Conference 7.286::digital

Maybe the author of 979.0 will expound on the statement, so that we can get
it straight.

- George

    I, for one, took it as referring to the program.
    
    I hope I was right...
    
    -dave

    When I read it, I didn't notice anything other than the person didn't
    like the Valuing Differences program although he didn't say why.  After
    re-reading it, I still don't see anything else in it. Since the Valuing
    Differences program is far broader than race, I simply don't see how
    anyone could read race (and only race) into that note. Maybe the poster
    of .0 could tell us how he managed to read the note as racist?

    Is "Valuing Differences" a real program? Is it costing us money
    or is it just a statement of DEC policy? If it is indeed costing
    money,then it's a waste.We don't need it! In my personal opinion,
    this program or whatever,was only instituted in order to satisfy
    the liberals among us.Again,if it's only a statement of policy,leave
    it...if not,DUMP IT!
    
    BTW: I saw nothing rascist either.

RE: .4

    Actually, "racist" wasn't the only (possible) problem I "read" into
    the note, it was just the one that worried me the most.

    I, for one, would very much like to hear just what the author of
    979.0 meant.  I feel that my question is legitimate, although I
    certainly hope that my worries are totally unfounded.

    I see Valuing Differences as 3 things: a policy, a philosophy, and a
    program.
    
    As a policy and philosophy, it has made money for the company. It has
    done this because it enables people to realize their full potential and
    make a maximum contribution to the company despite any differences in
    race, sex, age, or whatever. 
    
    As a program it may or may not have been poorly administered, and the
    money and time spent on training in this area may or may not have been
    wisely spent. (In my group, training consisted of a 90-minute meeting
    for all employees. It was not the most thrilling 90 minutes of my
    life.)
    
    Bruce

   
    Hal, why don't you pick up the phone and call Dick Lennard and ask
    him to expand on the statement(s) that trouble you ?  His dtn is
    381-2508.  Direct, voice-to-voice or eye-to-eye communication is
    the best way to put this to bed instead of "hoping" for a reply
    or clarification.

    Better yet - here I am live and in color (at least on my VT340).
    
    I questioned the direct and indirect cost associated with the program
    in a time of fiscal tightness.  I heard it's two days, and 600+ bucks.
    
    Seems to me that's it's another personnel boon-doggle of doubtful
    value, at least at this time.

>    While I realize that the Reagan years sent the US the message that 
>    it's okay to be racist again, I thought that
    
    Where did you get that idea? How about some "Valuing Differences" for
    our past, great president?
    
    Mike

         This *IS* going to be the rathole the title promises, isn't it?
                       
                                       Greg

    A topic titled "The <foobar> Rathole" cannot be a rathole since it
    *is* the topic.

    Now that's a rathole!

The sentence quoted in .0 bothered me, too, as a blanket implication
that the valuing difference philosophy and/or program is not worthwhile,
for reasons unstated.  The clarification by the quote's author still
doesn't say why he believes the philosophy and/or program is 
"of doubtful value".

The program is obviously an investment in employees, to increase productivity,
lower turn-over, etc.  People who are harrassed and "devalued" are not
as able to focus their energies on being productive; people who feel like
they are working in a supportive environment, for a company that
values *all* its employees, will work harder.  In these times of
fiscal tightness, the more productivity we have the better.

Direct costs are administration of the program and training.  What 
are indirect the indirect costs you (.9) refer to?  

I haven't taken the training (so have not directly "cost" the company for 
it), but have received the moral support of the company, of knowing
the the corporate philosophy is on my side, of feeling valued.  I have
more loyalty to the company for that -- and both Digital and I benefit.
Neither loses.

	MKV

 <<  A topic titled "The <foobar> Rathole" cannot be a rathole since it
 <<  *is* the topic.

 Kind of reminds me of the old paradox:

	Every rule has an exception, including the rule that "Every rule
	has an exception."

	In other words, there are some rules which don't have exceptions --
	and those rules are exceptions to the rule.

 

I'm only going to reply here once, after that, meet me in SOAPBOX 
where this has been discussed before.



The "Valuing differences" program here at Digital is a sham, in my
opinion.  I believe this for two reasons:

First, You may be able to convince me to tolerate the differences 
in others.  I'm sure that many people in this world are more than 
tolerant of the differences of others, but they certainly don't 
value them.  This is purely human nature, and can't (in my mind) be 
changed.


Second, only those differences which have been deemed acceptable 
by the liberal establishment are "valued" in this program.  The example
that I used in SOAPBOX a while back is that noone in this company
would value a person being a bigot, even though it is their right
to make a fool of themselves.  




For further discussion on this, refer to the topic "Can we value the
differences of those who don't value differences" in SOAPBOX.  It was
a fascinating topic.


-bill

    Thank you -1 for your comments.  I think it's a liberal sham also.
    
    I tolerate differences out of what I like to believe is a sense of
    fairness.  Also, I know that if I am openly intolerant, I'll
    probably get canned.  but to "Value" differences, that's Cambridge-
    based, ultra liberal horse puckey at its worst.  Does create a lot
    of good jobs in personnel though.
    
    I'd like to know what in the h--- is so bad about being prejudiced.
    Its just the word itself that has a bad connotation.  I'm like I
    believe about 99.9% of all people are, i.e., I tend to pre-judge.
    I like to think I do it mostly out of a combination of life experi-
    ences and native intelligence.  I think the person that implied I
    might be a racist (another negative Word) would be hurt if I accused
    him/her of possible prejudice.  But, what else would you call it?
    
    Am I a racist?  Possibly.  I have certain opinions (pre-judgements)
    based on 56 years of wide exposure to every conceivable type of race.
    Does this make me a bad person just because I don't believe that we
    will probably all never be skipping through fields of flowers together?
    I think not.  I think it makes me a realist.

    I don't believe Ronald Reagan is racially prejudiced.  I believe he is
    a class snob.  His administration didn't say it's OK to be racist; it
    said it's OK to be wealthy.
    
    I haven't taken the Valuing Differences course Mr. Lennard mentions.
    However, ignorance has never stopped me from offering an opinion. 8^)
    At the simple level at which I understand it, the Valuing Differences
    program tries to get us to see the value of people we see as different
    from ourselves.  It suggests that we not make assumptions about other
    people and their behavior based on stereotypes or differences.
    Racial, cultural, gender, ethnic, and age differences come to
    mind.  Here are some examples I've heard.  (Racial, cultural, and gender 
    stereotypes follow; no offense intended!)
    
    o	Italians are stereotyped as being physical in conversation; that
    	is, they touch you when they talk to you.  Indian women are
    	stereotyped as avoiding physical contact with men not their
    	husbands.  If an Italian manager touches an Indian woman in 
    	conversation, the result might be a sexual harrassment charge.
    	But the difference in cultures should not mean either employee
    	is bad or of less value.
    
    o	Blacks are stereotyped as being uncomfortable with eye contact;
    	they don't look you in the eye.  Whites are stereotyped as 
    	interpreting this body language as untrustworthy or deceitful.
    	But the difference in cultures should not mean that blacks are
    	deceitful.
    
    o	Women have babies.  Sometimes they take extended maternity leaves.
    	Men tend not to take paternal leaves.  But the difference in
    	genders should not mean that women are a poor business investment
    	because "they'll just get pregnant and leave."
    
    I think the idea of "valuing differences" is to try and break people
    out of the mold of thinking, "All <group members> are <stereotype>,
    therefore <any consequence>."
    
    If I misinterpret the message, I hope someone will correct it.

Oops, let me quickly register with the "other side" and then run.  I'm
doubtful a notes conference will be very persuasive on such a topic, but,
then, you never really know.

Color me "learned to value a difference".  Others can call me a liar,
but I'm probably more of an expert on me than they:

Someone I thought was dumb ... well, they came up with a pretty
good idea.  Then I realized that *I* never would have had that
idea.  Only someone *different* from me could have that idea.  So
now I value that particular difference, at least to the extent
of that idea.

Frankly I find it easier to value differences than to tolerate
them.  Now that's worth wondering about.

If you want a foolishly trivial example: I could certainly value
someone's superior height difference if it made more hoops in a
game.  But I might still have a little envy problem with it ;;;;-)

The reality is that once I valued that first difference (btw, I
find the phrase itself awkward) I started seeing quite a few such
instances.  Now how could I have been so blind?

- greg

re Note 981.17 by WORDY::JONG:

>     At the simple level at which I understand it, the Valuing Differences
>     program tries to get us to see the value of people we see as different
>     from ourselves.  It suggests that we not make assumptions about other
>     people and their behavior based on stereotypes or differences.
>     Racial, cultural, gender, ethnic, and age differences come to
>     mind.  
  
        My biggest problem with the Valuing Differences program is
        the name:  traditional stereotypes result in attaching too
        much value (often negative) to the mere fact of a difference.

        Bob

re Note 981.18 by STAR::ROBERT:

> Someone I thought was dumb ... well, they came up with a pretty
> good idea.  Then I realized that *I* never would have had that
> idea.  Only someone *different* from me could have that idea.  So
> now I value that particular difference, at least to the extent
> of that idea.

        Yes, that person is obviously *different* from you.  But from
        the context of the story, the only difference that can be
        inferred is a difference of thought.  I would heartily agree
        that differences of thought, skill, and experience are to be
        valued.

        But are those the kinds of differences that the "Valuing
        Differences" program is addressing?  Or is there some subtle
        (or not so subtle) implication that there is a correlation
        between differences of race, sex, national origin, and
        physical characteristics on the one hand and differences of
        thought, skill, and experience on the other?

        If so, then "Valuing Differences" might just be a new form of
        stereotyping.

        Bob

First,
There is usually some small grain of truth in most stereotypes.
That grain is usually blown out of proportion and incredible,
unfounded conclusions are drawn from it.
The place where pre-judging injures the person doing the judging
as well as the one being judged, is when you come upon someone
who doesn't fit the stereotypes. If you automatically put the
person in a pidgeonhole without really looking at THEM, you
will never know the opportunities that you just lost.
Think about it:  do YOU (whoever you are) fit ALL of the stereotypes
of someone in your group(s)?  I doubt it.  Why do you think that
everyone else should fit neatly into little categories?  Most
likely because its easier than really considering each person, IMHO.

Second,
Sometimes the very difference makes another person much more valuable
to you than a clone of yourself could ever be. (For a non-sequiteur, 
consider your mate...)  If you have ever written code, you have probably
had the experience of staring at a piece of code which didn't work, for
a long time.  You can't see ANYthing wrong with it.  It SHOULD work!
Then someone else walks up behind you, looks at it for two seconds,
and calmly points out your error. They were able to do it precisely
because they hadn't followed your train of thought.  This principle
applies in many, many situations.  Someone with a different perspective
can see things which you would never, ever see, no matter how long you stare
at a problem.  Differences can be problems.  No question. They can also
be very valuable assets.
Which will they be to you?  Depends on how you approach them.  Do you disregard
the possibility that anyone different from yourself could have a valuable
idea, or do you keep an open mind and check it out?

Kevin

>        Or is there some subtle
>        (or not so subtle) implication that there is a correlation
>        between differences of race, sex, national origin, and
>        physical characteristics on the one hand and differences of
>        thought, skill, and experience on the other?


More likely there's a recognition that various cultural backgrounds,
different kinds of life experiences, and different perspectives on 
society, can spawn different ways of looking at things.
Also an effort to not preclude valuing a perspective different
than one's own.  Or one that might be expected to be different than
one's own.

	MKV

    It sounds like the VD program will make sure nobody approaches human
    differences outside what the program considers acceptable bounds.
     In other words, it will assure that nobody treats differences
    differently.
    
    All this time I thought Digital was a computer hardware/software
    manufactuer and supplier.  I never thought we would get into the
    field of personality modification or thought control.
    
    Re: Ronald Reagan,  he doesn't belong to the ultra-liberal
    establishment and therefore does not deserve the same consideration
    as the insiders.  
    
    Re: VD boondogle,  I have seen the advertising for it.  It is a
    2 day course.  I don't know what the cost is but I am sure it is
    excessive.
    
    Re: Valuing differences,  I live in a city where we multiple millions
    of visitors each year.  These people are from all parts of the world.
     I have become a people watcher since being here.  In my opinion,
    the best approach to all of this difference nonsense is to first
    be able to UNDERSTAND what basic differences in human beings are.
    I don't value anyone's differences and don't expect anyone to value
    any of my particular differences.  All I ask is that a person
    understand and accept that I am different than Joe Schmaltz who
    is different than Jane Blevitz who is different than the milkman!
    I don't agree that we should make any big thing about these differences
    or try to make any big deal about them.
    
    This issue will never be settled because it pits the ultra-liberal
    (elite minority) against the average conservative (middle America
    majority) camps.  All it will do is allow all of us to understand
    each others point of view.  Or isn't this allowed anymore?
    

    
    I say... forget Valuing Differences
    
    	and let's just...
    
    		VALUE PEOPLE.  (whether they are different or not!)
    
    ...but then who am I??

    There are a couple of pragmatic reasons for the philosophy of valuing
    differences (implementation of that policy being a separate issue).
    
    Digital gets a lot of good press from it. One reads every so often that
    some organization has named us one of the n-best employers for (blacks,
    women, etc.) Given our problems with name recognition, we can certainly
    use any publicity that shows us in a positive light.
    
    Digital is an Equal Opportunity Employer and has to comply with federal
    law. If some manager engages in discriminatory hiring practices,
    Digital can get sued. Educating employees about what constitutes
    discrimination helps keep us out of court.
    
    					Val

re: .20

There are many examples in my personal experience.  That is just one.
You can look for all sorts of faults with the program, or you can step
up to a higher understanding of the richness of human culture, heredity,
personality and existance of all kinds; the result is a wider appreciation
of all individuals.

To debate the details or look for a new way to find or defend stereotypes
is to completely miss the forest, at least for me.  Your milage may vary.

- g

    
    	I've never been through the course, but how is Digital valuing
    people's differences?  This sounds like a take-off of the old PEP
    program. Everybody has differences, what's the big deal?? The valuing
    difference program exists just to showcase Digital as a corporation..
    
    	my .03
    
    	Jeff

    
    I was ordered to "volunteer" to attend the two-day Valuing Differences
    course along with about 30 people from my group.
    
    Con's
    - A lot of touchyfeely encounter group exercises, some that were silly
      and quite useless.
    - Two days seemed too long relative to the results acheived.
    
    Pro's
    - I learned to try to "walk in the other person's shoes" a little more. 
      The people in the group that were racial/ethnic minorities discussed
      how they felt they had significant barriers to overcome to be 
      successful. As a male WASP-type I was suprised at the extent of the
      resentment towards traditional male WASP-types. I was also somewhat
      suprised that people felt they had experienced true racism and prejudice
      within DEC.
    - I got to know more about the non-work side of my colleagues: their
      educational and socioeconomic backgrounds, hobbies, goals, etc.
    - I was suprised that certain "differences" were not discussed - like
      people that are obese, gay, handicapped or plain ugly. We should be
      learning how to value these people as well. Only sex, race, and 
      religion stuff was addressed.
    
    Overall I would rate the experience as moderately positive, but if
    costs are really $600+, I would say there's questionable value in the
    program.
    
    Mike.
    

    I am really surprised at the "Cost" argument for not having a program
    like "Valuing Differences". If the cost argument is applied for the 
    "Existing Implementation" of Valuing Differences, there may be
    validity. Then we need to  rethink the implementation.
    
    However to me saying that any Valuing Differences program should be
    scrapped since it is "expensive" is the same as saying that certain
    sections of the population should not be allowed to vote since it is
    very expensive to include them in the elections.
    
    Nari

         I think some here are failing to separate the Differences Courses
    being offered (with their rumored $600 price tag) and the overall
    Valuing Differences program which has made DEC such an object of envy
    in the industry.  Some may take the complaints to be against the
    POLICY, in which case the motivations would be completely different
    from those regarding the course.
    
                                          Greg

    For those of you who have trouble with the concept of *valueing*
    differences, I have seen it renamed as Understanding the Dynamics
    of Difference.
    
    Norma

    For those of you who have trouble with the concepts of integration and
    the calculation of differences, don't bother.  The after you integrate
    the differnces or differentiate the integral, you're back where you
    started.

RE: .32

	If you integrate then differentiate then you have what you
started out with BUT if you differentiate then integrate then you
lose the zero order term (if any).

John

    All this assumes you differentiate and then integrate (or vice versa)
    with respect to the same variable.

    Bill Jackson mentioned a notes file called SOAPBOX.  I'd like to
    look at this, but cannot find it in the EASYNOTES.LIS listing. 
    What is the complete identifier for SOAPBOX?
    
    							Thanks,
    
    							David

Discussions on Various Topics	PEAR::SOAPBOX				 1281
    
    Check to see if your copy of easynotes.lis is an outdated one.  

RE: .35


Keep in mind that Soapbox is not for the faint of heart.  There are some
very opinionated people that participate in Soapbox, who readily "beat
up" on newcomers.  

I would suggest being a read only participant for a while to get the 
tone of the box and to understand the personalities of the major 
contributors (yes, like any good notesfile, there are a small number of
people who write a large number of topics  and replies)


-bill

The VDS (Valuing Differences Syndrome) has gone TOO far and is generally
regarded  as a "joke".   There is no question but that in it's formation
the goals were admirable but it has become a "catch  all"  for  anything
that  someone  doesn't  like.  At this time I think that it is more of a
detriment than an asset - and - I met with a member of Zimmerle's  staff
and stated this, in no uncertain terms.

I  have  taken  the  "seminar"  and  for  the  most  part  it   was   an
incomprehensible  waste  of  time.   The  two full days was entirely too
long.  I am (theoretically) a mature adult male and found  some  of  the
"activities"  to be of a definitive "childish" nature.  I am not exactly
"underpaid" at DEC and think that this was indeed a waste  of  corporate
money.

.31> For those of you who have trouble with the concept of *valuing*
.31> differences, I have seen it renamed as Understanding the Dynamics
.31> of Difference.

This "name" is one of the most  detrimental  elements  of  the  program.
During  the  "introduction"  at  the beginning of the seminar (I'm *not*
prone  to pussy-foot around important issues) I made  it  crystal  clear
that  I  thought that the name "Valuing Differences" was detrimental and
should be changed, that the course has a bad reputation, and, that I was
looking forward to forming my own opinion based on experience.

The seminar leaders agreed with my statement on the name and advised  me
that  the name had indeed been changed to "Understanding the Dynamics of
Difference".  I kept a count ...  during the first day the term "Valuing
Differences"  was  used 38 times ...  during the *morning* of the second
day the term "Valuing Differences" was used 24(!) times ...  after  that
I stopped counting.

As a "statement" of DEC policy ...  no problem  ...   but  ...   there's
gotta be some changes or it's going to self destruct.

Jerry

I was disheartened to read most of the replies to this note, partly because 
folks sound so hard-bitten.  Yikes.  But also because the replies indicate the
Valuing Differences program is not working so well.  For the record, 
I am in agreement with notes such as .17, .18, and .22, and I was especially 
glad to read Mr. Robert's note .26 (well put).

As others have said, there are 2 parts to the question: the intent 
of the program, and the implementation of the program.

I believe the intent is fine -- maybe even ingenious.  To understand, to 
value, and to stay mindful of the special things we have to offer one another
seem the best ways to get the best from one another and to promote a good
environment for growth.  These things are critical to productivity, and 
they are vital to the quality of life here at Digital.  Besides, we are in the 
age of teams, and acknowledging and taking advantage of those things that make 
each of us special (our differences) simply seems like good team-building 
to me.  These are learned skills; they do not often happen automatically.  

When I think about valuing differences I think about some of the differences
that are less famous than race, religion, and sexual preference.  I think of
style, for example.  I think of the woman whose idea doesn't get heard in a 
meeting-room full of men because they found her 'indirect and without 
conviction.'  Or I think of the man whose idea is discounted in a meeting-room 
full of women because they found him 'too aggressive... too controlling.'  
There is a lot more standing in our way than overt prejudice.

So I don't worry about the phrase 'valuing differences'.  It represents a
positive way to talk about our reaction to our differences, and it hits as 
close to the mark as such phrases need to.  In any case, to get hung up 
debating the terminology is to avoid thinking about some of the more more 
important issues, such as the curriculum.

I imagine the implementation of Digital's program (at least as far as the 
'Understanding Dynamics of Difference' course goes) could be much better.
I haven't taken the course, but I've heard detailed reports and from 
what I've heard it's a little long on 'touchy feely' and a little short on 
practical information; it sounds obtuse and condescending in places.  Maybe
the course developers are still struggling for ways to promote the ideal.  

Perhaps it would be best if the course assumed that we 'get it' in a general 
sense.  Then it could cut out some of the vague, sensitizing exercises and add 
more practical information about the kinds of differences that are important 
to be aware of, why, how best to acknowledge them, appropriate ways to take 
advantage of them (if any), and so on.  I would like to see a program that is 
more progressive than remedial.

Must be lots of good ideas out there.

-Scott

    
    Sorry for the deviation from the topic, but .32 and .33 on integration
    are not correct. It is not generally true that if you "integrate and
    then differentiate you get back with what you started with".
    
    For Riemann integrals it is true for continous functions, and for
    Lebesgue integrals it's only true almost everywhere (= outside a set
    of measure zero).
                              

RE:                      <<< Note 981.40 by RICARD::BLOMBERG >>>

I think we also forgot to take into consideration quantum
and relativistic effects.

John

re: .37,

	Milt, you should know that the Soapbox has been sanitized, rebooted,
    and otherwise repressed so many times since its original incarnation
    that it is now perhaps one of the most polite and politically correct
    notesfiles on the net.

	As to the general resentment of the Valuing Differences program,
    you are all correct.  From now on, a new program will be starting
    which will be called "Valuing Sameness".  In this $1000 course, the
    values of dress codes, hetrosexual and/or asexual orientation, and
    racial purity, along with many more traditional sorts of behaviors
    and conformist ideals will be stressed.


just kidding (warming up for April fools day)...
				   
				   -davo

    Near the end of _Barbarians to Bureacrats_, by Lawrence M. Miller,
    there is a chapter on "The Synergist Prescription," which describes the
    only style of organization that Miller thinks can survive for the long
    term.  He lists a number of axioms about how to do things, and Axiom #6
    is "Unity and Diversity:"
    
    	Advancing cultures become diverse in character.  Leaders must act
    	to unify diverse talents and traits.
    
    		Corollary 1.  Leaders must actively resist the tendency
    		to attract and promote like personalities and skills.
    
    		Corollary 2.  The highest-quality decisions are attained
    		through consensus.  Consensus is most valuable when it
    		represents the collective wisdom of participants with
    		diverse views and experience.
    
    	As we have seen throughout, successful corporations understand they
    	need diverse personalities to succeed.  The Synergist raises this
    	understanding to a new level.  He not only tolerates diversity,
    	he genuinely appreciates it.  He transcends his own management
    	style and encourages and supports capable people with very
    	different points of view.
    
    The author goes on to discuss examples of valuing differences at
    various companies.
    
    (As an aside, this book suggests to me that someone in Digital is
    trying awfully hard to make the company successful.  In another note in
    this conference, which I'll comment in when it resurfaces, people have
    speculated that Digital is into the Bureaucratic stage as defined by
    this book.  I'd say we're nowhere near it yet.  Whew!)

    	Due to the increasing bottleneck of various unrelated VoD
    discussions (i.e. ratholes) in note #1616, I suggest these general
    VoD discussions be migrated to this general VoD discussion note.
    I now resume a discussion from note #1616 already in progress...

re: 1616.609,

1616.609>> . . .  you have repeatedly avoided answering the question of whether
1616.609>> or not you have expressed similar opinions elsewhere in regards to
1616.609>> other VoD events in other notes devoted to a particular VoD event
1616.609>> such as this . . .
    
1616.609>    That is incorrect; in note .542 I answered it directly:
    
1616.609>     In these topics [referred to in preceding text], I have
1616.609>   objected to subjecting employees to these things [previous
1616.609>   events, also described above].

    	The note topics you described (appropriateness of religious
    activity at the office, the use of the cafeteria as a theater) to
    which you claim you have entered notes would not appear to be
    VoD events.  Therefore, you never answered the question.
    
1616.609>  That is an explicit affirmative answer to your question.  Why did you
1616.609>  say I had not given such an answer when I had?

    	Why?  Because you did not answer the question - that's why!
    However, since you seem to have answered in the affirmative here
    instead (finally), then I will bypass my previous line of questioning
    and instead ask whether you could provide pointers to these other notes
    which you claim are devoted to a particular VoD event (such as note
    #1616 in this notesfile) where you claim you "have expressed similar
    opinions elsewhere in regards to other events"?  I think it would be
    interesting to see these other examples of how you choose to trash the
    VoD program in a note devoted to the discussion of an event held by
    a particular VoD group.
    
1616.609>As .542 stated, the topics referred to were in regard to the use of the
1616.609>cafeteria as a theater and the appropriateness of religious activity at
1616.609>the office.
    
1616.609>> If you were to answer yes to my question, then you would prove
1616.609>> my assertion that you do in fact practice the exploitation of the
1616.609>> fervor surrounding discussions of specific VoD events to garner
1616.609>> support for your own anti-VoD campaign, . . .
    
1616.609>> There was no fervor over the singing of Christmas
1616.609>> carols in the office area nor over the use of the cafeteria as a
1616.609>> theater while people were eating.  These two examples prove I am not
1616.609>> "exploiting" any fervor, that it is merely coincidental to this issue
1616.609>> and that I choose to object to "Valuing Differences" events that I
1616.609>> believe should not be imposed on employees, not this imaginary motive
1616.609>> you have concocted.

    	Eric, you continue to prove my point by continuing to reply to
    note #1616 with notes which address the overall VoD program and have
    little or nothing to do with "G/L/B Awareness Day at MRO", much less
    G/L/B Awareness Day, or even G/L/B in general (which is the primary
    focus of that discussion).

    	Since you seem content to continue merrily along in your
    exploitation of a particularly controversial VoD group (G/L/B)
    even after repeated requests not to do so, I am forced to attempt
    to channel the more generic portion of your VoD discussion to this
    note (which is devoted to such VoD program ratholes).  Thank you
    for your cooperation.

    				   -davo

re: 1616.634,

>    On what basis do you contend that the use of the ZKO cafeteria as a
>    theater does not appear to be a "Valuing Difference" event?  Did you
>    even ask what it was used as a theater for?  Are you aware that you are
>    saying that shows about the civil rights movement do not appear to be
>    "Valuing Difference" events?

    	Aside from a casual reference by someone in reply 242.1 of the
    virtually unknown UCOUNT::ZKO_SUGGESTION_BOX notesfile to the "Eyes
    on the Prize" video (which may or may not have anything to do with
    VoD program - this point was never made clear in that discussion),
    there is nothing to indicate any sort of discussion about a VoD event,
    or to the VoD program in general.  I might add that there are a whopping
    five replies to the basenote which you referenced (two of them were
    yours), and none of them agreed with your views on the subject.  This
    single example hardly qualifies as an example of how you have expressed
    similar opinions against VoD programs in VoD-specific notes (which
    is what you claimed to have done).

    	In any case, you seem to be missing the point of this entire
    line of questioning.  It doesn't matter how you answer this question
    Eric, because either way you prove yourself to be in the wrong.  If,
    in fact, you have expressed similar opinions degrading the VoD program
    in notes devoted to the discussion of specific VoD events for a given
    minority (as you claim to have done), then you are guilty of exploiting
    the underlying opposition to other minority groups as well.  If, on the
    other hand, you have not expressed similar opinions degrading the VoD
    program in notes devoted to the discussion of specific VoD events for
    a given minority, then your behavior in note #1616 is only a first
    time offense (and might buy you some leniency from the judge ;^).

    	The fact is that regardless of your past actions, you continue
    to revel in the exploitation of the controversy surrounding the 
    minority (G/L/B) VoD group event at MRO in note #1616 by blatantly
    continuing to enter your anti-VoD replies to that note.  The vast
    majority of your notes in that string have absolutely nothing to do
    with G/L/B Awareness Day at MRO, nor do they have anything to do with
    G/L/B in general.  You persist in that note string solely to further
    your own anti-VoD agenda in a most cowardly fashion - safely hidden
    within a homophobic mob which you see fit to incite to riot on the
    network.  All the while, you insidiously claim to be tolerant of G/L/B,
    yet you continue to feed the fires of homophobia to suit your purposes.
    Furthermore, you claim to support the freedom of speech while at the
    same time attempting to apply censorship to fellow DEC employees in
    the workplace against the corporate VoD policy.  You are a master of
    hypocrisy EDP, and I can only hope that you are not clever enough to
    get away with it this time.
    
>    By the way, this is in topic 1616 and not 981 because 981 does not
>    discuss "Valuing Difference" events, particularly in regard to whether
>    or not they are appropriate or whether they bother employees.  This
>    topic does.  If you want to start a topic about general "Valuing
>    Difference" events and their appropriateness, I might participate
>    there.

    	No Eric, I don't think I need to create any new notes for you.
    You continue to create a VoD rathole in note #1616, so the subject
    of this note is by far the most appropriate for this dicsussion.

    				   -davo

re: 1616.644:

>                           -< Another vote for EDP >-
>    I also vote for EDP's viewpoints. I have found his statements to
> be consistent and accurate throughout this discussion. I also believe
> that the MAJORITY of readers also concur with his statements. I hope
> they will also cast a vote.

    	Civil rights issues such as those being addressed by the VoD
    program are not nearly as simply decided as you might think.  If
    all that mattered were the counting of votes on a particular minority
    issue, then the civil rights issues would have been decided a long
    time ago and the current majority would have simply voted the minorities
    out of existence.  Instead, what we have here is a classic Federalist/
    Anti-Federalist debate in which the majority would seek to impose it's
    views on a given minority, but the minority is protected by a higher
    authority (i.e. the Constitution and/or DEC Policies & Procedures).

    	Minorities in the U.S. are supposedly protected by the U.S.
    (Federal) government, and here at DEC, minorities are supposedly
    protected (or at least pacified) by the corporate VoD program.  
    Of course, history has proven that observance of civil rights at
    the global levels have not equated to the automatic observance of
    those same civil rights at the local levels.  In all cases, such
    civil rights efforts have also required an additional committment 
    on the part of those directly effected, as well as conscientious
    supporters of the aformentioned.

    				  -davo

    .46
    
    Talk about deja vu!!!!
    
    Once upon a time there was a conference called SMURF::DIFFERENCES and
    there was so much trouble with wholesale and wanton deletion of notes
    that EDP was removed as a moderator by the rest of the team. Things
    reached the stage that any note a certain group of people entered
    was deleted immediately.
    
    Soon afterwards a conference called HIGH_IQ was started up by EDP.
    Myself and several other people suffered a similar fate in that one. It
    suddenly went members only, and to this day, every mail I have sent to
    EDP requesting membership of that conference has been ignored. I
    thought that was against P&P?
    
    So, EDP, I hereby formally apply for membership of HIGH_IQ. I also ask
    that if you refuse me said membership, you tell me why. I'd also like
    to know how my exclusion hitherto fits in with your statements
    regarding free speech and fair play.
    
    Laurie.

    
> Note 981.46 by RDVAX::KALIKOW 
    
>> Note 13.3 by RDVAX::KALIKOW 
    
>> it's because the reputation that Mr. Postpischil has painstakingly built up
>> over the years in other conferences has preceded him in any contacts he may
>> have made with moderators of valuing-differences conferences.

    	I can see why -edp would have taken offense to this.
    
    >> Just in case anyone reading this is in any doubt of Mr. Postpischil's 
    >> views about Digital's Valuing Differences program, I will follow this 
    >> paragraph with two excerpts from his more recent postings in 
    >> HUMANE::DIGITAL 1616.  
    
    	This is against DEC P&P. You must have permission from -edp to
    	cross post any part of his replies from DIGITAL to any other
    	conference. I assume you did not, and this is why it was deleted.
    	I would have also deleted it.
    
    	/prc
    	

re: 1616.677,
    
>    > . . . none of them agreed with your views on the subject.  This
>    > single example hardly qualifies as an example of how you have expressed
>    > similar opinions . . .
    
>    That does not make any sense.

    	No kidding!!!  Perhaps if you tried extracting an entire statement
    (or at least an entire sentence) of mine next time it might make a little
    more sense.  In desperately groping for a way out of your dilemma, you are
    obviously stooping to taking small phrases out of other notes and twisting
    them to serve your purposes.

>    > If, in fact, you have expressed similar opinions degrading the VoD
>    > program in notes devoted to the discussion of specific VoD events for a
>    > given minority (as you claim to have done), then you are guilty of
>    > exploiting the underlying opposition to other minority groups as well.
    
>    The premise that opposing an offensive imposition is exploiting the
>    "underlying opposition" is false.  By this reasoning, it would be
>    wrong for anybody ever to object to being imposed upon.  This is a
>    typical Politically Correct tactic, to accuse anybody criticizing
>    Politically Correct actions as being opposed to the principles of
>    equality or freedom.  But it is false.  You are trying to suppress the
>    ability of people to speak, to accuse them of wrongdoing merely for not
>    wanting to be imposed upon.

    	Oh, is that so?  Well, if you are so sure that you are correct
    in your argument, then why do you continue to rathole note #1616?
    I suppose the fact that there is a large and easily exploitable
    majority of homophobic sentiment to hide behind in that note string
    has nothing to do with it now does it?  Aside from the fact that you
    may be one of the most stubborn people on earth, what other reason
    do you have for continuing to barricade yourself and your anti-VoD
    campaign safely within the mob which is opposed to a specific VoD
    event?  Could it be that you are simply afraid to bring your case
    against the VoD program to this generic VoD note because you know
    that your anti-VoD argument is not strong enough to stand on its own?
    
>    > The vast majority of your notes in that string have absolutely
>    > nothing to do with G/L/B Awareness Day at MRO . . .
    
>    You only believe that because you have insisted upon believing your
>    false interpretation of what I have said.  You refuse to actually
>    understand my objections.

    	I would estimate that of your current total of 65 replies (and
    counting) to note #1616, that roughly 44 of them, or 67.7% of them
    have no connection to the G/L/B Awareness Day at MRO event, but most
    all of them deal solely with the overall Digital VoD program and/or
    what you refer to as Political Correctness, while a few of them relate
    to nothing other then notesfile debating etiquette, or life in general.

    	I base this 67.7% on the following selection of 44 of your replies
    to note 1616 (.66, .147, .153, .163, .269, .270, .304, .305, .321,
    .322, .378, .381, .386, .404, .418, .420, .418, .420, .421, .431, .432,
    .433, .473, .515, .535, .529, .536, .541, .542, .561, .572, .573, .574,
    .575, .577, .605, .606, .609, .610, .631, .632, .633, .634, .664, .677).
    In this selection, I excluded any of your replies which dealt with the
    subjects of G/L/B Awareness Day at MRO, G/L/B Awareness Days in general,
    or homosexuality in general.  As such, there were also a good deal of
    your notes which I didn't include here to which the bulk of the note
    was also an anti-VoD rathole as well.  If I were to include these notes,
    the percentage of your ratholes to 1616 would have been much higher.
    
>    > . . . you continue to feed the fires of homophobia to suit your
>    > purposes.
    
>    I have never written anything to support opposition to homosexuality.
>    Clearly, the concept of defending a person whom one does not agree with
>    is dead in this country.  The Politically Correct wish to deny free
>    speech to those who do not share their beliefs.

    	Again, you are quoting snippets of my statements out of context.
    Please try again addressing a complete statement of mine and I will
    try and respond to your comments.

     				    -davo

    I can't resist.  Maybe it's just me, but a members-only conference
    on the subject of HIGH-IQ seems to be a bit of an oxymoron. ;-)
    
    tim
    

	Re: 981.49
    
    >> Just in case anyone reading this is in any doubt of Mr. Postpischil's 
    >> views about Digital's Valuing Differences program, I will follow this 
    >> paragraph with two excerpts from his more recent postings in 
    >> HUMANE::DIGITAL 1616.  
    
    	This is against DEC P&P. You must have permission from -edp to
    	cross post any part of his replies from DIGITAL to any other
    	conference. I assume you did not, and this is why it was deleted.
    	I would have also deleted it.
    
    This is not true.  Permission is needed to post from VAXmail or to
    cross post from a restricted conference.  Permission is not needed to
    cross post from a non-restricted VAXNotes conference.

    The world according to Davo Mclure:
    
    	Anybody who does not say they are opposed to a Politically
    	Correct program is not opposed to it.
    
    	Anybody who does say they are opposed to a Politically Correct
    	program is exploiting bigotry.
    
    By Dave Mclure's definitions, a Politically Correct program can never
    be in error.  By Dave Mclure's reasoning, criticism of Politically
    Correct programs should be censored.
    
    We see, by example, how the Politically Correct insist that they have
    the One True Path and how others must not interfere.
    
    
    				-- edp

    
    	When did Dave McLure get labeled "Politically Correct" (and by
    	whom?)
    
    	Who has the right to confer this label onto others against their
    	wills?
    
    	Or is it merely expedient in the course of pursuing one's goals
    	in a debate (eg, "the end justifies the means.")
    

re: .53,

    	Get real Eric - your petty reply #.53 hardly deserves an answer.
    Is fabrication of complete lies all you are capable of these days?
    Is lumping me into your favorite "Politically Correct" pigeon hole
    all you can muster up for this discussion?  Where is the evidence?
    To what do I even owe you the time of day for a reply such as this?
    Out of sheer pity towards you and what I once thought I admired
    in you, I suppose I will attempt to continue our discussion a bit
    further...

    	You know Eric, aside from all of the mud slinging and generally
    amusing antics you have provided readers over the past week or so,
    I guess the one thing that really has me so baffled is that here we
    have a seemingly intelligent, and extremely vocal DEC employee, who
    for years has managed to wrap himself firmly in the U.S. Constitution,
    claiming to be a proponent of free speech, civil rights, and all of
    those noble principles to which great people aspire.  Yet, despite
    all of this, you appear ready to throw it all away in your campaign
    to promote censorship of the expression of differing opinions in
    open and non-binding forums of DEC facilities for VoD events.

    	From your own statements, it is clear that you would also wish
    to limit such VoD events and/or discussions to the notesfiles alone
    (as though the authors of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights
    intended to limit the freedom of speech to electronic notesfiles alone).
    What follows are your own words from note #1616:

1616.95> Such statements should be given equal opportunity, in appropriate
1616.95> forums.  An appropriate forum is a Notes conference where opinions are
1616.95> discussed and where the subject of the conference encompasses these
1616.95> issues.  A display table at a cafeteria is an inappropriate forum.

1616.379> If the employees
1616.379> want to solicit others, let them use bulletin boards, Notes
1616.379> conferences, or other passive means of communication.  But do NOT give
1616.379> a group corporate support as proper beliefs and do NOT let them
1616.379> campaign for their cause in the halls.

1616.610> All the proposals I have made about how things _should_ be call for
1616.610> equal access for everybody.  No speech access to the cafeteria (or
1616.610> vicinity) is equal for everybody.  Free speech access to Notes
1616.610> conferences is equal for everybody.

    	And if you had your way, the only forms of communication allowed
    at Digital facilities would be those taking place in notesfiles, and
    behind closed doors.  You claim this is "equal for everybody", yet
    you do not take into account the fact that not everyone is quite so
    fond of the notesfiles as you are (you, who obviously excels in this
    medium, yet who might or might not excel so well in person).

    	In fact, you seem to take it for granted that notesfiles provide
    an adequate means for any and all forms of human communications, and
    anything else should be hidden in the closet behind closed doors.
    Can't you see how such an arbitrary choice of one form of communication
    (notesfiles alone) over all others is not only disadvantageous to those
    with poorer reading and writing skills (or non-English speaking people
    who also work for this company), but it is also downright discriminatory
    to those employees who may not even have access to computer accounts
    from which to note from or closed doors from which to hide behind.

    	This is all in addition to the fact that the very phrase "freedom
    of speech" implies "speech" above all - that which emits from the
    vocal chords - and is in no way limited to written communications.
    To attempt to limit the VoD program (or any DEC program for that matter)
    to only those DEC employees who happen to utilize employee interest
    notesfiles would be most unfortunate in that such a practice would not
    only prevent a large percentage of employees from being able to listen to
    the views of others, but would also prevent an even larger percentage of
    DEC employees from exercising their own freedom of speech in the workplace.

    	On top of all this, it has since been alleged in the last few
    replies to this note that you yourself are in the habit of deleting
    notes you happen to disagree with in conferences you moderate.  Is it
    any wonder why you would wish to limit all discussions to notesfiles!

    				   -davo

p.s.   	I find it interesting that having succeeded in ratholing note
    	#1616 deep into the ground by littering the note with your anti-
    	VoD / PC diatribes, that it now appears that you have adjusted your
        aim on note #1636 for yet more anti-VoD / PC rhetorical blitzkriegs.
        At least you finally managed to display a hint of compromise in
        your unbending character enough to join us here for a hopefully
        somewhat more rational discussion about the VoD program (of course,
        the fact that note #1616 is now write-locked has nothing to do
        with this change in your noting techniques I'm sure).

    An interesting [to me, anyway] aside on the notion that discussions
    of "difference" belong in notesfiles and not in the hallways:
    
    There have been studies [and I can't name a single one, so the 
    let's-see-some-hard-evidence types amongst you can dismiss this 
    entire reply] which show that electronic discussions get much more 
    heated than other exchanges, whether face-to-face or by slower
    written mechanisms.
    
    The reasons for this might be combination of the facts that (a)
    online notes/mail doesn't force you to confront the reality of
    your opponent as another human being (b) the speed of the medium
    encourages one to write first, think later.
    
    This isn't to claim that all is sweetness and light out there
    in the face-to-face world, of course -- merely that there
    is some evidence that suggests that, if you have to choose
    notesfiles -or- face-to-face events, notesfiles is probably
    exactly the wrong choice.
    
    I wouldn't suggest that it's an either/or choice, though.
    Despite the fact that notesfiles breed flames, they do provide
    vastly increased participation, which is all to the good.
    

    Re .55:
    
    Your arguments are unreasonable and undeserving of response.  Here's
    another example:  First you criticized me because I was opposing a
    "Valuing Differences" program in an environment of, by your
    description, "fervor".  Then when I satisfied your challenge to present
    a counterexample, showing that I was not exploiting "fervor", you
    criticized my opposition to a different program because it did NOT have
    people agreeing with it.
    
    So you have challenged opposition to "Valuing Differences" programs
    that receives too much or too little agreement.  Apparently, any critic
    must judge in advance the response their opposition will receive and
    speak their opposition only if it will receive just the right amount of
    support -- not too hot, not too cold.
    
    I guess that makes Davo McClure the Goldilocks of Political
    Correctness.  Except that I suspect that opposition that received some
    support, but not a "fervor", would be criticized on other grounds.
    
    > And if you had your way, the only forms of communication allowed at
    > Digital facilities would be those taking place in notesfiles, and
    > behind closed doors.
    
    It seems that one of your greatest tendencies is to misrepresent your
    opponent's argument.  You have done this repeatedly, and now you
    falsely say the only form of communication I would support for equal
    speech would be in conferences and behind closed doors, in spite of the
    fact that you just quoted a passage that referred explicitly to one
    other form -- "bulletin boards" -- and implicitly to more forms --
    "other passive means of communication".
    
    Since your representation of my argument is incorrect, the reasoning
    that follows from the misrepresentation is not relevant to my actual
    argument.
    
    
    				-- edp

re: .58,

>    Your arguments are unreasonable and undeserving of response.

    	I contend that on the contrary, my arguments in note #981.55
    are quite reasonable and they would only deserve a response if you
    feel they are somehow unfounded - otherwise they stand as truths.

>    Here's another example:  First you criticized me because I was 
>    opposing a "Valuing Differences" program in an environment of, by your
>    description, "fervor".  Then when I satisfied your challenge to present
>    a counterexample, showing that I was not exploiting "fervor", you
>    criticized my opposition to a different program because it did NOT have
>    people agreeing with it.

    	The reason I criticized your cafeteria note #242 in the ZKO
    Suggestion Box conference was because it had no clear connection
    to a specific "Valuing Differences" event and therefore, it did not 
    even qualify as an example of a notes discussion devoted to a specific
    VoD event.  The fact that nobody was agreeing with your petty complaints
    in that note was only proof of how ridiculous your argument was to
    begin with.
    	
>    So you have challenged opposition to "Valuing Differences" programs
>    that receives too much or too little agreement.  Apparently, any critic
>    must judge in advance the response their opposition will receive and
>    speak their opposition only if it will receive just the right amount of
>    support -- not too hot, not too cold.

    	I have yet to see *any* sort of challenge to "Valuing Differences"
    programs from you in this or any other note devoted to discussions on
    the "Valuing Differences" program.  Instead, all we see are piecemeal
    anti-VoD arguments interspersed all over this conference in almost any
    other topic imaginable.  Maybe someday you might actually grace us by
    formulating such an argument and entering it as a reply to this note
    where it belongs.

>    I guess that makes Davo McClure the Goldilocks of Political
>    Correctness.

    	My, what a well-thought out argument!  What a dynamic delivery!
    What a debating technique!  Such style!  You are so brilliant EDP!
    I am utterly humiliated and I concede to your superior intellect!

>    Except that I suspect that opposition that received some
>    support, but not a "fervor", would be criticized on other grounds.

    	You may be correct.  It is sad but true that your arguments may
    in fact be criticized on other grounds as well, and there is nothing,
    no amount of mail sent to system managers and supervisors, not even
    the Moderator "delete" priviledge will change this fact.  You alone
    are the only person who can ever change this trend.

>    > And if you had your way, the only forms of communication allowed at
>    > Digital facilities would be those taking place in notesfiles, and
>    > behind closed doors.
    
>    It seems that one of your greatest tendencies is to misrepresent your
>    opponent's argument.  You have done this repeatedly, and now you
>    falsely say the only form of communication I would support for equal
>    speech would be in conferences and behind closed doors, in spite of the
>    fact that you just quoted a passage that referred explicitly to one
>    other form -- "bulletin boards" -- and implicitly to more forms --
>    "other passive means of communication".

    	Oh, so you decided to reply to my note after all.  I admit that
    buried in your twisted path of arguments and rhetoric from note #1616
    that you did mention bulletin boards, however there are electronic
    bulletin boards as well as the traditional cork variety, and it was
    unclear what you meant by this.  You'll also have to explain what you
    meant by "passive means of communication".  Without such clarification,
    it would still appear that you would seek to limit all VoD program
    events to written forms of communication alone and this is clearly
    discriminatory to entire segments of the working population (not to
    mention the fact that it would make a mockery of the freedom of 
    speech which you claim to hold so dear).

>    Since your representation of my argument is incorrect, the reasoning
>    that follows from the misrepresentation is not relevant to my actual
>    argument.

    	As I said, you have yet to even present an argument in this note!
    You are still too busy ducking for cover and running from the bad Karma
    you created in your other notes.  In my reply #.55, I tried to extract 
    what few rational statements of yours I could from note #1616 to see
    if they hold any water, but you will have to take some initiative on
    your own to present your arguments here as I am not about to reconstruct
    them for you.

    				   -davo

	History in other notesfiles has established that, if you ignore him
	he will go away.

	Going away myself, I remain humbly yours,

	MM

    RE:.61
    It's really not fair to offer false hope. I sense this will end up like
    "Nightmare on Elm Street; part XXVIII".

    Anent .56 (PORTER):  I have also seen studies about electronic
    conferences and their effect on interpersonal communication.  It's
    still an infant field of study, but this note (and 1616) demonstrate
    the correctness of your assertion.  When you don't see or hear the
    other party, you don't receive any perceptual clues that the person may
    be calm or agitated, serious or joking, clear or confused, young or
    old, male or female.  It's possible for someone to be "pulling your
    leg" or "having on with you" without your recognizing it.
    
    Add to that the fact that the Noter is physically detached.  PORTER
    could be in the Mill or in Singapore; JONG could be in Littleton or
    Bombay.  I can say anything to PORTER and probably never see the impact
    or pay any penalty.  We can't react to each other as people.  If one
    wants to flame, one can do so with some impunity.
    
    The various editing programs allow nearly endless nitpicking exchanges
    where individual sentences, lines, or words can be repeated and
    analyzed at length, giving rise to the 100-line reply focussing on ten
    lines in a previous note.
    
    Finally, I think most people are not fluent in their use of language,
    and tend to underestimate the power of their words.  Words can make an
    impact, drive home a point, even hurt.  Sometimes people get lucky and
    type a powerful phrase.  More often, people enter something strong,
    thinking it's weak.  Also, sometimes phrases are entered imprecisely,
    in haste.  You Note in haste and then reply at leisure.  (See my
    previous comment about endless nitpicking.)
    
    Just as a general comment, I think people should enter notes with the
    expectation that their friends, coworkers, and managers will be reading
    them now and in the future.  Today's antagonist may be tomorrow's team
    member or even manager.  (Stranger things have happened!)  Productive
    and illuminating discussions are always welcome, but getting into flame
    wars is like getting into urinating contests, except there's literally
    a record on file that can be retrieved for years to come.  I've gotten
    sucked into flame wars and regretted doing so...

    RE: a few back.
    
    Actually, I don't think we'll have to ignore EDP for him to go away...
    I suspect he's so embarrassed, he won't dare show his face for months.
    
    Laurie.

Isn't it all so neat and inspiring though?  I get the feeling that this kind of
discourse was exactly what the founding fathers expected when they said all of
that stuff about free speech.  If you'll dig a little you will find that there
were dozens of "leaflet" newspapers floating throughout Philadelphia during
the constitutional debates.  Some of those opinions were downright nasty!

I remember running off those alcohol-and-blue-ink counter-whatever diatribes
many a time while in my misspent college years.  What a wonderful place to live
where we can do stuff like that.

Free speech is very often obnoxious.  Tough toots!  That's why the make <NEXT
UNSEEN>.

thomas

"Who is the bigger fool, the fool, or the fool who follows the fool?"

    re: .63  (Noting with an attitude?)
    
    I've spent a lot of time working with electronic mail systems, and
    playing with Notes - back to 1983 or earlier.  I've always tried (and
    sometimes failed) to keep in mind the implications of the media itself:
    
    . Take care in chosing the right words - you don't get to see the
      reaction of the reader, and you don't get to correct yourself until
      much later, if at all. By then, the damage may be irreparable.
    
    . Assume everyone on earth will see what you write.  If you wouldn't
      print it out and hang it on your office wall for all to see, then you
      probably better reword it.
    
    . People use mail and Notes in much the way they drive in traffic -
      detached, aloof, and with a false sense of power.  Note defensively,
      it's better to err on the side of caution then to tick someone off by
      mistake.
    
    . When really irritated and angry and dying to just torch some clown
      who desparately deserves it, write it, save it somewhere without
      posting it, look at it again in the morning.  Most times it gets
      trashed, but don't let that deter going through the motions.  Ya gotta
      let it out SOMEhow!
    
    Like I said, sometimes I don't remember my own rules, but most times I
    manage to get through ok...
    
    tim
    

| I remember running off those alcohol-and-blue-ink counter-whatever diatribes
| many a time while in my misspent college years.

	Was that the same blue stuff they used to make copies in grade school?
You know, the stuff everyone would sniff when it was freshly printed? ;-)




Glen

    Mimeographs.
    
    tim
    

			Thanks Tim!

Wrong.  Mimeographs are made by typically black ink that flows through a
stencil.  The blue stuff with the alcohol was sold under the trademark
Ditto, and was known generically as spirit duplication.  I imagine they're
both as common as slide rules these days.

    RE: .70 Actually both Ditto and mimeographs are both quite common
    in schools today. Copy machines are expensive to buy and run.
    Especially compared to a Ditto or mimeograph machine you already
    own. And book publishers sell resources for use with Ditto and
    mimeographs. They'd rather do that than sell copy machine input because
    mimeograph and Ditto input wears out.
    
    			Alfred

            Oops, is this ::DIGITAL, not ::SOAPBOX?  <-:blush:->

re: 1650.86,

>    Some responses have questioned how I could know that most people would
>    readily operate the ovens if ordered to do so.

    	This is not what people are questioning.  They are questioning
    your assertion in note #1616.577 that the as opposed to people in
    general (as was indicated by Milton's study) that in particular
    "Valuing Differences supporters would readily operate the ovens when
    ordered to do so, that being the mentality of such crusaders."

    	Your statement singles out supporters of the VoD program as
    being somehow more likely to operate such ovens.  There is absolutely
    no basis for this statement.  Were the Nazis who actually did operate
    ovens big Valuing Differences supporters?  On the contrary, they were
    xenophobic extreemists who were attempting to end all differences
    by killing people who were different.  This is precisesly the opposite
    of what the VoD program is all about.

    				  -davo

    It was a rhetorical H-bomb of a comment, and I think not a germane one.

re: 1649.87,

>    OK, we get out of the morality business, and, VoD should be the first
>    ones out the door?

    	This would be true if the VoD program did in fact provide
    financial incentives to DEC employees for following one particular
    morality over another, but unlike the benefits program, the VoD
    program does not do this.  My understanding of the VoD program
    is that it is designed to foster understanding of diversity in the
    workplace, and that it does so by providing open forums for the
    sharing of cultural views and values.  To my knowledge however,
    the VoD program provides no particular advantage or incentive to
    any one morality over another.

    	The benefits program however, does offer advantages and incentives
    to certain moralities over others.  Specifically, it offers financial
    advantages to hetrosexuals who marry and have children in a specifically
    Western-styled "nuclear" family arrangement.  Furthermore, these benefits
    are paid for by the profits of a widely diverse workforce - many of whom
    do not happen to qualify for these benefits.  By choosing to reward
    certain life and family styles over others, DEC unwittingly finds itself
    in the morality business.

    	If it were not for programs such as the VoD program (as well as
    to the discussions such as this which relate to the VoD program), it
    is quite possible that the inherent unfairness associated with the
    existing benefits program, along with the frustrations of those who do
    not currently benefit from the existing benefits program, might never
    even be acknowledged.  IMHO, it is precisely these sorts of underlying
    inequities in the workplace that the VoD program is designed to
    recognize and ultimately address.

    	To summarize, while it is accurate to say that the VoD program
    deals with moral issues, it is not accurate to say that the VoD program
    offers any sort of financial incentives to DEC employees for following
    one moral code over another.  Therefore, the Vod program does not involve
    DEC in what I termed the "morality business", so it is quite consistent
    to want DEC out of the morality business while also supporting the VoD
    program (which exposes such inequities in the first place).

				  -davo

I think I've figured out the crux of at least one part of this
debate.   Actually, it appeared in one of the several VoD rathole
topics in this file.  I may be a little slow on the uptake, but
although I noticed this kernel before, it failed to fully register
that this may be the central point of argument.

The matter is something like "is it necessary for validity that VoD recognise
all differences as being of equal standing?"  (this isn't supposed to
be a direct quotation, so no cries of misrepresentation, please).

There are those who seem to say that, without this being true,
VoD is inherently flawed, biased, and maybe even evil.

To state my viewpoint: I disagree.  To attempt to address issues of,
say, eye colour as being of equal importance as issues of, say, skin colour
seems like foolishness in the extreme.   Self-evidently, there are
some differences that are important enough to need urgent attention,
and some that aren't.  You may justifiably want to debate about
whether difference X should or should not be on the VoD agenda;
that's fair enough.  

Sheesh, I seem to be defending the VoD program.  How'd I ever
get myself into that position?   

| -< OH?  They, perhaps *define* morality? >-

	Define it? Nah. What I think they are doing is protecting a group under
the umbrella. I myself wouldn't have a problem if the Christians wanted to be
under the VoD umbrella, with Bibles in hand. There out there now and we're
surviving.....



Glen

    
    	While the "oven" analogy does seem a bit strong, the point being
    made I believe, is that VoD is used by some individuals as a club to
    enforce their own notion of right/wrong. I would have to agree that
    is regretfully true in many areas I have witnessed, and to argue with
    that point can invite much trouble to be visited upon oneself.
    
    	It is not a valid reason to abandon such a program, merely an
    invitation to try and improve it, provided you dare run the risk. It
    is a challenge for VoD believers to listen carefull and not get so
    swept up in the heat and retoric that envelope each side...you can
    pick up a club and swing it without realizing you have done so.
    
    	bob
    

re: .77,

.77> *Please* help me to understand:

.75> ...the VoD program provides no particular advantage ...to any
.75> one morality over another.

.77> in view of:

1616.333> In fact, we were told (and I have it in writing) that we would
1616.333> not be allowed to use the Bible because after all it speaks clearly
1616.333> against homosexuality.

    	In order to answer this question, we need to look at the original
    statement of purpose for the VoD program from Ken Olsen (posted in
    note 1616.35).  Particularly, the last sentence in the first paragraph:

1616.35> ...We will provide
1616.35> a work environment free from discrimination and harassment of any kind.

    	I think this might explain the reasoning behind the alleged 
    decision by the CXO VoD committee to disallow the use of the Bible
    if, in fact, the Christian VoD group intended to use Biblical passages
    in a way which were considered harrassing or discriminatory to Gay,
    Lesbian or Bisexual DEC employees.  Of course, it is extremely hard
    to speculate on the exact reasoning behind the alleged VoD committee
    decision in this case without more information.  Since the author of
    note #1616.333 claims to have the reasons in writing, then perhaps
    they could obtain permission to share these written reasons with us
    here to aid in the discussion.

    	Personally, I feel that if the Bible was in fact excluded entirely
    from a Christian VoD committee presentation, then that would leave
    extremely little for such a committee to present.  If, however, the
    jist of the recommendation by the CXO committee was to exclude the
    use of certain Biblical passages to harrass fellow DEC employees, then
    then this would seem to be an altogether different situation (after
    all, the Bible was used to support slavery during and prior to the
    U.S. Civil War as well, and I'm sure that the modern-day use of the
    Bible for this purpose would similarly be disallowed at DEC).

    				    -davo

	RE: .80 Davo, you seem to be argueing that Digital is and should be
	 in the morality business. Or is harassment not a moral problem?

			Alfred

    Re .73:
    
    > This is not what people are questioning.
    
    Sure, some of them were, as I stated.  You may have another question,
    but that does not void the question others asked.
    
    > There is absolutely no basis for this statement.
    
    Yes, there is.  I have seen and heard how "Valuing Differences"
    supporters act, and I know they have the same human foibles as
    everybody else, that they discriminate, and they have not transcended
    their culture.
    
    As I said in 1650, I know that Digital's "Valuing Differences" program
    would give its support to the killing of people.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re: .83  edp
    
    >>As I said in 1650, I know that Digital's "Valuing Differences"
    program would give its support to the killing of people.
    
    SET <FLAME ON>
    
    HOW DARE YOU make  such a baseless, unfounded, derogatory, and utterly
    tasteless remark about a group of people/employees who's purpose in
    this company is to try and integrate MANY different cultures, ideas,
    and beliefs into Digital's work environment!!!
    
    As a mostly "Read Only" noter I have seen many entries by you making
    statements about a topic then back-pedaling on subsequent notes on
    your views.  
    
    IMPO, YOU havn't taken a solid stand on *ANY* of your entries, and I
    believe your sole purpose is to disrupt any meaningful discussions with
    your drivel.  This only clouds both the issues, and your views on the
    topics, but also sidetracks discussions down the proverbial "rat Hole"!
    
    SET <FLAME OFF>
    
    I don't always agree with the practices of the "V.D." folks, but I do
    respect what they are trying to do by making Digital a better place to
    work for people of *ALL* denominations and beliefs...
    
    Nuff said. 
    
                                  Tom

    Surely, by definition, a veteran is somebody who is no longer employed
    killing people.
    
    Joe

    [reposted to add two concluding paragraphs -- sfj]
    
    You know, when I saw the mail yesterday that this month's VoD event in
    marlboro would involve veterans, I wondered how long it would be before
    it would be attacked.  It didn't take long:
    
    .83 (edp): 
    
    >> As I said in 1650, I know that Digital's "Valuing Differences" program
    >> would give its support to the killing of people.
    
    If I follow the thread of logic here, veterans participated in wars;
    veterans killed people; VoD is sponsoring a veteran's event; therefore
    VoD would give its support to the killing of people because it *is*
    "supporting" this event.  This is a gossamer thread of logic, but at
    least one can see from its beginning to its end.
    
    In Note 1650, edp quantified his statement as "100,000 foreigners." 
    One might infer from this that he's taking an estimate of Iraqi deaths
    in the Gulf War.
    
    All right, then.  Damn bad show about those Iraqi deaths.  Take it up
    with Saddam Hussein, why don't you?
    
    As the son, grandson, and brother of veterans, I could, again, take
    this comment as a personal affront, but I'll let it slide.  Instead,
    I'd like to explore what lies behind the assertion.
    
    So what's your point, edp?  Do you have a specific objection to Digital
    publicizing that veterans may have a different perspective on things?
    Do you have a specific objection to Digital's taking note that it
    employs veterans?  Do you have a specific objection to Digital
    employing veterans?  (I remind you that Digital supports veterans as a
    corporate policy, in accordance with U.S. law.)  Is this a rhetorical
    hand grenade, or do you have a point, an objection?

    Another argument advanced recently by edp is, if I understand it
    correctly, that the VoD program values some differences and not others.
    edp, why do you make that statement?  Is it because some groups (such
    as gay/lesbian/bisexual and also now veterans) have been "featured" via
    Awareness Days, while others have not?  You've also stated, I think,
    that your personal differences are not valued by VoD.
    
    Upon reflection, I think the first point is not fair.  There are so
    many groups and so few awareness days.  Maybe they haven't gotten
    around to all the groups on their agenda yet?  You haven't mentioned
    Portuguese Awareness Day, for example, but that was another event
    sponsored by VoD.  If they do Awareness Days for individual countries,
    they'll be at it for years!  Just because they haven't covered all the
    groups yet doesn't mean they won't.
    
    What group would you claim to belong to?  Perhaps you'll get your day.
    Or do you say that you are not a member of a group, but an individual.
    I really urge you to sign up for the course "Understanding the
    Dynamics of Difference."  I think one of the fundamental points made
    there is that you should look at an individual as an individual, not as
    a member of a group, to gain a true understanding.  You just might find
    that you are in raging agreement with the VoD program and its goals!

    The idea that VoD is sponsoring "Awareness" activities for Veterans
    is an interesting point.

    The people most often labeled "PC" were against the Gulf War - yet the 
    same so-called "PC" people are willing to support VoD for people involved 
    in an event (the Gulf War) that is "NON-PC."

    By the way, I'm often labeled PC myself - and I most definitely support
    VoD - but I was (and remain) a strong supporter of the Gulf War.

    So - if VoD does a non-PC act like supporting Veterans (and if some
    VoD supporters also support a non-PC action like the Gulf War) - then
    "PC" is a pretty meaningless label (except to those who use it as a
    weapon to lodge ad hominem attacks on others.)

    re: VoD and veterans
    
    Whereas the U.S. forces in the war against Iraq were all volunteer and
    Whereas we were were all sensitized by an earlier discussion to the
    wrongheadedness of including under the VoD umbrella so-called
    differences that were really choices, is it therefore safe to assume
    the Heros of Desert Storm are excluded from mention by the VoD
    veterans' event? If not, we should expect another 500+ string of
    replies.
    
    Us moral folk with our fingers in the social fabric's rupturing dike
    certainly insist on consistency at all costs. 
    
    John H.

What, no Dweeb Recognition Day?  No wonder people are upset!

    ... as has been said in other conferences MANY times...  BWAH-HA-HAAA!!
                                      :-)

>   <<< Note 981.92 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>
>
>What, no Dweeb Recognition Day?  No wonder people are upset!
    
    Yup.  They're gonna invite Vice President Quayle as guest speaker.
    ;-)
    
    tim
    

>       <<< Note 981.83 by ALIEN::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
>
>    As I said in 1650, I know that Digital's "Valuing Differences" program
>    would give its support to the killing of people.
>    
>    
>    				-- edp
    
    That is the most assinine statement I have ever seen in a pubic forum. 
    It wouldn't surprise me if it also constitutes slander.  I cannot
    understand what realistic basis could exist for such an insulting,
    degrading, and totally offensive remark.
    
    How repulsive!
    
    tim
    
    

>       <<< Note 981.83 by ALIEN::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
>
>    As I said in 1650, I know that Digital's "Valuing Differences" program
>    would give its support to the killing of people.
>    
>    
>    				-- edp
    
    	Were those the people who were going to man the ovens?

re: .81,

>	RE: .80 Davo, you seem to be argueing that Digital is and should be
>	 in the morality business. Or is harassment not a moral problem?

    	Harassment is most definitely a moral problem, but then so is
    lust, diet, the direction one faces to pray, clothing styles, and
    everything else under the sun (and moon).  In short, a moral problem
    can be arbitrarily defined to include most anything, and it is up
    to the world's legal systems to determine which moral problems they
    wish to solve with laws, and corespondingly, it is then up to a
    given corporation's management/personnel/legal structures to attempt
    to sufficiently govern employee behavior such that employees do not
    involve the corporation in legal problems.

    	So, it is true that that DEC inforces a given morality by
    imposing a doctrine of legally defined morals on its employees,
    and the rules regarding harrassment are included in this morality,
    but the enforcement of a legally defined moral code does *not*
    in and of itself qualify DEC as being in the morality business.

    	Recall that I am the one who originally coined the phrase
    "morality business", so as the inventor of this phrase, I reserve
    the right to define what this phrase means.  8-)  According to my
    definition of the phrase, in order for a corporation to be in the
    morality business, it must offer financial incentives or monetary
    rewards to its employees for living their lives in accordance with
    a particular morality.

    	According to the above definition, DEC is in the morality business
    due to the benefits program which provides added financial benefits to
    married hetrosexual employees with children.  On the same token, since
    the VoD program offers no particular financial incentives or monetary
    rewards to DEC employees for living their lives in accordance with
    one particular morality over another, then the VoD program does *not*
    in and of itself qualify DEC as being in the morality business.

    				    -davo

    
    I usually don't do this, but...
    
    Ditto on .84 Tom Brown, .91 Bubba (1st 2 paragraphs you wrote),
    .95 Laurie and .96 Tim Grady--including all flames and exclamation
    points, and including such terms as: derogatory, utterly tasteless,
    odious, repulsive, sickening, asinine, insulting, degrading, offensive
    and repulsive [again].  I'd also add: disgusting, hateful, repugnant 
    and despicable.
    
    VoD is not part of my job any more, but I do support the concept of the
    program.  I've had questions about it, and after investigating it
    rather thoroughly still have issues with some parts of it, but that
    statement is without a doubt one of the most offensive I have ever
    read in any notesfile.

    Re .84:
    
    >> As I said in 1650, I know that Digital's "Valuing Differences"
    >> program would give its support to the killing of people.
    > 
    > SET <FLAME ON>
    >
    > HOW DARE YOU make  such a baseless, unfounded, derogatory, and utterly
    > tasteless remark about a group of people/employees who's purpose in
    > this company is to try and integrate MANY different cultures, ideas,
    > and beliefs into Digital's work environment!!!

    I don't dare; it's not unfounded. 
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .85:
    
    > If I follow the thread of logic here, veterans participated in wars;
    > veterans killed people; VoD is sponsoring a veteran's event; therefore
    > VoD would give its support to the killing of people because it *is*
    > "supporting" this event.
    
    Why do people do that?  Why do people take something I said, pluck
    something else out of the air, and try to put the two together?  I
    didn't present any such thread of logic; don't try to imply I did.
    
    Is it really so hard to _ask_ me what my reasoning is instead of making
    something up?
    
    No, it's not through veterans that Digital's "Valuing Differences"
    program got involved in the Iraq war.  Digital's "Valuing Differences"
    program actively supported active participants in the war.
    
    
    				-- edp

    re.101
    So you are *absolutely* sure non of the veterans served in the medical
    corps?
    
    Charles Mallo

    Re .96:
    
    > I cannot understand what realistic basis could exist for such an
    > insulting, degrading, and totally offensive remark.
    
    You apparently have not tried to understand.  You haven't even asked
    what the basis is.
    
    Really, it is quite illustrative how many people just deny a statement
    without making any consideration at all for its basis.  The statement
    does not fit your preconceived notions; it is different, so just attack
    it.
    
    Go on, prove to me more that Digital does not "Value Differences".
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .97:
    
    They were people just like any others, and, just like the people of
    Digital's "Valuing Differences" program, most of them too would operate
    the ovens if called upon.
    
    But they were people, and they were slaughtered, and Digital's "Valuing
    Differences" program gave its support to the people slaughtering them.
    
    
    				-- edp

  re .106
  
  Again.....prove it!

    Scenario #1:  The BM2TD program _literally_ captures someone suspected
    of harassing a G/L/B person.  They strap them into a chair and attach
    their electrodes.  They show the victim videos of others harassing
    G/L/B people...  For every incident, they administer electric shocks, 
    in an attempt to associate the aversive stimuli with the depictions of
    harassment.  [For an extra fillip of enjoyment, they take a leaf from
    Stanley Milgram's experimental logbook and wear white lab coats and
    ORDER heretofore-unwilling experimental subjects to administer the
    shocks.]  
    
    For particularly egregious (and well-documented :-) offenders, videos
    of their OWN behavior towards gays are shown and similarly negatively
    reinforced.  Thus the BM2TD (Behavior Modification to Tolerate
    Differences) program attempts to train offenders to cease the offending
    behavior.  No attempt is made to deal with any higher mental processes
    in the trainees.  This is not mind control, except by accident; if the
    offending person is not "cured" of a tendency to harass gays by pure
    conditioning, s/he may be cured as a felicitous byproduct of the mental
    association between visualizing the emission of that punished behavior,
    and the subsequent punishment -- by remembering that those thoughts
    that lead to harrassment, also have led to punishment.  Problem solved.
         (Yes, this reminds me too of "A Clockwork Orange."  Yeecch!)
    
    Scenario #2:  The VoD planners -- realizing that it's futile and
    (naturally!) totally illegal to implement (-: or even THINK of!:-) a
    BM2TD program like Scenario #1, decide to take the tack of working
    toward the goal, among others, of increased tolerance for different
    (non-normal) folks through a program of "empathy enhancement."  They
    run activities that are directed to the purpose of helping "self-
    perceived as normal" folks inderstand the viewpoints of, and to
    identify with others of different racial background, sexual preference,
    and/or physical ability (probably among other differences).  They try
    to get folks to "walk a mile in the moccasins" of these other groups.   
    
    Some folks balk at this idea, thinking (mistakenly, imo) that the goal
    is for them to become exactly like the different, minority group, or
    that the goal is for PREFERENCE to be given to the different group. 
    This is not the case, imo; I don't view this attempt to alter beliefs
    as "mind control;" it seems much more to me to be "mind expansion." 
    The goal is tolerance inside, so that this new MENTAL state lowers the
    probability of the emission of socially- and businessly-(sic)
    undesirable intolerant behaviors.
    
    And it's greatly to be preferred to REAL "mind control" procedures,
    which as I say are incompatible with a free society in general, and
    certainly with DEC in particular.
    
    Seemztame that some social critics of the VoD program, "shockingly"
    unaware of the choice that was made in its implementation, have
    confused Scenario #1 for Scenario #2, which is (in my limited exposure
    to VoD) probably far closer to the truth.  If you don't mind my drastic
    understatement, that is.
    
    Perhaps the word "Valuing" in VoD is part of the problem, as others
    have pointed out.  Folks complain that they will NEVER actually "value"
    a "lifestyle" they abhor.  Primarily (imo, for some of them) from this
    semantic mismatch, they proceed to devalue :-) the goals of the entire
    program.  I say, let's get past the naming problem and decide on
    whether it's in DIGITAL's best interest that folks get along with one
    another and give each other respect and an equal shake.  Scenario #2 
    doesn't seem like an invasion of privacy to me.  Again sorry for any 
    vast understatements here. 
    
    Dan Kalikow
               

    RE: 1650.140
    
    >> Psychological experiments seldom PROVE anything (beyond the fact that
    >> a certain experiment will yield similar results with different testers.)

    > Yes, and airplanes have never been proven to fly, beyond the fact that
    > a certain structure will yield similar results with different pilots.
    
    Psychology is NOT physics, math NOR aerodynamics!
    
    Neither are your opinions FACTS.  They aren't now, nor will they ever
    be.

    RE: last few.
    
    I'd like to comment, but I've been gagged.
    
    Laurie.

    Anent .102 (edp):  "People" did not try to put your statements
    together; I did.  I did it because I was trying to understand what you
    are saying.  From what you are now saying, I gather you're saying
    something slightly different.
    
    Actually, to answer your question, it *is* hard to ask you what your
    reasoning is, because so many people line up to challenge you that you
    answer only a select few.
    
    To what are you referring when you stated, "Digital's 'Valuing
    Differences' program actively supported active participants in the
    war"?
    
    I expect that you had something in mind, so assuming you have, let me
    further ask you: What is your objection to this?

    Re .107, .112:

    I received mail from a person saying they were a member of MRO's
    "Valuing Differences" committee.  This person touted some of the
    "Valuing Differences" activities they had conducted, one of which was
    creating a banner to send to the troops of Operation Desert Storm.

    Now if somebody wants to support the troops, that's not necessarily a
    bad thing.  Certainly many people think nationalism is a good thing and
    want to support their country.  Certainly many people thought Kuwait
    needed defending and doing that was a good thing.  But even these
    people must admit that killing people to accomplish a goal is at best
    an ugly necessity.

    It was not in the headlines, but it was news available to the public: 
    In the Iraq war, the United States killed one hundred thousand Iraqis,
    maybe two hundred thousand.  The United States was reveling in its
    fancy weapons while human beings were dying.

    As I said, supporting the troops is not necessarily a bad thing.  Maybe
    the United States was doing the right thing.  But was it valuing
    differences?  No.  Is supporting the troops a valuing differences
    activity?  Absolutely not.  Supporting the troops is nationalism; it is
    cultural, but it is not valuing differences.  Supporting the troops is
    not about recognizing the differences among people and treating the
    friction that is caused.  Supporting the troops was purely a part of
    what is very much a cultural bias:  holding one's own country above
    others.  It is completely antithetical to valuing differences.

    But that is what MRO's "Valuing Differences" committee did.  Human
    beings truly concerned with the problems caused by differences would
    have been saddened by the deaths of foreigners.  Caring people would
    have been saddened by the international frictions that cause these
    conflicts.  A valuing differences approach would have supported more
    attempt at understanding foreigners; it would have pushed to give a
    better chance to peaceful negotiations instead of war.  In the event of
    war, a valuing differences approach would express concern for all
    people involved; it would not take sides.

    During the war, I passed a place in a mall where a banner to be sent to
    the troops had been set up for people to sign, and people were
    clustering around it, waiting for their chance to sign.  It was almost
    a party-like atmosphere, and that was distasteful to me.  The word
    "carnival" is particularly appropriate.  Oh, the weapons were
    impressive, but how could human beings take joy in war?  It can only be
    because they were not aware of the human misery that existed even at
    the moments their pens touched the cloth.  They did not know -- they
    were not aware of the differences.  The difference in this case is the
    most tragic of all; not only were the suffering people foreigners, but
    the difference between our troops, with their video-game weapons, and
    the foreigners was that the foreigners were dying in droves.

    War is ugly.  Under no circumstances is it "Valuing Differences".  Yet
    MRO's "Valuing Differences" committee joined in the support of the
    United States.  Once again, I am not saying this is necessarily bad,
    but it absolutely, positively, is not valuing differences.  The
    "Valuing Differences" committee did not do this thing because it is
    part of a valuing differences philosophy.  They did it because it was a
    part of their culture.  They fell prey to the same motivations that
    affected so much of this country, and they supported the killing of one
    hundred thousand foreigners.

    Digital's "Valuing Differences" program does not value differences.  It
    does not recognize differences beyond those currently accepted by the
    culture it is a part of.  It is not faithful to its alleged philosophy. 
    It hurts people with other differences.  "Valuing Differences" sounds
    nice, but the truth is that the people of this program will do what
    their culture leads them to do, whether it is the right thing or not.


    				-- edp

RE: .113

Eric,

I may not agree with everything you say and do in this conference but,
I have to say that you present a VERY good argument here. Well said...

- George

    .113
    
    Well, there is finally a viewpoint and situation discussed that could
    provide ground for a discussion about 'what is part and what is not
    part of Valuing Differences' - and I must admit I can agree with the
    viewpoint that this is not a Valuing Differences but more a cultural
    specific action, in which I don't see much 'difference valued'. 
    
    That leaves me with the question whether it's fair to conclude from
    this case, which may be an isolated incident, and may not be a general
    VoD guideline, that 'Digital's VoD program is filth', or that 'it's
    supporters would gladly man the ovens'. Even worse, if this is a
    debatable issue in the VoD discussion, I fail to see why it took so
    long to be entered this way, while other discussions have been ratholed
    so much (to wit, note 1616.*). Surely instances as this could have
    provoked a sensible discussion in their own topic.
    
    Whether there still is any spirit left to discuss the VoD program based
    on examples like this, remains to be seen. I think that's a shame.
    
    Ad

    Well, at least we can dispose of ONE of the labels that has been
    unfairly attached to VoD:  "PC"!
    
    Supporting the Gulf War is *definitely* not "PC," no matter what else
    one can say about it.
    
    So much for the claim that "PC-ness" is the motivation for choosing
    which groups to highlight in VoD activities.
    
    Isn't it a drag when one is so busy attaching labels (with the neat
    potential of distorting the truth and condemning people en masse) that 
    the labels start contradicting each other?

>       <<< Note 981.105 by BEING::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
>
>    Re .96:
>    
>    > I cannot understand what realistic basis could exist for such an
>    > insulting, degrading, and totally offensive remark.
>    
>    You apparently have not tried to understand.  You haven't even asked
>    what the basis is.
    
    I don't care (anymore) what the basis is.
        
    Indeed, I have tried to understand, but I am still unable to understand
    the logic that leads you to leap from the incident that you document in
    .113, to the manipulative statements about VoD supporters manning ovens
    and supporting the killing of people.  Manipulative, in my opinion,
    because they are exagerations, and even outright fabrications of
    unrelated scenarios, for the apparently sole purpose of getting
    attention.  In other words, a cheap trick, sophomoric drivel, again in
    my opinion.  I get the distinct impression that your ONLY purpose was
    to manipulate your audience, and I resent it.
    
    Even though I too oppose the Gulf War, and I do not agree with VoD
    involvement in support of it, these issues are no excuse for your abuse 
    of this media to hurl such offensive epithets.  I value a constructive
    discussion, ne' even argument over topical issues, and the opportunity
    to explore our language further in the process.  But I maintain that
    such adolescent tactics destroy any hope that you have of retaining
    even the slightest shred of credibility.
    
    It's just plain insulting.
    
    In other words, I believe you might have even made your point.  You
    clearly have command of a great many big words to use, but you take
    them out of bounds to win.  I don't believe you.  You can't make your
    point and retain a civil tongue (or keyboard, such as it is ;-).
    I don't think you're sincere.  I don't think you even mean it.  
    
    I think it's all just for show.  Have a good time.
    
>   Go on, prove to me more that Digital does not "Value Differences".
    
    Go on, prove to me that you're not just a big phoney.
    
    tim
    

re: .113,

    	I see nothing inconsistent with the VoD program creating a
    banner to send to the troops of Operation Desert Storm.  Like
    every other VoD program activity and group, each represents a
    given subgrouping of the Digital workforce.  Likewise, it would
    not be inconsistent to hear of yet another VoD program activity
    which set about to create a banner to send to the Iraqui soldiers,
    victims, and families of the Iraq war as well.

    	Of course, like every other VoD group or activity, this would
    mean that someone would need to take the initiative to form such
    a VoD group, and they would also need to take the initiative to
    create such a banner.  Seeing as how it is apparently much easier
    (or at least apparently far more enjoyable) to simply sit back and
    criticize the VoD program than it is to take such an initiative,
    then I don't see such a banner or a VoD group being formed any
    time soon.  The same goes for any of the other causes to which
    people claim there is currently no VoD representation.

    				  -davo

    Many companies sent banners/cards/care-pkgs/etc. to show their support
    for their employees who were in the Nat'l Guard and participated in the 
    war; These soldiers were *different* from civilian employees and were
    valued as such.
    

    re .113
    
    I understand the logic that requires that an organization be faithful
    to its charter and agree that the MRO VoD group failed in this.  I
    think this is inevitable when a charter is described in such imprecise
    terms that everyone feels empowered to rewrite it or to do "what they
    think is right" in the name of the "group".  Clearly, to keep a local,
    voluntary organization close to its charter is very difficult.
    
    On the other hand, lack of control by any central VoD organization,
    failure to discipline its "franchisees" is not equivalent to supporting
    any particular local action.  It is just another manifestation of the
    inability of some idealistic folks to recognize that it takes more than
    good will to do good.  So, I reject your portrayal of VoD as malicious,
    just ineffectual.
    
    re .118
    
    Apparently you don't believe that the words used as the title of an
    organization should be descriptive of their activities.  I disagree. 
    Until we can accept the discipline of calling things by names
    appropriate to their charters, we will encourage the kind of rhetoric
    we have seen too much of already.
    
    If the name of an organization within Digital is Valuing Differences,
    then let it be about that, not about anything that the members think is
    "nice".  Banners for the troops are not about differences.
    
    imho,
    
    Dick

	So how come edp gets away with a certain barnyard expletive in .104?

	MM

    Anent .104 (edp):  Please do not use vulgar language in this
    conference.
    
    You sound as if you are offended by reply .92.  Are you offended?  If
    you have an objection, make it known to the moderators and perhaps they
    will delete it.
    
    In any event, I don't see how you can label the existence of such a
    note as a failure of the VoD program.  I don't see the connection at
    all.

    re .123
    
    VoD is chartered to educate us about how to value _our_ differences as
    persons within Digital, not the differences between what someone 
    (who may not even be an employee) is _doing_ temporarily.  Digital is a
    multinational company and none of its programs should be straying into
    nationalistic activities.
    
    On the other hand, I admit that the name is so ridiculously vague that
    other interpretations are likely.  If I were charged with naming such
    an organization, I would like to think I could come up with something
    less ambiguous.
    
    fwiw,
    
    Dick

re .124

>    multinational company and none of its programs should be straying into
>    nationalistic activities.

Yes, this is an interesting point.  On the one hand Digital as a 
corporation is obliged to work within the laws of the country.  In this 
country they have to support people in the Reserves by law, and I'm sure 
it's the same in the US and elsewhere.  At the same time, what happens if 
(say) the US gets into an argument with a country in which Digital has a 
significant presence?  Support both sides?  I suppose that's what country 
management is for...

>		  			At the same time, what happens if 
>(say) the US gets into an argument with a country in which Digital has a 
>significant presence?

	Then we can have even more nasty shoot-outs in DIGITAL.NOTE

re .124, .125,

>    multinational company and none of its programs should be straying into
>    nationalistic activities.

    	Keep in mind that despite the moral justifications (or lack
    thereof) for waging war in general, that Operation Desert Storm
    was a multinational military operation supported by the United
    Nations against a nationalistic aggressor.  While Operation Desert
    Storm was headed by a U.S. commander, it would be an insult to the
    other countries which participated in the operation to claim that
    it was a purely nationalistic activity.

    				   -davo

re .-1

Yeah, but in how many countries did they sell "Operation Desert
Storm" T-shirts?

(No, I don't claim to know the answer)

re .129

>Yeah, but in how many countries did they sell "Operation Desert
>Storm" T-shirts?

Well, I can scratch one country from any potential list right now...

    Moderators, please move this to the appropriate topic if needed....
    
    The Greater Marlboro Are Valuing Diversity Committee is please to
    sponsor:
    
    	VALUING DIVERSITY-----THE BUSINESS CONNECTION AND PROFITABILITY
    
    		NOVEMBER 26, 1991
    
    		12:00PM TO 1:00PM
    
    		MRO4 AMPHITHEATRE
    
	
    Speakers will be Barbara Latimer - External Relations and Valuing 
                     Diversity Manager
    
                     Ken Allt - Corporate Demand/Supply
    
    Digital's Valuing Diversity Definition Statement
    
    Diversity is the work of enhancing Digital's profitability by
    continuing to build a diverse workforce and by creating an environment
    which maximizes the contribution of the company's employees around the
    world. Digital recognizes diversity as a critical dimension of our
    business success...
    
    Registration is requird because of seating limitations...please send
    mail to Denise Hurley@MRO or MCIS1::Dhurley or call 297-2561...
    

    It is approaching that time of year when Digital demonstrates in
    another way that it does not value differences.
    
    Each year, Digital procures turkeys as gifts for its employees in the
    New England area.  Around the time of this event two years ago or more,
    a person pointed out in a Notes conference that they were vegetarian
    and would prefer that Digital not procure a turkey on their behalf. 
    Digital does allow employees to choose not to receive a turkey, and
    Digital will donate the turkey to charity if the employee places their
    gift card in a box, but the turkey has still been obtained, and some
    employees would prefer that an animal not be killed on their behalf.
    
    I did not agree with this person's beliefs about the ethics of using
    animals as food (in fact I had been arguing against them in Notes), but
    even so, I recognized that their beliefs ought to be respected as
    applied to themself.  So I wrote to a corporate-level "Valuing
    Differences" representative, described the situation, and suggested
    that Digital make an alternative available, such as another gift to the
    employee, another gift to charity, or simply that Digital not procure
    an animal for employees who wished that no animal be killed on their
    behalf.
    
    I received an acknowledgement, but Digital has not shown any sign of
    valuing the differences of vegetarians.  Admittedly, making another
    selection available might be difficult, particularly since many
    non-vegetarians might choose it as well, thus complicating
    administration.  But certainly the least Digital could do would be to
    count the people who did not want a turkey killed and then reducing
    turkey procurement by that number, eventually reducing the market for
    dead animals.  I cannot believe the cost of counting these people and
    matching them with their gift cards would approach the cost of the
    turkey itself, so this program would cost Digital nothing -- perhaps it
    would even save the company money.  Here is a way Digital could value
    differences, a way the company could show that it cares about its
    employees while saving the company money.
    
    But Digital has not lifted a finger to recognize or value this
    difference.  That is no surprise, since vegetarians are not a
    politically or legally protected group, so Digital does not give a damn
    about them.  "Valuing Differences" is a farce.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
    P.S.  References to "vegetarians" above are not meant to imply that all
    vegetarians believe it is unethical to use animals for food.

	I heard somewhere that DEC has their own turkey farm? Is that true? I
also heard they don't, so which one is true? I think Heather's idea would work
well so that those who didn't wish a turkey to be killed or who don't like
turkey can get something they would like instead. 

	Eric, with just one person responding to them about the turkey issue
might not get them to change their minds. Instead of complaining how DEC
doesn't value vegitarians, why not organize something where others can send 
their responses as well? If enough people respond, then maybe they will do 
something about it (I'm sure not this year though...). Who is the contact 
person? 



Glen

re .133

   Vouchers for $15 are also used in lieu of turkey here in Puerto Rico.
   

    ... and though I certainly wish I hadn't thought of the analogy,
    
    ... and though even though I'm of Jewish descent I hesitate to express
    it...
    
    ... and though I, too, wouldn't mind if an alternative to Thanksgiving
    Turkeys were to be offered to those choosing it...
    
    ... I still will be counted among those who will
    
                          "willingly man the ovens"
    
        come next Thanksgiving Day!!
    
    Approaching Holiday Cheers, and to vegetarians too,
    Dan

    >I heard somewhere that DEC has their own turkey farm?
    
    I think that I work there.
    
    Jamie.

Fourteen years ago, someone in Personnel posted signs all over ML1-4 that
read "The turkeys are coming!".  Some wag posted a handwritten postscript
that read "They are already here!".

Dick

    Surely, if vegetarians felt they were "hard done by" within Digital,
    they would band together and form a lobby or pressure group. I would
    expect however, that they're quite happy with the consideration they
    get through the food available in the canteen, and expect no more of an
    employer. I admire your stance, but why appoint yourself as Champion
    for the Vegetarians, and stick your neck out?
    
    I agree that to label the VoD programme "a farce" because they still
    get a turkey given on their behalf, is a bit much.
    
    Laurie.

    Actually it wouldn't save any turkeys. Down on the farm the process
    goes like this. About a year a head of time you estimate how many
    turkeys you can sell at the end of next season. In the USA this is
    Thanks giving in the UK it is Christmas.

    Come the end of the season you slaughter the lot, none are spared.
    Those that you do not sell immediately are put into a deep freeze and
    sold later in the year.

    So by declining your turkey you would not save its life. 

    However I think that vegetarians should be given a gift of equal value
    that they would not find offensive.

    Jamie.

    RE:   <<< Note 981.132 by BEING::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
    
    >But Digital has not lifted a finger to recognize or value this
    >difference.  That is no surprise, since vegetarians are not a
    >politically or legally protected group, so Digital does not give a damn
    >about them.  "Valuing Differences" is a farce.
    
         You do your own anti-VoD agenda some harm by going over the edge
    like this.  I'm sure you could locate some real issues if you tried.
    
                                        Greg

    re .140
    
    You are correct, declining a turkey this year wouldn't save a turkey
    immediately.  However, by declining a turkey you are reducing the
    demand.  There will be more turkeys left over.  Next year, when the
    grower determines how many to raise, they will cut back because thay
    raised too many the previous year.  So, declining a turkey today will
    save a turkey tomorrow.  (Or course, if only one person did this,
    nothing would happen.  But if many did, this is what would happen.)
    
                                August G. Reinig

    
    We don't get anything in NJ either!!
    
    Trudy

    Well, I'm not particularly fond of turkey anyway, and 'out here in the
    field' we get the $15 certificate every year.  Barry, what happened to
    Ohio?  Youse guys are gettin' short sheeted, sounds like...
    
    I personally think the certificate is the way to go, although I have to
    guess it's cheaper to back a truck up to the curb at MRO (which is
    exactly what they used to do when I worked there) and unload the boxed
    birds right there.
    
    And although I agree with certificates vs. turkeys, I also agree it's a
    pretty lame excuse to dump on the heads of the Valuing Differences
    program.
    
    Edp, get a life. ;-)
    
    tim
    

    If DEC chooses not to give out turkey tickets, perhaps it will give out
    chicken chits instead.

It seems to me to be pretty petty to use DEC turkeys as an example
of the unfairness of the VoD program.  

I'm a vegetarian, and consequently won't take the DEC turkey (I sign
it over to charity - an easy option).   Do I feel hard done by?
Not a bit.  I think that handing out turkeys is a pleasant thought
and one which is appropriate to what seems to be the majority
custom here.  It just happens to be something which I'm not
interested in.

Sure, I'd take an alternative if there was one I liked, but I don't
really care enough about it for it to worry me.

I think it is faulty reasoning to claim that each and every thing 
which DEC does should, in and of itself, be equally fair to every
possible belief.    The turkey is offered as a gift by DEC, to 
celebrate Thanksgiving or Christmas (I forget which, sorry).   I
decline to accept the gift since I can't make use of it.   That's
all there is to it. I don't see why I should feel offended or
undervalued by this.

There are more important inequalities to worry about first.

>The turkey is offered as a gift by DEC, to 
>celebrate Thanksgiving or Christmas (I forget which, sorry).

	The box comes decorated in colors usually associated with Christmas.
	The box says "Happy Holidays for Digital". I have always assumed
	that it doesn't say "Merry Christmas" to avoid offending people who
	do not celebrate Christmas. Perhaps though it is just intended as
	a generic end of year gift?

			Alfred

re .143:

Yeah, but you get to live in Ohio.

re .145:

I sympathize.  On top of all that, you have to live in New Jersey.

    Vegetarians miss the whole point of the DEC turkeys. You're not
    supposed to *eat* them - you're supposed to stuff 'em in your
    freezer, taking up all the free space left. Then, when the power
    goes out this winter (as it always does), there's a large, cold
    thermal mass in the freezer helping keep everything else cold.

    (Our last years' turkey thawed a bit too much during the aftermath
    of Bob to be trusted ... but it's still in there, helping keep
    everything else cold.)

re .151:

In that case, I'm going to submit a DELTA suggestion that the turkeys be
replaced with blocks of ice.  Don't worry, I'll split the bonus with you.

re:.152

 Don't spend the bonus yet, Mr Sacks.  
 Have you ever tried to stuff a block of ice?



					Nigel

re: .132,

>    It is approaching that time of year when Digital demonstrates in
>    another way that it does not value differences.

    	Yes, not to mention each time in rains Digital also demonstrates
    it does not value differences when it allows poor defenseless worms
    (who are flooded from their underground homes) to be trampled on the
    sidewalks.  There were countless times this rainy season when I was
    witness to innocent worm deaths as they were trampled under the feet
    of DEC employees on Digital sidewalks, and I attribute the pain caused
    by the trampling of these flooded worms directly to Digital's Valuing
    of Differences program since they do not value the differences of worm
    lovers who are offended by these brutal sidewalk worm killings.

    				    -davo

p.s.	The VoD program also does not value the differences of entemologists
    	since DEC vehicles kill thousands of bugs on their windshields each
    	day they are driven on highways in the warmer weather...

    EDP misses a point in that not all vegatarians are animal rights
    activists. Some just do it cause it's healthy. It is also a pretty poor
    excuse to dump on VoD. Does VoD run the Turkey giveaway? I don't think
    it does in my building. The managers do it. Although I unload the
    truck. I take the turkey and give it to my sister for her Christmas
    gift. It's always appreciated and I get invited to the Easter turkey
    dinner. Yea, I know Lamb on Easter.  You argue with my sister. I will
    admit that this time, EDP came across as rational and calm and I
    actually enjoyed reading his arguments and was willing to listen all
    the way through. Something I can't always do with his notes. They are
    generally to long for me to read anyway, let alone reply to. Good going
    EDP. I enjoyed that one. Diidn't agree with it, but was willing to
    listen.
    
    Phil

    re .154
    
    Well Davo, everyone can now blame you for our increased insurance
    costs, since I fell off my chair in a fit of hysterics reading your 
    note and will most undoubtedly have to file a workperson's comp claim.
    
    I hope you're pleased with yourself.
    
    	;^)

    Scene: The Digital Turkey Farm. Huddled in the corner stands a little
    band of survivors shaking with fear as they hear the Turkey Farmer's
    footsteps approaching. Deep in their little Turkey minds they know that
    they are next.

    Farmer: Well my little ones you are lucky. You were selected by an
    animal loving vegetarian who doesn't want you killed. So now you
    may leave the farm and get on with life, liberty and the pursuit of
    happiness.

    The Farmer opens the gate and the lucky Turkeys waddle off into the
    sunset as the stirring music reaches a crescendo.

    Voice over: Only in America....

    Audience begins to choke back tears.

                                 The End

    Jamie,
    
    Would you mind coming down one floor to clean my keyboard.
    
    Thank you.
    
    Charles

    Rumour hath it that the Terminals Branch has a contract out on me.

    Jamie.

    Rumour has it that this contract was long overdue.
    
    Charles

    Re .148:
    
    > It seems to me to be pretty petty to use DEC turkeys as an example of
    > the unfairness of the VoD program.
    
    Unfairness?  This is not necessarily an example of unfairness, just an
    example of how the "Valuing Differences" program does NOT value
    differences.  Digital's goal with the program is not to recognize and
    value people who are different from the mainstream -- the goal of the
    program is only to recognize trendy groups.
    
    > I'm a vegetarian, and consequently won't take the DEC turkey (I sign
    > it over to charity - an easy option).   Do I feel hard done by? Not a
    > bit.
    
    So that means YOU are not one of the people who objects to an animal
    being killed on their behalf.  But there are people who DO object, whom
    it does bother that killing is being performed for their sake.  If
    Digital were truly interested in "Valuing Differences", it would take a
    moment -- at little or no cost to the company -- to do something for
    those people.
                                      
    
    				-- edp

    Re .155:                         
    
    > EDP misses a point in that not all vegatarians are animal rights
    > activists.
    
    Read the postscript in note .132:
         
         P.S.  References to "vegetarians" above are not meant to
         imply that all vegetarians believe it is unethical to use
         animals for food.
                                                                
    
    				-- edp

    Re .154:
    
    Very good, in one note you have managed to compare vegetarians to
    worms, and the killing of thousands of human beings to the killing of
    worms.
    
    That's the Digital "Valuing Differences" spirit.  Groups that are not
    trendy are worms, not even human, not worth valuing.  People in Iraq
    are not human beings; they are just worms.  Ha, ha, ha, killing them is
    funny.
    
    Apparently there's some standard a group is supposed to pass before it
    is taken seriously, before the "Valuing Differences" program will
    recognize and value it.  As far as Digital is concerned, it is not the
    "Valuing Differences" program but the "Valuing Mainstream Groups"
    program or "Valuing Groups That Have Banded Together for Clout"
    program.
    
    The fact that people are human and want to live their own lives in
    their own ways without bothering anybody else is not enough for Digital
    to value them -- but it is enough for me.  I did not agree with that
    person's belief about the ethics of using animals for food, but I still
    supported them.  I accepted them sincerely as a human being with
    beliefs worthy of respect -- Digital has not.
                                               
    It is long past time when all people are accepted as human beings and
    their differences not ridiculed because they are in a minority or out
    of the mainstream.  Digital's "Valuing Differences" program does not
    support that goal.
    
    
    				-- edp

	Digital gives out turkeys to Greater Maynard Area employees.
	This can be seen as not valuing the difference of vegetarian
	employees who don't eat meat because they believe it morally
	wrong. Therefore, the VoD program (which is not involved
	with turkey distribution) "is a farce".

	That's really, really, stretching things, Eric.

	For what it's worth, although I'm happily a meat-eater, I
	do agree that Digital can show more sensitivity to those
	who aren't by at least giving them an option which doesn't
	involve killing a turkey (or better yet, give everyone more
	flexibility by distributing certificates instead). But 
	the VoD program is not responsible for the distribution. 
	Should they step in and try to pressure whoever runs the 
	distribution to make other arrangements? A case could be
	made that they should, but the fact is, there are more than
	enough examples of discrimination which are tied directly
	to the workplace, which can directly impact the performance
	of employees, for the VoD people to go looking for things
	like this. If any vegetarians feel strongly enough about
	this, they're free to ask the VoD program to take action.
	If they're told "Take a hike, we don't care", then, Eric, 
	you'll have a point. If they're told "We'd like to help, 
	but we barely have enough resources to deal with these
	sexual harassment problems, and this group that's being 
	torn apart by racial misunderstanding right now", that's 
	a reasonable response, and they have their priorities 
	straight. And who knows, maybe they will take the desired 
	action. We won't know unless someone tries...

	Mike

  Wow...I never knew that I worked for such a "bad" company.
  Imagine...giving out turkeys is considered "bad"...thank GOD, our
  conscince is ever vigilante. That vigilance again proves that he is
  in the right place..."the rathole"!
  

    Let us face it edp you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel if
    this is all you can come up with. Even if you suggestions were
    implemented the only way you would be extending the life of the turkeys
    would be by extending their shelf life. 

    If you have any real gripes about the VoD then let's hear them.

    Jamie.

re                 <<< Note 981.146 by SCAM::GRADY "tim grady" >>>
                               -< Lame turkey! >-

>    Well, I'm not particularly fond of turkey anyway, and 'out here in the
>    field' we get the $15 certificate every year.  Barry, what happened to
>    Ohio?  Youse guys are gettin' short sheeted, sounds like...

	As another Ohioan, I must say I did not receive this $15 certificate
last year.  I am approaching my 9th Holiday Season with Digital.  The first 
three were in Maryland, where we were always told that Digital subsidized 
our annual Holiday party, in lieu of a turkey.  Then, I spent four years
in New England, receiving a turkey each year.  Last year, my first as an Ohio 
DECcie, we received nothing from the company.  (Our holiday party is paid 
entirely from fundraisers sponsored by the Employee Activity Committee during 
the year.)

	I don't really mind not getting the turkey, and besides, with the
lower cost of living here, I can buy zillions of turkeys!! :-)  I DO, however,
miss taking my kids to Canobie Lake (but that's already been discussed).

Frank

    Davo's note about concern for the trampling of innocent worms on Digital's
    sidewalks during the rain brings up an important point:

    In a literal sense, can Digital only claim to "Value Differences" if it
    accepts the challenge to value every single difference on the planet
    (among ~5 billion human inhabitants on Earth?) or AT LEAST every single
    difference that detractors can find the time to list?

    If this is accepted, then anyone looking to trash Digital and/or the
    VoD program simply has to find ONE (or a dozen) so-called "differences"
    that aren't listed in the VoD program to "prove" that the definition of
    "Valuing Differences" isn't being met.

    As far as I've heard, VoD has *never* stated that people should ONLY value
    the differences they mention.  VoD has *never* instructed employees to
    turn to VoD as an authority for who should be valued (and who shouldn't.)

    Of course, none of this matters much if the goal is to trash VoD (except
    to those of us watching such attempts in disgust.)

    Our district, in Maryland, is having a holiday party which is
    subsidized by Digital (just as Frank recalled in .167 when he was in
    this geography).
    
    To the best of my recollection, this has been the status quo here for
    the past four years, with the exception of last year.  Our holiday
    party funding was cancelled by edict from one of the northern VPs.
    
    -- Russ

    
    	VoD exists because it makes good business sense, That is the need
    to expand the talent pool to remain a competitive, growing company. As
    far as i can tell, that means the program can have any arbiratry
    constraint on what groups, fads, individuals it chooses - i.e. it
    does not at all need to value the difference of a totally disruptive
    person, if it negatively impacts what is perceived as the greater good.
    
    	You can use any other warm, fuzzy, moral mission to try and
    rationalize the merits or demerits of the program, but folks, the
    main mission is profits - we are fortunate enough to work for a company
    that perceives it benefits by providing its employees with an
    environment that is sometimes down right tolerant.
    
    	Personally, i would prefer a "Valuing Individuals" program, but
    that is not where it is perceived the greatest good will come from. I
    will tolerate all sorts of childish behavior if that is the price of
    getting quality product from an individual, but many (i guess most),
    will not.  (It's like parenting - you need to constantly remind
    yourself as to who is the parent, and who is the child! Sounds easy
    but it doesn't always work...)
    
    
    	bob
    

I think the point is being missed. Either that, or I'm missing it.

Surely EDP's point was not that killing turkeys and eating them is bad. Wasn't
his point that some people (potentially one person) does feel that it is bad and
does not want to be a party to it, but that despite speeches to the contrary,
Digital does nothing for this person.

Humour me, assume that this is so for a moment.

I personally have no particular feeling for turkeys and am not over bothered how
many of them are killed for eating at Christmas; assuming they are all eaten.

But does Digital really cater for Homosexuals or whatever because it believes
that this is the "correct" thing to do, or because it is a politically sound
thing to do ? I believe it is the latter. Digital is here to make money. If they
feel that making space for gay, pregnant whales is going to allow them to make
more money, them I'm sure they'd do so. However, if it would not make Digital's
life either more profitable or easier, then I am not so sure that they still
would.

Digital values those differences that it has to, or that it is profitable to, or
that it is easier to. It does not value them because they are differences.

M.

    ... and I don't think it's actually been definitively resolved...  Are
    not the folks who handle the GMA Holiday Turkey distribution in a
    different part of the "DIGITAL Empire" than the VoD folks?
    
    If so -- and I'm not saying it is so, yet -- isn't it a bit of a
    stretch to assume that it's the "same old VoDons" who are doing the
    dirty deed?  
    
    Now even if two distinct groups are involved, I can hear the point
    being made that they are still part & parcel of Greater DEC.  But if
    the preceding point was that VoDons Are Evil, perhaps this distinction
    between groups, if it indeed exists, might be relevant.

	Somewhere back there someone mentioned deep freeze, and were a little
	uncertain of the date these were distributed.

	Does this mean the turkeys are NOT distributed on Christmas eve, and
	that they are frozen?

	What about people who can't afford either the space or cost of a deep 
	freeze?


	Heather

    I think the point EDP will eventually get around to admitting, is that
    *he* doesn't think *his* difference is valued. It has taken several
    years of "EDP-watching" to realise this, and will probably take several
    years before I actually see it.
    
    All the other examples he's used have upset someone, so he's dredged the
    bottom of the barrel and come up with vegetarians, believing it to be a
    different, safer smoke-screen behind which he'll carry on his personal
    campaign to be "loved".
    
    Laurie.

       If the purpose of .132 was to elicit a series of contrary
       responses, draw attention to the author of .132, and generally
       create a tempest in a teapot, then the goals of that particular
       note would have been achieved.

re .174:

They're distributed in early December.  I'd guess that most U.S. DEC
employees have refrigerators whose freezers are large enough to hold
a turkey.

    VoD has too much on its plate already without getting into the turkey
    giveaway.  In fact, I think the annual display of turkey envy and greed
    is a more pressing area of concern than the sensibilities of some
    employees who have not as yet even spoken up for themselves.  (Do they
    even exist?)
    
    It's also important to note that the annelidicidal Dave McClure has no
    connection with the VoD program.  I can attest that he's just another
    software engineer struggling to keep his head above water (he splashes
    within earshot of me).  I too have no formal connection with the
    program, though I've taken the UDD seminar and recommend it, especially
    to those who would like to observe directly what the program is about
    instead of making introspective assumptions.
    
    I agree with edp's point.  There seems to be no reason why Digital
    could not modify its annual gift to accomodate vegetarians and
    animal-rights activists in a second way (in addition to letting
    employees sign the turkeys over to charity).  However, I think it's too
    much of a reach to label this a failure of VoD, just as it's silly to
    take davo's attempt to wriggle out of this rathole as a VoD statement.

  re: .175
  
  Well put Laurie. I have often felt that these attacks on the VoD program
  were a result of:
  
  	1. some one not being asked to join the program thus insulting
  	   one's humongus(sp) ego.
  
  	2. the VoD refused to accept one particular person, thus injuring
           that hunongus(sp) ego.
  
  	3. that humongus(sp) ego just doesn't like or respesct anybody
  	   elses opinoins or dis/likes except his own.
  
  	4. or that person just doesn't like digital at all because it 
  	   doesn't do things his way so therefore it does not value
           anything or anybody as far as he is concerned.
  
  
  
  pem
  

  re: .176
  
  Gee...I guess your right. We are catering again to someones HUMONGUS ego!

People in our group who wanted kosher turkeys were allowed to order one at 
company expense at the store of their choice. People in our group who were 
vegetarians and who did not want to donate their turkey were allowed to choose
something else. (I think they were all given $15 credit.)

Valuing differences may be the current trendy buzzword. But when all the hoopla
is stripped from it, it simply means that people are hired, given assignments,
fired, demoted, and promoted based on how well they do their job. Period. 

This is good for the company, good for business, and good for the individual. 
This is definitely a win-win situation.

Bruce

    I think that the VoD people refused to take edp seriously and he is
    unhappy about it.

    Jamie.

 Well, since I leapt into this discussion, I suppose I should carry on
(by the way, I'm waiting for MOP to be rebuilt before I can continue
 debugging, so I'm not really wasting work time :-).

Caveat: I'm going to address what appears to be the intent of "Valuing
of Differences", rather than any narrow interpretation of the (poorly-
chosen) words which name the program.

The annual Greater Maynard Area Turkey Giveaway does not cater to
vegetarians.  This much is true.

However, I have encountered no evidence which suggests that, in DEC:

	- Vegetarianism is an operative factor in awarding pay increases 
	  or promotion

	- Vegetarians are made to feel that they have to keep their
	  vice (i.e., not eating meat) a secret for fear of what 
	  their workmates might say or do

	- Vegetarians are harrassed, for example by the telling of
	  offensive "vegetarian jokes" (anyone know any?)

	- Vegetarians are culturally disadvantaged, for instance because
	  they're less assertive than blood-crazed carnivores in
	  meetings and similar situations

Therefore, I conclude that DEC is more-or-less neutral on the subject
of vegetarianism.   One specific example -- the turkey handout -- is
not in my opinion sufficient cause to say that vegetarians are 
not valued.

    
    re: vegetarian jokes (anyone know any?)
    
    
    yeah.
    
    Q:  Why did the chicken cross the road?
    
    A:  To escape from the carnivores on the other side.
    
    
    what a silly thread of discussion...
    
    Marc

    Gee, a thought just occured to me....
    
    Perhaps, someone is miffed because they were rebuked by folks in VoD.
    
    Imagine someone taking this issue to VoD, only to be told......
    
     "Get outta here! We don't want nuttin to do with TURKEYS !!
    
    Could sorta rub some folks the wrong way, doncha know. Maybe took it
    personal ?

re: .163,
    
>    Very good, in one note you have managed to compare vegetarians to
>    worms, and the killing of thousands of human beings to the killing of
>    worms.

    	Wrong!  I compared the valuing of differences for people who are
    upset by the killing of turkeys to the valuing of differences for people
    who are upset by the killing of worms.  Nowhere in my note did I mention
    anything about the killing of thousands of human beings.  Your statement
    is false!  Why do you lie edp?

>    I did not agree with that
>    person's belief about the ethics of using animals for food, but I still
>    supported them.  I accepted them sincerely as a human being with
>    beliefs worthy of respect -- Digital has not.

    	First you claim to support people who question the ethics
    of using animals for food, and you claim to accept them as human
    beings with beliefs worthy of respect...
    
>    ...they are just worms.  Ha, ha, ha, killing them is funny.

    	...but then you proceed to make fun of people who are shocked
    by innocent worm deaths on Digital sidewalks.  How can you claim to
    value the differences of the turkey lovers while at the same time
    ridiculing the differences of worm lovers?  I suppose worms are not
    politcally correct or trendy enough to be worthy of being valued?

    	You do not value the differences of worm lovers who get upset
    by innocent worm killings on Digital sidewalks!  You do not value
    the beliefs of those different from the mainstream as you claim to.
    You lie again edp.  Why do lie?
                                               
    				    -davo

    Re: .174
    
    I volunteer my freezer every year to keep those turks frizzed.
    So here we go again.....
    Anyone in Colorado Springs that don't have room to keep your turkey
    until the Holidays are over let me know...
    
    Unclaimed merchandise will be confiscated 2 Jan 1992 :^)....
    
    	-Harold-
    
    

Some people believe that the VoD Program is supposed to recognise each and
every difference for each and every individual in the world. What a load of
crap!!!

When I was in the military in the early '70's, racial problems were a major
concern and a program was developed to address this. The program was initially
called _Race_Relations_ and was intended to make people in the armed forces
aware that the armed forces was made up of people from many races. The 
different cultures, as well as prejudices, caused people to react to those
of different cultures in different ways. Sometimes, those reactions were
not pleasant.

This program evolved, and the military realized it was doing busines in many
different parts of the world. The program changed to _Human_Relations_, but
the major focus of the program remained the same. Individual geographies
received more specialized training  on their specific areas, but the purpose
was always the same. "These people have a different culture, and things that
are normally considered inoffensive to you may be considered offensive to
them." 

Digital has taken this type of program (notice I didn't say "This program")
and brought it into our workplace. It is not intended as a cure-all for
each and every "difference" that will be encountered by employees, but
as an awareness tool. Digital is a world-wide company, and employees should
aware of the cultural differences that we are (potentially) exposed to. This 
is all done in the context that teamwork makes for better working relations,
which makes for (hopefully) better profits.

Bringing vegetarianism into this and faulting the VoD Program is the most
ludicrious thing I've ever heard of. Some people really must have too much
free time on their hands.

But, if your attitude is to make sure that something fails, then why give it
a chance to suceed????

Bob.

As a casual reader of this conference, I am constantly amazed 
at how one person can enter a reply (sometimes outrageous, 
sometimes not), and then how whole bunches of folks spend 
gobs of time dealing with whatever issues (?) the replier 
has raised, while the person who entered the reply has gone
on his or her merry way.

IMHO, the most effective way to deal with that kind of person 
is silence. No replies, no acknowledgement(s) of entry - nothing. 
Sort of reminds me of an off-beat joke I heard years ago:

	Two people, one a masochist, the other a sadist, 
	get standed together on a desert island. The masochist
	says to the sadist, "Beat me!". And the sadist replies,
	"No.".

Similarly, silence and non-reponse can be very effective. And
I can't imagine how unhappy those among us who crave attention 
would be if they were simply ignored. 

         Stay tuned to this channel for the next non-issue edp chooses to 
    ignite.  See the DECies be outraged and irritated.  See logic get
    violated in each sentence!
    
         Same edp-time.  Same edp channel.

    	I have a hard time accepting alot of the personal attacks being
    	waged against edp.  True, he chooses to fight his battles on
    	controversial and questionable grounds.  True, he has a particular
    	style that most people here (myself included) seem to find grating
    	and abrasive.
    
    	But does that mean that each time he enters something here it
    	must summarily be rejected simply because of the NODE::ACCOUNT
    	name?  I know that I have a bias and an expectation that I will
    	not agree with a new BEING::EDP entry, but at least I give it
    	a chance.
    
    	Such PERSONAL attacks as have been entered here since .132 (and
    	before it too although I'm not addressing those) would have been
    	deleted from the conference I co-moderate based on conference
    	policy of prohibiting personal attacks.
    
    	Having said that:
    
    	Eric has made a valid point, but it also contains a flaw.  Eric
    	is equating *DIGITAL's* failure to value vegetarian/animal-rights
    	differences with a perceived failure with VoD.  VoD is an 
    	organization that can be a focal point for differences, but 
    	ultimately it is DIGITAL's responsibility to value differences.
    	Eric is correct that DEC is not doing so, even when presented
    	with a low-cost (costless?) alternative.  Who was the alternative
    	presented to?  How can we be sure that it hit the ears that can
    	make a difference in DEC policy?  How can we be sure that DEC
    	really has chosen to ignore this difference?  Still, if DEC
    	as an entity has already heard about the "difference", it has
    	failed to act upon it or indicate that it plans to act upon it,
    	which is the basis of Eric's argument.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    	RE the price of the turkeys:
    
    	I can't believe they are worth $15.  You get a 10 lb turkey,
    	so it would have to cost $1.50/lb to make it worth $15.00.
    	Even the top-quality, name brand, fresh turkeys don't run that
    	expensive.  Sure, we get a really high quality turkey from DEC,
    	but buying in bulk I'd bet they don't spend more than $.50/lb.
    	I hear they do 80,000 turkeys each year.  (Maybe it was 50,000.)
    
    
    	re .146
    
    > Ohio?  Youse guys are gettin' short sheeted, sounds like...
    
    	Maybe your managers are keeping your $15 certificates?  :^)
    
.167>	As another Ohioan, I must say I did not receive this $15 certificate
.167> last year.  
    
    	You too.  :^)
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    Re .178:                          
    
    > VoD has too much on its plate already without getting into the turkey
    > giveaway.
    
    Oh, yes, supporting Operation Desert Storm was MUCH more important than
    actually valuing the differences of employees.  In two years or more,
    the "Valuing Differences" program has never had time to contact whoever
    runs the turkey give-away and say "Hey, please count the people who do
    not want animals killed on their behalf and reduce your procurement by
    that number.".
    
    No, Digital's "Valuing Differences" program is not busy with more
    important things -- it is busy with more Politically Correct things. 
    It is busy pursuing its own goals, not valuing differences.
    
    Yes, the program is a farce.  Not because vegetarians are important,
    but because the program does not value differences.  The program simply
    does not do what its name alleges, so it is a farce.
    
    
    Re .184:
    
    That's a common theme in these responses:  We don't need to value
    vegetarians, because their pay is not at stake.  We don't need to value
    vegetarians, because they are not harassed.  We don't need to value
    vegetarians, because they aren't a special group.
    
    Fine.  That's the way it is.  But that's not "Valuing Differences". 
    That's "Valuing the Special Groups" or "Valuing People with Clout" or
    "Valuing the Politically Correct Things to Value".  Those would be
    accurate names; the name "Valuing Differences" is not -- it is a lie.

    The basic question is:  Does Digital value differences, does it value
    people just because they are people?  The answer is no.
    
    
    				-- edp

Fine.  The VoD program does not value every pissy little difference
one can imagine.  In my opinion, this detracts not one whit from
its overall validity.

    
    I wonder what the "d" in "edp" stands for???

    I notice that edp failed to address the point that the reducing the
    procurement would not save the lives of the turkeys. It would only salve
    the conscience of the vegetarians. Is it the job of VoD to be in the
    conscience salving business?

    Jamie.

    Anent .194 (edp):  Pardon me, but you are wrong on all counts.  Despite
    your sarcasm, "supporting Operation Storm WAS much more important"
    (emphasis mine, not yours) than supporting the differences of
    vegetarian employees.  In Operation Desert Storm, many people's lives
    were at risk, and, as you pointed out yourself, many people lost their
    lives.  Assuming there was a direct linkage, employees and their
    families are more important to Digital than turkeys.
    
    Of course, linking the two is nonsensical.  I can't believe anyone ever
    had to choose between supporting Operation Desert Storm and reducing
    the turkey distribution.
    
    Besides, you are already aware that Digital *does* make allowances for
    vegetarians or other who don't want a turkey, but you seem to have
    chosen to ignore that reply, which lies between .178 (on which you
    commented) and your reply .194 this morning.
    
    Finally, it is well established that the VoD program does not oversee
    all company activities.  In fact, I used to know someone who was in
    charge of the distribution.  She worked in Corporate Employee
    Activities.  
    
    I agreed with your original point, but since then I've realized that
    the company does indeed go out of its way to accomodate those who do
    not wish to see a turkey killed on their behalf.  The options may not
    be available to everyone who would otherwise receive a turkey, and that
    adjustment could be made *if it hasn't been already*.
    
    You continue to try rhetorically to hang turkeys around the necks of
    the VoD people, but the analogy, like the turkeys, just won't fly.  I
    will agree with your theme that Digital has a long way to go, but I
    am satisfied with the priorities assigned to injustices identified so far. 
    Considering that many employees have identified problems with racism
    and sexism in this conference (and everywhere else), while no one has
    actually said, even in this topic, that they are offended by the
    killing of turkeys, I think the present emphasis on racism and sexism
    over turkeys is reasonable.
    

come on people, lighten up. I agree with J_Oppelt a couple back.
I'm beginning to understand exactly why Eric may take to implementing 
harrassment charges. You people seem to take delight in taunting him....
You may not agree with him but, does that mean you need to jump all over
his every word?
I think he has made a valid point in that DEC, by it's setting up a VoD
program states that it is doing so in order to value differences. Yet it
does not seem to value this specific difference.

RE: <<< Note 981.198 by HOO78C::ANDERSON "Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum." >>>

>    I notice that edp failed to address the point that the reducing the
>    procurement would not save the lives of the turkeys. It would only salve
>    the conscience of the vegetarians. Is it the job of VoD to be in the
>    conscience salving business?

Funny, Jamie, thats one thing that the recent day at MRO was to accomplish,
that is to help g/l/b employees feel better about themselves (conscience 
salving?). So I guess the answer to your question is, Yes!
Except that it appears that the VoD program picks and chooses the consciences
that are to be salved. Please before you tell me to gp off and organize a
"vegitarian day", my point is still if DEC REALLY wanted to value all 
differences THEY would take the inititive. Now I also believe that its an
impossible task so, what to do? Maybe renaming the VoD program to a more
realistic and appropriate name would be a start.

- George

   I may have missed it in a previous note (there are so many) but could
   someone tell me how old the VoD program is, ie how long it has been
   in place?

   Thanks,
   Jane.

And while you're at it, where did the "o" come from?

"Valuing of Difference", I believe.

Abbreviation 'VoD' is used instead of 'VD', which could be confused with
somthing else.

Lee

    I hereby echo .192 & .200
    
    Sure, lots of times I think edp (Eric?) comes up with some pretty weird
    opinions. Once in a while (only rarely, however) do I get irritated.
    Most of the time I disagree with the opinions, or find them trivial or
    irrelevant...
    
    ...However...Now and then, I find that his unconventional way of
    approaching any given issue will reveal that issue in a new light, and
    that can be quite "productive" (assuming that you consider new nuggets
    of thought through notes to be productive).
    
    I say "keep it up, Eric!" I mostly disagree, but I tend to read all
    your SHORT notes anyway (the ones without lengthy quotes from other
    entries).
    
    (However, do not let this entry imply that good counter-arguments
    should not be made---on the other hand, how about a little more
    courtesy & respect all around??)
    
    Mauritz
    

    Re .200

    >Funny, Jamie, thats one thing that the recent day at MRO was to
    >accomplish, that is to help g/l/b employees feel better about
    >themselves (conscience  salving?). So I guess the answer to your
    >question is, Yes!

    I don't actually see that as conscience salving. I think that the object
    of the exercise was to educate the rest. I have absolutely no need for
    my conscience to be salved just because I'm a homosexual. So that's a
    complete rathole.

    My point was this; the turkeys are already dead. They will mostly get
    eaten by humans. Saying "I don't want to be responsible for the death
    of a turkey so don't give me one or give one to charity" will not save
    the turkey or bring it back to life. 

    Jamie.

    re .205

>    My point was this; the turkeys are already dead. They will mostly get
>    eaten by humans. Saying "I don't want to be responsible for the death
>    of a turkey so don't give me one or give one to charity" will not save
>    the turkey or bring it back to life. 
    Perhaps this year, but if a growing number of people decided to
    refuse a turkey and decline to give it to charity, the demand
    on the turkey farmers would decrease and they would reduce their
    future harvests, thus reducing the number of turkeys killed.
    It's simple economics, and it's happening with cattle today.
    People are eating more chicken and fish and the market has
    altered to the point where less cattle are killed.

    John

re the "o" in VoD:

If VD is eschewed because of other connotations, why does Personnel use STD
for short-term disability and POS for point-of-service (generic term for
HealthNet aka HMO Elect)?

re turkeys and economics:

The number of non-turkey-eating DEC employees will always be below the
noise level for the U.S. turkey industry.  

re :  <<< Note 981.205 by HOO78C::ANDERSON "Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum." >>>

>    I don't actually see that as conscience salving. I think that the object
>    of the exercise was to educate the rest. I have absolutely no need for
>    my conscience to be salved just because I'm a homosexual. So that's a
>    complete rathole.

I didn't say that YOU did, all I was pointing out was that it was a stated
objective for that forum. So, somebody must have felt a need.

- George

P.S. I agree, its a rathole so lets let it drop...

    RE: .206  John
    
    > Perhaps this year, but if a growing number of people decided to
    > refuse a turkey and decline to give it to charity, the demand
    > on the turkey farmers would decrease and they would reduce their
    > future harvests, thus reducing the number of turkeys killed.
    
    Actually, it would reduce the number of turkeys BORN (thus reducing
    the number of turkeys killed.)  Turkeys are bred as food, after all.
    
    I mean, it's not like these turkeys will be set up in turkey retirement
    homes if the demand for turkeys-as-food goes down.

>    I mean, it's not like these turkeys will be set up in turkey retirement
>    homes if the demand for turkeys-as-food goes down.

These days they won't even get hired by DEC.

	Eric, the more I read this, the more you're losing what I thought you
origionally were trying to do. I had thought you might have wanted to see if
the vegitarians would still be able to receive a gift if they went to a voucher
system or something similar. This here was really a good thing.

	But, what you have done is to take it as another way to try and prove
that VOD is a farce. To begin with Eric, VOD has NOTHING to do with the
distribution of turkeys. Why is it your whole life seems to be revolving on how
the VOD program is a farce? I really wonder if you really care about the
vegitarians or if you just want another lever (in a line of many) to help pry
open that VOD vault door so you can throw them out? I really wonder about that!




Glen

re .209    
>    Actually, it would reduce the number of turkeys BORN (thus reducing
>    the number of turkeys killed.)  Turkeys are bred as food, after all.
    Why should that make a difference? If the goal is to reduce the number
    of turkeys killed, it shouldn't matter that the number of turkeys
    born will decrease as well.
    
>    I mean, it's not like these turkeys will be set up in turkey retirement
>    homes if the demand for turkeys-as-food goes down.
    Obviously the current supply is going to get consumed. As future
    demand decreases, less are bred and killed. That's the point,
    understand?
    
    John

    RE: .212  John
    
    Yes, I do see your point.
    
    My point was that the "please don't kill a turkey on my behalf" is a
    misleading statement (since the turkeys for this Digital-give-a-turkey
    event are, after all, dead already and since the BEST CASE scenerio
    for those concerned about turkey casualties is that less turkeys might 
    be bred in the future.)  
    
    "Don't kill a turkey for me" has an emotional ring to it that *sounds*
    like a turkey life might be saved (which I find a bit manipulative.)
    
    Oh well - never mind.

Re:                    <<< Note 981.212 by WUMBCK::FOX >>>

>    Why should that make a difference? If the goal is to reduce the number
>    of turkeys killed, it shouldn't matter that the number of turkeys
>    born will decrease as well.
    
I hope this doesn't take us down a turkey birth control rathole...  :-)

-  David

    >>I hope this doesn't take us down a turkey birth control rathole...  :-)
    
    What about the non-trivial rathole defined by the turkey farmers and
    their families left destitute by the declining demand? They certainly
    should figure somewhere in this cosmic moral equation. Vegetarians
    and/or sworn enemies of VoD certainly can't wish life for a turkey or
    two at the expense of increased human suffering, can they?
    
    John H.

    Yes they can.  Just as environmentalist decide the spotted owls are
    more important than logger's jobs.  Just as people who buy Japanese cars
    decide that quality cars are more important than jobs for American auto
    makers.  Every decision to buy something instead of something else
    increases the human suffering of those who work making the thing you
    didn't buy.  But it decreases the human suffering of those who work
    making the thing you do buy.  
    
                            August G. Reinig

    Personally I get offended at the Christmas Holiday fetish of killing
    and decorating a tree corpse.  
    
    karl

I'm pretty depressed about all of the rocks that got crushed
in order to make the magnetic coating which is holding this
notesfile...

dec has secretly calculated that the number of conscientiously objecting 
vegetarians equals the number of dec employees in ohio. -ced

    Re .198:
    
    > I notice that edp failed to address the point that the reducing the
    > procurement would not save the lives of the turkeys.
    
    First, it was addressed in my initial note, where I wrote "eventually
    reducing the market for dead animals".  Second, August Reinig expanded
    upon this in .144, so I did not feel it was necessary for me to do so.
    
    
    Re .199:
    
    > Despite your sarcasm, "supporting Operation Storm WAS much more
    > important" (emphasis mine, not yours) than supporting the differences
    > of vegetarian employees.
    
    Supporting Operation Desert Storm was not a valuing differences
    activity and therefore should have had no importance to the "Valuing
    Differences" committee.
    
    > I can't believe anyone ever had to choose between supporting
    > Operation Desert Storm and reducing the turkey distribution.
    
    Somebody put forth a conjecture that the "Valuing Differences" people
    did not have time to deal with vegetarians.  By showing that they _did_
    have time to do something that was _not_ valuing differences, I showed
    that they neglected their duty.
    
    > . . . I think the present emphasis on racism and sexism over turkeys
    > is reasonable.
                        
    I have already said that is fine.  I just want to see some honesty
    about it:  Call it "Valuing the Things Digital Chooses to Value", not
    "Valuing Differences", because the former is honest, and the latter is
    dishonest.
    
    
    				-- edp

    RE: Turkeys
    
    BTO will be giving out 75-100 turkeys on December 3 with 
    pink-slip stuffing...no rumor.
    
    Mark
    
    

    Even if everyone in Digital declined their turkey it would make no
    difference. The number of turkeys killed in the USA is so high that the
    number Digital buys is insignificant. You may try to extrapolate this
    into significant numbers in the distant future but you would be wrong
    the number would still be insignificant. Fluctuations in the weather
    make more movement in the number of turkeys consumed.

    So we are left with the real reason edp, you just want to have a go at
    the VoD. Pathetic as your case is, you want to bash them over the head
    with it, because they had the audacity to disagree with you.

    Would you kindly explain to us just why you are always correct and the
    rest of the world is always wrong.
    
    Jamie.

    
    re. .222
    
    I think you're missing the point - it's not so much that turkeydom
    could be saved if DEC offered an alternative, it's that some people
    would feel much better if they could choose according to their
    beliefs.
    
    There is no "right" or "wrong" here. It's mostly that a gift
    is so much more appreciately when it is appropriate for the
    recipient. Digital would gain in the eyes of everyone if only
    with a little special effort EVERYONE was CONSIDERED.
    
    After all, you don't give socks to everyone for Christmas - Aunt
    Minnie probably does not wear sneakers!    :-)
    
    
    The "wrong" is when the company mistakenly thinks(?) or says(?)
    it is CONSIDERING everyone's differences, when it does not.
    
    
    
    ........from someone who loves turkey dinners, but has never
    felt comfortable with the paternalistic gifts offered in any
    fashion.....
    ....always say "thank you" graciously, though......
    
    
    FWIW, I'd probably pick something other than turkey if it were offered.
    

| Would you kindly explain to us just why you are always correct and the
| rest of the world is always wrong.

	Jamie, great question. I wonder if it will be answered? I mean, just in
this notesfile alone it would seem that way. Hmmmm......



Glen

    re .224
    
    Why don't you guys stick to the topic?
    
    I don't think you're really interested in discussing this.
    I would hope that we could agree.
    
    I think it would be advantageous to include everyone don't you?
    
    Why leave any one person wishing the company had offered choices?
    
    

    re. .224
    
    If you would like to carry on a private conversation, I suggest
    you try e-mail.
    
    Are you talking to the rest of us? or not?
    
    
    

    If we didn't all need freezers to keep these turkeys in for 10-11
    months there would be less freon released into the atmosphere to cause
    global warming and melting of polar ice caps which raises the level of
    the oceans and puts coastal properties at higher risk to damage from
    hurricanes with potential spillage of home heating oil and other toxic
    substances harmful to whales.
    

    re .224
    
    While you are explaining "why you are always right & the rest of the
    world wrong", why don't you also tell everyone when you stopped beating
    your wife?
    
    
    Actually, if Eric thinks he is right & the rest of the world is wrong,
    he is in total conformance with the overwhelming majority of the world,
    including most DEC noters. How many people do you know who do NOT think
    they are right at any given time?
    
    Mauritz
    

    Here is an announcement of a session of the UDD Seminar that was
    distributed throughout our group.
    
==============================================
NETWORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNICAL TRAINING
==============================================

                 UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF DIFFERENCE


[Registration information deleted--sfj]
    
CLASS SIZE: 16

AUDIENCE:

U.D.D. is open to all employees in Telecommunication and Networks.
Enrollment will be managed to maximize diversity in the course.


DRESS: Casual

CANCELLATION POLICY:
Must cancel 15 working days prior to course, or find a substitute;
otherwise your cost center will be charged.

COURSE GOALS:

Understanding the Dynamics of Difference provides a foundation for 
realizing the corporate Valuing Difference philosophy.  It will
help participants to:	

	o  recognize differences
        o  examine assumptions  
        o  explore stereotypes held about groups of people,
           organizations, functions, geographic areas, etc.
        o  seek out diversity and value differences as assets
        o  understand the significance of a value for difference 
           as a major variable in Digital's continued profitability
           and productivity

COURSE DESCRIPTION:

Understanding the Dynamics of Difference (UDD) is a two-day workshop
which provides an overview of the approach individuals use to develop
perceptions and assumptions.  It gives participants a process by
which to analyze the impact and/or results of these perceptions and
assumptions and provides the opportunity to slow down the Digital 
pace for reflective self-awareness.  Participants are guided to
examine their individual style and increase ease of interaction with
differences.

UDD is a course about valuing ourselves, as well as others who are
different from us. Participants are encouraged to consider how their
interactions with others may demonstrate the acceptance and valuing 
of others through individual and group exercises, videotapes and 
role plays.

Understanding the Dynamics of Difference helps participants to begin
or continue this process in a supportive environment.  For some
individuals, UDD provides a context in which to examine their current
level of commitment; for others it facilitates and expands their work
in valuing differences. UDD helps participants to see that differences
are assets, both personally in their own career and to the corporation.

Are people who take UDD called UDDers?

"I agree with you when you're right.  Why can't you agree with me when
I'm right?"

Re; .227

This is exactly why I support the turkey give-away that DEC does every year.

I figure in a couple thousand years, the level of the Pacific Ocean will
have risen enough to make my property in Az ocean front......;-)

Bob.

    RE: .229  Steve Jong

    Thanks for posting the description of the "Understanding the Dynamics
    of Difference" course.

    It's hard to believe that this is same corporate philosophy/program
    that's been so severely (and unfairly) trashed by a noter here as if
    it were the most evil, vicious, mean and nasty thing to happen since
    the Death Camps of WWII.

    Oh, the dangers of binary thinking.  If the program doesn't live up
    to the narrowest possible definition of 'good' to one individual,
    then it must necessarily be 'evil incarnate.'
    
    Thanks again for the posting.

    RE: .229  Steve Jong

	I took that course. Actually, our whole group took that course. They
did a lot of different things. They tested how you trust someone. You were
blindfolded and led around by someone else outdoors. It was a lot of fun.
Another thing they did was to put people into different groups. One was married
and unmarried. Singles went in one, married in the other. Then you wrote
everything you have ever heard about the "other" group. It was really funny at
some of the answers. It showed what kind of stereotypes there are for any given
catagory. There were many different groups they broke down into. After each
exercise they would talk about what went on. The why's of it all. They never
forced anything on anyone, you drew your own conclusions from what was said,
written and so on and from the discussions about the exercises you have
performed. All in all I would have to say that it is a course well worth 
taking. There were no monsters and the only ovens manned were the ones in the
kitchen which were used to cook cookies, not humans.



Glen

	Hmmm.... I just reread that. The last line is not intended for Steve. 



Glen

    Sounds like psychology and manipulative baloney to me.
    
    At least someone had "a lot of fun". Not a total waste as long
    as it entertained, I guess.
    

    
    	Re:  .229, .233
    
    
    	What a waste of time and money.
    
    	Value *my* diversity.

    re: .132 - .236
    
    Note 4 of the SAFRON::VEGETARIANISM conference also addresses
    the topic of Turkeys for Vegetarians; some of the questions
    raised here are answered there.
    
    re: .233
    
    I appreciate your comments about the appropriateness of gifts.
    
    So does "Aunt Minnie," who wants you to know that although she
    doesn't wear sneakers, - she's been sold on New Balances for
    about 20 years now - that she'd be more than happy to receive an
    additional pair of socks.  :-)
    
    Virginia
    

| Sounds like psychology and manipulative baloney to me.

	It would only be manipulative if they put ideas into your head. With
us, we discussed things between ourselves. It was done in a relaxing open
manner so people would feel free to say what they want. A lot of things were
said that were both good and bad. The whole point was to get everything out on
the table. To say what's on your mind. Isn't that what we do in here?

| At least someone had "a lot of fun". Not a total waste as long
| as it entertained, I guess.

	Gee, you never had fun at work doing a project? I think both can be
achieved in most everything we do to some extent (and before anyone goes off on
how DEC is doing bad because people are having fun instead of working crap, if
you never laughed in a meeting, if you never laughed at anything that may have
happened during a project, then speak now, otherwise I think you get the jist
of what I'm saying)


Glen

    I'm with Glen. It is possible to learn and have fun at the same time.

    Jamie.

    
    	geez, i never ever thought i'd be defending this program even once,
    instead of twice...
    
    	I'm somewhat notorious for having an aggressive style. I come from
    a large family with boisterous competition in all things. I tend to
    get very wound up in things i'm doing, and my voice rises, my gestures
    become more animated on a pace equal with the level of my intensity.
    Some folks enjoy the show, other people get VERY intimiated.
    
    	I'm very threatened by quiet, passive people. I'm never sure what
    they are thinking and it makes me uneasy.  I tend to blurt out what
    ever is on my mind.  I never know i have offended a more passive person
    until some manager comes laying into me.
    
    	It's a clear case of people from different backgrounds and
    different interaction styles clashing.  I get very angry sometimes
    because I feel my "differences" are not being valued.  I feel that
    there have been cases where the "evil Vodons" have abused the program
    in order to abuse me - one of those nasty, aggressive white males.
    I however feel the program is even more important in light of all this.
    
    	I work even harder to try and understand and not prejudge
    individuals based on behavior.  I put enormous effort into containing
    my intensity levels on the job - in one way it has hurt my job
    performance (i.e. the skill and pace of doing the job), but in other
    areas, especially dealing with others, i think it has much improved.
    Hopefully, I am  attaining the right mix of attributes so that I become 
    more useful and effective to the corporation.
    
    	My hope is that the same process is occuring from those who've
    had major problems with my previous style.  I always thought that I
    was a good VoD citizen because I will tolerate all sorts of behavior
    if it is coming from someone who is making an obvious contribution to
    the task at hand.  I was wrong - i was never tolerant of those who were
    the opposite in nature.  I have deeply distrusted those who do not
    exhibit what they are thinking and feeling. I've learned thru all of 
    this that much of my difficulties with passive types is due to a 
    learning disability that constrains my ability to pick-up subtle clues 
    - especially diminished when i have my output turned all the way to "11" 
    (for you Spinal Tap folks). I've learned that even at 40, I can make
    big changes in my life ( even after being convinced i died at 30 :-))
    
    	Having fun on the job is, i think, a pre-requisite for producing
    outstanding product.  I was blind to the fact that while I may have
    been having a fabulous time running on full, those around me were not.
    This blindness cost me in that I no longer worked on the stuff I was
    best at.  It cost Digital millions in the expertise I had developed
    but could not share due to a grating personal style of interacting.
    So much of what we do in this company is team oriented, it becomes
    critically important that we all make the effort to understand each
    other better, and whenever possible enjoy each others company. There
    are so many business and process issues that introduce more than enough
    conflict in our work lives, that we don't really need the baggage
    associated with stereotypes and other uninformed assumptions we all
    make.
    
    	As the need to broaden the talent pool expands, the differences
    we encounter span not only personalities, but culture's.  We all
    can stand a good look in the mirror.  The future of the company and
    our jobs depend on it.
    
    
    	bob
    

	I appreciate your efforts EDP, in this unpopular issue, it left 
	you wide open to the personal attacks that ensued.  I love 
	animals and I don't eat them and it causes me great anguish to 
	know that a beautiful bird is killed each year because I am 
	part of the headcount.  Yes I agree this is a Valuing 
	Differences issue but apparently they just don't want to deal 
	with it.  My letters over the years to Vice Presidents have 
	been redirected to individuals who have responded with "be 
	grateful."  Apparently, my request is as insignificant as the
	life I'm trying to save.  I don't want to be a troublemaker or 
	proselytize my beliefs, I just wish I didn't have to 
        compromise my ethics by being a Digital employee in Maynard.

	Thank you
	Bernice
                                           

Well, Glen, I took the course ... we started out on the WRONG foot.

.233> They did a lot of different things. They tested how you trust
.233> someone. You were blindfolded and led around by someone else outdoors.
.233> It was a lot of fun.

Fun.  Indeed.  I told the moderator/leader/teacher in no uncertain terms
that I had no desire to be blindfolded and led around by someone else. Why?
Easy.  When we were captured by the VC, we were blindfolded before being
taken to be interrogated.  I told the moderator that I was NOT going to be
blindfolded and lead around by ANYONE at ANY TIME for ANY REASON.  The
feelings were simply TOO strong.

"That was a long time ago" ... "just try it" ... "it's fun" ... he resolutely
PERSISTED!  Personally, I couldn't believe what I was hearing - it simply
boggled my mind!  I damned near walked away - right there ... but ... I
decided to simply put the damned blindfold at eyebrow level, where I could
see clearly ... and play the game ....

Fun?  Trust? Yeah. I really got a bang out of it.  Made my day complete.

.233> Another thing they did was....

Another thing they did with us is tell us that we really shouldn't explicitly
discuss the activities so that no "expectation level" would be set with
respect to the seminar and people could come with an open mind ....

.233> They never forced anything on anyone....

I'm not sure that *I* can totally agree with that.

I'm sure that each course has different moderators/leaders/teachers,
and I'm sure that a lot of people have fun and get a great deal out of
it, and, I'm sure that it's money well spent and I'm sure that it is a
valuable and necessary part of doing business ... but ... my personal
experiences were slightly different. 

One of these days, if I ever get the time, I plan to take it again -
just for grins - this time I *will*  walk away on the blindfold game,
you can bet on it.

Your mileage may vary.

Bubba

    re. -1
    I'm really sorry that happened to you.  You are right, that's not
    valuing differences.
    
    I took this course earlier this year and it was very beneficial for me. 
    It helped me to see just how judgemental I can be and how much I do
    stereotype others.  It has been beneficial to me in that now I stop and
    think for a second instead of a nanosecond. :-}  And I also try and
    reviewthe happenings of the day and try to see what I did positively
    and what area I might be able to improve in.  The overall content of
    the course is pretty good and I learned alot.
    
    And Bubba, FWIW, I wasn't too happy about being blindfolded either, for
    completely different reasons than yours.
    
    Karen

    	re .241
    
    	Domestic turkeys are UGLY!

  
  Hey Joe, that's blatant beauty-ism !  Value Differences will you ?
  They've got just as much right to end up on a table as the good-looking
  ones !  It's not how they look but how they do the job that's important !
  
  Frank

| -< Ich bin leider anderer Meinung !! >-

	Which means......

| Well, Glen, I took the course ... we started out on the WRONG foot.

	Bubba! You know you should start out with your left foot first! :-)

| Fun.  Indeed.  I told the moderator/leader/teacher in no uncertain terms
| that I had no desire to be blindfolded and led around by someone else. Why?
| Easy.  When we were captured by the VC, we were blindfolded before being
| taken to be interrogated.  I told the moderator that I was NOT going to be
| blindfolded and lead around by ANYONE at ANY TIME for ANY REASON.  The
| feelings were simply TOO strong.

	Did you tell the moderator why you didn't want to be led around in that
fashion? I can see why you wouldn't want to though.

| Another thing they did with us is tell us that we really shouldn't explicitly
| discuss the activities so that no "expectation level" would be set with
| respect to the seminar and people could come with an open mind ....

	Really? They never told us that. Has anyone else heard that one?

| .233> They never forced anything on anyone....

| I'm not sure that *I* can totally agree with that.
| I'm sure that each course has different moderators/leaders/teachers,
| and I'm sure that a lot of people have fun and get a great deal out of
| it, and, I'm sure that it's money well spent and I'm sure that it is a
| valuable and necessary part of doing business ... but ... my personal
| experiences were slightly different.

	Besides the blindfold incident, did you get anything out of the rest of
it? Were there other areas that you had a problem with? How did you view the
rest of the program?




Glen

Re:    <<< Note 981.220 by BEING::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

(Entered on 21-NOV-1991)

Is it my imagination or has this conference become much more quiet in the past
couple of weeks?  :-) 

-  David

    He's probably writing up a thousand notes to post them in conferences
    all over DEC, and thus saturate other noters' ability to respond.
    
    :-)

    re .241 and .245
    
    If you want a beautiful turkey bake it for 15 minutes at 500 degrees,
    then coat it with brown shoe polish  and polyurethane varnish.
    
    johN

.247> Did you tell the moderator why you didn't want to be led around in that
.247> fashion? I can see why you wouldn't want to though.

With all due respect ... I told him, in no uncertain words, and, in language
that was crystal clear, precisely why I objected to the 'exercise' ... it
seemed (to me) that the most important thing was my participation, and, not
why I didn't want to.  Quite frankly, it was really depressing.

| Another thing they did with us is tell us that we really shouldn't explicitly
| discuss the activities so that no "expectation level" would be set with
| respect to the seminar and people could come with an open mind ....

.247> Really? They never told us that. Has anyone else heard that one?

Yes, Glen ... really.  Perhaps after two years they've dropped this
admonition.

.247> Besides the blindfold incident, did you get anything out of the rest of
.247> it? Were there other areas that you had a problem with? How did you view
.247> the rest of the program?

I think that under the current circumstances it would be best to not
continue discussions of this in VAX Notes ... I'll discuss it in mail
but not in notes (I had second thoughts about entering the original
note).

Bubba

    >>He's probably writing up a thousand notes to post them in conferences
    >>all over DEC, and thus saturate other noters' ability to respond.
    
    Shhhhh!
    
    Enjoy it now!
    
    "jackin' the house", Bob

    Well I would like to belatedly announce that Linsey's tea shop, in the
    basement of the Amsterdam American Discount Bookshop, served a first
    class Thanksgiving Turkey dinner. It was followed by a most excellent
    pumpkin pie. I am now waiting on their Christmas dinner which promises
    to be just as good. 

    Jamie.

    re .245
    
   > Domestic turkeys are UGLY!
    
    Fowl!  Fowl!
    
    My goodness I can't believe I wrote that......
    
    However I ask, who ever sipped "DOMESTIC TURKEY?" 
    
    		Nuff Said
    
    	-H-       

.256> That's DOMESTICATED TURKEY

    Buzzzzzzt.  Wrong.  Politically incorrect.  $10 fine.

    It's "Feathered-American".

    Do not try to stereotype by putting this feathered American into a
    subgroup(s) of domestic or non-domestic, or, "turkey" versus "grouse",
    "pheasant" or other feathered subgroups.

    Send your fine to me, in cash.

    Thanks you for your attention to this very important matter of protocol.

    Yours truly,
    Friends of Feathered Americans

    Re .257 . Lines 1 & 2. Is this a reference to D Quayle ?
    

    Are these domesticated Turkeys house broken?

    Jamie.

    cross-posted here with the author's permission.  \Bernice
                                                  
             <<< SAFRON::S$1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]VEGETARIANISM.NOTE;1 >>>
                     -< Digital Vegetarian Interest Group >-
================================================================================
Note 4.54                         Pro-Choice???                         54 of 56
DRAGON::GITA                                         41 lines  23-DEC-1991 11:07
                   -< Things are looking up for next year! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I have some potentially good news for those of us who have been trying
    to get an alternative to the turkey over the years.
    
    Last year I was very lucky to have the support of my personnel
    representative.  He pursued the issue of why can't DEC provide an
    alternative for vegetarians.  In the end, we received a letter, rather
    nasty, from our point of view stating that this was a "gift" and we
    should take it or leave it.
    
    Well - I figured then that this was a dead issue, no puns intended.  I
    did not make a stand this year other than to tear up my turkey card,
    but my personnel rep called me and asked if I'd done anything.  He
    still felt that DEC was not "doing the right thing" so he pushed the
    issue up the chain of command.
    
    Guess what????  The very person who had written us the letter last year
    is now singing a new tune.  I guess there's a fairly active Vegetarian
    contingent in Hudson, MA and they've been talking with members of the
    Valuing Diversity group.  A new awareness is developing that maybe we
    aren't just some weirdo group of cultists!  
    
    There's talk now of letting us order something from a catalog.
    
    So - I'm writing to ask everyone to send a note, letter, whatever to 
    Sheila Fantozzi, @MSO, ICS::FANTOZZI and tell her why you'd prefer not
    to receive a turkey.  You could also suggest mail-order catalogs that
    carry items that would be appropriate.  I think that if she starts
    receiving lots of mail that this will reenforce the fact that there are
    a lot of Vegetarians working for DEC.
    
    I guess that there were about 30 requests for kosher turkeys and
    somehow personnel thinks that's about how many requests they'd get from
    us.  My personnel rep told her she's grossly underestimating.  He
    immediately called me and when I said I'd put a note in the notes file
    he thought that was great.
    
    So - maybe next year we'll have a choice.
    
    Gita Devi
    
    

<    There's talk now of letting us order something from a catalog.
<    
<    So - I'm writing to ask everyone to send a note, letter, whatever to 
<    Sheila Fantozzi, @MSO, ICS::FANTOZZI and tell her why you'd prefer not
<    to receive a turkey.  You could also suggest mail-order catalogs that
<    carry items that would be appropriate.  I think that if she starts
<    receiving lots of mail that this will reenforce the fact that there are
<    a lot of Vegetarians working for DEC.
    

		  What a precedent that would set!!!


  That would mean that those of us who do not work in the MA/NH area would be
able to get "something" in place of the turkey we don't get now.

			OR

  Would it mean that we don't get to order something from a catalog to
replace the turkey we don't get now?

			OR

  Would a program like this only apply to employee's who are currently offered
a turkey, but (for whatever reason) don't want it?


Al

    re: .-1  
    
    	Interesting concept (I assume you are in the field like me?)
    
    /p

    Re: Note 981.108 by RDVAX::KALIKOW
    
>    -< Two alternate futures: Behavioristic or Cognitive 'Mind Control' >-
   
>   Perhaps the word "Valuing" in VoD is part of the problem, as others
>   have pointed out.  Folks complain that they will NEVER actually "value"
>   a "lifestyle" they abhor.  Primarily (imo, for some of them) from this
>   semantic mismatch, they proceed to devalue :-) the goals of the entire
>   program. 
    
    True, it is a very poor semantic choice, as is "affirmative" for
    activity that (imo) devalues superior performance for the sake of
    sexual, racial, - and whatever else - parity.
    
>             I say, let's get past the naming problem and decide on
>   whether it's in DIGITAL's best interest that folks get along with one
>   another and give each other respect and an equal shake.  
    
    Precisely what those who are opposed to AA and EEO are saying. Respect
    ought to be merited via commensurate performace. And "equal" is only of
    value when it is equal. No lowering of criteria for hiring and
    promotion simply to fill the slot with the right sex, race, et al.
    
>                                                            Scenario #2 
>   doesn't seem like an invasion of privacy to me.  Again sorry for any 
>   vast understatements here. 

    "Invade" is not that far off. "Conquer" may have easily been added
    without doing violence to the imagery. I would like to provide more
    graphic evidence (aside from my own experience) but fear compels others
    who have experienced the pain of EEO and AA to keep their views to
    themselves. 
    
    Dan, I like the verbal pyrotechnics! It makes you so much more
    interesting to read - though not necessarily more understandable :-)
    
    John

    Does anybody in here know what those frozen turkeys cost DEC? I mean,we
    *do* buy them in rather large quantities. There are around 1500
    employees in this building alone so maybe it's costing around $3-4 per
    bird. What do you think you can order from a catalog for that amount? an
    apple maybe? Take the turkey and donate it if you like!
    
    Ken

Not to mention they get them the week *after* Thanksgiving.

    Just in time for Christmas.

    Jamie.

    
    	The turkeys cost about $20 a piece due to shipping, boxing them,
    	frozen storage and also sorting them to be between 12-14 lbs
    	because people use to complain that some people got bigger turkeys
    	than other people (boy do people find reasons to complain!).
    
    	I don't understand what all the fuss is with people looking
    	for alternatives to the turkeys.  As stated before, if you don't
    	eat or want a turkey just donate it....people who really "need" it
    	will appreciate your generosity.
    	
    	I really miss the old days in DEC when things like getting the
    	turkey or donating it, going to Canobie Lake, having a "Christmas"
    	party were fun and looked forward to.  Now everything is a problem 
    	because someone feels they are personally left out, ignored or 
    	discriminated against.  People are getting sick and tired (I know I am)
    	of listening to people try to find something wrong with everything.  
    	Ever think how much extra time Personnel is spending dealing with all 
    	these issues, forming vegetarian turkey committees, etc.  It's getting
    	damn depressing!
    
        I usually don't write in this note file but I just had about all I 
    	could take about all the complaining I see in here.  People should
    	be grateful not only that they have a job but work in a company
    	that "does" care about you enough to do these extra things for you.
    
    	Let's try to lighten up, have some fun and get DEC to be the place
    	that was enjoyable to work at again.  It's a new year starting 
    	tomorrow, let's take this opportunity to turn this all around and get 
    	back to the ways things were.  I think we'll all benefit from it.
    
    	Happy New Year!
    
    	Steve

    Well ... sorry you have so much trouble with your turkeys up yonder in
    the HomeLand of MotherDEC.
    
    After 15 years with MotherDEC, this is the F-I-R-S-T year that we, in
    the field (at least in this district), received nada, zero, zilch,
    nothing ... at Christmas time.  Send your turkeys to Beelersfield.
    
    Thank you,
    Bubba

$20?!  They could give a turkey gift certificate for a local supermarket for
a lot less than that!

    In Atlanta, at least, we received a $10 gift certificate to Kroger.  I
    could have bought a turkey, or broccoli, or Cheetos with it.  I could
    have dropped it in the box in the lobby for charity.  Instead, I gave
    it to a friend whose husband was laid off the week before Christmas.
    
    It was all very simple....
    
    Steve 

You folks just aren't listening.

There's a whole 'nother note on the turkey topic.

The radical vegetarians don't want to donate the turkey, and they didn't
previously want any alternate Christmas gift.

What they wanted was for NO TURKEY TO DIE IN THEIR NAME just because they
happen to work for DEC.

Maybe irrational, but aren't we supposed to value even irrational differences?

/john

    Maybe we need another item on the "personnel information" form: do you
    want a turkey for Christmas?  Given all the other stuff now collected,
    like next of kin, educational degree, health plan, HCRA deduction, and
    insurance multiple, collecting the turkey information should be easy. 
    Then Digital would know how many turkeys to order, whom to send the
    turkey tickets to, and no turkey need die in a vegetarian's name.

Open enrollment for turkeys!

The Digital Turkey Plan 1 gives you 80% of a turkey (no giblets), but you
probably can't afford it.

DTP 2 gives you a whole turkey, but you *really* can't afford it.

TMOs (Turkey Menu Organizations) give you leftovers.

TMO/Elect lets you choose your leftovers (white or dark meat).

Vegetarians can opt out.

    Re: .-1

    Yes!  That's it!  Thank you for the additional explication.

    But we still have to decide how many times per year one can change the
    option on the Digital Turkey Plan.  Once just after Christmas? 
    Changing it during the normal open-enrollment period seems to close to
    the holidays to save any turkeys.

    I just had a brilliant idea. Since there are 1500 employees in this
    bldg. DEC could just buy 1500 live birds and let 'em go on the grounds.
    Those that wanted a turkey would simply go out and shoot it. Those that
    don't want a turkey to die in their name would simply not. Some of
    those "liberated" birds would probably find their way downtown where
    they would roost on the statues (displacing the politically
    out-of-style pigeons) and maybe poop on some people's garments. Some of
    those people might even be the ones who refused to shoot 'em. Now would
    that be poetic justice,or what?
    
    Ken

    The only good turkey is a dead turkey.  On my dinner plate.

    re: .272
    
>    Maybe we need another item on the "personnel information" form: do you
>    want a turkey for Christmas?  Given all the other stuff now collected,
>    like next of kin, educational degree, health plan, HCRA deduction, and
>    insurance multiple, collecting the turkey information should be easy. 
    
    You know what will happen, of course.
    
    Some lucky stiff in the field will receive the corporate-version
    personnel form and begin receiving turkeys.  Other coworkers will see
    the opportunity and find other personnel people with the wrong form.
    Before long, someone will get ticked that THEY aren't receiving a
    turkey and blow the whistle.  Then "Corporate" will issue an edict
    stating that turkey distribution will cease due to abuse.
    
    Instead, everyone will receive a generic "Season's Greetings" card with
    KO's pseudo-signature printed on the inside.  Uggh...
    
    -- Russ (who doesn't expect to see a DEC turkey ever -- unless the
    "turkey" is also wearing a DEC badge  8^)

    Hey Tom! Yeccch!! I'll take mine as I always have,cleaned and cooked!
    
    Ken
    

    Absolutely amazing.  Several people have actually responded to my
    turkey proposal in the same vein I intended it, and I haven't gotten
    any flaming VAXmail.  Do you suppose people made New Year's
    resolutions?  And kept them?

Re:	.279

>    Absolutely amazing.  Several people have actually responded to my
>    turkey proposal in the same vein I intended it, and I haven't gotten
>    any flaming VAXmail.  Do you suppose people made New Year's
>    resolutions?  And kept them?

Nah . . . I think people are just still tired from all that celebratin'!

		:-)

				- - Steve

    I am a strict vegetarian, and I must admit, even I (with little
    or no sense of humor on my decision not to eat meat) had a few
    chuckles at some of the replies here.  
    
    And some of them were rather crude.  To enlighten those of you
    who like your turkeys dead and on your plate, there are those
    of us who prefer animals alive and free -- just try for a moment
    to imagine that!
    
    Anyway, when I was in Seattle in the field, we too got a gift
    certificate to a grocery store.  That seemed to work out well
    for all -- we bought what we wanted, donated it, or whatever,
    and Digital did not incur any additional overhead in making 
    the issue more complex than it needed to be.
    
    Carol

    RE:        <<< Note 981.281 by FSDEV::CABARBANELL "CAROL" >>>
    >                       -< Meat eater hostility? >-

    >To enlighten those of you who like your turkeys dead and on your 
    >plate, there are those of us who prefer animals alive and free -- 
    >just try for a moment to imagine that!
    
         You're showing a bit too much "Plant Murderer" smugness, Carol.
    Value some diversity, will ya.

                                      GB

    There are some things most of us won't eat

    The "omni" in omnivore refers to meat and vegetable matter.

    > <<< Note 981.284 by ASICS::LESLIE "It's kind of fun to be extinct" >>>
    >
    >The "omni" in omnivore refers to meat and vegetable matter.

    I think you will find that the word OMNI Really means ALL.  OMNIVORE is
    traditionally correct, but MULTIVORE IMO would be more correct, since
    most people DON'T eat ALL plants nor do we eat ALL animals.
    
    
    Jim Morton

Let us refer to the "American Heritage Dictionary":

	omnivorous - adj.  1.  Zoological - eating both animal and
	vegetable substances.  2. Taking in everything available:
	an omnivorous reader.

(I feel so crippled without access to the OED!)

Analyzing the root of the word, "omni-" does indeed mean "all".  The
word, as constructed, means literally "eating everything".

From a linguistics point of view, on the other hand, the meaning of a
word is derived from usage.  In this case, common usage of the word
means "eating both animal and vegetable substances."

So, linguistically, the author of .284 is quite correct in insisting
that "The "omni" in omnivore refers to meat and vegetable matter."
On the other hand, the author of .283 is quite correct in the
construction of the pun.

Leaving the technical goobledygook aside, I, being one always in favor
of having fun with the language, appreciate the joke!

				- - Steve

    I'm a vegetarian and a multivore, so there - I eat more
    than one thing!

    OMNI is a modifier in the word omnivore, so you first see what you're
    modifying.
    
    OMNI does mean all, but in context, ya know.

    Close enough, it does:
    
    Omnia Gallia in tres partes divisa est.
    
    All Gaul into three parts divided is.

    .288:
    
    OMNIA is neuter plural;  OMNES is m/f plural.  
    
    OMNA doesn't exist;  OMNI translates to "to/for everyone [or
    everything]".  There are also a number of uses for the dative, such as
    dative of agency and dative of direction;  you should check a good
    Latin grammar for more information about these.
    
    I suspect, by the by, that they are irrelevant here.
    
    Dick