    answer I can imagine is a system  of hiring guidelines based on
    " merit criteria."  Careful consideration must be given to  making
    it gender and racial neutral, also, society must do all it can to
    ensure everyone had equal access to those institutions and programs
    that increase a persons merit..
    
    David

    
     Alright I 'll ask it, whats a raison d'etre??
    
    David

    
    
    
    Suzanne,
    
     Well never know as long as  AA exists..  And another thing, I stated
    that my attitude towards those firewomen wsa innapropriate, beyond that
    I owe you nothing.. Take a breath Al :-)
    
    David

    RE: .143  David
    
    > Well never know as long as  AA exists..
    
    So it's ok to deliberately mistreat women co-workers (just IN CASE
    they have somehow benefited from AA) as long as the law exists???
    
    And you say you believe that two wrongs don't make a right (while
    you commit a "wrong" in retaliation for what you believe is a wrong)?
    
    If you're willing to blame all or most women co-workers for the ills
    you see in AA, then why don't you also blame all or most men for the
    ills of the discrimination that made AA necessary in the first place?

    
    
    > So it's ok
    
     One more time, no it's not okay, it's human nature.
    
    David

    raison d'etre: French: approximately translates as "reason for being" 
    		 

    re: .134

    Suzanne, you wound me.  I am far to genteel a person to be belching in
    public.  I thought you knew that.

    Besides, most people don't consider laughter to be base humor, even if 
    it is only slightly derisive.  
    
    Mike

    
    
    > blame all or most men
    
     A perfect example of what I and others have been saying. The very
    prejudicial attitude you claim victim status from, is now apparent
    in your own ranks. I do not believe that most men are this way. I
    believe that most men LOVED their wives and respected the work they
    did. I believe way back when, when the bible was the guiding light
    for people, that they simply chose to accept certain roles. I also
    believe there were a few MOron men who abused their wives and ruined
    it for all of us.. You will no doubt have a birage of historical
    examples of abuse, but this is not proof of a majority of males being
    sexist!
    
    David 

    so ...
    
    driving force
    motivation
    rationale
       		 
    that sort of thing

    
    -1
     Danke schon (sp)
    
    David

    RE: .148  David
    
    >> If you're willing to blame all or most women co-workers for the ills
    >> you see in AA, then why don't you also blame all or most men for the
    >> ills of the discrimination that made AA necessary in the first place?
    
    > A perfect example of what I and others have been saying. The very
    > prejudicial attitude you claim victim status from, is now apparent
    > in your own ranks.
    
    All you quoted in your note (from my sentence) was "blame all or most
    men" (which is clearly taken out of context from what I wrote.)  Was
    this deliberate?
    
    > I do not believe that most men are this way.
    
    It's too bad that you are unwilling to give women co-workers the
    benefit of the doubt ("as long as AA exists") since it's been my
    experience that most women in male-dominated professions have not
    used AA to get ahead.
    
    The question is - why is it ok for you to mistreat women co-workers
    'as long as AA exists' (even though many of us do not believe that
    'most women' use AA) but you wouldn't mistreat men as long as proof
    of discrimination exists?

    
    
    > but wouldn't mistreat men
    
     It happens everyday. We got at each other everyday, the only
    difference is we think it's part of the competition for top
    of the hill . We have rules and we respect them. I fail to see the
    logic in the rest of your arguement. Please explain it by analogy..
    
    David

    RE: .152  David
    
    Once again, you've taken a few words out of context to interpret (and
    you wonder why you're so confused.)
    
    Here's the whole sentence:
    
    	 The question is - why is it ok for you to mistreat women co-workers
         'as long as AA exists' (even though many of us do not believe that
         'most women' use AA) but you wouldn't mistreat men as long as proof
         of discrimination exists?
    
    > It happens everyday. We got at each other everyday, the only
    > difference is we think it's part of the competition for top
    > of the hill . We have rules and we respect them.
    
    Do you mistreat other men by blaming all or most men for discrimination
    "as long as proof of discrimination exists?"  No, you don't.  Neither
    do I.  However, you DO blame and/or mistreat women for AA "as long as
    AA exists" (since you don't know which women have used it and which
    women have not.)
    
    > I fail to see the
    > logic in the rest of your arguement. Please explain it by analogy..
    
    It's helpful to read individual words *in context*.  If you are unable
    to do this, then ask questions until the whole sentence comes into
    view for you.  Perhaps it will help you.

    
    
     Suzanne,
    
     > use it
    
     AA or EEO or whatever is not optional. You do not decide to use it
    or  not  like an umbrella.
    
    > why is it okay for you mistreat women co-workers
    
      It's not, and this is the fourth time I  have states thus. I guess
    the off line mail suggesting I simply let you continue your crusade
    alone  is taking on new meaning now.. Goodbye Suzanne, have fun
    twisting everything to fit your view..
    
    David

    yes, oh and bear in mind it is VERY important to always let a lady have the
    last word.

    
    -1
    
      Touche' :-)
    
    David

    'Specially this particular lady.

    RE: .154  David
    
    >> use it
    
    > AA or EEO or whatever is not optional. You do not decide to use it
    > or  not  like an umbrella.
    
    Exactly.  So, meanwhile, you admit to mistreating women co-workers on
    the basis that they've USED it (when, by your own admission, they had
    NO CHOICE in the matter.)
    
    Further, you seem to always assume that AA is the only reason why any
    woman is ever hired for a job that some man might want.  You don't
    seem to understand that such an assumption is one of the most blatant
    forms of prejudice possible in the workplace.
    
    Meanwhile, when anyone witnesses this blantant discrimination (and
    acknowledges it,) you seem to see it as an example of 'blaming innocent
    males for no reason (boo hoo.)'
    
    Your justification for having such a blatantly prejudiced attitute towards
    your co-workers is:  'it's human nature.'  Unbelievable.

    
    Hey - you boys can continue to play if you like.
    
    At least David is being honest by admitting he's actually had experience
    treating women in a discriminatory fashion (even though he knew/knows
    it was wrong.)  I admire him for being able to say these things.
    
    Most of the men who commit discrimination against women are light
    years from recognizing or admitting it.
    

    
    
     "  The silence is deafening isn't it?"

    So that's how it's done.  Stop being nice to her and she goes away. 
    Hmmm!
    
    Mike

    
    Oh no - these guys are starting to talk to themselves.
    
    Someone call 911 (before they get any worse.)
    

    Oh, I dunno, talking to one's self is not a problem.  One only has a
    problem if one starts to answer one's self back.
    
    Ya see?
    
    Mike

>    
>    You don't have enough facts to make the claim that the Lt. was merely
>    asking the EMT to do her job, so it's kinda senseless to keep harping
>    on this point.  If he committed harassment against her, he obviously
>    went beyond this.  

Beyond asking her to do the job?  Beyond harrassement?

>Do you need more help with this point?

I did NOT make the claim that the LT was merely asking the EMT to do her job.
If you look back, please note I said I agreed (based on what was in .0) that
there was ONE case of harrassment.  Please show exactly where I said what
you claimed I said.  If you cannot, please stop making such claims.

>    As you probably don't recall, I also qualified these comments by making
>    them apply to any of these men who *are* actually refraining to speak
>    to all women at work.  (Perhaps I didn't repeat this to you often enough.)

Well, if you cannot show that ALL men in the departments are not talking to
ALL women, then there is no problem.  That is allowed according to your logic
of allowing woman only conferences, since ALL of a group are not ignoring
ALL of another group.

>    In addition to the entire topic's worth of derogatory comments made
>    about her already (especially by you)???  Enough is enough.

Please point out the specific derogatory comments I made, assuming you can.
If you cannot, I would appeciate it if you would stop making up LIES about
what I have said.
    
>    The EMT is not a noter, so WE HAVEN'T SEEN HER INITIAL COMMENTS.  WE
>    HAVEN'T HEARD HER STORY AT ALL.

The LT is not a noter, so WE HAVEN'T SEEN HIS INITIAL COMMENTS.  WE
HAVEN'T HEARD HIS STORY AT ALL.
    
>    Joe, why is this such a difficult concept for you to comprehend?

I do comprehend it.  I just do not agree with the fantasy world you seem
to have constructed.

>    What facts do you have that WEREN'T made up?  You talk about the
>    EMT's actions (and STATEMENTS) as if you think you know exactly
>    what they were.

So, please show me where I have made up a fact?  

>    The EMT's so-called "initial comments" have been changed by the
>    basenote author since he first posted the basenote, so it's rather
>    absurd for you to keep referring to them as though they're real.
>    (Not that it will stop you, of course.)

Then the whole story is suspect and the EMT was never harrassed at all.
That should settle it.

It is rather interesting the way you take a story, claim the part about men
is made up and from the other supposedly 'real' story, not only deduce that
the woman was harrassed, but that the man supposedly had a history of it
(and who could forget that the whole non-speaking department [male members
only I assume] should be fired).

>    YES!!!!  You've stated over and over that she didn't do her job, etc.
>    without having the facts.  You may not realize it, but these do amount
>    to being statements against her.

The 'facts' are shown in .0 (as they can be known at this time).  If you do
not accept that the EMT did not do her job as reporeted, then how can you
possibly accept anything related to her being harrassed.  Talk about selective
vision.

>    ignore her"..... I give up, Suzanne enjoy hating and baiting every man
>    you encounter that disagrees with you.. 
    
Well, life would be pretty boring if you only ever 'discussed'/'argued' with
people who agreed with what you had to say.

Look at the notes as the I/O exercisor for the heart and/or blood pressure :-).

    
    
    -1
    
     > i/o exerciser
    
     it's an input output for something, thats for sure :-)
    
    David

Anyway, I am going to be dropping out here a bit... The TFSO bombs are
falling a mite close in my group...

This will also allow others to replenish their stock of made-up-facts. ;-)

    RE: .164  Joe
    
    > I did NOT make the claim that the LT was merely asking the EMT to do 
    > her job.
    
    Have it your way.  (.103, "Huh? Being told to do your job is now
    harrassment???" Joe Melvin.)
    
    >>As you probably don't recall, I also qualified these comments by making
    >>them apply to any of these men who *are* actually refraining to speak
    >>to all women at work.  (Perhaps I didn't repeat this to you often enough.)

    > Well, if you cannot show that ALL men in the departments are not talking 
    > to ALL women, then there is no problem.  
    
    My comments applied to "ANY" men who have taken up the practice of
    not speaking to all their women co-workers (in business-related
    matters.)  If the basenote is a lie and NONE of the men in the fire
    department or police department have taken up this practice, then
    it's not a problem.  If only a few jerks have taken up the practice,
    these men should be disciplined for it (like I said.)
    
    > That is allowed according to your logic of allowing woman only 
    > conferences, since ALL of a group are not ignoring ALL of another group.
    
    Not true.  My logic didn't stipulate all (or even some) of ANY group.
    For example, I don't think it's a problem if all the men on the
    elevator in a high-rise office building refrain from speaking to all
    the women on the elevator.  My comment referred specifically to
    business related activities (where communication is part of the job.)
    
    >> In addition to the entire topic's worth of derogatory comments made
    >> about her already (especially by you)???  Enough is enough.

    > Please point out the specific derogatory comments I made, assuming you 
    > can.  If you cannot, I would appeciate it if you would stop making up 
    > LIES about what I have said.
    
    I considered your "Huh?? Being told to do your job is now harrassment???"
    to be a derogatory implication about the EMT (since it was in response
    to a direct comment I made about her situation.)  If you have a 
    different opinion on this, it doesn't make my opinion a lie (no matter
    how many times you decide to accuse me of this.)
    
    .114>>> And of course ignoring the EMTs initial comments.
    
    >> The EMT is not a noter, so WE HAVEN'T SEEN HER INITIAL COMMENTS.  WE
    >> HAVEN'T HEARD HER STORY AT ALL.

    > The LT is not a noter, so WE HAVEN'T SEEN HIS INITIAL COMMENTS.  WE
    > HAVEN'T HEARD HIS STORY AT ALL.
    
    Since we all agree that neither of these people are noters (and that we
    don't have either of their "initial remarks" available to us,) then you
    can stop the snide remarks about how I've ignored these non-existent
    "initial comments."  Ok?
    
    > I do comprehend it.  I just do not agree with the fantasy world you seem
    > to have constructed.
    
    You yell at me for not commenting on non-existent "initial comments"
    and you're NOT in a fantasy world?  Geeeesh.

    RE: .165  Joe Melvin
    
    >> What facts do you have that WEREN'T made up?  You talk about the
    >> EMT's actions (and STATEMENTS) as if you think you know exactly
    >> what they were.

    > So, please show me where I have made up a fact?  
    
    You have ZERO (O.0) facts at your disposal, so ANYTHING you've
    written as though it were factual is NOT.  Clear enough?
    
    > Then the whole story is suspect and the EMT was never harrassed at all.
    > That should settle it.
    
    I've already suggested that this whole story might be a fabrication
    (which, of course, has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the
    EMT was in fact harassed by this Lt. at some point in time.)  It
    neither proves nor disproves that such a thing has happened.
    
    > It is rather interesting the way you take a story, claim the part about 
    > men is made up ...
    
    What part about men do you mean?  I've stated over and over and over
    and over and over and over that we don't know what happened.  If you
    tell me how many thousands or millions of times you need to hear this
    before it sinks in, I'll write a loop for you that you can run at your
    desk (if this will help.)
    
    > ...and from the other supposedly 'real' story, not only deduce that
    > the woman was harrassed, but that the man supposedly had a history of it
    
    This is nuts.  I never came anywhere near suggesting that these can
    be regarded as facts or conclusions.  Get a grip!
    
    > (and who could forget that the whole non-speaking department [male members
    > only I assume] should be fired).
    
    The basenote claims that all the men at both the fire department and
    the police department aren't speaking to any of their co-workers who
    happen to be women.  I said that if this is true, the persons committing
    this childish behavior should be disciplined (even fired.)  It's my
    opinion.
    
    If it's only the men who are engaging in this practice, then they
    are the ones who should be punished.  If women have taken up this
    practice (not speaking to all men in the department,) they should
    be punished equally.  You may not agree, but so what?
    
    > The 'facts' are shown in .0 (as they can be known at this time).  
    
    The facts are not known.  We have a story told in the basenote,
    that's all.
    
    > If you do not accept that the EMT did not do her job as reporeted, 
    > then how can you possibly accept anything related to her being 
    > harrassed.  Talk about selective vision.
    
    As mentioned before (more than once,) it's possible that the whole
    story is a fabrication.  K. Upton got the story (in the basenote)
    from someone "not directly involved," remember (so we're talking
    about a third-hand story at best here.)
    
    If the story is a fabrication, it neither proves nor disproves that
    any harassment took place.  The real facts of the interactions 
    between the EMT and the Lt. are independent of anyone's third-hand
    story.
    
    What really happened?  How many times do you need to hear me say
    that we simply don't know.  (I could put it in the loop for you
    to run on your system at your desk if it would help.)
    
    Are you ok now?

>    > I did NOT make the claim that the LT was merely asking the EMT to do 
>    > her job.
>    
>    Have it your way.  (.103, "Huh? Being told to do your job is now
>    harrassment???" Joe Melvin.)

Is being told to do your job harrassment or not?  Yes or no, please.

I believe the harrassment charge is on the verbal statements of the LT AFTER
the refusal by the EMT.  Wouldn't you agree?

Please show where in the extract/quote I used the word "merely"?  That is
obviously an addition/interpretation on YOUR part, not mine.  Kindly do
NOT attribute to me any credit for your works of fiction.  Thank you.

>    My comments applied to "ANY" men who have taken up the practice of
>    not speaking to all their women co-workers (in business-related
>    matters.)  

Actually, I believe you used the uppercase ALL... Not ANY... ALL...

>If the basenote is a lie and NONE of the men in the fire
>    department or police department have taken up this practice, then
>    it's not a problem.  If only a few jerks have taken up the practice,
>    these men should be disciplined for it (like I said.)

And so should the woman for insubordination (not following direct orders
of that person's boss).  Not harrassment, insubordination.
    
>    I considered your "Huh?? Being told to do your job is now harrassment???"
>    to be a derogatory implication about the EMT (since it was in response
>    to a direct comment I made about her situation.) 

Oh, please.. could you explain how this is derogatory to the woman?????????
What exactly is the implication of which you speak?

> If you have a 
>    different opinion on this, it doesn't make my opinion a lie (no matter
>    how many times you decide to accuse me of this.)

You claiming I have said something when I did not is not a matter of opinion.
It is matter of truth (or lack of it).  Wouldn't you agree?

>    Since we all agree that neither of these people are noters (and that we
>    don't have either of their "initial remarks" available to us,) then you
>   can stop the snide remarks about how I've ignored these non-existent>
>    "initial comments."  Ok?

What snide comments?  I specifically asked you the same question you asked,
only with genders reversed.  How is that snide for one phrasing of the 
question and not the other?

>    You yell at me for not commenting on non-existent "initial comments"
>    and you're NOT in a fantasy world?  Geeeesh.

And exactly where have I yelled at you?  Especially with a typed medium?

    RE: .165  Joe Melvin
    
    >> What facts do you have that WEREN'T made up?  You talk about the
    >> EMT's actions (and STATEMENTS) as if you think you know exactly
    >> what they were.

    > So, please show me where I have made up a fact?  
    
    You have ZERO (O.0) facts at your disposal, so ANYTHING you've
    written as though it were factual is NOT.  Clear enough?
    
    > Then the whole story is suspect and the EMT was never harrassed at all.
    > That should settle it.
    
    I've already suggested that this whole story might be a fabrication
    (which, of course, has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the
    EMT was in fact harassed by this Lt. at some point in time.)  It
    neither proves nor disproves that such a thing has happened.
    
    > It is rather interesting the way you take a story, claim the part about 
    > men is made up ...
    
    What part about men do you mean?  I've stated over and over and over
    and over and over and over that we don't know what happened.  If you
    tell me how many thousands or millions of times you need to hear this
    before it sinks in, I'll write a loop for you that you can run on your
    system, at your desk (if this will help.)
    
    > ...and from the other supposedly 'real' story, not only deduce that
    > the woman was harrassed, but that the man supposedly had a history of it
    
    This is nuts.  I never came anywhere near suggesting that these can
    be regarded as facts or conclusions.  Get a grip!
    
    > (and who could forget that the whole non-speaking department [male members
    > only I assume] should be fired).
    
    The basenote claims that all the men at both the fire department and
    the police department aren't speaking to any of their co-workers who
    happen to be women.  I said that if this is true, the persons committing
    this childish behavior should be disciplined (even fired.)  It's my
    opinion.
    
    If it's only the men who are engaging in this practice, then they
    are the ones who should be punished.  If women have taken up this
    practice (not speaking to all men in the department,) they should
    be punished equally.  You may not agree, but so what?
    
    > The 'facts' are shown in .0 (as they can be known at this time).  
    
    The facts are not known.  We have a story told in the basenote,
    that's all.
    
    > If you do not accept that the EMT did not do her job as reporeted, 
    > then how can you possibly accept anything related to her being 
    > harrassed.  Talk about selective vision.
    
    As mentioned before (more than once,) it's possible that the whole
    story is a fabrication.  K. Upton got the story (in the basenote)
    from someone "not directly involved," remember (so we're talking
    about a third-hand story at best here.)
    
    If the story is a fabrication, it neither proves nor disproves that
    any harassment took place.  The real facts of the interactions 
    between the EMT and the Lt. are independent of anyone's third-hand
    story.
    
    What really happened?  How many times do you need to hear me say
    that we simply don't know.  (I could put it in the loop for you
    to run on your system at your desk if it would help.)
    
    Are you ok now?

>    You have ZERO (O.0) facts at your disposal, so ANYTHING you've
>    written as though it were factual is NOT.  Clear enough?
 
You also have ZERO facts at your disposal, so anything you've written as
though it were factual is NOT.  Including your embellishments.  Clear
enough?
   
>    What part about men do you mean?  I've stated over and over and over
>    and over and over and over that we don't know what happened.  If you
>    tell me how many thousands or millions of times you need to hear this
>    before it sinks in, I'll write a loop for you that you can run at your
>    desk (if this will help.)

So, save some programming effort and just answer the question:  Why do you
embellish the story by adding your own made up 'facts'?
    
>    happen to be women.  I said that if this is true, the persons committing
>    this childish behavior should be disciplined (even fired.)  It's my
>    opinion.

Everything you have written is your opinion.  It is just that some of
your opinions are more memorable than others.  :-)

>    The facts are not known.  We have a story told in the basenote,
>    that's all.

And of course, your additions, oh sorry... 'opinions'.  So, do you beleive
in the far side of the moon?  Ever been there?  
    
>    from someone "not directly involved," remember (so we're talking
>    about a third-hand story at best here.)

Probably 20th hand, actually :-)  
    
>    If the story is a fabrication, it neither proves nor disproves that
>    any harassment took place.  

If the story is a fabrication, there were NO events to BE harassment!!!!!
I think I will now bow out of this 'discussion'.  I cannot possibly
compete with this gem...  Nor would I want to.  

>The real facts of the interactions 
>    between the EMT and the Lt. are independent of anyone's third-hand
>    story.

If the story is a fabrication, there ARE no real facts!!
    
>    What really happened?  How many times do you need to hear me say
>    that we simply don't know.  

And how many times do you need to hear that I understand that?  What I do
not understand is why you take the case and ADD your made up 'facts' about
the various people in it?

>(I could put it in the loop for you
>    to run on your system at your desk if it would help.)

No thanks.  My desk only runs at 0.000000001 MIPS, and it would not even go
that fast if were not for Brownian motion :-).
    
>    Are you ok now?

Kindly keep your personal attacks to yourself, please.

    RE: .171  Joe Melvin
    
    > Is being told to do your job harrassment or not?  Yes or no, please.
    
    It can be.  If someone were to tell a man, "Hey, put a hold on your
    testosterone poisoning for a minute and write your next piece of
    lousy bug-ridden code, you bleeping idiot" - yeah, I'd consider it
    harassment (although it is actually a request to do one's job.)
    
    You asked this as a hypothetical question, so I provided you with a
    hypothetical situation as an example.  Clear on this now?
    
    > I believe the harrassment charge is on the verbal statements of the 
    > LT AFTER the refusal by the EMT.  Wouldn't you agree?
    
    We don't have the facts, so it's impossible to know the chronology
    of events *or* the exact words of either person, if the incident
    did indeed take place.
    
    > Please show where in the extract/quote I used the word "merely"? 
    
    Let's hope you're clear enough now (on the question of whether it
    is harassment to ask a person to do thier job) to get on to other
    matters.  Obviously, it's possible to do both: a person can ask 
    someone to do their job in a way that is harassing.)  Are you ok 
    on this now?
    
    >> My comments applied to "ANY" men who have taken up the practice of
    >> not speaking to all their women co-workers (in business-related
    >> matters.)  

    > Actually, I believe you used the uppercase ALL... Not ANY... ALL...
    
    Here's what I really said (in .26):
    
    	    In my opinion, every male firefighter and/or police officer who is
         staging a "refuse to speak to any co-worker who happens to be female"
         should receive disciplinary action.  If the behavior continues, the
         guilty parties should be threatened with demotion and/or loss of pay.
         ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
    
    "Every 'x' who is doing 'y'" does not describe ALL people (such as all
    men in the fire or police departments) unless ALL such people happen to 
    be engaged in this behavior.  I wrote it as my opinion and suggested
    that only the "guilty parties" should be punished.  You may not agree,
    but so what?
    
    >> If only a few jerks have taken up the practice, these men should
    >> be disciplined for it (like I said.)
    
    > And so should the woman for insubordination (not following direct 
    > orders of that person's boss).  Not harrassment, insubordination.
    
    We don't know that this happened, of course.  (We also don't know
    if all/some/any men are refusing to speak to all/some/any women in
    the police and fire departments - so far, anyway.)
    
    > Oh, please.. could you explain how this is derogatory to the 
    > woman?????????  What exactly is the implication of which you speak?
    
    Just a few lines ago, you stated "And so should the woman [be
    punished] for insubordination."  You have no facts to support that
    this has happened, yet you continue to say such things.  I consider
    it derogatory.  You may not agree, but so what?
    
    >>I considered your "Huh? Being told to do your job is now harrassment???"
    >>to be a derogatory implication about the EMT (since it was in response
    >>to a direct comment I made about her situation.)  If you have a 
    >>different opinion on this, it doesn't make my opinion a lie (no matter
    >>how many times you decide to accuse me of this.)
    
    > You claiming I have said something when I did not is not a matter of 
    > opinion.  It is matter of truth (or lack of it).  Wouldn't you agree?
    
    The quote I provided above ("Huh? Being told to do your job is now
    harrassment???") is accurate.  We only have different opinions on
    the implications of such a statement.
    
    >What snide comments?  I specifically asked you the same question you asked,
    >only with genders reversed.  How is that snide for one phrasing of the 
    >question and not the other?
    
    The "snide comment" was partially provided earlier:
    
    	.114> But until then, your innuendo stands?  Well you are consistent.  
        .114> And of course ignoring the EMTs initial comments.
    
    As we settled tonight, the EMT had no "initial comments," so I trust
    you won't be asking me to discuss the non-existent comments again.
    
    Are you ok on this now (or do you have a few hundred other pressing
    points of interest to you that must be satisfied before you can
    go on with your life?)

    RE: .173  Joe Melvin
    
    >> You have ZERO (O.0) facts at your disposal, so ANYTHING you've
    >> written as though it were factual is NOT.  Clear enough?
 
    > You also have ZERO facts at your disposal, so anything you've written as
    > though it were factual is NOT.  Including your embellishments.  Clear
    > enough? 
    
    I've made it more than clear (many times now) that I do not claim to
    have any more facts about this than you have.  If you can finally
    agree that you don't have the facts, we can put this one point to rest.
    
    >So, save some programming effort and just answer the question:  Why do you
    >embellish the story by adding your own made up 'facts'?
    
    If you regard statements that begin with "Perhaps..." as an attempt
    at providing facts, it's your problem, Joe (no one else's.)
    
    >And of course, your additions, oh sorry... 'opinions'.  So, do you beleive
    >in the far side of the moon?  Ever been there?  
    
    I realize all this is very upsetting to you.  It's unfortunate.
    
    >> If the story is a fabrication, it neither proves nor disproves that
    >> any harassment took place.  
    
    >If the story is a fabrication, there were NO events to BE harassment!!!!!
    
    If the story is a fabrication, it has no bearing on whether or not
    "any" harassment (at some point in time) took place.  It only means
    that the specific incident didn't take place.
    
    > I think I will now bow out of this 'discussion'.
    
    Ok.  See ya.
    
    >> The real facts of the interactions 
    >> between the EMT and the Lt. are independent of anyone's third-hand
    >> story.

    > If the story is a fabrication, there ARE no real facts!!
    
    If the story is a fabrication, the incident itself has no facts.
    However, unless the story-teller created ficticious characters,
    then the interactions between these two people (beyond the scope
    of the fabricated incident) involves facts.
    
    >> What really happened?  How many times do you need to hear me say
    >> that we simply don't know.  

    > And how many times do you need to hear that I understand that?  
    
    Once would be enough if you could demonstrate such understanding.
    Unfortunately, you haven't been able to do so thus far.
    
    > What I do not understand is why you take the case and ADD your made 
    > up 'facts' about the various people in it?
    
    Ok, I guess you're just having language problems.  When someone uses
    the word "Perhaps..." at the beginning of a sentence, the usage is
    a purposeful way of making it clear that the statement does not involve
    actual facts.  Ok?
    
    >> Are you ok now?

    > Kindly keep your personal attacks to yourself, please.
    
    Yikes.  You're still upset.  It's unfortunate.

    Joe, take it easy.
    
    If you have another few hundred tiny points that you feel pressed
    to bring up (regarding this discussion,) don't bother.
    
    We don't know what happened between these two people (if anything,
    in case the individuals actually exist.)  Until a news story
    breaks about it (if it ever does,) we're stuck with the lack of
    factual information.
    
    Oh well.

>    Let's hope you're clear enough now (on the question of whether it
>    is harassment to ask a person to do thier job) to get on to other
>    

So, you cannot show where I said 'merely' as you claimed I did?

    > Oh, please.. could you explain how this is derogatory to the 
    > woman?????????  What exactly is the implication of which you speak?
    
>    Just a few lines ago, you stated "And so should the woman [be
>    punished] for insubordination."  You have no facts to support that
>    this has happened, yet you continue to say such things.  I consider
>    it derogatory.  You may not agree, but so what?

Must be a time warp.  You claimed it was derogatory BEFORE those 'few lines
ago' were written.  You have no facts to support that this has happened,
yet you continue to say such things (guilty parties should be punished).
Yes, so what?

>    As we settled tonight, the EMT had no "initial comments," so I trust
>    you won't be asking me to discuss the non-existent comments again.

If the EMT had no 'initial comments', then the LT never said the things
the fictitious story said.  So, it really was a non-event on both sides.
Agreed?

>    Are you ok on this now (or do you have a few hundred other pressing
>    points of interest to you that must be satisfied before you can
>    go on with your life?)

Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

    Unbelievable. Ms Conlon seems determined to make the supervisor guilty
    when, being irritated by the woman's refusal to do her job, said
    something on the spur of the moment. So, why is she suing the whole
    fire department? The fire department is not at fault, an individual is.
    Bet she's trying to get big bucks out of the department (read the city
    taxpayers) so she can get on the gravy train like most of the
    sue-crazies out there. I totally agree with one of the comments about
    the women only having to lift half as much as the men. So what happens
    when she has to lift someone out of a burning car/building and they
    are too heavy? "Gee, so sorry, but I only lift up to 100 pounds". Think
    that's far-fetched? Picture yourself as the person who needs to be
    carried out of a burning building. Would you rather see a male who can
    lift 200 pounds or a woman who can only lift 100? Guess that depends on
    your weight. 
    
    Why wouldn't she be content with a public apology in front of the other
    fire department members? Simply because she wants those big lawsuit
    bucks to lay around the rest of her life. Poor, poor taxpayers of that
    city. 
    
    Yes we have an equal opportunity program. It's just that some of us are
    more equal than others.  We have our standards but, by God, we will 
    compromise them for political expediency and to be politically correct.
    
    

>    
>    I realize all this is very upsetting to you.  It's unfortunate.
>

Yawwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnn.
    
>    If the story is a fabrication, it has no bearing on whether or not
>    "any" harassment (at some point in time) took place.  It only means
>    that the specific incident didn't take place.

Well, what more can possibly be said?

>    Once would be enough if you could demonstrate such understanding.
>    Unfortunately, you haven't been able to do so thus far.

Well, I have gotten to see a good case of double standards in action.  For
that I thank you.  Good night.

>    Bet she's trying to get big bucks out of the department (read the city
>    taxpayers) so she can get on the gravy train like most of the
>    sue-crazies out there. 

Can an individual actually be sued if they are acting for the city?  

>I totally agree with one of the comments about
>    the women only having to lift half as much as the men. So what happens
>    when she has to lift someone out of a burning car/building and they
>    are too heavy? 

I would expect the same thing that would happen if a male firefighter
encountered someone they could not lift.  I sincerely doubt that J-random
firefighter (of either gender) could pick up all possible weights they
might encountered.  I have an uncle that I would defy ANY firefighter to
budge :-).

>    Why wouldn't she be content with a public apology in front of the other
>    fire department members? Simply because she wants those big lawsuit
>    bucks to lay around the rest of her life. Poor, poor taxpayers of that
>    city. 

Well, as has been pointed out... facts are lacking... Actual numbers even
more so.  "Big Lawsuit Bucks" is a bit hasty.
    

	request for facts:  Does anyone know how the actual weight range
			    for this is actually determined?  Is an average
			    weight taken of those that MIGHT need carrying?
			    Is it based on the position of Charon around
			    Pluto?

    ....and the beat goes on.

    RE: .178  Clark
    
    > Unbelievable. Ms Conlon seems determined to make the supervisor guilty
    > when, being irritated by the woman's refusal to do her job, said
    > something on the spur of the moment. 
    
    You don't have the facts to support this version of the story (if the
    incident happened at all.)  You accept justification for the supposed
    actions of the Lt. without knowing the facts of the matter, and I
    suppose you think THIS is equality?
    
    Unbelievable indeed.

    RE: .179  Joe Melvin
    
    >> Once would be enough if you could demonstrate such understanding.
    >> Unfortunately, you haven't been able to do so thus far.

    >Well, I have gotten to see a good case of double standards in action.  For
    >that I thank you.  Good night.
    
    In your opinion, you forgot to add.  My opinion differs.  So what?
    
    It really ain't the end of the world, Joe.  Honest.

    I wonder who'll get the last note in before QUARK runs out of disk.

    
    
    -1
       
    Me :-) 
    
    Clark   
    
    good points...
    
    
    David
    

Re: .184

Let's not find out, eh?

		Steve

    re .186
    
    When, not long after I entered that note, I began getting strange error
    messages (Error reading prolog?) when accessing mennotes I started to
    wonder what I had done. :-)

    So you're the one!  Suitable punishment will be meted out forthwith.
    
    Mr. Moderator, do your duty and lay on with a will.
    
    Mike

    re:.97, the story changing
    
    Both versions are compatible with each other.

.102> If you think it isn't, why not ask personnel what would happen if all
.102> the white men in your building stopped talking (I'm talking about business
.102> related matters) to ALL your female and/or African American co-workers.
    
    Also ask what would happen if only one person did that to only one
    other person, and if the matters being discussed were not work-related
    but did happen at work.
    
    Same thing.
    
    No need to conjure up images of race hatred here, the simply fact is
    that under current harassment laws, you can't do something as basic
    as picking your friends at work.

    re:.184
    
    Silly question, Dave ... Who ALWAYS gets the last note?

    RE: .189  Mike Z.
    
    > re: the story changing
    
    > Both versions are compatible with each other.
    
    True, both versions of the story (and the different words used for
    the EMT's supposed "initial comments") are one-sided third-hand (at
    best) accounts that are sympathetic to the Lt.  In this sense, they
    are indeed compatible.
    
    However, a great deal of credibility is lost when the third-hand (at
    least) story-teller changes the EMT's words on the second telling of
    the incident.

.122>    Where's your admission about this mistake?
    
    I qualifed my statement with "on average" before Daniel had replied.
    
    You are choosing to ignore the second reply which provides additional
    information and to focus on the first, which was admittedly incomplete.

.192> However, a great deal of credibility is lost when the third-hand (at
.192> least) story-teller changes the EMT's words on the second telling of
.192> the incident.

    In your eyes, but of course, any pseudo-reason will suffice, eh?
    
    Fact is that stories change as more information comes to light.
    
    That alone doesn't affect credibility for me, as long as stories
    do not become contradictory without a reasonable explanation.  You,
    on the other hand should feel free to look for any an all reasons
    to try to dismiss or discredit the account in .0.

    RE: .191  Mike Z.
    
    > Silly question, Dave ... Who ALWAYS gets the last note?
    
    The more important question is:  Who's ALWAYS monitoring (and talking
    about) who's getting the last note?  (Such silliness doesn't even
    occur to most people let alone become a concern that dominates their
    entries at some crucial point in a discussion - "You can have it" or
    "We'll let him/her have it" or "S/he always get's it" or "Blah, blah,
    blah.")
    
    My sister used to play that game with me when I was 5 years old and
    she was 9.  I've never known anyone to have such an obsession with
    it since then (especially among adults.)  It's definitely strange.

    re:.195
    
    Over the last year, at least 4 people, myself included, have noticed
    this last-word phenomenon.
    
    The answer to your question is "everybody but Suzanne."

    RE: .194  Mike Z.
    
    .192> However, a great deal of credibility is lost when the third-hand (at
    .192> least) story-teller changes the EMT's words on the second telling of
    .192> the incident.

    > In your eyes, but of course, any pseudo-reason will suffice, eh?
    
    The facts of the matter here is that we do not have any facts of this
    matter (the incident in the basenote.)  The changing story makes it
    more obvious, that's all.  Even if he had been more careful to stick
    to his original wording, it wouldn't change the fact that we're
    dealing with a third-hand (at best) story.  No one needs to justify
    the taking of this story with a large grain of salt.
    
    > Fact is that stories change as more information comes to light.
    
    K. Upton didn't present the changed story as new information.  He
    seemed to be emphasizing what he'd said in the basenote (only he
    just happened to change the story somewhat.)
    
    > That alone doesn't affect credibility for me, as long as stories
    > do not become contradictory without a reasonable explanation.  You,
    > on the other hand should feel free to look for any an all reasons
    > to try to dismiss or discredit the account in .0.
    
    The "account" in the basenote was not first-hand or even second-hand,
    by the author's own admission.  It's also one-sided (as many besides
    me have pointed out.)  
    
    No one is under any obligation to accept this story as gospel, no
    matter how much heat anyone takes for daring to question it.

    RE: .196  Mike Z.
    
    > Over the last year, at least 4 people, myself included, have noticed
    > this last-word phenomenon.
    
    Well, it's true that the obsession with discussing this game has hit
    more than one person.  It still seems weird to me to watch adults
    engaging in this "S/he gets the last word" or "I'll give him/her the
    last word" silliness.
    
    > The answer to your question is "everybody but Suzanne."
    
    Nope.  A "few people" (4, by your count) do not comprise "everyone
    but Suzanne."  The vast majority of people in notes never even come
    close to the "S/he gets the last word" or "I'll give him/her the
    last word" games.  It wouldn't even occur to most people.

    re: .198
    
    Lordy, you are a fun person to behold.  

    re:.199
    
    Too funny ...
    
    She sits there and says "we don't have any facts!" but at the same
    time she is willing to argue endlessly that the facts have changed
    and must now be considered void of credibility.

    RE: .200  Mike Z.
    
    > Too funny ...
    
    Yeah, I kinda chuckled when I read your note.  :>
    
    > She sits there and says "we don't have any facts!" but at the same
    > time she is willing to argue endlessly that the facts have changed
    > and must now be considered void of credibility.
    
    You can't even get the facts straight in a discussion we're all
    watching (I said the STORY changed, not "the facts") - yet you
    expect me to accept a third-hand (at best) story about people
    we don't even know.
    
    You're a riot.

    For someone who doesn't want to accept a 3rd hand story that may or may
    not have any validity, you sure have burned up a whole bunch of
    electrons speculating on how terrible the men in this legend are
    behaving.  And then you consume even more electrons denying that
    there is any story to comment on.   
    
    The contortions of logic and language that you put yourself through as
    you strive to put yet one more entry on the record of how terrible men
    are and how awful a fate it is to be a women in America are truly
    laughable, or disturbing.  I haven't decided which, yet.
    
    Mike

    RE: .202  Mike Smith
    
    > For someone who doesn't want to accept a 3rd hand story that may or may
    > not have any validity, you sure have burned up a whole bunch of
    > electrons speculating on how terrible the men in this legend are
    > behaving.  
    
    Ha - such speculations are ancient history now.  The majority of the
    conversation in the last 150 notes or so seems to be concerned mostly
    with how awful it is that I dared to question the validity of the
    basenote <horrors!>
    
    > And then you consume even more electrons denying that
    > there is any story to comment on.   
    
    Not so.  I've agreed all along that a story has been told here (a third-
    hand, at best, story - but a story nonetheless.)  Is it true?  How can
    we know without having the facts?  Did the incident even occur?  How
    can we know without having the facts?  We can't.  So what?
    
    > The contortions of logic and language that you put yourself through as
    > you strive to put yet one more entry on the record of how terrible men
    > are and how awful a fate it is to be a women in America are truly
    > laughable, or disturbing.  I haven't decided which, yet.
    
    Don't torture yourself by such fabrications.  Someone offered a story
    and asked for "Comments??"  I've being commenting, along with others.
    It's not the end of the world, Mike.

    No, your contortionist habits are not a harbinger of the Rapture.  As
    to the veracity of what I say, I don't have to fabricate a thing.  It
    is there for all to see in its manifold splendor.  The fact that you
    can't, or won't, recognize this surprises me not a whit.
    
    But that's okay, I still think many of your ideas are right on, I just
    find the style you choose to communicate your ideas a bit
    over-zealous.                                  
    
    Mike

    Speaking of facts....
    
    I know they were sort of lost in the storm, but does *anyone* have
    answers for the questions I asked in .112?
    
    Daniel

    RE: .204  Mike Smith
    
    > No, your contortionist habits are not a harbinger of the Rapture.  As
    > to the veracity of what I say, I don't have to fabricate a thing. 
    
    You did fabricate, Mike.  But who cares?
    
    > It is there for all to see in its manifold splendor.  The fact that you
    > can't, or won't, recognize this surprises me not a whit.
 
    The fact that I disagree with your description of my intent, motivations
    (or whatever it was you thought you were describing) isn't suprising at 
    all.  My self-image isn't shaped by your cheap shots.

    re: .206
    
    Apparently you care, else you wouldn't have gone on with your
    complaints after your "who cares" comment. 
    
    Mike 

    RE: .207  Mike Smith
    
    > Apparently you care, else you wouldn't have gone on with your
    > complaints after your "who cares" comment. 
    
    So, shall I point out that you 'cared' enough to try reading
    something into my comments after the "who cares" remark?
    
    Who cares?  :>
    

    Ah, but you see, I didn't say I didn't care.  You did, and now you are
    hoisted on the petard of your own inconsistency.  So there!
    
    Mike

    And the beat goes on... and on... and on...
    La-de-da-de-da
    
    Concise stupidity can be invaluable. Verbose stupidity is simply
    tedious. Repetition without refinement tends to blunt a point rather
    than sharpen it. 
    
    Karl

    RE: .209  Mike Smith
    
    > Ah, but you see, I didn't say I didn't care.  You did, and now you are
    > hoisted on the petard of your own inconsistency.  So there!
    
    Wow, I've seen grasps at straws, but you must have needed a microscopic
    tweezer for this one.  (And, by the way, I didn't say I didn't care.
    I said, "Who cares?"  See how difficult it is to get the facts straight
    even for eye-witnesses who have it available *in writing*?  Third-hand 
    story-telling is looking more unreliable by the minute.)  :>
    
    You did give me a rare smile in this topic, though.  :>

    re:. Mike Smith
    
    Amazing, innit?
    
    By the way, shall we add yer name to the "I'm convinced she must have
    the last word in every discussion" list?  Hmmm?  I do believe she has
    provided a considerable amount of evidence today regarding that specific
    phenomenon.

    qed

    RE: .212  Mike Z.
    
    > I do believe she has
    > provided a considerable amount of evidence today regarding that specific
    > phenomenon.
    
    When you tire of this game, Mike, perhaps you could graduate to "Made
    you look!"  It would be a great move up for you.  :>
    

    
    
     
     Zar,
      
      Add me to the list.. I will donate 10% of my meager income to study
    the phenomenon (sp)..
    
    
    
    David

    Izzat like tithing?

    
    David, if you're going to donate money, why don't you guys develop
    and market this as a video game (in the "Age 5 and up" category.)
    
    Players go through a maze of cheap shots (where they are alternately
    ordered to take the 'last word' then accused of *trying* to take it.)
    
    Of course, one problem would be that as long as the game is played,
    there can't really be a 'last word.'  (But the folks who end up
    playing the game may be too young to realize this.)  :>
    

    Now, now, Suzanne.  You really should get off your high horse, as
    regards your complaints about cheap shots.  History has shown you to be
    every bit as capable of using them when it suits your purpose as anyone
    else.
    
    Mike

    RE: .218  Mike Smith
    
    > ...as regards your complaints about cheap shots.
    
    Once again, you've given an inaccurate first-hand accounting of
    events.  Shame on you!  :>
    
    My mention of 'cheap shots' was an observation.  
    

    Gee, so was mine.
    
    Ping...

    I've seen tennis matches with fewer volleys.....

>    I've seen tennis matches with fewer volleys.....

 Some live for the volley, some live for the match.

    This is turning into the "let's all bash on each other and not actually
    discuss anything" Conference.  I'd like to know where you guys find the
    time to write all of these hundreds of jabs back and forth!  

    Re: .223
    
    Tell me about it!  I tried to inject some new ideas over 100 replies
    ago... and nobody seems to have noticed.  The participants in the
    jab-fest keep sniping back and forth, and folks who *might* want to
    debate the issues just "next unseen" after reading a dozen or so
    jabs...
    
    Maybe this file needs a rathole topic?

    First, a point of clarification. 
    
    I believe a woman has just as much right to be an insensitive jerk as
    any man or even as several men.
    
    now, in re your
    <"turning into the "let's all bash on each other ...">
    
    
    It's been like this since 1989 at least. Some of the names change,
    (too many haven't), some of the issues change (some are eternal),
    some of the political perspectives have changed. And believe it or not
    a few of the people actually seem to have learned a few things. 
    
    But the one element that has remained constant is that it is an
    unseemly -and damned immature- shouting match. 

    The next time people wonder why a woman (who is being 'treated' to the
    supposedly routine rough-n-tumble play in her traditionally male job)
    turns to the courts to lodge a grievance about it, stop before calling
    her an "oh-so-sensitive" type.  Also, refrain from suggesting that she 
    just rough-n-tumble back at the guys.
    
    Then think about the wars (in a literal sense) that would develop if 
    women fought back in kind every time they're rough-n-tumbled at their
    workplaces (especially considering what it costs some men if they
    appear to lose the battle to a woman.)
    
    Meeting in court starts to sound a lot less volatile than such an
    alternative.

    What are you talking about?

    
    > What are you talking about?
    
    Male/Female Division in Public Service (and elswhere.)
    

>    > What are you talking about?
>    
>    Male/Female Division in Public Service (and elswhere.)
    

That fictitious topic, that since there were no facts, was not worth
discussing?

<laying in the weeds to get the last word, which I KNOW I will not... too
 much competition :-)>

    Gentlemen ... never follow a rodent down the rathole.
    
    It only wastes your time and distracts you from the matter at hand.
    
    Now, perhaps we can get back to discussing the matter at hand, while
    ignoring the rodent(s) who poke their heads out every now and then for
    attention.

    re:.0
    
    Any more on this Ken?

    RE: .229  Joe Melvin
    
   >>> What are you talking about?
 
   >>  Male/Female Division in Public Service (and elswhere.)
    
   > That fictitious topic, that since there were no facts, was not worth
   > discussing?
    
    The topic is a bunch of 1's and 0's (which can exist without any
    facts to back them up.)
    
    A person isn't required to have facts to venture opinions on all sorts
    of subjects, but it would be rather silly and downright ignorant for
    anyone to suggest that pointing out the lack of facts is off the topic.
    Such a suggestion would amount to intellectual dishonesty.

    RE: .230  Mike Z.
    
    > Now, perhaps we can get back to discussing the matter at hand, while
    > ignoring the rodent(s) who poke their heads out every now and then for
    > attention.
    
    It's more prudent to watch out for snakes (especially those who live
    in waste water.)  They leave a trail of slime that's beyond disgusting.
    
    [Mike Z.'s gonna whine about this - just watch.]

    The EverReady Bunny of "last words" has spoken.

    
    > the Everready Bunny of " last words" has spoken.
    
    
      Tag :-)
    
    David

Moderator hat on - I am going to delete without notice any more of these
inane "gotcha last!" notes.  I, and I think the rest of the readers, have
had quite enough of them.  Thanks.

				Steve

    Amen.
    
.230> Now, perhaps we can get back to discussing the matter at hand, while
    
    Ken, any more information re: the story in .0?

    Thanks, Steve.
    
    If any facts do become available (at some point) about the situation
    described in the basenote, I'd be interested in seeing them, too.
    

    Getting back to the basenote once again, I'm still intrigued that
    nothing about this has hit the news.  If the situation is really
    happening (especially in both the fire department *and* the police
    department,) it must be very hard to keep it secret.
    
    When/if we ever do get any real facts about the situation, I'd like
    to know how they managed to keep it out of the public eye (via media
    attention) for so long.  It's very strange.
    
    Perhaps it's a new-styled urban legend.  Until we see the first facts
    about this surface, we'll never know.

    	I attempted to get more "factual" information. As I spoke to the
    person who originally told me of the incident I was attempting to see
    if there was a slant to the story. There did not appear to me to be a
    bias.
    
    	The Lt. has served his suspension. A city review found them both
    to be in error. He for the sexual remark, she for insubordination. His
    request for her to resweep was found not to be harassment and was
    justified. They found that her failure to do the job as assigned
    warranted disciplinary action. Past performance and work history were
    not allowed as evidence for either party. They stayed strictly with
    this incident. It was noted that her refusal could lead to termination
    as it occurred prior to the remark of the Lt. They felt her remarks
    were not acceptable for a fire service professional. 
    	They found his remark about being "on the r*g" to be derogatory and
    in poor taste for an officer of the Fire Dept. It was out of line and
    they felt his suspension was warranted.
    
    	They recommended is that she be suspended 10 working days  without
    pay from the department. She has threatened suit over the suspension
    as part of her suit against the city.
    
    	The city has decided to go to court and has placed her on suspension
    without pay until the suit is settled. If she drops the suit, they will
    reinstate her full time and give her back pay for any time lost. If she
    proceeds and loses, they'll terminate her.
    
    	From what I was told, most of the previous damage has been smoothed
    over and things are about as normal as can be expected under the
    circumstances. The person speaking to me says that there is still
    guarded speech in the buildings and that everyone is exceptionally
    cautious in mixed company.
    
    	From what I was told, *I* think that everyone would be happy if the
    lawsuit was dropped and some more damage control could be done. From my
    observation, it appears that most people, male and female are satisfied
    with the review results.
    
    	If I hear anything more, I'll put it in. 
    
    note: I didn't think to ask some important questions like:
    
    Who made up the review board? Were there any women on it? Was it
    empowered to make only recommendations? Are the fire and police
    departments required to implement recommendations? Was it the result of
    a grievance procedure? Just know that it was a review.
    
    Please don't tell me what they "should" have done, "could" have done.
    I'm the messenger.
    
    	Right or wrong, it appears that some people have decided to do
    'something' to remedy the situation and get things back to as normal as
    possible before a police officer, fire employee, or worst of all a
    civilian has to suffer the consequences. I applaud them for taking
    action and hoping that it will go "away".
    
    Ken 

    that should read...."not hoping it will go "away".

    Let me say something else....
    
    I was told alot of other things that I will not place inthe notesfile.
    Much of it was opinion and observation. There has been a lot of trash
    talk and I did ask why this has not been in the paper. Apparently she
    has retained an attorney but no suit has been filed, only threatened. 
    I don't know and the person who told me doesn't know if she is on
    suspension as recommended or suspension pending suit. If she accepted
    the review suspension and shows up for work, I would assume the matter
    has been settled to everyone's satisfaction .......
    
    It may have been in the local papers but my inlaws haven't seen
    anything in the daily paper. 
    
    I'll check on this in a week or so to see what if anything occurs.
    
    I'm really busy and can't stay up with the file......I tried to get
    through some of the replies.....I gave up.

    RE: .241  K. Upton
    
    > The city has decided to go to court and has placed her on suspension
    > without pay until the suit is settled. If she drops the suit, they will
    > reinstate her full time and give her back pay for any time lost. If she
    > proceeds and loses, they'll terminate her.
    
    RE: .243 K. Upton
    
    > I don't know and the person who told me doesn't know if she is on
    > suspension as recommended or suspension pending suit. If she accepted
    > the review suspension and shows up for work, I would assume the matter
    > has been settled to everyone's satisfaction .......
    
    It sounds like your second-hand source has a great deal of confusion
    and uncertainty of his/her own about this situation.
    
    When definite facts are available, it will be interesting to hear them.

    
    I would hope the whole department would bring in a consultant or
    someone who *knows* about the laws and policies of that city in regards
    to sexual harassment (what it is, what it isn't).
    
    I hope this person would come in and ask people to express how they
    feel about the incident, and what it meant to them - what they thought
    should happen as a result, and how they felt when it did or did not
    occur.  I also hope they would clarify to everyone what is and is not
    sexual harassment, how the city or state views it, actions they can
    take if they feel harass, actions that may be viewed as harassing, and
    most of all the vision that we're all in this together.  Also, I would
    hope they would create enough comfort with the topic so that when
    someone feels they are being harassed, they can speak it ("that felt
    like a harassing comment.") without fear, and people can be comfortable
    with one another knowing there is less threat or risk of unwarranted
    charges because all have agreed to discuss it either with one another,
    or with a balanced third party, prior to acting (if at all possible).
    
    -Jody
    

    
    no doubt the radfems can string this out and dissemble until some
    facks more favorable to their side (how dare the evil patriarchs
    reprimand an insubordinate fem) can be located, derived, or, more
    likely, manufactured.
    
    

nah, Robert, some of us radfems find the status quo wonderfully
and old-fashionedly comforting.  Nice to know that we'll never 
lack for neanderthals to rail about.

DougO