Conference quark::mennotes

I read this item in the paper with some interest.  Lest some people here think
that there are parallels to this notes conference, I'll point out some
significant differences:

	1.  MENNOTES is not "men only"
	2.  "Free speech" is not an issue here - this file exists on a network
	    and systems owned and operated by Digital Equipment Corporation
	    and is subject to corporate policies regarding appropriate
	    content and moderator responsibilities.

I would tend to think that point 2 above has a parallel in the college's
system, and wonder how anyone can justify allowing any sort of offensive
remark on the computer system any more than they'd allow it on, say, a poster
slapped on the side of a campus building.

				Steve

    
    
    I could see how it could happen, Steve.  If it is an "anything goes"
    conference, then anything goes although it would seem like one would 
    need a signed contract (saying that they would not sue or would not
    share info) by all members.  There is definitely a liability risk
    although I find it hard to believe that anyone could be sued for
    saying something non-individual specific one says about a group.
    
    Mike

See DIGITAL note 111.

		Steve

Re: .1

>	1.  MENNOTES is not "men only"
>
>	2.  "Free speech" is not an issue here - this file exists on a network
>	    and systems owned and operated by Digital Equipment Corporation
>	    and is subject to corporate policies regarding appropriate
>	    content and moderator responsibilities.

Right on both counts, Steve.

It seems to me that the notes in question probably deserved to be deleted;
they weren't just remarks that some women might find offensive, they were
attacks against two specific women who couldn't even participate in the
conference to defend themselves.  But I think the university over-reacted
by shutting down the conference, and especially by shutting down the
"Women Only" conference as well.  It's like closing both the men's and
women's restrooms even though only the men's has to be cleaned.

				-- Bob

    re:.0
    
    Free speech on college campuses?   ... you've gotta be kidding! 
    
    
            <<< IKE22::NOTE$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V4.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 582.352              Politically Incorrect People                352 of 353
HDLITE::ZARLENGA "Michael Zarlenga, Alpha P/PEG"     12 lines   2-MAY-1993 11:07
                          -< be korrekt ... or else >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From the "oh, Mike, that would never happen" files :
    
    University of Pennsylvania freshman Eden Jacobowitz, 18, has been
    charged with racial harassment under the school's speech codes.
    
    He shouted "shut up, you water buffalo" to 5 black women.
    
    Jacobowitz said "water oxen," to a Jew, is slang for "stupid people."
    
    The 5 black women were yelling and stomping their feet as part of a
    sorority initiation.  It was past midnight, and Jacobowitz, who lives
    on the 6th floor says they were loud enough to wake him.
================================================================================
Note 582.353              Politically Incorrect People                353 of 353
HDLITE::ZARLENGA "Michael Zarlenga, Alpha P/PEG"     11 lines   2-MAY-1993 11:17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Before anyone thinks this isn't a REAL case with a REAL trial and
    REAL consequences ...
    
    Elijan Anderson, a Penn sociologist and authority on African-American
    language and culture has agreed to testify as an expert witness for
    Jacobowitz at his school trial.
    
    Even though Penn officials and experts in black culture agreed that
    "water buffalo" has no history as a racial epithet, the investigators
    felt that any comparison to "a large black animal living in Africa"
    made it racial, so the school is proceeding with the case.

    When you live in a country full of professional victims, where people
    cannot tolerate hearing things that upset their delicate wittle tum-
    tums, you wind up with miscarriages of justice like the case in .0.
    
    It's pathetic that adults in this country, a country with free speech
    guaranteed by the very first amendment to our Constitution, feel the
    need to silence people they do not like to listen to.

    As others have stated, I don't agree with shutting down the bulletin
    boards, but I do see the 'raunchy sexist' comments being worthy of
    deletion.
    
    The bulletin boards require passwords to use them.  I think the
    participants should have been told that such remarks would get
    them kicked out of the bulletin boards (whether written by males
    or females) - then the rule should have been enforced.
    
    I suspect that the school decided to nip all such problems in the
    bud immediately, though.

   If I operated a BBS, then if anybody said anything I didn't like, they'd get
   booted. Sure, maybe it's not the American way, but then again, it's not
   America's BBS, it's MINE.

   If the University owns and operates the BBS, why shouldn't they get to
   moderate what gets said?

   Now we don't know exactly what these guys said about the two women, but
   it sounds like it's more than just their "wittle tumtums" that were getting
   upset. Their reputations and pride were getting damaged as well. And they
   didn't even get a chance to defend themselves.

   - Jim

.7> but I do see the 'raunchy sexist' comments being worthy of deletion.
    
    Ah yes, the new morality.
    
    If you don't like to see or hear it, it's too much to ask to just not
    read it or not listen to it, you actually have to silence it.
    
    I'm an adult, and I'll censor my own lines of input, thank you very
    much.

    Actually, the women weren't ALLOWED to see it or hear it (so they
    couldn't respond or defend themselves from it.)
    
    If children/adults on computer bulletin boards are too immature to
    censor their 'raunchy sexist' comments, then the owners of the BBS
    are entitled to do it for them (and to boot them off the BBS for it,
    if they so choose.)
    
    The notion of 'free speech' doesn't mean that people are required
    to put up with people urinating (figuratively, of course) in their 
    living rooms (or on their BBS's.)

    RE: .9

    > Ah yes, the new morality.

    Morality is not the issue here, the issue is freedom of speech, and its
    limits. The freedom of speech is limited when you enter into a private
    forum. Many rights get limited when you leave the public world. In many
    households, you are not permitted to wear shoes. In most college
    dormitories, you are not permitted to keep a firearm, for any reason,
    regardless of whether you have a permit or not. In DEC notes files, you
    are not permitted to slander people.

    > If you don't like to see or hear it, it's too much to ask to just not
    > read it or not listen to it, you actually have to silence it.
    
    If you moderate a BBS, you don't get the option of not reading everything.

    I think Suzanne's living room analogy summed it all up perfectly.

    - Jim

    
    	Whoever is making the statements has a right to make them within
    the limits of being sued for either libel or slander (they are
    different, and I am not sure if bulletin boards have been classified as
    libel or slander media).
    
    	Whoever is funding the bulletin board (in this case the university)
    has a right to say how their money is spent, and in this case a duty to
    the taxpayer to ensure that it is not spent in pointless libel or
    slander lawsuits.
    
    	Whoever has been libelled (or slandered) has a right to claim
    financial recompense from the above if it can be proven.
    
    	The people who want to publicise 'raunchy sexist' comments have no
    right to expect anyone else to fund their publicity efforts. They can
    buy their own soapbox, print their own leaflets, and even set up their
    own computer bulletin board system.
    
    	Without more details it is impossible to know whether the
    university acted responsibly in avoiding a lawsuit that would  have
    cost public money, or whether they over-reacted to a trivial complaint.

    Actually I, too, have a problem with this "new" morality.  It bothers
    me when those who screech that no one has a "right" to "cram 
    (Christain) morality down anyone's throat" are the  same people 
    that demand that everyone else conform to their PC "standards"
    against "objectionable" language and behavior.

    fred();

    
    If it bothers you for folks to be prohibited from urinating in someone 
    else's living room (in a figurative sense,) it's too bad.
    
    Public is different from private.  
    
    The use of words like "screeching" (or as Mike said earlier, "wittle
    tumtums") doesn't support your position.
    
    If you want someone to urinate in YOUR living room (figuratively,)
    it's fine with me.  You shouldn't be forced to allow it, though,
    and neither should anyone else.

    
    And once again Susanne provides us with a prime example.
    
    fred();

    
    Ok, if you disagree, then I guess you *should* be forced to allow
    someone to urinate in your living room (figuratively.)
    
    Whatever.  :>
    

    
    re .16
    
    Some would consider your little "metaphor" objectionabele.  
    
    fred();

    
    When I hear 'free speech' lately, it often seems to be in the context
    of individuals wanting the 'freedom' to harm others (figuratively) by
    insult or innuendo - while having the legal sanction to do so.
    
    People who resist this (IMO) distortion of the concept of 'free speech'
    are often decried as cultural 'sissies' (with insulting words like
    'screeching,' 'professional victims,' 'wittle tumtums' upset, etc.)
    
    Whomever owns a BBS can restrict the use of 'raunchy sexist' language
    on it (and s/he can shut it down if s/he so chooses.)
    
    I would rather have seen the college (in this topic) promulgate and
    enforce the rules rather than shut it down so quickly, but again, we
    don't know the full story (so it's difficult to know their reasons.)

    RE: .17  Fred
    
    > Some would consider your little "metaphor" objectionable.
    
    Fine.  I wouldn't want you forced to allow a 10 hour lecture on Political
    Science in your living room against your will, either.
    
    Neither would I agree that you should be forced to allow someone to
    use profanity or SING SHOW TUNES in your home against your will.
    

    RE: .10  My understanding is that the conference existed as a response
    to the women wanting a women only conference.  Make up your mind, you
    can't have it both ways.  
    
    
    
    Mike

    re: .10
    
    	But the comments were made in a restricted access conference.  i.e.
    Kids ain't gonna see it or read it, the women themselves won't see it
    or read it, only other people who are in the conversation are going to
    see and read the comments.
        You've been around computers and probably BBSs long enough to know
    that "chatting" in a conference is very much like chatting over the
    telephone or face to face.  What a person says over a phone line
    (unless it is a case of National Security or directed harassment or
    some such) is not going to get their phone taken out of their house. 
    The phone company is not responsible for what is transmitted over their
    medium and certain court cases recently have affirmed that BBSs are not
    responsible for what is transmitted over their media, especially if a
    legal disclaimer is made evident before a person has access to the BBS
    or certain parts of the BBS.
    	All you've really got here is that someone "overheard" a
    conversation on a phone line and went and gossipped to the persons that
    were being talked about. 
    
    George
    
    

    RE: .20  Mike
    
    > My understanding is that the conference existed as a response to
    > the women wanting a women only conference.
    
    It was, however, the male only conference that contained the 'raunchy
    sexist' comments (and BOTH conferences were shut down because of these
    comments.)
    
    > Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways.
    
    The rules should apply to both conferences (like I said.)

    RE: .21  George
    
    The comments were passed along to the 'owners' of the BBS, who shut
    both BBSs down after some investigation.
    
    If someone is doing something in my house while I'm at work and I hear
    about it, I could very well decide to put a stop to it (even if someone
    else had to tell me it was happening.)

    
    
    Suzanne, 
    
    
    I'll bet you dollars to donuts that there were some pretty diparaging
    remarks against men in the womans conference.  No, it can't be proven
    but I have heard women say things like all men should be catrated and
    I'd like to **** him, etc.  
    
    
    Mike

    
    Well, both conferences were shut down, in any case.
    
    The rules (and availability) should apply to both.
    
    Like I said.
    

    
    
    It seems that the problem is that the rules (as far as what's
    acceptable) have not been defined sufficiently.  And the rules were
    violated by the guy who gave the gals access.  I agree with your
    premise however.
    
    
    
    Mike

    
    Thanks, Mike W.
    

    re:.11
    
    You're free to believe in the tooth fairy, too, Jim.

    
    	Surely this *men only* conference was there so that men could
        communicate with each other *without* offending women. That is to 
    	say we all think (at some stage) the type of things that these guys put in 
    	writing and maybe we would all like to talk to somebody about them.
    	The board was there so that they could express their feeling (to men) on 
    	issues and possibly get responses which would either confirm or rebuke their 
    	sentiments. It was up to the guy ,who let the women see the note, to confront
    	the noters and defend his *friends* i.e inform the noters of their
    	true character etc...!
        Taking this back to the "Pissing in the Parlour" scenario mentioned
    	earlier on. If somebody decides to take a leak in your living room
    	and they were under the impression that it was acceptable to do so,
    	well then all you can do is to change the rules and tell them that
    	this form of behaviour is unacceptable and ask them not to do it
    	again or else leave the rules as they were, put up with the
    	stink and rember that after all you too may be short taken in the 
    	future and may wish to relieve yourself. Either way, you don't
    	close down your house to all of your other friends.
        Anyway who said that there was a category into which this bullitin board had
    	to be placed ? Rooms are designed  differently in every house and maybe 
    	this living room had an En Suite !
    
    	Why don't the women in question just sue for slander and why didn't
    	their male friends just defend their characters in the notes file?
    	It seems obvious that there is a lot more to this than meets the
    	eye. Maybe they are not as untarnished as they claim to be, and
    	maybe the noters opinions are well founded ?
    
	As for me, I would never enter a contreversial note at all :-)    	
    
    	Peter

    re: .23
    
    	No, the comments were passed on to the women who then passed it on
    to the PC person in charge of dealing with sexual harassment.  This
    person had no connection to the BBS, which you will see if you read the
    article again.
    	Again, this is basically a case of someone gossiping and adding the
    buzzwords of "sexual harassment" where none actually exists.  Nothing
    was said to the women by the men who made the comment, the men did not
    make the comments with any intention of having the women hear them, and
    the men, as far as we know, have not been lewdly staring at the women
    or approaching them in a menacing fashion in the halls.
    
    George
    

    
    
    Criminey Suzanne, maybe we should alert the media. :')
    
    
    
    Mike

The more I hear about this situation (though I suspect that not a lot of
hard information is coming through), the more I see the parallels to what
happened here at Digital in 1986.  MORTAL::DIGITAL note 111 contains the
story.

				Steve

    RE: .30  George
    
    As I said, the comments were passed along (from the women to Jim Mitchell
    first and THEN) to the 'campus officials [the owners of the BBS],' who 
    shut both BBSs down after some investigation:
    
    	.0> After an initial investigation, campus officials suspended
    	.0> indefinitely the "Men Only" conference.  To avoid accusations
    	.0> of gender bias, they also shut down the bulletin board's
    	.0> "Women Only" conference.
    
    > Again, this is basically a case of someone gossiping and adding the
    > buzzwords of "sexual harassment" where none actually exists.
    
    Reporting a crime or misdeed is hardly gossip.  As for the 'raunchy
    sexist' comments, you can't say that NO sexual harassment existed
    without knowing what was said.
    
    > Nothing was said to the women by the men who made the comment, the
    > men did not make the comments with any intention of having the women
    > hear them...
    
    Well, 'slander' and 'libel' are not legal when done behind a person's
    back, George.  If someone were making lewd and/or 'raunchy sexist'
    comments about another employee behind the person's back, I doubt that
    Digital would excuse it with 'well, it's ok if she didn't hear them.'

    A woman at the checkout counter called me "sweetheart" this morning.
    Think I could sue the store chain for a couple mil. and hit the 
    talk show circuit for about $5k per speech?  Hey Yea!  That's it!
    Call the lawyers,  put up picket signed around the store, call the
    talk shows, call Anita Hill for a list of groups I can give speeches
    to for $5000 per hr.

    fred();

    RE: .29
    

    > Why don't the women in question just sue for slander and why didn't
    > their male friends just defend their characters in the notes file?
    
    We don't know what was said (about the women OR in response to the
    men's comments.)
    
    > It seems obvious that there is a lot more to this than meets the
    > eye. Maybe they are not as untarnished as they claim to be, and
    > maybe the noters opinions are well founded ?
    
    Do you think 'raunchy sexist' comments (opinions) are best judged by
    whether or not the women deserved them (in someone's opinion)? 
    
    I don't.

    As Susanne says, you can't make judgments without knowing just what
    was said.  Although she seems perfectly willing to do so.

    However, judging from some of the stuff I've seen in this very
    conference, I'd pay good money for a peek at what was in the
    *women's only* file.

    fred();

    
    
    I guess the real question is, were the comments woman specific (so and
    so is a whore) or women generic (all women are whores).  I cannot see
    any kind of suit being brought in the generic example but I can in the
    first one.
    
    
    
    Mike

What's a 'raunchy sexist' comment ? Can anybody provide an example to help
my understanding ?

- Paul, suffering from a 'raunchy sexy' cultural difference :-)

Re: .38

If anyone does, it will be gone as soon as I find out about it.

		Steve - co-moderator

    RE: .36  Fred
    
    > As Susanne says, you can't make judgments without knowing just what
    > was said.  Although she seems perfectly willing to do so.
    
    We can discuss whether or not the owners of a 'BBS' should be allowed
    to limit the expression of 'raunchy sexist' comments on their BBS
    or if such things should be a matter of free speech.
    
    (By the way, even the counselor who vigorously defended the students'
    'raunchy sexist' comments admitted they were pretty bad.  In fact,
    he was quoted as being "absolutely revolted.")

    RE: .37  Mike W.

    > I guess the real question is, were the comments woman specific...

    The article says they were quite specific about the two women.

    (By the way, 'raunchy sexist' comments are not necessarily comments
    about their characters.  Such comments could include assessments of
    the women's body parts, etc.)

    re .34, I don't think so, Fred.  "Sweetheart" is not a "raunchy sexist"
    comment.  I don't know what the men said in the bulletin, but I doubt
    very much they called the women sweethearts.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re .42
    
>    re .34, I don't think so, Fred.  "Sweetheart" is not a "raunchy sexist"
>    comment.  I don't know what the men said in the bulletin, but I doubt
>    very much they called the women sweethearts.
    
    Yes, but according to Anita Hill and Co if **I** think I was being
    sexually harassed, that's all that counts.  
    
    fred();

    RE: .43  Fred
    
    > Yes, but according to Anita Hill and Co if **I** think I was being
    > sexually harassed, that's all that counts.  
    
    What does this have to do with the owner of a BBS having the right
    to limit 'raunchy sexist' comments in conferences?  

    
    re .44
    
>    What does this have to do with the owner of a BBS having the right
>    to limit 'raunchy sexist' comments in conferences?  
    
    It has to do with I'd pay good money for a peek at the *women
    only* side of that same BBS.
    
    But then even the posting the names of all the males on campus as 
    "potential rapists" like they did at that college back east isn't 
    harassment, it's just "political commentary", isn't it?
    
    fred();

    RE: .45  Fred
    
    >> What does this have to do with the owner of a BBS having the right
    >> to limit 'raunchy sexist' comments in conferences?
    
    > It has to do with I'd pay good money for a peek at the *women
    > only* side of that same BBS.
    
    The women only conference was also shut down (whether they wrote 
    'raunchy sexist' comments or not.)
    
    If the owner of the BBS limits 'raunchy sexist' comments, the rule
    must apply to both conferences (and it does.)  So where's the
    double standard?
    
    > But then even the posting the names of all the males on campus as 
    > "potential rapists" like they did at that college back east isn't 
    > harassment, it's just "political commentary", isn't it?
    
    What do any of your claims (stereotypical or otherwise) have to do with 
    whether or not a BBS owner should be forced to allow 'raunchy sexist' 
    comments by males or females in notes conferences?

    
    Thanks again Susanne for proving my point.
    
    fred();

    RE: .47  Fred
    
    > Thanks again Susanne for proving my point.
    
    You forgot to stick out your tongue at me, Fred.
    
    If you ever figure out how any of your vague accusations against women
    make a case for whether or not the owners of a BBS should be able to
    limit 'raunchy sexist' comments (from men OR women) on it, let me know.
    

.34> A woman at the checkout counter called me "sweetheart" this morning.
.34> Think I could sue the store chain for a couple mil. and hit the 

    Hey, fred(), a comment like that could have lasting repercussions!

    You should sue immediately for a few hundred thou and then go into some
    psychotherapy to help you deal with the emotional trauma.
    
    While you're at it, let's shut down that grocery store.  No sense let-
    ting that menace to men stay open.

.36> As Susanne says, you can't make judgments without knowing just what
.36> was said.  Although she seems perfectly willing to do so.
    
    She did the same thing in WN a few days ago.
    
    Started telling a noter than he couldn't possibly know who had posted
    a female-symbol sign on a church.  Of course, this was less than 1 day
    after she accused anti-feminists of doing it!

.42> re .34, I don't think so, Fred.  "Sweetheart" is not a "raunchy sexist"
.42> comment.  I don't know what the men said in the bulletin, but I doubt
    
    Yah, RIGHT!  Just let some guy at DEC call some woman at DEC "sweet
    heart" ... TAKE COVER!!!!  you can count the days on one hand until
    the time he's dragged into personnel for "re-education."

    re .43
    
    Fred,
    
    You are correct in that the interpretation of harrasment is in
    the mind of the person who is being harrassed.  If you felt that
    being called a Sweetheart was harrassment then you would have to
    prove it under the legal definition of harrassment.   My understanding
    of the legal defition of this can be anything as simple as unwelcome
    comments.  It's all so subjective.  The sad part is that the folks
    who actually get to decide the outcomes are not completely sure of
    what the definition means either which is IMO why Anita Hill was
    not given justice.  
    
    Michele

    RE: .50
    
    Mike Z.'s talking about a sarcastic comment I made in response to
    someone else's accusations.  The note was deleted (along with almost
    everything else written in that topic over the weekend.)
    
    (If the owner of the BBS *is* allowed to limit 'raunchy sexist'
    comments in his conferences, I'll be taking *a lot* more criticism
    from Fred and Mike Z. about it for the next few months/years.)  :>

    
    Thanks again to Mike W. (and Bob Messenger, Steve Lionel and anyone
    else I missed) for the interesting discussion.
    
    (I'll try to keep an eye on the topic in case the basenote issue
    ever comes back.)
    

    re.51
    
    Take cover?
    
    Gracious my goodness!
    
    In my nearly 10 years at DEC [now Digital] any number of men have
    called me 'sweetheart', 'honey', 'dear'.
    
    To my knowledge none of these men has been dragged off for
    're-education' as a result.
    
    I find it distasteful in the extreme to be called by these terms of
    endearment; hence, at an appropriate moment, I've asked men who so call
    me to cut it out.
    
    If they don't, I tend to return the favour.
    
      Annie

    re .52
    
    If you want to heep a little of the "injustice" of the kind of 
    $$$$ Anita is making off this farce, it'd be just hunky-dory
    with me %^}.
    
    fred();

    RE: .56  Annie

    > Take cover?
    > Gracious my goodness!

    Yeah, I got a good chuckle out of it, too.  :>

    > In my nearly 10 years at DEC [now Digital] any number of men have
    > called me 'sweetheart', 'honey', 'dear'.

    Customers call us that, too, sometimes.

    I remember (years ago) a man I knew from another group at Digital
    kept telling me he liked the term "FEM TECH" (for technical women
    in his/my group.)  I told him I disliked it, but he didn't stop
    using it until I said, "It sounds like a good name for a feminine
    hygiene product."

    He never said it again.  :>

    The BBS operators are actually in a fair amount of potential doo-doo
    here,.
    
    If they had taken it into their purview to limit "raunchy sexist"
    comments by establishing rules, then they themselves should have been
    policing the men-only and women-only streams to discover and deal with
    such comments.  In fact it was only due to the indiscretion of a male
    that the so-called comments became known to the operators.  They were
    at the very least derelict in their duty and should be charged with
    contributory negligence if any action of any sort is brought by anyone.
    
    If, on the other hand, they are merely reacting after the fact in
    response to negative publicity, then they in fact had no anti-"raunchy,
    sexist" policy, and their having shut down the BBS for something that
    was permitted under the established rules is potentially a direct
    violation of the First Amendment.

    Once a BBS is opened, is the owner forced to keep it open (under
    threat of a First Amendment violation?)
    

    
    RE: .52 Anita Hill got the justice she wanted (the $10k speaking
    engagements).  She was nothing but a low down liar.  Why didn't she
    bring up the "harrassment" before?
    
    
    
    Mike

    
    RE: .56  Don't ever move south then.  It's a common term down in dixie.
    
    
    
    Mike

    RE: .61  Mike W.
    
    Quite a few people believe that Anita Hill told the truth (about
    the things Clarence Thomas said to her.)
    

    re .63

    Yea, enough to pay her $10K per speaking engagement to preach to the
    choir.  What's that P.T. Barnum said about one being born every minute?

    fred();

    
    So does that make him guilty Suzanne?  Many people believed Clarence
    Thomas as well.
    
    
    It is a rathole though, you are right there.
    
    
    
    Mike

    Fred -
    
    If my SO had a chance to see Ronald Reagen speak, he'd probably pay
    big $$$ for the chance (*because* he agrees wholeheartedly with almost
    everything Reagen says.)  People pay to see the people they want to
    see (it doesn't make anyone a sucker for it.)
    
    Mike W. - believing Clarence Thomas doesn't make Anita Hill guilty
    of lying, either.  It just means that others disagree about who was
    telling the truth.  
    

    
    P.S.  My SO would also want to see Ronald Reagan for the historical
    significance of the man (which is why a lot of folks probably want
    to see people like Anita Hill, Oliver North, etc.)
    

    re.62
    
    It's common is the South, as I have reason to know.  I lived 13 years
    in Texas and my parents are resident in Wilmington, NC.
    
    In fact it is very 'common.'
    
    If I avoided the 'common' I'd have to live in a bloody tree.
    
    By the same token, I found _most_ of the people in the South receptive
    to being asked not to call me by something that I found distasteful. 
    Perhaps they thought I was a bit odd, but they were obliging.
    
    In addition, the southern gentleman to whom I'm married doesn't take
    kindly to others using terms of endearment when speaking to me unless
    an appropriate context exists. The short list of appropriate contexts
    doesn't include any of my workplace relationships [this is, of course,
    orthogonal to my own objection; but it's there.]
    
      Annie

    
    re .68
    
    Hmmmmm, let's see.  The historical significance of Anita Hill is
    
    
    
    is
    
    
    ah yes!  She tried to destroy a mans career over something that
    supposedly happend several years ago that he hadn't bothered to 
    mention before and without a shred of evidence to back up her
    accussation.
    
    fred();

    
    
    Suzanne,
    
    Well the timing of her coming out with the inf makes me a bit
    suspicious.
    
    
    RE: The notefiles-Since the comments were persons specific, they should
    have been deleted.  Especially since the people who were commented on
    didn't have access (supposedly) to refute the comments.
    
    
    Mike

    
    Fred, obviously, the people who believe Anita Hill (and who pay to
    see her) have a different perspective of her historical significance
    than you do.  :>
    
    
    Mike W. - again, people disagree about who to believe (and why.)
    
    (I agree that the notes about the specific persons should have
    been deleted.  I still don't think they should have shut down
    the whole BBS at Santa Rosa, but that's my opinion.)

    Who/what is Anita Hill? Is she one of those people like Oprah Winfrey?

Hill actually reported her allegations to the Senate several months earlier
when Thomas was first nominated, but the committee to whom she reported them
decided to keep quiet about it.  It was only when news reporters found out
about the allegations as the hearings were about to begin, did they become
public knowledge.

				Steve

  The committee "decided to keep quiet about it" because of the lack of facts 
and because Ms. Hill claimed to be unwilling to testify. The "news reporters 
found out about the allegations" when senator Metzenbaum's staff leaked the 
allegations (which he had dug for).

	Sure, the story initially broke in July of 1991.
	Susan Hoerchner, a friend of Hills, was responsible
	for the breaking of the story and was the first person
	to make the link between sexual Harrassment and Thomas.
	Unfortunately, Hoerchner's recollections are less than solid,
	her credibility extremely suspect.

	In her testimony to the Juduciary Commitee, Hill stated
	that the alleged incident of harassment began in late December
	1981 or January of 1982. She stated that she began working
	for Thomas in the fall of 1981.

	Now consider Hoerchner's deposition with respect to the 
	phone call she had with Hill where the harassment was first mentioned.
	
	Q. And, in an attempt to try to pin down the date a little
	   bit more specifically as to your first phone conversation
	   about the sexual harrassment issue in 1981, the year you mentioned,
	   you said the first time you moved out of Washington was Sept.
	   of 1981; is that correct?
	A. Right.
	Q. Okay. Were you living in Washington at the time you two
	   had this conversation?
	A. Yes.
	Q. When she told you?
	A. Yes.

	Hoerchner's staff deposition also stated that Hoerchner
	told interviewers that the call in which Hill said she
	was  being sexually harrassed occurred before Sept. 1981.
	
	----------------------------------------------------------------------

	Now a little background on Hoerchner and her credibility.
	Hoerchner herself had brought a charge of sexual harrassment against
	a fellow workmans compensation judge - a man in his 60's -
	in Norwalk, California. The judge resigned during the ensuing
	publicity. Yet Hoerchner had this to say, on the record,
	when asked about it by Sen. Alan Simspon.

	Q. Judge Hoerchner, I asked you if you had ever filed a charge
	   of sexual harrassment. I don't think you had indicated to me
	   that you had.
	A. That's correct.

	At this point, Simpson produced a record of the charge.

	---------------------------------------------------------------------
	
	Quite frankly, there's too much to enter here. I'd suggest
	anyone interested obtain a copy of David Brocks book on
	the subject (just released) or obtain a copy of the 
	American Spectator March 1992 issue.

	What I've tried to show above is that the person who broke
	the story, Judge Hoerchner, stated that the initial phone
	call on sexual harrassment took place prior to Anita Hills
	statements on when the incidents took place. And, according to
	the record, Judge Hoerchner has a severe credibility problem
	as shown by her exchange with Sen. Simpson. If anything,
	

	

    Memories of the exact dates of things are often difficult to pin down
    (especially 10 years later.)
    
    My car was broken into a couple of years ago (1991) and while I can
    remember many precise details of the discovery of the crime (and the
    message I sent to my co-workers while I waited for the police, and
    the conversation I had with the police officer) - I can't remember
    the date it happened.
    
    I can't even remember the season of the year (if it was cold or hot
    outside.)  My car was parked in an apartment building's indoor garage.
    
    The only way I can (roughly) pick the time of year that it happened
    is via another memory I have.  In December of 1991, I finally replaced
    the car radio (and I remember telling someone, "I can't believe I went
    9 months without having a radio in my car!")
    
    If I were to testify that the theft occurred in March (9 months prior
    to December) and someone produced a police report showing that it 
    happened in late February - or possibly May (since I might have said
    "It's been 7 months!" instead of "9 months!") - does that mean my
    radio wasn't really stolen?
    
    The console of my (former) car is still broken from the theft, although
    it doesn't show without close inspection.
    
    Perhaps I only imagined I had a radio (or a non-broken console) - or
    a car.  If my co-workers confirm the message about waiting for the
    police but can't remember when I sent it, perhaps it never happened
    either....  Gee.
    
    If Anita Hill (and her friend) had been able to remember exact details
    and dates from 10 years earlier, I probably would have been suspicious
    about it.  I've asked several people I know (including some folks who
    do NOT believe Hill's testimony) how much they remember about the dates
    and circumstances of various phone calls 10 years ago, and they usually
    come up pretty dry.
    
    I believed Anita Hill (and still do.)  A lot of people believe her.

    By the way, I do remember the birthdays of my Junior High boyfriend
    and my favorite boyfriend in High School (whom I started dating when
    I was 14.)
    
    	August 6th (Jeff!)
    
    	February 7th (Buddy!)
    

    re .70
    
    Fred,
    
    You happen to think Anita Hill was not telling the truth.
    Others of us think she was telling the truth.  In reality,
    that case means nothing other than to reiterate the fact that
    many US govt officials are not qualified to do the jobs they
    are doing.  So what else is new???  I don't see Anita Hill
    as "the Hero" as you called her.  I see her as just another
    citizen who was not allowed equal protection under the law.
    Let me ask you a question though.  If that woman had not been
    Anita Hill and in fact had been your mother or wife or daughter,
    would you feel differently about how she was treated by all of
    the parties doing the investigating?  
    
    Michele

    Anita Hill was able to handle the Confirmation Hearings without yelling
    at the Senators (and claiming she was being lynched - or raped - by
    the way they questioned her.)  She remained calm and professional
    throughout.
    
    Clarence Thomas, of course, was unable to handle the situation.
    He came unglued in the hearings.
    
    (As a man, though, his emotional outburst on national tv was ok.
    It was just 'righteous indignation,' or whatever.  She'll still
    be called the 'blubbering' one, even though she remained rock solid
    calm during the hearings.)

    re .80

>    Let me ask you a question though.  If that woman had not been
>    Anita Hill and in fact had been your mother or wife or daughter,
>    would you feel differently about how she was treated by all of
>    the parties doing the investigating?  

    If it were my mother or wife or daughter I would have a lot better
    knowledge of their credibility.  Actually my wife thought Anita
    Hill was a whimp.  Unable to handle the situation without running
    blubbering to the NOW.  Especially ten years after the fact.

    I pity the man who tries to sexually harass my wife %^).  She used
    to work at a convenience store where they started getting some of
    "those" calls.  The caller asked if she would perform certain
    sexual acts.  Her response was, "Yes, but if this is the way you
    have to get your jollies, I doubt if you have enough to fool with".
    After that if he called and she'd answer, he'd immediately hang up.
    I got to be a joke among the other women if he'd call they would
    yell, "XXXX it's for you".  He'd hang up.  Didn't take long for
    him to stop bothering.

    On a similar note. My wife's cousin worked for the same store
    chain.  A "flasher" came in one day and opened up and laid his
    schlong out on the counter and asked,  "There what do you think
    of that"?  There was a can of vegetables setting on the counter,
    and she just casually picked the can up and hammered him with it
    %^}.  The cops picked him up about a half a block away where
    he collapsed.

    fred();

    Calrence Thomas was right.  They were trying to try and convict him
    on Anita Hills questionable accusation alone.

    The whole hearing thing was simply a slimy political ploy to smear
    a man whose political views they didn't like on the Supreme Court.
    As far as Anita Hill's "heroism",  She was going to keep quiet until
    she was dragged into the limelight.

    fred();

    Like I said - it was ok for Clarence Thomas to have an emotional
    outburst on national tv (in the Confirmation Hearings.)
    
    Calm Anita Hill is the one being accused of 'blubbering,' even though
    she was the calm one.  Funny how that works.
    
    By the way, the Senators treated Clarence Thomas with kid gloves
    during the questioning - he didn't get the harsh, tough questions
    AT ALL, not even from the Democrats.  Anita Hill, on the other 
    hand, was basically accused by the Republican Senators of not being
    able to distinguish fantasy from reality.  
    
    It was this treatment (at the hands of a row of all male faces) that
    provided an unforgettable image to many women and men in this country
    about the way women are treated in general in our society.
    
    Others' mileage may vary, of course.

    Hell, in retrospect, I still find Hill's testimony credible.
    
    One the other hand, it doesn't matter now.  Thomas has lived up to my
    worst expectations as a Justice -- he's voted with Scalia on nearly
    every vote since confirmation...in ways that even Rhenquist didn't
    vote.  Terrific.  A Scalia clone. JUst what I always wanted to see on
    the Court.
    
    Daniel

>    Like I said - it was ok for Clarence Thomas to have an emotional
>    outburst on national tv (in the Confirmation Hearings.)

    No, it was a cold calculated attempt to smear a man on the basis
    of accusation only.

>    Calm Anita Hill is the one being accused of 'blubbering,' even though
>    she was the calm one.  Funny how that works.

    So guilt or innocence is determined on who remains calm and who gets
    "outraged"?  I could apply that to a few other situations.

>    By the way, the Senators treated Clarence Thomas with kid gloves
>    during the questioning - he didn't get the harsh, tough questions
>    AT ALL, not even from the Democrats.

    If you lynch a man with kid gloves,  he's still lynched.  The
    accusation alone was bad enough.  It's called C.Y.A. after they
    found out the lynching wasn't going to be as easy as they thought.

>  Anita Hill, on the other 
>    hand, was basically accused by the Republican Senators of not being
>    able to distinguish fantasy from reality.  

    In order to retain any credibility at all, they had to.  What should
    they have done?  Scatter rose petals in the path of the conquering
    heroin?

    fred();

    
    re .87
    
    Like I said.  The real issue was not the soiled virtue of Anita Hill.
    It was the desparate attempt at sliming of Clarence Thomas to keep him 
    off the Court.  They were going to let the whole Anita Hill thing drop
    until they found out that that was the only slime they could dredge up
    to smear him with.
    
    fred()

    Maybe the "cold, calculated" attempt to smear Thomas was based on fact
    that could be used to political advantage.  It's happened, you know. 
    The winners write the history, so Hill was a liar.
    
    Maybe the "kid-glove" treatment of Thomas and the rough, inquisitorial
    stance used with Hill were part of a cold, calculated (and ultimately
    successful) attempt to ensure that a woman's voice would not discredit
    a SC candidate whom the obviously sexist male senators wanted very
    badly to confirm.  No, that's just not possible, is it...?

    
    Anita Hill was a conservative Republican (like Clarence Thomas) when
    all this happened.  She didn't have a political agenda to keep him
    off the court.
    
    She believed (as I do) that his actions were enough to warrant another
    look at the appropriateness of his appointment to the Supreme Court.
    
    It was inexcusable for the Republican Senators to treat her as if the
    functions of her brain were suspect because she was a woman who dared
    to report that a man made inappropriate sexual comments at the office
    where they worked.  They reacted as if they were incapable of believing
    that such a thing could *possibly* have happened.

    
    re .91
    
>    Anita Hill was a conservative Republican (like Clarence Thomas) when
>    all this happened.  She didn't have a political agenda to keep him
>    off the court.
    
    >She believed (as I do) that his actions were enough to warrant another
    >look at the appropriateness of his appointment to the Supreme Court.
    
    It was not Anita's agenda.  Anita was going to let it drop.  It was
    the agenda of the liberal Democrats to keep Clarence Thomas off the
    court.  Anita was just the only tool they had left to do that.
    
>    It was inexcusable for the Republican Senators to treat her as if the
>    functions of her brain were suspect because she was a woman who dared
>    to report that a man made inappropriate sexual comments at the office
>    where they worked
    
    Anita Hill was the pawn of the liberals.  She got treated the way
    she did becuse, at that point, it was the only way to counteract
    the slimy actions of Ted K and co.
    
    fred();

    	I can't wait until Billary names his nominee for the court. I
    wouldn't be surprised if he nominated his wife......
    
    	When his selection gets in front of the Judiciary Committee, it'll
    be interesting to see how much poo floats to the top.
    
    	Watch the demmies do the jitterbug this time...
    
    Ken

Re: .93

I saw a delightful editorial cartoon the other week, which had Clinton
saying "I nominate for the Supreme Court.... Anita Hill!"

				Steve

 Biden will have greased the skids by then, don't worry.

    re .83
    
    Fred,
    
    How can you make an informed judgement on both Hill and Thomas
    seeing that you are just as far removed from their personal lives
    as all of us are?  Mind you, I'm not saying that your opinion is
    not valid.  I just question how your came to your judgement
    decisions based on only the knowledge we all got from the media.
    I don't know Anita Hill personally,but feel she was not lying
    based on my own instinct.  What right do any of us to question
    her credibility without actually knowing her personally?    
    
    In a way none of us or the folks who investigated are qualified
    to decide which one of them was telling the truth or even if
    the truth was being told at all.  None of us is trained in that
    field or in the legalities of it all.  Plus none of us have
    intimate personal knowledge of either parties involved.  
    
    
    I do agree with you though that they were trying to convict him 
    on Anita Hills questionable accusation alone.  Merely because
    the politicos who wanted him not to be cofirmed were looking for
    any reason they could to make it not happen.  I also agree
    that it was a slimy political ploy to smear a man whose
    political views were not liked by many.  Remember though that it
    was the politicians that started the whole thing.  Neither Hill
    or Thomas were the ones who came out with this.  It was only after
    she was told she had to testify that she did.  
    
    >As far as Anita Hill's "heroism", She was going to keep quiet
    until she was dragged into the limelight.  Which was exactly what
    happened.  I can understand her not wanting to bring this out as
    it would affect her life once again in a negative manner which she
    didnt need nor want.   I can also understand her not wanting to
    make an issue of it due to the response she got from the hearings.
    Myself, I wouldnt have gone through the bs either.  Its just not
    worth being dragged through the mud only to have folks come to the
    conclusion that you were lying anyways.  What's the point?  You
    said it, the only reason she did it was cause she was dragged into
    it.  Not because she wanted to!!  Major difference.
    
    
    Michele

    RE: .88  Fred
    
    > So guilt or innocence is determined on who remains calm and who gets
    > "outraged"?  I could apply that to a few other situations.
    
    Nope.  It's just funny how the woman gets accused of 'blubbering'
    (and the man doesn't!) even though she remained calm and he had
    the emotional outburst.
    
    >> Anita Hill, on the other 
    >> hand, was basically accused by the Republican Senators of not being
    >> able to distinguish fantasy from reality.  

    > In order to retain any credibility at all, they had to.  What should
    > they have done?  Scatter rose petals in the path of the conquering
    > heroin?
    
    They could have refrained from acting like bigots in front of the
    whole country.  They didn't have to accept her word, but accusing
    her of being mentally defective because of her accusations was the
    act of exceptionally small-minded bigots, IMO.

    
    Michele,
    
    	As mentioned in my only note. .77 the article or book by David
    Brock are well worth looking into. 
    
    	I'll be honest. During the hearings I was never quite sure
    about either person and I think I only entered a single note
    in the box about my opinion. But the Brock article really
    surprised me. His research, on this at least, I thought was
    impressive and when I was done, I found it a lot easier
    to come to my final conclusion.
    
    		Anyhow, adios as I don't enjoy this forum that much.
    
    						regards
    
    							Hank

    re .96

    Big difference.   Apparently Anita hill herself didn't think it was
    that big a deal,  and apparently neither did the committee until
    they discover that that was the only slime they had available.

    Anita got treated the way she did not because of anything that
    she or Clarence Thomas did.  She got treated the way she did 
    because she got caught in the nutcracker of politics.

    What never ceases to amaze me is how the feminists scream they
    "only want to be equal".  Then all this b**ing and moaning
    about how the committee didn't make nice to Anita.  I'm sure
    Anita is not the only female, or male for that matter,  to be
    raked over the coals by a Senate committee.  If you wanted to
    see some softballs being thrown, you should have watched the
    confirmation hearings on some of Clinton's appointees.

    fred();

    RE: .92  Fred
    
    > It was not Anita's agenda.  Anita was going to let it drop. 
    
    Wait, you said (in .70): "She tried to destroy a mans career..."
    Do you take this back now?
    
    > Anita Hill was the pawn of the liberals.  
    
    So now she's not this awful liar who tried to ruin a man's career,
    eh?  She's just a pawn?  (So the stereotype of 'evil woman' has been
    switched to 'stupid woman,' eh?  :>)
    
    > She got treated the way
    > she did becuse, at that point, it was the only way to counteract
    > the slimy actions of Ted K and co.
    
    So they accused Anita Hill of not knowing the difference between
    fantasy and reality as a way to hurt Teddie, eh?  (Now that's funny!)

    RE: .100  Fred
    
    > What never ceases to amaze me is how the feminists scream they
    > "only want to be equal".  Then all this b**ing and moaning
    > about how the committee didn't make nice to Anita.  I'm sure
    > Anita is not the only female, or male for that matter,  to be
    > raked over the coals by a Senate committee. 
    
    Clarence Thomas wasn't accused of not being able to distinguish
    fantasy from reality.  Anita Hill was.
    
    It would have been 'equal' if they'd both been given the same level
    of respect at the hearings.  
    
    They weren't.

    
    re .101
    
>    Wait, you said (in .70): "She tried to destroy a mans career..."
>    Do you take this back now?
    
    No, because once she was in it, she played the part for all it was
    worth.
    
>    So they accused Anita Hill of not knowing the difference between
>    fantasy and reality as a way to hurt Teddie, eh?  (Now that's funny!)
    
    Now you're catching on.
    
    fred();

Is this the Thomas-Hill note or the Santa Rosa BB note?  How about spinning off
the Thomas-Hill stuff so I can next-unseen it?

    RE: .103  Fred
    
    >> Wait, you said (in .70): "She tried to destroy a mans career..."
    >> Do you take this back now?
    
    > No, because once she was in it, she played the part for all it was
    > worth.
    
    Fred, watch out:  Your stereotypes about women are starting to bump
    into (and contradict) each other.
    
    >> So they accused Anita Hill of not knowing the difference between
    >> fantasy and reality as a way to hurt Teddie, eh?  (Now that's funny!)
    
    > Now you're catching on.
    
    So the small-minded bigots are even more dishonest than I'd realized?
    (I'm still trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.)

    re .102

>    Clarence Thomas wasn't accused of not being able to distinguish
>    fantasy from reality.  Anita Hill was.

    I think the slimy tactics of the committee to start with was 
    plenty.  I don't think they expected Clarence Thomas to fight
    back instead of just tucking his tail between his legs and
    slinking away.  Clarence put them in a bad spot when he brought
    race into the picture and brought up the racial metaphor of 
    "lynching".  A white man probably would not have survived the accusation. 
    (No racial slur intended,  just a statement of fact.  A white man
    wouldn't have been able to use that weapon).

    fred();

    
    
    reply .105
    
>    So the small-minded bigots are even more dishonest than I'd realized?
>    (I'm still trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.)

    Now it's your sterotypes that are showing.  Depends on which members
    of the committee you are talking about, thought, I guess.
    
    fred();
    

    They're all slime.  It's just that the ones who worked within the
    old-boy network won again.  Why am I not surprised?
    
    I'm outta the Thomas/Hill string.  This *used to be* the Santa Rosa BBS
    string.

    RE: .106  Fred
    
    >> Clarence Thomas wasn't accused of not being able to distinguish
    >> fantasy from reality.  Anita Hill was.

    > I think the slimy tactics of the committee to start with was 
    > plenty.
    
    It still isn't 'equality' to accuse one person of being (essentially)
    mentally defective while using kid gloves on the other.
    
    > I don't think they expected Clarence Thomas to fight
    > back instead of just tucking his tail between his legs and
    > slinking away.  Clarence put them in a bad spot when he brought
    > race into the picture and brought up the racial metaphor of 
    > "lynching". 
    
    Clarence Thomas put HIMSELF in a bad spot by bring up race.
    He'd made a big name for himself in conservative circles by
    never making 'race' an issue.  The first time he found himself
    in a tough spot, though, he brought it up BIG TIME.
    
    Anita Hill, meanwhile, didn't accuse the committee of 'raping
    her,' so she did NOT use either her race *or* her sex to make
    the committee feel guilty for questioning her.
    
    Anita Hill was more faithful to Hill's and Thomas's conservative
    convictions than he was, that's for sure.
    
    > A white man probably would not have survived the accusation. 
    > (No racial slur intended,  just a statement of fact.  A white man
    > wouldn't have been able to use that weapon).
    
    See, even YOU see the hypocrisy of a *conservative* Clarence Thomas
    using 'race' in a way regarded by conservatives as a WEAPON (read:
    unfair advantage over white men.)
    
    Personally, I don't think the outcome would have been any different.
    A white woman could be accused of not being able to distinguish
    fantasy from reality as easily as a black woman was accused of it.
    The white man simply wouldn't have needed the extra 'weapon.'

    
    If Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill were white and in the same
    situation, he would have expressed great sympathy for her first
    (insinuating that she'd gone insane.)
    
    He would have denied everything (almost laughing about how silly
    the accusations were and how amazed he was that they were actually 
    questioning him about any of it.)
    
    He would have (essentially) requested that the 'grown ups' be allowed
    to continue the confirmation without further interference.

    
    
    re .109
    
>    See, even YOU see the hypocrisy of a *conservative* Clarence Thomas
>    using 'race' in a way regarded by conservatives as a WEAPON (read:
>    unfair advantage over white men.)
    
    Gee, all they did to Clarence Thomas was accuse him of being a
    sexual pervert.  An accusation that Clarence Thomas was extremely
    lucky to survive under the curcumstance, guilty or not.
    
    fred();

    re .110
    
    You're sterotypes are showing.
    
    fred();

    RE: .112  Fred
    
    > You're sterotypes are showing.
    
    Nope.  I'm just well aware of how negative stereotypes about women
    are used in our culture.  A white man in the same situation as
    Clarence Thomas could have (and probably would have) used the same
    stereotypes about women to get himself off the hook.
    
    I think a white man could have gotten through it as well as
    Clarence Thomas did.
    

    re .113
    
    Thank you for once again proving my point.
    fred();

    RE: .114  Fred
    
    > Thank you for once again proving my point.
    
    You could have this engraved on your forehead, Fred (to keep you
    from having to face the strain of difficult discussions.)
    
    Better yet, post it first (so you won't have to attempt to discuss
    these things AT ALL.)  :>
    

    
    Getting back to the BBS situation (in the basenote)...
    
    I'm beginning to wonder if the owners shut down the BBS when they
    saw the posted responses to the situation they were facing (with
    the reporting of the 'raunchy sexist' comments, etc.)
    
    The owners might have thought, "The HECK with this stuff..." and
    canned both conferences.
    

    
    
    If Hill was that offended why would she have moved with Thomas to a new
    position?
    
    
    Mike

    
    Mike W. - she said he'd stopped doing it (so she thought it was
    finished.)
    
    She was ambitious and he was moving up in the world (making him a
    very important contact.)
    
    He didn't rape her or beat her up.  He said some inappropriate
    things at the office.  I've known people at work who have done
    things I thought were very annoying and/or strange.  If they
    were important to my work, though, I could overlook these actions.
    
    If I felt these actions would impact a person's suitability for
    the U.S. Supreme Court, though, the situation would probably
    seem different to me.

    Remember, she was a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN	while she worked with
    Thomas (and she was still a conservative Republican during the
    Confirmation Hearings.)  She had no interest in attracting attention
    to herself for something involving women's rights (or the treatment
    of women in our society.)
    
    Like Thomas, she was moving up in the world without reference to
    her race or sex.  She didn't keep records about what he was saying
    to her because she had NO intention (0%) of ever making an official
    complaint.  She was going to keep on moving up with her important
    contacts (regardless of how uncomfortable she felt about the remarks
    Thomas made to her, off and on.)
    
    Many women around the country can identify with the situation of
    having to 'put up with' strange or uncomfortable situations at work
    for the sake of one's career.  Many women know the danger present
    (to one's own career) for coming forward.  Many women also know
    about the Catch-22 involved in such situations (i.e., the women is
    a coward and/or wrong for not fighting back by reporting such
    things, but when the woman does come forward, she's not believed
    and is regarded or accused of being nutty/paranoid/bitchy.)
    
    Someone I know very well told me he didn't believe Anita Hill because
    he couldn't see how 'she (a Yale Law School graduate) would EVER put up 
    with such behavior,' if it had really happened.  I just had to shake my 
    head (and I thought, "OF COURSE she put up with it!  It was the smart 
    career move!  She wasn't going to throw it all away for the sake of
    what he'd said!")
    
    When she thought about his suitability for the U.S. Supreme Court,
    though, the stakes were suddenly a lot higher (and she moved closer
    to the unthinkable:  coming forward about it.)
    
    I believed her then (and I still believe her.)

    
    
    re -1
    
    You hit it right on the head.  Many people will put up with
    unnecessary bs at work to further their careers.  This particular
    point is not based on gender at all, but good common sense.  
    

    If, generic you, found out that a product-specific conference on the
    Digital network were writing obscene stuff about you, your family or
    your work in that conference and you didn't have access to it, I bet my
    salary that you will take the appropriate action.
    
    "But this is a closed conference" defence won't satisfy you.
    
    - Vikas

 .119>  Many women around the country can identify with the situation of
 .119>  having to 'put up with' strange or uncomfortable situations at work
 .119>  for the sake of one's career.  Many women know the danger present
 .119>  (to one's own career) for coming forward.

        Suzanne, you don't strike me as being the type of person that would
        "put up or shut up"...  One could even understand that perhaps deep
        down, even though you defend Anita Hill, you really didn't like her
        actions as ultimately they show that Anita Hill "prostituted" herself
        for her career.  

        So, what's the lesson here?  What should Women (even Men) do to prevent
        another Hill/Thomas situation?  

        Don

    RE: .120  

    > You hit it right on the head.  Many people will put up with
    > unnecessary bs at work to further their careers.  This particular
    > point is not based on gender at all, but good common sense.  

    In the QUARK::HUMAN_RELATIONS conference, an anonymous noter (who
    describes himself as 'Joe (not real name)') describes a situation
    at work HERE AT DIGITAL that qualifies as unnecessary bs, etc.
    He is asking for advice since he does NOT want to leave his group.

    Folks here can check Topic 25.* to see the responses this man is
    getting.  Some folks are suggesting that he make moves toward a
    charge of harassment.  It isn't a 'sexual' thing - it's about
    mean-spirited jokes (ones that 'seem designed to hurt.')  And
    it's a man doing it to another man (apparently.)

    While some will tell this guy to stand up and fight back (through
    Personnel, if needed) - it's almost guaranteed that some individuals
    who hear about this will think the complaining man is unreasonable
    for being bothered by 'jokes.'  In fact, one of the man's complaints
    in H_R is that people say "It's only a joke" when he does show that
    he is bothered.

    It's also possible that the offending person could deny some/most of
    the joke-telling (and accuse 'Joe' of being nutty/paranoid/etc.)

    It's a dynamic that really does happen in the workplace at times,
    and it is perfectly reasonable (to me) that the targets of this
    behavior may attempt to 'live with it' rather than risking their
    careers over it.

    RE: .122
    
    > Suzanne, you don't strike me as being the type of person that would
    > "put up or shut up"...  One could even understand that perhaps deep
    > down, even though you defend Anita Hill, you really didn't like her
    > actions as ultimately they show that Anita Hill "prostituted" herself
    > for her career.  
    
    In her situation, I would have done exactly the same thing (with the
    exception that I seriously doubt I would have approached the Senate
    committee even anonymously with the information about what he'd said.)
    Anita Hill has a lot of guts for doing that (and for being willing
    to testify.)
    
    > So, what's the lesson here?  What should Women (even Men) do to prevent
    > another Hill/Thomas situation?  
    
    Well, at the very least, we should recognize (as a culture) that these
    things really happen.  It often becomes a matter of one person's word
    against another's, so it's unlikely that offenders will pay a penalty
    of any kind for this stuff in most situations.
    
    But, at the very least, I'd like to see our culture stop treating
    accusers as though they have gone out of their minds.

    re .124

>    But, at the very least, I'd like to see our culture stop treating
>    accusers as though they have gone out of their minds.

    I'd like to see our society stop treating the accused as guilty
    simply because they are accused.  I'd like to see some evidence
    to back up the accusation.

    Yes, s**t happens, if the judicial system were perfect we wouldn't
    have murders, rapists, and child molesters walking the streets.
    But IMNSHO, doing away with the principle of "innocent until proven
    guilty" (and I don't think I am alone in this) is much much more 
    dangerous.

    fred();

    RE: .125  Fred
    
    >> Well, at the very least, we should recognize (as a culture) that these
    >> things really happen.  It often becomes a matter of one person's word
    >> against another's, so it's unlikely that offenders will pay a penalty
    >> of any kind for this stuff in most situations.
    
    >> But, at the very least, I'd like to see our culture stop treating
    >> accusers as though they have gone out of their minds.
    
    > I'd like to see our society stop treating the accused as guilty
    > simply because they are accused.  I'd like to see some evidence
    > to back up the accusation.
    
    As mentioned above, when it's one person's word against another's,
    it becomes very unlikely that most offenders will pay a penalty of
    any kind for this stuff.
    
    > But IMNSHO, doing away with the principle of "innocent until proven
    > guilty" (and I don't think I am alone in this) is much much more 
    > dangerous.
    
    Well, obviously, I didn't suggest anything like this.  I know it's
    difficult/impossible in most cases to prove something that amounts
    to a 'word against word' situation.  
    
    I simply asked that accusers stop being treated as though they'd
    gone out of their minds.

    re .126

    If you have a choice of 

    1) make nice to the accuser and go to jail.

    2) Defend yourself to the fullest of your capability.

    what are you going to do?

    Lawyers are bound by the code of ethics to proceed in the best 
    interest of their client, not to "make nice".  If there is any
    question on appeal that the lawyer did not provide adequate 
    defense for his client, the conviction will be overturned, and
    the accused may walk free _because_ the lawyer "made nice" to
    the accuser.

    Therefore in a system of "proven guilty beyond the shadow of a
    doubt", the accusation (and accuser) must withstand any and all
    attack.  Maybe not nice for the accuser, but like I said, to
    "make nice" is not the point.

    fred();

    RE: .127  Fred
    
    > If you have a choice of 
    > 1) make nice to the accuser and go to jail.
    > 2) Defend yourself to the fullest of you capability.
    > what are you going to do?
    
    Society doesn't have to join the accused in treating the accuser
    badly, though.  (I mean, I do realize that our system is geared
    to benefit accused people over everyone else as much as possible,
    but I'd rather see society stop joining the defense in treating
    accusers like nut cases.)
    
    > Lawers are bound by the code of ethics to proceed in the best 
    > interest of their client, not to "make nice".
    
    Defense lawyers are allowed to slime everyone in sight if it will
    help their clients.  
    
    I'm talking about how *society* treats the accusers.

    re:.56
    
    Well, Annie, that's because you're not a professional victim, looking
    to be offended.
    
    Not everyone is that mature.

>    I'm talking about how *society* treats the accusers.

    We have a very different view of how *society* treats accusers.
    I don't think you can draw conclusions about *society* because
    of what happened to Anita Hill.  Actually I wish *society* _would_
    treat me as badly as it has treated Anita Hill.  She's crying all
    the way to the bank.

    I do agree that the accuser gets treated rather badly in the 
    judicial system.  Some of it sucks and could be done better.
    But, pragmatically, some of it is necessary for our society
    and system to function.

.72> Fred, obviously, the people who believe Anita Hill (and who pay to
.72> see her) have a different perspective of her historical significance
.72> than you do.  :>
    
    Yes, to them, she's the martyr, the patron saint of sexual harassment.
    
    The poor, poor victim of a sexually aggressive male animal, with an
    insatiable sexual appetite, a natural danger to all wimmin.
    
    
    ... repeat after me "ohhhhh, that poor POOR womyn."

    Re .127
    
    > Lawyers are bound by the code of ethics to proceed in the best 
    > interest of their client, not to "make nice".
    
    Since this discussion between you and Suzanne is centered not on the
    courtroom but on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I feel constrained to
    point out that senators are bound by the code of ethics and by a solemn
    oath to proceed in the best interest of the United States.  Yeah, sure. 
    
    The accusations of Anita Hill, which where corroborated by other
    witnesses, cast doubt on the qualifications of Clarence Thomas to
    become a Justice of the Supreme Court.  We cannot afford to have the
    *slightest* doubt about the integrity of the people who determine what
    our laws actually mean.  In a system where integrity means something
    (not our system, unfortunately), that doubt would have been sufficient
    to disqualify Thomas, WHETHER HE WAS GUILTY OR NOT!
    
    Hill's calm testimony was dismissed as the delusion of a potentially
    insane mind, but Thomas' wild ravings about the lynching of yet another
    uppity black were passed over as if they had never been spoken.  Fair
    and equitable treatment under the law?  In your dreams.

    re 132

    I find a system where a person's career can be trashed or a political
    nomination that you don't agree with can be blocked simply by
    unsubstantiated accusation even more scary than they one you
    describe.

    One more time.   
    The point of the Thomas/Hill hearings was not sexual harassment
    but a slimy attempt to block the nomination of Clarence Thomas.
    If they could have done that without ever mentioning Anita Hill,
    Anita Hill would be much poorer today.

    fred();

.126>    I simply asked that accusers stop being treated as though they'd
>    gone out of their minds.

Suzanne,

I think you are asking the impossible here.

If somebody tells me that X happened, I can either

	believe them

		or

	not believe them because I think

		they are lying

		their memory is faulty

		they have misinterpreted something

		...

If I am interested in getting at the truth, I have to explore the reasons
why they might not be telling the truth.

Then any third party can come along and tell me that I am treating the accuser 
"as though they'd gone out of their minds."

The only way I can avoid that accusation is to believe completely in every 
accuser who ever comes forward.  Simple justice requires that accusers be
confronted and questioned.  That's why our right to confront our accusers 
is part of the US Constitution.  And why defence attorneys are trained in
cross-examination.  And why senators of both parties are allowed to ask
questions at hearings.

If you are just saying that you were offended by the tone of the hearings, 
I can respect that.  But don't tell me that the mental processes of the 
accuser are off-limits.

Wally


PS  No, there is another alternative.  I could say to the accuser "Do you
have any evidence to support you?"  "No?  Then I must ignore what you
say, because your unsupported accusation is not enough to outweigh the
presumption of innocence."  If the Senate had, on this ground, refused to 
hear Anita Hill, the senators would not have had to question her.  I
suspect that this conclusion would have been equally unsatisfactory to
the opponents of Clarence Thomas.

    re .127
    
    Fred,
    
    The Hill/Thomas hearings never got into a court of law.  The only
    folks allowed to do the examining were not lawyers.  They were not
    trained in the laws regarding sexual harrassment.  They were
    merely a group of politicians who happened to be picked to sit on
    this review board.  If Anita Hill had filed charges against Thomas
    and it got into the courts, I think you might have seen a totally
    different circus.  At least the folks in that circus have knowledge
    of the laws unlike the politicians on the board.  We have to remember
    that they were trying to decide whether or not Thomas should sit
    on the Supreme Court, not whether or not he was quilty of sexual 
    harrassment.  Again, two different issues which happened to be
    related in this case.  
    
    Michele

    re .135

    Should someone's career or life be trashed simply because the
    procedure that there in is not a formal court of law (personnel?).
    It may not have been a formal court of law, but Clarence Thomas
    was most definitely on trial with some very serious consequence
    hanging in the balance.  Also there *rules* of questioning by 
    congress.

    fred();

    RE: .131  Mike Z.
    
    .72> Fred, obviously, the people who believe Anita Hill (and who pay to
    .72> see her) have a different perspective of her historical significance
    .72> than you do.  :>
    
    > Yes, to them, she's the martyr, the patron saint of sexual harassment.
    
    Nope.  She's a brave woman who resisted coming forward since she knew
    (as many of us did) what sort of small minded bigotry she would face 
    if she did.
    
    > The poor, poor victim of a sexually aggressive male animal, with an
    > insatiable sexual appetite, a natural danger to all wimmin.
    
    > ... repeat after me "ohhhhh, that poor POOR womyn."
    
    Yeah, many of us definitely saw this coming, as well.

    re .138
    
>    Nope.  She's a brave woman who resisted coming forward since she knew
>    (as many of us did) what sort of small minded bigotry she would face 
>    if she did.
    
    Suzanne,  once again you make a better example than you do an argument.
    
    fred();

    RE: .139  Fred
    
    >> Nope.  She's a brave woman who resisted coming forward since she knew
    >> (as many of us did) what sort of small minded bigotry she would face 
    >> if she did.
    
    > Suzanne, once again you make a better example than you do an argument.
    
    Anita Hill is a Law Professor who was accused by United States Senators
    of not knowing how to distinguish fantasy from reality (because of her
    testimony about her work experiences with Clarence Thomas.)
    
    I regard this as bigotry.  Obviously, you don't.
    
    We disagree.

    
    re .140
    
    If it had been a white male accusing, say Janet Reno or Ron Brown,
    of unsubstantiated accusations would you still say  the same?
    
    I think not.
    
    Fred();

    RE: .134  Wally
    
    > I think you are asking the impossible here.

    Perhaps.
    
    > If somebody tells me that X happened, I can either
    >	believe them
    >		or
    >	not believe them because I think
    >		they are lying
    >		their memory is faulty
    >		they have misinterpreted something
    
    ...or you can decide that accusing someone of lying sounds too mean,
    so instead you express your grave concerns about the person having
    gone insane.
    
    Perhaps someone can provide us with the legal definition for insanity
    (as applied to the law,) but saying that someone is 'unable to
    distinguish fantasy from reality' *sounds* like a claim that the person
    is insane. 
    
    We used to have the 'innocent by reason of insanity [or whatever]'
    - well, now we have 'innocent by reason of the witness's insanity,'
    it seems.

    RE: .141  Fred
    
    > If it had been a white male accusing, say Janet Reno or Ron Brown,
    > of unsubstantiated accusations would you still say  the same?
    
    > I think not.
    
    If a white male (a Law Professor) were accused of 'not being able
    to distinguish fantasy from reality' after he described a work
    situation with Janet Reno or Ron Brown, I'd probably die of shock
    on the spot.
    

    re .137
    
    Yes Fred he was on trial.  On trial to become a Supreme
    Court justice.  Sad part about it is that he actually
    became one.  So his career wasnt trashed. In fact, it
    was given its final boost into a job that will keep him
    there until he either decides to leave or dies.  Now
    if you call that trashing his career, then we don't agree
    on the meaning of the word trash.  

    re .144

    I think the whole thing about the way the hearing came to be in the
    first place stinks to high heaven.  Object was to trash Clarence
    Thomas.  The _only_ thing they could come up with to do that was
    to dredge up Anita and leak information to the press about highly
    questionable unsubstantiated accusations (that both they and Anita
    had previously rejected doing) and make a media circus out of the 
    hearings. PCness to the MAX.

    fred();

    
    Treating Anita Hill with bigotry in the hearings was not the proper
    response to a situation involving 'leaks,' etc.
    
    

    
    Treating Clarence Thomas with the PC biggotry by trying to trash
    him because of his political views was the first mistake.  
    
    They save the "softballs" for the liberal appointees.
    
    fred();

    RE: .147  Fred

    > They save the "softballs" for the liberal appointees.
    
    Ha!  As Dick Binder wrote:
    
 .132> Hill's calm testimony was dismissed as the delusion of a potentially
 .132> insane mind, but Thomas' wild ravings about the lynching of yet another
 .132> uppity black were passed over as if they had never been spoken.  Fair
 .132> and equitable treatment under the law?  In your dreams.
    

    
    reply
    
    If you put me in Clarence's position for the reasons that he was
    there I think I'd be pretty p**ed too.  It was indeed a PC political
    lynching.  Just because they talked nicely to him while they were
    trying to put the noose around his neck doesn't change anything.
    
    Suzanne,
    You're starting to sound like a broken record.
    
    fred();

    Fred, have you any idea how weird it feels to find myself arguing the
    same position that Suzanne is espousing?  I suppose this fact registers
    on you the way water rolls off a duck's back, but I find it highly
    significant.

    re .150
    
    I 'magin it must be fairly well traumatizing 8^);
    f();

    RE: .149  Fred
    
    > reply
    
    Thanks, I will.  :>
    
    > If you put me in Clarence's position for the reasons that he was
    > there I think I'd be pretty p**ed too.  It was indeed a PC political
    > lynching.  Just because they talked nicely to him while they were
    > trying to put the noose around his neck doesn't change anything.
    
    They were nice to him - he ranted and raved (about being 'lynched'
    in the hearing.)
    
    She testified calmly - they dismissed her as having the delusions of
    a potentially insane person.
    
    Many women (and men) in this country noticed.

    
    Suzanne,
    
    You still sound like a broken record. 
    
    And you still meke a better example for the point that I'm trying
    to make than you do an argument for the point you're trying to
    make.
    
    fred();

    Would it be inappropriate to ask (as others have done) that the
    Hill/Thomas discussions PLEASE be moved to an appropriate note, if not
    by the moderator, then by the parties discussing them, and that this
    note be reserved for the discussion of the Santa Rosa Bulliten Boards
    issue?
    
    Thanks,
    
    kim

re .154:

I tried it 50 replies ago (.104).  It doesn't work.

    RE: .153  Fred
    
    If my son were a lot younger, I'd call him to ask for an appropriate
    retort to this familiar refrain of yours.  :>
    
    Just teasing ya!
    
    Seriously, let's get back to the situation in Santa Rosa.
    
    Has anyone heard anything else in the news about this?

    Re: .155
    
    The moderator has real work to do - unlike some people writing
    here, it seems....  No, I'm not going to move a hundred-odd notes
    to a separate topic, I'm going to writelock this one.  If someone
    wants to start a new note on Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas, feel free.
    (Though the last 50-odd notes have mainly been the same two or three
    repeated ad nauseum, in my personal opinion.)  If someone wants to
    add something to the original topic of this note, please send me
    mail and I'll be glad to oblige.
    
    					Steve