| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 3721.1 | Who he? | ANNECY::HOTCHKISS | | Thu Mar 02 1995 06:56 | 12 |
| Well our European edition dedicated the whole centre spread to the
current 'organisation'(if this is not stretching the imagination too
much.)
Met with usual hilarity-nail it on the all along with the last six and
start identifying with crosses those who have already left or changed
'jobs' and put betting odds next to those who will or those already
have a rumour attached to them.
I mean-does this really get taken seriously since it changes all the
time.Is this the ultimate defence against a client dissatisfaction or
employee morale issue?
I think we should be told.. ;-)
|
| 3721.2 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Thu Mar 02 1995 12:45 | 4 |
| There's contact information in Digital Today to write to the editors, though
the last time I did that I got no response.
Steve
|
| 3721.3 | Letters to the editor of DT | PAMSRC::STUTZMAN | Bach's music: inevitable, yet surprising | Thu Mar 02 1995 13:53 | 11 |
| I wrote to the editor, decrying the persistent use of titles (e.g.,
"President and CEO...") in the first reference to a person in every
article in every issue.
The editor's response was that "the overall informality [of using
first names, no titles, etc.] detracted from the 'professional' tone of the
paper."
Another example of increasing focus on form and decreasing focus on content.
-w
|
| 3721.4 | It's a jungle out there... | POBOX::CORSON | Higher, and a bit more to the right | Thu Mar 02 1995 14:25 | 13 |
|
It's called "survivor syndrome".
Organizational behavior researchers could have an absolute field
day at Digital.
We no longer *think*, we react in the direction of our internal
pressure points to relieve the pressure, and then slump into
total inactivity until the pressure builds again.
And people think combat was tough....
the Greyhawk
|
| 3721.5 | | CSC32::WILCOX | Hakuna Metadata | Thu Mar 02 1995 17:03 | 7 |
| <<< Note 3721.4 by POBOX::CORSON "Higher, and a bit more to the right" >>>
-< It's a jungle out there... >-
>> Organizational behavior researchers could have an absolute field
>> day at Digital.
Not to mention Scott Adams, author of Dilbert :-).
|
| 3721.6 | | KLAP::porter | the mantra of the walls and wiring | Thu Mar 02 1995 20:00 | 12 |
| > I wrote to the editor, decrying the persistent use of titles (e.g.,
> "President and CEO...") in the first reference to a person in every
> article in every issue.
Ah. Reminds me of the hilarious times I used to have reading
the English-language edition of (I think) "Peking Review" in
the mid-1970s. They were fond of that sort of rhetorical
flourish. Every time (say) that Deng Shao-Ping was mentioned,
and believe me that was frequently, he had to be referred to
in full as "that arch unrepentent capitalist-roader Deng Shao-Ping".
Maybe it's more concise in the original language.
|
| 3721.7 | Thanks to editors | EEMELI::SIREN | | Fri Mar 03 1995 07:44 | 9 |
| re .1
I'm truely grateful to Digital Today's editors. It clearly pointed out,
what I have seen and experienced around me, but didn't want to believe.
NONE of the pictures presented a woman. Now I HAVE to believe, that there
is no future for me in this company ;^(.
--Ritva
|
| 3721.8 | | ARRODS::WHITEHEADJ | Shades of Scarlett | Fri Mar 03 1995 10:56 | 1 |
| Maybe there are no women suitable for the positions.
|
| 3721.9 | yes women is ok! | SEDSWS::OCONNELL | PETER PERFECT | Fri Mar 03 1995 12:38 | 10 |
| re.8
I am sure there are lots of women suitable for the positions, and
besides I'd much rather see pictures of women than men!!!!!!!!
(just my taste sorry!!)
(but not four of the same)
4wattitsworf
|
| 3721.10 | Common rules for suitability? | EEMELI::SIREN | | Mon Mar 06 1995 09:23 | 17 |
| re .8
Of course, we can see from the result, that there has not been suitable
women. But then, that comes back to the definition of, what's suitable.
Looking the business results of Digital, it's quite obvious, that our
definition of suitable has something lacking (or too much).
I have long time ago realised, that nobody makes a big boss out of me
- ;^( - but the attitudes trickle down (or up?) througout the
organisation. It clearly isn't comfortable to belong to a large group,
which doesn't have a single person fit for the highest level management.
It may also suggest, that the fitness rules aren't the same for
everybody.
--Ritva
|
| 3721.11 | other possibilities | HERON::LYSAA | Life is RISCy ... | Mon Mar 06 1995 16:04 | 8 |
|
>>Maybe there are no women suitable for the positions.
Hmm, the (few in this company) women I've worked with, has mostly
been overqualified for the work-code thay had...
;-)
|
| 3721.12 | A perceptive person... | SWAM2::GOLDMAN_MA | Walking Incubator, Use Caution | Mon Mar 06 1995 17:16 | 5 |
| re: -1...
Thank you! I'll take that remark personally... :)
M.
|
| 3721.13 | Not nice | EEMELI::SIREN | | Tue Mar 07 1995 07:06 | 8 |
| re .11
But Britt, you know that overqualification is dangerous ;-). You
frigthen less qualified partners. In Digital's 'nice guy' circles
that's fatal.
--Ritva
|
| 3721.14 | Insult to Women | FAILTE::HUNKY::trowsdalec | | Thu Mar 09 1995 13:35 | 12 |
| .7 et al
You will NEVER see Digital women achieving their true potential in a
company that finds it acceptable to publish a completely unnecessary, full
frontal, "wet swimsuit" picture of Pamela Anderson in Digital Today.
Digital Today "The newspaper for Digital PEOPLE in Europe"? A professional
publication for professional men and women?
I don't think so.
Caroline
|
| 3721.15 | No offense, but... | POBOX::CORSON | Higher, and a bit more to the right | Thu Mar 09 1995 13:42 | 4 |
|
Who is Pamela Anderson?
the Greyhawk
|
| 3721.16 | "who" is not the issue | FAILTE::HUNKY::trowsdalec | | Thu Mar 09 1995 13:50 | 4 |
| BayWatch actor.
As if it makes any difference who she is.
Caroline
|
| 3721.17 | | MASALA::GBRUCE | | Thu Mar 09 1995 14:04 | 3 |
| Who is the Greyhawk?
Emily Pankhurst
|
| 3721.18 | | CSOA1::LENNIG | Dave (N8JCX), MIG, @CYO | Thu Mar 09 1995 14:10 | 11 |
| re: "As if it makes any difference who she is."
Well, if it was the top sales person shown enjoying the beach during
their decatholon reward weekend, I'd say it would make a difference.
Since I, like .-2, hadn't seen the issue nor knew who the named person
was nor knew the context in which the picture was presented, why should
we assume "the worst"? (And even knowing the 'who' now, without the
context, I'm still not inclined to pass judgement yet).
Dave
|
| 3721.19 | I agree, though.. | SHRCTR::SCHILTON | MRO3-1/E9, DTN 297-7558 | Thu Mar 09 1995 14:48 | 4 |
| re .16
>>BayWatch actor
That's an oxymoron.
|
| 3721.20 | What Issue ? | PASTA::MENNE | | Thu Mar 09 1995 14:51 | 3 |
| What issue was Pamela Anderson in and where can I get one ?
Mike
|
| 3721.21 | Let's look at the facts | FAILTE::HUNKY::trowsdalec | | Thu Mar 09 1995 14:55 | 38 |
| .18
OK. Sorry for any cross-Atlantic confusion. Let's look at the real issue.
Digital Today reports on how our products are being used in the most
exciting new consumer marketplace around, the Internet.
Pamela Anderson is ex-Playgirl, hot gossip and very much in the news in
the UK. She stars in Baywatch; a US lifeguard, beach side, soap.
Digital Today chooses to titillate its Internet story by headering it with
said full length picture of Pamela (she is unconnected with Sports
Illustrated). This picture taking 6 times the copy space of the story.
Digital Today is supposed to be a professional paper for professional men
AND women. The gratuitous use of flesh shots and innuendo for no reason
other than sensationalism is absolutely offensive.
Text follows.
Regards
Caroline
"No, DIGITAL TODAY has not bought the rights to the Pamela Anderson story
- the budget wouldn't stretch that far. However, the company has, er ...
how do we put this delicately, had a hand in publishing the latest in
swimwear fashion.
As part of a US-based project to provide access to the Internet for large
customers, a Digital server has been carrying Sports Illustrated's
swimsuit edition online. Fashion enthusiasts can dial in and download MPEG
computer video files which feature girls sporting the latest in beachwear.
But before you reach for the 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' function in
ALL-IN-1, have a shufty at what IBM is carrying on one of its Internet
servers. Adult 'toys'. So that's what the 'Blue' in Big Blue refers to."
|
| 3721.22 | | LEEL::LINDQUIST | Luke 2:4; Patriots 200:1 | Thu Mar 09 1995 15:19 | 12 |
| 3721.23 | Who's sense of humour is getting stronger... | POBOX::CORSON | Higher, and a bit more to the right | Thu Mar 09 1995 15:19 | 6 |
|
Hey, that's better than reporting losses each quarter. Besides
real men don't Internet...
the Greyhawk ;-)
|
| 3721.24 | It's called marketing.... | AMCUCS::SWIERKOWSKIS | | Thu Mar 09 1995 16:17 | 24 |
| 3721.25 | a bit of sweeping generalization with a base of truth | TINCUP::KOLBE | Wicked Wench of the Web | Thu Mar 09 1995 17:29 | 6 |
| The fact is that the internet audience is still largely male.
The audience we sell to is also. Men respond to visual images and
visual images of sexy women always catch their eye. If they make
the connection that buying our products somehow is connected to hot
babes we make more sales. This apparently works for cars and beer.
liesl
|
| 3721.26 | | DPDMAI::EYSTER | She ain't pretty (she just looks that way) | Thu Mar 09 1995 17:46 | 1 |
| The Ken Olsen swimsuit edition didn't sell well. Liesl's right.
|
| 3721.27 | | KLAP::porter | the mantra of the walls and wiring | Thu Mar 09 1995 17:48 | 31 |
| > BINGO! Regardless of how anyone feels about using flesh to sell products,
> we better pay attention to the real world and do what it takes to get
> noticed.
Yeah, right. "We don't WANT to demean you, but everyone else is,
so we'll just have to do it too. We understand that it's offensive
to you, but hell, we don't care."
I used to think all the "declining moral" notes were simply typos,
but now I'm not so sure.
Btw, I haven't seen the paper in question, so I'm making no comment
on the picture/article. I'm disagreeing with the notion that's it's possible to
comfortably hold the positions "using flesh to sell is bad" and "we should
use flesh to sell" both at the same time.
> The fact is that the internet audience is still largely male.
> The audience we sell to is also. Men respond to visual images and
> visual images of sexy women always catch their eye. If they make
> the connection that buying our products somehow is connected to hot
> babes we make more sales. This apparently works for cars and beer.
Well, maybe I'm not typical. I happen to like nerd stuff and sexy
women. However, when faced with ads which attempt to use the latter
to sell me the former, my reaction is "must be a worthless product"
(just like the beers they advertise with sex are tasteless swill - I
don't have much of an opinion on cars :-).
|
| 3721.28 | (Notes collision) | ATLANT::SCHMIDT | E&RT -- Embedded and RealTime Engineering | Thu Mar 09 1995 18:00 | 28 |
| (I haven't seen the ad or story in question. But based on all
of the notes so far...)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I guess this must be a specific instance of the "whatever it takes"
general rule, huh? "If sex sells, then sell with sex!"
Still, when I open up "Info World" or "PC Week" or "MacWeek" or any
of the trade rags, I don't really notice very many "babe" ads. I
*DO* notice a lot of women in the ads, but they tend to be profes-
sional-looking women that I imagine I might actually encounter here
in real life. Some recent IBM and Apple ads come to mind.
I find some of the NEC component ads have bordered on bad taste;
the focus of the ads was definitely the full-page face shot of the
various women (and the occasional man) rather than the monitors.
I've never been much of an NEC monitor fan and the ads have done
nothing to change my mind.
And I would be be *STRONGLY DISINCLINED* to buy a product from a
vendor that had to resort to pure "babe" advertising. I'll grant
you that I'd notice the ad, and might remember the "babe" with
positive connotations, but I'd remember the vendor with negative
connotations: "They're the ones that need to resort to sex to
try to sell their junk."
Atlant
|
| 3721.29 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Mar 09 1995 19:26 | 25 |
| Re .14:
> You will NEVER see Digital women achieving their true potential in a
> company that finds it acceptable to publish a completely unnecessary,
> full frontal, "wet swimsuit" picture of Pamela Anderson in Digital
> Today.
Proponents of "equality" will never succeed as long as they attempt to
suppress sex instead of discrimination.
Sex and discrimination are different things. Companies that sell sex
or use sex to sell are not necessarily companies that discriminate.
It's possible that discrimination could be eliminated someday. But sex
will always exist; it will always affect people; it will always be
desired; it will always be used to influence. Attempts to suppress sex
are doomed to failure.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 3721.30 | Load off my mind, I'll tell ya! | DPDMAI::EYSTER | She ain't pretty (she just looks that way) | Thu Mar 09 1995 20:20 | 8 |
| > It's possible that discrimination could be eliminated someday. But sex
> will always exist; it will always affect people; it will always be
> desired; it will always be used to influence. Attempts to suppress sex
> are doomed to failure.
Whew! And I was worried there for awhile! :^]
Tex
|
| 3721.31 | A newtie for you, one for me, one for... | POBOX::CORSON | Higher, and a bit more to the right | Thu Mar 09 1995 22:16 | 8 |
|
I think they're talking about at the office, Tex. At home is still
OK...
Back to our previously scheduled program....
the Greyhawk
|
| 3721.32 | Great minds thinking alike or what? | BRAT::JANEB | See it happen => Make it happen | Thu Mar 09 1995 22:18 | 8 |
| On Saturday Night Live, about 2 weeks ago, Kevin Nealon did a segment
of "News for People With Really Short Attention Spans". He was
relating current congressional budget news but every few seconds he
would hold up a picture and yell out "Pamela Anderson of Baywatch!"
until the end when he stuck he head through a giant poster of same and
continued with the news.
Are you saying this is total coincidence?
|
| 3721.33 | | VANGA::KERRELL | DECUS - Coventry May 15-18 1995 | Fri Mar 10 1995 06:37 | 17 |
| re.32:
I have seen Digital Today, complete with the aforementioned picture. Just
to clarify for those who haven't got access to this internal publication,
the picture is of a healthy young lady in a bathing suit who is standing
facing the camera. The pose is about as innocent as it could be. Anything
sexy or improper is in the eye of the beholder.
I assume that there was an editorial decision to provide a picture as an
attention grabber, and what better way than to use someone who currently
enjoys media attention. This is not new, Digital Today have used this style
for a long time, as have the press in general.
BTW, the editor is the correct person to send complaints to know.
Dave.
|
| 3721.34 | | PLAYER::BROWNL | An Internaut in CyberSpace | Fri Mar 10 1995 08:14 | 6 |
| Really! I have far better things to worry about that a swimwear-suited
"babe" on the front cover of an internal magazine. Get a life!
[whisper really quietly] I agree with EDP on this one.
Cheers, Laurie.
|
| 3721.35 | Sometimes you just can't please everybody ... | NETCAD::SHERMAN | Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2 | Fri Mar 10 1995 12:12 | 12 |
| It's my fault.
Digital Today approached me about posing in a bikini for the picture.
I told 'em it's been awhile and I just don't fit like I used to. Plus,
now that I don't need it I'm finally getting chest hair. And, the hair
on my legs is so coarse I can't get my nylons off without putting runs
in them. But, then they told me they weren't planning to pay me any
money. Worse, they said I'd have to do it on my own time. I've got my
pride! Nobody sees me in a bikini! Well, not for free, anyway. So,
they said thanks and that they had someone else in mind ...
Steve ;^)
|
| 3721.36 | | BICYCL::RYER | Don't give away the home world.... | Fri Mar 10 1995 13:12 | 5 |
| RE: .35
Thanks, Steve, for sticking to your principles. We all appreciate it.
-Patrick
|
| 3721.37 | You have to be desperate (or paranoid) to worry about this | PEKING::RICKETTSK | Rebelwithoutapause | Fri Mar 10 1995 13:33 | 11 |
| I have the picture in front of me... it's nothing to get very worked
up about. Black and white, and not even a bikini, but a one-piece
swimsuit. It is on page three, however, so easy to find for Sun^*
readers. No matter how closely I look, I can't see even a hint of a
nipple, and as for pubic hair....excuse me, I shall have to go and lie
down for a bit. 8*)
Ken
^*The Sun - UK tabloid newpaper noted for its pictures of topless models,
known as 'page three girls', 'cos that's where they normally appeared.
|
| 3721.38 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Mar 10 1995 17:16 | 14 |
| Didn't see the issue. My comment is of a different nature:
>But before you reach for the 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' function in
>ALL-IN-1, have a shufty at what IBM is carrying on one of its Internet
>servers. Adult 'toys'. So that's what the 'Blue' in Big Blue refers to."
In other words, "we're not as dirty as those guys."
Justification by comparison is a poor defense for anything.
Mark
-never watched Baywatch either; don't know Pamela Anderson - at least
not to put a name to the image.
|
| 3721.39 | Another pointer to Pamela Anderson | SSDEVO::THOMPSON | Paul Thompson, Colorado Springs | Fri Mar 10 1995 20:47 | 2 |
| Pamela Anderson was also the original "Tool Time" lady on the US sitcom, "Home
Improvement".
|
| 3721.40 | What's offensive? | AMCUCS::SWIERKOWSKIS | | Fri Mar 10 1995 23:35 | 60 |
| re .27
>> BINGO! Regardless of how anyone feels about using flesh to sell products,
>> we better pay attention to the real world and do what it takes to get
>> noticed.
>
>Yeah, right. "We don't WANT to demean you, but everyone else is,
>so we'll just have to do it too. We understand that it's offensive
>to you, but hell, we don't care."
Did I give the impression it was offensive? Certainly didn't mean
to. How is Pamela Anderson in a swimsuit demeaning? I'm sure she doesn't
feel demeaned or she wouldn't do it. Most of the women I know are secure
enough not to have a problem with Playboy, etc. As someone else already
mentioned sex and discrimination are not the same.
>I used to think all the "declining moral" notes were simply typos,
>but now I'm not so sure.
This IS offensive. My morals are not in decline simply because
I'd like to see Digital follow the Madison Avenue successes. Babes sell.
>Btw, I haven't seen the paper in question, so I'm making no comment
>on the picture/article. I'm disagreeing with the notion that's it's possible to
>comfortably hold the positions "using flesh to sell is bad" and "we should
>use flesh to sell" both at the same time.
So who holds both positions? I see no reason why we shouldn't use
flesh to sell.
>> The fact is that the internet audience is still largely male.
>> The audience we sell to is also. Men respond to visual images and
>> visual images of sexy women always catch their eye. If they make
>> the connection that buying our products somehow is connected to hot
>> babes we make more sales. This apparently works for cars and beer.
>
>Well, maybe I'm not typical. I happen to like nerd stuff and sexy
>women. However, when faced with ads which attempt to use the latter
>to sell me the former, my reaction is "must be a worthless product"
>(just like the beers they advertise with sex are tasteless swill - I
> don't have much of an opinion on cars :-).
In the modern world, we are bombarded with information. In TV
advertising, you have half a second (if that much) to catch the interest of
the person holding the remote control (probably male). We subscribe to way
too many newspapers, magazines, trade journals, etc to read them all -- the
headline and/or picture have to grab you.
You might not buy their beer, but SOMEBODY sure is! And despite all
the protests of how horrible it is to use babes in advertising, it works.
People often say one thing/do another. No one is watching the OJ trial but
the ratings keep going up. Human nature isn't always pretty, but successful
marketing takes advantage of it. (Look at the cigarette manufacturers --
they sold us a product that has only one purpose -- to kill us -- what
marketing!!!)
Have a nice weekend.
Susan S.
|
| 3721.41 | | MU::PORTER | it's the mantra of the walls and wiring | Sat Mar 11 1995 01:46 | 42 |
| RE .40
> Did I give the impression it was offensive?
If no-one thought it was offensive, then there'd be no point in
discussing whether or not it was ok to "use flesh to sell", because
we'd all agree it was ok. So, at least someone thought it was
offensive.
You said "regardless of how anyone feels", so you seem to cocur
that *someone* thought it offensive. The "regardless" indicates
that you'd be prepared to set aside your concerns on that matter -
whether or not the concerns were for what *you* thought, or
for what others thought, you didn't say - and has no bearing
on this anyway.
Here's my take on the matter. There's nothing inherently
demeaning in a picture of a woman in a swimsuit. However,
it's a different fish-kettle when what is inherently a business
article is illustrated with an almost-totally-irrelevant
photo. It demonstrates the low opinion the editor has
of his readership, and (since the photo can only be interpreted
as being there for decoration) it presumbly also carries
the message that decoration is the most suitable role for
women. I imagine that it was this latter aspect which
pissed off the original noter, although here I'm straying
into hypothesis.
And for the purposes of comparison, I don't see anything
particularly wrong with the notion of IBM having online
ads for sex toys. I presume they're not using photos
of dildos to illustrate articles in computer newspapers
(unless the articles are about breakthroughs in dildonics).
Context is everything!
Furthermore, in all this talk of "selling", we seem to have
mislaid the fact that this isn't some Sun (for UK readers)
or National Enquirer (for US readers) tabloid. It's a
DEC-internal paper, and therefore I don't see that the
anything-for-a-sale argument applies.
|
| 3721.42 | | MU::PORTER | it's the mantra of the walls and wiring | Sat Mar 11 1995 01:49 | 11 |
| P.S. Apologies for the typos. I seem to be losing
characters on this dialup line, so what I see onscreen
doesn't necessarily match the editing buffer.
P.P.S. If there aren't any typos and it's just garbled on
the output side but fine in the notesfile, then I apologise
for the previous apology.
|
| 3721.43 | a: re .42; b: re .41 | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | TechnoCatalyst | Sat Mar 11 1995 07:46 | 4 |
| a. It was your P.P.S. that applied
b. A networking company would be interested in TELEdildonics
|
| 3721.44 | I ain't seen it either, but . . . | SNOFS1::POOLE | Over the Rainbow | Tue Mar 14 1995 02:13 | 24 |
| I'm a little late getting into this disucssion. Sorry.
Like most of those with an opinion on this thread, I haven't seen the
article in question. However, I too have a comment.
I'm a reasonably educated person. I read the papers. When I see an ad
that catches my eye, I tend to spend a few seconds in that general
vacinity.
When that something that catches my eye is unrelated to the item being
advertised, I (sometimes) have a little chuckle. I can almost hear
someone behind me say "Gotcha!"
The picture in question has been described as a healthy young lady in a
(possibly wet) swim suit. If done well, this could be down-right
attractive.
I don't see (sorry pun unintended) the sex. Human physical
attractiveness does not equate to sex (unless your significant other has
been out of town tooooooooo long.
Later,
Bill
|
| 3721.45 | Letter to Ed. | FAILTE::HUNKY::trowsdalec | | Tue Mar 14 1995 08:04 | 38 |
| 3721.46 | | VANGA::KERRELL | DECUS - Coventry May 15-18 1995 | Tue Mar 14 1995 10:20 | 6 |
| re.45:
The young lady in question was not "scantily clad". If anything her attire was
most appropriate for the beach.
Dave.
|
| 3721.47 | | BAHTAT::DODD | | Tue Mar 14 1995 10:32 | 27 |
| Caroline,
I work in the UK and have seen this. The photo is not of a "scantily
clad" model. It is of a model in a swimsuit. The article is about a
company using a Digital computer to serve video mail order catalogues
for swimsuits. The photo was, IMHO, appropriate and tasteful. I found
the jibe at IBM less so.
In my junk mail yesterday I received a mailer from PC supplier
ESCOM. The front page features a Pentium PC and a model dressed in
PVC/leather with the tag "Take home a supermodel".
Page 2 features a model in a slinky catsuit with the tag "Stunning
speed, exquisitely cut prices" oh and a Pentium PC.
Page 3 features the tag "At these prices minis are at the height of
fashion" with a model in a mini skirt.
The back page features two male models in suits with the tag "Stylish
multimedia with tailor made finance" and a multimedia PC.
Now if my company were doing this I would be the first to raise a
complaint, on two counts. The photos of models have no connection,
other than some slightly provocative headlines. Secondly the female
models are shown in sultry poses and the men in smart business like
poses. Stereotyping that can be done without.
I'm not a feminist, just like to see fair play.
Andrew
|
| 3721.48 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Mar 14 1995 12:18 | 10 |
| Even Snap-on Tools has dropped this sort of advertising. they said
they believe mechanics are too professional for this sort of nonsense,
what are we saying about computer people here?
Now if they wanted to do a "Fabio Ad".........
(Insert semi-sarcastic smily)
meg
|
| 3721.49 | Buy from whom you like. | ATLANT::SCHMIDT | E&RT -- Embedded and RealTime Engineering | Tue Mar 14 1995 12:54 | 14 |
| "MacWarehouse" catalogs are famous for their use, in the
lower right-hand corner of many pages, of photos of their
ostensible phone staff saying things like "I'm Shiela; Call
me!" (You'd almost exoect a (900) number.) They apparently
believe they achieve some sort of balance by putting in (at
about 1/10 the insertion rate) "Doug" or "Robert".
"APS Technology" has recently started putting in a picture
of somebody's dog, posed with a headset on, with the caption
being something like "I'm Rover; call me!".
I always knew there was a reason I liked APS!
Atlant
|
| 3721.50 | I agree !!! | FAILTE::HUNKY::trowsdalec | | Tue Mar 14 1995 14:41 | 12 |
| .47
I like to see fair play too.
So next glossie you see from a company that uses cheap, sensational
stereotyping to grab your attention goes straight in the bin, right?
Bit more tricky to do that with a supposed key organ of communication from
a company you love.
Regards
Caroline
|
| 3721.51 | | KLAP::porter | the mantra of the walls and wiring | Tue Mar 14 1995 18:08 | 4 |
| Caroline - about that node name of yours ...
:-)
|
| 3721.52 | But everyone knows Snap-on now! | AMCUCS::SWIERKOWSKIS | | Tue Mar 14 1995 18:22 | 20 |
|
> Even Snap-on Tools has dropped this sort of advertising. they said
> they believe mechanics are too professional for this sort of nonsense,
> what are we saying about computer people here?
Yeah, sure - AFTER everyone knows about the quality of Snap-on, they
develop a conscience. Remember, we're still trying to get people
to figure out the difference between DEC and Digital.
> Now if they wanted to do a "Fabio Ad".........
I prefer Mel Gibson, but the idea is sure the same. What's wrong
with using pretty scenery to sell something? Bugle Boy had a great
series awhile ago -- pictures of babes with the ad scrolling across
the bottom of the TV saying if the sales of the clothes went down
they'd revert back to the boring ads featuring the clothes instead
of the babes. Maybe, just maybe some of us are just a little too
uptight?
SQ
|
| 3721.53 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Mar 14 1995 19:38 | 7 |
| So PEOPLE are now "pretty scenery?"
Sorry, but I can't put a "hunk" type calendar up in my cubicle lest it
offend someone in the area. Using the same stuff in ad's that is
banned inside employee space still doesn't tell me much.
meg
|
| 3721.54 | | DPDMAI::EYSTER | She ain't pretty (she just looks that way) | Tue Mar 14 1995 19:59 | 3 |
| SNAP-ON *discontinued* the SNAP-ON girl calendars?!?!?!?? Commies!!!!!
disgusted in Texas
|
| 3721.55 | Hunky? Chunky more like! | FAILTE::HUNKY::trowsdalec | | Wed Mar 15 1995 07:33 | 7 |
| .51
I had hoped no-one would notice if I noted quietly!
(Did think of getting it changed but didn't want to be accused of having a
humour bypass!)
Caroline
|
| 3721.56 | | ARRODS::WHITEHEADJ | Shades of Scarlett | Wed Mar 15 1995 11:16 | 5 |
| So it's demeaning to women (in Digital) to have a picture of a
woman in a swimming costume is it? Would people, specifically men,
complain if it had been a picture of a man in swimming trunks?
Jane.
|
| 3721.57 | | NETCAD::SHERMAN | Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2 | Wed Mar 15 1995 11:26 | 10 |
| re: .56
I don't know of *any* guy that would object to a picture of a man in
swimming attire. Most guys probably wouldn't even notice. Of course,
a guy with a spare tire in a Speedo is another beast entirely ...
Until I get back into shape, you'll not see *me* in a Speedo on the
beach. Next thing you'd know, a bunch of nature lovers would be trying
to keep me wet and coax me back into the water ...
Steve
|
| 3721.58 | seemed reasonable to me | LGP30::FLEISCHER | without vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780, MRO2-3/E8) | Wed Mar 15 1995 12:19 | 15 |
| re Note 3721.56 by ARRODS::WHITEHEADJ:
> So it's demeaning to women (in Digital) to have a picture of a
> woman in a swimming costume is it? Would people, specifically men,
> complain if it had been a picture of a man in swimming trunks?
When I read the following in Note 3721.47:
> The back page features two male models in suits with the tag "Stylish
> multimedia with tailor made finance" and a multimedia PC.
I assumed that the "suits" were swimming suits, given the
context. Really!
Bob
|
| 3721.59 | | COSME3::HEDLEYC | Lager Lout | Wed Mar 15 1995 15:04 | 6 |
| re .56,
I really wouldn't give a monkey's, and that's assuming I'd even notice. I
don't see what all the fuss is about.
Chris.
|
| 3721.60 | | ARRODS::WHITEHEADJ | Shades of Scarlett | Wed Mar 15 1995 15:31 | 4 |
| Me neither. The way the world is today whatever picture is published
would probably be found offensive by someone.
Jane.
|
| 3721.61 | | MAIL2::RICCIARDI | Be a graceful Parvenu... | Wed Mar 15 1995 16:58 | 8 |
| yeah, should of had a bathing suit on hanger
or, maybe the design of womens bathing suits is too provocative,
Hmmm, maybe we should not have sold them our products and services on
pricipal...
|
| 3721.62 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Wed Mar 15 1995 18:06 | 22 |
| The fuss is over the perception that a picture that objectifies one women
objectifies them all and thereby limits the opportunities of all women.
You can debate whether it objectifies or does not objectify.
You can debate whether it limits other women or does not limit other women.
Whether it does or doesn't is uniquely in the eyes of the beholders.
However, if most beholding eyes do (objectify; limit) then the fuss
is an attempt to persuade people to behold something else.
Uniquely speaking, it would not influence (negatively or positively)
how I treat and deal with women who are not Pamela Anderson. It may
influence how I treat Pamela Anderson, if I ever had the opportunity,
but I would doubt it.
Objectification does happen. Limiting people because of prejudice
does happen. It doesn't happen with everyone. Perhaps the picture
contributes to some of it; perhaps it also contributes to other (positive)
things that may outweigh the negatives that can exist in publishing
such a photo.
Mark
|
| 3721.63 | | R2ME2::DEVRIES | Let your gentleness B evident 2 all | Wed Mar 15 1995 19:10 | 5 |
| re .62 (multiply instantiated objectifications):
What's this, Object-Oriented PsychoSpeak (OOPS)? :-)
-MarkD
|
| 3721.64 | Some people are BORN to be offended | AMCUCS::SWIERKOWSKIS | | Wed Mar 15 1995 20:35 | 17 |
| re .60
> Me neither. The way the world is today whatever picture is published
> would probably be found offensive by someone.
Well put. I wish I could remember the quote by Lemmy (Motorhead),
but to paraphrase: some people are born to be offended - they live
to be offended. I've worked in groups where we all had to be care-
ful what we said and it lowers morale (not morals). When the
easily offended leave, life is so much more enjoyable for everyone.
I have been given incredible opportunities at Digital to grow
professionally. I can't remember any time that I was ever held
back because I was a woman. Pamela Anderson in a bathing suit
just isn't threatening.
SQ
|
| 3721.65 | | ATLANT::SCHMIDT | E&RT -- Embedded and RealTime Engineering | Thu Mar 16 1995 11:48 | 23 |
| SQ:
Let us hope you apply this philosophy uniformly throughout the rest
of your life. So when you encounter something that crosses your
personal "offense threshold", you say to yourself "No problem,
I'll let it pass". No matter whether it touches your life in
some very direct way or not.
I have no idea where your threshold lies; perhaps nothing offends
you. But assuming that's not the case, try this thought experiment:
Think of something you find truly offensive. Now, think
of your cube-neighbor putting up a calendar that glorifies
whatever that is. And they they come by and chat with you
about it, several times a day. Or consider Digital running
a TV ad that uses that topic to sell computers. How do you
react?
Do you smile and say "live and let live"? If your particular
button, whatever it may be, is pushed hard enough, I doubt
that you could.
Atlant
|
| 3721.66 | | PLAYER::BROWNL | An Internaut in CyberSpace | Thu Mar 16 1995 12:43 | 6 |
| It must be great to have nothing else in one's life to worry about and
to do than to write letters signed "Outraged of Digital" to an internal
magazine on the subject of actresses wearing bikinis. Hang on, no, it
must be terrible.
Laurie.
|
| 3721.67 | OK, this dead horse is beat to dog food... | DPDMAI::EYSTER | She ain't pretty (she just looks that way) | Thu Mar 16 1995 14:34 | 24 |
| Well, I had a longer version of this, but I lost it. Laurie's got a
point, I think.
Hey, we all find some things people do/say/have offensive, but I can
count on one hand the number of Digits themselves I've found offensive
(and the list gets shorter as I mellow with age!).
"Respecting Diversity" now means "Respect *MY* Diversity, DAMMIT!".
I've always been impressed by how Digits of so many differing
backgrounds can work together. Now I'm depressed that they can turn on
each other like feral pigs...over a swimsuit pic in an ad?
Play nice, kids. Before you jump on someone with both feet for their
(views on Pamela, Digital ads, religion, hunting, sexual preferences,
ad infinitum) maybe think "Ya know, I don't agree, but is this person a
total a**hole requiring time at a Rehab Camp for Sexists, or just
another nice Joe/Jane with a different outlook than mine?".
Y'all might be surprised how many more flies you catch with honey than
vinegar. (Um, please, PETA members feeling strongly about "fly rights",
don't send nasty mail. That was just a harmless Southernism, not meant
to express violence to other species.)
:^] Tex
|
| 3721.68 | | BIGQ::GARDNER | justme....jacqui | Thu Mar 16 1995 14:34 | 8 |
|
gee, then I guess we women need to instead write letters to the
editor demanding that the guys in the business suits would better
portray our Digital ad image by being in SPEEDO'S instead of
tailored business suits!
;*}
|
| 3721.69 | Respect is so difficult? | KOLFAX::VASKAS | Mary Vaskas | Thu Mar 16 1995 15:23 | 11 |
| It's too bad that being courteous and respectful towards each other causes so
much resistance; that being sensitive towards each other lowers morale.
Maybe it would be easier if it was just considered respecting
your co-workers and their values.
Thanks to the originator of this string for helping to remind
people to try to stay professional in our company communications, btw.
MKV
|
| 3721.70 | | BIGQ::GARDNER | justme....jacqui | Thu Mar 16 1995 16:00 | 14 |
|
>> Perhaps our new advertising tag-line should be ...
>> Digital: Hardware, it counts!
Gee, then, this could be where the SPEEDO'S fit into the picture!!!
;8}
|
| 3721.71 | Really! | OTOOA::MOWBRAY | This isn't a job its an Adventure | Thu Mar 16 1995 16:29 | 5 |
| re. .70
I resent the use of the obscene characters at the end of that message.
The use of ;8} is clearly sexual and discourteous. The moderators
should delete the note.
|
| 3721.72 | | HDLITE::SCHAFER | Mark Schafer, AXP-developer support | Thu Mar 16 1995 16:48 | 14 |
| There's been an attempt at balance in this discussion, which is
appropriate. It takes two to communicate and there's always a risk
that the message will come across incorrectly. Both parties have to
assume that risk or else there won't be any communication.
Digital TODAY and all the noters that replied have taken that risk. I
guess I worry more about people that are afraid to speak out. Do we
tend to squash people that have different opinions than ourselves? Or
do we belittle people that 'note' differently, like IN ALL UPPERCASE
LETTERS?
What's the notesfile equivalent to a HUG?
Mark
|
| 3721.73 | ... third thoughts ... | MEMIT::CIUFFINI | God must be a Gemini... | Thu Mar 16 1995 18:43 | 39 |
|
My apologies. I entered the attached note, went back a few minutes
later and deleted same thinking someone would be offended.
This is what is being referenced in the .70 reply.
Sorry. Won't happen again. I promise.
jc
<<< HUMANE::DISK$CONFERENCES:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
-< The Digital way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 3721.70 OPEN LETTER TO THE EDITORS OF DIGITAL TODAY !!! 70 of 70
MEMIT::CIUFFINI "God must be a Gemini..." 22 lines 16-MAR-1995 12:55
-< ... It's not what you say, it's how you say it ... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time to summarize. ( Pls allow me a bit of liberty here... )
1. We can be professional but might use sex (appeal) to sell our
products; we should appeal to both men and women.
2. Software development is on the decline[1] in the company; our
bottom line is best delivered from the iron.
Perhaps our new advertising tag-line should be ...
Digital: Hardware, it counts!
jc
:-) [ More smiley faces sent on request. ]
------------------------------------------------------------------
[1[ Nay, a 'deprecated' feature.
|
| 3721.74 | OH, can't we all get along? | STAR::DIPIRRO | | Thu Mar 16 1995 21:06 | 4 |
| I tried that experiment a few replies back, but I couldn't think of
a single thing that I found offensive. And any and all of you are
welcome to try to offend me...as long as no one sends me a picture of
Steve in a speedo!
|
| 3721.75 | Who me? grossed out? | AMCUCS::SWIERKOWSKIS | | Thu Mar 16 1995 21:31 | 23 |
| re .65
Atlant,
I've worked with Field Service guys -- come on, I can't be offended!
(Please, no one take that the wrong way -- it's meant in the spirit
of good, clean fun.) If they can't gross you out, no one can!! I'm
also assuming we're talking about "offensive" stuff along the lines
in this thread, not horribly, vile things like animal or child abuse
or the Holocaust.
It seems to me that we've become so overly concerned with what's
offensive that we're losing free expression. When that happens,
people often become so afraid of saying the wrong things that
communication itself becomes stilted or even stops. I'm grateful
for this thread in this conference; it's good to see people speaking
frankly about a touchy subject. I hope no one has backed off because
it's gotten heated at times. No matter what, we seem to be committed
to Digital's success and our coworkers or we wouldn't waste our time.
Group hug for Mark!
SQ
|
| 3721.76 | Just, what I have been thinking..... | EEMELI::SIREN | | Fri Mar 17 1995 04:33 | 6 |
| Re .72
Thanks Mark!
--Ritva
|
| 3721.77 | | ATLANT::SCHMIDT | E&RT -- Embedded and RealTime Engineering | Fri Mar 17 1995 13:30 | 28 |
| SQ:
> I've worked with Field Service guys -- come on, I can't be offended!
> (Please, no one take that the wrong way -- it's meant in the spirit
> of good, clean fun.) If they can't gross you out, no one can!! I'm
> also assuming we're talking about "offensive" stuff along the lines
> in this thread, not horribly, vile things like animal or child abuse
> or the Holocaust.
Actually, you *MUST* include the truly offensive if you're
going to tell me that you're simply not offended by anything.
You may also want to include a good helping of ethnic jokes
targetting whatever is your particular ethnicity.
Now imagine the cube-neighbor promoting this material. Want
to squelch it? Want to do anything at all about it? Want
to work closely with your cube neighbor on that next big
project?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Meanwhile, Tex, no one called for the editors who included
the picture to be sent to feminist re-education camps; We
merely said that it appears that the photo, run with six
times the column inches of the related story, does not have
a place in a news organ that claims to be speaking pro-
fessionally.
Atlant
|
| 3721.78 | time to move on... | DPDMAI::EYSTER | It ain't a car without fins... | Fri Mar 17 1995 13:40 | 12 |
| Hell, maybe if y'all keep sayin' it again and again you'll get it
pounded through everybody's head like a PC spike, OK? Y'all made your
point...several times.
So, not to rathole this string, 'cause y'all know I'd never do
anything like that, but are *all* Field Service folk totally morally
corrupt indigent alcoholics who aren't allowed around decent women or
children?
I don't know, as we keep ours caged and only feed 'em through the bars.
Tex
|
| 3721.79 | | ATLANT::SCHMIDT | E&RT -- Embedded and RealTime Engineering | Fri Mar 17 1995 13:52 | 6 |
| Tex:
If it helps you form your opinion, I hired on to this
company as a Field Service rep. :-)
Atlant
|
| 3721.80 | | DPDMAI::EYSTER | It ain't a car without fins... | Fri Mar 17 1995 14:07 | 1 |
| *Now* things are starting to come together! :^]
|
| 3721.81 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Fri Mar 17 1995 14:28 | 18 |
| re .75,
And I worked in construction for two years, as well as on an assembly
line, and in a lab with four other "humans", so what!?
I now interface with customers on a regular basis, professionally, and
I don't need them relating their network products and product support
people with baywatch, if you want that kind of customer delight, get me
a 900 number and commensurate pay increase.
While I know my job depends on sales, just as all of ours do, I fail to
see why using reasonable professional standards in promoting our
product is so terrible. If we are going to stoop to using sex appeal
to sell them, then lets get the Chippendale's out there dancing on our
vaxen and alpha's at every trade show. Oh, you could add in a woman's
dance troupe to in that case and they could trade off.
meg
|
| 3721.82 | McGovernik? | DPDMAI::EYSTER | It ain't a car without fins... | Fri Mar 17 1995 14:48 | 16 |
| > And I worked in construction for two years, as well as on an assembly
Meg, you weren't one of those women that whistled at us guys and
shouted sexual innuendos, were you?
I did a little checking and there IS an Alpha ad in the works that will
be featuring a Chippendale dancer, leaning with one hand on an Alpha
7000. "It's not how you look, it's how well you move". Camera then
switches over to a generic competitor's box with a potbellied older man
in the same Chippendale outfit, same pose.
Dancer looks back, shrugs..."Then again, why not get it all in one
package?" Fade to Digital logo.
This from an unnamed source in advertising. I don't know if it's a
concept or in actual production...
|
| 3721.83 | Yeah, Chippendales! | AMCUCS::SWIERKOWSKIS | | Fri Mar 17 1995 15:49 | 16 |
| > I did a little checking and there IS an Alpha ad in the works that will
> be featuring a Chippendale dancer, leaning with one hand on an Alpha
> 7000. "It's not how you look, it's how well you move". Camera then
> switches over to a generic competitor's box with a potbellied older man
> in the same Chippendale outfit, same pose.
>
> Dancer looks back, shrugs..."Then again, why not get it all in one
> package?" Fade to Digital logo.
>
> This from an unnamed source in advertising. I don't know if it's a
> concept or in actual production...
Now THAT'S an ad!
SQ (who has heard all the Polish jokes and still works
on projects with the "insensitive slobs")
|
| 3721.84 | | ICS::BEAN | Attila the Hun was a LIBERAL! | Fri Mar 17 1995 15:59 | 5 |
| re: .78
nope, Tex... jes those from Texas.
tony
|
| 3721.85 | Courtesy rec.art.ascii (not my artwork) | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Mar 17 1995 16:42 | 19 |
| > What's the notesfile equivalent to a HUG?
___ ____ ___
____( \ .-' `-. / )____
(____ \_____ / (O O) \ _____/ ____)
(____ `-----( ) )-----' ____)
(____ _____________\ .____. /_____________ ____)
(______/ `-.____.-' \______)
*Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug*
*Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug*
*Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug*
*Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug*
*Hug**Hug**Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug*
*Hug**Hug**Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug**Hug*
*Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug*
*Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug*
*Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug*
*Hug* *Hug* *Hug* *Hug*
|
| 3721.86 | More of the teasing kind of ascii equivalences ;-) | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Mar 17 1995 16:45 | 37 |
| Smiles
\|/ .-----. \|/
0-/ . . \-O
/_( \_____/ )_\
\ \_-\/ /
\__\`\/
\_)
\|/ .-----. \|/
Y-/ . . \-Y
/=( \_____/ )=\
\ \_ -/ /
\__) \/
\__)
.+, ____ \|/
Y-/ .. \-Y
/_( \__/ )=>
\__U_/
\|/ ____ \|/
@'/ -- \~@
<_( \__/ )_>
\__U_/
\|/ ____ \|/
@~ / \-@
\_( \__/ )_>
\__U_/
\|/ ____ \|/
@~/ ,. \~@
/_( \__/ )_\
~ \__U_/ ~
|
| 3721.87 | And if you're really hot... | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Mar 17 1995 16:45 | 25 |
| [flame on]
) ( ( (
( ) () @@ ) (( (
( ( )( @@ ( )) ) (
( ( ( ()( /---\ (()( (
_______ ) ) )(@ !O O! )@@ ( ) ) )
< ____) ) ( ( )( ()@ \ o / (@@@@@ ( ()( )
/--| |( o| ( ) ) ((@@(@@ !o! @@@@(@@@@@)() (
| > \___| ) ( @)@@)@ /---\-/---\ )@@@@@()( )
| /---------+ (@@@@)@@@( // /-----\ \\ @@@)@@@@@( .
| | \ =========______/|@@@@@@@@@@@@@(@@@ // @ /---\ @ \\ @(@@@(@@@ . .
| \ \\=========------\|@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ O @@@ /-\ @@@ O @@(@@)@@ @ .
| \ \----+--\-))) @@@@@@@@@@ !! @@@@ % @@@@ !! @@)@@@ .. .
| |\______|_)))/ . @@@@@@ !! @@ /---\ @@ !! @@(@@@ @ . .
\__========== * . @@ /MM /\O O/\ MM\ @@@@@@@. .
| |-\ \ ( . @ !!! !! \-/ !! !!! @@@@@ .
| | \ \ ) . . @@@@ !! !! .(. @. .. .
| | \ \ ( / .( . \)). ( |O )( O! @@@@ . ) .
| | / / ) ( )). (( .) !! ((( !! @@ (. ((. . .
| | / / () )) )) .( ( ( ) ). ( !! )( !! ) (( )) ..
| |_< / ( ) ( ( ) ) (( ) )).) ((/ | ( | \( )) ((. ).
____<_____\\__\__(___)_))_((_(____))__(_(___.oooO_____Oooo.(_(_)_)((_
author known
|
| 3721.88 | And a few more emotional helps from those ascii artists (not me) | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Mar 17 1995 16:47 | 81 |
| oooo$$$$$$$$$$$$oooo
oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o
oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o
o$$$$$$$$$$ee$$$$$$$$$$$ee$$$$$$$$$$o
o$$$$$$$$$eeee$$$$$$$$$$$$$eeee$$$$$$$$$o
o$$$$$$$$$ee"' $$$$$$$$$$$ '"ee$$$$$$$$$$o
$$$$$$$$eee $$$$$$$$$$$ "eee$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o
o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!$$$$$$$$$$$$o
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!j$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!j$$$$$$$$$$$
o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!j$$$$$$$$$$o
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!$$$$$$$$$$$"
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"
"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"" '"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"
$$$$$$$$$$f"" d$$$$$$$$$b ""q$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$" d$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$b "$$$$$$$"
"$$$$ d$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$b $$$$$
"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$""
""$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"
""$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$""
"""$$$$$$$""""
oooo$$$$$$$$$$$$oooo
oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o
oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o o$ $$ o$
o $ oo o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o $$ $$ $$o$
oo $ $ "$ o$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$o $$$o$$o$
"$$$$$$o$ o$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$o $$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ """$$$
"$$$""""$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ "$$$
$$$ o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ "$$$o
o$$" $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$o
$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$" "$$$$$$ooooo$$$$
o$$$oooo$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$"$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$""""""""
"""" $$$$ "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$" o$$$
"$$$o """$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"$$" $$$
$$$o "$$""$$$$$$"""" o$$$
$$$$o oo o$$$"
"$$$$o o$$$$$$o"$$$$o o$$$$
"$$$$$oo ""$$$$o$$$$$o o$$$$""
""$$$$$oooo "$$$o$$$$$$$$$"""
$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$
$$$$$
oooo888888888888oooo
oo888888888888888888888888o
oo888888888888888888888888888888o
o888888888888888888888888888888888888o
o888888888 888888888888888 888888888o
o888888888 8888888888888 8888888888o
88888888888 @ 88888888888 @ 888888888888
8888888888888 8888888888888 88888888888888
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
688888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888o
`88888888888888888888''''``````88888888888888888888%o
88888888888888o 88888888888888888"%%%o
"88888888888o o))))))o 8888888888888 %%%%
888888888o o))))))))))) o%%%%%%888888888 %%%%
8888888o o))))))o"))))o %%%%%%%%%%%" %%%%
"8888o ooo"")))))o)))))o %%%%%%%%%%% %%%%'
"888888888oooo "))))o)))))))))"%%%""%%% %%%%
""8888888888oo ))))))))))o888" %%%v%%%%
""888888888o)))))))))))8 %%%%%'
""""""")))))))))))) %%%%
))))))))))" %%%
")))""""
|
| 3721.89 | Peace offerings or lover's gift... (not my art) | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Mar 17 1995 16:49 | 131 |
|
. .
... :``..':
: ````.' :''::'
..:.. : .'' :
``. `: .' :
: : : :
: : : :
: : : :
: : :..''''``::.
: ...:..' .''
.' .' .::::'
:..'''``:::::::
' `::::
`::.
`::
:::.
..:.:.::'`. ::'`. . : : .
..' `:.: :: :' .:
.: .:``::: : .: ::
.: ..'' :::.' :': :
: .'' .:: : : '
: .'`::
::
::
::
::
::
. . . .
... :``..': ... :``..': . .
: ````.' :'': ````.' :''::' ':''' :'..``:':... .
..:.. : ..:.. : .'' : : '' : : : ''.
``. `: .``. `: .' : : : : :: :
: : : : : : : : :: :: :
: : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : ...: : :
: : :..'': : :..''''``::...::. ''''.``..
: ...:..' : ...:..' .'' .: ..:''
.' .' .' .' .::::' .: ...''':::::..
:..'''``:::::::..'''``::::::: ::::::
' `:::' `:::: ::::'
`::. `::. :::'
`:: `:: ::'
:::. :::. .:::
..:.:.::'`. ::..:.:.::'`. ::'`. . : : . . :.:
..' ..' `:.: :: :' .:. .. ::
.: .:``.: .:``::: : .: :: :
.: ..'' .: ..'' :::.' :': :
: .'' : .'' .:: : : '
: :: .'`:: ::
:: :: ::
:: :: ::
:: :: ::
:: :: ::
:: :: ::
=======================================
\\ :: :: :: //
\\---------::-------::---::----//
\\ :: :: :: //
|| :: :: :: ||
|| :: :: :: ||
\\ :: :: :: //
|| :: :: :: ||
|| :: :: :: ||
|| :: :: :: ||
|| :: :: :: ||
|| :: :: :: ||
|| :: :: :: ||
|| :: :: :: ||
|| :: :: :: ||
// :: :: :: \\
// :: :: :: \\
|| :::: :: ||
|| :::: :: ||
|| . . . ||
\\=======================//
"M, .mM"
IMIm ,mIM"
,MI:"IM,mIMm
"IMmm, ,IM::::IM::IM, ,m"
"IMMIMMIMm::IM:::::IM""==mm ,mIM"
__ ,mIM::::::MIM:::::::IM::::mIMIM"
,mMIMIMIIMIMM::::::::mM::::::::IMIMIMIMMM"
IMM:::::::::IMM::::::M::::::::IIM:::::::MM,
"IMM::::::::::MM:::M:::::::IM:::::::::::IM,
"IMm::::::::IMMM:::::::IM:::::::::::::IM,
"Mm:::::::::IM::::::MM::::::::::::::::IM,
IM:::::::::IM::::::MM::::::::::::::::::IM,
MM::::::::IM:::::::IM::::::::::::::::::IM
"IM::::::::IM:::::::IM:::::::::::::::::IM;.
"IM::::::::MM::::::::IM::::::::::mmmIMMMMMMMm,.
IM::::::::IM:::::::IM::::mIMIMM"""". .. "IMMMM
"IM::::::::IM::::::mIMIMM"". . . . . .,mM" "M
IMm:::::::IM::::IIMM" . . . . . ..,mMM"
"IMMIMIMMIMM::IMM" . . . ._.,mMMMMM"
,IM". . ."IMIM". . . .,mMMMMMMMM"
,IM . . . .,IMM". . . ,mMMMMMMMMM"
IM. . . .,mIIMM,. . ..mMMMMMMMMMM"
,M"..,mIMMIMMIMMIMmmmMMMMMMMMMMMM"
IM.,IMI""" ""IIMMMMMMMMMMM
;IMIM" ""IMMMMMMM
"" "IMMMMM
"IMMM
"IMM,
"IMM
"MM,
IMM, ______ __
______ "IMM__ .mIMMIMMIMMIMMIMM,
.,mIMMIMMIMM, ,mIMM, IMM""" ,mIM". . . . "IM,..M,
,IMMM' . . . "IMM.\ "M, IMM ,IM". . . . / :;IM \ M,
.mIM' . . . / .:"IM.\ MM "MM, ,M". . . / .;mIMIMIM,\ M
,IM'. . . / . .:;,IMIMIMMM IMM ,M". . / .:mIM"' "IM,:M
,IM'. . . / . .:;,mIM" `"IMM IMM IM. . / .mM" "IMI
,IM . . / . .:;,mIM" "IMMMMM MM,. / ,mM "M'
IM'. . / . .;,mIM" "IIMMM ,IMIM,.,IM"
IM . . / . .,mIM" IMMMMMMM' """
`IM,. / ;,mIM" IIMMM
"IMI, /,mIM" __IMMM
"IMMMM" """IMM
"" IMM
IMM__
IMM"""
IMM
IMM
"""IMM
IMM
Normand IMM Veilleux
|
| 3721.90 | Time for a beer to be sure... | POBOX::CORSON | Higher, and a bit more to the right | Fri Mar 17 1995 17:03 | 6 |
|
Ah, Mr. Metcalfe, you have made my St. Patricks' Day, lad - God
Bless ye, and keep you safe from harm.
the Greyhawk
|
| 3721.91 | Well, then. How about a celebrity to indicate mystification | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Mar 17 1995 17:06 | 46 |
| $$$ $o
"o $ $ o"
o $ $" $ $ o$o
$ o o$ " $ o$"
o $o $" $ o" $"
o " o$ $ $ $
o o $$ $ o$" $ $ oo$""
$ "o $$ $o"" "$oo$"" oo$"
o ""o$$ o "o o oo""
$$ """ " $
$o "ooooooo
oo "$ o o """""
oo " o""" "" " "o
" "o "" $ " o """"
"o $ $ $ ooooo
o $o $ $ """""
"""" $ $$ $ "$o o
"""""$ $ $$ $ o$" o $"""""
$o " " $ $" $ $
o$$""$o " $ o o o$"""$
$" "o o o o $$
$o ""$" "o"ooo"" $
"o "o o" o"
"$ooo$ """"" ooooo
"o $$"
"oo oo$
""oo "" o$"
""$oo o ""
""$oooooo"""
o$ o$$""""
$oo $ $$
o o o $ooooo$o
$ $ $"
$""""""""""""" o
"$$$"$$$ooooo $$
$$ $ $$
$$" $ $$
o """ $ """" $
"ooo $ "o
$" oo oo $
""""$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ooooo
o$$"" $$$$""" ""$" "$
oooo$ ""$$$o$ $ $oo
"ooo oooo oooo"
""""""$$$$$$$o""" """"""""
|
| 3721.92 | | LEEL::LINDQUIST | Luke 2:4; Patriots 200:1 | Fri Mar 17 1995 17:30 | 14 |
| 3721.93 | In re: rec.art.ascii | MUNDIS::SSHERMAN | Steve Sherman @MFR DTN 865-2944 | Fri Mar 17 1995 17:43 | 5 |
| Man, there sure must be a lot of people out there with time on their hands.
Still, pretty impressive stuff. Thanks for posting.
Steve
|
| 3721.94 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Mar 17 1995 17:49 | 10 |
| >Man, there sure must be a lot of people out there with time on their hands.
Some of those pics were done with GIF to ASCII converters.
Some of the artists do their pics by hand (like the flowers).
They are quite talented and prolific. All I do is add to my clip
art library (for repost) and maintain their sig when they have one.
As you might imagine, my clip art library has grown quite a bit.
MM
|
| 3721.95 | fanfold paper isn't just for listings | HDLITE::SCHAFER | Mark Schafer, AXP-developer support | Fri Mar 17 1995 18:51 | 5 |
| somewhere in my past work experience I remember there were lineprinter
"artists". Most of them would qualify as poor excuses for 'babes', but
some of them were quite, um..., natural.
Mark
|
| 3721.96 | Not Pamela Anderson and Not Digital TODAY - no offense intended | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Mar 17 1995 18:58 | 94 |
| > "artists". Most of them would qualify as poor excuses for 'babes', but
> some of them were quite, um..., natural.
.$$$b ...
4$$$$be... 9$b
zd$$$$$$$$$$$$$e .z$$$$$$$$$$$
J$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$c
d$- z$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$L
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$b 4
4$$$$$$$$$$P"" '$$F$**$$$$$$$$$$$$$$**$$$$$$$$$L.F
$$$$$$$$$$F . ^"" ^*$$$$$* %e$$P*$$$$$$$%
4$$$$$$$$$$$$ *%" $$$$$
$$$$$$$P d$$b d$$c $$$$
$$$$$$$ .$" ^ "L $$$$$F
$.d$$$$$$F . P ^F "*$$%
*$$$$$$$$$e$ $ ^c $$.zF
"$$$$$$$$$$" ." 4 . z 4$$$P
^$$$$$$" ^r J $ z .f '$$P
*$$$$$ 3.z$$$*$L.F 4$$$$$ z '$"
$$$$$$. 3$. 3$$$$ 'P $$$$F 3$" $%.
*$$$$$$$$b $$$ 4 .$$$F 'F4$$$e$
.. 4$$$$$$$$P $"" 4 d$$P F^$$$$F
$$$$$$$$$$" 4. $ ^. d" 3$$%
^"$$$$$ * $e...z$" *c $$ L4F
4P$ $ 4 ""$"F^ "**P"- $ $
4r4$%.F P $ $
$be$*$e .$Ld%
^ *$. 4$$F JP**"
.$*$$bec. ...z$$$$$P$$$bee$$**%
d" "" ^*c
d "c
$ "e.
J" .. .... $ "b
$ d$$$$$$$ e$$$$$$b$*$. *c
4" d$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ "$c ^$
$ 4$% $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ^"b. b
JF $L $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$F ^$e..z b
4$ J"*k ^$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$P ^P 4
.$ ^P *b 4$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$F .P P
.@ d" $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ P J"
z$" JF $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ .%
J* -$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$r d" d%
dF .$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$c. J% d"
$" $" $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$P*$e$$$% zP
d" $ d$$$$$$$$$$$$$$**" ^$r^r e"
4F .$ d$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$r 3r4..$"
J$ 4$" .$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ $"
.$$$$b. J$ :$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$P.de.zd$ $
..eue$$$$$(* z$" .$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$C$ $
z$P*"""" $$ $d$* $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"JF
d$$ $$*" $$ $" :$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"
^$P ^#*$$- .$"3 $ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$E
$$$$eb zeee$$$$F4F $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$L 4$.
^ ""#$$"" *$$$" $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$b
*" $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$P
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
4F 4$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"4$""""" $$$$P"
$$$$$$$$$$$$P"*$$$$*" 4" .. $
'$$$$$$$$$$F 4$$$e$ 3$P
3$$$$$$$$" 4$$$$$.d$F
^*$$*"*% J .
b F $
*. F 4F
$ J
b 4 L
4b $ J-
$ % .F
$" d $
$" :F F
$ .$ 4-
d" d" 3
4P d" $
<$ d" $
d% J$ $
$ 4$$ 4F
4F 4" $ 4
$ :# $ P
$ 4P * F
4F 4F 4r d
$ 4* $ $
P d" $ 4F
4" d% 4 J
$ J% 4 .F
$ 4% J 4%
d" .$ F $
dF P d" F
J$ $$ F
dP J $$b L
4P ^F $$$$F *
.$ .$ $$$$$$edF
4$$c.d$" $$$$$r
4$$$$$" "**$P
|
| 3721.97 | | MU::ABBBBASI | it's the mantra of the walls and wiring | Thu Mar 23 1995 13:26 | 14 |
| hi,
Many DECeees in this notes are getting sirius and not having fun
with the notes like in before so Iam using sycick powers to post
this note without use of network or other DECeee resources. Iam
sycick'ly using someones fingers on his peecee.
Iam pleased to see (sycick'ly) that DECeees are still using this
note file to know what i sgoing on in DEC. i think its good for
morals to show bikinis or Chiipingdales on the Titanic dec'chairs.
Hope this helps/
naaser.
|
| 3721.98 | unplugged.. | POBOX::CORSON | Higher, and a bit more to the right | Thu Mar 23 1995 13:28 | 4 |
|
No, it can't be tru - the reel nassar - is it yew?
the Greyhawk
|
| 3721.99 | nasser? | DPDMAI::EYSTER | It ain't a car without fins... | Thu Mar 23 1995 13:43 | 9 |
| God, would that it were! I saw a picture of Clinton and another pol on
the front page holding a...spork. That's right, a spork. The
utensiltarian conspiratorialists have silenced all those champions of
ordering correctness; Goddard, Schutzman, Nasser, and other heros.
It's obvious now that the order to cleanse came from high up.
/nasser, we need you!
Tex
|
| 3721.100 | | LEEL::LINDQUIST | Luke 2:4; Patriots 200:1 | Thu Mar 23 1995 14:14 | 6 |
| <<< Note 3721.97 by MU::ABBBBASI "it's the mantra of the walls and wiring" >>>
A reeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaallllllll mmmmmmaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnn(tm)
would have forged the node name, too.
...I spell checked.
|
| 3721.101 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Mar 23 1995 15:51 | 14 |
| Here's the cleverest fake username note I've seen:
================================================================================
Note 489.71 Snowblowers? 71 of 71
WATCH::DUKAKIS "Duke in '92" 6 lines 9-NOV-1988 20:47
-< looking for new snowblower >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since I lost the election and will be spending the next few winters
in Brookline, I'll be looking to replace my 25 year old snowblower.
I only have $200 to spend and remember, I've balanced 10 budgets
in a row so I can't spend more. Any recommendations?
Mike
|
| 3721.102 | Got to get the slash correct :-) | SUFRNG::REESE_K | tore down, I'm almost level with the ground | Thu Mar 23 1995 16:17 | 4 |
| Had me going for a minute, then I saw the sign-off; it's supposed
to be \nasser
|
| 3721.103 | | PERFOM::WIBECAN | Acquire a choir | Thu Mar 23 1995 17:19 | 7 |
| >> God, would that it were! I saw a picture of Clinton and another pol on
>> the front page holding a...spork. That's right, a spork.
The judge in the Microsoft antitrust case is named Sporkin. I figure he must
be Nasser in disguise.
Brian
|