Conference 7.286::digital

    RE:.0
    
>    you will see other religious activities in DEC facility.
    
    Since when is being lesbian, bisexual or gay a religious activity?
    Discrimination based on sexual orientation is a social issue.  Are you 
    saying we should ban support for social issues in our facilities?  Are
    you afraid of a bunch of leather-clad Village People invading the
    cafeteria?  (Just kidding)
    
    Are we renting the facility, or simply allowing this group to set up?
    October 11 is a normal work day, isn't it?
    
    I don't understand what you're objecting to.  I would object to the KKK
    or the neo-Nazis setting up a booth in MRO1, and I don't think it would
    be a good idea to let groups like the LaRouche folks hang out, but if
    this is a bonafide group of employees making a positive statement about a
    current social issue, I say more power to them.  Just for the record,
    the examples I used, IMO, tend to make rather blatantly NEGATIVE social
    statements - they have every right to do so, but I don't think Digital
    should support such negative social causes...just my opinion.
    
    tim
    

    Re: -.1
    I'd be real careful endorsing employer sponsored "support for social
    issues". Who gets to pick the issue and what side the corporation
    supports ? If it's me than I think it's a great idea, but the rest of
    you folks I'm not too sure of. I want my company to be in full
    compliance with all applicable laws and regulations and to be a
    corporate "good citizen". Period.

    
    Incoming...
    

    Either this is done at the discretion of the facility manager or
    there's a written policy for it...

    If this is done at the discretion of the facility manager, and
    therefore his or her concept of the appropriateness of the activity to
    Digital or its employees is the judgment call.  I can hear it now... 
    "if you gave the cafeteria to them, then why can't my group have the
    cafeteria..."

    On the other hand, if there is a written policy that exists to allow or
    disallow such access to Digital facilities, then I haven't seen it.

    Regardless of whether or not Digital actually takes a position on the
    advocacy of the gay and lesbian political agenda, external publicity
    for this event may make it appear that Digital supports it even if the
    event is non-political.  That's the way perceptions work.

    I believe we have a valuing differences statement that specifically
    includes sexual orientation, and that it was written by Barbara Walker
    when she was here, and approved by the Executive Committee.
    
    Given that data point, it's in the same group of events as Hispanic
    awareness day, Black history month, international women's day, Native
    American awareness, or Jewish history month.  Among others.
    
    I imagine a group of employees are spending their lunch hour sitting at
    a table with flyers, pamphlets, and other educational material -- they
    are probably willing to publicly identify themselves as members of this
    group so that other employees who wish to know more about the subject
    may approach them and discuss it if they wish.
    
    What's it got to do with rental or religion?
    
    Holly

        The gay and lesbian folks are people you probably interact with
        regularly, without your  realising  that they are gay.  Now ask
        yourself;  what changes  when  you discover a person to be gay?
        Do they change, or does your perception of the person change?
        
        One of the reasons for the "awareness" day(s) is to demonstrate
        that  gays  are  just  like  everyone    else  in  the  working
        environment  - people going through life and  giving  it  their
        best shot.  Hatred is based on fear of the unknown - meet a gay
        person  sometime, remembering  that minds are like parachutes -
        work best when open!  and find out that there's  nothing  to be
        afraid of. You might even find out you like the person.
        
        Andy
        

    This event is sponsored by the Greater Marlboro Area Valuing Diversity
    Committee.......this event is being announced and will be presented as
    other Valuing Diversity Events have been presented in the past......
    
    
    
    Denise Hurley
    Greater Marlboro Area Valuing Diversity Committee

    re: .9 
    
    >>I would hope to God that
    >>KO would stop this is he knew about it.
    
    According to my copy of the Digital Telephone Directory, Ken Olsen's
    DTN is 223-2301.
    
    Why don't you give him a phone call instead of turning every note on
    this subject into your own personal cesspool of hatred and bigotry.
    

What a surprise to hear that from you.

    When will the Valuing Diversity organizations start valuing the
    feelings and concerns of all people and not just with the concerns and
    feelings of the special interest groups. The preceeding statement is
    from a feeling of frustation over a one sided thinking in that if one
    does not agree with the philosophies of any one or more special
    interest group then you are made out to be the bad guy when in reality
    you have just as much right to your own feelings and opinions as the
    special interest group. The comment about religions and other groups
    can be construed from a company point of view as not favoring any one 
    special interest group. If you allow any one group access to DEC facilities
    then you have to allow all groups access to DEC facilities even if you
    do not agree with their particular viewpoint or philosophy. Not
    everyone agrees with individual points of view and some have very
    strong feeling against those viewpoints. These range from cultural
    backgrounds to religious backgrounds. Each feels their viewpoint is
    correct and thinks the other is wrong. These type of meetings or displays
    on company property during normal business hours can be very
    distracting and create tensions both now and later which have no place
    in the normal business environment. These gatherings are fine for off
    company property.
    
    These are my own feelings and if you don,t agree, that's fine. Thats
    what makes us different and diverse and what the valuing diversity
    values should advertise. Total diversity not just a one sided
    viewpoint. This country is a melting pot of people from many cultures
    and ideas and together we have very diverse attitudes about most any
    topic. To say any one position is wrong varies with your upbringing and
    you have that right to your feelings and opinions concerning the
    various topics related to this discussion, but you have to allow
    me my right to dissagree with your position and feelings in a manner
    just as strong and determined as you are allowed.
    
    It's time to get off the soap box now and return to work.
    
    Regards
    Al Root
     

    >	However, I am afraid of any side effect in DEC facility.
    >   For example, any anti-gay confrontation.  Any on-site homosexual 
    >	activity, etc.  
    
    If by 'on-site homosexual activity' you mean sex, I think it's highly
    unlikely that anyone is promoting anything along those lines.
    
    If anything, the point probably being made is that Digital's gay and
    lesbian employees are everyday folks whom you see regularly around the
    facility who have more in common with the rest of their co-workers than
    not.
    
    In terms of the work day, wage class 4 employees are salaried -- I know
    that I take responsibility for getting my job done well.  If I want to
    attend a class, film, presentation, or seminar during the day, I work
    it out in such a way that it doesn't impact my meeting my commitments
    to my manager.  If I can't work it out, I don't attend.  Don't most wc4
    people operate this way?
    
    Holly
    
    

    Sexual orientation is not a point of view.  People have no more choice
    about their sexual orientation then they do about their skin color.  No
    once 'chooses' to be gay, and given the type of oppression and
    discrimination they face, I can't imagine why anyone ever would.
    
    The fear, hostility and anger that can be seen in just these few
    replies makes it pretty obvious what this group is up against.  This
    isn't a religious issue; there is no risk of any 'on-site homosexual
    activity'.  It's quite true that there are gay, lesbian and bisexual
    people working right along side of us everyday.  When you look at an
    educational and informative program like this, and label it as
    'disgusting', you are furthering the injustices of discrimination, and
    slapping the faces of those fellow, anonymous employees.
    
    If fighting this kind of vapid ignorance isn't the point of the Valuing 
    Diversity groups, then what is?  As for any anti-gay confrontation,
    it's highly unlikely that these homophobic cretins have the guts, much
    less the conviction, to do anything more than point and whisper.
    
    tim
    

    
    I just want to if Digital would let me hold a "People who like to
    sleep with small furry mammals Outing Day"  in our
    cafeteria. 
    
    If they, or you, have no problems with that, then I have no problems
    with the previously discussed event.
    

>                       <<< Note 1616.15 by CSC32::PITT >>>
>                               -< equal time?? >-
>
>    
>    I just want to if Digital would let me hold a "People who like to
>    sleep with small furry mammals Outing Day"  in our
>    cafeteria. 
    
    Oh, I definitely think you should.  From the sound of things, you might
    want to invite COOKIE::LENNARD too. :-)  Just make sure you two don't
    start any small furry mammal activities in public!  Try to be discrete.
    
    Your analogy does not escape me, but this analogy points directly to
    the same public ignorance that this Valuing Diversity activity is fighting.
    
    tim
    

    
    Oh comon Tim, lighten up. The fact is most people don't give a damn
    who your sleeping with. I sure don't. What's objected to is using 
    DEC facilites to announce to the world that you like to sleep with
    members of your own sex. Nobody cares Tim, and there are certainly
    more important causes out there to champion than this.
    
    Neil 
    

    It's a big mistake for the VD people (how appropriate) to get involved
    with a PC issue.  I, and a lot of people like me, do not want to hear
    how proud they are, and I don't want to have it shoved in my face.....
    particularly when I'm trying to eat.  Give 'em a corner of the lawn
    somewhere, but not in a DEC building.
    
    This is a religious/morale/lifestyle(or lack thereof)issue, and has no
    business hiding under the VD protective umbrella.  Personally, I will
    take no part in any VD activities ever again.  They have seriously
    soiled themselves.  If anyone thinks their real agenda is not to get
    full bennies for their unmarried "life-mates" you're kidding yourself.
    
    I'd like to see a VD effort addressing male, straight, married,
    over-50, nasty old farts and the problems they have working in an
    increasingly weird environment.

    
    re -1
    
    Right On!
    
    Scott

    
RE:                    <<< Note 1616.17 by CSC32::N_WALLACE >>>
    
    The fact is, this has nothing to do with who is sleeping with whom.  It
    isn't necessary to personalize this with implications about my personal
    sexual orientation - I haven't mentioned it and I think it's a
    digression from the central topic.
    
    On the other hand, there are very few 'causes out there' that are more
    worth championing than anti-discrimination.
    
    As for Mr. Lennard, you may choose to read alterior motives into the
    issue - indeed, it may well be a worthy benefit if a company (ours or
    some other) decides to offer spousal benefits to 'lifemates' or
    whatever you care to call them.  That, too, is not the issue.
    
    The issue is discrimination.  Very simple.  Unfortunately, even simple
    ideas sometimes faulter to the fears, the anger, and the stupidity of
    bigots.  Nobody's talking about shoving condoms in your lunch.  This
    isn't a topic of light humor, and 'rectal' jokes.  That's just not
    funny.  That's stupid.  Just like bigotry.
    
    tim
    

    Tsk, Tsk......if it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.  Let's face
    it, what we're really talking about here is a recruiting effort, and
    that's why I think DEC should stay out of it.  
    
    If they're so "proud" of themselves, why aren't they setting up
    information booths in shopping centers and so on......or maybe better
    yet in the Route 3 North rest areas.

.0>Members of the Boston Lesbian, Bisexual and Gay Speakers will be on hand to 
.0>tell their coming out stories and talk about what it's like to be Lesbian, 
.0>bisexual or gay. They will also answer questions from the audience.

It is to Digitals' shame that *any* group should be allowed to
advance/further their sexual & political agendas on Digital property.
Digital is being used, period.

Will someone please explain to me how Digital sponsorship of these
'coming out' stories and relating what it's like to be Lesbian, bisexual
or gay will enhance our ability to deliver quality goods and services to
our customers in a timely fashion?

.13>If anything, the point probably being made is that Digital's gay and
.13>lesbian employees are everyday folks whom you see regularly around the
.13>facility who have more in common with the rest of their co-workers than
.13>not.

What a contradiction! The actions that I extracted .0 outline a group
(BiLesGays) that is seemingly striving to promote their sexual
orientation and trumpet them far and wide... but .13 offers the opinion
that 'these are everyday folkes whom you see regularly around the
facility who have more in common with the rest of their co-workers than
not'.

What's wrong with this picture? Plenty.

Digital is not the place to air your sexual/political views and agendas.
It is a place to come to work hard and make Digital prosper and get
rewarded for doing the same. I have no doubt that over my many years with
DEC I have worked closely alongside Gays/Lesbians/Bi people... do I even
care? Not one bit. All I care is that they work with me as a team player
at DEC to crank out happy customers. If they are gay, black, American
Indian, whatever makes no difference to me.  If you are proud as heck
that your are gay then save it for after-DEC/off premisis because I don't
want to hear about it while I'm working.

I grow weary of people that want to wear a badge (during working hours)
that says "I'm different and proud" but want me to treat them just like
everyone else. You want my respect? Work hard, be fair, be honest and
you'll have my total respect. When you start blowing horns, wearing
labels, having special booths at DEC to promote your specialness then
you've lost my respect.... you've lost ground with me, not gained any.

I've worked with many people that would proabably fall into some kind of
'valuing difference' catagory. Nearly all of them earned my respect a
1000 times over not because they flaunted some kind of difference but
because they came to work and did their job, good times or bad, without
asking for special treatment.

If you are proud that you are gay/lesbian/bi then save it for after
work, okay? ...and since it's after work at the same time I can tell you
with pride what it's like to personally know a man named Jesus...

Lee Roth
15+ plus years at DEC

Re .22:

>Will someone please explain to me how Digital sponsorship of these
>'coming out' stories and relating what it's like to be Lesbian, bisexual
>or gay will enhance our ability to deliver quality goods and services to
>our customers in a timely fashion?

Perhaps it will help make some employees aware of behaviors that could be
ignorantly hurtful to their colleagues; colleagues whom they have no intention
of intentionally hurting.
				/AHM

    re.24 Too many people working at the same time. The reference to re:-1
    should have been about 4 or so back. I'll use absolute pointers next
    time not relative indicators. Sorry if I pointed at the wrong place.
    Point said I still feel the same.
    
    Regards
    Al Root
    

    What's the big deal?
    
    Live and let live. If some interest group wants to set up a table
    outside a cafeteria and DEC condones it then let them. As long as they
    don't actively interfere with your or my lunch then I don't see the
    problem.
    
    In my view there is far too much of "I don't approve of X so you can't
    do X", be X "homosexual relations", "believing in Jesus", "smoking
    joints", "being left wing", "being right wing" etc.
    
    So just let people be, they have as much right to express their views
    as you do.
    
    Dave

    No one complained last year when I directed an hour long concert in
    honor of women's history month.  It happened on site; the rehearsals
    were voluntary; attendance at the concert was voluntary; DEC provided
    practice facilities (aka conference rooms that weren't being used
    during lunch).
    
    Those who wanted to know more about women's history and music joined
    us; those who did not just walked by and went on with their business.
    This is how these kinds of events work.  No pressure.  Certainly no one
    accused me of "recruiting"!  
    
    Educational programs come about when a group of employees cares about
    something enough to put some of their personal time and energy into
    creating a presentation or a pamphlet for any co-workers who happen to
    be interested in the subject.  Nothing is ever shoved down anyone's
    throat that I know of, although you might see some folks sitting at a
    table across the room in the case of the event in question above.
    
    In a corporation this size, there is plenty of room for practitioners
    of a multitude of lifestyles to peacefully and respectfully co-exist 
    side by side.  Learning to do that *is* part of creating the kind of
    successful business climate where I can recruit someone for my project
    who has a critical skill I need and respect even though his political
    and religious views are about 180 degrees divergent from my own, and
    then working effectively together to create a successful product.
    
    The hostility I am hearing in this note is really frightening.  Some of
    the notes sound just short of "...and THEY should be taken out and
    shot".
    
    Digital is not asking any individual to *change* his or her personal
    values, just to respect the existence and validity of multiple sets of
    values and lifestyles in the workplace.
    
    White, upper middle class, mainstream heterosexual culture is the
    predominant visible norm in our society, and apparently some members of
    this notesfile prefer to see only that around them at work.  Many
    members of other groups often have found that creating a day where they
    can say "I am here and I am proud" in the workplace is extremely
    empowering to them as workers.  
    
    I don't think these events are meant to threaten or invalidate people
    with another point of view or background or lifestyle.   They are
    certainly not a very effective way to "recruit" or "lobby" if those
    were the goals.  They are simply opportunities to exchange information,
    and for a subset of the Digital community to take the opportunity to
    say "I am different; I am here; and I am proud".
    
    Holly
    

 
>  But if I were to put together a "short women who enjoy sexual relations with
>  canaries" club, I would be welcomed with open arms into the Digital
>  "valuing-whatever-is-politcally-correct-and-differant" band 	

	You could probably get a spot on Oprah or Geraldo too.

Mike

    
Re .22
    
>Will someone please explain to me how Digital sponsorship of these
>'coming out' stories and relating what it's like to be Lesbian, bisexual
>or gay will enhance our ability to deliver quality goods and services to
>our customers in a timely fashion?
    
    A good question. And one at the root of much of the VaD (yes, that's
    the usual abbreviation, not VD as ::LENNARD likes to smirk) programme,
    as I understand it.
    
    I understood that the whole culture of "valuing difference" came
    from the idea that, to deliver to our customers, this whole company
    works in teams - cross-functional, constantly shifting, large and
    small....teams. For these teams to be effective people need to be
    comfortable working together. 
    Prejudice and bigotry on behalf of one team-mate to another does not
    lead to effective team work.
    
    This can be addressed in two ways. Either insist that people of
    difference hide their difference - which is difficult if your difference
    is gender, or skin colour, and totally unacceptable to many people
    of difference anyway (including many gay people) - OR you try to
    foster an environment which will support these people whilst educating
    their team-mates in the hope that any discomfort based on prejudice
    that is hindering effective team-work and hence *delivery to the
    customer* is gradually removed.
    
    Would you find yourself behaving in a subtely different way to a
    co-worker that you learned was gay?              
    Or even an openly abusive way, come to that?
    Any questions you might quietly want to ask them?
    Would you suggest that they not mention their private life at all?
    Would you deny their right to be just as open and confident and
    happy about their lifestyle as you are about yours?
    
    While any of these are true for any DEC team member, Valuing
    Difference events are still necessary.
    Including gay awareness days and any other VaD activity.
    
    IMO, of course.
    
    'gail
    

    	First, don't let me interrupt. I think this is one of the most
    hysterical discussions I've read in a long time. Second, I don't think
    the "special interest groups" are hearing bigotry or hatred as much as
    they're hearing frustration. Everyone seems to be in a special interest
    group these days except straight white males. These groups all seem to
    be shouting at us about how important they are, how unappreciated they
    are, how straight white males are responsible for all their problems,
    and how straight white males ARE the problem. If you've been doing any
    hiring lately, you run into EEO practices which border on
    discrimination against straight white males. This "event" in Marlboro
    merely aggravates the situation. If you're a straight white male, it
    seems as though you're being pushed into a corner, blamed for
    everything, scolded for not valuing diversity, and powerless to do
    anything about it...while you watch your workplace grow in diversity at
    a disproportionate level compared to society at large. Although I don't
    find this as threatening as some people do, it still strikes me as
    unfair. As was said a few replies back, straight white males probably
    couldn't start their own special interest group for the reasons
    mentioned, but it might not be a bad idea. I also think some of this
    frustration stems from watching the company slide down the toilet while
    still sponsoring such events. Are we valuing diversity higher than we
    value profit and corporate growth?

    
    two points here (only two more, I swear..!)
    
    1.  I wonder if DEC would give equal time and space to "Wife Swappers
    Of America". 
    
    2.  I've seen many people suggest how difficult it is for someone gay
    to sit around at lunch and listen to "the guys" talk about their sexual
    encountes over the weekend, or their wifes and kids, or how they'd like
    to E$%#$#%^%# the blond over there.  But VALUING Differance, which is
    LAW at Digital, does not mean that "the guys" will now welcome details
    on a same-sex relationship into their personal and private
    conversations.  The Valuing Differance program at Digital only succeeds
    in reminding people that it is their JOB to treat everyone equally
    regardless of gender, race, religion or sexual orientation. It does
    NOT dictate what people find personally acceptable or tolerable, but in
    my opinion draws wider lines between diversities by giving one a
    special interest rating over the other.
    

    If straight white males or any other group wants to put together a
    serious program about themselves, their lives, and their needs in the
    workplace today, i.e. "What will the workplace be like for straight white
    mainstream males in the year 2000 - what will we need, what can we
    contribute, what do we need to learn?", I imagine it would be most
    welcome.
    
    I think the motivation and planning has to come from inside the group
    itself, though, as these other events do.
    
    The trouble is, most of the proposals suggested above  (lizards,
    canaries, small mammals, etc.) are not serious.  They are merely
    reactions to other groups.  The other groups sponsoring awareness
    events are not doing anything *against* straight white males or anyone
    else.  They are creating an educational event *on behalf of* their group.
    
    So who volunteers to plan the event described above?  You can even come
    up with your own theme if you don't like mine...the only ground rule is
    that is has to be about you and not a negative reaction to another
    group!
    
    Holly

    I got several mail messages asking me to post the valuing diversity
    statement that includes sexual orientation that I referred to earlier.
    You can read this in VTX for yourself if you like...
    
    Holly
    
                         Equal Employment Opportunity


Policy Statement from Ken Olsen

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND VALUING DIVERSITY
STATEMENT

It is the policy of Digital Equipment Corporation to ensure that
all employees and candidates for employment are considered for all
positions on the basis of their qualifications and abilities
without regard to race, color, sex, religion, age, national origin,
citizenship status, veteran status, sexual orientation, or handicap.
We shall recruit, hire, upgrade, train and promote all employees in
all job classifications and ensure that all personnel actions such as
compensation, benefits, Company-sponsored training, educational
tuition-assistance, and social and recreational programs are
administered without regard to these differences.  We will provide
a work environment free from discrimination and harassment of any kind.

Moreover, we are committed to valuing people's differences because
it is our firm conviction that an environment which values
differences is critical to each employee's ability to succeed and
to the success of the Corporation.

In addition, we shall take affirmative action to ensure that all
minorities, women, Vietnam-era veterans, handicapped persons, and
disabled veterans are introduced into the work force and are
considered for promotional opportunities as they arise.

| The U.S. Manager of Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action
| and the Corporate Manager of Valuing Diversity, will ensure that the
  intent and practice of this policy is carried out.  However, we expect
  every manager, supervisor and employee to take an active part in
  putting these principles into practice - with each other and in our
  relationships with customers, vendors, and others with whom we do
  business.

                                        Kenneth H. Olsen, President

    re: .22 & .31
    
    This year I successfully lobbied DECanada to place an ad in Toronto's
    Lesbian & Gay Pride Day Program which simply stated that "Digital
    Values _all_ Its Employees".  The ad cost $450.
    
    We received a letter of thanks from the system manager at one of our
    sites.  He is two years into a five year plan with $3,500,000.00 left in
    his budget.
    
    We received no negative feedback.
    
    'nuf said
    

"White Appreciation Week", "Men's History Month", "Heterosexual Awareness
Week"?

Sure, bring them on.  I would wholly encourage any of them, and if any of
them weren't my cup of tea, I wouldn't have to attend them.  I don't see
what the big deal is. 

Here's another reason why I wouldn't have to attend them:  In the social
circles I move in, they're wholly redundant.

White Appreciation Week:  We've been appreciating whites for a long time. 
Look at all the major corporations in this country and see who are holding
the higher paid jobs.  Yes, there are non-whites in them, but I'd be amazed
to hear that there's proportional representation.  No, I'm not advocating
making it proportional with quotas.  I'm just pointing out that corporate
America does seem to appreciate whites quite a bit.

Men's History Month:  Well, actually, I got 12 years or so of Men's History
in grammar school.  By contrast, I got very little Women's History, because
woman's contribution to history wasn't considered important enough to waste
my time over.

Heterosexual Awareness Week:  How, in diety's name, can I be unaware of
heterosexuals?  It's thrown in my face at work, at the lunch table, and
outside of work in every medium imaginable.  Being a prude by any
definition, I'm put off by public displays of affection between any two
humans, and I'm disgusted at the amount of sexual content I must endure if
I want to partake of any of the mainstream media.  I don't care if it's
homo, hetero, or whatever, I don't want it shoved in my face, yet it is. 
Mostly, the hetero kind.

Now, does this mean that I don't think those should be held or announced or
whatever.  If someone feels that holding such an event would benefit them,
I'm all for it.

I'm not totally insensitive to what the WASP Hetero Male is up against
right now.  That person probably feels pretty persecuted right now with
what appears to be angry hordes of special interests trying to blame them
for all the problems of the world.  Well, I don't blame anyone unless I
know that they are part of the problem.  For the most part, I see few WASP
Hetero Males that I'd blame the problem on.  Therefore, it would be silly
for me to blame the group, which I don't.

Then again, all I'd have to say to the WASP Hetero Male is that I'd like
what you already have:  Constitutional rights, and respect from society.
WASP Hetero Males are coming under fire lately, but when it comes to
getting fired for what you are, beaten or killed for what you are, or being
taken for an idiot just because you are what you are, I'd still say that
WASP Hetero Males have it a lot easier than members of those angry special
interest groups.  After all, why do you suppose they came to be so angry in
the first place.

    re .31
    
    >Would you deny their right to be just as open and confident and
    >happy about their lifestyle as you are about yours?
    
    Certainly no one would deny them the right to be as open as they like.
    But reality has a way of destroying people's misplaced confidence. I
    hope no one will deny the common sense of those (straights, gays,
    black, white, male, female, etc) who are more reserved.  
    
    American culture lacks a fundamental ritual which exists in German and
    Hispanic cultures (and probably others).  This ritual signals when two
    people have achieved a level of mutual trust that is necessary for safe
    sharing.  Without something like this, many people make the mistake of
    bad timing.  
    
    Don't attribute to bigotry the results of such mistakes.
    
    Dick

	OK, I hereby announce the formation of :

	"The White Heterosexual Male - Bonding Society "
		(aka the Milquetoast Coalition)

	White heterosexual women are invited to join the
	ladies' auxiliary, and bring cookies and punch.

	:^)

	Steve H

RE:<<< Note 1616.24 by CSOA1::ROOT "North Central States Regional Support" >>>
>                               -< flame on high >-
>   You want me to feel sorry or sympathetic with your cause
>   and then cover you in medical benifites when you get AIDS you can stick
>   it where the son don't shine...
    
    I'd like to comment on this, but first I have to ask a question:
    Just exactly to whom are you referring with this diatribe? Me?
    
    tim
    

>            <<< Note 1616.41 by RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter" >>>
>
    
>   They say
>   'you don't choose to be homosexual', and I believe they are sincere.
>   However, I don't buy it. 
    
    Homosexuality isn't an addiction nor is it a disease.  If you
    went and listened to what they have to say, then you might 'but it'.  
    That's the whole idea.
    
    You can't be recruited, nor can your children.  It simply isn't
    possible.  Either you are or you aren't, but in either case, you don't
    get to choose.  But you can be taught to fear and hate what you don't 
    understand, and you can also be taught to understand that there's
    nothing to fear, and this is no time to hate.
    
    tim
    

I've been following this discussion with keen interest. I have a few comments 
that I hope are valid in this discussion. 
I remain agnostic!

Why *should* I value a difference? It was quoted as LAW. So is the 55 mph speed 
limit.... Do you folk who quote this have a personel manual in your briefcase 
and a bunch of lawyers cards in your wallets? It strikes me that the organisers 
of many of the VaD events know *exactly* where the line lies, that allows them 
to stir up trouble to give their cause more exposure, and (unfortunately they 
seem blind to this fact), often more opposition from folk that normally 
wouldn't have even noticed or cared one way or t'other!
I'm not going to change for you, unless *I* think you deserve it, and I don't 
expect any more from you, unless I earn it in your eyes.

Value MY difference and stop trying to change the way *I* choose to think! 
Please!

Using our skills and personality to win the respect of peers and work collegues 
is the way to do it. Telling somebody to like you because you are different, is 
a pretty tall order, especially "if" you are unlikable anyway! regardless of 
colour, creed, preference, sex etc...

As the gay guy said a few back, he just blends in at work. Why should I treat 
him different because he chooses a different lifestyle to me? I doubt he would 
treat me differently. I've met many gay folk and never even knew it and when I 
did find out about it, it didn't much bother me. Not because they *told* me to 
like/tolerate them, or because their lawyer was bigger than mine, but because 
they were *nice* people.  

I really do not give a hoot what cultures/support groups hold meetings or where 
they hold them. What *does* concern me, is that companies like Digital are 
guilty of allowing groups to (during the hiring boom) to contact their buddies 
outside the company, screaming "C'mon in! It's great!" and Digital (because of 
their "LAW") were obliged to hire whatever minority group member interviewed, 
for fear of being hit with lawsuits by those already on board. 
(PLEASE don't try and say this isn't the case.....)
Right or wrong it went ahead and now the numbers cannot be swelled from the 
outside at the moment, so I guess some feel the need to gather support from 
previously silent "Independants" inside the company. If going it alone is a 
problem, I guess this is the solution to the person who felt weak when an 
individual. Building *inner* strengths may achieve the desired personal 
emotion with more quality though.

Now we have a broader base of militants with a banner to wave. The big plus 
to them now, is that they have a fairly large podium to wave it from.
It doesn't offend me, nor affect me. I just wish it could be done a little 
quieter! If I need them, *I'll* find them.

However..set ramble <OFF>
If something on TV offends me, I change the channel. If you offend me, I tell 
you. If you are a black homosexual, that is disabled, I'd still tell you in the 
same way. I'd expect the same from you, if you didn't afford me that respect, 
I'd just "change the channel".

Some things are transparent, but believing the maxim "The squeaky wheel gets 
the most oil", is not always the best way to go about rallying support.

Just an opinion,
Every Success whatever *your* quest,
Brian.

I post the following with all seriousness... I would like to discuss if
following fictional event would be a proper utilization of company
resources and facilities...

Lee



                "MARLBORO AREA HEAVY METAL AWARENESS DAY"

                        FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 31, 1991


In celebration of National Heavy Metal day, which is Friday, November 31,
the Greater Marlboro Area Valuing Diversity Committee will be sponsoring
a Heavyy Metal/Speed Metal/Thrash Awareness Day. National Heavy Metal Day
is a day for heavy metal headbangers to let others know about their
musical orientation.  The purpose of this day is to bring visibility to
heavy metal headbangers and to educate others on metal music and its
derivitaves. This is a time to shed some light on the myths about
headbangers and let the world know that these people are from all walks
of life. Also, it's a time for heavy metal devotees to celebrate and be
happy for the uniqueness they bring to the world. 

The activities on this day are as follows:


o  Awareness Day booth
	
   12-1 in the MRO1 cafeteria
  

   At this booth there will be several different pieces of literature
   about headbangers and the various types of metal music (speed, thrash,
   etc.) Also, there will be free buttons and stickers which contain
   green and black triangles (these are symbols of HM pride). The GMA VoD
   Committee is asking people to wear these buttons and put these
   stickers on their badges to show their support for HM rights. 


o  Celebrating the Heavy Metal Differences

   2-4 in the Aquarius Conference Room - MRO1-3/FG18.7

   Members of the Boston Heavy Metal Speakers will be on hand to tell
   their coming out stories and talk about what it's like to be a heavy
   metal music headbanger. They will also answer questions from the
   audience.

   Registration is not required but is recommended due to seating limitations. 
   Contact: Harvey Headbanger at DEVICE::NL:

Brian,

>Why *should* I value a difference? 

Basically, because the President of your company says that's the way 
things work here.  I can see that it certainly doesn't come from your 
heart.

>I really do not give a hoot what cultures/support groups hold meetings or where 
>they hold them. What *does* concern me, is that companies like Digital are 
>guilty of allowing groups to (during the hiring boom) to contact their buddies 
>outside the company, screaming "C'mon in! It's great!" and Digital (because of 
>their "LAW") were obliged to hire whatever minority group member interviewed, 
>for fear of being hit with lawsuits by those already on board. 
>(PLEASE don't try and say this isn't the case.....)

Your saying PLEASE doesn't alter the fact that this is one of the most 
paranoid things I have ever read.

Just an opinion,

Barb

p.s. I also agree with 'gail (nice note)...Most of you who are complaining the
loudest don't have the b*lls to do it when we have Black History Month or Hispanic
History Month (as examples)...You get to spill it all here because it's still o.k. 
to ridicule g/l/b folks just like it used to be o.k. to ridicule women 10-15 years 
ago...

Ok, .44, so where's the problem?  You take the time to organize the event,
you ask DIGITAL to let you use part of the cafeteria and a conference room,
and do it.  I see no problems at all.

Of course, in comparing this to Gay awareness, I must ask (because I am not
aware of headbanger issues):

1) Are headbangers routinely beat up by "normal" music fans because they
listen to unpopular music?
2) Is killing a headbanger considered a lesser crime than killing a
classical fan - does killing a headbanger get you a smaller sentence?
3) Is there a large instance of headbangers losing their jobs because of
their musical preferences?
4) Is there a large instance of headbangers getting evicted because of
their musical preferences?  (Actually, I bet there is)
5) Is it socially unacceptable for headbangers to speak of their musical
preferences in the company of "normal" music fans? (Probably)
6) Are headbangers routinely accused of being the root of many of today's
societal problems? (Again, I bet they are)

I don't know.  If the answers to a lot of those questions are yes,
particularly those affecting your life and health, I'd say that you have
perfectly good grounds for having an awareness day.  So, what's the point? 

    No loud music, right?  So there's nothing that intrudes, right?
    (I've noticed that some people use the same definition of "intrude"
    as paranoids.)  What's the problem?  I've sat in conference rooms,
    during working hours, and watched slides of someone's trip to
    Africa, or listened to someone's description of the operetta,
    "Patience".
    
    						Ann B.

	You start off by saying:

| >   They say
| >   'you don't choose to be homosexual', and I believe they are sincere.

	Then you go on to say:

| >   However, I don't buy it.

	You just contradicted yourself. How can you say that they are sincere,
but at the same time you say you don't buy it? At what age did you wake up and 
say to yourself, "Hey, I'm gonna be a heterosexual?" If you aren't gay, how can 
you know if there is a choice? What do you base this profound statement on? 
I'm curious!

Glen

Brian,

| often more opposition from folk that normally
| wouldn't have even noticed or cared one way or t'other!

	As long as people don't hear about it, then it's ok. Why is that ok? If
that were the number one reason to follow, then I guess there would still be 
slavery, and there would be far less civil rights for women and minorities, and
the list could go on and on. To just let something go by that's important to 
others just because you're not interested isn't bad at all. The sad part comes 
in when someone who says they aren't interested in what's going on has to do 
what they can to stop the thing they say they really don't care about. This is 
when it's sad.

| Value MY difference and stop trying to change the way *I* choose to think!
| Please!

	You can choose to think in any fashion you wish. This country allows
you to do that. But, when you make your thoughts known, and only if they are
unfair or could harm another person, then, and only then should others try and
change your thoughts. Otherwise, you're free to think what you want. If others
are trying to change your mind about something that you don't want to hear,
leave, or in this case press the next unseen key.

| Using our skills and personality to win the respect of peers and work collegues
| is the way to do it. Telling somebody to like you because you are different, is
| a pretty tall order, especially "if" you are unlikable anyway! 

	This is the same approach that a lot of Christians use. They don't act
any different and they fit into the mainstream society. This has a lot of
pluses, but it isn't for everyone. If a person is excitable, regardless of
who they are (black, white, gay, straight, etc) they are going to be
excitable. You can't change that, and you can't expect everyone to fit one
mold, which you have chosen. I used to think that your method was the best
one, but after getting out seeing how different people can be, how their
differences have opened my eyes, by not just pushing what they have to say
aside but by listening to it has really helped me grow as a person.

| As the gay guy said a few back, he just blends in at work. Why should I treat
| him different because he chooses a different lifestyle to me? I doubt he would
| treat me differently. I've met many gay folk and never even knew it and when I
| did find out about it, it didn't much bother me. Not because they *told* me to
| like/tolerate them, or because their lawyer was bigger than mine, but because
| they were *nice* people.

	This impression of lawyer bigger stuff is really ridiculous. Here's
why. You have no idea what anyone has had to go through being gay. You haven't
had to put up with the crap that people dish out because they feel you're
different, and they feel they are above you. This stuff goes on in schools, but
as adults, we SHOULD know better, but apparently we don't. Different people
have different tolerance levels. Different people have dealt with this kind of
stuff before and may have learned the hard way on the correct channels to go
through, and people just may be sick and tired of the crap that goes on in this
world towards them. Why not try and look at the bigger picture, like the why
does this person do this or that before you talk about bigger lawyers and such.
Get to know the person, in person, as a person first, and then you can make
your evaluations. But, in order to do this you would first have to keep an open
mind. It's something I have to always remind myself to do.

	Also, the lawyer thing has nothing to do with being gay, it has to do
with living in this country. With all these lawyer commercials out, it's no
wonder that people are suing everyone for every reason in the book.

| Now we have a broader base of militants with a banner to wave. The big plus
| to them now, is that they have a fairly large podium to wave it from.
| It doesn't offend me, nor affect me. I just wish it could be done a little
| quieter! If I need them, *I'll* find them.

	There are many people who may be looking for them, but hadn't found
them until they spoke up. I think that can be said about a lot of lesbigays in
this company. When they heard about stuff like the coming out week, they looked 
into it, and they sometimes found themselves, an ear to talk to and yes, others 
like them. But if it doesn't offend you, why make a stink about how loud it is?



Glen

 Barb,

"Paranoia" - "a serious mental disorder characterised by well-rationalised 
              delusions of persecutions or of grandeur"

Wrong diagnosis, but nevertheless a nice shot! :-) 
No delusions here. I'd just like to see folk accept some responsibilty 
themselves and stop relying on creating a law to solve their issues.

As I said; Every success whatever your quest. I won't oppose it unless it 
offends me in *my* time on *my* turf, or affects *me* or my family. *If* I 
find it does either, I'll deal directly with the offender about it.

Read an article in Time magazine from August 12th this year, titled something 
like "Crybabies and Busybodies". It hits the spot.

Regards to all, on an enlightening topic,
Brian.

| I'll change my feelings about Black History Month and Hispanic History
| Month on the day the Valuing Depravity people announce Dutch History
| Month.  

	Why not organize it yourself? That's what others do when they want to
have an event. Go for it. Instead of waiting for everyone else to do your work
for you, why don't you do it for yourself? That is if it really means that much
to you.

| In the meantime, I am going to try and forward the base note to K.O.
| and Jack Smith (if I can figure out how to do it).

	While your at it, why not send them all of your replies. This will show
them how you really feel about the issue at hand. I mean you're so open minded
and everything......



Glen

>               <<< Note 1616.52 by JURAN::SILVA "Ahn eyu ahn" >>>
>
>	While your at it, why not send them all of your replies. This will show
>them how you really feel about the issue at hand. I mean you're so open minded
>and everything......
    
    By all means, please take Glen's suggestion seriously.  You have my
    permission to forward my comments, provided they are in context, full
    content, and include all of note 1616.  Come on, put your money where 
    your mouth is.
    
    I'd be fascinated to hear what top management thinks of some of the
    vicious rhetoric that has been so blythely tossed around this topic.
    I suspect they won't be amused.
    
    tim
    

    RE:  <<< Note 1616.49 by COOKIE::LENNARD "Rush Limbaugh, I Luv Ya Guy" >>>
    >                      -< I've Had Enough of This >-

    >I'll change my feelings about Black History Month and Hispanic History
    >Month on the day the Valuing Depravity people announce Dutch History
    
         Careful how you group your words, Dick.  Someone might think you
    find something depraved about Hispanic and Black people.
    
                                      Greg

    
    
    RE: .24 (CSOA1::ROOT)
    
    >one of two groups of people who are costing this country billions
    >each year in medical cost just so you or people like you can carry
    >on a live style of your choosing.
    
    I think it's important here to remember that alcohol-related deaths and
    critical injuries are, by far, costing this country's taxpayers
    billions each year in medical costs as well....not to mention smoking
    and obesity.
    
    
    The heterosexual lifestyle is "flaunted" everyday in our workplace. 
    People with family pictures, wedding rings, talking about their
    families, etc, etc.  
    
    The Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual oppression is REAL.  Some people like to say
    it doesn't matter, or it shouldn't be discussed, or that it's
    disgusting and dispicable.  It happens.
    
    G/L/B people cannot have family pictures in their offices, they cannot
    wear wedding rings without being questioned, and they cannot talk about
    their families without the threat of discrimination (and many times
    outright hatred and violence) from their peers.  These things have
    happened....yes, in Digital.
    
    G/L/B people have normal everyday lifestyles like most people in this
    country.  They work hard for a living, they commute home, they pay
    bills, they raise a family.....but they also have to deal with watching
    what they say in every situation, the threat of violence and hatred,
    loved ones turning away from them, peers refusing to work alongside
    them, etc.  All just to be the person they feel like they are inside.
    
    May G/L/B people live very conservative lives, are extremely monogamous
    in their relationships, and are very conscious of the effect their
    sexual orientation has on the people arround them.  Some G/L/B people
    live the radical lifestyle that is so often used to describe the
    majority of them.......but they live that lifestyle right alongside the
    heterosexual people who choose that radical lifestyle as well.
    (Remember the statistics that site 80% of men as being unfaithful at
    some point in their marriage and the 50% of women who are unfaithful as
    well?).  
    
    The egocentric tendancies of this nation are going to be our downfall.
    
    
    kath

    If this "orientation" was scientifically proven to be a natural
    occurrence, more people would take it seriously.  It has not been
    proven to be anything other than a voluntary choice.

    The VD program has become more prejudice than anyone of us ever were.

    Mike

	RE: .44 (SMOOT::ROTH)

 Lee,
	Would a "Heavy Metal Awareness Day" be an appropriate utilization
 of company resources and facilities?    Hmmm... not the way you have 
 presented it (in my opinion).  Digital already has a number of "music
 associations" (DEC carolers come to mind) people who enjoy different
 kinds of music can participate in.  Further, one's taste in music is not
 analogous to one's sexual orientation.  Heavy Metal fans are not routinely
 fired, evicted or beaten *simply because they like Heavy Metal* (they
 may be evicted for playing their music too loud, but that could just
 as easily happen if the music blaring from the stereo were a Bach concerto 
 instead of something by Metallica).
 
 What it comes down to is that Heavy Metal fans do not suffer from systematic, 
 legislated, discrimination.  I enjoy hard rock-n-roll bands myself (Van Halen, 
 Aerosmith and ZZ Top to name three) and I have no problems at work or in
 society at large.  In short, I fail to see the need for an "awareness" day
 for those of us who enjoy such music.  It isn't a "difference" that impacts my 
 life.  

 
 Sexual orientation, on the other hand, does indeed impact my life.  And not
 only because I am gay.  I don't want to perpetuate a society that breeds such 
 hatred and contempt for those who fall in love with members of the same sex.
 That's ugly bigotry plain and simple and none of us are immune from its
 affects.   I understand and generally respect those who have religious
 objections (though if you are going to name religion as your reason for 
 objecting to me, I certainly hope your own house is in order) - and what I
 say to them is simply "Do what is right for you.  Leave me to do what is 
 right for me."
 
 So why talk about this at work?  Why have an "awareness day?"   Well the 
 simple answer is that too many employees still believe in the myths and lies
 told to them about gay, lesbian and bisexual people.  This in turn creates a
 very oppressive atmosphere that, quite frankly, you have to experience to
 truly understand.  The result is lesbian, gay and bisexual employees who
 worry each day about being "found out" - who constantly have to monitor
 what they say and to whom, so as not to "give away" their true identity.
 This takes  a tremendous amount of energy - energy that could much better
 be spent on productive work for the company.
 
 As an aside, I would recommend attending the "Understanding the Dynamics of
 Difference" course if you are interested in learning more about why
 valuing diversity programs are supported by Digital.
 
 /Greg
 

| If this "orientation" was scientifically proven to be a natural
| occurrence, more people would take it seriously.  It has not been
| proven to be anything other than a voluntary choice.

	Hey Mike! Can you show me the scientific studiy(s) that were done that
proved the "orientation" is a voluntary choice? If not, what do you base your
statement on?



Glen

    RE: .56  Change that a bit and it might make sense:

    "If this "orientation" was scientifically proven to be a 
     voluntary choice, it would be (slightly more**) understandable
     why people respond the way they do.  It has not be proven
     to be anything other than a naturally occurring phenomena
     in the animal world."

    All the scientific evidence to date seems to indicate that
    sexual *orientation* is NOT a voluntary choice.  Anyone who
    has seriously studied the subject tends to agree that one's
    sexual orientation is determined, if not prior to birth,
    then shortly thereafter.

    It takes a far greater leap of imagination to suppose that
    millions of people would voluntarily choose to be constantly
    faced with bigotry and hatred.  Think about that (really) for
    just a moment....

    This is well documented in any textbook on the subject in 
    just about any public library.  Go look it up if you don't
    believe me. 

    The few dissenting voices are generally backed by conservative
    Christian evangelicals - that's fine with me, but their bias
    needs to be acknowledged too.

    /Greg

    PS ** - I say "slightly more" since, even if it WERE a fully
    	voluntary choice, I still wouldn't understand why people
    	react with such venomous hatred.  Gay people don't harm
    	anyone.  What is the problem?

>| If this "orientation" was scientifically proven to be a natural
>| occurrence, more people would take it seriously.  It has not been
>| proven to be anything other than a voluntary choice.
>
>	Hey Mike! Can you show me the scientific studiy(s) that were done that
>proved the "orientation" is a voluntary choice? If not, what do you base your
>statement on?

    There have been no studies (that I know of) on voluntary choice, but
    there have been on genetics.  I base it on common sense.  It's a fact that 
    man has free will and alternate sexual orientations are a choice.

    What's just as sad is that there are many minorities, ethnic groups,
    politically oppressed, etc., that are treated just as badly, if not 
    worse, than the gay community.  Many people in these groups are
    involuntary killed.

    Mike

I would like to remind everyone that we are discussing a subject that tends to
generate very strong feelings on both sides of the issue.  Please remember that
personal attacks ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Thank you,

Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL

    
    
    something that we should all remember here is that DIGITAL is our
    employer and that's it/
    
    Digital can tell you that you have to treat every employee the same
    way regardless of ANYTHING. Digital has the right to set those rules
    in the interest getting anything done around here!
    
    But Digital cannot change peoples social views, it cannot change
    peoples personal views or opinions.
    Some employees are absolutly offended by a gay lifestyle and hope that
    a cure will be found some day. Digital, as merely an employer has no
    right to tell anyone what is right or wrong. 
    
    If you want to hang up a picture of anyone special in your life, then
    that is your right under Digitals P&P. If I *CHOOSE* to not ask you
    who that handsome guy is, or if I *CHOOSE* to walk away when you 
    start talking about what a great night you had last night, then
    not Digital, and not ANYBODY has the right to try to MAKE me change
    me views.  
    
    Again, I'm sorry, but I don't see the differance between the GBL event
    and a "wife swappers" convention on DEC property. 
    Both would be to try and 'introduce' someone, to a sexual lifestyle
    that they may find repulsive and wrong, not to mention offensive. 
    Would Ken go for the "wife Swappeing" event? Probably not, and I'm sure
    that the switch board would light up with calls talking about how
    offensive they find this. 
    
    I don't see the difference.
    
    

    RE: .62  (CSC32::PITT)

    I think the problem is that you don't understand what this 
    awareness day is or what it is for (despite several attempts
    by several people to explain it).

    A GLB Awareness Day does NOT "introduce" people to a sexual
    lifestyle.  Nobody is going to be talking about their sexual
    practices at this event, or encouraging others to try it out
    or something...

    This is a social justice issue.

    Regardless of what you think of the morality of same sex
    relationships, they exist.  They are a fact of life.  Likewise,
    anti-gay discrimination is a fact of life.  Setting aside your
    personal feelings for just a moment, are you suggesting that
    it is OK to simply fire an employee for being gay or lesbian or
    even (if you were to somehow find out) "into" wife-swapping?

    I'm sure I don't need to ask if you approve or condemn the physical
    violence inflicted upon those who are different.

    The bottom line is that this event is NOT to push sexuality
    down anyone's throat.  This event is intended to help put an end
    to the discrimination and bigotry that result from people taking
    their personal views (which I agree, Digital has no business trying
    to change) and applying them to business/contractual relationships.

    /Greg

    P.S.  In another forum or even another topic, I might question you on
          why you find "wife swapping" wrong.  Actually I agree with you.
    	  For in addition to the fact that it implies women are somehow 
    	  someone's property to be exchanged at the drop of a hat - which I 
    	  find especially wrong, not to mention repulsive and offensive (to 
    	  be equally redundant) - "Wife" of course implies marriage and 
    	  marriage implies monogamy (which I support whole-heartedly).  Since 
    	  marriage is generally a public promise to remain faithful (in the 
    	  eyes of the community, in the eyes of the church and in the eyes of 
    	  God, as well as in the eyes of the husband and wife), I can't support	
    	  what "wife-swapping" technically implies - even if all the 
    	  participants agree, it means they have broken a larger promise.

    	  However, if the adult participants are single and/or have defined 
    	  their own relationship(s) without making such promises (to anyone) I
    	  don't believe they are doing anything wrong.

    
    Allison,
    
    I'm not sure, but reading through other notes files, it seems
    coincidental that VERY MANY people who are homosexual were sexually
    abused at some stage of their lives. 
    
    I believe that some people feel that this orientation IS in fact a
    'voluntary 'orientation, or at least one that was not pre destined. 
    
    Respecting peoples views on this belief is also valuing differance.
    It cannot be viewed as ignorance until there is proof one way or
    another. But in the meantime, because Digital policy prohibits
    discrimination of anyone, everyone is safe (or certainly should be
    so while they are on Dec property or conducting Dec business).  
    
    Anything else is personal beliefs and I think that folks are just sick and
    tired of being told what they should or shouldn't 'accept'. 
    Too VERY many people, that lifestyle will never be 'acceptable', just
    as to many others, women should have never gotten the vote!
    

    The following quotes are from _Illiberal Education:  The Politics of
    Race and Sex on Campus_ by Dinesh D'Souza.  D'Souza was writing of
    universities, but I think many of his observations apply to Digital and
    other aspects of society as well.


				-- edp


    page 9
    
    Censorship regulations at several colleges today are restrictive enough
    that a typical policy at the University of Connecticut interprets as
    "harassment" all remarks that offend or stigmatize women or minorities.
    Examples of violations of the University President's Policy on
    Harassment, for which the penalty ranges from a reprimand to expulsion,
    include "the use of derogatory names," "inconsiderate jokes," and even
    "misdirected laughter" and "conspicuous exclusion from conversation."

    page 39

    Berkeley does not release the number of blacks and Hispanics admitted on
    affirmative action who drop out, but these data are contained in a
    confidential internal report which tracks freshmen enrolled in 1982. 
    By 1987, five years later, only 18 percent of blacks admitted on
    affirmative action had graduated from Berkeley; blacks admitted in the
    regular program graduated at a 42 percent rate.  Similarly, only 22
    percent of affirmative action Hispanics finished in five years,
    compared with 55 percent for other Hispanics.  The most recent figures
    suggest that approximately 30 percent of black and Hispanic students
    drop out before the end of their freshman year; in the words of the
    report, they seem to stay "only long enough to enhance the admissions
    statistics."

    pages 130-131

    Both students returned to the issue of frank discussion of the racial
    and gender taboos on campus.  "Usually," Milot said, "you confront a
    prejudice by saying:  is this true?  What is the evidence for it, and
    against it?  I really believe that people today respond to the truth." 
    But, Milot said, "Now there are truths that are not socially safe. 
    There is a fear that the truth will have its revenge."  The campaign
    against racial and sexual stereotypes, both students said, was based on
    claims that were not borne out in their personal experience.  "I'm
    tired of being lied to," Milot said.  "They're fighting racism with
    lies."

    Their paradoxical consequence seems to be a sort of liberation for both
    students.  "There has been a lingering guilty with me for a long time,"
    Milot said.  He felt partly responsible for the historical crimes of
    slavery, segregation, and subjugation.  "But now I feel like _I'm_ the
    one under attack.  To some extent, I have lost my old guilt."  He
    cracked a smile.  Both students resumed sipping their coffee.

    What is most significant about the comments of these two students is
    that they seem to reflect hidden sentiments that are often concealed
    from public view.  In conversations about race and gender, but
    especially race, people tend to mask their opinions, revealing only
    what they think they ought to think.  Yet Milot and Makled's views
    about preferential treatment imposing obstacles on whites, especially
    white males, are hardly peculiar or marginal; according to a 1986
    survey by Michigan's Institute for Social Research, 75 percent of
    whites said it was "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that they would
    be denied a position in favor of an equally or less qualified black. 
    Nevertheless, when asked whether blacks come from a "less able race,"
    only 3.5 percent of white respondents "strongly agreed," 10.6 percent
    "agreed somewhat," and more than half strongly disagreed.

    These two students responded fairly typically for white students
    confronted with perceived unfair advantages enjoyed by blacks.  In a
    1980 study by Stephen Johnson of Ball State University, white students
    participated in an experiment where a black student was rewarded after
    a test, even when it was clear that she had not scored as high as white
    competitors.  White students responded to this with a sharp increase in
    racial hostility and derision toward the black student, and toward
    blacks in general.  This behavioral response was entirely independent
    of individual opinions about the desirability of affirmative action.

    page 202

    The Case of Pete Schaub

    When Pete Schaub, a business major at the University of Washington at
    Seattle, enrolled in a Women's Studies class in early 1988, he expected
    to learn about "the history of women and the contributions they have
    made."  Schaub said his mother was a 1960's rebel who divorced his
    father and moved to rural Washington state to live "close to the land."

    "Introduction to Women's Studies," taught by Donna Langston and
    Dana-Michele Brown, was not what Schaub had expected.  On the first day
    of class Brown asserted that "the traditional American family
    represents a dysfunctional family unit."  Students who protested that
    their families were functional were shouted down by teaching assistants
    hired by Langston and Brown.  "Denial, denial," they yelled in unison. 
    A few days later Langston brought guest speakers to talk about
    masturbation.  "They said you don't need a man," Schaub said.  "They
    proceed to show how to masturbate with a feather duster, and they had
    dildos right there."

    When Professor Brown claimed that U.S. statistics showed that lesbians
    could raise children better than married couples, Schaub asked for the
    source.  "I asked after class," Schaub said.  "I wasn't challenging
    her."  But the teacher "wouldn't hear of it.  She said:  'Why are you
    challenging me?  Get away from me.  Just leave me alone.'"  A member of
    Brown's undergraduate circle called Schaub a "chauvinist goddamn
    bastard."  The next day, Schaub was banned from class.  The teacher had
    two campus police officers waiting in the hall to escort him away.

    Schaub protested to the administration, but nothing happened for
    several weeks.  Finally he was permitted to go back to class, but
    advised by Associate Dean James Nason to drop the course.

    page 219

    [Lawrence] Watson [assistant dean for academic administration in the
    Graduate School of Design at Harvard] said it was important that "some
    great works be revised" because of their portrayal of women and
    minorities.  "We've got to take the quote, great works, unquote, and
    rewrite them, although in some instances this would be impractical,"
    Watson said.

    page 227

    Meanwhile, both inside and outside the classroom, the sensitivity
    indoctrination project proceeds at full pace, and its strongest effects
    are felt by the students who are the primary target.  As the contempt
    of students such as Acosta suggests, the undergraduates at Harvard and
    other colleges are growing weary of the intellectual double standards
    and social browbeating to which they are routinely subjected.  Even
    politically progressive students who begin by adopting and promoting
    stated minority demands find that they have failed to assuage the
    seemingly insatiable anger of the activists.  Consequently their
    initial sympathy decays into, at best, a half-hearted acceptance; at
    worst, a new impatience and hostility.

    . . .

    Every few weeks, another American campus is cast into turmoil because
    of allegations of bigotry.  Racial harassment is getting so bad that
    for the first time, the _Wall Street Journal_ reports, many black
    students are avoiding troubled institutions and applying to safe --
    often historically black -- universities.  Because universities have
    exhausted the patience of the most sympathetic advocates of the
    victim's revolution, the backlash against preferential treatment and
    sensitivity education will continue to get worse.  Nobody will say so,
    but the truth is that a large number of students and faculty have
    simply _had it_ with minority double standards and intimidation.  Until
    they change their policies, universities are likely to see a dramatic
    increase in racial tension and racial incidents, with a corresponding
    upsurge of violence.  The worst is yet to come.

    Thank you -1....you made my point.  I am terminally sick and tired 
    of hearing about it.  I DO NOT WANT to be better informed.  I'm not
    interested in their problems.  The problem is that the planners of
    this event are so myopic that they don't realize they are making
    things worse, not better.  Puleeeeeeze, get outa my face!!!  OK?

    re. -.01
    
    So just don't attend. You have that freedom. That way you won't have to
    hear anything you don't want to hear and you can continue to have your
    own opinion, what ever that is.
    
    Actually very simple. 

A study done within the last two years in San Diego showed that lesbians
had been abused no more and no less than heterosexual women.

1 in 7 boys and 1 in 3 girls are abused by the time they are 18.

        Carol

Speaking of abuse...

Although each of us has the right to our own opinion, it is Digital's
policy that on company time and/or on company resources we cannot put down any
person or group of people on the basis of sexual orientation.  Many of you have
put down homosexuals and homosexuality as if you weren't talking about someone
*here*.  You are.  I am gay. When you use words like "disgusting" and liken my
sexual orientation to having sex with animals, you are putting me down. 

Please do not do this any more.

       Carol

    Don't attend?  Don't you mean, "don't go to the cafeteria on that day"?
    Don't I have any right to chowing down without having to be reminded of
    how I need to be tolerant of those who want to let me know what they do 
    with people of the same sex?  Well, you may have more rights than I do.
    I'll for sure be eating lunch at my terminal, thank you.
    
    Steve

| >  It has not been
| >| proven to be anything other than a voluntary choice.
| >
| >	Hey Mike! Can you show me the scientific studiy(s) that were done that
| >proved the "orientation" is a voluntary choice? If not, what do you base your
| >statement on?

| There have been no studies (that I know of) on voluntary choice, but
| there have been on genetics.  I base it on common sense.  

	Common sense? How come you stated before:

| If this "orientation" was scientifically proven to be a natural
| occurrence, more people would take it seriously.

	You can base seriousness on scientific fact, but you base what you have
said on common sense. By your own words people can't take your common sense
seriously.

| It's a fact that man has free will 

	Yes, I believe us humans have this free will as defined by the bible.

| and alternate sexual orientations are a choice.

	You will have to prove this one to me. Once you do, then you'll hear no
more from me, but until then I can only suspect that you are basing this
conclusion without ever living through it. If you haven't lived through it,
what are you basing this so called fact on? It was thought common sense that
blacks should be slaves. So much for common sense. I asked before, I'll ask
once again. When did you wake up and say, "Hey! I'm gonna be a heterosexual!"


Glen

    
    So eat at your desk. You have that choice. 
    
    Don't think that the world (Digital) is out to annoy you...  
    just because the world doesn't exist according to your beliefs. 
    
    Consider how every
    christmas time (actually the entire month of December) where christmas
    decorations adorn every Digital building, and cafeteria, and where
    christmas parties are held for many groups.. 
    
    Think of how many people
    are subjected to this who don't celebrate christmas, who don't want to
    have to hear christmas carols while they eat,... if you would like to
    debate keeping 'religious' issues on Digital property (as someone
    has mentioned in this note) then let us discuss the issue of christmas
    celebrations on Digital property.
    
    Judy
    
    

Re: <<< Note 1616.57 by CRONIC::SCHULER "Have a nice Judgment day" >>>

.57>kinds of music can participate in.  Further, one's taste in music is not
.57>analogous to one's sexual orientation.  Heavy Metal fans are not routinely
.57>fired, evicted or beaten *simply because they like Heavy Metal* (they
.57>may be evicted for playing their music too loud, but that could just
.57>as easily happen if the music blaring from the stereo were a Bach concerto 
.57>instead of something by Metallica).

Are routine firings, evictions and beatings occuring within Digital
to Gays/Lesbians/Bisexuals? 

.57>What it comes down to is that Heavy Metal fans do not suffer from 
.57>systematic, legislated, discrimination.

Again, are these things occuring within Digital today?
 
.57>Sexual orientation, on the other hand, does indeed impact my life.
.57>and not only because I am gay.  I don't want to perpetuate a society that
.57>breeds such hatred and contempt for those who fall in love with members
.57>of the same sex.

I don't want to perpetuate a society that breeds hatred and contempt for
anyone, let alone Gay/Lesbian/Bi people. But I don't think Digital needs
become a champion of Gay/Lesbian/Bi awareness.

.57>That's ugly bigotry plain and simple and none of us are
.57>immune from its affects.

Agreed.

.57>I understand and generally respect those who
.57>have religious objections (though if you are going to name religion as
.57>your reason for objecting to me, I certainly hope your own house is in
.57>order) - and what I say to them is simply "Do what is right for you.
.57>Leave me to do what is right for me."

Please carefully re-read all of my postings in this topic... I have yet
to make any negative comment about Gay/Lesbian/Bi people. My objection 
is that Digital resources are being used in the manner described in the
announcement in the basenote.

.57>So why talk about this at work?  Why have an "awareness day?"   Well
.57>the simple answer is that too many employees still believe in the myths
.57>and lies told to them about gay, lesbian and bisexual people.  This in
.57>turn creates a very oppressive atmosphere that, quite frankly, you have
.57>to experience to truly understand.  The result is lesbian, gay and
.57>bisexual employees who worry each day about being "found out" - who
.57>constantly have to monitor what they say and to whom, so as not to "give
.57>away" their true identity. This takes  a tremendous amount of energy-
.57>energy that could much better be spent on productive work for the
.57>company.

In my 15+ years of employment at DEC I have never had a single instance
of another DEC employee sharing 'myths and lies about gay, lesbian and
bisexual people'. Is this a widespread phenomenon at Digital?

.57>As an aside, I would recommend attending the "Understanding the Dynamics of
.57>Difference" course if you are interested in learning more about why
.57>valuing diversity programs are supported by Digital.

Sounds like a course I need to investigate.

                              -=[       ]=-

My reason for the 'heavy metal' anology is that, in my opinion, it is a
poor use of Digital's resources to promote enlightenment and appreciation
of lifestyles. I consider sexual preference and musical preference to be
simply a matter of individual taste. To me, it makes about as much sense
to have an awareness day for G/B/L as it does HM. Neither should be
funded or supported by DEC.

I strongly applaud Digital's efforts to educate its employees about
racisim. However, persons race is not a matter of individual preference
or style.

When I come to work each day I do not ask that Digital become a 'safe
haven' from the pressures of my lifestyle. At DEC I expect to be treated
with respect and with fairness by all in matters of business. If you are
Gay/Straight/Bi/Lesbian or whatever I simply do not care. To me it is a
non-issue. Isn't that the end goal?

If you are denied a promotion/raise, harrassed, beaten up, etc. while
working at DEC due to your sexual orientation then there are procedures
in place to deal with that.

To me, this is the essence of the matter: Digital is quickly whithering
away from its once great stature. We seem to become less preoccupied with
matters of producing goods and services that are customers desire and
more preocupied with social matters. While all of this energy may some
day result in a perfect working environment there will be few employees
left that can enjoy it.

Lee Roth

p.s.

Is there an estimate on how much productive work is being lost due to
G/B/L people worrying about being discovered (as suggested by 1616.57 by
CRONIC::SCHULER)? Maybe I have the wrong attitude... perhaps all DEC
employees should attend a 'Gay Awareness' session and then all G/B/L
people would be free to come out.

If this is a real problem of productivity (and I have no proof that it
is) then let's get it out on the table, deal with it and be done with it.

| But Digital cannot change peoples social views, it cannot change
| peoples personal views or opinions.
| Some employees are absolutly offended by a gay lifestyle and hope that
| a cure will be found some day. Digital, as merely an employer has no
| right to tell anyone what is right or wrong.

	Funny how there are so many different versions on what homosexuality
is. We have it's a disease, and people hope for a cure, that it's a choice,
that it is the devil inside of us making us do this, and many others. Funny,
how come no one ever listens to the people who are actually involved in this,
the homosexual? 

| Again, I'm sorry, but I don't see the differance between the GBL event
| and a "wife swappers" convention on DEC property.
| Both would be to try and 'introduce' someone, to a sexual lifestyle
| that they may find repulsive and wrong, not to mention offensive.

	The big difference is that this event, as \Greg mentioned, has nothing
to do with sex whatsoever. It has nothing to do with seducing anyone. Let me
ask you, if someone gay came up to you and wanted to date you, would you? I
doubt it, because that is not part of your make up. It's not you. Also, as I'm
sure you have heard many times, being homosexual isn't a sex based thing. It is
the same thing as a heterosexual relationship with just ONE exception. Both
people are the same gender. Other than that, NOTHING is different.

| I don't see the difference.

	Just open your mind and you will see. I think that's what you may be
afraid of..... actually seeing it.


Glen

| I'm not sure, but reading through other notes files, it seems
| coincidental that VERY MANY people who are homosexual were sexually
| abused at some stage of their lives.

	Just as many heterosexual children were. What point are you trying to
make? This isn't a cause for homosexuality.

| I believe that some people feel that this orientation IS in fact a
| 'voluntary 'orientation, or at least one that was not pre destined.

	Do you mean heterosexual or homosexual people believe this?

| Anything else is personal beliefs and I think that folks are just sick and
| tired of being told what they should or shouldn't 'accept'.
| Too VERY many people, that lifestyle will never be 'acceptable', just
| as to many others, women should have never gotten the vote!

	Allison, aren't both views wrong?


Glen

    I'm not debating religious issues!  The fact is that I don't want to
    be reminded about homosexual acts during lunch (regardless of whether
    any of the gays involved are Christian or not).  Similarly, I feel it
    would be inappropriate for someone to set up a booth to let me know
    that they are heterosexual.  Good taste just doesn't mix lunch with
    sex.  Bringing up this kind of issue in the lunch room is just bad
    manners!
    
    Steve

    I'll agree with .79.
    
    So much of the "Value my difference" noise is bad manners that I want
    to turn it all off.  Frankly, I read "Value my difference" as similar
    to extending a single finger from a fist.  People shouting to the world
    that they are natural human beings, that their rights are being
    trampled on, that the rest of us are bigots, is not what I was taught
    was proper public behavior.  
    
    I'm not a prude, I don't think I'm a bigot, but, I don't want to know
    about your out-of-DEC life, whether its your latest conquest, your
    current significant other, your mother's gall bladder, your father's
    baldness problem, your inability to have a baby, ... , 
    
    	UNLESS, 
    
    you and I are already good friends who have accepted each other for
    what we are and have agreed to share parts or our personal lives.  And,
    by the way, I certainly don't want to have you intrude on my lunch time
    with a counter in the cafeteria pushing ANY kind of propaganda.
    
    When I was a smoker, I hated people pushing anti-smoking propaganda.  I
    still do.
    
    If I were an alcoholic, I would hate someone pushing AA literature at
    me.
    
    If I were a Buddhist, I wouldn't want to be handed Christian literature
    at work, at airports, or anywhere else.
    
    Unfortunately, the current generation of 60's kids seem not to have
    learned what I consider good manners.  I've given up on them.
    
    Dick

Who the heck said anything about being reminded about homosexual acts
during lunch?  All I heard about is hearing about homosexuals during lunch. 
By homosexual acts, do you mean the act of living your life as a
homosexual, or sexual acts between two people of the same sex?  I can
assure you very few people here would want to see the latter.  Then again,
we aren't talking about sexual acts here.

As for someone setting up a booth to let me know that they are
heterosexual:  They needn't do that.  I can find that at virtually every
table in the cafeteria:  Talks about hetero-spouses, talks about dating,
talks about who would like to do what to whom.  It's all there.  It isn't
always about sex, but it's almost always about being hetero.

A person talking about their hetero-spouse is letting you know they're
involved with a person of the opposite sex.  What a person at a Gay
Awareness booth will want to talk about is going to be pretty close to the
same level.  Sex just doesn't work into it, or at least it shouldn't.  If
they do talk about sexual acts, I agree that it's wholly inappropriate for
the cafeteria.

Maybe that's part of the awareness thing:  Showing people that talking
about homosexuality doesn't mean talking about sex or sexual acts.

If you think they're there to remind you of homosexual acts, unless you can
tell me how they mentioned those acts, I suggest that the acts are
happening in your head.  Does saying the word "homosexual" cause you to
think of the sexual act?  If so, that's your problem, because the person
saying the word didn't put the thought of the act into your head.

Oh yes, one other question:

Judging from the person who feels that they have to eat at their desk, am I
to understand that the presentation will be done via loudspeaker and
platform, or in some other way that cannot be ignored?  I'd just rather
assumed that the people would set up on a couple of tables on one side of
the cafeteria, saying "We're here to talk to you if you have any
questions".

It'd have to be a mighty small cafeteria not to be able to hold the latter
scenario and someone who didn't want to ask questions, both at the same
time.

And, sitting in the cafeteria, answering questions from those who choose to
walk up and ask questions is hardly raising a single finger from your fist
at the rest of the cafeteria.

If it is a case of enforced participation via loudspeaker and platform,
then I see your point, and excuse this reply.

The moderators have received objections to replies that state that
homosexuals/homosexuality are disgusting or liken being gay to having sex with
"small furry mammals", etc.

Consider this, we as Digital employees are a minority of the world population. 
Substitute 'Digital Employees' for homosexuals/homosexuality in your reply and
see how you would feel.  If you would feel harrassed, then perhaps you need to
reword your reply.  If you would not feel harrassed, there is a possibility
that others may.  As a final check, please review the the following Digital
Policy...

	It is the policy of Digital Equipment Corporation to ensure that
	all employees and candidates for employment are considered for all
	positions on the basis of their qualifications and abilities
	without regard to race, color, sex, religion, age, national origin,
	citizenship status, veteran status, sexual orientation, or handicap.
	We shall recruit, hire, upgrade, train and promote all employees in
	all job classifications and ensure that all personnel actions such as
	compensation, benefits, Company-sponsored training, educational
	tuition-assistance, and social and recreational programs are
	administered without regard to these differences.  We will provide
	a work environment free from discrimination and harassment of any kind.

.73 originally contained a P&P violation and was returned to the author for
changes.  The author modified his response and I moved it to the original .73
to preserve the continuity of the topic.

This topic was write-locked while the moderators discussed the proper
action to take with respect to this topic.  It is now unwrite-locked.
Please think before you reply.

Thank you,

Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL

    RE: .62 by CSC32::PITT 
    
    >Some employees are absolutly offended by a gay lifestyle and hope that
    >a cure will be found some day. 
    
    Some employees are offended by bigotry, but there is hope it can be
    cured through education.
    

    I've been taking a math course this fall where I've had to learn a bit
    about formal logic.  One of the most valuable things I've learned in
    the course is exactly what frustrates me most about noting.
    
    Formal logic teaches, among other things, that you can build a
    brilliant and impeccable argument that is no more useful than the
    *assumptions* you base it on.  You say "yeah, sure, of course we all
    know that already".  But we don't act like we're a community that
    remembers this while noting.
    
    This string is full of assumptions.  A kind of group-think starts to
    take over where enough people respond to an assumption and other people
    jump in and  start talking about it as if it were a fact.
    
    It would be most informative if one of the organizers of the event in
    question would describe it.  Will there be a resource person or two
    sitting quietly at an identified table somewhere in the cafeteria or in
    a conference room who is willing to talk with anyone who chooses to
    wander over...or will a p.a. and loudspeaker system be set up and
    everyone within a quarter mile be coerced into watching pornographic
    gay movies over lunch while singing a rousing 4 part chorus of "gay and
    proud forever" that will be broadcast throughout the facility for the
    edification and recruitment of all?
    
    I just read the 40 or so new notes that had been entered since I last
    logged into this notesfile this morning.  I was struck by the
    preponderance of assumptions in many responses.  Assumptions
    aren't bad in and of themselves, especially when identified as such,
    but in this string they regularly are presented as if they were facts.
    
    One of the reasons programs such as the one above exist are because
    there are people at Digital who would like to learn more about people
    they work with.  Some people, not everyone, have become aware that they
    have internalized a lot of limiting assumptions and wish to further
    educate themselves.
    
    If you want to get to know a person of color, they are fairly easily
    identified.  All you have to do is make sure they want to get to know
    you ;-)   If you want to talk with a gay or lesbian person (perhaps
    an old friend or family member just came out, and you have lots of
    questions you can't bring yourself to ask that person) it's a lot
    easier to approach them if they have identified themselves as resource
    people first.
    
    Clearly, some of you would simply take a contract out on the friend or
    family member and be done with it -- but there really are other Digital
    employees who appreciate knowing who the resources are in this kind of
    situation.  
    
    Holly

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I think there is a basic misunderstanding about what are "good manners"
    and what are "bad manners".
    
    If you and I are strangers, we're having lunch and as we sit down at
    the same table you start up a conversation about the weather, about 
    work, about sports - that's good manners.
    
    If you and I are strangers, we're having lunch and as we sit down at
    the same table you start up a conversation about having sex, about
    using the toilet, about how I should abandon my religion - that's bad
    manners.
    
    Now, you set up a booth that I'm going to walk by on the way to lunch.
    Likely, you're a stranger.  I'm about to have lunch.  We've not even
    gotten to the point where we are going to sit down together and you
    want to talk about sex.  I mean, homoSEXuality does bring sex to mind.
    BiSEXuality does, too.  That's bad manners.
    
    Forget about it being specifically sex or religion or politics.  Any of
    those kinds of topics seem inappropriate between strangers in the
    lunch room.  Now, maybe to a gay person it seems like every person is
    a heterosexual (heterophobia? - I don't know what the term du jour is).
    But, folks sitting at the table with no signs aren't trying to strike
    up conversations with strangers about sex, religion or politics.  That
    smacks of soliciting, and there are even rules at Digital about that.
    
    Gay folks won't be soliciting for new sexual contacts.  At least I hope
    they aren't.  I assume their intent is to "educate" the "straight"
    folks so that they will be more tolerant - perhaps even value - the
    lifestyles of those who are gay/bi.  Well, if that's the goal with a
    straight person like me I expect to see some good manners.  
    
    To you, gay/bi/lesbian probably means something more than sex.  To me,
    that's all it means because that may be the only significant difference 
    between me and someone who is gay/bi/lesbian.  I mean, isn't that
    supposed to be the message?  So, from my point of view, just bringing
    up the topic is bad manners because we are strangers and I don't want
    to talk about sex during lunch with a stranger.
    
    Steve

.0 (Jason)
   
>>> Should Digital facility and money be used to the activity
>>> as posted following?  Personally I object it.  Pretty soon
>>> you will see other religious activities in DEC facility.

I'm one of the organizers of this event. It has *nothing* to do with 
religion. What ever made you think that?
    
        
>>> Since this note is public announcement, I post it without
>>> perssion.

I'm the original author of the announcement note posted in 1616.0 and
you did post this without my permission. I did not want it posted in here.

.7 (Jason)
    
>>> From reading the announcement, it is not clear that it is a
>>> DEC employee activity or from a outside "Great ..." organization.
>>> If the title seems not appropriate, please change it, moderater.

It's clear from the announcement that this is a DEC sponsored activity. In 
the first sentance it says that this event is sponsered by the "Marlboro 
Area Valuing Diversity Committee".
    
>>> I am not against gay or lesbian. I believe that DEC is doing a good
>>> job in not discriminating them.  However, do you think the time it
>>> proposed is working time?  Should everybody be at work?
>>> I prefer to see this kind of activity be held at non-working time,
>>> at Saturday or Sunday!

I too feel that DEC has made a good effort to stop discrimination against 
LesBiGays here at DEC. But that certainly doesn't mean that LesBiGays don't 
face harassment and offensive comments and behavior. I know because I've 
witnessed this myself.

Why shouldn't this be done on working time? DEC sponsers other Valuing
Diversity events on working time. DEC also sponsors live telecasts with
some of the top executives in the company (KO and company). People who go
to watch this aren't working. Why should DEC be doing that? 
    
>>> Homosexual is as controversial as religion.  As long as every DEC
>>> employee can understand the difference and tolerate each other.  It
>>> will be nice.   

If every DEC employee could treat every other employee the same free from
discrimination then there probably wouldn't be a need for the whole Valuing
Diversity program. But, being human beings, we're not perfect and do carry 
around our own personal biases.

>>> However, I am afraid of any side effect in DEC facility.
>>> For example, any anti-gay confrontation.  Any on-site homosexual activity,
>>> etc.   May be I mis-judged DEC employee.  But let's wait and see.

Oh, be real Jason! Do you think we're going to be having homosexual sex in 
the cafeteria? At the booth all we'll be doing is handing out literature to 
*people who want to take it*. We won't be shoving it in anyones face. And 
we'll be talking with people who have questions to comments to make about 
it.

    
.12 (Al)

>>> These type of meetings or displays on company property during normal
>>> business hours can be very distracting and create tensions both now and
>>> later which have no place in the normal business environment. These
>>> gatherings are fine for off company property. 

Do you have data to back up this statement? Valuing Diversity programs are 
done all over the company all the time and I've never heard of any of them 
"being distracting" or "creating tensions". In fact, earlier in the year 
the Marlboro Area VoD Committee held a "Understanding and Recognizing the 
Lesbian, Bisexual and Gay Differences" presentation here in Marlboro and it 
went over incredibly well. There was tremendous interest by people (many of 
them straight) to attend this presentation and several people wanted this 
done at other sites. As part of "Women's History Month" we also held a 
discussion group entitled "Coming out as a Lesbian or Bisexual Woman". It 
also was filled and created no distracts or tensions that I'm aware of and 
I'm sure I would have been aware of them since I'm the one who lead the 
group!
    
I personally know several closeted gay/bisexual people who work at this
company and live in fear of losing their job or being discriminated against
on a *daily* basis.  Being closeted is very stressful I know because I went
through it myself.  I watched a couple of these people slowly start to come
out at work *because* of the VoD work that has been done here at DEC and 
they are happier and more productive because of it.

>>> To say any one position is wrong varies with your upbringing and you have
>>> that right to your feelings and opinions concerning the various topics
>>> related to this discussion, but you have to allow me my right to dissagree
>>> with your position and feelings in a manner just as strong and determined
>>> as you are allowed. 

Yes, you are free to express your opinions here.    
     
.14 (Tim)

>>> Sexual orientation is not a point of view.  People have no more choice
>>> about their sexual orientation then they do about their skin color.  No
>>> once 'chooses' to be gay, and given the type of oppression and
>>> discrimination they face, I can't imagine why anyone ever would.

Well said, Tim! My sexual orientation is not a *choice*.
    

.15  
    
>>> I just want to if Digital would let me hold a "People who like to
>>> sleep with small furry mammals Outing Day"  in our
>>> cafeteria. 
    
Are people who like to sleep with small furry mammals oppressed? Not that I 
know of. 

    
.17 (Neil)

    
>>> Oh comon Tim, lighten up. The fact is most people don't give a damn
>>> who your sleeping with. I sure don't. What's objected to is using 
>>> DEC facilites to announce to the world that you like to sleep with
>>> members of your own sex. Nobody cares Tim, and there are certainly
>>> more important causes out there to champion than this.
    
There's a lot more to LesBiGay folks you know than *sex*. We don't have sex 
24 hours a day. This awareness day will tap into what it's like to be 
Lesbian,gay or bisexual and the fears we live with because of the way we were 
born and the myths we have to address (as can be seen from several of the 
replies in this string).

    
.18 (Dick)


>>> It's a big mistake for the VD people (how appropriate) to get involved
>>> with a PC issue.  I, and a lot of people like me, do not want to hear
>>> how proud they are, and I don't want to have it shoved in my face.....
>>> particularly when I'm trying to eat.  Give 'em a corner of the lawn
>>> somewhere, but not in a DEC building.

No one is shoving anything in your face. The booth we will have on the 
awareness day will not be located near the lunch tables and therefore 
anyone eating lunch will not be able to see or hear us.
    
>>> This is a religious/morale/lifestyle(or lack thereof)issue, and has no
>>> business hiding under the VD protective umbrella.  Personally, I will
>>> take no part in any VD activities ever again.  They have seriously
>>> soiled themselves.  If anyone thinks their real agenda is not to get
>>> full bennies for their unmarried "life-mates" you're kidding yourself.

This is not a "religious/moral/lifestyle" issue. This is an issue about one 
minority group that exists in the world and here at DEC. If you don't want 
to take part in a Valuing Diversity program *then don't*. Do one is making 
you.

I find your abbreviating Valuing Diversity as VD quite offensive.
    
>>> I'd like to see a VD effort addressing male, straight, married,
>>> over-50, nasty old farts and the problems they have working in an
>>> increasingly weird environment.

Then *GO ORGANIZE ONE* why don't you!

.21 (Dick)

>>> Tsk, Tsk......if it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.  Let's face
>>> it, what we're really talking about here is a recruiting effort, and
>>> that's why I think DEC should stay out of it.  

Recruiting effort? Where did you get that from Dick? Explain to me where in 
my announcement was there any mention of recruiting? 
    
>>> If they're so "proud" of themselves, why aren't they setting up
>>> information booths in shopping centers and so on......or maybe better
>>> yet in the Route 3 North rest areas.

Are you suggesting these places because you frequent them yourself and
think there is a need to have such a booth there? We do set up "information
booths" if you will all the time. We have a big celebration once a year
here in Boston i.e. Gay Pride Day which is sometime in June. There is
information all over the place on this day.  The LesBiGay Community also
has information forums/groups at many places such as college campuses. 

.22 (Al)


>>> Will someone please explain to me how Digital sponsorship of these
>>> 'coming out' stories and relating what it's like to be Lesbian, bisexual
>>> or gay will enhance our ability to deliver quality goods and services to
>>> our customers in a timely fashion?

Why? Because it may make LesBiGay people more comfortable in their work
environment, and therefore more productive. Estimates are that 10% of the
world's population is homosexual (this is from the Kinsey report). So
assuming that 10% of DEC employees are gay that's a lot of people and
that's a lot of productivity. And of course if you add the people who are
bisexual I'm sure the percentage is much higher. 


>>> If you are proud that you are gay/lesbian/bi then save it for after
>>> work, okay? ...and since it's after work at the same time I can tell you
>>> with pride what it's like to personally know a man named Jesus...

This is just *one* day we're talking about here where LesBiGay people are 
trying to be visible. During the rest of the year we have to deal with 
having the heterosexual lifestyle shoved in our faces. And during the rest 
of the year a large number of LesBiGay people are *invisibile*. I don't 
walk around all day every day of the year announcing that I'm gay. As a 
matter of fact, I rarely talk about my personal life at work at all.


.24 (Al)

>>> re:-1 It takes more then bigotry but yes maybe some anger when you refer
>>> to one of two groups of people who are costing this country billions
>>> each year in medical cost just so you or people like you can carry on a
>>> live style of your choosing. 

I'm not choosing any lifestyle. I'm sure the heterosexual people at DEC 
cost the company billions upon billions in health care each year.


>>> These are prodominently homosexuals and
>>> drug addicts. Any one who puts other people or themselves at risk just 
>>> so they can carry on a life style of their choosing is totally
>>> disgraceful. 

Anyone who has sex risks catching a STD. 


>>> You want me to feel sorry or sympathetic with your cause
>>> and then cover you in medical benifites when you get AIDS you can stick
>>> it where the son don't shine. Your group has a notes conference just
>>> for your way of thinking. I don't get in your conference and put you
>>> down there so keep your irresponsible and lothsome ideas out of this
>>> conference. 

You don't *own* this conference. The notesfiles at DEC are open to 
everyone.


>>> There's a whole lot more then bigotry involved with the feelings towards
>>> the above groups and more and more people are feeling it as more people
>>> outside those groups are affected. This topic has got way off the original
>>> topic and will continue to be so until those concerned return to their own
>>> conference. You wanted it in public (ie. the lunch room) well you got it
>>> started in a public conference. Thats why it needs to be kept off of the
>>> company property. 
    
Huh? Who wanted this in public? I'm the author of the announcement in
1616.0 but I  didn't post this note in this conference. I posted the
announcement of the awareness day in 3 different notesfiles. I didn't
intend for it to be cross-posted all over the place. 

.28
    
>>> perhaps it is time that we have a "White Appreciation Week" or "Men's
>>> History Month" or "Heterosexual Awareness Week". 
>>> First, I don't think that Digital would go along with any of those
>>> because they would offend too many people, or rather too many LOUD
>>> people. 

Go ahead and have such a week or month if you want. No one is stopping you. 
These types of weeks/months won't offend me. I probably won't go to any of 
the events but that's my decision. I see a lot of LOUD people in here 
bashing this awareness day.

    
>>> I agree that a Digital cafeteria is no place to flaunt who or what you
>>> choose to have sex with.  This is not a college campus; there are NOT
>>> condom dispensers in the bathrooms (yet); and we don't get to complain
>>> about what bogus special interest group our student fees are supporting. 

We're not handing out condoms and we're not flaunting anything. 



.56

>>> If this "orientation" was scientifically proven to be a natural
>>> occurrence, more people would take it seriously.  It has not been
>>> proven to be anything other than a voluntary choice.

It certainly wasn't a choice for me. In fact I choose to live the 
heterosexual lifestyle for many years. Many very frustrating and unhappy 
years. Why do you think so many people would "voluntarily" subject 
themsevles to discrimination and oppression? 


.60

>>> There have been no studies (that I know of) on voluntary choice, but
>>> there have been on genetics.  I base it on common sense.  It's a fact that 
>>> man has free will and alternate sexual orientations are a choice.

Studies have been done. The most well-known one is the Kinsey Report which 
estimated that 10% of the world's population is homosexual. I was born a 
homosexual: I had no control over that. 

.65
    
    
>>> I'm not sure, but reading through other notes files, it seems
>>> coincidental that VERY MANY people who are homosexual were sexually
>>> abused at some stage of their lives. 
    
I have never been abused. I know many people who have been abused, 
straight, gay and bi. 


.72 (Steve)

>>> Don't attend?  Don't you mean, "don't go to the cafeteria on that day"?
>>> Don't I have any right to chowing down without having to be reminded of
>>> how I need to be tolerant of those who want to let me know what they do 
>>> with people of the same sex?  Well, you may have more rights than I do.
>>> I'll for sure be eating lunch at my terminal, thank you.

No need to eat at your terminal, Steve. Like I said earlier the booth will 
be set up away from the tables so that it won't disturb anyone who's trying 
to eat.

And what's wrong with letting others know that you care for, love, respect 
people of the same sex.

.76

>>> In my 15+ years of employment at DEC I have never had a single instance
>>> of another DEC employee sharing 'myths and lies about gay, lesbian and
>>> bisexual people'. Is this a widespread phenomenon at Digital?

Well, I've been at DEC a little over two years and I have heard myths and 
lies and anti-gay statements.


>>> My reason for the 'heavy metal' anology is that, in my opinion, it is a
>>> poor use of Digital's resources to promote enlightenment and appreciation
>>> of lifestyles. I consider sexual preference and musical preference to be
>>> simply a matter of individual taste. To me, it makes about as much sense
>>> to have an awareness day for G/B/L as it does HM. Neither should be
>>> funded or supported by DEC.

No this is not an appreciation of lifestyles. This is an appreciation for
people who are different. My attraction to women is not a *preference* it's
my natural feelings. Believe me, my life would be a lot easier if I were
attracted to men. 


>>> However, persons race is not a matter of individual preference
>>> or style.

Neither is a person's sexual orientation.


Laurie
Marlboro Area Valuing Diversity Committee Member

    
We are up late arn't we.
    
================================================================================
Note 1616.88              Valuing Diversity day at MRO                  88 of 88
VINO::LANGELO "Fluffy Flirting Outlaw"              358 lines   2-OCT-1991 00:42
                    -< Another Marlboro VoD Member speaks >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        
>>> Since this note is public announcement, I post it without
>>> perssion.

I'm the original author of the announcement note posted in 1616.0 and
you did post this without my permission. I did not want it posted in here.

*re:88  This is a public event on DEC property and as such deserves public 
        comment in notes or in public and as such I see no reason for anyone
        accepting your permission or asking for it concerning its insertion 
        in this notes file.



.7 (Jason)
    
>>> From reading the announcement, it is not clear that it is a
>>> DEC employee activity or from a outside "Great ..." organization.
>>> If the title seems not appropriate, please change it, moderater.

It's clear from the announcement that this is a DEC sponsored activity. In 
the first sentance it says that this event is sponsered by the "Marlboro 
Area Valuing Diversity Committee".

*re:88 Its a DEC sponsered activity and so it justifies my first reply.

    
>>> I am not against gay or lesbian. I believe that DEC is doing a good
>>> job in not discriminating them.  However, do you think the time it
>>> proposed is working time?  Should everybody be at work?
>>> I prefer to see this kind of activity be held at non-working time,
>>> at Saturday or Sunday!

I too feel that DEC has made a good effort to stop discrimination against 
LesBiGays here at DEC. But that certainly doesn't mean that LesBiGays don't 
face harassment and offensive comments and behavior. I know because I've 
witnessed this myself.

Why shouldn't this be done on working time? DEC sponsers other Valuing
Diversity events on working time. DEC also sponsors live telecasts with
some of the top executives in the company (KO and company). People who go
to watch this aren't working. Why should DEC be doing that? 

*re:88 Your actions in sponsoring or condoning this event on company 
       property or else where is offensive to me. I flatly could care less 
       what your feelings towards my inner emotions about this event are.
       I do not condone what to me is a totally repulsive activity and
       lifestyle.
    
>>> Homosexual is as controversial as religion.  As long as every DEC
>>> employee can understand the difference and tolerate each other.  It
>>> will be nice.   

If every DEC employee could treat every other employee the same free from
discrimination then there probably wouldn't be a need for the whole Valuing
Diversity program. But, being human beings, we're not perfect and do carry 
around our own personal biases.

*re:88 You are correct that we are not perfect and do carry around our own
       personal biases. I have to work with many people while on company
       property that I would not socialize with when I'm off the job. 
       Many just because I don't agree with their views or have nothing
       in common with them, mostly in my own race. No committee or company
       P&P will affect my feelings only my actions on company property. As
       far as the Valuing Differences group goes I'm tired of listening to 
       the bull how we're responsible for our forfathers actions in past
       history and how they affected you or other groups past history. My 
       grand parents immagrated into this country from Norway and Denmark 
       on both sides of my family and I have no guilt about my families past.



    
.12 (Al)

>>> These type of meetings or displays on company property during normal
>>> business hours can be very distracting and create tensions both now and
>>> later which have no place in the normal business environment. These
>>> gatherings are fine for off company property. 

Do you have data to back up this statement? Valuing Diversity programs are 
done all over the company all the time and I've never heard of any of them 
"being distracting" or "creating tensions". 

*re:88 Just what do you think the conversations in this conference are showing?
       I do not need DATA to feel the increased tension in this conference
       since this topic started. Any puplic display or gathering around me
       of which I do not agree with is both destracting and offensive 
       especially if I was trying to enjoy my lunch. I used to work in
       Marlboro for 2 years. It would have offended me then and does now.


>>> To say any one position is wrong varies with your upbringing and you have
>>> that right to your feelings and opinions concerning the various topics
>>> related to this discussion, but you have to allow me my right to dissagree
>>> with your position and feelings in a manner just as strong and determined
>>> as you are allowed. 

Yes, you are free to express your opinions here.    


*re:88 Thank you.

     
.14 (Tim)

>>> Sexual orientation is not a point of view.  People have no more choice
>>> about their sexual orientation then they do about their skin color.  No
>>> once 'chooses' to be gay, and given the type of oppression and
>>> discrimination they face, I can't imagine why anyone ever would.

Well said, Tim! My sexual orientation is not a *choice*.

*re:88 I don't believe any one twisted your arm and you have yet to 
       convience it was predetermined by your DNA material. YES it was 
       your choice.

   
    
.18 (Dick)


>>> It's a big mistake for the VD people (how appropriate) to get involved
>>> with a PC issue.  I, and a lot of people like me, do not want to hear
>>> how proud they are, and I don't want to have it shoved in my face.....
>>> particularly when I'm trying to eat.  Give 'em a corner of the lawn
>>> somewhere, but not in a DEC building.

No one is shoving anything in your face. The booth we will have on the 
awareness day will not be located near the lunch tables and therefore 
anyone eating lunch will not be able to see or hear us.

*re:88 The fact that someone even has to put up with one or the other
       special interest groups advertising on company property is 
       offensive to me. I do not like being bothered by zelots at 
       the airport or any other place where I have to cercomevent their
       location to get where I want to go. These type of activities
       are in themselves distracting no matter what their reason.
    
>>> This is a religious/morale/lifestyle(or lack thereof)issue, and has no
>>> business hiding under the VD protective umbrella.  Personally, I will
>>> take no part in any VD activities ever again.  They have seriously
>>> soiled themselves.  If anyone thinks their real agenda is not to get
>>> full bennies for their unmarried "life-mates" you're kidding yourself.

This is not a "religious/moral/lifestyle" issue. This is an issue about one 
minority group that exists in the world and here at DEC. If you don't want 
to take part in a Valuing Diversity program *then don't*. Do one is making 
you.

*re:88 Every time one turns around all you see is a letter or poster
       or news style paper or survey conducted by yours or similiar groups
       on how we should think or act concerning one or the other group.
       When you ask questions in your (generic) surveys the only things you 
       use the answers for is how to throw them back in our face. Have 
       you ever thought why you never had 100% response in your surveys.
       Maybe we don't agree with the topic and don't want to be badgered
       with the after affect.





.24 (Al)

>>> re:-1 It takes more then bigotry but yes maybe some anger when you refer
>>> to one of two groups of people who are costing this country billions
>>> each year in medical cost just so you or people like you can carry on a
>>> live style of your choosing. 

I'm not choosing any lifestyle. I'm sure the heterosexual people at DEC 
cost the company billions upon billions in health care each year.


>>> These are prodominently homosexuals and
>>> drug addicts. Any one who puts other people or themselves at risk just 
>>> so they can carry on a life style of their choosing is totally
>>> disgraceful. 

Anyone who has sex risks catching a STD. 

*re:88 For the last two replies concerning both groups.
       Yes but when I had my two recent back surgeries I did not have
       to worry about my lifestyle affecting the nations blood supply
       and transmitting to me or anyone else AIDS or any other desease 
       in any blood transfusions I or others may have had. I regularly
       donate blood and get tested for AIDS not because of my actions
       but because of others.

>>> You want me to feel sorry or sympathetic with your cause
>>> and then cover you in medical benifites when you get AIDS you can stick
>>> it where the son don't shine. Your group has a notes conference just
>>> for your way of thinking. I don't get in your conference and put you
>>> down there so keep your irresponsible and lothsome ideas out of this
>>> conference. 

You don't *own* this conference. The notesfiles at DEC are open to 
everyone.

*re:88 Your right I don't own this conference but I have as much right as
       you to voice my openion and or disapproval about any topic in this 
       conference.



>>> There's a whole lot more then bigotry involved with the feelings towards
>>> the above groups and more and more people are feeling it as more people
>>> outside those groups are affected. This topic has got way off the original
>>> topic and will continue to be so until those concerned return to their own
>>> conference. You wanted it in public (ie. the lunch room) well you got it
>>> started in a public conference. Thats why it needs to be kept off of the
>>> company property. 
    
Huh? Who wanted this in public? I'm the author of the announcement in
1616.0 but I  didn't post this note in this conference. I posted the
announcement of the awareness day in 3 different notesfiles. I didn't
intend for it to be cross-posted all over the place. 

*re:88 As I said before this is a public DEC sponsered event by you
       according to your previous statement as such this is a public
       not restricted notes file and this topic as such has been
       discussed.
    
>>> I agree that a Digital cafeteria is no place to flaunt who or what you
>>> choose to have sex with.  This is not a college campus; there are NOT
>>> condom dispensers in the bathrooms (yet); and we don't get to complain
>>> about what bogus special interest group our student fees are supporting. 

We're not handing out condoms and we're not flaunting anything. 

*re:88 By the presents of a group sponsored by DEC such as this on company
       property it is flaunting the lifestyle of a group which is totally 
       offensive to many people. 

.56

>>> If this "orientation" was scientifically proven to be a natural
>>> occurrence, more people would take it seriously.  It has not been
>>> proven to be anything other than a voluntary choice.

It certainly wasn't a choice for me. In fact I choose to live the 
heterosexual lifestyle for many years. Many very frustrating and unhappy 
years. Why do you think so many people would "voluntarily" subject 
themsevles to discrimination and oppression? 

*re:88 You voluntarily choose a heterosexual life and you just as
       voluntarily choose your present way of life. You were not born a 
       heterosexual as you were not born a g/l/b. It was YOUR choice.
.60

>>> There have been no studies (that I know of) on voluntary choice, but
>>> there have been on genetics.  I base it on common sense.  It's a fact that 
>>> man has free will and alternate sexual orientations are a choice.

Studies have been done. The most well-known one is the Kinsey Report which 
estimated that 10% of the world's population is homosexual. I was born a 
homosexual: I had no control over that. 

*re:88 Again you use "born as" to suit your paticular phrase or 
       justification and contradict your previous statement as far as
       choice.

.72 (Steve)

>>> Don't attend?  Don't you mean, "don't go to the cafeteria on that day"?
>>> Don't I have any right to chowing down without having to be reminded of
>>> how I need to be tolerant of those who want to let me know what they do 
>>> with people of the same sex?  Well, you may have more rights than I do.
>>> I'll for sure be eating lunch at my terminal, thank you.

No need to eat at your terminal, Steve. Like I said earlier the booth will 
be set up away from the tables so that it won't disturb anyone who's trying 
to eat.

And what's wrong with letting others know that you care for, love, respect 
people of the same sex.

*re:88 Keep it off the work environment. Work and its surroundings should 
       be conducive to the work ethic and this type of activity just
       distracts and disrupts the daily work activity.



>>> However, persons race is not a matter of individual preference
>>> or style.

Neither is a person's sexual orientation.

*re:88 Your sex at birth is not your control but your parents. Your
       sexual leaning or preference is your control.

    Re .55:
    
    > I think it's important here to remember that alcohol-related deaths and
    > critical injuries are, by far, costing this country's taxpayers
    > billions each year in medical costs as well....not to mention smoking
    > and obesity.

    Smoking does not cost society money; the costs are borne by smokers. 
    The costs of medical treatments for smokers are outweighed by the
    tobacco taxes they pay and the savings realized because they do not
    live to collect as much in retirement benefits, according to a study
    reported on in _Scientific American_ within the past two years or so.
    
    
    				-- edp

Re: <<< Note 1616.88 by VINO::LANGELO "Fluffy Flirting Outlaw" >>>

.88>I personally know several closeted gay/bisexual people who work at this
.88>company and live in fear of losing their job or being discriminated
.88>against on a *daily* basis.  Being closeted is very stressful I know
.88>because I went through it myself.  I watched a couple of these people
.88>slowly start to come out at work *because* of the VoD work that has been
.88>done here at DEC and they are happier and more productive because of it.

This supports my earlier suggestion... let's have the VoD folks come to
each facility and make a presentation and then all of the Bi/Les/Gay
people can 'come out'. We'll put this issue to rest and move on to more
critical business related matters.

Agreed?

Lee

    Re .88:
    
    > Valuing Diversity programs are  done all over the company all the
    > time and I've never heard of any of them  "being distracting" or
    > "creating tensions".
    
    If you have never heard of them being distracting, then you have not
    been paying attention.  Every year, there are carolers who go around
    the office areas here singing Christian songs while people are trying
    to work.  The ZKO cafeteria has been used for playing promotional tapes
    -- loudly, on a large-screen television -- or for performances by
    singers (with a cause, and some oration, if I recall correctly).  These
    were not only distracting but actually displaced a number of people's
    regular eating area.
    
    The issue is not whether homosexuality is a choice or not.  The manner
    in which the alleged "Valuing Differences" programs are presented is
    nothing less than attempted indoctrination.  That is the issue.  I
    support promoting tolerance, but the establishment (Digital, in this
    case) is not promoting tolerance.  The programs we are subjected to
    today are not about tolerance; they are attempts to induce beliefs.
    
    That is rude and intolerant.
    
    Digital has an interest in moderating the behavior of its employees at
    work.  Some good can be achieved by this.  Employees at work should
    treat each other respectfully, regardless of their differences.
    
    However, Digital should treat its employees respectfully.  Digital
    should recognize that each and every employee has a right to their
    beliefs.  Every employee should be permitted to THINK that homosexuals
    are perverted, as long as they do not ACT offensively toward
    homosexuals.  Every employee should be permitted to THINK that
    heterosexuals are bigots as long as they do not ACT offensively toward
    homosexuals.
    
    The climate we are in today does not support diversity.  The climate
    today does not support beliefs that differ from the official line. 
    People who disagree with the official line are suppressed.  They are
    told that they are bad, or even that they are guilty (for things they
    have never done).  That is not valuing differences.  The people behind
    these movements appear unwilling to accept differences.  It appears
    they will not be satisfied until everybody displays right-thinking.
    
    That is bad.  That is not good for society.  That intolerance creates
    friction and hatred.
    
    Valuing Differences programs could be good.  But as they are
    implemented today, they are bad.  They are attempts at indoctrination. 
    They are attempts at mind control.  They oppose freedom.  They oppose
    tolerance.  They censor.  They oppose critical thinking.
    
    Digital should not support this.
    
    
    				-- edp

>       <<< Note 1616.90 by ALIEN::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

>    Smoking does not cost society money; the costs are borne by smokers. 
>    The costs of medical treatments for smokers are outweighed by the
>    tobacco taxes they pay and the savings realized because they do not
>    live to collect as much in retirement benefits, according to a study
>    reported on in _Scientific American_ within the past two years or so.
    
Tobacco taxes pay for medical treatment for smokers, do they?

Do tobacco taxes also pay for medical treatment for non smokers who
inhale secondary smoke ? I'm thinking in particular of the 3,800
Americans who die each year from cancers caused by secondary smoking.

Craig.

Note: The source of the 3,800 figure is a report by the US Environmental
      Protection Agency, published in May 1990.

| Now, you set up a booth that I'm going to walk by on the way to lunch.
| Likely, you're a stranger.  I'm about to have lunch.  We've not even
| gotten to the point where we are going to sit down together and you
| want to talk about sex.  I mean, homoSEXuality does bring sex to mind.
| BiSEXuality does, too.  That's bad manners.

	If the sex part of homosexual and bisexual make you think of sex, then
it is you who should take the initiative to find out what it really means.
There are many people here who are telling you a different view, but it doesn't
seem to matter. You are happy with your own view, a view that was put together
without ever knowing the homosexual or bisexual as people, but as a sex driven
group. The fact that you wouldn't even want to take the time to test your
theory is puzzling though. If you're so sure that sex is all there is to us,
why not do a study or something to back what you say and not just spout off
without really thinking? Because, by what you are saying, the heteroSEXual is
based on nothing but sex. Do you really believe that?

| Forget about it being specifically sex or religion or politics.  Any of
| those kinds of topics seem inappropriate between strangers in the
| lunch room.  Now, maybe to a gay person it seems like every person is
| a heterosexual (heterophobia? - I don't know what the term du jour is).
| But, folks sitting at the table with no signs aren't trying to strike
| up conversations with strangers about sex, religion or politics.  

	No one has to. No one wants you to. But if you're not interested in
listening to how others really are (this can go further than just lesbigays), 
and would rather stay in your own little world, that's fine. But for those who
have more of an open mind, they will attend. 

	One question I have though, why is there a problem? Isn't this being
done during lunch? Why is there a problem?



Glen

    I would like to expand on some points I made in .92.
    
    If a person were to set up a table at lunch and attempt to educate
    people to the fact that homosexuality is a choice and end the myth that
    it is not, then Digital should not support this person.
    
    Similarly, if a person were to set up a table at lunch and attempt to
    educate people to the fact that homosexuality is not a choice and end
    the myth that it is, then Digital should not support this person.
    
    The issue here is not whether homosexuality is or is not a choice or is
    or is not perverted or is or is not a good thing.  The issue is that
    nobody has any place attempting to foist these things on employees, and
    that is exactly what some people are trying to do.
    
    If any employee is allowed to say homosexuality is natural, then any
    other employee ought to be allowed to say homosexuality is unnatural. 
    Such statements should be given equal opportunity, in appropriate
    forums.  An appropriate forum is a Notes conference where opinions are
    discussed and where the subject of the conference encompasses these
    issues.  A display table at a cafeteria is an inappropriate forum.
    
    It is bad enough that Digital permits such attempts at persuasion to be
    made while employees want to relax and eat.  This is made worse by the
    censorship that is imposed.  Campaigns favoring acceptance of
    homosexuality are allowed.  A campaign opposing acceptance of
    homosexuality would certainly be censored.
    
    Where there is no opportunity for listening to both sides, there is no
    opportunity for critical and rational thinking.  There is then no means
    to arrive at a correct decision.  The result is indoctrination.
    
    
    				-- edp

Just wanted to add a few feelings from the "retread" prospective...

I have seen Valuing Differences programs in the late seventies to early
eighty, then not again until late eighties - of course, I have also seen
the cultural changes at DEC at the same time.

While it's true that stereotypes and ignorance were much more a part of
the early DEC culture, so was wanting to be better than the society at
large.  I remember many times telling family, friends, etc. that they
couldn't judge communitites by the DEC facilities in them, because DEC
employees really tried to help each other and understand each other
more.  "Inside" was better than "outside."

I have led most of my DEClife thinking that DEC was BETTER.

I am very sad today.  Once of the places that *I think* we have come is
to be no different than the outside world.  That may be sufficient or even
preferable for some of you, but I always wanted DEC to be better.  It has
been a great source of pride that I hate to lose.

Barb

    RE: .15
    
    >I just want to if Digital would let me hold a "People who like to
    >sleep with small furry mammals Outing Day"  in our cafeteria. 
    
    Well, Digital does sponsor a Kennel Club, but the small furry mammal
    that sleeps with me would probably not qualify for participation.
    

	If nothing else, this discussion is an excellent demonstration
	of exactly *why* there is a need for "valuing diversity"
	events.

	The idea behind the event (as I understand it) is you might 
	see someone there who you've known, respected, even liked 
	for years. You might compare what you know of their character, 
	with the preconceptions you hold about what homosexual people 
	are like. You might find that those preconceptions don't 
	stand up to the light of day any more. Then again, you might
	ignore your personal experience and choose to change your
	opinion of the person. That's your choice - just don't let
	it get in the way of working effectively with that person.

	The benefit to Digital? As pointed out, more comfortable
	people means more productive people. Also, if the people
	within Digital who deal with customers aren't carrying around
	these outmoded preconceptions about gays, they're less likely
	to make fools of themselves (and Digital) when they notice
	the photo of, say, a male customer's bearded SO. The point
	is to get used to the idea that there are homosexual and
	bisexual people all around, and that it's not something
	which should effect how you treat people at work (well, I
	don't think it should effect how you treat people anywhere,
	but that's beyond Digital's interests).

	An analogy - especially in recent years, Christians have gained the
	stereotype of always being judgemental, trying to force
	their religious views on others. I know that many Christians
	quietly lead Christian lives, concentrate on their own
	salvation, and leave the judgement of others to God - but
	the stereotype created by vocal Christian political groups
	stigmatizes all of them. I think a cafeteria booth for Christians
	to "come out", and show to those that hold the stereotype that
	being a Christian doesn't necessarily make one a raving
	book-burner, would be quite illuminating (and appropriate
	for the Valueing Diversity program).

	Mike

    
    I haven't read all of the replies but I have read most. First let me
    state that I support any person's right to believe as they wish and to
    speak freely in any public forum about those beliefs. I am not offended
    by gay people nor do I fear them. I simply don't agree with their
    lifestyle. I also believe that Digital property is not the proper place
    to be staging events of a moral/social nature. Next week we'll have the
    pro-life groups staging Right-to-Life month events in Mass. facilities.
    It's one thing for these groups to use Digital facilities to
    advertise/promote public events. It's another thing all together to
    stage them on DEC property.
    

    
    I have to agree with EDP.  Digital has an interest in our behavior, not
    our beliefs.  Indirect attempts to modify behavior by modifying beliefs
    are not appropriate.  Direct attempts to modify behavior by providing
    sanctions are.
    
    Translated:  [flame on]
    
    Fire me if I discriminate or otherwise violate another's rights by my
    behavior!  By the way, those rights do NOT include a right to influence
    my thinking in any way.  The company can direct my behavior.
    
    Keep your cotton-picking hands off my brain!  The ultimate in violation
    of privacy is any attempt at changing beliefs.  No person, private or
    public, may invade that domain without a fight.
    
    That's the way I am, and I won't change.
    
    [flame off]
    
    Dick

    
    I think you're failing to discrminate between something you have to
    attend (or even passively participate in) and something that happens to
    be going on in the facility for those who choose to attend.
    
    If a book is on a shelf, you can choose to read it or not.  Its
    existence does not constitute an attempt to change your beliefs or
    infiltrate your brain.
    
    These events are like the book on the shelf.  You can choose to
    participate, or totally ignore them.  If you totally ignore them, no
    interaction occurs.
    
    I too would object to being forced to participate in any Valuing
    Differences event, even passively.  (I don't consider seeing people
    across a large room or in a hallway talking quietly to other interested
    people passive  or involuntary participation on my part.)
    
    Prayer meetings, kennel clubs, sports organizing, college recruiting,
    and volunteer recruiting regularly occur in the facility.  Like the VoD
    events, all are directed only to those who express an interest.  I
    don't remember ever having been "invaded" or offended by the
    coexistence of such events.
    
    You are supposed to vote with your feet here...why is that so
    threatening to so many people?
    
    Holly

    Well, that certainly got you all riled up!  
    
    Here's hoping all that passion and energy is going into your work now.
    
    Thank heavens there's no Valuing Diversity program in the UK - my
    nerves couldn't stand it!
    
    We are all diverse here, and totally undervalued.

 I have been reading through the replies to this note and must admit I am
rather distressed at the magnitude of hatred and bigotry that is being
expressed here. It is a frightening prospect to think of the example being
set here. In a time when I had hoped that people were learning more about
tolerance and acceptance I see these entries and I cannot help but ask..Why?

 It is my hope and belief that events such as this will help to alleviate
the kind of things I have read here today. I cannot comprehend why anyone
would be adverse to all people being allowed the same rights. The right to live
their life as they choose without fear and with pride and dignity, as I
assume each of you do.

 Part of that for me is to be allowed to be open about who I am and
not have to cloak my life in secrecy. I am not asking for "special
treatment" I am however asking to be treated the same way as anyone else
here would like to be treated, with decency and respect for who I am as a
person and a co-worker.

 I have worked for DEC for over 10 years and in that time I have received a
number of awards for my work and efforts for the company. I also, in that
time, have been subjected to harassment by fellow employees. I have been
pleased to see the steps this company is taking to make the work place 
more supportive and comfortable for ALL employees and to help educate
(through programs like VoD), so that there is no room for hatred, bigotry
or harassment. 

 I wonder whether the people here, who have expressed their "disgust",
would feel differently if they had to worry about their "lifestyle" being a
cause for getting fired, being denied a place to live, being harassed or
threatened with physical harm. Would they then be a little more willing to
want to educate people in order to stop the same hatred they now seem to
expound themselves??

    
Aileen

RE: .76

>In my 15+ years of employment at DEC I have never had a single instance
>of another DEC employee sharing 'myths and lies about gay, lesbian and
>bisexual people'. Is this a widespread phenomenon at Digital?

Well, it sure seems to be a widespread phenomenon in the replies to
this note.

I have read most, if not all of the replies here and now would like to put
my 2 cents in. I too can now understand why the gay community feels that
it is necessary to have an awareness day.
I have to admit that I know and have encountered some of those employees
who have admitted to being gay and was honestly surprised to learn that
they are. What does that say? I don't know, I don't feel that I'm naive.
I think it says that except for their sexual preference that they are
just like me, human beings. They certainly didnt do anything to attract 
attention to their homosexuality. Do I feel different about them now? I dont 
think so, I certainly hope that I don't/won't. Do I feel threatened by them or 
their homosexuality? No!
Have I seen members of the gay community being harrassed, fired or discrimated
against here in DEC. No! but, that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened.
Do I think homosexuality is being "thrown up at my face" or "shoved down my
throat" No!. Would I take advantage of such VoD offerings if one was held at 
my site? Probably not.
What do I think this "awareness day" will accomplish? Very little, it may give
some of the gays a chance to meet others like themselves, it also may make
them a little more comfortable at work, I don't know. It may also give some
heterosexuals who are inclined, a chance to learn more, and thats good.
However, If a major goal of the organizers is to change behavior of bigots
within DEC, I believe that this will be a major failure because simply put
bigots won't attend. Furthermore, its the bigots that the gays have to fear
not those straights that choose to attend. IMHO
Do I care that DEC is letting this event go on? No... As long as I'm not told
that I must attend. Its that simple! I also can't understand the opposition
to it. I think the idea that recruitment or that the sexual acts will be
going on at this event is:

  1. Sad
  2. Absurd
  3. Just has no basis in fact


Thanks for listening, I'll leave now

- George

    I don't believe my point in .75 was understood...
    
    Following the logic that those against this event taking place on
    Digital property are using, they should also be protesting against the
    even more intrusive christmas celebrations that are shoved down every
    employees' throat every December. To me, this is extremely insensitive
    to me and my beliefs and the beliefs of alot of other Digital employees
    that I know.
    
    My point is that if you accept one event on Digital property, you need
    to accept the other. You don't have to agree with either 'event', you
    just have to realize that you can't have it your way (subjecting
    everyone to the 'christmas propaganda') and then prevent others from having 
    it their way (preventing the event in .0 from being held for but one
    day).
    
    Either both are okay, or both are not.
    
    

    re:104  And just what do you use to back up your conviction as to this
            being a widespread event? By the replies in this converence?
            The replies in this conference are from a VERY SMALL yet 
            vocal group, both pro and con  within a company of 117000 
            people or so. We're talking about some minute part of (less
            then .1% or 117 people) the total population in DEC. Last I 
            saw this conference had only 104 replies. Don't confuse facts 
            and fiction. If you are abused or harressed in the work place
            that is wrong. But whether we work together or not we all have
            our own wiewpoints and openions both pro and con and neither
            party is likely to change the other parties mind set. Each of 
            us is locked into our own private world and neither is going
            to budge from that position. Working together and agreeing with
            one anothers lifestyle are two different and separate things.
            One can be regulated and controller by others and the other can 
            not.
    
    Regards
    

| <<< Note 1616.100 by PULPO::BELDIN_R "Pull us together, not apart" >>>
| -< Distinguish between behavior and belief modification >-


| By the way, those rights do NOT include a right to influence
| my thinking in any way.  

	Like the Red Sox winning the world series, it won't happen anytime
soon. ;-) Think about it Dick, can anyone really influence your thinking. there
are some who can be influenced when they look at the whole picture, and some
who don't really form any opinion and just go with the flow, and then there are
head strong people. People who have their views, and don't really want anyone
tampering with their way of thinking. Their views are correct and shouldn't be
influenced. This is where I see you fitting in. I seriously (on this subject
anyway) can't see anyone ever influencing your way of thinking. One reason is
you are dead set against ever changing your mind, so you seem to refuse to
listen to what anyone has to say. You have had both straight and gay people try
to explain things to you, but the end result is you don't want to listen.
That's fine, but if you don't want to open your mind up to what others are
saying and see people for people and not as a label, why participate?

| Keep your cotton-picking hands off my brain!  The ultimate in violation
| of privacy is any attempt at changing beliefs. 

	Then the Spanish Inquisitions were the right thing to do? Slavery was
ok? Using shock treaments on mental patients is ok? I somehow don't think you
care for any of these (I don't know for sure though). But all of these things
were once considered the "in" thing to do, the "correct" way to think. It
wasn't until people started to voice their opinions on it that others started
to listen. Some of the things took fighting to correct, but the end result was
the right thing was done. People were made to listen, and some even saw what
they were doing WAS wrong.

	Also, can anyone tell me why everytime I come into this file the name
of this topic changes? Geeze! Can't one name be enough? ;-)


Glen

It seems to me that the obvious situation of how Valuing Differences
relates to our company's ability to be successful is always missed.

I do clearly hope that some of the more vehement - and positively
rude, speaking of the art of politeness - replies in this string
are not part of the attitude of any of our sales force.  It makes
me wonder how many opportunities we may have lost by turning off
customers with folks who simply cannot hide their bigotry.

What would you do if you walked into a customer account and saw that
they were having a g/l/b awareness day?  Tell them you think it's
digusting?  Walk away?

It's also not that simple or doesn't have to be that obvious, folks. 
People's underlying feelings and assumptions mark their behavior 
whether they vocalize their feelings or not.  Don't think for one
moment that people who are familiar with being ridiculed don't know
what's in your mind.

You cannot separate your attitudes from your work.  If you think you
can, that is the only thing that marks you as foolish.

Barb 

	Dick, you have as your personal name:

"Pull us together, not apart" >>>



	The question is, what does that mean to you? From your notes in hear it
sounds more like you are trying to do the opposite. Curious.



Glen

I didn't realize we have so many intolerant employees. Well, live and learn, 
I guess.

Valuing Diversity Day is not about sex. It's about human beings. It's about
human beings communicating. 

Not everyone is a white Christian male. There are many people whose lives have
been made more difficult because they have different beliefs from the majority,
or belong to a different sex, race, religion, age group, ethnic group, or have
a handicap of one sort or another. During Valuing Diversity day a group of
Digital employees will tell others who want to listen what it has been like for
them to be different from the majority. 

Would you be upset if, during Valuing Diversity,  a group of blind employees
told you about their experiences? Would you expect them to tell you how they
have sex? Would you be upset if a group of Black employees told you about their
experiences?  Would you expect them to tell you how they have sex? How about
one-parent families? Why should it be any different for any other group? 

It would be a very dull world if we were all alike. The United States already
is a diverse mix of many ethnic groups, including Japanese and other Asians,
Latin Americans, Africans, Buddhists, Muslims, and many others. White Christian
males will soon be a minority group in this country, and there will be no
one dominant group.  

We will all have to get on together. You better learn to live with it. Start
today. It would be even better if you learned to thrive on it.

Bruce

re .106:

>>  ... intrusive christmas celebrations that are shoved
    down every employees' throat every December. 

Why is it that you choose to emphasize a point by attacking
a holiday celebrated by hundreds of millions of people
each year... also, the correct spelling of the word is 
Christmas, not christmas.

    What is this company coming to....
    
    Signed,
    
    You know who won't be at MRO1 on October 11

Why did you change the title of this note from "Valuing Diversity Day at MRO" to
"Homosexual Awareness Day ..."?

Is there any reason except to stir up even more controversy? Do you enjoy making
people upset?

Bruce

re: .112

>re .106:

>> >>  ... intrusive christmas celebrations that are shoved
>>    down every employees' throat every December. 

>Why is it that you choose to emphasize a point by attacking
>a holiday celebrated by hundreds of millions of people
>each year... also, the correct spelling of the word is 
>Christmas, not christmas.

Oh please, its not Christmas that was being attacked, if that is
the correct term to use. It was the celebration of Christmas, by
Christians, in DEC, during work hours, when non-Christians were
working and are forced to listen to it all. It doesn't just happen
in the cafe, during lunch, sometimes carolers roam the building
during the day. I have always wondered how uncomfortable it made
all the Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc, etc. when a celebration of
a holiday celebrated by the majority was made sooooo prevalent.

But, let a minority want to hold a forum of some kind and ...
well, you can see for yourself. "Peace and good will toward men" 
indeed!

    This ranting and raving about intolerance towards gay/bi/les is
    becoming itself a flagrant display of intolerance with a smattering of 
    hypocrisy and arrogance.  I'm also in the camp of folks that greatly
    resents and will resist any attempt to promulgate indoctrination, even
    though it apparently has Digital's stamp of approval.  It's getting to 
    where any time I see a VoD memo I automatically think gay/bi/lesbian.  
    As I have learned about and already rejected the practices (though not the 
    people, I have friends who are gay) associated with this lifestyle (or
    whatever the term is du jour), I fail to be intimidated by thoughtless 
    insults to my integrity and "open-mindedness".
    
    So ... pthththth!  (Take that with a grain of salt ...  my humor is
    finally returning)  ;^)
    
    Steve

    As an addendum to .115, why was the note titled changed?  Pls modify it
    to G/L/B Awareness Day at MRO, or simply back to the umbrella title of 
    "Valuing Diveristy...".  The "Homosexual" title is not applicable to
    the event.
    
    Regards,
    Buck

    A long way back, I asked what policy defines access to Digital
    facilities.  The implied answer appears to be that the local Valuing
    Diversity committee can invite outside participation in a Digital
    facility if it feels that it supports the valuing of diversity.

    I'll echo some comments made by edp earlier: Something that solely
    reminds us of Digital's policy which prohibits discrimination on the
    basis of sexual orientation is one thing.  What we're talking about is
    something else.

    The point of the replies here and I assume the actual demonstration in
    the Marlboro cafeteria is the moralistic and political agenda that goes
    beyond discrimination-on-the-basis-of-sexual-orientation. The Marlboro
    cafeteria is not a first amendment public forum, I'm quite surprised
    that this is triumphed for being "controversial".

    That's just the point, blind people, black people and other minorities
    don't carry the agenda of convincing people that their behavior is a
    matter of choice, and a choice which is morally corrupt and perverted.
    Item 1 on the gay and lesbian moralistic agenda is reversing that
    majority-held belief.
    
    A forum which grants people the opportunity to change my point of view
    to match theirs, and doesn't reciprocate with the opportunity to change
    their point of view to mine is fundamentally unfair.  Beyond the VAX
    Notes Conferences, I can't see Digital wanting to support public first
    amendment forums in its facilities.

        Re all.
    
    Where is our focus as a company?  Look at the replies to the last ten
    notes.  This one, so far has 121.  Others, about NMS and the 9000 have
    under 10.  To hell with "valuing differencess"!  If someone is stupid
    enough to force his/her beliefs on someone else, fire them.  If someone
    is stupid enough to discriminate, fire them.  We are supposed to be a
    bunch of highly educated, progressive people here.  If we really need
    all this VD stuff, we do not have the "culture" we think we have and we
    are not the progressive people we profess to be.  Are we
    hypocrits??(sp?). 
    
    How about "valuing business" for a change!!!!!
    

 To:  Mr. Lennard, Root, Pitt, and all the other "right minded people" who 
      are trying to prevent us from meeting as provided by Digital policy.

 I have seen your notes in SOAPBOX, WOMANNOTES, and almost every other forum 
 where the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual employees of Digital have had the temerity
 to discuss any gay issue; positive or otherwise.  

 They are characterized by a total unwillingness to engage in any sort of
 respectful dialog, and often contain extremely personal attacks and blatent
 insults.  IMO, you are most welcome to your opinions---clearly no amount of
 reason will even dent your pre-conceptions that we (non-heterosexual
 employees) have nothing to offer.  You insist on defining us by your twisted
 fantasies about our sexual activities, which for Mr. Lennard generally end up
 in the lower large intestine.  An appropriate venue for such things. 

 On a more upbeat note, I would like to thank all of you for giving DEC such a
 clear and obvious reason for having just the sort of events that are being
 discussed here...some have made the case that our "community" only exists as
 a reaction to people like you.  To the extent that is true, I thank you.

 Folks like you vociferously defended your rights to be sexist, racist and so
 on...in the long run it didn't matter.  I don't care if you're PC; think and
 do as you please.  Just learn how to deal with the results of adopting the 
 label "bigot" with some grace.

 I find your public postings of gay sterotypes a direct insult to hundreds of
 your fellow employees who are trying to treat you with respect and who you
 refuse to acknowledge. Great position guys, a real winner. 

 -Larry

Wow what a concept .121!
Unfortunately that won't fly. Too many "warm fuzzies" are needed to get through
a business day. 

With all the combined knowledge about what book, what chapter, page and section
could squash that thinking, it would be prudent just to smile and say, "Have a 
nice day" and quietly do what suits you whilst not offending others.

As said, nobody forces anyone to attend. However the VaD course was obligatory 
to my last group! It actually had folk questioning if we had differences? Heck, 
we hadn't noticed that singles, black, Hispanic, Canadian, English,  married, 
divorced, parents, unmarried parents and folk born in Indiana were amongst us! 
Sacre Bleu! This will never do:-)

However.....
It backfired on them. Never mind. It gainfully employed those folk who thrive 
on distributing warm fuzzies for a while....
We were a well mixed group and carried on being the same old buddies that we 
were before they tried to highlight our differences. We were proud of us.

Brian.

    If we're really valuing differences, why not call this "Sexual
    Awareness Day"?  The problem is that with an "ethnic" awareness
    day it's clear you're going to find out about the lifestyle,
    etc of people with that ethnic origin.  Ethnicity carries a lot
    of differentiation between people and clearly we all have something
    to learn about other cultures.
    
    Homosexuality has a very simple definition with almost no ambiguity.
    Any other attributes or lifestyles which are attributed to homosexuals
    are really arbitrary and probably prejudicial.  In fact, I'd guess that
    homosexuals from different parts of the world have only one thing in
    common - they are homosexuals.  How can we possibly value differences
    based on the single criteria of sexual preference?  The only message
    I can possibly see from such a day is that homosexuals have no other
    differences from a heterosexual.  Most people already have a strong
    opinion one way or the other on this already.
    
    If the day were simply "sexual awareness" it might encompass a whole
    set of problems including relationships of people between the same
    and different sexes.
    
    The other ludicrous aspect of this is the fact that the only way I
    could possibly USE any information from such a day is if I knew the
    sexual preference of the people I work with!  Not only do I not have
    this information, but I don't even want to know!  It's none of my
    business!  Telling people about your sexual habits for no good reason
    seems to border on perversion in my opinion.  Even if I did know, it
    wouldn't change a thing, I swear :-).
    
    -steve

| That's just the point, blind people, black people and other minorities
| don't carry the agenda of convincing people that their behavior is a
| matter of choice, and a choice which is morally corrupt and perverted.
| Item 1 on the gay and lesbian moralistic agenda is reversing that
| majority-held belief.

	A majority held belief? Are you for real? It was the majority held
belief that blacks were lesser people and therefor should be slaves, it was the
majority belief that women were second class citizens, it was the majority
belief that witches should be burned at the stake! Gee, these majority belief
rantings went over real well. If a majority view is based on a group of people,
but the people making that view aren't looking at the people themselves but
just the label they have given them, then it's MHO that this is wrong. If you
can't see the person for who they are, then there is something wrong.

| A forum which grants people the opportunity to change my point of view
| to match theirs, and doesn't reciprocate with the opportunity to change
| their point of view to mine is fundamentally unfair.  

	Excuse me, but if I remember correctly, no one is trying to or wants to
challenge your view. You just don't have to show up.



Glen

>    How about "valuing business" for a change!!!!!
    
    Exactly!  DEC's financial situation is too serious to be wasting
    corporate resources.  Employees everywhere are paranoid!

    RE: Valuing Diversity Policy being equivalent to "indoctrination"
    tactics... and the matter of choice (EDP, Sweeny, & Root)
    
    	Valuing Diversity is an "indoctrination" program?
    
    	What a silly notion.  I think those who believe this are painting
    *ALL* attempts to create an inclusive environment with the same,
    broad brush.  Valuing Diversity events, meetings, 'awareness' days,
    etc... are hardly the intimidating, fascist, "re-education" camps your 
    notes imply.  They are voluntary.  Furthermore, the small amount of
    information provided is EASILY countered (if that is what is bothering
    you) by an obviously loud and hostile segment of society.  In short,
    anyone interested in this issue will be exposed to both sides.
    
    Interestingly, there was a time when I found the nasty insults and 
    accusations (that have popped up every time g/l/b issues have come up in 
    various notesfiles over the past six years) *very* intimidating.  It was 
    nothing short of an attempt by others to use Digital property to 
    "indoctrinate" *me* into a mean-spritied and hateful belief system - in 
    fact, much of the social interaction that goes on both in and out of work 
    is a non-stop "indoctrination" into the heterosexual lifestyle.   
    
    Edp, Mr. Sweeney, do you realize this?   
    
    Who was it who wanted his brain left alone?  Are you listening?  Do you 
    realize you are CONSTANTLY being manipulated and influenced by mainstream, 
    heterosexual culture?
    
    True, the big difference is, that's the way you like it.  It feels
    comfortable to you, natural to you.  You probably don't even think 
    about it.  And that is the key.
    
    Mr Root - I would surmise that a) your heterosexual nature is so 
    fundamental that the very concept of something different never occured to 
    you until you had already been "indoctrinated" into the belief that any 
    divergence from *your* norm was "wrong" - either that, or b) you are 
    hiding something and are being defensive.  If you are not being defensive 
    and honestly believe sexual *orientation* (do you know what that word 
    means by the way?) is a "choice" I would like to know when and how you 
    made the conscious choice to be *attracted* to the opposite sex.  Please 
    note I did not ask when you chose to ACT on that attraction, just when 
    you chose to *be* attracted.  When did you chose to allow your heart to 
    beat a bit faster when that pretty girl in Junior high smiled at you?  
    When did you choose to allow your palms to sweat when she first spoke to 
    you during class break?  When did you choose to have your eyes draw towards 
    that shapely cheerleader in high school?  Seems to me, at the very least,
    millions would love to know how you are able to choose when, where and 
    how you will be *attracted* (physically) to another person, if only to
    completly set aside such feelings when necessary (as opposed to
    *ignoring* or *supressing* such feelings when necessary).
    
    And finally, if it is a choice, could you choose to be attracted to a
    member of the same sex?   Just as an excersise I mean.  You know, 
    pretend there was no social or religious objection.  Could you just
    choose to be attracted to a man?
    
    Yes, these questions are personal and frankly I'd be surprised if
    you answered them.   That is precisely the reason I'm bothered by
    the assertion, by a presumably straight individual, that gay people
    CHOOSE to be gay.  Unless you are willing to examine what that
    assertion implies about yourself, I think you should keep your
    comments to yourself.  At the very least, you should be prepared
    to back up your statement, that is if you want to be taken seriously.
    
    /Greg

    Implicit in your rebuttal to me is that Digital Equipment Corp. properly
    has a role in changing my beliefs.  I deny that it has such a role.

    I'll concede that Digital through VAX Notes conferences allows
    employees to communicate among themselves matters of opinion and
    common interests.  I've been part of this for seven years.
    The policies that apply to voluntary participation in VAX Notes
    employee interest conferences allow one to argue for example, that
    witches should not be burned at the stake and offer people an
    opportunity to rebut that.

    Of course I see the opportunity to "not show up".  As I work in New
    York, that's easily accomplished.  The problem is the monopoly position
    of Digital to permit the use of it's facilities for one side of
    public policy debate to advocate its position.

    It's refreshing to see an acknowledgment that the advocacy here that
    isn't constrained to employee compliance with policy and applicable
    law, and it goes as far as wanting to change my beliefs.
    
    Next time, the company may sponsor some form of public policy advocacy
    that you might disagree with.

    Well, there is one thing for sure in all this.....the Valuing
    Differences folk have surely messed the bed.  No one will ever
    believe again that they haven't sold out completely to a loud,
    PC minority.

    re. .112
    
    Your reply definitely proves my point... You have NO awareness that
    by celebrating christmas (as it is just like any other day in December 
    for me, it doesn't need to be capitalized) on Digital property is truly the
    same thing as the event in .0. I don't like having to be subjected to
    it but I have to learn to live with it as a minority in this company. 
    "So I eat at my desk." But, in return, the events in .0 have as much 
    right to take place on Digital property. So, like I do every December, 
    "Walk right on by their exhibit and eat at your desk." 
    
    You have that choice.
    
    Either Digital does away with ALL such events, or allows all such
    events.
    

    Pat, I'm sure you are well aware that business ROUTINELY 
    engages in public policy advocacy - usually from the powerful
    and not-too-easily-rebutted platform provided by million
    dollar expenditures in mass media.  Your assertion that the
    company does not have a proper role in promoting public policy 
    positions (such as recycling for example) is ludicrous.
    
    /Greg

    re: 1616.130
    
    The specific Digital-sponsored activity that we are talking about has
    as a goal changing private beliefs on matters public policy and
    morality in addition to that of compliance with Digital policy and
    applicable law.
    
    The form of the presentation is one-sided and uncritical.
    
    I resent your guilt by association of me with people who have used
    vulgarity in describing sexual orientation.  The general debate over
    sexual orientation doesn't belong in this conference in any case.
    
    Greg, what's the proper role of Digital in making me believe what you
    believe regarding sexual orientation?

    Let's talk about valuing diversity.
    
    Recently I had a conversation with someone who participated in a
    Digital business activity in an Asian country with a very different
    cultural attitude towards women.  He was asked to exclude any women
    from his working group because, in that culture, if a woman criticizes
    a man, the man's image is so badly damaged as to make him useless to
    the company.
    
    The requestor made his request in the name of valuing diversity, that
    is, valuing a culture which is male-chauvinist.  The person who told
    me the story said that the request was seriously debated and then
    denied by several levels of corporate hierarchy.  The denial was also
    based on valuing diversity, the diversity of the managerial/directorial
    workforce.
    
    So now its out in the open!  Valuing diversity is like soft clay, it
    can be shaped in any way you like with enough rationalization.  There
    is no distinct intellectual content that I can see.
    
    Ultimately, we (Digital) made a decision to value the North American
    culture greater than that Asiatic culture.  We made a decision that if
    a male employee cannot accept the idea of a female peer, the male is
    discardable.  I hasten to add that I am not criticizing that decision,
    I am just pointing out that the deciding element is the set of values
    held by the dominant occidental culture, not any "valuing diversity"
    principle.
    
    The major reason that some of us call things like "valuing diversity"
    by pet names like "warm and fuzzy" or "touchy-feely" is that we sense
    the lack of satisfactory meanings for such terms.  Like a warm
    blanket, they conform to the shape of the body they cover but have no
    form of their own.
    
    Many of us have been trained in scientific disciplines where the use of
    language is a critical part of one's professional behavior.  "Hard",
    "definable" terms are the norm and "soft" terms suggest intellectual
    weakness and indecision.  That is a part of the diversity that those
    trained in the arts and social sciences may find it hard to accept.
    
    For the person who questioned my "Pull us together..." motto, I have
    this to say.  If we didn't have a problem, we wouldn't need a solution. 
    We are fractionated already on geographical, cultural, gender,
    educational, occupational, and linguistic dimensions.  All of these are
    both obvious and relevant to our business.  One's sexual orientation
    is not!  It is and should remain private, not discussed or even
    mentioned at work.  Just because there are differences that affect you,
    doesn't mean that they are improtant to the company's business.  If
    they aren't, leave them at home.
    
    Peace,
    
    Dick

    	First of all, as an involuntary member of the WASP Hetrosexual
    Male clique (WASPHeM), I too share some of the frustrations which have
    been aired here by other [predominantly WASPHeM] noters towards what
    at first glance might appear to be a seemingly endless VoD assault
    mounted by various special interest groups against what some seem
    confident enough to refer to as the majority.  In fact, over the past
    several years I have basically been on the fence about the whole VoD
    program, and given the current economic situation here at DEC, I had
    actually begun to view VoD in the same light that I view other utopian
    social programs (i.e. nice perhaps, but who can afford it).

    	However, something dawned on me in Dick's reply #1616.137, and
    that is that maybe, just maybe... VoD really isn't so much about social
    injustices and vendettas for past wrongs of my ancestors or whatever
    (which the paranoid in a WASPHeM like me might first suspect) as it is
    about getting all of us to learn enough about each other so that we
    can both work together more effectively, as well as perhaps even more
    importantly, to better understand our customers and understand how
    to sell our products better in this wild and crazy world!

    	Face it, few of us at this company are spring chickens.  It is
    highly unlikely that any of us would ever change their minds about
    their sexuality at this late stage of the game, so forget about that
    ever happening.  There are far too many strong personalities who are
    rigidly set in their ways in this company and to think that these
    people could ever even consider changing their views on a subject
    as controversial as their own sexuality would be naive at best, not
    to mention that any attempts to do so would not only be utterly non-
    productive, but it would also be totally inappropriate.

     	Instead what I see now is an untold potential for success *iff*
    we can ever get through this painful period of recognition that this
    medicine is truly necessary for us to ever learn how to succeed in a
    real world which will surely eat a company full of narrow-minded
    individuals for breakfast.  Aside from the glossy warm and fuzzy
    exterior that the various VoD programs provide to Digital's public
    image, there is also something very potentially ingenious about these
    programs from a business point of view.  Not only do these programs
    tend to cover our collective arses (pardon the expression) in terms
    of EEO, and other such human rights laws, but the most potentially
    valuable asset to such a program is the very level of understanding
    which is being so painfully constructed here!

    	It all makes sense now!  It is precisely this level of understanding
    which is going to make it all that much easier for those of us who
    participate in these VoD programs to turn around and use that heightened
    sense of awareness in working together to sell DEC products!  You see,
    it really doesn't matter that we all believe different things, what
    matters is that we all basically agree to disagree and then work to
    understand what the other side is thinking and feeling enough so as
    to then be able to use that knowledge in creating productive teams
    and in leveraging sales!

    	For example, in one of my more amusing careers I was a hollywood
    actor, and while I did get a few bit parts, I could never quite commit
    myself totally to the profession.  Why?  Because as an actor, I was
    expected to be able to show my emotions (i.e. cry) on stage/screen,
    and I could never quite overcome the paranoia of forever being thought
    of as a wimp if someone saw me cry.  As such, I prided myself in my
    protest of such method acting and I never did cry in my auditions.
    I also never got very far in Hollywood and ended up going back to
    school to get a job in computer science instead.  The point is, I
    made the mistake of taking all of those acting workshop exercises too
    personally and as a result, I never really learned how to do the job,
    nor did I ever successfully commit myself to the acting profession.

       I think that by spending all of this energy arguing over religious
    freedoms and intollerances, that we too are missing the point behind
    VoD.  The point with VoD is - you don't have to change your belief
    system, you don't have to like each other, and you don't even have
    to be nice to each other.  What you do need to do is to take the steps
    to learn enough about each other so that we can settle our differences
    and work together effectively, and so that together, we can ultimately
    sell the pants off the competition!  Think about it...

    				   -davo

    RE: .132  by COOKIE::LENNARD 
    
    >Well, there is one thing for sure in all this.....the Valuing
    >Differences folk have surely messed the bed.  No one will ever
    >believe again that they haven't sold out completely to a loud,
    >PC minority.
    
    On what do you base this perception?
    
    There have been some pretty loud voices in this note, but it takes
    more than volume to convince me of validity. 
    

RE: .134

>...but I have never treated you with disrespect in the work place before or
>after I was told by you your individual preferance. That is your right even
>though I don't understand or agree with yours or similar positions. I do not
>wish to be the receiver of an add campaign or indoctronation seminar. If I
>wish to know I will ask. If I don't I won't.

No problem---I'm not looking for validation, just equal rights.

Many of the negative comments about L/B/G awareness come from people who
want to deny my right to publicly declare my sexual orientation.  It's
"disgusting" and so on.  The point has been made numerous times (never
directly responded to, but we keep on trying) that every day is a
heterosexual indoctrination day, and many (but by no means all) of the
people in support of L/B/G awareness have said "Fine, no problem...we want
to be able to talk about our lives too."  Why is *that* such a threat?

On three occasions in the last year, I have had Digtial employees say 
extremely disparaging things to me about homosexuals within the context of 
the workplace, operating under the misconception that "since he's married 
to a woman it's OK to tell my junior high collection of queer jokes."

Oops, these darn bisexuals are *such* a pain...get "AIDS" tattooed on their
arm and put 'em all in a camp somewhere!

Well, then they were "told by me" about my orientation, and you know what?
You're absolutly correct---they don't tell me any more of them.  They still
think 'em, but I don't care because it doesn't affect me.  Of course it
would have been better all around if they had just kept their bigotry in a
bottle, but as long as someone is still willing to embarass twerps like
that in public there's still hope...which may be why so much effort is
being put out to drive gays back into the closet.  

As defined, the event in question has several people sitting under a sign
responding to people who choose to approach and question them about
programs, policies, and resources available to L/B/G's within Digital.  

By your comments, I assume that this meets with your approval.  It allows
those who "want to know" to "ask." It doesn't sound like any sort of
"indoctrination seminar" I've ever heard of.  Am I correct, or are there
any other concerns that you have?

-larry
	

Note 1616.139              G/L/B Awareness Day at MRO                 139 of 141


re:	>Note 1616.24             Homosexual Awareness day at MRO               24 of 120
	>CSOA1::ROOT "North Central States Regional Support"  22 lines  30-SEP-1991 17:56
        >                       -< flame on high >-
You can get information about AIDS from Health Services.  Ignorance hasn't
proven to be a very effective prophylactic.

*re: .139 I've read the glorified literature you call AIDS education from the
         personnel office as well as the material I get from my doctor
         and the center for desease control. You can't even get doctors 
         and health care workers to agree on all the ways you can spread
         the desease. Doctors and health care workers are concerned about
         getting it from patients and whats even of more concern patients 
         getting AIDS from the health care establishment. Prime current
         example the girl who just went before congress to testify about
         how she got AIDS from her dentist as have 3 others from the same
         dentist who by the way is dead now of AIDS. This has been certified
         by the center for desease control. You may not like to hear about it
         or admit it happened but it is fact. My niece is a upper respatory
         therapist and it happens every day where doctors and other health
         care workers refuse to work on AIDS patients because of the chance
         of getting AIDS. If they thought it was so safe and believed it and
         doctors should know, then why won't many handle these patients. The 
         rebuttle is you can only get it according to 3 basic reported ways
         in our glourious literature. That is a crok and no two doctors will
         agree to it. Some say the chances are so small in getting it that it
         is not a concern. Tell that to the one who got it and was handed a 
         blank death certificate and was told to fill in the date himself.
         I don't believe you have the guts to do it. So untell the rest of
         the agencies and american public get concerned enough to control this
         desease it will continue and increase as it is at the moment and
         for the forseable future. Don't lie to me or give me half truths
         when my life is at stake.

Have a good day.
AL ROOT

    Re:142 Larry, don't assume anything. I still don't care for such
    displays in the work place under any pretext and especially to a
    captive audience. Set a room aside where those who care not to see
    don't have to as they pass by. Advertise if you want which I'm sure you
    will but leave those of us who disagree with your lifestyle out of it.
    Saying "you were not invited to this meeting" is not good enough. I 
    have the ability to get along with all types and usually do provided 
    we leave it  to work in a work environment.
    
    
    regards
    AL Root
    

    
    General response to the furor:
    
    An invitation to listen to someone else's perspective 
    is only that: an invitation to listen.   It is not the same thing as 
    being forced to listen or think or act. 
    When a Valuing Diversity invitation to listen is so threatening 
    that you respond with condemnation of the _invitation_, 
    that's a pretty excessive reaction.    
    
    Condemnation is frequently fueled by fear and hate.  When you
    feel yourself condemning the opportunity to listen, it's a flag 
    to ask yourself what exactly it is you fear or hate, and why 
    your feelings are so strong.  What is it you fear losing, or 
    thinking, or feeling?  Do you fear picturing something in your mind?  
    Do you fear other people will force you to feel or think something 
    you don't want to feel or think?   How does it work that an invitation 
    to listen is forcing you?  
    
    Fear, hate, condemnation, and the destruction they cause absorb 
    a lot of lives and energy nonproductively.   But I'll grant you
    they're more instantly relieving and gratifying than the continuing
    excruciating work necessary for compassion.
    
                                  
    
    

    Sigh,
      I wasn't going to get into this one....Ah well.
    
    One more time with feeling - This event is *not* a captive audience
    event, any more than the many other Valuing Differences events have
    been.  It is *merely* a chance for those who would like to know more
    to go to the event, which I understand will be discretely held, to the
    point where it is likely to look like a rather large (I hope) group of
    people having lunch together!
    
    I'm tired of people saying Gay/Bi/Lesbians do not have the same basic
    rights as the "straight" population.  We cannot talk of loved ones
    without fear of reprisial, judgement (of which there is plently of
    evidence right here in this file), actual violence and discrimination,
    both overt and covert.  All this seminar is trying to do is to show
    people the many different ways that the dominant culture hurts Gay/
    Bi/Lesbians without *even* knowing that it is being done.  Is it so
    much to ask that we be allowed to educate *those who wish to be
    educated* in things they might be doing which could be done better
    and to show where the misconceptions are?  And there are many.
    
    Just as there are those of us who are not of the dominant religion,
    and are *forced* to listen to christian sentiment at many turns, even
    in our offices at christmas sometime (Can't just eat at our desks,
    Hey?). there are those of us who are not of the (US) dominant
    that basis either - All that is being asked is that if you can spare
    the time, and are willing to drop by with an open mind that you do
    so, as there is much to share.  Is this so much to ask?
    
    The *open* hatred and bigotry I see in this file, saddens me a great
    deal, in my optimistic view of the world, I am apparently wrong.  We
    (all of us) have *far* to go.
    
    -HA

    Re .101:
    
    > These events are like the book on the shelf.  You can choose to
    > participate, or totally ignore them.
    
    That is incorrect.  Christian singers parading through the office area
    are not unintrusive.  They are not like a book that does not act until
    acted upon -- They actively interrupt others.  And as I said in .92,
    several events in the ZKO cafeteria have displaced people's regular
    eating places.  Do you know of any books that push you away from your
    lunch table?  Do you know of any books that talk at you while you are
    trying to have a conversation with friends?
    
    > If you totally ignore them, no interaction occurs.

    Tell that to the people who were bothered by the five/ten-minute tape
    that was played over and over and over and over again during lunch. 
    Tell the person who turned the volume down after the n-th iteration
    that no interaction occurs.  Tell the people who had to listen to it
    again after somebody turned it back up that no interaction occurs.
    
    These events, or at least a number of them, are intrusive.  They do
    actively try to indoctrinate people.  They are rude.
    
    
    				-- edp

    I have no problem with valuing differences.  I respect people's right
    to be who they are and to be happy and self actualized.  If people
    want a time and a place to communicate with others who want to be
    communicated with, no problem.
    
    I don't want to be a captive audience either, even for elements of
    lifestyle that I subscribe to.  For example, I believe strongly in
    donating blood.  Donating healthy blood, which is a gift to me in
    the first place, to save a life is good action.  But, I wouldn't
    want to go the cafeteria at lunch when I want to relax and have to
    be subjected to listening to a presentation on giving blood.  If there
    were a poster board exibit on donating blood that happened to be in the
    cafeteria because a large number of people would see it, I'd have no
    problem.
    
    People are a lot more alike than different.  All of us have the pretty
    much the same needs at a generic level.  Maybe if  our similarities
    were more understood, it would be easier for people to value
    differences.  Also,  we seem to work in an environment where people
    are more likely to strive for individual or immediate group goals.  It
    would be beneficial to the future of DEC if we, as a corporation, put
    much more energy into valuing working together.
    

    Almost every debate in a VAX Notes Conference becomes a debate on
    semantics.
    
    This is not an mere "invitation" that appears in a newspaper to go to
    some meeting hall. This is an event that takes place on Digital's
    property with Digital's sponsorship in an area where employees gather
    to eat. If the intent of the sponsors was not coercive, why have the
    event in such a conspicuous and intrusive place?
    
    Not everyone can obtain that sponsorship, not everyone can set up a
    table in a Digital cafeteria, even if they promise not to "force"
    people to listen or act.  In fact, there's no written policy that
    defines such access.
    
    This is an sponsored Digital event that goes beyond employee compliance
    with Digital policy and applicable law with respect to sexual
    orientation and wants to change beliefs regarding moral and public
    policy aspects of sexual orientation.
    
    What is the proper role of Digital in assisting those who want to
    change the beliefs of its employees?

    Re .111:
    
    > Valuing Diversity Day is not about sex. It's about human beings. It's
    > about human beings communicating. 
    
    No, "Valuing Diversity Day" is not about communicating.  "Valuing
    Diversity Day" is about persuasion.  It is not about human beings.  It
    is about indoctrinating thought.  "Valuing Diversity Day" is about
    censorship of politically incorrect ideas.  "Valuing Diversity Day" is
    about establishing official party lines which it is incorrect to
    contradict.
    
    > Not everyone is a white Christian male.
    
    You are guilty of stereotyping.  You have assumed that a person who
    opposes (the current implementation of) "Valuing Diversity" is a white
    Christian male.  By this prejudice, you have demonstrated a failure to
    understand the objections to "Valuing Diversity".
    
    My opposition to "Valuing Diversity" is NOT based on opposition to
    equal rights for homosexuals and heterosexuals or men and women or
    blacks and whites or Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, polytheists,
    pantheists, and others.  I SUPPORT equal rights.  I OPPOSE propaganda
    and attempts to MAKE people engage in right-thinking.
    
    An earlier response objected to people believing homosexuality was bad
    because their beliefs influenced their behavior.  The conclusion of
    this is that it is okay for people to engage in homosexual behavior (on
    their own time), but it is not okay for people to engage in THEIR OWN
    THINKING IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN MINDS.
    
    "Valuing Diversity", as it is currently implemented, is an attempt to
    control what people are thinking in the privacy of their own minds.  As
    such, it is wrong.  It should not be done.  People who support such
    propaganda attempts are intolerant of differences.
    
    
    				-- edp

	I don't usually note here, but I heard about this note elsewhere
and I wanted to see it.  Kind of surprising to me, this vocal bigotry,
nobody where I work acts like that.  I figure if they are homophobic but
keep it to themselves and don't give me a hard time, that's fine.  Obviously,
I'm in a nice nook at DEC.
	Having read most of the replies up to about 113, my impression is
that whoever mentioned arguements based on assumptions had a good point.
My reaction to the overt bigotry is this really strong urge to confess that
not only do I sleep in the same bed as my girlfriend every night, but we
are often joined by one, and sometimes two not-very-small furry animals.
One in particular who likes to have her head on the pillow and squish in
between us.  I MEAN NOT ONLY AM I A LESBIAN BUT I OFTEN SLEEP WITH A LABRADOR
AND SOMETIMES A CORGI-SHEPHARD MIX IN ADDITION TO MY GIRLFRIEND!!!  There, I 
said it, let the chips fall where they may, I've flaunted my sexuality with 
perversions included.
	On a serious note, I think that when you're in the majority, you
don't realize what it feels like to be a minority.  You think everything
is "normal", but you don't realize that normal is a relative thing.
	When we were little and it was Mother's Day or Father's Day, we
used to ask why there wasn't a Children's Day.  My folks said every day
is Children's Day.  Same with straight people.  Everything is straight 
unless explicitly stated otherwise.  That's why we have to say "hi, I'm
gay".  I don't like being taken for straight, it makes me kind of uncomfortable.
Imagine how you (the straight audience) would feel if constantly taken
for being gay. You might want to say "no, wait, I'm not gay".
	So, why do this in the DEC caf?  Well, education is the key to
growth.  So many people here and at my old job were really uncomfortable
(and I with them) when they first found out I'm gay.  (How'd they find out,
well, we don't always talk about chips, sometimes we chat.  I'm very aware
of what I say, and usually just mirror who I'm talking to in terms of how
personal I get.  ie, I won't bring up who I'm sleeping with unless they do
first)  If it was more of a normal thing, it wouldn't have been such a 
hassle, it would have been easier to start my new job, everyone would have
been happier,etc.  Work is not just work at DEC any more than the best
way to find a job is through vtx jobsbook.

That's it.

Rachael

PS  I can't follow this note too much, the conference is too slow, but
feel free to contact me offline.

RE: .126

| In fact, I'd guess that
| homosexuals from different parts of the world have only one thing in
| common - they are homosexuals.  

	In fact? Gee, what are you basing this on? I'm really curious.

| How can we possibly value differences
| based on the single criteria of sexual preference?  

	In your mind you seem to think this is the only thing, but in reality,
it's far from it. Have you ever gone out yourself and tried to take an honest
look at the situation you seem to know so much about? If not, how can you make
any statement on it?

| Telling people about your sexual habits for no good reason
| seems to border on perversion in my opinion.  

	Steve, if you want to tie everything into sex, then that's your own
mind working. We aren't based on sex, we are based on people, like you and
anyone else. Take off the label, take off the orientation, and the same two
worlds exist identically.



Glen

    Re .130:
    
    > I think those who believe this are painting *ALL* attempts to create
    > an inclusive environment with the same, broad brush.
    
    What broad brush?  I EXPLICITLY SUPPORTED encouraging tolerance.  I
    EXPLICITLY said I was criticizing ONLY Valuing Differences programs as
    they are being implemented now.  Your claim that I used a broad brush
    shows your prejudice -- a prejudice of interpreting any criticism of a
    Valuing Difference program as an attack on differences.
    
    Valuing Differences programs are implemented by people, and people make
    mistakes.  Valuing Differences programs are not divinely inspired and
    automatic free of error.  They have errors; these errors ought to be
    pointed out; and the supporters of Valuing Differences programs ought
    to respond by correcting the errors, not by denying they exist.
    
    DO NOT INTERPRET AN ATTACK ON A VALUING DIFFERENCES PROGRAM AS AN
    ATTACK ON DIFFERENCES.
    
    > Valuing Diversity events, meetings, 'awareness' days, etc... are
    > hardly the intimidating, fascist, "re-education" camps your  notes
    > imply.
    
    I did not say they were camps.  But they are intimidating and fascist. 
    Check out the quotes I entered from _Illiberal Eduucation_, around note
    .66, I think.  A policy prohibiting "conspicuous exclusion from
    conversation" or "misdirected laughter" is intimidating and fascist.
    
    > They are voluntary.
    
    That is false.  Being subjected to Christian songs in the office area
    is not voluntary.  Being moved away from one's lunch table is not
    voluntary.  Hearing the same tape over and over again when one is on
    one's own time and trying to relax is not voluntary.
    
    
    				-- edp

| Well, there is one thing for sure in all this.....the Valuing
| Differences folk have surely messed the bed.  No one will ever
| believe again that they haven't sold out completely to a loud,
| PC minority.


	To the contrary, it would seem that what this really shows is they have
a long way to go. But something you really seem to miss is when they offer
these things, they are voluntary, you don't have to attend, so if you don't
have to be there, no one is stuffing anything down your throat as only those
interested need attend. It's funny how some of you people have taken it and
twisted it around so you can make a point that otherwise wouldn't be heard. The
only thing is everyone with an open mind will see right through this. So
please, keep noting. What you are doing for us is great. What you are doing for
yourselves is holding your hands up high showing everyone who reads this
conference who has a closed mind, and who distorts facts, then uses no fact but
just either their or the majority opinion as fact to support their position. I
thank you for your honesty.



Glen

    Patrick,
    
    If by changing minds you mean 'speaking out against bigotry and
    hatred in the work place' then I think that Digital should
    encourage it.
    
    Bonnie

    Re .142:
    
    > Many of the negative comments about L/B/G awareness come from people
    > who want to deny my right to publicly declare my sexual orientation.
    
    You are missing the point.  There are places where it is okay to
    declare your sexual orientation, and there are places where it is not.
    They are the SAME for homosexuals and heterosexuals.
    
    It is okay (polite) to declare one's sexual orientation in a Notes
    conference where sexual orientation is discussed.
    
    It is okay to mention what one did this weekend with one's same- or
    different-gendered friend in a conversation with friends, as at a lunch
    table.
    
    It is not okay (rude) to set up a booth/table and blast it out to
    people who are trying to relax and eat, particularly if the booth or
    table displaces other people, is in the flow of traffic, or is noisy.
    It does not matter if the booth is for or against homosexuality or
    heterosexuality; it is rude in any case.
    
    
    				-- edp

I forget, just how many db do we usually come out at?  Isn't there a 
mandatory level of at least 110, and 150 for large cafeterias?  And
who's renting the megaphone, and where are we going to get those two
foot high letters to spell out "I'm queer and not only do you have to
know about it but you have to like it and give money to the political
causes I dictate".

Just wondering,

Rachael

Re: <<< Note 1616.155 by WMOIS::REINKE_B "all I need is the air...." >>>

.155>   Patrick,
.155>   
.155>   If by changing minds you mean 'speaking out against bigotry and
.155>   hatred in the work place'. then I think that Digital should
.155>   encourage it.
.155>   
.155>   Bonnie

.0>In celebration of National Coming Out day, which is Friday, October 11,
.0>the Greater Marlboro Area Valuing Diversity Committee will be sponsoring
.0>a Lesbian/Bisexual/Gay Awareness Day. National Coming Out Day is a day
.0>for homosexual and bisexual people to let others know about their sexual
.0>orientation. [rest of announcement deleted]

Please read the text of the announcement of the event... I find it
difficult to understand how an event that is "In celebration of" somthing
is 'speaking out against bigotry and hatred in the work place'.

Sounds G/B/L like promotion to me.

I can value the G/B/L difference but not the tactics of the event
outlined in .0.

Lee

	RE: 1616.153

    >> I think those who believe this are painting *ALL* attempts to create
    >> an inclusive environment with the same, broad brush.
    >
    >What broad brush?  

	The same one you used below...

    >Your claim that I used a broad brush
    >shows your prejudice -- a prejudice of interpreting any criticism of a
    >Valuing Difference program as an attack on differences.

	I'm not interpreting *any* criticism of VoD programs.  I am
	interpreting YOUR criticism.
    
    >Valuing Differences programs are implemented by people, and people make
    >mistakes.  Valuing Differences programs are not divinely inspired and
    >automatic free of error.  They have errors; these errors ought to be
    >pointed out; and the supporters of Valuing Differences programs ought
    >to respond by correcting the errors, not by denying they exist.
    
	I do not deny that there are errors in the VoD programs.  

    >DO NOT INTERPRET AN ATTACK ON A VALUING DIFFERENCES PROGRAM AS AN
    >ATTACK ON DIFFERENCES.
    
	I haven't.

    >> Valuing Diversity events, meetings, 'awareness' days, etc... are
    >> hardly the intimidating, fascist, "re-education" camps your  notes
    >> imply.
    >
    >I did not say they were camps.  But they are intimidating and fascist. 
    >Check out the quotes I entered from _Illiberal Eduucation_, around note
    >.66, I think.  A policy prohibiting "conspicuous exclusion from
    >conversation" or "misdirected laughter" is intimidating and fascist.

	This is what I mean by using a "broad brush" to attack VoD.
	Please tell me where and how ANY VoD program has come even close
	to (what I suspect is) the unusually harsh policy of the Connecticut
	University mentioned in _Illiberal Education_.  

	VoD is MUCH more than one day seminars (which are not intended to
	be free-for-all debates on any given issue, anyway).  I can assure 
	you that there are aspects to the VoD program at Digital which allow 
	for the free exchange of ideas.  But then if you were truly interested
	I suspect you'd know this.  As it stands it *appears* you are only
	interested in propping up your view of VoD as a fascist mind control
	experiment.

	If this is not your only interest, then I would ask how you would
	change VoD, while still following the corporate belief that fostering
	respect for diversity is both socially responsible and economically
	profitable.

    >> They are voluntary.
    >
    >That is false.  Being subjected to Christian songs in the office area
    >is not voluntary.  Being moved away from one's lunch table is not
    >voluntary.  Hearing the same tape over and over again when one is on
    >one's own time and trying to relax is not voluntary.

	I do not agree that Christian songs should be played in the
	office area.  Of course, I don't know that the playing of such
	songs as ever been described as part of the VoD effort, but I
	could be mistaken.  If the VoD program supports this, I think
	they are wrong for doing so.

	However, as far as claiming some right to a table in the cafe,
	well I just think that's silly.  Your use of the cafe is voluntary.
	Nobody is forcing you to sit there.    I agree that setting up a
	video tape and having it play over and over is annoying, and were
	I in charge of the event, I would suggest something else.
	
    
	/Greg

>	 One's sexual orientation
>    is not!  It is and should remain private, not discussed or even
>    mentioned at work.  Just because there are differences that affect you,
>    doesn't mean that they are improtant to the company's business.  If
>    they aren't, leave them at home.

Dick,

From everything I've ever studied or experienced, comparmentalization does
not seem to help any particular situation, and it does seem to exact a
terrible price from the one who "put themselves into so many boxes."

It is what allows anyone to say, "I am professionally competent, I am a
good parent, I am a pillar of our society and I hate <   >."  Or, 
substitute "and I am a Hit Man" for and I hate <   >.   Or, maybe even
substitute a heart attack or high blood pressure for the last. 

Every part of every person effects the way that they do business!  I don't
know how anyone can pretend that people's attitudes and lives don't 
effect everything they do all the time.  There are basically two types of
people....Those whose attitudes are verbalized and those who believe that
they're hiding their attitudes...You cannot hide who you are...

Maybe it's just a personal deficiency....I've just never learned how not
to bring my whole self along...

Barb

re: .134


>>And I presume it is just
>>as correct to rite and destroy property which is not yours as depicted
>>by such a responsible group because they could not accept the governors
>>veto of the gay rights bill. You don't see people like me riting if
>>they did pass such a bill. 

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up this point about the rioting that 
occurred when Wilson vetoed the bill.  What point are you trying to make?  
It is sophomoric to bring this into discussion in a manner that implies 
that there have never been riots in our country before over civil rights 
issues and that this sort of behaviour is characteristic of all 
gay/lesbian/bisexual people.   Although I don't condone violence of any kind, 
bringing this example to this discussion is irrelevant.

Years ago, some people didn't think that basic human rights for African 
Americans was a civil rights issues, but it was and still is.  It is apparent 
that some people today don't consider gay/lesbian/bisexual human rights a 
civil rights issue, but it is just that.

******************************************************************************

re: .137

    >>One's sexual orientation
    >>is not!  It is and should remain private, not discussed or even
    >>mentioned at work.  Just because there are differences that affect you,
    >>doesn't mean that they are improtant to the company's business.  If
    >>they aren't, leave them at home.
    
So, Dick, does this mean that you have *never* *ever* mentioned anything 
personal about yourself in the work place in the history of your working 
career?

For all those who object to bringing one's sexual orientation into the 
workplace, think about these questions...

- Have you never mentioned to a co-worker that your son or daughter was 
  graduating fron X high school/college or that your son or daughter just won 
  some sport competition?

  If you have, then you have just said something about your sexual 
  orientation and you have just shared something personal about yourself
  in the workplace.  And, by virtue of talking about your child/children,
  you are indicating that you have had sex with a member of the opposite
  sex at the very minimum number of times that it would take to produce 
  whatever number of off-spring you happen to talking about.

- Have you never mentioned to a co-worker that your married (or even 
  single) partner of the opposite sex and you were taking a vacation to
  x place, or had just come back from a wonderful mini-trip to x?

  If you have, then you have just said something about your sexual
  orientation and you have just shared something personal about yourself
  in the workplace.

The list of questions/examples that could be used here go on and on.  The man 
or woman who talks about the divorce that they're going through.  People who 
have pictures of their families on their desks.  The wearing of wedding 
bands.  All these things *say* something about a person's personal life and 
sexual orientation.

If any one of you who are complaining so loudly about keeping one's 
personal life out of the work place have *ever* said anything personal 
about yourselves in the workplace, then you are being hypocrites.

The fact is, our workplace isn't sterile.  People do develop relationships 
with their co-workers because as humans, we happen to have it in our nature 
to be social and interactive beings.  We tell each other things about 
ourselves.  We don't keep our conversations in the workplace totally 
exclusive to business issues only.

Last week, a woman in my group and I were speculating the concept of...
"what would you do with your life if you were independently wealthy..."
I talked about the fact that if I didn't have to work to support myself, I 
would do all kinds of volunteer work...that I would learn carpentry and 
auto mechanics and then do work in battered women's shelters (like 
carpentry and fixing their cars), etc.

A few days later this same woman came back to my office.  It struck her 
that I had specifically mentioned battered women's shelters, and she shared 
some personal things about her history with an abusive husband because she 
had a hunch that we might have had similar experiences.  I confirmed her 
hunch...and then we talked about dealing with the long-term effects of 
being battered.  

These kinds of conversations in the work place do occur.  They occur 
everyday.  This is how we social beings make connections with each other.  
We do not live our lives as sterile, impersonal beings.

Everytime a gay/lesbian/bisexual person talks about his/her life, they are 
taking a risk.  I think that some of the attitudes demonstrated in this 
file are clear examples of the level of person risk that is taken when a 
gay/lesbian/bisexual person decides to truthfully share with another 
co-worker.  There is *no* guarantee that the other person will react in a 
kind, non-judgemental and non-discriminatory manner.  

So the reality is that gay/lesbian/bisexual persons can either live their 
lives in a truncated and invisible manner by carefully dancing around 
pro-nouns when talking about their personal lives..".my 'friend' and I went 
on a great vacation to x,"  "my SO and I just bought a house," etc., etc.,
(which takes an awful lot of energy to always carefully watch how one says 
things), or they can honestly talk about their lives in response to their 
co-workers sharing something about their lives.

I find it interesting that when a heterosexual person says something 
personal about him or herself and it is called "sharing," yet when a 
gay/lesbian/bisexual person says something personal about him or herself it 
is called "flaunting." 

I find it sad and distressing to see so much hatred being expressed in this 
file.  Someone, someplace along in this note string, made the comment that 
the employees here at DEC are credited with being the best and the 
brightest.  I used to believe that.  I don't anymore.

Laura

re  .133

>Your reply definitely proves my point... You have NO awareness that
>by celebrating christmas (as it is just like any other day in December 
>for me, it doesn't need to be capitalized)...

I'm so glad IYHO my reply proves your point, although I was not attempting
to either prove or disprove "your point." What I was pointing out, and thank
you for helping me, is that many people are only capable of "proving" their
point by attacking someone else's beliefs. I had a strong suspicion that you
purposely de-capitalized the word Christmas but I chose to let you hang
yourself with your own reply(which I knew would be forthcoming.)

You argue that the word need not be capitalized since "it is just like any
other day...") When I was in the 6th grade, I once lost a spelling bee
because I spelled Massachusetts as massachusetts. I presume that you don't
expect a new spelling rule to be established that allows capitals to be
used or not used based upon preference. 

Tolerance of each others diversity is what this note is intended to 
highlight. It matters not that the subject is G/L/B awareness, the key
issue being discussed is the capacity of recognizing and respecting the
opinions/beliefs, practices, or behavior of others. 

During December of 1990, my facility displayed an arrangement of candles
in our lobby to recognize the celebration of Chanukah/Hanukkah. I know of
nobody that either complained or denigrated this display or purposely
decapitalized the spelling to make some obscure point. You state that 
"...(you) have to learn to live with it as a minority in this company."
How about "learning to live with it as a minority in this company."

    Re .157:
    
    > I forget, just how many db do we usually come out at?
    
    The tapes I referred to earlier were played at a level louder than
    people conversing among themselves.  It interfered with their activity.
    
    
    Re .159:
    
    > The same one you used below...

    That's a cop-out.  You cannot point out a broad brush I used earlier
    because I did not.  You criticized me unfairly, and that reveals a
    prejudice of yours.
    
    > 	I'm not interpreting *any* criticism of VoD programs.  I am
    >	interpreting YOUR criticism.

    And my criticism did not have a broad brush, so you interpreted it
    incorrectly.  Your interpretation was based not on what I said, but on
    your own beliefs -- hence you are prejudiced.
    
    > 	Please tell me where and how ANY VoD program has come even close
    >	to (what I suspect is) the unusually harsh policy of the Connecticut
    >	University mentioned in _Illiberal Education_.  

    The program at the University of Connecticut has come close to the
    harsh policy at the University of Connecticut.  And you have no grounds
    for calling that policy unusually harsh -- D'Souza mentions that there
    are others.  It is reflective of the trends today; the entire book
    documents trends at universities across the country.  While Digital's
    own policy does not explicitly mention "inappropriate laughter", it is
    overly broad or vague in its definition of harassment:  "Harassment
    refers to behavior which is personally offensive, impairs morale and
    interferes with the work effectiveness of employees.".  By that
    definition, displays in or near the cafeteria harass a number of
    employees.  Policy also says ". . . harassment includes unsolicited
    remarks [or] gestures".  It does not say what remarks or gestures are
    considered harassment and what remarks or gestures are not.
    
    An overly broad policy is inherently unfair because it can -- and will
    -- be used to punish those persons or behaviors that authorities CHOOSE
    to punish, instead of the proper ethical use of written policies to
    punish persons or behaviors according to an OBJECTIVE standard.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .156 by edp
    
    !> Many of the negative comments about L/B/G awareness come from people
    !> who want to deny my right to publicly declare my sexual orientation.
    
    >You are missing the point.  There are places where it is okay to
    >declare your sexual orientation, and there are places where it is not.
    >They are the SAME for homosexuals and heterosexuals.

    Actually, I agree with alot of what you're saying. I would never consider
    jumping up on a table in the lunch room, or for that matter in my own
    living-room and shouting "I'm a bisexual." I exagerated---sorry. 8^)

    >It is okay to mention what one did this weekend with one's same- or
    >different-gendered friend in a conversation with friends, as at a lunch
    >table.

    And if you are a heterosexual you don't need to be afraid that the listener
    will decide to start submitting negative reports about your work performance
    so they can get you out of their department...scary, huh?  There is a very
    huge double standard on this.  Can any of the "neg-a-noters" see that?

    >It is not okay (rude) to set up a booth/table and blast it out to
    >people who are trying to relax and eat, particularly if the booth or
    >table displaces other people, is in the flow of traffic, or is noisy.

    I'm with you 100%.

    "Blast it out"...no megaphones, no vocal announcments at all, just folks
    sitting at a designated table.

	OK, we passed that gate.

    "...displaces other people"...well, since multiple surveys have shown that
    G/L/B's are upwards of 10% of the population, we can probably make a case
    for one table in a lunchroom.  I havn't been to MRO lately---is there a 
    table shortage?

	If not, then we don't seem to have any problems at all.

    Naturally, you're all welcome to attend, but *PLEASE* don't feel obligated.

    For those who have made the comment that "we have a long way to go" and
    how "disappointed" they are by this stream, view it in context.  The
    negative responses in this stream are limited to a handful of people who
    have entered dozens of notes (potty humor and all) while those who support
    the activity and activities like it are not only numerous but a diverse
    cross-section...yes, the G/L/B noters are being particularly vocal---for
    some reason we are more than casually interested.  ;-)

    But this hasn't been a "heterosexuals vs homosexual" fight---some people
    have raised some legitamate concerns about being prostilatized during
    lunch, and I for one agree with them.

    But that's not what *will* happen.  The event will take place.  It will be
    a success...it already is.  No one will be dragged kicking and screaming
    into the loathsome clutches of those disgusting and all around icky and
    gross gay-types for "pro-homosexual programming."

    If anyone want's to protest it---PLEASE DO!  Voice your disgust. If you
    think you have the ability to get Digital to revoke its policy of "Valuing
    Differences" then GO AHEAD AND TRY. Put your best effort into trying to
    control what your co-workers think, say and do.

    If it wasn't illegal I'd take bets that the corporate response would be
    "We stand, as we always have..."  Valuing differences is good  business,
    and they know it.  And most, thought not certainly all, of the Digital
    workforce knows it too.

    -larry_who's_going_back_to_work

    I think it's a mistake to try to discuss and make policies about
    
    	-events that are auditorially intrusive to some co-workers
    	 [Christmas caroling, tape loops at lunch]
    
    	-events that are visually identifiable (either by a sign over
    	 a table, or arrow to a conference room) such as the event in
    	 .0, but quite ignorable.
    
    together. 
    
    They are *both* valid issues for discussion, but what applies to one does
    not necessarily apply to the other.  
    
    I don't think VoD or any other events should be auditorially intrusive,
    or should involve people who don't wish to attend.   I don't think
    events organized by groups of employees that are merely visually
    identifiable but quite ignorable are in that category.
    
    Holly 

    
    	I've bitten my tongue a number of times as I've read some,
    	not most, of these entries.
    
    	I don't understand why, and maybe it's clearly indicated in
    	one of the many entries I didn't read, Digital Equipment Corp.
    	has to have a forum on why some people prefer sex with members
    	of their own sex.  
    
    	That is the difference, we're supposed to value, right?  So, what
    	is the intrinsic value difference that being a bi/homosexual brings
    	to Digital?  If sexual preference is the only difference, as
    	stated, then it's not 'company business'.    
    
    

    re -1......the reason, Bob, is that the VD people have been sucker-
    punched by a very loud, very small fringe group, and they don't have
    the intestinal fortitude to tell these people that their message
    is inappropriate to the VD program.
    
    Still waiting for a program with real contents dealing with the
    problems of people like you and me.  Wanna bet if we'll ever see one?

	To many people, their perspective on life  embraces the
	belief that there is a natural order of things. This natural
	order includes the physiological makeup of we as "Critters".

	We have Canine teeth, therefore we are designed to be meat-
	eaters.  Our eyes are in the front of our heads, therefore
	our primary position is that of hunter rather than hunted.

	Heterosexual behaviour is considered to be the natural order
	since it "naturally" provides for pro-creation of the species.
	Heterosexual behavior is the default.

	Homosexual behaviour violates this natural order of things and
	like most other "un-natural" activities, is considered to be
	repugnant to the naturalists.

	Like most things that are found repugnant it is only "natural"
	to attempt to eliminate it from our direct environment.
	This does not necessarily make one a "Bigot". Repugnance is
	not necessarily "Hatred".

	One should not ask their spouse if they have been "unfaithful" 
	unless they are willing to accept "YES" as the answer.

	It appears to me that the objective of the "outing" is mostly
	to ask "Will you accept my different lifestyle with an open
	mind?"  Now the outees should be prepared to accept "NO" as
	the answer without the Bigot label being immediately applied
	or other little tantrums thrown.

	I guess the same approach can be used by those who are labled
	bigots that is used by the h/l/b folks. "My extreme repugnance 
	for your sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, it's the
	way I am physiologically constructed."
	
	I personally don't give a rats posterior about this coming out 
	party. I couldn't attend anyhow since Mass is a bit of a commute
	from Colorado. But even if I could I probably wouldn't because
	contrary to what I constantly see, my repugnance is not based
	on ignorance because without apology, I am not an ignorant
	person.

		

    re .162
    
    So you demand that I respect you and your beliefs and feelings while
    those of the sponsors of .0 can be denied?
    
    I understand now...there is only ONE right way..!! Yours...!
    
    As for the hanuka candles in your building, how very nice... but there
    are people who work for Digital who don't come from
    either a Christian OR a Jewish background. Did your building include
    celebrations of their beliefs too? 
    
    I have never had any problems with any Valuing Differences event. I
    see their importance. But, all groups within this Digital community
    have as much right to have a 'day' to education whomever wants to learn 
    as any other group.
    
    As a minority member of the American society for the last 34 years, I
    have had to either learn to live along side of others who don't share
    my view of the world, or  become militant against those
    different then myself... I have chosen to learn to live along side of
    others different from myself. In the process, I have had to learn to
    let others' keep their beliefs as much as I don't agree with them.
    I just want the same respect.
    
    Along those lines, and within the Valuing Differences program as I
    understand it, EVERYONE has the right to have a 'day'. As long as
    Digital DOES support the Valuing Differences program, everyone has the
    same right to 'be on their own time' in the cafeteria as anyone else. 
    
    Though it may not seem apparent to those who are part of 'main stream'
    America, we always have choices... we can choose to eat in the
    Cafeteria, we can choose to bring in our lunch and eat at our desks, we
    can choose to go out of the building to eat elsewhere..
    
    Just as an aside, I work for a Digital office that does NOT even have
    cafeteria, so right off, you have more choices then I do...
                    

RE: .167


| re -1......the reason, Bob, is that the VD people have been sucker-
| punched by a very loud, very small fringe group, and they don't have
| the intestinal fortitude to tell these people that their message
| is inappropriate to the VD program.

	Well, it's either that or they see it a different way. You are very
good at stating the reasons why the VD people have let things like the G/L/B
program go on, but I'm curious as to how you know this? Have you talked to the
VD people? If so, which ones? If not, are you using your own views for their
reasons to letting it happen? Will you even answer these questions?

| Still waiting for a program with real contents dealing with the
| problems of people like you and me.  Wanna bet if we'll ever see one?

	You know, I really love people like you who want all these wonderful
things, complain that you will never see them happen, but won't do a thing to
even try to make it come true. Why wait? Why not try and come up with a program
that deals with your issues? In fact, just what would your issues be?



Glen

    In all fairness,
    
    Those of you who have negative feelings about Valuing Differences
    events please share with us examples of events that you felt were
    handled poorly, propaganda, blasted at you while you ate, etc..
    
    Since I have never had such a negative experience, I don't share your
    strong aversion to these events.
    
    "Educate me"...                   

| Homosexual behaviour violates this natural order of things and
| like most other "un-natural" activities, is considered to be
| repugnant to the naturalists.

	I will agree that there are some who feel this way. But you can't say
that all people feel this way. I know many hets who don't feel this way. They
don't feel this way because they see us as people first, gay second.

| Like most things that are found repugnant it is only "natural"
| to attempt to eliminate it from our direct environment.

	Who is defining what should be natural? The naturalists? ;-) You will
have to admit that even the straight community has many different groups within
it. Some would view others as not being natural, while you may feel those
people as being natural. Who decides who is right, who is wrong? Your theory
just wouldn't work. It's not viable with the way people think. Everyone is
different. People have a hard enough time agreeing on stuff as it is, you
couldn't expect them to agree on what's natural and what's not, what should be
attempted to eliminate and what shouldn't. If you see a way of this happening,
please let me know. I'd be glad to hear it.

| This does not necessarily make one a "Bigot". Repugnance is
| not necessarily "Hatred".

	I agree. To disagree doesn't always mean bigot. To disagree about a
group of people that isn't harming anyone, to not see them as people but as a
group of people that are below you, to meet someone from that group for the
first time and dislike them instantly because they are from that group IS being
a bigot.

| One should not ask their spouse if they have been "unfaithful"
| unless they are willing to accept "YES" as the answer.

	I agree.

| It appears to me that the objective of the "outing" is mostly
| to ask "Will you accept my different lifestyle with an open
| mind?"  Now the outees should be prepared to accept "NO" as
| the answer without the Bigot label being immediately applied
| or other little tantrums thrown.

	Reread what I said above.

| I guess the same approach can be used by those who are labled
| bigots that is used by the h/l/b folks. "My extreme repugnance 
| for your sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, it's the
| way I am physiologically constructed."

	I wouldn't doubt that. ;-)

| I personally don't give a rats posterior about this coming out
| party. 

	For someone who doesn't care, you certainly have a lot to say.




Glen

    re 171.  and "education"
    
    ALL VD SHOULD BE STOPPED.
    
    Reason - DEC policies and procedures spells out the action that can be
    taken against someone who discriminates.  There is no need to tell 
    people there are differences between whites, blacks, hispanics etc, we
    know that.  I do not care what your sexual orientation is and you do
    not have the right to "educate" me concerning your PERSONAL LIFE
    WITHIN THE CONFINES OF A BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT.	This is a business,
    not the student union at the college you went to. (You do know you are
    in a business and not a school, don't you?)
    
    There is no room in a business environment for peoples personal lives,
    they stop at the employees entrance.  (The same is true in the reverse,
    business stops at the entrance to my house.)
    
    How people conduct their personal lives is their business.  As I 
    sais before, either we are not the highly educated, progressive people
    we think we are or we are hypocrits (SP?).  
    
    Sure, there is discrimination in the world, there always will be as long
    as there are two people left alive.  We are all different.  There are
    things I will like about ONE  and things I don't like.  I DO NOT HAVE
    THE RIGHT TO LET MY DISLIKES INTERFERE WITH HOW I INTERFACE WITH YOU ON
    COMPANY MATTERS.  I DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE NOT TO ASSOCIATE WITH
    YOU OUTSIDE THE CONFINES OF THE BUSINESS.  As long as I do not
    interfere with your right to life, liberty and happiness, why do you
    want to flaunt your sexual preference in my(collective) face.  I happen
    to have a sexual preference for orientals, but do you see me making an
    issue out of it (I am married to one, see some discrimination but write
    it off to ignorance and get on with my life).
    
    YEs, I have heard of the gay bashing.  But, unless it occurrs here to
    the point that you feel physically threatened, you "education" is
    misplaced. If you do feel threatened at work, talk to personal, talk to
    a lawyer or talk to me (I would help) but having a "gay rights day"
    will not stop the threat, just antagonize it futher. 
    
    One final thought.  Get a job AND a life.
                                                        

    Re: .167
    
    Dick, 
    
    If you accept the fairly well-publicised  statistic that upwards of 10%
    of the general population is homosexual, then you can hardly call that
    a 'very small fringe group'.  In fact, it puts gays in the same class
    as blacks and hispanics in the U.S.  If you look at the harsh words and
    the multitude of dramatic conflicting statements in this topic alone,
    you can hardly deny that there is a serious issue here.  The only
    reason it isn't "a program with real contents dealing with the
    problems of people like you and me" is because you choose to avoid
    hearing any more about it.  Please, try.
    
    The business world is rife with discrimination against gays, lesbians
    and bisexuals.  If you can accept that, and I can't believe you can't
    see it around you, then it ought to be pretty obvious that Digital as a
    business has a great deal of interest in overcoming discrimination. 
    The only way to do that is to educate, not indoctrinate, people to the
    fact that this large minority, passive almost to the point of being
    invisible, suffers under the daily burden of a prejudice borne of
    ignorance.  I think you can find that in some of the replies so far.
    
    By the way, I've been meaning to ask you:
    
     <<< Note 1616.167 by COOKIE::LENNARD "Rush Limbaugh, I Luv Ya Guy" >>>
    
    Does Rush know how strongly you feel about him? Have you ever told him?
    :-) (just kidding).
    
    tim
    

     When I first started reading this note (which I stumbled across
only because I was looking for some debunkage of that stupid Mitsubishi
rumor), I got seriously depressed.  Somehow, I had always thought that
DIGITAL was somehow better than all that petty hatred and intollerance
that we've seen in this note.  I had thought that DIGITAL employees had
better things to do than react to a simple (voluntary in attendance) VoD
display in the cafeteria as if the entire company, and civilization was
collapsing. 

     This got me VERY depressed.  Then, something almost magical
happened.  I started reading the notes that weren't spouting hatred, and
you know what?  I discovered that MOST of DIGITAL probably is above all
that.  I discovered that aside from an extremely vocal minority, there
probably isn't much of a problem at all.  Instead of seeing a full
inventory of DIGITAL employees, or at least a full inventory of regular
members of this conference spouting hate and discontent, I just see a
few names popping up over and over, and a whole bunch of other names
attached to the notes that advocate tollerance.  This includes both those
who support the concept with some reservations, and those who support the
implementation as presented so far.

     This is neat.  As much vitriol as has been displayed in this note,
its overall effect on me is to reassure me that most of DIGITAL really
is a nice place that can tollerate difference.  Thanks to all who helped
me see that.

RE: Grammar


	I like how you sidestepped the issue completely. You have taken how
someone spelt Christmas and turned it into your own way of thinking, making
charges of predjudice, etc... instead of discussing the real issue at hand,
which is the simularities between the g/l/b awareness day and people who
celebrate Christmas within the facility. Both are done on company time, both
are believed by some to be a bother, and to others as a pretty good event. The
difference is that one, no one complains about, the other has become foistering
our opinions onto you to change your mindset. One is much more noticeable
during lunch as it's people singing, the other is a much more quiet event.
Which one gets all of the attention? The one that's quiet. You say one is ok,
but the reasons you give for the g/l/b to not happen can be applied to the
Christmas celebration, which you find as ok. Funny, huh?


Glen

    A good friend of mine
    (white-male-christian-married-father-scuba_diver-madza_owner-etc ;-)
    who is also a police officer in San Diego mentioned that if Gov. Wilson
    hadn't vetoed the Homo Protection Act, then many non-gay officer's were
    going to come "out" of their non-closets to get a better shot at the
    few promotions available. 
    
    Luckily, we residents in America's Finest City can sleep peacefully now
    knowing that our city police are being promoted because of their police
    knowledge and skill, NOT just because they are gay. 
    
    The gay community's activism goes FAR beyond wanting to be equal and
    discrimination issues. The majority is still silent. Stay outta' my
    face. You're gay? So what! If you're a better worker than I am, then
    you should get my job, if not, your sexual preference shouldn't be
    something to give you the edge. 
    
    At work, it's BUSINESS! On my own time I can and will discriminate to
    my hearts content. After all, I have rights too... I will shop where I
    want, I will live where I want, I will boycott any group or
    organization that I care to (ask Rev. Jesse). You will NEVER be
    able to legislate me into accepting OR valuing your beliefs. So, to
    me your Homosexual Awareness Day is only a self-help therapy session.
    All I ask is that you do it on your own time and place and not to mix
    it with my business. Many time's I have taken customers into the DEC
    cafeterias. I would have been very embarrased had this event been
    occurring during one of these visits.
    
    Sheeesh! I didn't want to reply, but after reading all the illogical,
    and inane arguments about how I should value your sexual differences
    it was either reply or get ill. 
    
    If the g/l/b's want to extract this and cut it apart sentence by
    sentence (as you have aptly demonstrated in this note), feel free to go
    ahead. I AM OUTTA' HERE! You have worn my patience OUT! 
    
    So much for your ability to "educate"...

    re. 173
    
    You are making the FALSE assumption that just because I follow the 
    philosophy that "While I may not believe in what you have to say, I will 
    defend your right to say it" that I happen to be gay. Actually I am not. 
    Surprised that a heterosexual MIGHT just defend a gay person's rights?
    My opinion on whether the gay lifestyle is right or wrong doesn't even
    enter into this discussion. If I am interested in learning more about
    their lifestyle, I can talk to them at this event. Likewise, if I am
    not interested in learning more about this event, I can walk right on
    by. Until someone describes an incident where a Valuing Differences
    event was forced upon them, I don't see how this is even a problem. 
    
    As for your insistence that employee's personal lives be kept out of
    the work place, until this is true for all employees of all walks of
    life, it is not right to exclude any one group.
    
    Keep your opinion whatever that is, and voice your opposition to
    whatever you don't believe in, but don't be surprised that those you
    are so vocal against, react with the same kind of anger (emotion). 
    This kind of human interaction just perpetrates confrontations.  
    
    

    
    re: .152
    
    >| In fact, I'd guess that
    >| homosexuals from different parts of the world have only one thing in
    >| common - they are homosexuals.  
    >
    >	In fact? Gee, what are you basing this on? I'm really curious.
    
    Glen, I think you took this totally the wrong way.  I base this on a
    belief that sterotypes are wrong in any form.  That's why I said any
    other assumptions would be prejudicial!  If you think there are some
    other attributes that homosexuals have in common other than
    homosexuality then you're more prejudiced than I would have
    thought from your other replies.
    
    My point was that I don't see homosexuals as being any different (other
    than sexual preference) from heterosexuals.  So where is the diversity
    other than sexual preference.  Yes, they have to face different (more?)
    social problems than heterosexuals, but what does this have to do with
    diversity?
    
    -steve

I want to ask a question, or maybe a series of questions here.
I think that the questions will touch on why there is so much dislike
of VoD offerings.

Given that the gays are gay through no fault of their own, then just what
is it about them that *I* should value?
If I was calling a meeting in DEC to design a better product or a new
product, what is it that a gay person could bring to the table that a
straight could not? Please do not take this down the road of "value me
as a human being" or "value my rights" because I should do that no matter
who or what you are. This forum is being sponsored
by the Valuing of Diversity group/program or whatever it is, with implies
that the subject(s) that they present have some value *BECAUSE THEY ARE 
GAY/HISPANIC/BLACK/WOMEN*.
Then what is it? This could be asked of any forum held by the VoD groups.
What value would Hispanics bring to that table? Women?, Blacks?
Please do not take these questions in a negative light, I'm asking because
I am beginning to believe that although these topics need to be dicussed, that
they are given under the wrong umbrella.
The Valuing of Diversity program used to be called Valuing of Differences,
and people asked how they could value differences. Therefore, it seems that
the Valuing Differences group wanting to step around that issue renamed
itself to the current Valuing Diversity, now I ask "How can I value diversity?"
Value it in a business context?

I can get along with just about anybody here at DEC, I may not choose to
socialize with most but, tahts not the issue here. If the purpose of this
specific topic is to highlight the fact that gays have it tough, then
I agree, they sure do. But, why and how can I while I am at DEC working
value them?

- george

Please excuse me as I am starting to ramble, but, a couple of thoughts:

If this effort is an educational one, and I believe it is, then why
isn't it being held by ED Services? Why don't the organizers create
a 1 day course and hold it regularly in Bedford or whereever?
Dec obviously believes this to be a VERY IMPORTANT issue otherwise
why is it even being discussed, so there shouild'nt be any problems
setting up an offering via Ed Services.
Instead, it is (IMHO) given token support by DEC which gives it an
appearance of being someone's pet project and nothing more.
Furthermore, outsiders are being brought in, which doesn't sit right with
somepeople me included.

- George

| >| In fact, I'd guess that
| >| homosexuals from different parts of the world have only one thing in
| >| common - they are homosexuals.
| >
| >	In fact? Gee, what are you basing this on? I'm really curious.

| Glen, I think you took this totally the wrong way.  I base this on a
| belief that sterotypes are wrong in any form.  

	Oooppsss..... sorry. I agree with what you just said.

| If you think there are some
| other attributes that homosexuals have in common other than
| homosexuality then you're more prejudiced than I would have
| thought from your other replies.

	Hmmmmm..... why couldn't they have more attributes in common than just 
being homosexual? Do heterosexual people only have their heterosexual
attributes in common? I think there are many things in this world that could
link either a heterosexual's to each other and homosexuals to each other. Some
of those things wouldn't have anything to do with being straight or gay. To
tell me there can't be qualities about a person that could bond two straight or
gay people tohgether that don't deal with either orientation? I guess I'm not
clear on this. Could you explain it better?

	Now, on me being more prejudiced than you thought, I have to ask you.
Please show me where in my notes I have sounded prejudiced, as if I have, I
would want to correct it. I don't think I have, but if you say so, please show
me. That's all I can ask.

| My point was that I don't see homosexuals as being any different (other
| than sexual preference) from heterosexuals.  So where is the diversity
| other than sexual preference.  Yes, they have to face different (more?)
| social problems than heterosexuals, but what does this have to do with
| diversity?

	Whether you're straight or whether your gay, everyone is diverse. You
have so many groups that are different from one another in the straight world.
All are straight, but each one is different than the other, some subtley,
others drastically. The same goes on from within the lesbigay world. We are a
diverse bunch because of the different types of people we have within our
group. Each and everyone should be valued, regardless of whether you're
straight or gay. Why is that so hard?


Glen

    I don't believe that being different from the crowd, regardless of how
    that difference is manifested, means that the individual necessarily
    has something special to offer in comparison to any other individual. 
    The value is not inherent in their being different.  But you can
    think of value as a negative force just as readily as a positive one. 
    Being different does not detract from what the individual has to offer
    either.   The value of a person, positive or negative, cannot be judged
    simply because they are a different color, religion, sex or sexual 
    orientation.
    
    Sometimes being different can offer something special to the individual
    themselves, i.e. pride, but we have already identified that the point
    of this exercise has nothing to do with individual or even collective
    pride.
    
    A manager has heard of an excellent engineer in another facility who is
    interested in a new position (no puns here, please!).  The engineer is
    interviewed and indeed proves to be even more outstanding than
    expected.  The manager checks references for the prospective new
    employee, and everything looks great, but there's something 'different'
    about this person, perhaps related to appearance or personal style,
    that came out in the interview.  The manager asks an existing employee
    to ask associates at the prospect's current site if there's anything to
    this 'difference'.  Why?  I mean, why did they need to ask?
    
    That's not a hypothetical example.  I was the associate who was asked. 
    It was obvious that the manager thought the prospective engineer was
    gay, and I was appalled at this kind of 'good ole' boy' referral going
    on behind the back of the engineer.  I worked with the engineer, albeit
    not every day, and a member of the new group happened to also be a
    neighbor of mine.  I told them that it was obvious
    what they were asking about, even though they never came right out and
    said it, and the question was irrelevent, and an invasion of the
    engineer's privacy.  The fact was, the engineer was the best person for
    the job, as evidenced by the fact that they went ahead and hired that
    person, much to their credit.  I never acknowledged anything else about the
    engineer, and I never told the engineer about the incident.
    
    The fact remains, though, that they DID stop to ask because there was
    something 'different' about this person.  They had to go check to make
    sure that they could Value that Difference.  They wasted time, and even
    risked being the target of legal action, had the engineer ever found
    out.  The time and energy of four or five full time DEC employees was
    wasted while this little scenario was played out over the course of a
    week or two.  This sort of thing happens all too often, I'm afraid, and
    not always with such constructive end results.  Beyond that, the insidious
    kind of point-and-whisper gossip that can undermine an otherwise
    valuable employee's reputation contributes to this kind of covert
    discrimination, and the concomitant costs to the company.
    
    I consider that to be a real business issue behind educating the
    general employee population about the organizational challenges faced
    by gays, lesbians and bisexuals in the daily workplace.  If you don't
    want to hear about it, then in my opinion you are chosing to remain
    ignorant of the facts.  Again, please take the time to discover the
    kind of legitimate business problems associated with prejudice.
    Prejudice is born of ignorance, and, sometimes, ignorance is a
    matter of choice.  Please, make the contructive choice.  
    
    tim
    

| If this effort is an educational one, and I believe it is, then why
| isn't it being held by ED Services? Why don't the organizers create
| a 1 day course and hold it regularly in Bedford or whereever?

	Actually, it has been. It has been brought up in one course (I forget 
the name, do you remember Greg?) that was held out at the Headmasters house. I
took it last year and Greg took it this year. It wasn't a course designed for
g/l/b people, but part of it did include this. It was talked about. 

	As far as not having a DEC course on this stuff? If one is allowed,
then all are allowed. This is a company which does work. The VD people have
theirs during lunch, so as to least impact the working enviroment and people
will be able to get their jobs done. If you attend this course during lunch
time, then it's people who are willing to give up their lunches that will
attend. Work is hardly impacted. Can you see the difference?



Glen

just a few words off the cuff.


	No person has ever come up with a convincing arguement that being gay 
is an inferior state of being.  The old "it says so in the Bible" doesn't work
because it also says love thy neighbor and if the person invalidates one 
portion of the bible by attacking and making hurtful remarks to someone else
(regardless of the reasons) than how can we hope to accept their contention
that it's religeously wrong.
	Along the same lines we have lots of arguments about AIDS and Doctors
and what have you but never do we conclude that being gay has anything to do 
with that.  The connection was made only because of a weird set of demographics
of this country.  In Africa and other countries the disease is and always has
been a 'strate' disease.  I think it's safe to invalidate these arguments based
upon that fact.  People have sexual orientations, virus's do not. (unless they 
live speciifically in a part of the body that doesn't exist on one gender)
	The real problem is that people develop prejudices against things that 
are different and also because "mommy said so!".  I really find it hard to 
believe that anyone can sit here and expound about how disgusting gay people
are based upon mystical fears and childhood myth.  If anyone can come up with
a valid argument as to why the world would be worse off if gay people were 
openly accepted as a normal occurance I'd consider listening.  But what we get
is a lot of verbal harrassment (and moderators, I'm greatly surprised that
you are allowing notes to remian in here that describe co-workers natural 
states of being as "disgusting" and loathsome.), wich doesn't do anything
accept make it plainly obvious that being an adult is a relative state.
We have to understand that emotionally abused people can do nothing other 
than emtionally abuse others and unfortunately not much can be done to 
prevent that state of mind.  But what we can do is enact legislation preventing
these hateful individuals from acting out on their horrendous thoughts.
And we can also help to educate those people who are healthy and secure
and have little understanding of the gay community to learn and support
this struggle for acceptance.  Vod doesn't help people who are, at their core,
hateful and hurtful, what Vod does is help those people who are basically good 
hearted to understand and learn.

    I think the current cross-charge for course development is somewhere
    around $65/hour.  I only write the technical ones, but I rarely start a
    project with less than a $20K budget, and even that is a tiny project.
    I'd rather we invest the cash in courses about products, and respect
    the role that informal education can provide in the workplace on
    subjects such as the one above, and others.
    
    I think it's unrealistic to expect employees to teach or take
    "Utilities and Commands" on their lunch hour.  I think it's entirely
    appropriate that voluntary, informal educational events that are
    *planned and presented* by employees be made available for free during
    lunch to interested coworkers.
    
    Holly

    Re: LABC::RU
    
    You are very selective about what you read in this topic.  Notice, your
    own, original note: .0, EXPLICITY DOES use the words Valuing Diversity.
    
> 	"MARLBORO AREA LESBIAN, BISEXUAL & GAY AWARENESS DAY"
>
>			FRIDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1991
>
>
>In celebration of National Coming Out day, which is Friday, October 11, the
>Greater Marlboro Area Valuing Diversity Committee will be sponsoring a
                       ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
>Lesbian/Bisexual/Gay Awareness Day. National Coming Out Day is a day for
    
    You really have to pay attention to your own words, or in this case,
    someone else's words that you chose to post, let alone the words
    of the other people who have taken the time to join in with this
    conversation, if you expect to retain any credibility...
    
    One more time: This has nothing to do with sex.  Really.  Honest.
    Sex - no; discrimination - yes.
    
    tim
    

    
    	Look at it on the bright side, folks, this string of replies has
    probably educated a larger audience than the day in MRO ever would.
    
    	But, the reason for the reply: I wish that the Valuing Differences
    program had a different name.  What's in a name?  A lot.  There are
    many things in life that I value, *all* of which are things that I
    like.  I don't value a flat tire, for example.  (And no, I'm not trying
    to equate the subject of this topic with a flat tire...)  I don't value
    things that I don't like.  The American Heritage dictionary has as the
    second definition of valuing as being "To prize; esteem."  It seems
    quite contrary to human nature to expect people to prize or esteem
    something that they don't like.  (One could argue that there are even
    things that you can like without holding them up to the level of
    "to prize; esteem".)
    
    	But I can _understand_ things I don't like.  And I can use that
    understanding to act accordingly to not offend people who like that
    particular thing.  But my understanding and actions do not mean that I
    have to like, approve or suggest that "thing" to someone else.
    
    	I would much prefer for all of these programs to be called
    "understanding differences" since that makes it clearer that the intent
    is to explain the basic differences in people, and not to try to
    elevate the thing in difference to the level of being prized or
    esteemed.  The first goal is what the Digital policies are for -- to
    eliminate workplace discrimination -- while the second sounds much more
    like "we're going to try to get you to like this" which results in the
    negatives expressed in many of these replies.
    
    							-craig

re: .182

When I said "have in common" I'm talking about all homosexuals not just two.
When you disagreed it sounded like you had some other stereotypical
attributes and that's where the prejudice business came from.  You
cleared that up, so forget it.

I agree with you about everyone being diverse, but that kind of diversity
applies to everyone.  What does it have to do with being gay?  Oh well,
no big deal, I don't really have a big problem with the event.  After all
this discussion, it will be interesting to hear what people say after the
fact.

-steve

    RE: .189

    Craig,

    	    I think you are correct.  My guess is that those who
    put the Valuing Diversity program together did not foresee 
    certain reactions.  They did change the name from Valuing
    Differences to Valuing Diversity in an attempt (IMO) to head off
    those reactions.  The programs I've attended seem much more
    in tune with your suggestion about *understanding* the
    differences and valuing the diverse work environment that
    results from having an educated and understanding work force.

    RE: *

    In general, I think several of the forgoing replies are STILL,
    after over one hundred and eighty notes, confused about what
    a valuing diversity event is.  For me, the result is not
    depression over the idea there are still bigots at DEC.  No, for
    me the result is depression over the fact that there are so many 
    people at DEC with reading comprehension problems.  

    Anyway, it's all there folks.  If you really want to know, all you 
    have to do is read what has been written.  Further ignorant diatribes 
    on not wanting to be forced to value sexual acts should be ignored
    (and will be, by me at any rate).

    
    What follows is a reply to Edp's 1616.163 

    
    RE: .163 (EDP)

    >> 	I'm not interpreting *any* criticism of VoD programs.  I am
    >>	interpreting YOUR criticism.
    >
    >And my criticism did not have a broad brush, so you interpreted it
    >incorrectly.  Your interpretation was based not on what I said, but on
    >your own beliefs -- hence you are prejudiced.

	I don't really wish to argue semantics with you (I don't think I
	have the patience) - but I will say that the overall thrust of
	your criticism of VoD relied on mention of an absurd policy at
	a University.  You have been unable to say anything about VoD
	that proves it follows the same kind of fascist thinking, except
	for describing part of the Digital policy on harassment as being 
	somewhat vague - and then making a vague connection of your own 
	that Digital might somehow start to outlaw "inappropriate laughter."

	And taken in the context of this discussion, you are prejudging an 
	event based upon your own beliefs on how Digital *may* interpret 
	an (admittedly) vague policy.  That reveals *YOUR* prejudice.

	True, you did mention specific complaints about Christmas carolers,
	a lost lunch table and excessively noisy video tapes, but none of
	those things are a mandatory part of VoD, nor even a part of the
	particular VoD event being discussed in this string.

    >> 	Please tell me where and how ANY VoD program has come even close
    >>	to (what I suspect is) the unusually harsh policy of the Connecticut
    >>	University mentioned in _Illiberal Education_.  
    >
    >The program at the University of Connecticut has come close to the
    >harsh policy at the University of Connecticut.  And you have no grounds
    >for calling that policy unusually harsh -- D'Souza mentions that there
    are others.  It is reflective of the trends today; the entire book
    >documents trends at universities across the country.  

	I was referring to Digital VoD programs.  You brought up the 
	University of Connecticut in an attempt to criticize a Digital
	program.  

	I certainly DO have grounds for calling that policy unusually harsh.  
	It is unlike any policy I've ever heard of before and I have seen 
	several University harassment polices.	That makes it unusually
	harsh to me.  But you say D'Souza said there were others.  Well how 
	many others?  You say D'Souza says this is a reflection of the trends 
	of today.  So tell me, does he state the rate at which such policies
	are being adopted? Surely you didn't just rely on his *opinion* or 
	his *interpretation* of data.  Surely you must have seen the data 
	yourself.

    >An overly broad policy is inherently unfair because it can -- and will
    >-- be used to punish those persons or behaviors that authorities CHOOSE
    >to punish, instead of the proper ethical use of written policies to
    >punish persons or behaviors according to an OBJECTIVE standard.

	This is purely speculation on your part.  Who has been punished
	by the current harassment policy and what exactly was their
	punishment?  

	***

	In sum, while you have mentioned specifics, you have no evidence
	that they apply directly to the VoD event in question, nor to VoD
	in general.  People are not "forced" to participate and those who
	object are not penalized. You have had to rely on the broad argument 
	that "trends" at a University (not even another business) are somehow 
	indicative of what *might* happen at Digital if your *opinion* on 
	Digital's harassment policy is accurate.

	That is why I said you were using a broad brush to attack VoD.
	It appears to me you are simply jumping on the anti-liberal-PC 
	bandwagon.  Some of your complaints have merit (and I believe
	I acknowledged that in my last note), but I think you are going
	overboard in your criticism of Digital's Valuing Diversity policy.

	/Greg

                       <<< Note 1616.186 by LABC::RU >>>
                        -< What really is this event! >-

>>    Now I understand the purpose of this event, it is to tell the world
>>    that it is 'normal' and ok to sleep with any sex you want, sometime
>>    more than one.  Probably it also means that one will sleep with his/her
>>    wife/husband and at the same period of time sleep with his/her lover
>>    of same or different sex, or even group sex?


Oh come on!!!! Are you for real?!!!? Rachael was talking about her dogs! And
she was joking! Reread her entry.

I'm of the opinion that your just putting this stuff in to keep up
controversy.
            
Uuggghhh!!!

Scott

I've read all the replies to this note so far and I am very sad to see so much
hatred and intolerance spewing forth (granted, its only from a very vocal few,
but lord! What hatred!!!)

Tell me this, I have the following inside my office;

1) A picture of George Michael
2) a Flyer from Harvard proclaiming BGLAD (Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian Awareness Day)
3) A newspaper picture of me and another man (obviously more than friends)
4) Several pictures of a handsome young man about my age.
5) A newspaper picture of a transvestite friend with several men who are
 'obviously' gay (only because one is kissing the other on the cheek)
6) Several pins on the outside of my office of "GAY PRIDE" symbols

Am I flaunting my 'sexuality' to people who come to my office on a regular 
basis? I don't think so. Do I point out these things to everyone who comes in?
No. But they're there. But when someone asks me if I'm married or have a 
girlfriend, I say "No. My boyfriend would get upset". ;^) 

I think it very important for lesbigays to 'come out' where ever they can. It 
gives us visibility and reminds heterosexuals 'not to assume anything' about
anyone. Many of you ask, "Why have a Gay Awarness Day at work?" Simple, the same
reason we have Black History Month or Woman's Awareness Week or Deaf Awareness
Week. Because lesbigays are a very real, very integral part of the work force.
We could be your co-worker, or your boss (or your boss' boss), you never know
because unlike your sex or race, sexual orientation is not immediatly 
identifiable. I myself have been told very offensive 'faggot' jokes as 'one of
the guys' in some old jobs and it is not a very pleasant thing to do to swallow
one's pride and take it. Its really disruptive to your mental health when you
have to keep hearing negative things about you (that you know are not true) but
you can't say anything because they may turn against you.

In my last job, I worked in security at BUO. When I came out to that group, I 
told my manager, my Team Leader, and a close friend who worked there. Pretty 
soon, the entire department knew and I got wind of a very nasty scene that took 
place down at Base Control. One of my fellow workers went ape-sh^t and said he
wasn't gonna work with any f^&k*@ faggot. He told my Team Leader that he didn't
want to be in the same locker room as me. This really shocked and upset me and
I couldn't understand why this would be. This guy seriously thought that just 
because he was a man and I was gay, that I would automatically hit on him.
Please. I stayed in security for a year and a half more and when I left,
EVERYONE, _every single person_ in that group, valued me and my input and no
longer view lesbigays as sick and a source of cheap laughs. Even the one who 
had the violent reaction to my being gay turned around and accepted the fact 
that I was gay, we had hours of enjoyable and enlightening conversation. As a
result of my 'educating' my co-workers, they are now more understanding and I
would hope that in their own social circles, whenever they encounter homphobia,
they will think of me and put an end to it. In this way, acceptance and 
understanding is spread.

So why have a 'Gay Awareness Day' at work? Its a pretty obvious answer if you 
ask me.


I am extremely lucky to be in the situation I am in now. I work for a wonderful
group of people, my family is the best in the world and I love them all dearly 
(as they do, me) and I have only the best people as friends. 

I am gay and I bet that if you had the courage to try and know me, you'd find me
to be an extremely likeable person too, maybe just like you.


Scott

re: .189,

    	I agree that perhaps renaming the program office [yet again]
    to "Understanding Differences" or even "Settling Differences"
    might be somewhat more appropriate considering the objectives.

    	On a lighter note, today for lunch me and some of my bonded
    male het buddies (Fred, Barney, and I) went to lunch in the cafe
    just like we always do, and to our surprise, there was a table
    with G/L/B information displayed!  For kicks we decided to take
    a peek at some of the information, so we picked up some of the
    pamphlets and began reading.  We got some good laughs at first,
    then we noticed some interesting stuff, so we kept on reading,
    meanwhile, this gay guy must have seen us reading because he 
    comes walking up and so we all freaked out - dropped everything
    and instantly tripped over each other and all three of us fell
    on top of each other in a big pile in the middle of the hallway!

    	So there we are, all piled on top of each other, and scared
    to death that this gay guy's gonna queer us or something, when...

    	(now guess what happened next, scenario A or scenario B):

Scenario A:

    ...sure enough, he starts chanting weird phrases and waving
    signs back and forth making us dizzy, and before you know it,
    everything he says all starts to make sense and we all start
    hugging and kissing each other right there on the floor until
    Fred suggests we all run out and divorce our wives so we can
    all move in together and get married to each other - so we all
    did and now we are trying to live happily ever after except we
    can't be happy until we recruit some more male hets to join our
    cause, so now we setup booths at other Digital facilities and put
    lots of pamphlets on the table, and then we go hide and wait for
    unsuspecting male het Digital employees to come along.

Scenario B:

    ...he finally asks us if we saw the Monday night football game on
    TV - he says we reminded him of one of the plays.  Well, it turns
    out that this gay guy - I think he said his name was Bob - is a
    Patriots fan, so we started talking about the game and everything,
    and damned if he wasn't such a bad guy after all!  Of course, we
    all stayed our distance mind you, but we ended up talking to this
    guy for a good fifteen minutes or so.  Then we had to go eat before
    the cafe closed.  Later during lunch we got some good laughs about
    how stupid we must have looked falling all over each other to get
    away from that gay guy when it turned out that he wasn't such a
    weirdo after all.
    
    	Which story sounds more likely?  You guess.

    				  -davo

    Funny, but as a heterosexual white male for a considerable period of
    time (who knows, I MIGHT "choose" a different orientation later - but I
    probably wouldn't be considered a prize catch under either
    regime...-;).  I have no problem with the program as stated in the
    announcement that started the whole note string.
    
    I can stop by or not, I can listen or not, and I always have that
    choice.  No Digital organization has EVER approached me on terms that
    eliminated that choice, and none has EVER forbidden me the right to
    make my views known.  Have any of you who complain about "I wouldn't be
    allowed to..." actually TRIED setting up a "Boring Heterosexual White 
    Males complaining about not being on top anymore" day?  (Apologies to
    Dave Barry.)  Or, possibly, a POSITIVE event????  Who (name names please)
    forbade you to hold the event and why?  If you haven't actually tried
    and been rebuffed (several times - even in direct business affairs you
    can expect that), do you recall the term "Parlor Pinks"?  (Used to
    describe people in the 30s-40s who were great professors of
    revolutionary rhetoric but never actually did anything to overthrow
    anybody - highly derogatory at the time...)
    
    Other people being different is not a threat to me or me beliefs.  Other
    people DECLARING themselves different is not a threat to me or my
    beliefs.  Other people trying to PERSUADE me (in a civilized fashion)
    is not a threat to my beliefs.  Hell, I get more offensive and impolite
    advances on my beliefs from normal advertising (and lots of regular 
    meetings at Digital) than anything I've ever seen from VoD.
    
    I've been propositioned by men, flattering, even if I don't choose to 
    take advantage of it.  Not at all offensive, if done politely.  And
    declined politely (I trust - I WAS raised properly, even if I sometimes
    ignore it.).
    
    So, what the hell is the problem, anyway?  So far as I can see, most of
    those against the event have spun absolutely amazing fantasies of
    sexual storm troopers holding them down while Hitlerian propaganda is
    poured into their ears - which doesn't describe any event I've ever seen 
    in Digital.  (Maybe we should try it as a technique for getting the
    business messages across?  We don't do that well either -;)).
    
    /Dave

re .173 BAGELS::CARROLL and others who feel that diversity issues should be 
left on the doorstep when one enters the office...

What you are practicing (and advocating others to practice) is basically to 
be blind to other people's differences and treat everyone like yourself 
(white-male-heterosexual-Christian, as far as I can tell from your 
replies).

On first glance, being "color blind" with regard to people seems like it'd 
be great for treating everyone as equals.  But what happens when we ignore 
the fact that a person (or group of persons) is something other than the 
standard/majority/norm?  We assimilate them to be like ourselves, *assume* 
them to be just like ourselves, and forget all about all the cultural 
components that make them distinct human beings.

Having a "we're all the same here" environment in a workplace (or 
university, or whatever) forces people to hide anything about themselves 
than makes them unique.  People feel compelled to assimilate by leaving 
pieces of themselves (those pieces that are different from the norm) out of 
the environment in order to conform to the standard of the pre-packaged 
environment.  What do you feel when you're *compelled* to do something? 
It's uncomfortable, sometimes frightening.  Do you do your best work under 
those circumstances?  I doubt it. 

One harmful aspect of this is the judgments that get brought on anyone who 
is 'different' - who doesn't 'fit in' with the crowd.  White shirts are 
"good," earrings are "bad;" African art is "better," accents are "worse." 
Those who conform to the norm easily pass judgment on those who do not 
conform 100%..."You're okay as long as you're like me, but if you're 
different, you're bad!"

The whole message (imo) of "Valuing Diversity" is that everyone is treated 
as equal while their differences are respected.  At Digital, this means 
that [ideally] people should be able to bring their whole selves to work, 
and not feel that they have to leave the 'Black pieces' or the 'female 
pieces' or the 'Jewish pieces' or the 'gay pieces' or the 'Italian pieces' 
at the front door.

People *are* different, people have a *right* to be different; people's 
differences affect their work style, language, behavior and many other 
aspects of their whole person.  And in the workplace, it's been proven that 
people are more productive, and more loyal to their employer, when they 
feel that they truly belong, and are valued for who they are, not just what 
tasks they can perform.  Ignoring pieces of people to make them 'fit in' 
is not the way to show respect and does not result in the person feeling 
valued.

[BTW, I did not write this reply for this topic...I wrote it 6 months ago 
for a discussion in the now-archived version of Soapbox - 837.152 - it just 
seemed appropriate to resurrect it.]

Also btw, the "Understanding the Dynamics of Differences" course *is* 
taught by Ed Services...at least it was two years ago when I attended it.

.89 (Al)
    
>>> We are up late arn't we.

Maybe for you but not for me. I'm a night owl. It's very normal for me to 
be up past 12:00 PM.
    
        
>>> Since this note is public announcement, I post it without
>>> perssion.

I'm the original author of the announcement note posted in 1616.0 and
you did post this without my permission. I did not want it posted in here.

*re:88  This is a public event on DEC property and as such deserves public 
        comment in notes or in public and as such I see no reason for anyone
        accepting your permission or asking for it concerning its insertion 
        in this notes file.


According to DEC policy 6.54 from the orangebook, it is acceptable to 
cross-post general announcements without the permission of the author.
Below I've posted the section of this policy which states that:


[quote]
                Proper Use of Digital Computers, Systems and
                                   Networks

RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONTENT OF MESSAGES SENT OR POSTED ON NETWORK

Messages mailed or posted over the Digital network are the
responsibility of the original author.  Posting these materials in a
notesfile/conference without the explicit permission of the author is
prohibited and is a violation of this policy.

When forwarding messages or posting them to conferences, removal or
falsification of the original message header (which indicates the
author) is prohibited.

| This policy covers all messages addressed to individuals and
| organizations.  It is not intended to restrict the distribution of
| general announcements, course listings, etc., or messages originally
| posted on external bulletin boards such as Usenet news groups.

[end quote]

However, the following section is also in section 6.54:

[quote]

In addition, these conferences may not be used to promote behavior
which is contrary to the Company's values or policy (i.e., they may
not promote discrimination, disrespect for the individual, violence,
etc.).  It is the responsibility of employees who utilize such notes
files to do so in a manner consistent with both the letter and spirit
of this policy and the Company's values.  The Company reserves the
right to terminate any notesfile it believes is inappropriate or in
violation of this policy.

[end quote]

I posted the announcement of the awareness day for informational purposes. 
Jason Ru cross-posted it in here and opened it up for criticism without 
even letting me know so as to give me a chance to come in here and 
offer further details about this event. The first time I read this 
notesfiles was this week when topic 1616 was entered in here. Someone, not 
Jason, informed me that my announcement had been cross-posted in here.

In note 1616.7 Jason then blow the event out of proportion by suggesting
that there may be "on-site homosexual activity" and "anti-gay
confrontations". If I had not gotten in here to further explain the details
of this day note 1616.7 could have caused false rumors and misinformation
to start spreading all over the company about an event whose sole purpose
is to spread awareness for those who want to try and understand.

I think it was rude, disrespectful and irresponsible for Jason to do this
cross-posting without at least informing me that he was doing this. I took
a big risk in coming out at DEC as a lesbian and having my name attached to
this announcement. Not only am I risking verbal abuse and discrimation but
physical violence as well due to the extreme hatred, angry and total
intolerance which many people have for gay and bisexual people. This
extreme hatred and anger is clearly expressed in this string. Physical gay
bashing is a reality. It happens all the time. Spreading misinformation
about this event could cause me to be the target of not only verbal abuse
but of physical body harm by people who have read incorrect information 
in this string or second-hand from someone reading this string.

I will be forwarding this note to many people in corporate.

Laurie

    re: -3 (Deb Arch)
    
    Excellent note, Deb!
    
    Laurie

    
    	My, my, my.   What a ruckus over a simple announcement!!
    
    You know, it's ironic that this VoD presentation should get so much
    publicity when it's really a run-of-the-mill VoD event.  After all, 
    this is not the *first* such event.  It is not even the second or 
    third, as such it really should have no significance other than the 
    fact that it is the specific day designated as National Coming Out 
    Day.  This is an event set up on a national scale a few years ago to
    encourage lesbigay people to stand up and be proud of themselves.
    I don't feel I need to go into the history of it, if you need to know
    more--read a pamphlet or article on it.
    
    No, this should not have been any more than what it was set up to be..
    an educational, informational event designed to enlighten those people
    who are *interested* in learning more.  There is no arm twisting, no 
    preaching, no "recruiting".  Only a small opening in the "closet" door
    to let in some light and alleviate the fears that some people have
    about people who are _different_ from themselves.
    
    If all of you who object to this certain event are really concerned
    about this "perversion" permeating the company looking for converts,
    then I ask you--where were you and your opposition when this all
    started??  This is not a new event, there have been *many* L/B/G events
    staged all _over_ this corporation in the past **Three** years.  I
    know this because *I* will take the credit/blame for helping to
    initiate the  **FIRST**  L/B/G event in the corporation!!  I am PROUD
    to say that I participated in the committee to present this ground
    breaking presentation.  It was totally backed by our personell dept.
    and our plant manager who was glad to present our panel members to the
    people who came to participate.  We had a very open and honest dialog
    with six people of various backgrounds who work(ed) for DEC and were
    out in their respective jobs.  All of this is on video tape and
    available from your VoD rep.  I hear that the tape is *quite* popular
    and has gotten *very* good reviews from almost all that have seen it.
    
    I have been working here in Westfield for 17 years, 15 of which I have 
    been more or less "out" to the people I worked with.  I did this to 
    preserve my sanity and to be more comfortable with the people I had to 
    work with.  I *will* be at the MRO event on the 11th, so if any of you
    who want to voice their objections in person--please, come over and
    join us!  You see, the company has "known" about us for _quite_ some
    time now and has backed *every* event done at *every* site that had the
    energy and commitment to do one.   We are here to inform those that
    _want_ the information, not to force feed those that _don't_.  We are
    here to dispell the fear and myths that surround us.  Our goal is to
    allay that fear in just *one* person, anybody else that learns after
    that is "pure gravy".  If any of you choose *not* to be that one
    person, then that is fine with us--it has been shown that you can not
    teach anyone who is not willing to learn.  All we ask of you who
    dissent, is to allow others who _wish_ to learn more the chance to get
    the information needed.  Please do not let your point of view interfere
    with another person's *choice* to enlighten _their_ point of view.
    
    Sincerely,
    
    Debbi
    
    PS.  Thank you! to all of the people who wrote in here in support of
    this issue, your voice is *greatly* appreciated!
    

    Re .164:
    
    > And if you are a heterosexual you don't need to be afraid that the
    > listener will decide to start submitting negative reports about your
    > work performance so they can get you out of their department...scary,
    > huh?  There is a very huge double standard on this.  Can any of the
    > "neg-a-noters" see that?

    Actually, there is not so much of a double standard as you think.  In
    spite of being heterosexual, I _do_ have to consider what I say to whom
    about what I did this weekend with my friends.  That is not a
    difference between people; it is a similarity.
    
    And I do think that should be corrected, but I do not think cafeteria
    displays are the way to do it.  Nor do I think it should be done by
    trying to convince people that homosexuality is good or that the myths
    are false.  I think people should be permitted to retain their beliefs,
    and the focus should be on getting people to live and let live even
    though they have differences.
    
    For example, suppose there were a country on this planet where there
    was no official religion and freedom of religion were endorsed.  In
    this country, we might find Christians and Muslims, among others. 
    Let's further suppose, for the sake of argument, that the religious
    beliefs of these people are incompatible.  I do not mean just that the
    two belief systems are not logically consistent with each other (i.e.,
    one person cannot logically believe both), but that each religion
    includes strong beliefs that people who adhere to the other religion
    are immoral.
    
    As I see it, today's campaigns are similar to the Christians trying to
    convert the Muslims, or vice-versa.  Further, the Christians (or the
    Muslims) are making rules that the Muslims (or the Christians) must not
    display their beliefs, let alone act on them.  In this case, the
    Christian (or Muslim) idea of tolerance is to get the Muslims (or the
    Christians) to alter their beliefs so that everybody can get along.
    
    Can you see that this is a bad situation?  The Christians (or Muslims)
    say they are not trying to convert the Muslims to Christianity, just to
    get the Muslims not to believe the Christians are bad, but the fact is
    that what they are doing is opposing the Islam religion.  If continued,
    this can only lead to war.
    
    Instead, a better situation is that the Christians and the Muslims
    learn to live together even though they have different beliefs. 
    Physically fighting each other would be wrong and should not be
    tolerated, but they should be allowed to coexist peacefully believing
    each other are immoral.
    
    The analogy here is to various "groups of difference" (blacks, gays,
    Asians, Greek Orthodox, immigrants from the Caucasus mountains,
    whatever) trying to convince others of their "facts".  Digital, like
    many other companies, universities, and government agencies, is trying
    to convince people to believe the politically correct line.  This will
    not work; it is like Christians insisting upon converting Muslims -- it
    is intolerant and will only lead to friction and hatred.
    
    Digital, and many other companies, universities, and government
    agencies, instead ought to be urging people to coexist peacefully in
    spite of their beliefs.  Both Christians and Muslims ought to learn
    that they can live peacefully with their neighbors even if they believe
    are wrong, or even immoral.  Of course, some conversion attempts are
    okay, but it should not be done by fiat.
    
    > "...displaces other people"...well, since multiple surveys have shown that
    > G/L/B's are upwards of 10% of the population, we can probably make a case
    > for one table in a lunchroom.  I havn't been to MRO lately---is there a 
    > table shortage?
    
    At ZK, any display usually displaces some people from their tables.  It
    does not matter how much of the population any group represents; they
    should not be using lunch tables for this purpose.  It is not the right
    place.                            
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .175:
    
    > . . . the notes that advocate tollerance.  This includes both those
    > who support the concept with some reservations, and those who support
    > the implementation as presented so far.
    
    You left out a group of notes/people that advocate tolerance.  There
    are people who advocate tolerance without reservation but who oppose
    current implementations of "Valuing Diversity".  Why do so many people
    have this blind spot?
    
    Today's programs about "Valuing Diversity", at Digital and elsewhere,
    are becoming more and more insistent that people believe the
    politically correct platform.  That is intolerance, not tolerance. 
    Tolerance means acceptance of differences.  Tolerance means acceptance
    of homosexuals and equal rights for homosexuals, and tolerance means
    acceptance of people who believe homosexuality is immoral or unnatural.
    Some authors in this topic are calling for the banning or punishment of
    statements that homosexuality is unnatural.  The people calling for
    such bans are intolerant.  They want to censor; they want to control
    other people's beliefs and access to ideas and public forums.
    
    Speech by people with all beliefs should be permitted here -- it is a
    forum for speech.  A cafeteria is a forum for eating -- eating by
    people with all beliefs should be permitted there.
    
    Here, everybody speaks.  In the cafeteria, everybody eats.  That is
    tolerance.  That is not what we have.
    
    What we have is this:  In the cafeteria, only "in" ideas are promoted. 
    Further, those ideas are not ideas of peaceful co-existence but ideas
    of altering other people's beliefs.  That is not tolerance.
                                      
    
    				-- edp

    Let's get real here, folks...
    
    If someone made statements decrying heterosexuality as disgusting and
    immoral, others would be offended (including me, as a heterosexual.)
    
    Who would be exhibiting "intolerance" in this situation, though - those
    who insisted on stating that heterosexuality is immoral (or those who
    were offended?)
    
    Imagine logging into this notesfile and reading "Heterosexuality is
    totally disgusting.  Men and women having sex is immoral, and the
    resulting CHILDREN that come from it are disgusting, too.  If people
    insist on choosing this lifestyle, they should LEAVE IT AT HOME. 
    It's disgusting to see photos of children on someone's desk - and even
    worse when they bring children to visit the office.  Each child is a
    product of a disgusting and immoral sex act.  Gross!!!  Leave these
    creatures at home - don't shove your disgusting sexual practices down
    my throat by mentioning marriage and/or children!!!"
    
    No one has said this, of course - but if someone did, do any of us
    suppose we'd accept the argument that *objecting* to these condemnations
    is an example of intolerance???
    
    Should Digital allow employees to be told that their children are
    "disgusting products of an immoral sex act"?  If not, then Digital
    should not allow homosexuality/bisexuality/lesbianism to be described
    in similar terms in this notesfile.

    re: .173
    
    >>There is no room in a business environment for peoples personal lives,
    >>they stop at the employees entrance.  
        
    >>I happen
    >>to have a sexual preference for orientals, but do you see me making an
    >>issue out of it (I am married to one, see some discrimination but write
    >>it off to ignorance and get on with my life).
    
Then why did you just tell us your racial (not sexual) preference for 
Asians?  Why did you just tell us that you are married?  I thought you just 
said that there is no room in a business environment for peoples personal 
lives.  I guess, since you are a part of the morally and naturally correct 
heterosexual population, you do not have to practice what you preach.

But, the fact is, you were not barred from marrying an Asian person just 
because of a racial issue.  How would you feel if you had been legally 
barred from marrying the person that you love...that your relationship was 
not viewed as valid, that your relationship was viewed as disgusting 
because you love a person whose skin color is different from yours?
    

    Suzanne, I accept your opinion and attempt to persuade my in a VAX
    Notes Conference that homosexuality is equally moral in all aspects to
    heterosexuality.  Debate, as edp has mentioned, is a good thing when
    all sides can be heard, and the audience makes an affirmative action to
    attend.
    
    What is the proper role of Digital in changing my beliefs regarding
    sexual orientation?
    
    Pat Sweeney

    If we spent as much time on work as we did on this issue, 
    we'd be kicking IBM's ass.  My $.02.

    As one of the organizers of this event I would like to clear up some
    assumptions regarding the location of the table with chairs that will
    be use by us....We will not be located directly in the Cafe we will be
    in the hallway across from the cashiers.....This is the same
    arrangement that was made when I sat at the table for the Deaf
    Awareness Week.....there will be a video playing as there was a video
    playing during Deaf Awareness Week....it will certainly not intrude on
    anyone because of the distant that we will be from the seating area 
    and us.....
    
    I would also like to clarify some things regarding the programs that
    the Greater Marlboro Area Valuing Diversity Committee sponsored....any
    event that is scheduled for the Cafe is set apart from the general
    seating area so that we do not displaced folks and that we do not
    intrude on their time....more often our events are in conference rooms
    or amphitheatres and it really depends on what the event is
    about....events that are in performance nature are more suitable in a
    amphitheatre environment.....education can be both in a conference room
    or the Cafe depending on how we would like to present the program....
    
    
    Our committee is always willing to present as many different programs
    around diversity as we can and if you have followed our programs you would 
    know that and I would invite anyone who has a suggestion to please contact
    me....
    
    Denise Hurley
    Greater Marlboro Area Valuing Diversity Committee
    
     
    

re: .194

>   Regarding outsiders being brought in, we do it all the time for
>   training purposes.  The last three courses I've taken in Bedford
>   were facilitated by contracted persons from outside companies.

>   Allison

Allison;

I know that is true but, that happens because there doesn't exist the
knowledge inside of DEC to teach that particular subject. Therefore,
contractors are brought in. From the activity within this one topic
I can't believe that DEC doesnt have enough gays to fill the roles
that the 'Boston Gay ..' (I'm sorry I can't remember the name of the 
group) are! Why is it necessary to bring in these 'outsiders' to tell
their 'coming out' experiences? Are the DEC gay employees unwilling?
The picture that popped into my head when I read that they were
coming was one of a 'militant band of leather clad village people'
invading MRO with the intent of reinforcing the local band of
renegades. Now this may show my misconceptions of what gays are 
really like so please don't rebut that image I know its wrong but, 
nevertheless, I also believe that this is what some of the detractors 
also picture. Therefore, the gays have two
strikes against them before they start, and they can not afford that
if they want to educate.

- George

 After reading many (but not all) of these replies, I am rather surprised at
the incredible hangups people have about sexual orientation. There is simply
not other reason to explain the virulent and intolerant replies here. You'd
think that homosexuality was cooties or something; at least this particular
"discussion" reminds me alot of the second grade.

 Patrick asks an important question a few notes back, "What is the proper 
role of Digital in changing my beliefs regarding sexual orientation?"

 My take on this is that Digital has a vested interest in tolerant employees
from the perspective that tolerant employees waste less time and create
less productivity reducing stress regarding the various differences that
people have in our work environment. It is obvious that some people feel so
strongly opposed to homosexuality that they would have a difficult time working
with someone that they knew was a homosexual. A state of agitation would be 
acheived whenever interaction between these two employees occurred. How does
this affect Digital?

 Digital recognizes the fact that the "cream" of the workforce is not comprised
of a monolithic group of like minded, like acting, and like looking individuals.
Because of this, there are many differences between various workers which
cannot be allowed to interfere with work if Digital is to be as successful as
we are capable. Inasmuch as differences tend to cause friction, Digital has
every reason to work towards reducing this tendency- completely from a
business perspective. 

 Personality conflicts are inevitable in any corporation, and occur for
an infinite number of reasons. If Digital, through methods of minimal cost
and effort, can eliminate some or many of the areas in which conflicts can
arise, then everyone benefits. It is my belief that this is exactly what
Digital is doing through awareness day.

 Digital could certainly be much more heavy handed about this, but that would
be counter to the culture. In reality, this awareness day is a low key event,
a table with some pamphlets designed not to "recruit" or "indoctrinate," but
to serve as a reminder that some of the people we work with are "that way",
and that intolerant remarks and behavior have a detrimental effect on real 
people AND the corporation as a whole. This is not a membership drive (in the
face of such hatred, who would really _choose_ such a thing?) This is a low
key informational event. People who get all bent out of shape over this
minor thing are late for some serious introspection pertaining to why they
feel so vehemently.

 mark

Scott, 
	Thanks for pointing out that for x&%# sake, I was just kidding!!

	There is certainly a point about why do this on corporate time in the
corporate setting.  In a way, I see that point.  But, I think that is based on
an idealistic view which simply isn't true.
	If I could just come to work and work, and all that mattered was my
work, then I would agree that we should leave non-work stuff at the door.
But the truth of the matter is that we are not machines, what shows up at
DEC each day is 100,000+ people, not robots.
	The problem with just treating everybody the same is that different
people have different rules for what is proper and nice treatment.  So,
somewhere along the line, you are going to pick what you think is OK and
treat everyone like that.  But we all know that different people have
different ideas of what's proper and nice, and what might be polite to one
person could be very rude to another.	
	If people really were being treated alike, then why do women get
paid less and promoted less than men?  Why are most secretaries women?
Why does the one male secretary I know get a lot of grief from his peers?
	I had a secretary once that took 3 weeks to get me petty cash.
(That was before EFT)  It was known to everyone in our group that she had
a problem with my sexual orientation.  That was just one example of what she
did as a result of her bigotry.  I generally ask my secretary to do something
only when it's something I cannot do, as I believe other tasks waste their
time.  But I am an engineer, and there are things I need my secretary to do
for me.  Having to wait weeks because my sexual orientation offended her 
interfered with my work.  And how did she find out?  I didn't tell her.
I got a dozen roses at work and she asked who sent them.  Somebody else told
her.  I did not do anything other than receive flowers at work, she was the
one that had to know....  
	My point is that we do not live in an ideal world.  Discrimination
happens.  Before I came out, I used to think that things were so much more
fair than I now do.  You have to either be very sensitive or a minority 
yourself to really understand discrimination, because when it's not happening
to you, it can be very subtle.
	The general public probably doesn't see much gay bashing, because 
they hardly ever see any gays.  But for me, it's a daily reality.
And I think education is the answer.
	As for recruiting, that's one of those "I don't know wheter to laugh
or cry" comments.  Why on Earth would I bother to recruit someone who's not
interested?  Why would I want to encourage straight people to be gay?   I don't
even find straight women attractive!  To be sure, there are plenty whose looks 
and personalities I value, but I've never wanted to have one for a lover.  To
be sure, there are lots of whites on the beaches in the summer, but it's not
the blacks that are telling them to get out there.  Kind of irrelevent, but
I've always thought that was really funny.
	The upshot of this kind of rambling note is the following message:
	
	When you make your decision on whether or not DEC should have this
sort of even on site, please don't even pretend that gays are not hassled
or discriminated against at DEC.  Further, don't assume there is one way
which you can just treat everybody like, that's just a thinly disguised 
way of assuming everybody is like yourself.

Rachael

    RE: .207  Pat Sweeney
    
    > Suzanne, I accept your opinion and attempt to persuade my in a VAX
    > Notes Conference that homosexuality is equally moral in all aspects to
    > heterosexuality. 
    
    Pat, I'm not trying to convince you of any such thing.  Morality about
    sexual practices is a matter of perspective.  (As someone raised in a
    Roman Catholic home, I grew up believing that we heterosexuals had the
    market cornered on sexual immorality - I was certainly warned about it
    often enough.  My views on this have changed quite a bit since then.)
    
    An individual's beliefs about heterosexual or G/B/L morality *DO NOT*
    belong at work, though, especially as statements of condemnation that
    can (and do) hurt other employees.
    
    > What is the proper role of Digital in changing my beliefs regarding
    > sexual orientation?
    
    Digital has no role in changing your beliefs regarding sexual orienta-
    tion.  Digital does insist, however, that we (all of us!) refrain from
    harassing and discriminating against people based on sexual orientation.
    
    Digital is willing to provide help in this by allowing VOLUNTARY onsite
    interaction among those who are willing to discuss how heterosexual
    employees can interactive positively at work with G/B/L employees.
    
    What's the harm in that?

    Re .205:
    
    > No one has said this, of course - but if someone did, do any of us
    > suppose we'd accept the argument that *objecting* to these
    > condemnations is an example of intolerance???

    I would.  Objecting to statements made in a free forum is censorship. 
    By "objecting" here, I mean calling for the statements to be banned,
    when the statements are not written in obscene terms, et cetera.  Even
    if the statements are offensive, they should be permitted.  Doing
    otherwise is censorship and intolerance.
    
    > Should Digital allow employees to be told that their children are
    > "disgusting products of an immoral sex act"?  If not, then Digital
    > should not allow homosexuality/bisexuality/lesbianism to be described
    > in similar terms in this notesfile.

    If Digital wants to support a free, fair, and tolerant forum, then yes,
    it should permit its employees to be told that -- in those forums where
    the subject includes it.  The same standards apply for pro- and anti-
    homosexual and heterosexual statements.  _All_ should be permitted in
    an open forum where the very purpose is the exchange of ideas.  _None_
    should be permitted in a forum where the purpose is eating and
    relaxing.  _None_ should be foist by Digital on its employees.
    
    Censorship, even of offensive ideas, is intolerance.
    
    
    				-- edp

Like others in this conference, I am deeply saddened by the words of a few
people.  I always felt that DEC employees were a cut above the rest and that
thought has been born out in my dealings with other Decies, even in these
trying times.

A lot of this Valuing Differences/Divirsity stuff wouldn't be necessary if we
could all remember to live by that simple rule we were taught when we were
very young...

Treat others as we would like to be treated.


However, I am not so naive to believe that everyone will be willing/able to
change their attitudes.  I was raised (for the most part), by my mother and her
parents.  I remember one evening I think we were watching All In The Family and
my grandmother making a statement to me, "Don't you ever try to bring a black
woman into this house!".  I was stunned.  Fortunately for her, she didn't live
long enough to see me marry a beautiful South American woman.  So, we need
these VoD things to reach those we can.  For the others, well, our children
will outlive them.

Bob

>>     <<< Note 1616.214 by BEING::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

>>    Censorship, even of offensive ideas, is intolerance.


The complaint is, that the offensive notes _ARE NOT_ offering ideas. All I see
is a bunch of hatred about how they think its disgusting, immoral, ad naseum
etc.

Where is their constructive criticism? I don't see any.

I do not like being called sick, perverted, immoral, disgusting etc. Cause I'm
not and neither are any of my other lesbigay friends. 
                    
What I find disgusting is the fact that people are spreading lies and
misconceptions about 'us' as truths. 

What I find sick is the fact that a man can get the sh^t kicked out of him 
just for standing in front of a gay bar in Boston, minding his own business. 

What I find disgusting is the man that screams "F-ing faggots!" as he drives 
by in a car with a bunch of friends. 

What I find scary is the man who comes up to me and says, "If I had my gun, 
I'd kill you right now." Just because I gave a male friend a kiss goodnight.

What's immoral is when a man kills his wife and unborn for insurance and then
blames it on a black man.

So don't dare tell me my life is immoral. I enjoy life and people and I always
give people a benefit of a doubt. I'm the nicest person you'll ever want to 
meet and I'll go out of my way to help anyone in a jam. I don't ask for
anything in return, just the right to live my life free from fear, hassle, and
discrimination just because I'm gay. 

Scott

Reading through this string, I've been really very heartened by most of
the replies, reflecting intelligence, respect for others, and support
for all one's fellow employees.

For the few who proudly and loudly maintain their hate, bigotry, and
ignorance, I have to feel sorry.  Unfortunately, they hurt and offend
others, including us gays and lesbians, and their minority remarks
leave a bad taste out of proportion.

(For the economic-minded, note that feeling supported in my right
to exist here at Digital does make me more productive, more willing to
go the extra mile -- VoD works for me and my contribution to the
Bottom Line :-))

	MKV

(p.s. nice note .211, Mark...and .215...and others in this string that I don't
remember...)

re: .214,

    	Eric, as a scholar, you should know that the world isn't
    always perfectly objective in the way rules are applied.  That's
    why judges in courts base their decisions on precendents, and each
    decision is not made in a vacuum.

    	Similarly, notesfiles at DEC are and have always been censored
    to a certain degree based on the emotional reactions of certain
    noters to specific notes.  By virtue of this precedent, there is
    a long history of notes having been deleted which other noters
    found to be offensive.  I'm not saying I necessarily agree with
    this practice either, but it is nevertheless a precedent which has
    been set in this and in most other notesfiles on the corporate Easynet.

    	It is therefore extremely inconsistent to suddenly allow rude
    and offensive remarks towards a particular group of people to remain
    posted as notes even as several people have already complained several
    times about to both the original authors, as well as what would appear
    to be the moderators as well.  The latest complaint of offensive notes
    was posted at 1:35 AM (1616.198) and and as of my posting of this note,
    none of the offensive notes in question (1616.9, 1616.24, 1616.28,
    1616.49, 1616.67) have been deleted.

        This practice is either blatant discrimination against a particular
    minority on the part of the moderators or it is the beginning of an
    entirely new era of free speech in Digital's internal notesfiles.
    I have not seen any such announcements regarding new noting rights
    allowed to employees who wish to fully express themselves in notesfiles,
    so I can only assume that discrimination is occurring on the part
    of authors and/or moderators who have thusfar neglected to delete
    the offensive notes in question despite requests to do so.

    				   -davo

                     <<< Note 1616.221 by CSC32::PITT >>>
                            -< sex is sex is sex.  >-

>>    Lets not try to pretend that this discussion, that this event all fall
>>    down to the one point of "who you have SEX with".

>>    Haven't we established here that 1)this event IS about who you have sex
>>    with, and 2)a person should not be judged soley on the basis of who
>>    (what) they have sex with (which I do agree with mind you but nobody
>>    took the time to ask..). 
  

I hate to dispell this myth but not every gay man likes to have sex with every
guy they're interested in.

When I see someone I am attracted to, sure its based on some physical
attraction and I may like to sleep with them, but its not just the sex. For me
personally, I could care less if I had sex fifty times a day or twice a week.
As long as I have some kind of emotional bond with this person. 
                                  
I would be incredibly happy just to be able to hold my lover's hand, cuddle
and kiss him, dance, eat dinner, talk, and in general just be with him to
share my life's experiences. Sex takes a back seat for me. Sure, sex is nice
and can be really fun, but when I really love someone, its not important.

I guess what I am trying to say is that being gay is not just _WHO YOU HAVE
SEX WITH_. Being gay is who you fall in love with emotionally. Who you choose
to share your joys and sorrows with. Who you would trust with your life. For
me, I could never feel as emotionally attracted to a woman as I do with another
man. It's hard to explain.


Scott

| From the activity within this one topic
| I can't believe that DEC doesnt have enough gays to fill the roles
| that the 'Boston Gay ..' (I'm sorry I can't remember the name of the
| group) are! Why is it necessary to bring in these 'outsiders' to tell
| their 'coming out' experiences? 

	I guess part of that could be attributed to some of what is written in
this file. How some could "appear" anyway, to be homophobic. But, at the last
gay awarness day they had in this facility, they were all DEC employees, well,
one was a former DEC employee, and he was their to talk about his gay son, with
his permission of course.

| The picture that popped into my head when I read that they were
| coming was one of a 'militant band of leather clad village people'
| invading MRO with the intent of reinforcing the local band of
| renegades. 

	Hey! That was pretty good! There are some people who do wear leather,
some who don't. There are all sorts of different gay people! You know what? For
every type of gay person (however you may describe us) there is a straight
counterpart! That's the beauty of it! While your view is of only one type
(well, in the fact that some wear leather, the militant part is out though),
there are many more to know about. There are many sports figures who are gay. I
can think of one who will probably make it to the hall of fame, pretty good,
huh? You want to know something else? You could learn about them without ever 
having to worry about being attacked or whatever you may think we do. Pretty 
good, huh?

| Now this may show my misconceptions of what gays are
| really like so please don't rebut that image I know its wrong but,
| nevertheless, I also believe that this is what some of the detractors
| also picture. Therefore, the gays have two
| strikes against them before they start, and they can not afford that
| if they want to educate.

	Only two strikes if people aren't willing to learn. Only two strikes if 
what you are perceiving to be the correct interpretation is true, and only two
strikes if you don't have an open mind. Otherwise, there aren't any strikes
against us, just ignorance.



Glen

            <<< HUMANE::HUMANE$DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 1616.221              G/L/B Awareness Day at MRO                 221 of 223
CSC32::PITT                                          52 lines   4-OCT-1991 13:35
                            -< sex is sex is sex.  >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Now hang on there just a second....
    
    lets looks at some FACTS for a change.
    
    Per WEBSTERS:
    
    Homosexual:of or having SEXUAL desire for those of the same sex.
    
    Lesbianism:  homosexuality between two women
    
    Heterosexual:of or having SEXUAL desire for those of the opposite sex.
    
    
    As these are taken from the DICTIONARY, I trust that no one is
    offended.
    
    Someone said earlier that "if you think of the act of sex when you
    think of homosexuality, then you have a problem".
    
    I'm sorry, but the WORD itself IMPLIES the ACT of sex. As does the
    word Heterosexual. Without the ACT OF SEX, we're just talking about
    being very good friends. 
    Lets not try to pretend that this discussion, that this event DO NOT
    all fall down to the one point of "who you have SEX with".
    
    Perhaps it is *I* who should be questioning how open minded people
    really are.  I have received personal mail stating that my comments
    about sex with animals in this discussion is offensive. Someone said
    that the "wife swapping" even was offensive.
    Haven't we established here that 1)this event IS about who you have sex
    with, and 2)a person should not be judged soley on the basis of who
    (what) they have sex with (which I do agree with mind you but nobody
    took the time to ask..). 
    
    It sounds to me that we are saying that it is ok for SOME of US to be
    offended at the thought of "sleeping with XXXX", but it is NOT ok
    for OTHERS to be offended at the thought of "sleeping with XXXX".
    
    It would appear that we are ALL 'guilty' of our own prejudices and
    established ways, and opinions of what's morally acceptable and what
    is not. I see no one in this conference any more or less guilty
    than anyone else. In addition, I could go through notes and be
    offended at least 1,000 times if I chose to be. But I view peoples
    opinions as just that, and go on. 
    
    Please point out what I said that *you* find particularily offensive,
    and explain to me why you are offended.  Perhaps if you try to explain
    to me how "sex with XXXX" is offensive to you, I will have to
    opportunity to be offended. 
    
    

No, homosexuality is not just about sex.

I don't know how much you know about me, Cathy, but I am a lesbian who has
been with the same woman for the last 7 years (as of Oct 15, our anniversary).
If she were to die tomorrow, and if I were never to have sex again, I would
still be a lesbian.  I would still be a homosexual.

My "sexual orientation" is towards women, yes.  That means that I am attracted
to women; sexually, emotionally, that I can fall in love with one.  Regardless,
though, of whether I am in a relationship or not (having sex or not) just
by being a LESBIAN, I am constantly subject to discrimination, hatred, and
rude comments.  

I imagine that there are several *heterosexual* people reading this file
who are not currently involved with (having sex with) anyone.  Does this make
them any *less* *heterosexual*?  

         Carol

| Someone said earlier that "if you think of the act of sex when you
| think of homosexuality, then you have a problem".

| I'm sorry, but the WORD itself IMPLIES the ACT of sex. As does the
| word Heterosexual. Without the ACT OF SEX, we're just talking about
| being very good friends.

	So, on a job application when they ask you wich sex you are, you reply
with females? Come on! Words can have more than one meaning. Again, you don't
use fact, but twisting of words, what you view the majority view to be or your
own opinions. Let's see the facts! Maybe in your mind everything equates to
sex, but you are one in a million.

| Lets not try to pretend that this discussion, that this event all fall
| down to the one point of "who you have SEX with".

	If you had your way, that's all this would be about. But, reality
dictates that it's different. We can say that because we live the life. You are
on the outside looking in, but aren't willing to accept the truth because it
goes against your way of thinking. So I say again. Show us these facts you have
on your accusations. Facts that you can back up will quiet people down, it may
even make them see your point of view. But without fact, all it does is show
that your rambling.

| Perhaps it is *I* who should be questioning how open minded people
| really are.  I have recieved personal mail stating that my comments
| about sex with animals in this discussion is offensive. Someone said
| that the "wife swapping" even was offensive.

	When you equate a whole group of people with doing certain acts that
are less than desireable, and then use someone's sarcasm as your fact, you show
that it is offensive.

| Haven't we established here that 1)this event IS about who you have sex
| with, and 

	You have been trying to prove this, but it's about a whole picture, not
just your one little view of the whole lifestyle. 

| 2)a person should not be judged soley on the basis of who
| (what) they have sex with (which I do agree with mind you but nobody
| took the time to ask..).

	This is the major reason, but again, without the what. Do you proof
read this stuff before you write? Why do you need the what? It certainly would
seem as though you are not being seen in a good light with comments like that,
but then again, it's your life.

| It sounds to me that we are saying that it is ok for SOME of US to be
| offended at the thought of "sleeping with XXXX", but it is NOT ok
| for OTHERS to be offended at the thought of "sleeping with XXXX".

	How do you come to that conclusion?




Glen

<If someone was to tell you that they were heterosexual, would you not put a
<gender to the person's significant other? or do you picture some abstract
<generic type being?

Neither, George.  I don't assume that they *have* a significant other.

         Carol

    A little story.....BTW, it's a true story, it happened to
    my husband and I this past May in San Fran......
    
    We went to the Golden Gate Conserv. Area to enjot the beautiful
    scenery & sights.  We stopped at all the areas to get out to look.
    One area had a lot of parked cars, and checking it out, it led to
    this beach down the bottom of the cliff.  It took us 30 mins, but
    we made it to the beach, which was crowded.  Sitting down to remove
    our shoes, my husband told me to look up.  Coming towards us was
    a nude man, who veered off to take a leak on some rocks.  Oh, well
    it must be a nude beach, but, since some of the people walking the 
    shore were clothed, we decided to do so, too.  As we walked along,
    we were examining the shells and such found at the tides edge. 
    My husband suddenly grabbed my arm, and said, let's go.  I looked
    up, to see two nude persons of the same gender having sex, in full
    view of all present on the beach.  A quick glance around, and we
    became aware of more "clinches", also of the same gender.  
    We left the beach very embarassed, but not because it was a gay
    meeting area.  We left because what was going on should not have
    been in public, in full view.  Sex is a private thing between two
    persons, and should be kept that way.  It DID NOT belong on a beach.
    
    HRH

    A few replies back, Jason Ru asked why some of his questions had been
    effectively ignored.  I agree that his comments should be addressed.

    Jason, in a very real way I found your question about "possible
    homosexual acts" at a DEC facility potentially the most offensive in
    this entire discussion.  This sort of polite, reasonable "I have nothing
    against (Gays, Jews, Chinese, Gypsies) but you do have to consider..."
    bias does a HELL of a lot more damage than loud up-front bigotry, just
    because it is so polite and reasonable.

    Come on now!  DEC is absolutely swarming with straights.  Are you at
    all concerned about the possibility of heterosexual acts at a DEC
    facility?  Why not?  Do you really think your Gay co-workers are more
    likely to be found copulating in the conference room?

    I don't think your comment was meant to be offensive.  Perhaps if you
    can understand that it was, you'll be able to understand why we need
    this sort of educational event.


    -dave

    re: .230
    
    A few years ago I was teaching my niece to drive and she was driving
    around in this park area (I wanted to minimize the amount of cars she'd
    come in contact with.  
    
    Right there in broad daylight there was a heterosexual couple having sex 
    in a parked car.
    
    So, what's your point?  Do you think that sex in public is the sole
    domain of g/l/bi people?  
    
    People's morals, or lack thereof, have nothing to do with their sexual
    orientation. 

re: .229

><If someone was to tell you that they were heterosexual, would you not put a
><gender to the person's significant other? or do you picture some abstract
><generic type being?

>Neither, George.  I don't assume that they *have* a significant other.

>         Carol

I deleted .228 because after entering it I rethought what I said and
decided that I may be wrong. However, I think that Carol just proved my point.

I had tried to make a point that some gays absolutely refuse to see the point
of those that are opposing the MRO event. I said that the words Homo, hetero
and Bi sexual indicated the person's preference when and if they ever did
have sex.

I then asked the above question, my mistake was in not phrasing it so that
Carol could answer as she did. I think my point was made and, Carol even if
you didn't, you should have understood what I was asking.
The fact that you answered as you did just confirms my belief.

- George

    Re .216;
    
    > The complaint is, that the offensive notes _ARE NOT_ offering ideas.
    > All I see is a bunch of hatred about how they think its disgusting,
    > immoral, ad naseum etc.
    
    First, somebody who says they think homosexual is disgusting or immoral
    is not necessarily hateful.
    
    Second, homosexuality being disgusting or immoral ARE ideas, whether
    you like it or not.  The concept that homosexuality is immoral is an
    idea.  You cannot make it not so by defining it otherwise.
    
    > I do not like being called sick, perverted, immoral, disgusting etc.
    > Cause I'm not and neither are any of my other lesbigay friends.
    
    Many people, even the majority, have ideas they do not like hearing. 
    That is why the First Amendment was passed -- it was supposed to
    protect free speech even if every Congressional representative opposed
    an idea.  The First Amendment explicitly denied Congress the power to
    make laws infringing on free speech.  This was done because enough
    people recognized that even if there were ideas they did not like
    hearing, it was good, VERY GOOD, to let the ideas be spoken and to
    protect that right.  Two hundred years ago, a group of people were
    intelligent enough to realize that it was better to have to hear what
    they did not like than it was to censor anybody.
    
    You do not like what others say.  So what do you do?  You want them to
    stop.  But what about others?  They do not like what you say.  If their
    beliefs offend you, do you not think your beliefs offend them?  If you
    try to censor their beliefs, they will try to censor you.  Why should
    either of you prevail?  Neither of you is divine; neither has greater
    rights than the other.  You might not like what they believe, but you
    must accept it, just as they must accept your beliefs LIKE IT OR NOT.
    
    If somebody says something offensive in the workplace and you do not
    like it, then ask Digital for help in stopping it.  If it happens in an
    open forum for discussing issues and you do not like it, then leave the
    forum.  Do not try to censor others.
    
    Tell me, is the state of civil rights for various groups in the United
    States better or worse than it was two hundred years ago?  How much
    better?  Then tell me, where would any of those groups be today without
    free speech?
    
    > What I find disgusting is the fact that people are spreading lies and
    > misconceptions about 'us' as truths. 
    
    Are your truths carved in stone, still glowing with the omnipotence of
    the deity that handed them to you?  I do not think so.  Some people
    think you are spreading lies and misconceptions as truths.  You are the
    Christians; they are the Muslims, or vice versa; why should either of
    you get the booth in the cafeteria?  Neither of you should.  That's not
    the place for any speech.
    
    > I don't ask for anything in return, just the right to live my life
    > free from fear, hassle, and discrimination just because I'm gay.
    
    But you, or at least those who support GLB Awareness Day, are not
    asking for just that.  You are asking for more.  You are asking to take
    advantage of Digital's relationship with its employees to promote your
    beliefs at the expense of others.  As I have said repeatedly, by all
    means, Digital should provide an environment free of fear and
    discrimination.  But Digital should NOT provide an environment where
    people who do not agree with your beliefs are mentally retrained.
    
    
    				-- edp

    re last two ..... but no group but homosexuals literally take over
    areas for the specific purpose of sex.  God help some poor family
    from Indiana if they ever pull into the remaining parking areas on
    Route 3 North in Massachusetts.  I say "remaining", as most of them
    have been closed because of public complaints.  So tell me again
    about loving, close, long-term relationships.  I don't think I
    understand.

    Some recent entries have suggested that among the differences that
    exist among us are the following:
    
    1) Some people feel capable of ignoring irrelevant (to business)
    personal characteristics (like race, sexual orientation, religion, etc)
    of their co-workers and other people doubt it.
    
    Is this discrepancy between levels of self-confidence and levels of
    distrust cause for concern?  Who needs more to examine his or her
    feelings, the one who feels s/he is tolerant or the one who doubts that 
    belief?
    
    2) Some people believe that one can think or talk about homosexuality
    without causing other people to think about sex.  Others deny this. Is
    this difference important?  
    
    3) Some people want to maintain very private their personal lives and
    resent it when others bring their personal lives to work.  Others find
    such compartmentalization emotionally or intellectually difficult.  Is
    this difference important?
    
    Friends,
    
    	We have a multitude of differences.  Each of us is an individual
    with some characteristics in common with others and some
    characteristics that are shared with a few others and some
    characteristics that are our very own.  Digital needs us to be able to
    work together.  Digital does not need us to "understand" or have
    compassion for each other.  That, my fiends, remains optional.  I will
    commit to all of you that whatever the difference that separates us, I
    will work with any of you regardless.  I will not commit to any caring
    or understanding.  Is that clear?
    
    Dick

No group but homosexuals take over areas for the specific purpose of sex?  I
think there's a lot of heterosexual sex in Boston's Combat Zone.

And please don't judge all homosexuals by the actions of a few.  Think of the
trouble you'd be in if someone judged you by the actions of some heterosexuals.

Paul

| re last two ..... but no group but homosexuals literally take over
| areas for the specific purpose of sex.  God help some poor family
| from Indiana if they ever pull into the remaining parking areas on
| Route 3 North in Massachusetts.  I say "remaining", as most of them
| have been closed because of public complaints.  So tell me again
| about loving, close, long-term relationships.  I don't think I
| understand.

	What of the lovers lanes, one which is Spider Gates in Worcester Ma? 
What of these areas where it's the heterosexuals who go there to have sex? If 
you can deny that they don't exist, and then can prove it, then I would gladly 
support your view. I know you can't, because I have been to some of them.


Glen

    
    
    Re .235
    
.235>			but no group but homosexuals literally take over
.235>    areas for the specific purpose of sex.
    
    Oh really?  Tell that to the females who work a certain alley
     near where I live in Boston.  It's not filled with used condoms 
     because gays are having sex there.  
    
    
.235>   					So tell me again
.235>    about loving, close, long-term relationships.  I don't think I
.235>    understand.                                     
    
    Really Lennard, it's a very simple concept.  Some does not equal all.
     I certainly don't condem all heterosexuals because some of them
     do things that I personally find distasteful.
                  
    
    Re .230:
    
    What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?  Do you
     want to get into a petty volley of who had sex where and
     what their sexual orientation was?  I'm sure there are plenty
     of stories that could be exchanged about both sides. 
    
    
                                                                                                  
    Steve
    

>    <<< Note 1616.235 by COOKIE::LENNARD "Rush Limbaugh, I Luv Ya Guy" >>>
>
>   re last two ..... but no group but homosexuals literally take over
>   areas for the specific purpose of sex.  God help some poor family
>   from Indiana if they ever pull into the remaining parking areas on
>   Route 3 North in Massachusetts.  I say "remaining", as most of them
>   have been closed because of public complaints.  So tell me again
>   about loving, close, long-term relationships.  I don't think I
>   understand.
    
    Well, the Combat Zone in Boston comes to mind, but there are also
    places in Memphis, Dallas, L.A. and we shouldn't leave out those lovely 
    establishments of prostitution in Nevada.  In general, I consider these
    areas to be blocked off for the purposes of sex.  Mostly heterosexual,
    of couse.  Lots of towns all across the country have such places.
    Even in Indiana, I suppose.
    
    Homosexuals do not have a monopoly on this type of rather tasteless
    behaviour.  That seems to be a rather universal human trait (that we
    could do without)...
    
    tim
    

| 1) Some people feel capable of ignoring irrelevant (to business)
| personal characteristics (like race, sexual orientation, religion, etc)
| of their co-workers and other people doubt it.

| Is this discrepancy between levels of self-confidence and levels of
| distrust cause for concern?  Who needs more to examine his or her
| feelings, the one who feels s/he is tolerant or the one who doubts that
| belief?

	If being <insert label> is going to interfear with getting the job done
then yes, there has to be a concern. Is that hard to believe? It goes farther
than just examining feelings, it has to do with being able to work with others
on all levels. As someone else stated, we are not robots. We are human beings.
If you didn't believe that, you wouldn't be wasting the companies time (which
you claim is so precious to you) in this notesfile. But you do because you're
not a robot.

| 2) Some people believe that one can think or talk about homosexuality
| without causing other people to think about sex.  Others deny this. Is
| this difference important?

	You bet it is! There is more to this world than just sex. Sex is one
part of it, but not the complete picture. To look at anyone and only think of
sex is wrong. Why? Because you forgot one important factor. They are a human
being first, insert your labels second.

| 3) Some people want to maintain very private their personal lives and
| resent it when others bring their personal lives to work.  Others find
| such compartmentalization emotionally or intellectually difficult.  Is
| this difference important?

	If you never refer to anyone you have ever known in the outside world
to anyone in work, then I may begin to see your point. But if you have ever
said anything about your life in the outside world during working hours, I
can't see what you are talking about.

| Digital needs us to be able to
| work together.  Digital does not need us to "understand" or have
| compassion for each other.  

	There are some people, as someone else stated before, when they hear
the words this person is gay, woun't be able to work with them. Is this right?
Not really. How do we overcome things like this? By trying to see people for
what they are. HUMAN BEINGS! I'll say it a million times I'm sure, but to turn
away from someone who isn't causing you or anyone else any harm just because
they are <insert label> is in my opinon, wrong. Can you deny this isn't true?
If so, how do you feel about it then?

| That, my fiends, remains optional.  I will
| commit to all of you that whatever the difference that separates us, I
| will work with any of you regardless.  I will not commit to any caring
| or understanding.  Is that clear?

	It was clear from the first note you put in my friend. ;-)



Glen

    Re: 1616.235...
    
    Gee, Dick, you really got a reaction out of that one.  I feel
    redundant even tacking on .240...
    
    There always seems to be some segment of the population that exhibits
    or practices rude, inappropriate, or inconsiderate behaviour.  Whites
    and Blacks, Gays and Straights, Males and Females.  I think when you
    see instances of such behaviour in an individual, but connect it with
    their race, sex or sexual orientation (or religion, nationality, etc),
    then you've not only generalized, even stereotyped that group unfairly.
    
    By allowing yourself to generalize like that, you have also, yourself,
    practiced one of the worst kinds of rude, inappropriate and
    inconsiderate behaviours.  Call it bigotry, discrimination or
    prejudice, it isn't fair, and it shouldn't be tolerated - at home, at
    work or anywhere else.
    
    tim
    
    P.S. besides, everyone knows it's those damn teenagers that are always
    doing that sort of thing ;-)
    

| Two hundred years ago, a group of people were
| intelligent enough to realize that it was better to have to hear what
| they did not like than it was to censor anybody.

	Yet you would like to sensor this meeting, or stop it from happening.
Do you believe your own words?

| If somebody says something offensive in the workplace and you do not
| like it, then ask Digital for help in stopping it.  If it happens in an
| open forum for discussing issues and you do not like it, then leave the
| forum.  Do not try to censor others.

	Back to the meeting. You have that option to not attend, yet you have
chosen the route of wishing it wouldn't happen. All you have to do is move
along to something else.

| But you, or at least those who support GLB Awareness Day, are not
| asking for just that.  You are asking for more.  You are asking to take
| advantage of Digital's relationship with its employees to promote your
| beliefs at the expense of others.  

	How does something that's volentary be thought of as "the expense of
others?"



Glen

    
    
    I was going to stay out of this discussion because it seemed to
     be going along fairly well on its own.
    
    My previous note (.239) just kind of popped out though, so I figured 
     I'd better put something constructive in too.
     
    If an event like this can raise people's awareness that, like it
     or not, they exist at work with gays, lesbians, and bisexuals,
     I see it as positive.  
    
    If people who are interested can find out more information, without
     intruding unnecessarily on those who really don't care, so much
     the better.  
                            
       
    
    Steve
     
    

It was brought to my attention that in note 1616.198 I had Mr. Lennard's
first name incorrect. I had Roy and his name is Dick. This was an honest
mistake and not intentional. I apologize for the mistake. Out of respect
for Mr. Lennard, I have deleted 1616.198, corrected it and will repost it.

Furthermore, I want to say that the harassment policy I posted (6.03) was
taken directly from corporate VTX and is dated 5-Jul-82. Earlier this year,
DEC corporate agreed to add sexual orientation to this policy (6.03) as
well as policies 2.03 (employment) and 6.24 (employee conduct). The policy 
changes may not have trickled down into VTX yet. In any case, the policy 
that I posted says that harassment "is not limited to" just the areas 
listed.

I have only had time to read through to reply #90 in this string and I 
don't know when I'll have time to get through the others. So if I don't 
respond to comments made on the notes I posted last night you'll know why. 
I'm not ignoring you, I'm just too busy with other things, like work, to 
note in here.

Laurie

.71 (Carol Dubois)

>>> Speaking of abuse...

>>> Although each of us has the right to our own opinion, it is
>>> Digital's policy that on company time and/or on company resources
>>> we cannot put down any person or group of people on the basis of
>>> sexual orientation.  Many of you have put down homosexuals and
>>> homosexuality as if you weren't talking about someone *here*. 
>>> You are.  I am gay. When you use words like "disgusting" and
>>> liken my sexual orientation to having sex with animals, you are
>>> putting me down. 

>>> Please do not do this any more.

I feel just as Carol does here. Not only do I feel put down but I feel
insulted, offended and harassed. This verbal abuse has caused me distress
at work. I think DEC policy 6.03 from the orangebook has been violated here
in numerous notes. Below I've put a section of this policy which is dated
5-Jul-82. This is what's currently listed in corporate VTX.  Earlier this
year, DEC corporate agreed to add sexual orientation to the policy listed
below. These changes may not have trickled down to VTX yet.



[quote]
                                  Harassment


It is the policy of Digital Equipment Corporation that all our
employees should be able to enjoy a work environment free of
discrimination and harassment.

Harassment refers to behavior which is personally offensive,
impairs morale and interferes with the work effectiveness of
employees.  Any harassment of employees by other employees will not
be permitted, regardless of their working relationship.

This policy refers to, but is not limited to, harassment in the
following areas:  (1)age, (2)race, (3)color, (4)national origin,
(5)religion, (6)sex, (7)handicap and (8)veteran status.  Such
harassment includes unsolicited remarks, gestures or physical
contact; display or circulation of written materials or pictures
degrading to either gender or to racial, ethnic, or religious
groups; and verbal abuse or insults directed at or made in the
presence of members of a racial, ethnic or minority group.

[end quote]

Gay people are a minority group.

Specifically, the following notes are extremely offensive to me. I'm asking
that the authors of these notes please delete them, reword them if you want
so that they aren't offending and then repost if you so desire. 

1616.9  - Dick Lennard
1616.24 - Al Root
1616.28 - Pitt (Sorry, but I don't know your first name. There are 10 people
		listed in ELF with your last name but I didn't see your node
		listed with any of them)
1616.49 - Dick Lennard
1616.67 - Dick Lennard

I will be forwarding this note to the authors of the notes I just listed as
well many people in corporate and personnel. 

Laurie

    So I'm generalizing, huh??  Why has the State of Mass posted large
    signs on all the remaining rest areas making it illegal to leave
    the immediate area of your car.  It ain't to protect people from
    the bears in the woods.  But anyhow, this is getting very silly, and
    terribly boring.
    
    Have a nice weekend everyone.  Let's pick this up again on Monday.
    
    Oh, by the way, I really appreciate the off-line threats that I have
    received.

    Dick,
    
    I think if you attribute the actions of a few people to an entire
    segment of the population, then that can safely be called generalizing,
    irregardless of what the State of Mass has posted.  I doubt that they
    made it illegal for only homosexuals to leave the immediate area of
    their car.  Since your node, COOKIE::, is in Colorado Springs, I assume
    that you don't frequent Route 3 North as often as the State of Mass.
    authorities.  Besides, they wouldn't make it illegal for only
    homosexuals to leave the immediate vacinity of their cars.  Why? That
    would be discrimination.
    
    I think it's a shame if you have indeed received any offline threats. 
    I don't have any idea what the nature of those threats might be, and
    although I can imagine your style of writing might inspire angst in
    some, it is no cause for threats, and I am nevertheless saddened by 
    this news.  Like I said, there is some portion of the population that
    will always do and/or say things that are rude, inappropriate,
    inconsiderate and anti-social.  I still hope you will consider
    listening to a different point of view...
    
    tim
    

<     <<< Note 1616.248 by COOKIE::LENNARD "Rush Limbaugh, I Luv Ya Guy" >>>

I'm a homosexual.  Are you accusing *me* of doing public sex?  That's sure
how it sounds, Dick, and you had sure better be able to prove it.

    Carol

    	RE: .248  Cookie::Lennard
    
    	Give it a rest with the public sex stuff - I've heard far, far,
    	FAR worse stories about heterosexual sexual antics in public.
    
    	Someone I know who goes to one resort in Jamaica (where mostly
    	Americans vacation) every year told me about a nude beach where
    	heterosexual couples sun themselves in erotic positions, in
    	addition to having sex with each other and with passing strangers
    	on the beach.
    
    	Would YOU like to be stereotyped by this (as a heterosexual)???
    
    	I wouldn't.  Then again, no one seems to be intent on discriminating
    	against heterosexuals, so we aren't in much danger of this sort of
    	unfair stereotyping.  
    
    	G/L/B folks shouldn't be subjected to it, either.

re: <<< Note 1616.234 by BEING::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

    	As someone else pointed out, you are only contradicting yourself
    by claiming that, on the one hand, the First Amendment protects the
    rights of those who wish to denigrate a given minority in an electronic
    notesfile such as this (or "Forum" to use your words), yet on the other
    hand, it is somehow not ok for some of those same people who have been
    denigrated in the Digital notesfiles to make themselves available outside
    a particular lunchroom at a particular Digital facility on a particular
    day in hopes of clearing up some of the misunderstandings towards people
    like themselves.

    	Face it Eric, the authors of the First Amendment never even had
    the luxury of asking people to keep their minority opinions confined 
    to electronic notesfiles.  Neither did they intend to limit free speech
    to written publications.  Free speech is free speech <period!>  If the
    ability to speek freely to an interested party about a given subject
    does not qualify as a free speech issue then nothing does!  Therefore,
    to argue *for* the right to publicly denigrate a lifestyle based on the
    First Amendment while also arguing *against* the right to provide
    information to interested parties in a public space is the most ridculous
    argument I have ever heard!

    	That said, it's time to take to take a reality pill.  Recall that
    we all [currently] work for a certain company here, and due to the
    makeup of modern corporate culture, we are not even afforded the same
    set of "rights" which are afforded to citizens in a public environment.
    As such, this corporate culture which we live and work in is also
    much different than the environment governed by the First Amendment.
    In fact, it is quite obvious that the First Amendment does not even
    apply whatsoever to any sort of speeches made in this or any other
    notesfile on this corporate network since speech is arbitrarily
    censored seemingly at will be the powers that be (moderators, offended
    noters, management, what have you).  It is sad but true that we must
    all sit by and watch as certain speeches are eliminated at the whim
    of practically anyone who might wish them deleted, but that is the
    precedent which has been set (and enforced by personnel I might add),
    and that is also the "Consitution According to DEC", so the sooner
    you can all learn to live by this "law", the sooner you will see exactly
    how ridiculous it is to argue any point regarding free speech within
    the ever-extending confines of Digital Equipment Corporation based
    on the First Amendment rights which we do not enjoy here.

    	In conclusion, not only is it contradictory for you to argue for
    the right to denigrate a given minority based of the First Amendment
    while also arguing against the right to provide information to those
    who might be interested, but it is also a moot point since we are
    not even afforded the same First Amendment rights within the confines
    of Digital Equipment Corporation in the first place!  You might as
    well check the First Amendment in at the front door when you come to
    work because the precedents which have been set over the years would
    indicate that the only free speech on DEC property is speech which is
    condoned by the Corporation and by those who moderate its notesfiles.

    				    -davo

p.s.	Once again, I will point out the fact that despite ongoing
    	complaints which began several days ago (former entry 1616.198 -
   	later re-entered as note 1616.247 to name just one) about certain
    	notes (1616.9, 1616.24, 1616.28, 1616.49, 1616.67) which are viewed
    	as being derogatory to a minority have yet to be deleted (or even
    	set hidden).  In fact, some of the authors have since begun to
    	challenge those complaining about the notes (1616.224), and other
    	authors have continued right along in the discussion as if they are
    	above having to be concerned with such requests.  Furthermore, no
   	moderator action has yet been taken on this issue despite obvious
    	moderator involvement in this note string (::Ainsley - notes
    	1616.61, 1616.84, and 1616.215, and ::Anderson - notes 1616.237).

    	I bring this up *not* because I particularly want to see notes
    	deleted (as a free speech advocate, I don't believe in deleting
    	notes), but because I would like to point out a certain inconsistency
    	and even a potentially discriminatory bias being perpetrated against
    	Gays, Lesbians, and Bisexuals when it comes to the tolleration of
    	offensive noting in this notesfile.  Unless free speech is now being
    	supported in Digital's internal notesfiles, then based on past
    	precedents set, I must recommend to the moderators that the notes
    	be at least set hidden (if not deleted as requested) until it can be
    	determined whether or not free speech (i.e. potentially offensive
    	noting) is to now be completely tolerated in this notesfile or not.

    Is really interesting that so many respondents to this inane topic
    were appropiately made on good old "Digital" time. If the much bally
    hooed topic could result in less people getting laid off, I could see
    it.
    I could care less in who is doing who and what with or what for. It
    is a very sad day in Digital when so much egotistical merenge has
    infiltrated the notes file. Are any of you concerned that in the next
    3 months there is going to be layoff blood bath???? I don't think so.
     It is great to see that so many DECCIES at each other's throat. Is
    this the the bottom of the barrel that we have sunk to????? Reading
    these notes on my time not Dec's, proves the inmates are truly running
    this company.
    	Regards
    	John- just my 2 1/2 cents worth....

    
    re: .253  That's an old complaint that has no bearing in reality.
    Many people from many time zones note here, not all of us have "day
    jobs", some of us could be noting while on vacation time, and some of
    us work all hours of the day and night.
    
    Cq

re: .252

>	As someone else pointed out, you are only contradicting yourself
>    by claiming that, on the one hand, the First Amendment protects the
>    rights of those who wish to denigrate a given minority in an electronic
>    notesfile such as this (or "Forum" to use your words), yet on the other
>    hand, it is somehow not ok for some of those same people who have been
>    denigrated in the Digital notesfiles to make themselves available outside
>    a particular lunchroom at a particular Digital facility on a particular
>    day in hopes of clearing up some of the misunderstandings towards people
>    like themselves.

This has to win some kind of award for the longest sentence ever to appear
in a notesfile. :^)


>    	offensive noting in this notesfile.  Unless free speech is now being
>    	supported in Digital's internal notesfiles, then based on past
>    	precedents set, I must recommend to the moderators that the notes
>    	be at least set hidden (if not deleted as requested) until it can be
>    	determined whether or not free speech (i.e. potentially offensive
>    	noting) is to now be completely tolerated in this notesfile or not.


You should read ::SOAPBOX sometime. Now *that* is free speech...

| I then asked the above question, my mistake was in not phrasing it so that
| Carol could answer as she did. I think my point was made and, Carol even if
| you didn't, you should have understood what I was asking.

	Hmmmm.... hey George, what am I thinking now?

| The fact that you answered as you did just confirms my belief.

	If your belief is mindreading, then you probably just blew that belief
out the window. People aren't going to always know what you mean. Give me a
break.


Glen

    RE: .258  Jerry Beeler
    
    > To the best of my knowledge I've never attended a "Valuing/Understanding
    > /differences/diversity" seminar and probably never will.  I really don't 
    > care if they hold these type of "events" as long as it does not impair 
    > the primary charter of DEC (to sell products and services), impair me 
    > from doing my job, and it doesn't impact the overhead "bottom line" too 
    > much.
    
    Jerry, what does the first sentence mean in relation to what you wrote
    later in your note:
    
    > Once upon a time I got fed up with this 'valuing differences' stuff - 
    > amazing that my "explosion" immediately followed my participation in the 
    > valuing differences course/seminar/whatever (the two day event). 

    As a co-moderator here, it had been my hope that the active discussion
    in this topic, with outspoken views on both sides of the issue
    apparent, would, overall, be a benefit to the community at large.
    But I agree with those who say that certain contributions contain
    offensive material which is contrary to Digital policy.
    
    For the moment, I have hidden replies .9, .24, .28, .49 and .67 and
    have set this topic /NOWRITE.  I will consider further action after
    reviewing all contributions.  Ideally, I'd like to be able to
    reopen the discussion if it can be maintained on a civil basis.
    
    This is not the first time I've encountered polarization on this
    issue; I've seen a similar debate recently in another conference
    I moderate.  And I'm sure we'll see it again somewhere else.
    
    Speaking personally, I don't understand why so many people are so
    deathly afraid of homosexuality, to the extent that they will
    use verbal and physical violence to make it "go away".  I applaud
    the goals of the Valuing Diversity program and their attempts to
    show that "gays are people too".  That's really what it's all
    about.  No "flaunting", no "indoctrination".  It's not about sex,
    it's about the very real discrimination which gays have to live
    with here at Digital.
    
    			Steve

After discussion amongst the moderators, and with others, we have decided
to reopen this topic.  Replies .9, .24, .28, and .49 have been deleted
and will be returned to their authors with explanation.  Reply .67, which
had been set hidden, has been unhidden after further consideration.

I ask everyone to read the attached memo from Ron Glover, of Corporate
Employee Relations, which is posted here with permission.  The moderators
of this conference will be following this topic closely, and will return
any notes which, in our opinion, violate policy.  It is acceptable to
debate the goals and actions of the corporations Valuing Diverisity program,
but not to make disparaging remarks about people, either individually or
as a group.

				Steve - co-moderator


                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     07-Oct-1991 07:04pm EDT
                                        From:     RON GLOVER
                                                  GLOVER.RON
                                        Dept:     Corporate Employee Relations
                                        Tel No:   508-493-9569

TO: See Below

Subject: RE: Gay Awareness Day - ER crisis

    I believe it would be appropriate for you to contact the moderator of 
    this conference and remind him or her that Policy 6.54, Proper Use of 
    Digital Computers, Systems and Networks specifically prohibits the use 
    of Digital's systems and notes files (conferences) for the purpose of 
    making "...defamatory statements ....about any individual or 
    organization..."
    
    The policy goes on to indicate that these conferences "...may not be 
    used to promote behavior which is contrary to the Company's values or 
    policy (i.e. they may not promote discrimination, disrespect for the 
    individual, violence, etc.).  In that regard, I would point the 
    moderator to Personnel Policy 2.03A, the Equal Opportunity, Affirmative 
    Action and Valuing Diversity statement signed by Ken Olsen, in which we 
    specifically commit to ensuring that all employees are treated fairly 
    and without regard to things like race, age, sex or sexual 
    orientation.   
    
    Some of the comments you forwarded to me re Gay employees and Gay and 
    Lesbian Awareness activities would appear to violate these policies, 
    and the moderator should respond appropriately.  In my view, that 
    includes the deletion of offending notes, discussions with the authors 
    of those notes about the requirements of this policy, and if the 
    comments persists the referral of the matter to the employee's manager 
    for further action. 
    
    I do not intend to stifle discussion about sexual orientation, or the 
    appropriateness of our Valuing Diversity practices.  Indeed these 
    conferences were intended to foster just those kinds of discussions.  
    What is not permissible is for employees to engage in that discussion 
    in any way that demeans, degrades or disrespects any other individual 
    employee or group of employees.  That kind of disrespectful behavior 
    should not be tolerated.
    
    You should feel free to share this note with the moderators, employees 
    or anyone else in the company who you believe needs to see it.

re: .257


Thanks Glen a very helpful reply, I believe that if you had read my original 
note as had Carol you would have realized that the question was really a 
rhetorical one. Meant only to make a point. However, she (IMHO) decided to 
ignore the point and answered it in an attempt to sidestep the issue.

But, maybe I'm wrong it might be that Carol didn't and you would not have
understood my point, I do believe that it was very obvious.

Again, I ask, why is it necessary to bring in the Boston Gay rights group?
if there truely are as many g/l/b employees here as the vocal few 
are claiming, then they should be able to handle questions etc, etc.

- George

     The definition of the word "discriminate" according to the Heritage 
    Dictionary:
                 discriminate - 1. To make a clear distinction; differentiate.
                                2. To act on the basis of prejudice.
    
      
      According to definition "1" it is my opinion that it is important to
    discriminate. We do it everyday, ie; shopping for veggies or "fruits"
    we are careful not to select the spoiled or rotten ones. We discriminate
    the kind of car, home, clothing, we will buy. We discriminate the kind
    of neighborhood we choose to live in. We discriminate when we choose
    friends and decide enemies. It is good to discriminate against drug
    dealers, killers, and other "understood" and "acceptable" evils.
    Question: Can a drug dealer claim that he is being discriminated
    against because of his trade? Are his rights being violated?
    The real question is where do we draw the line? Constitutional laws 
    and corporate rules are in place to try to identify the line. 
    Bottom line: If the corporation you work for has rules in place
    you must follow them or else. Some corporation rules can be challenged
    in a court of law, especially if these rules discriminate against people
    who want to express their right to discriminate against evils and the
    evils are allowed to express themselves. As you can see we can "go in
    circles" with such issues. Your definition of evil may not be the same
    as mine. Such is the case with Pro-choice vs anti-abortionists. The issue 
    is moral and will forever be debated.
    
      Regarding definition "2" of discriminate: If an individual is judging 
    another based on facts then the issue is not prejudice, it is discriminate 
    according to section "1" which is good. Example: If I have hard facts that 
    a drug dealer is selling illegal drugs then I am not "pre-judging" him. I 
    am discriminating against him and his behavior. Is my discrimination good
    or bad? Its good if your against drugs, its bad if your for drugs. Is the
    drug dealer a minority?  
    
      Best advice: Follow corporate rules and constitutional laws.
                   Challenge and influence the changing of laws
                   you don't agree with. Corporate rules must
                   follow constitutional law regarding the rights
                   of individuals and the determination of who is 
                   and who is not a minority.
     

    re .258  Jerry,

    You did a magnificent job of changing the subject.  The issue here
    is people's differences *in the workplace* [office] not between 
    Digital employees and customers.  (Although I've seen evidence where it
    does affect customers...positively. Being perceived as a "people-
    oriented" company makes other people feel comfortable in doing business
    with you, like you're not out to screw the customers to make a fast
    buck.  If you're rotten to your employees, why should customers expect
    to be treated any differently?  Sure it's just a perception, but as Tom
    Peters [one of my heroes] says, "Perception is all there is.")

    We are not "all the same here" at all.  [For one thing, I never see
    a customer and I don't sell anything, so your example is irrelevant 
    to me.]  

    Anyway, I don't have any statistics (maybe the VoD experts do), but
    to give you a personal example or two...

    In a small company I used to work for, I was sexually harassed (more
    than once) by my manager and his manager - despite my polite requests 
    to stop, and to keep our relationship on a professional level.  I was 
    making good money, and I needed that job, so I put up with the snide, 
    disgusting, sexist remarks...for a while.  Eventually I went to 
    "personnel"--whose other hat was finance manager.  He told me that there 
    was no policy against what they were saying to me and about me, that I 
    should "lighten up" and if I didn't like it I could leave.  I started 
    looking for another job but kept the present one because of the money.  
    Before I could find a comparably-paying position, I was asked to leave 
    because my performance had deteriorated.  

    In another company I worked for, the new director made it perfectly
    clear that he would not stand for any "fags" in his company, and if
    he discovered any, they would be fired on the spot...no questions 
    asked.  The Sales Manager was superb at his job.  He was also gay.  Only 
    a couple of us knew it, but this guy went through hell making sure the 
    director and his spies didn't find out...until he found another job at
    another company where they weren't interested in rooting out "fags" for
    expulsion.

    People are in the workplace to *work*.  People can not work at their
    optimal level while they're being subjected to vile, degrading, 
    demeaning, intimidating or hateful language or attitudes on the part 
    of their co-workers and/or managers.

    I hope you're not trying to tell me that your office runs like a nice, 
    sterile factory where you and your other coworkers perform your specific 
    tasks like little automatons...never discussing *anything* that is not
    strictly business related?  (like people's health, social lives,
    spouses, children, home improvements, car problems, etc., etc.) ??

	deb    

I find it odd that this debate is taking place in this conference.

I believe there is a members only Notes conference concerning Gay, Lesbian and
Bisexual issues whose title indicates "...for the World."  I am ASSUMING this
is open to any employee and I would understand that the title and members only 
status means it does not protect any employee wishing to keep their sexual
preference to themselves, but the rest of the employees may participate,
provided they follow certain rules, such as no bashing, etc. 

If this is the case, why not move the discussion there and allow those
moderators to act directly?  If I misunderstand the title of that conference,
why not establish such a conference so that those employees wishing to debate
this in a civil manner may do so.  In that way, the G/L/B community within the
company may educate not only those currently involved in this note, and not
only those in the GMA, but anyone who happens to have an interest in that
conference, in perpetuity? 

Steve

Re: .265

I once worked at a small company where the person doing the most sexual 
harrassment, to the point of pushing and shoving when his advances were 
resisted, was...


THE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR.

Now, this is bad enough in itself, but I did not learn that until I came to 
Digital.  I (a male) had a female employee who was violating rules and not 
performing up to par.  I had spoken with her and finally documented my gripes 
in writing.

Thinking I was smart, prior to presenting my case to her in writing and
informing her that my complaints would be placed in her file (and that she had
an opportunity to respond in writing as well), I asked the PERSONNEL DIRECTOR
to join us so that I could not be accused of any improprieties behind closed
doors, the case was well documented, etc.  Seemed smart at the time :-{

I hope she was only shaking because of being called in to my office, having
the door closed and the director of personnel present, and not because she
knew of his reputation.  I suspect she must have known of the PD's rep.  I
don't think that could happen without word spreading among employees, at least
those subject to the dangers. 

I saw this employee 6 months later in a social situation and we had a long 
heart to heart about what I did and why (she left the company within a month). 
She did not let on that she knew about the PD, but I still wonder and ache 
over that.

    Re .244:
    
    > Yet you would like to sensor this meeting, or stop it from happening.
    > Do you believe your own words?

    I believe my own words, but you apparently do not, since you are making
    up things I never said.  I never wrote anything about censoring the
    meeting or stopping it from happening.  I have written only in
    opposition to using the cafeteria when employees are trying to eat and
    relax and to Digital attempting to influence employee beliefs, instead
    of limiting itself to regulating employee behavior at work.  Neither of
    these objections is an objection to Digital allowing use of its
    facilities for any of a variety of meetings, including this one.
    
    This is typical of the PC crowd -- if a person criticizes ANY aspect of
    the PC platform, they are accused of attacking all that is holy to the
    PC.  The PC is the Moral Majority of the 1990's, and, like the Moral
    Majority, they are neither.  They wield influence disproportional to
    their numbers and attempt to foist their beliefs on others.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .252:
    
    >	As someone else pointed out, you are only contradicting yourself
    > by claiming that, on the one hand, the First Amendment protects the
    > rights of those who wish to denigrate a given minority in an electronic
    > notesfile such as this (or "Forum" to use your words), . . .
    
    I did not claim that the First Amendment protects the rights of those
    who wish to speak in a conference -- I wrote about how free speech is a
    good thing and SHOULD be used in a conference.
    
    > . . . yet on the other hand, it is somehow not ok for some of those
    > same people who have been denigrated in the Digital notesfiles to make
    > themselves available outside a particular lunchroom at a particular
    > Digital facility on a particular day in hopes of clearing up some of
    > the misunderstandings towards people like themselves.
    
    You seem to have some misunderstandings.  Let me clear them up for you:
    
    o  Free speech is a good thing.
    
    o  This does not imply everybody gets to speak all the time,
       everywhere.  What it means is that in places where there is speech,
       such as in forums for opinions, political beliefs, et cetera, it
       is a good thing to hear a diversity of opinions -- even if, and
       perhaps especially if, they are offensive.
    
    o  Free speech, as applied to forums for speech, means that all persons
       get to speak, without discrimination.
    
    o  As I said, free speech is a good thing, but that does not imply
       everybody gets to speak all the time, everywhere.  There are places
       that are not forums for opinions, beliefs, et cetera.  The cafeteria
       is such a place.  The cafeteria is a place for eating, relaxing, and
       some social activity (on a personal level).
    
    o  Free speech, as applied to a forum for eating, means that all
       persons are equally entitled to speak -- and since a forum for
       eating is not the place for speech, nobody should be using it for
       that.
    
    These guidelines are fair for everybody and they provide ample
    opportunity for free speech without infringing on people's rights or
    their need to be left alone at times.
    
    
    				-- edp

Re: <<< Note 1616.265 by FSOA::DARCH "Are we having fun yet??" >>>

.265>People are in the workplace to *work*.  People can not work at their
.265>optimal level while they're being subjected to vile, degrading, 
.265>demeaning, intimidating or hateful language or attitudes on the part 
.265>of their co-workers and/or managers.

I doubt you will find any disagrement by anyone with that statement.

The debate within this topic, I believe, is the efforts of the VoD folks
to address the negative attitudes towards G/B/L people by sponsoring the
event described in the basenote.

One camp feels that the route to a better workplace is to raise G/B/L
awareness and, appearantly, pride.

Another camp feels that specific focus should not be given to any
particular group but a more general 'employee relations' approach should
be taken.

The crux of the debate is which approach should Digital Equipment
Corporation be in support of?



I, for one, vote for the second approach.

Some people are genuinely offended by G/B/L people. Should Digital
attempt to correct that attitude? In my opinion, no. Digital should,
however, encourage employees not to let their personal opinions and
beliefs become a job performance issue. But in this topic I sense that
some people believe that it is Digital's role to modify employee attitudes
about G/B/L people.

To borrow some more of the example cited in your note .265.... suppose
a high-level manager said "I will not have any anti-gay people working
for me". A particular sales manager ("X") was of the belief that G/B/L
lifestyle was a moraly corrupt one, but "X" never let that belief
color their working relationship with his fellow employees... the sales
manager simply worked hard and was a valuable asset to the corporation.

Now for the big question: Did "X" value difference?

I guess it boils down to what 'Valuing Difference' or 'Valuing Diversity'
means... to me it means 'Don't let matters of difference be a Digital
performance issue'.

It would seem to me that other people (based on comments in this
conference) feel that it means "You must modify or abandon your own
feelings and attitudes and adopt 'right thinking'"... and not just while
doing your Digital job.

Lee

Re: .266

This conference is the proper place for discussing the corporation's Valuing
Diversity program and its events.


To all:

This conference is NOT the proper place for discussion about sexual orientation,
as its own topic.  I have had to return some notes already which applied
derogatory labels to one kind of sexual orientation, I'd prefer not to have
to return more.  Thanks for your anticipated cooperation.

				Steve

    re -1 .... amen, brother (or sister).  I too have been threatened
    and effectively silenced by one-sider pressures.  This is classic
    PCism, which is difficult to separate from facism.

    re .272
    
    I am stunned...I read both now-deleted notes and the only possible
    problem I saw was the use of the abbreviation "VD" for "VoD" which
    could have been an innocent mistake rather than an intentional slur.
    
    As a noter here and moderator elsewhere, I would like to caution the 
    moderators to not go overboard in your zeal to adhere to the rules.
    
    Re the vanished .272 and .273,
    
    Since your notes are now deleted I can't very well respond, can I? 
    That's too bad...You made some points worth addressing.
    
    Re .271  Lee,
    
    I've extracted your note, too, and will reply later when I have time
    (assuming it's still there, of course).
    
    	deb  

    As the author of the vanished note #274 I think the moderator proved my
    point. I think I was well within the current guidelines of this
    conference.
    
    This too will probably vanish soon.
    
    Regards
    

    .....and the takeover is complete!!!!

    It saddens me that two well-written notes that expressed the
    fellings/attitudes of many were deemed inappropriate for this
    conference.  I'd like to think that everyone's "difference" is
    "valued", but it seems it's not okay to have "traditional values" here.
    
    FWIW, I feel harassed at the workplace by all the VoD messages that
    proliferate through the network.  I simply treat all co-workers with
    respect - I don't need to know what their "difference" or "diversity"
    is, value it, and accept it - people's personal lives are just that -
    _personal_.
    
    /dlw

    
    Keep in mind that in a private corporation, free speech is limited
    by the rules of the corporation. 
    
    I didn't get to see the notes in question.
    
    

| You seem to have some misunderstandings.  Let me clear them up for you:

| o  Free speech is a good thing.

| o  This does not imply everybody gets to speak all the time,
| everywhere. 

	Oh..... limitied free speech. Who get's to decide when it's ok and when
it's not? Do we get to vote in the person whom we feel would best represent us?
Do we go with a majority vote or do you need 100% of the votes to get in? Will
the Womans League sponser a debate for us so we can all find out who is good
and who is bad? Will it just be a free world, total world or just a USA
sponsered event? 

	You see, you can't say that free speech is a good thing, then put
restrictions on it. Once you do, it's no longer free speech. It's censored
speech.

| The cafeteria is a place for eating, relaxing, and some social activity (on 
| a personal level).

	Defined by......... from what I remember, it's not really in the cafe,
but in a room off of the cafe by the cash registers. Am I correct in this? If
so, while you're eating, you won't hear a thing except for maybe why Joe Morgan
got fired, the Patriots getting a new owner, the Governor.......

| o  Free speech, as applied to a forum for eating, means that all
| persons are equally entitled to speak -- and since a forum for
| eating is not the place for speech, nobody should be using it for
| that.

	Is this a new DEC policy? Or is this a policy according to.....



Glen

    Beautiful, Jerry.  Of course you realize that at this moment the
    Greater Marlboro Area is being swept by a tidal wave of snickergiggles.

| > Yet you would like to censor this meeting, or stop it from happening.
| > Do you believe your own words?

| I believe my own words, but you apparently do not, since you are making
| up things I never said.  I never wrote anything about censoring the
| meeting or stopping it from happening.  

	That's what you said, but your next bit of jarga kind of contradicts
just what was said.

| I have written only in
| opposition to using the cafeteria when employees are trying to eat and
| relax and to Digital attempting to influence employee beliefs, instead
| of limiting itself to regulating employee behavior at work. 

	OK, I can see where no one would ever see any type of censorship in
what you have said. I mean, it's ok to have it as long as it's not done here
really isn't censoring it at all. 

	If you reread what I put (see the top of this note) you would see how I 
said you would like to censor OR stop it from happening. From your notes I
couldn't figure out which you wanted. That was my mistake. I should have asked.
But, by this note, it's clear to everyone which one you really mean. 

| Neither of
| these objections is an objection to Digital allowing use of its
| facilities for any of a variety of meetings, including this one.

	Actually, it shows the other view, censorship. 

| This is typical of the PC crowd -- if a person criticizes ANY aspect of
| the PC platform, they are accused of attacking all that is holy to the
| PC.  

	Come on! You actually think that by saying have your meeting, but not
in a place where I may see it happening isn't a form of censorship? NOT!




Glen-who-is-foisterless-for-now

Well, I guess that I was one of the lucky few who got to read what I 
would call "The Majority Opinion". I however, see a great opportunity
here. What DEC needs evidently is a committee of censors, I say 
committee because one person could not and should not be the only judge.
This committee will preread ALL enteries into note files. They will place
their stamp of approval on those that they will allow and return with
appropriate reprimands those that they do not approve.

Maybe the moderators of this notes file would like to be the first to
apply?

    re .280  
    
    Good note, Jerry.
    
> display that I have ever seen.  I fear the worst.  I fear that the
> notes in question were deleted because they contained quotations from
> the Holy Bible ... the Bible is offensive to some minority and therefore
> quotations from the Bible cannot be included.
    
    Correction:  "the Bible is offensive to some minority <of a minority>...
    
    If it's that "offensive" then why all the fuss in the Episcopal,
    Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic [and I'm probably forgetting some]
    churches about gay and lesbian members, priests and ministers??  Why do
    some gay people form their own religious organizations if they all find
    it so offensive?  Why do some gay people *read* and *quote* the Bible??
    
    Why do notes quoting the Bible get deleted here, but they suffer no
    adverse effects in other conferences (like SOAPBOX and the so-called 
    'gay files')??
    
    I read over the notes several times, and I honestly didn't see any
    personal attacks, 'fighting words' or whatever.
    
    This is not the Biblical-Scholars' conference, so I wouldn't expect to
    see an in-depth debate on such issues, but I don't see the harm or
    "offense" of quoting the Bible.  Sheesh...this would be funny if it
    weren't so exasperating.
    
    	deb

    I saw the now-deleted notes go by earlier today, and I (for one) was
    offended by what I perceived as their put-down of G/L/B folks
    ("supported" by what their writers claimed to be an Absolute
    Authority).  
    
    It wasn't their quotations OF the Bible that was IMO a casus deletii. :-)
    
    It was IMO the attitude that came along with the USE of those
    quotations.
    
    FWIW, I thought that the tone of these late(-but-unlamented-by-me)
    notes was negative.  Possibly not intentionally so, but negative in
    that the authority was quoted in such a pat way as to not allow
    much/any room for the other side to have any self-respect.  I remember
    saying to myself "Wow, I should probably extract these before they're
    vaporized."  As good examples of opinions that I am glad I don't share.
    
    But should those opinions have been able to be freely expressed?  Well,
    if they didn't contain putdowns/denigrations of folks I know and
    respect, yes.  If they couldn't be expressed without such putdowns, no.  
    
    Does this denigrate those who have such negative views of G/L/B's? 
    Yes.  I don't think they "live and let live" according to my
    definition.  
    
    Do such folks (having views denigrating of G/L/Bs) normally experience
    negative consequences for expressing them, consequences commensurate
    with the experiences of G/L/B's in workplaces where VoD is not the
    norm?  No.  
    
    Not until lately, that is.
    
    I don't think, on balance, that restraint on the expression of such
    negative views is as bad a thing as is the damage they do to others,
    and to the organization within which they are expressed.  If this be
    PCness, I guess I just signed up for it.
    
    Mods, wanna delete this note?  Sauce for the goose is sauce for the
    gander, as well...  :-)
    

    
RE: 
================================================================================
Note 1616.281              G/L/B Awareness Day at MRO                 281 of 281
JURAN::SILVA "Ahn eyu ahn"                           37 lines  10-OCT-1991 13:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>	Oh..... limitied free speech. Who get's to decide when it's ok and when
>it's not? Do we get to vote in the person whom we feel would best represent us?
>Do we go with a majority vote or do you need 100% of the votes to get in? Will
>the Womans League sponser a debate for us so we can all find out who is good
>and who is bad? Will it just be a free world, total world or just a USA
>sponsered event? 

>	You see, you can't say that free speech is a good thing, then put
>restrictions on it. Once you do, it's no longer free speech. It's censored
>speech.

RE:above;
For one who has been censored by YOU and others who totally contradict your
wery statement above and those of you who DO believe in limited speech as 
it applies to others is a very two faced and contratictory viewpoint.



>	Is this a new DEC policy? Or is this a policy according to.....

RE:above;
It is a resonable practice where individuals are trying to avoid conflict.

Mr. Moderator:
    It is very disturbing to me as an individual who has been an advocate 
    for free speech to listen to this two faced garbage concerning the 
    changing determination of what free speech is as related in the above 
    statements and how it changes when it suites the individual. I tried 
    to follow your guide lines and remain low key but I was censored again
    so as long as these guidelines are tailored to individual groups then 
    to avoid further conflicts concerning this topic I request respectfully 
    that this topic should be WRITE LOCKED.
    
    
Regards
Trying_to_cope

>Mr. Moderator:
>    It is very disturbing to me as an individual who has been an advocate 
>    for free speech to listen to this two faced garbage concerning the 
>    changing determination of what free speech is as related in the above 
>    statements and how it changes when it suites the individual. I tried 
>    to follow your guide lines and remain low key but I was censored again
>    so as long as these guidelines are tailored to individual groups then 
>    to avoid further conflicts concerning this topic I request respectfully 
>    that this topic should be WRITE LOCKED.
>    

I agree, this is no longer a debate nor a discussion (although I'm not sure
that it ever was), it is a one sided speech.

- George

To all you "Monday-morning quarterbacks"...

No notes were deleted because of quotes from the Bible.  Personally, I couldn't
care less if you quote from the Bible, the World Almanac or the breakfast menu
at McDonalds.  The two notes people refer to were deleted because they made
specific derogatory references to gays.  No other reason.  One more was deleted
because it was a reply to one of the others.  In each case, the note text was
returned to the author, so if you are really eager to see it, send them mail;
they've all identified themselves here.

Those of you complaining about censorship seem to feel that insults are as
worthwhile as expressions of support, all in the name of "free speech".  No, it's
NOT ok for you to say "People with blue eyes are disgusting, immoral and
depraved," even if other people are allowed to say "Hey, people with blue eyes
are human too."  It's not a question of fairness, it's a question of courtesy
and respect.  If you can't handle that, then sit on your hands.

The policies of Digital are quite clear about this and the moderators of this
conference intend to follow them.

					Steve

    RE: .290

    >I agree, this is no longer a debate nor a discussion (although I'm not
    >sure that it ever was), it is a one sided speech.

    	The notes specifically addressing valuing diversity policy 
    *were* part of an interesting discussion and all sides were expressing
    their points of view.  But if you are lamenting the fact noters are no 
    longer allowed to *insult* (not "debate" not "discuss" not "express 
    traditional values" but *insult*) their co-workers....well, I can't say 
    I have much sympathy for you.

    If the notes critical of homosexuality contained calm and reasoned
    debate (from the start) instead of the outright insults, nothing
    would have been deleted (are you listening Mr Lennard?).

    As it stands, even though I have not read the most recently deleted
    notes, I suspect they were not "offensive" in and of themselves and
    probably should not have been deleted.  Although I would add that anyone 
    reading this topic has most likely seen passages from Romans and Leviticus 
    hundreds of times anyway so it's not like we're missing some profound 
    revelation.  

    /Greg (who is not offended by the Bible itself but who is offended by the 
           way some choose to use it.)

I've read lots of notes here mentioning political correctness.  I'm tired of that
term being used against people who are simply encouraging fairness to all
peoples.  Since when is equal rights a "pc" idea?  Since when is being aware of
discrimination a "pc" idea?  Discrimination does exist whether you yourself
practice it or not.  Even if I personally treat everyone fairly, I am made a
better person by understanding how society, Digital, and my fellow employees
treat minority groups.  In this way I can be more aware of my actions and how I
may be unknowingly treating someone unfairly.

Paul

>No notes were deleted because of quotes from the Bible.  Personally, I couldn't
>care less if you quote from the Bible, the World Almanac or the breakfast menu
>at McDonalds.  The two notes people refer to were deleted because they made
>specific derogatory references to gays.  No other reason.  One more was deleted
>because it was a reply to one of the others.  In each case, the note text was
>returned to the author, so if you are really eager to see it, send them mail;
>they've all identified themselves here.

Well Great! instead of inundating the authors with requests for a copy of the
note. I am requesting that the authors delete the derogatory remarks and repost
the notes.

While I am here will someone please answer my question in .263 and Jerry's
in I think it is .268. They must have been overlooked with all this hoopla
over censorship.

- George

    RE: Why bring in "outsiders?"
    
    Why not?  We bring in outside consultants all the time for various
    reasons and most of the time we pay them (quite handsomely I
    understand).  The folks being asked to participate in this awareness
    day are not being paid to the best of my knowledge (except for Digital 
    employees - and they are only getting their regular salary).  If they
    were being paid, I wouldn't object.  
    
    Also, the reason why some DEC gay people might not want to openly
    take part in a pannel discussion and talk about being gay is quite
    simply fear of reprisal.  Yes, the corporation has policies that
    are supposed to protect you, but they aren't always enforced and in
    some cases, the reaction can take subtle forms that make it difficult
    to respond.   When the HLO site had it's pannel discussion, all the
    members on the pannel, as well as the facillitator, were full time DEC 
    employees (except one - he had previously been a DEC employee).
    
    /Greg

    RE: .297
    
    Are you really saying that if John Doe is told he can't insult other
    people in a notesfile that, as a result, he will get so angry that 
    he'll go out and bash someone?   
    
    Sounds an awful lot like a justification for violence against
    innocent people, to me.
    
    ...
    
    Where do I take a stand?
    
    I take a stand against ignorance and fear and I take a stand against
    bigotry and oppression.   I take a stand *FOR* individual freedom and
    responsibility and I take a stand *FOR* truth, integrity and justice.
    
    Oh and regarding children - for a long time, lies and misconceptions
    have been forced into the minds of children through society's mandatory
    homophobia.  How about instead of "forcing" concepts into the minds of
    kids, we teach them facts and share various experiences and set examples, 
    and then let them grow up into individuals who can make their own 
    decisions?
    
    /Greg
    

    re .294 by FUNYET::ANDERSON
    
    I believe we use "political correctness" where the correct term would
    be "hypocrisy, stimulated by fear".
    
    People _have been_ discriminated against (at some times in some places)
    because they refuse to use euphemisms which are more agreeable to
    somebody.  They have suffered for not being "politically correct". 
    Other people, having observed this sequence of events, avoid the
    problem by adopting, insincerely, the "pc" terminology.
    
    Over the years, I have cultivated a personal style that is somewhat
    abrasive, that makes no concessions to anyone's sensibilities, and is
    definitely not "politically correct".  One can go against the grain,
    but you need a tough skin to do it.  What you can't expect is that you
    are able to express yourself in whatever style you learned in junior
    high and also avoid retaliation.  That is really naive!
    
    As Harry Truman once said, 
    
    	"If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen!"
    
    Thnaks Harry,
    
    Dick

There seems to be a lot of nonsense in here about "free speech".  It has
long been recognised that, in absolute fact, there is no such thing.  The usual
phrasing is that you have no freedom to capriciously shout "fire"
in a crowded theatre.

The organisers of this event in MRO seem, according to the way I interpret
the notice in .0, to be saying that "gays, lesbians, and bisexuals 
can be perfectly decent human beings".  Their right to do so in US 
society is unquestionable [their right to do so within a DEC cafeteria 
is not so obvious - I would support the venture, would argue that it 
is in line with stated corporate policy, and that it is a good thing, 
but not necessarily agree that it is a right].

The counter to this (the "opposite right", if you like) does not
entitle one to slander G/L/Bs and to describe them in the offensive
terms adopted by some of the replies in here.  All viewpoints are
*not* equally acceptable, and this is not a mere matter of PC-ness.
If you espouse a viewpoint which calls for hatred and discrimination,
you should not be surprised at being told to shut up.  

Would you be allowed to organize an event in support of 
straight white males?  Maybe; I woud hope so.  Why don't 
you try it and see instead of using it as a hypothetical 
example?  However, you should be quite sure that you're really
organizing in support of straight white males rather than against
anyone else; quite a few respondents in this note don't seem to
be able to tell the difference.

Finally, as for the argument that this event is infringing on the
rights of others to eat in the cafeteria in peace:  really, that's
such a pathetic argument.  One day?   Your well-being is being
seriously compromised by that.   But it's the principle of the
thing, you say.  If the G/L/Bs are allowed to make a noise in
the cafeteria, everyone's group will want to do that.  Fooey.
If the holding of such events in the cafeteria does increase to a
significant level, then I think you will have a valid complaint.
But until then, I think you're just seizing upon any convenient
argument you can. 

    Re .281:
    
    > Will the Womans League sponser a debate for us so we can all find out
    > who is good and who is bad?
    
    What does this have to do with what I wrote?  Nothing I wrote implies
    any limitations on WHO can speak for whom or WHO can speak at all. 
    Nothing I wrote implies any censorship on WHAT can be said.  What I am
    proposing is EQUAL OPPORTUNTY for free speech for ALL people, and ample
    opportunity will be provided for speech.
    
    Do you think free speech means anybody can speak anywhere, at any time? 
    Do you think the First Amendment gives you the right to enter private
    homes without consent and speak?  Does it give you the right to demand
    newspapers print your words?  Free speech does not mean absolutely no
    limits on speech.  Free speech means ideas are not censored; it does
    not mean they are permitted anywhere at any time.
    
    I propose that free speech be permitted without censorship of ideas in
    appropriate forums for speech -- such as notes conferences or private
    meetings.  I propose that Digital recognize that employees have other
    rights and desires at other times, including a right to be let alone in
    their beliefs.
    
    Why do you insist upon a right to force people to be exposed to
    propaganda?
    
    > Defined by......... from what I remember, it's not really in the
    > cafe, but in a room off of the cafe by the cash registers. Am I correct
    > in this? 
    
    I think you are incorrect . . . it was not a separate room, although it
    was alleged to be outside the cafeteria proper -- but still where
    people would pass by.  I do not have the exact set-up, so I cannot say
    whether or not it would be as intrusive as some of the events at ZK
    have been.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .283:
    
    > Come on! You actually think that by saying have your meeting, but not
    > in a place where I may see it happening isn't a form of censorship?
    > NOT!
    
    I'm not talking about just "seeing" it, as in passing by a room, but in
    forcing people to be exposed to it when they do not want to be.  If
    anybody were preventing you from speaking to people who wanted to
    listen, or perhaps even in letting people know via passive means that
    there were a meeting (e.g., printed notices or bulletin boards open to
    all), then you could claim there were censorship.  Even if you were
    prevented from actively notifying people in a forum where there were
    active speech, such as a Notes conference, then you could claim
    censorship.
    
    But when the limitation is only that you may not bother people who do
    not want to be bothered, then there is no censorship.  Free speech is
    not a right to force yourself on other people.  You are being denied
    nothing anybody else is not being denied; you are not being censored.
    
    
    				-- edp

| -< Viewpoints are double sided. >-

	So isn't some tape....

| >	You see, you can't say that free speech is a good thing, then put
| >restrictions on it. Once you do, it's no longer free speech. It's censored
| >speech.

| RE:above;
| For one who has been censored by YOU and others who totally contradict your
| wery statement above and those of you who DO believe in limited speech as
| it applies to others is a very two faced and contratictory viewpoint.

	I can't speak for others, but would you mind explaining for me where I
have censored you and how I have given the impression of believing in limited
speech? I'd am curious about that. Just facts now. :-)

| It is very disturbing to me as an individual who has been an advocate
| for free speech to listen to this two faced garbage concerning the
| changing determination of what free speech is as related in the above
| statements and how it changes when it suites the individual. 

	Again, would you care to explain how I am two faced? You have made the
statement, now how about some facts to go with it. Or, is this like a lot of
the other notes that people have put in here, plenty of accusations, but no
facts to back them up.

| I request respectfully that this topic should be WRITE LOCKED.

	Well, it would make things easier for you...... then you wouldn't have
to supply any facts.....



Glen

re: .299
    
>    Why not?  We bring in outside consultants all the time for various
>    reasons and most of the time we pay them (quite handsomely I
    
Sure, and the subject is work related, this is not the same...

>    Also, the reason why some DEC gay people might not want to openly
>    take part in a pannel discussion and talk about being gay is quite
>    simply fear of reprisal.  

     Please expain your point, how is the above statement .....

>    Yes, the corporation has policies that
>    are supposed to protect you, but they aren't always enforced and in
>    some cases, the reaction can take subtle forms that make it difficult
>    to respond.   When the HLO site had it's pannel discussion, all the
>    members on the pannel, as well as the facillitator, were full time DEC 
>    employees (except one - he had previously been a DEC employee).
    
     consistent with this one?

| I propose that free speech be permitted without censorship of ideas in
| appropriate forums for speech -- such as notes conferences or private
| meetings.  

	You see, you say you don't want to censor the meeting, yet you only
want such talk to happen in notes or appropriate forums for speech. Defined by
who? You? Apparently DEC has decided that this IS an appropriate area for free
speech. But, YOU have decided that this isn't the correct place. Can't you see
that it sounds anyway, as long as the meetings are held in areas that YOU feel
are acceptable, then it's ok, but otherwise it is not. I'm sorry, but IMHO that
is a form of censorship. This is the law according to EDP. NOT!

| I propose that Digital recognize that employees have other
| rights and desires at other times, including a right to be let alone in
| their beliefs.

	Hey, do you think that maybe this is the reason it's voluntary? Hmmm...

| Why do you insist upon a right to force people to be exposed to
| propaganda?

	Because you do have a right to voice your opinion. :-) No one is being
forced, no one has to hear it if they don't want to. Just go to a table and
eat. Simple as that.

| > Defined by......... from what I remember, it's not really in the
| > cafe, but in a room off of the cafe by the cash registers. Am I correct
| > in this?

| I think you are incorrect . . . it was not a separate room, although it
| was alleged to be outside the cafeteria proper -- but still where
| people would pass by.  

	Oh. Gee, you may have to walk by and hear the word gay. What a sad day
this is at DEC. From that one word you may end up changing your views on us. I
seriously doubt it. Once you sit down to eat, you will be out of sight, out of
earshot and can hold your usual lunch conversation. Really. In my facility they
had a similar event and no one died from it, no one was converted, nothing.
It's not as bad as you have been making it sound, and today will show that.



Glen

    PC = "politically correct"
    
    PC means doing or saying the "right" thing (whether you really
    believe it is "right" or not) to avoid the wrath of.....others.
    
    "Others" are usually "special interest groups" (you know, women,
    blacks, gays, men, the wealthy elite, the defense industry, safety
    nazis, environmentalists, fundamentalists, Cambridge intellectuals, the 
    Bush Administration, National Review's editorial staff, etc, etc, etc....)
    
    "Wrath" can be anything from a mean letter printed in the Washington
    Post to an outraged group picketting X, to the lack of $$$s from 
    millionaires to run the next campaign, to.....well, you name it.
    
    /Greg

| > Come on! You actually think that by saying have your meeting, but not
| > in a place where I may see it happening isn't a form of censorship?
| > NOT!

| I'm not talking about just "seeing" it, as in passing by a room, but in
| forcing people to be exposed to it when they do not want to be.  

	How are they being exposed? They walk by, look in, and then continue on
if they're not interested? If that's being exposed, then it is a very small
dosage. 

| But when the limitation is only that you may not bother people who do
| not want to be bothered, then there is no censorship.  Free speech is
| not a right to force yourself on other people.  You are being denied
| nothing anybody else is not being denied; you are not being censored.

	When a single individual tells of how he would like to see the meeting
held, in a place where no one would have to see it, a single individual now,
when there has been a group of people who do this for a living (set up valuing
differences meetings) who have knowledge about it, then one can only think of
censorship.



Glen

    RE: .308
    
    >>    Why not?  We bring in outside consultants all the time for various
    >>    reasons and most of the time we pay them (quite handsomely I
    >
    >Sure, and the subject is work related, this is not the same...
    
    	Well you are missing the whole point if you don't think this
    	is work related.  The whole reason this is being done is 
    	because the company wants people to be more productive.
    
    >Please expain your point, how is the above statement ..... 
    >consistent with this one?
    
    	You mean, how can I say *some* DEC gay people might not want
    	to openly take part in such an event and in the next paragraph
    	mention an event where *some* DEC gay people DID take part in
    	such an event?  Easy, people are different.
    
    	Some are willing to take the risk and so far, it looks as though 
    	the people they work with on a day to day basis do not have a 
    	problem with their actions.  Others aren't so secure about how
    	the people they work with will react.  Perhaps they have good
    	reasons for this (a boss who tells anti-gay jokes for example).
    
    	The people who have come out and done this work have found they
    	are in much demand by various organizations in the company and
    	as a result, do not have the time or energy to take part in all
    	such events.  So when yet another organization decides on an
    	event, they may find a lack of openly gay DEC employees who are
    	willing to participate  - slowly, more people are willing to
    	come out, but they may not have the public speaking skills, or
    	they may wish to be active elsewhere....  It is all voluntary so
    	you can't force someone to participate.
    
    /Greg

 Is homosexuality sexually deviant ?  Our moderators deleted a note I entered
because I said it is.  Whos' got a dictionary ????  I think the moderators
are getting out of hand !!!  Isn't it censorship for them to take away my
freedom here to say what I feel is deviant behavior ?  I didn't call anybody
names or slam gay lifestyle.  What's the problem.  

So what's the definition of deviant behavior ?

Mike.

I'm curious about something.  Several of the notes here, as well as some
people who have sent me mail, have made statements about this event at MRO,
and the VoD program as a whole, "promoting" homosexuality.  How is this done?
Do you get a free coffee mug if you sign up to be a homosexual?   Do you get
a discount on magazine subscriptions?  Or maybe a "free" (with required activation
through a carrier of the VoD program's choice) celluar phone?

Or perhaps is what they're "promoting" instead tolerance and egalitarianism?

					Steve

    >Isn't it censorship for them to take away my freedom here to say what I
    >feel is deviant behavior ?  I didn't call anybody names or slam gay
    >lifestyle.  What's the problem.  
    
    No, it isn't censorship, because YOU DON'T HAVE THAT FREEDOM.
    
    This ISN'T a democracy -- this is a privately-owned computer network.
    The First Amendment of the US Constitution DOES NOT apply here.
    
    I can only assume that the note was deleted because it violated the
    Policies and Procedures of this corporation.  Those P&Ps govern what
    can be said on these computer resources, and it is the moderator's
    job to make sure that the P&Ps are not violated.
    
    					andrew

    Well, here we are...11-OCT -- National Coming Out Day!
    
    I'd like to extend my support to all our fellow g/l/b colleagues here 
    at Digital.  I hope the VoD seminar at MRO goes well.
    
    
    Best regards,
    Buck

    RE: .315
    
    And how do you know what was "intended" by the person who used
    the word "deviant?"
    
    If you look only at the sterile, dictionary meaning, the word doesn't 
    appear to be ladden with a value judgement.  But the history of the 
    word's usage in context along with other less neutral adjectives
    tells a different story.
    
    I would be surprised to learn that someone who used "deviant"
    simply meant "different from the norm" and nothing else.
    
    /Greg
    

RE:       <<< Note 1616.319 by CRONIC::SCHULER "Have a nice Judgment day" >>>

    
>    And how do you know what was "intended" by the person who used
>    the word "deviant?"
    
I guess we will never know, as we will never be able to make this judgement
for ourselves. As DEC P&P and the moderator's interpretation of them have
prevented us from seeing what was 'intended'.

- George

    Re .294:
    
    > Since when is equal rights a "pc" idea?
    
    Ideas are not PC because of WHAT they are, they are PC because of HOW
    they are presented and protected.  The idea that handicapped people
    should have equal rights is not a problem, but the idea that
    handicapped people should be called "challenged" is -- that is an
    example of political correctness, the attempt to control words.  By
    controlling words, political correct advocates try to control thought. 
    Other aspects of PCness including opposing criticism -- any criticism
    of a PC idea is accused of being an attack on more than it is.  The
    politically correct are not satisfied to live and let live; they must
    make others believe their beliefs.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .303:
    
    > If the holding of such events in the cafeteria does increase to a
    > significant level, then I think you will have a valid complaint. But
    > until then, I think you're just seizing upon any convenient argument
    > you can. 
    
    You have either missed or ignored the descriptions I gave previously of
    other events using the ZK cafeteria in intrusive ways -- which I have
    complained about previously.  Unless you believe I had the ability to
    compute what would happen in the future and planned my past objections
    to other events soley for the purpose of being prepared for this one,
    then your criticism that I am seizing upon a convenient argument is
    itself entirely contrived to meet YOUR circumstances.
    
    Digital should not be taking advantage of its position to try to alter
    employee beliefs.  That is intolerant.
    
    
    				-- edp

The following is an extract of the 'U.S. ON-LINE DIVERSITY CALENDAR'
distributed by the U.S. Valuing Diversity Office.

My comments follow the extract.

Lee



                        U.S. ON-LINE DIVERSITY CALENDAR
    
    ISSUE #26						OCTOBER, 1991
    
    The U.S. On-Line Diversity Calendar is a monthly listing of Valuing 
    Diversity events and related announcements, provided by the U.S. 
    Valuing Diversity Office.
    
    This calendar is available through electronic mail.  You may add your 
    name to the distribution by sending mail to ICS::VALDIV or VALDIV @MSO.  
    
[text deleted]

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    DATE:   Fri., 10/11 		      SITE:  Maynard, MA (PKO3)
    PLACE:  Patriots Conference Room	      TIME:  12:00 - 1:00
    EVENT:  "Tongues Untied" Film & Discussion
    
    	    * "Tongues Untied" (1-hour video)  A Point-of-View video
    	      produced by WGBH on some aspects of the Black Gay male
    	      experience.   Lyrical, yet strongly graphic in both language 
    	      and imagery.  Viewers may react emotionally ... comfort 
    	      zones may be pushed. 	
    	    * A discussion will follow this film.
    	      	
    SPONSORED BY:  PKO Valuing Diversity Program Office
    AUDIENCE:  All employees welcome
    CONTACT:   For registration or addt'l info, contact Kendra Theriault,
    	       FDCV06::THERIAULT, DTN 223-3728
    


"Graphic in imagery"

It is my understanding that the film depicts homosexual sex acts.
More than half of the PBS TV outlets in the US elected not to air this
film when it was aired.

"Viewers may react emotionally"
"comfort zones may be pushed"

Such nice euphamisims. Why not just say 'revolted' or 'offended'?

Some of you in this topic might say "If you don't like it, don't attend."
as if to trivialize the event.

Could I show a film at Digital depicting behavior that was in direct
opposition of Valuing Diversity goals and simply trivialize it in the
same fashion? I think not.

My question is why isn't Digital showing films that deal with
in-the-workplace G/B/L issues instead of showing the private side of gay
life? How does showing such a film reduce discrimination of G/B/L people
at Digital?

Lee

    Re .309:
    
    > Apparently DEC has decided that this IS an appropriate area for free
    > speech. But, YOU have decided that this isn't the correct place. 
    
    You totally ignored the reasons I gave about WHY the cafeteria is an
    inappropriate place for this sort of proselytizing.  Such use of the
    cafeteria is improper not because I say so, but because it offends
    employees, it is rude on Digital's part, and it is intolerant of
    diverse beliefs.
    
    > Can't you see that it sounds anyway, as long as the meetings are held
    > in areas that YOU feel are acceptable, then it's ok, but otherwise it
    > is not. I'm sorry, but IMHO that is a form of censorship.
    
    You have totally ignored the point that what is being controlled by
    limiting use of the cafeteria is not what ideas are being expressed but
    whether or not people are allowed to relax and eat in peace.  SINCE
    IDEAS ARE NOT BEING CONTROLLED, IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP.
    
    > Hey, do you think that maybe this is the reason it's voluntary?
    
    Exposure to this is not voluntary, and that is my objection.  Once
    again, the PC have misrepresented me.
    
    > From that one word you may end up changing your views on us.
    
    And once again, the PC show their prejudice.  Do you really want me to
    change your views on you (gays and lesbians, I presume)?  Do you really
    want me to stop believing in equal opportunity for gays, lesbians,
    heterosexuals, and bisexuals?  Do you really want me to stop believing
    homosexuality is ethical behavior?
    
    You assumed that because I opposed bothering people in the cafeteria
    and because I oppose the PC attempting to thrust their beliefs on other
    people, that I oppose those beliefs.  That is wrong.  Your prejudice
    led you astray.  The difference between you and me is not that you
    believe in equal opportunity and I do not, but that I ALSO believe in
    not infringing upon freedom of beliefs.  You believe in free speech but
    not free religion.  I believe in both.  I do not support what a number
    of people are saying about homosexuality, but I will defend their right
    to say it -- in an open, equal forum.  On the other hand, the cafeteria
    is not an open, equal forum for speech, and nobody should be granted
    special access to it to push their beliefs.  Similarly, I will defend
    your right to speak in an open, equal forum -- but not in the
    cafeteria.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .311:
    
    > How are they being exposed? They walk by, look in, and then continue
    > on if they're not interested?
    
    Come on, how many times does this have to be repeated before you
    comprehend it?  This is NOT IN A ROOM.  There are at least TWO aspects
    to the event.  ONE is in a separate room off in who knows where.  The
    OTHER is a table or display near the cafeteria.  My earliest notes were
    written assuming the table would be in the cafeteria, possibly forcing
    a number of employees to move from their regular seats, and possibly
    distracting people while eating, as previous events HAVE ACTUALLY DONE
    in the ZK cafeteria.  From the latest news, it does not seem like the
    table will actually be in the cafeteria, so my objections are lessened,
    but it does seem it will be somewhere that people will pass by when
    going from registers to tables.
    
    By the way, I have a question for participants in this topic:  Would
    anybody oppose a table in or near the cafeteria at which literature was
    handed out promoting the idea that homosexuality is unethical?
    
    
    				-- edp

re: .323
>    DATE:   Fri., 10/11 		      SITE:  Maynard, MA (PKO3)
>    PLACE:  Patriots Conference Room	      TIME:  12:00 - 1:00
>    EVENT:  "Tongues Untied" Film & Discussion
    
>    	    * "Tongues Untied" (1-hour video)  A Point-of-View video
>    	      produced by WGBH on some aspects of the Black Gay male
>    	      experience.   Lyrical, yet strongly graphic in both language 
>    	      and imagery.  Viewers may react emotionally ... comfort 
>    	      zones may be pushed. 	

I wonder, if somebody while viewing the 'strongly graphic imagery' gets
very emotional and says "thats disgusting" will some moderator be there
to tell them to "shut up, you can't say that here at DEC"?
    	      	
I need to ask, if some of the PBS stations in this country refused to air
this film because of its content and DEC itself describes it as having
"graphic imagery and language" and warns that people may get emotional.
Just what purpose is the showing of it going to meet?
Does DEC think that the heterosexuals will 'warm up' to the idea that this
is all OK? that they should live and let live? 

>    	    * A discussion will follow this film.

Yeah, right....

Its a one hour film thats being, oops was shown between 12 and 1. Doesn't
leave much time for discussion. I can hear it now.

Moderator: Well, thats the end of the film, are there any questions?

Employee: Yeah, I have one. Just what was the purpose of showing this?

Moderator: Well, I see we are out of time. Thank you all for coming.

    
    
    A tad off of the topic, but I figure I have the best audience here...
    
    Would anyone out there have any objections to a "Straight White
    English American Traditionalist" notes conference??
    
    

    
    Well today was the day here in MR01. I didn't have time today to
    go down to the cafeteria and see what's going on. I have work
    to do, and I'm luckily ahead of schedule.
    
    Hope everything went okay.
    
    /prc

    RE:  .323 and .326
    
    Regarding "Tongues Untied"...

    I am a member of the PKO Valuing Diversity Program Office, which is
    hosting this event.  If you would like your questions and concerns
    addressed regarding the post-film "discussion" of this presentation, I
    strongly suggest you contact Kendra Theriault (DTN 223-3728).  Kendra
    will be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding this
    event.
          
    
    Regards,
    Buck
    PKO Valuing Diversity Program Member
    

    Mr. Fulti,
    
    The reason *some* PBS stations did not show it was because some
    people, who had not necessarily seen the film, objected to it being
    shown.  Also (I gather) it is rather amateurish, or at least "ain't
    got no esthetics".
    
    That most/all PBS stations were willing to schedule it, and that *some*
    PBS stations actually have shown it, somethings more than once, should
    tell you what it does NOT contain.  (Hint: Consider the FCC.)
    
    						Ann B.

    How do I do this without getting fired??  This whole "Tongues Untied"
    piece of trash is a perfect example of the point I've tried to make.
    The Valuing Diversity people have let themselves be prostituted!!
    
    Who picks the people on the VoD committees?  I really think that if
    this film uses the language and shows the scenes described earlier,
    the sponsors should be fired.  Whether or not the GLB event should
    take place in a cafeteria is one thing, but this is terrible.  If
    the sponsors think it so wonderful, why don't they arrange to show
    it to Ken Olsen.....bet they don't dare.
    
    What's next??  Film on child molesting? bestiality?  Maybe a couple
    "snuff" movies would be nice.
    
    God help us as a corporate family.  There is a sickness that needs to
    be cut out....quickly.

*******************************************************************************
*				Author's Comments:			      *
*									      *
*	The following is an edited version of note .272 which was	      *
*	deleted by the moderator.  I have had MANY responses via	      *
*	MAIL from both hetero as well as homosexual people commending	      *
*	me for not only the content but the manner in which it was	      *
*	presented.  It should be noted that under no circumstances	      *
*	did I intend to be vindictive or malicious.  Those with whom	      *
*	I have corresponded via the mail know and understand this to	      *
*	be the truth.  Furthermore, I'm told by these same *gay*	      *
*	people that they could find nothing offensive about what I wrote.     *
*									      *
*	I am told by the moderator that my note was rejected because I	      *
*	used two words that offended him.  Furthermore, he objected to	      *
*	the fact that I quoted two passages out of the Bible to defend        *
*	my position on homosexuality.  This is in direct contradiction	      *
*	to what he stated in this notes conference (see .291).	I might	      *
*	also point out that the moderator has told me that although	      *
*	people in support of homosexual values have the right to express      *
*	their views, I haven't the right to object to them.  This 	      *
*	contradicts what one of the afformentioned MAIL conferees tells	      *
*	me - and this person is also a moderator of another conference.	      *
*									      *
*	At any rate, as per the suggestion by many, I have attempted to	      *
*	edit out any text which might be perceived as deliberately 	      *
*	attempting to hurt anyone.					      *
*******************************************************************************

Having spent the better part of this evening reading the comments in this
conference, I feel compelled (perhaps against my better judgment) to voice my
opinion.

In the trying economic climate that DEC has faced in the past and which it is
sure to endure in the future, it behooves me that our company should choose to
spend so much money and energy supporting homosexuality.  I continue to ask
myself, "How can we justify handing an individual a termination notice using
the excuse that his or her service can no longer be afforded when at the same
time money is allocated for salaries and events aimed at promoting this
<censored> behavior?".  Let there be no mistaking my position concerning the
work environment; EVERYONE should be entitled to a comfortable setting free
from prejudice and harassment.  Under NO circumstances should DEC tolerate
behavior which would otherwise detract from his/her productive capability. 
But, motives must be questioned when the company goes beyond these measures to
fund, promote and demand recognition and acceptance of values which are
offensive to most people. 

In it's attempt to value differences, or value diversity, or value whatever,
VoD is failing at meeting EVERYONE's needs.  The hypocrisy of VoD's practices
are illustrated in the following example.  A little over a year ago, 60-70
Christians at CXO met with VoD personnel to discuss concerns regarding New Age
education material and homosexual activities at DEC.  In that meeting we were
told that the formation of a Christian group under the VoD umbrella would be
welcomed.  However, we were instructed that under no circumstances would we be
permitted to use any literature or material which would otherwise offend any
other group also sheltered under VoD.  In fact, we were told (and I have it in
writing) that we would not be allowed to use the Bible because after all it
speaks clearly against homosexuality.

		   < Two Bible passages censored here. >

These are only two of many verses which can be found in the Bible which support
the Christian's view.  Now I ask, if VoD is really an unbiased entity
functioning on behalf of all employees, then why is DECPLUS allowed to post
their material on the walls in the hallways, show illicit videos and campaign
for their cause and Christians are not granted similar privileges?   Christians
simply can neither tolerate nor condone nor accept homosexual behavior --
PERIOD.  The fact of the matter is that it is impossible for VoD to appease
everyone.  It is idealistic to think that all "differences" can be expected to
coincide.  Therefore it is unreasonable to presume VoD an unbiased
organization.  Furthermore, unless everyone is to receive equal treatment,
preferential attention should not be given to only a select few.

I have heard in community meetings as well as read in this notes conference
that homosexuals are not seeking special rights, that they only want to live
as normal people live.  HORSE CAWCAW!  The previous example shows they already
have more rights at DEC than "straight" people do.  The following occurrences
lend further credence to this claim.

As a Christian and formerly a manager at DEC, Pat Long refused to succumb to VoD
pressure to accept and promote homosexual <censored>.  After her job became too
much for her to handle she quit.  Where was the protection from harassment
that should have been afforded her and which is freely given to the DECPLUS
community?  Sounds like a double standard, doesn't it?

I'm told of another supervisor who complained about homosexual pressure and was
demoted because of it.  Still there are others who have not only asked to
remain anonymous but would rather not have their incident revealed at all for
fear of recognition and subsequent loss of job.  And what about those who have
been required to take VoD indoctrination training because their views were not
in line with "DEC culture"?  DON'T TELL ME THIS ISN'T BEING SHOVED DOWN OUR
THROATS!  IT IS!

On October 11, the film "Tongues Untied" is to be shown in Maynard.  According
to the U.S. ON-LINE DIVERSITY CALENDAR description for this film,  "Lyrical,
yet strongly graphic in both language and imagery.  Viewers may react
emotionally ... comfort zones may be pushed."  Please note the following quote
from the Accuracy in Media Report (issue xx16 ; August 1991):

	YOUR TAX DOLLARS ALSO PAID FOR ANOTHER CLINKER ON THE "P.O.V." 
	(point of view) SCHEDULE this summer entitled "Tongues Untied,"
	which featured pictures of black homosexual men making love.
	The Rev. Don Wildmon, whose American Family Association protested 
	the explicit nature of "Tongues Untied," says that 201 of PBS's
	341 stations refused to air the show.  That individual stations
	have more editorial sense than the moguls who run PBS offends
	homosexual militants, who whine about "censorship".

When the majority of the PBS stations chose for a very good reason not to air
this <censored>, why is DEC allowing it?  From a purely business standpoint what
possible purpose can it serve?

The VoD presentation at CXO1 on October 30 maintains 4 stated objectives:

		1) Recognizing the difference
		2) Understanding the difference
		3) Accepting the difference
		4) Valuing the difference

Is there anyone reading this who doesn't know what the "difference" is between 
a homosexual and a heterosexual?  Why then the need for VoD training classes if 
not for desensitization and final acceptance?  Is this not the objective of
items 3) and 4) above?

In closing, I'd like to address the issue of name-calling.  Regardless of which
side of the fence you choose to stand, this is unacceptable behavior.  It's
true both sides are guilty.  But isn't it interesting that even if a person
opposed to homosexuality positions himself according to Godly principles, that
person will commonly be referred to as a gay-basher, a bigot, a Nazi, a
homophobe, a liar, etc.  How many times have I read in this conference (and
heard in public forums) that a person's lack of acceptance is due to
"ignorance"?  IGNORANCE!  And my all-time favorite - if you're not inclined to
swallow any of the gay propaganda it must be because you're not "open-minded". 
Just as the original meaning of the word "gay" has been perverted, so have we
arrived at a new definition for open-mindedness.  I always thought that this
term meant basing one's decision on information gleaned from all sides of an
issue.  It appears that homosexuals interpret it to mean you're in agreement
with their values.  If not, you're closed-minded.  Just as a matter of interest
I wonder how many "open-minded" individuals tuned me out when they read the
Bible verses I quoted?

Amen (i.e., so be it!)
    

    re: .321
    
    >>The idea that handicapped people
    >>should have equal rights is not a problem, but the idea that
    >>handicapped people should be called "challenged" is -- that is an
    >>example of political correctness, the attempt to control words.
    
    Why shouldn't 'handicapped' people have the right to determine the
    words or terms that refer to them?  How is this any different than
    'black' people saying that they want to be referred to as African
    Americans?  Labels are very powerful and I don't think that this should
    be minimized.  

    
    re: .325
    
    I also oppose the table in the cafateria. It is unnecessary. It has 
    nothing to do with selling/making/supporting computers. It will not
    increase productivity. It is just as silly as this "G/B/L Awareness"
    day at MRO or the movie at PKO. Digital should not be doing this.
    
    re: 333
    
    Great note...You've expressed what I think a lot of people are feeling,
    both Christians and non-Christians alike. I only hope the notes police
    dont't delete again.
    
    Neil
    

    Wow, things have been jumpin', haven't they?
    
    Re: 'PC'...I find it interesting that this label is applied by those so
    fond of using labels in general for whole groups of opposing strangers. 
    I think it's pretty cheap to just tag the opposition with a cheap name
    and ignore the actual topic of discussion by pretending it's all just a
    conspiracy, clique, or club.  Modern day McCarthyism.
    
    Re: Tongues Untied...I haven't seen it, and so I can rightly comment
    one way or the other.  Lee, if you haven't seen it either, why do you
    oppose it based solely on a perfectly sane description of the film as
    being potentially offensive?  I'm confused.  How do you know that it only
    addresses homosexual's private lives, and shows homosexual sex?  Does
    it?
    
    Re: Free Speech...This term is tossed around lightly by those who would
    hide behind it to shirk their concommitant responsibility to watch
    their mouths.  Free speech doesn't give you the right to say whatever
    you want, using whatever foul terminology you care to conceive.
    
    Let's not hide behind First Amendment digressions and arguments over
    semantics.  That in itself is offensive.  How on earth can we digress
    into a serious discussion about whether Webster says the phrase "Sexual
    Deviant" is an insult?  Jeez.  And having been raised a Catholic, with
    all those years of studying the Bible, it never ceases to amaze me when
    allegedly devoutly religious people use it as a mitigation for their
    hatred towards others!  Let's remember, Hitler used those excuses too.
    
    Finally, although I remembered and enjoyed the quote from Lincoln, it's
    an easy one to use as an excuse for paranoia.  Yes, we must beware of
    subterfuge from within - but not create it ourselves by suppression of
    an otherwise productive and legitimate minority such as gays.  We
    mustn't use Lincoln's words as an excuse for bigotry - I doubt he would
    have appreciated that.
    
    tim
    
    P.S.  I applaud the diligence of the moderators for their editorial
    control over offensive language in this note.  Every time anyone gets
    squelched in a notes conference, the fife and drum corp marches out the
    tired old 'free speech' banner.  I'm glad to see that this kind of
    hollow rhetoric does not deter the moderators from keeping the
    the conversation at least civilized, and, more importantly, ongoing.
    

    Re: .333 (HIBOB::KINNEY)
    
    I'm glad you reposted this.  I hadn't seen it when I put together .337
    (eight notes intervened in the mean time), and I think it's a good
    example of the opposing point of view, minus the offensive garbage.
    
    On the other hand, apparently you believe the are Christians, and then
    there are CHRISTIANS.  I'm a Christian, a Catholic in fact, as I
    mentioned earlier.  As a Christian, I resent being categorized as a
    member of that special club of bigots who choose to verbally and
    socially victimize others who don't see exactly the same narrow, strict 
    interpretation of the Bible.  All in the name of the of a faith whose
    vocabulary, in the end, has only one important word: Love.
    
    So don't throw the Bible in our faces as an excuse for hatred.  It
    offends my intelligence, and it contradicts the very core of the faith
    you portend to hold so dear!  The Bible was written thousands of years
    ago, be it the word of God (or god, or GOD, or Yahweh, or whoever)
    notwithstanding, by nomads and shepards just this side of the Stone
    Age.  Welcome to the 20th century.  Wake up.  You've missed the point.
    
    The point is love one another.
    
    tim
    

    The bible was compiled in the middle of one of the most sophisticated
    civilizations the world has ever known, the Greco-Roman Empire(s).
    Herdsmen, indeed.  I can't believe you are really a Catholic.
    
         "FORGIVE THEM FATHER, FOR THEY KNOW WHAT THEY DO."

I've asked a number of direct questions in this topic and thus far few if
any have adressed them, so I'll expand on one that was posted a few notes
back...

Q. Would you, as a Digital employee, feel comfortable showing the film
   "Tongues Untied" to Kenneth Olson, President of Digital and then
   asking him for his endorsment of showing of the film at other Digital
   facilities?

Anybody want to answer?

Lee
   

    Lee....you're p--in' in the wind.  You won't get an answer.  That's
    not part of their agenda.  Too bad.

re .271  Lee,

Sorry this took so long.  (FSOA hasn't been too healthy this week!)  Since 
it's been so long since your .271, I'll extract the pieces I'm referring to:

>One camp feels that the route to a better workplace is to raise G/B/L
>awareness and, appearantly, pride.
>
>Another camp feels that specific focus should not be given to any
>particular group but a more general 'employee relations' approach should
>be taken.
>
>The crux of the debate is which approach should Digital Equipment
>Corporation be in support of?
>
>I, for one, vote for the second approach.

In theory, I do too.  But it doesn't always work that way.  When you 
generalize like that, the 'little guys' - the minorites - always seem to 
get ignored, downplayed, trivialized, etc. in favor of the majority (which 
in this company is white males, according to our BOD, VPs, Managers, etc.).

The reality is that Digital has both:  Courses like "Understanding the 
Dynamics of Difference" by Ed Services falls into the second category; the 
special Gay/Deaf/Black/Hispanic/Womens'/Handicapped/etc. "days", events and 
seminars fall into the former.  All of them deal with workplace-related 
issues.

>Some people are genuinely offended by G/B/L people. Should Digital
>attempt to correct that attitude? In my opinion, no. Digital should,
>however, encourage employees not to let their personal opinions and
>beliefs become a job performance issue. But in this topic I sense that
>some people believe that it is Digital's role to modify employee attitudes
>about G/B/L people.

I agree with your opinion.  People have a right to *believe* whatever they 
want to regarding religion, politics, abortion, homosexuality, or whatever. 
Digital's P&Ps state that one cannot discriminate, degrade or harass other 
employees because of their beliefs - even in notesfiles.  For example, you 
could say "I believe God is a purple martian."   No problem.  Or you could 
say "You are a <nasty word> because you believe God is a purple martian."  
Not acceptable.

>Now for the big question: Did "X" value difference?

Yes, imho.  He treated everyone fairly,and did not let his personal beliefs 
create favoritism or antipathy among his employees.

>I guess it boils down to what 'Valuing Difference' or 'Valuing Diversity'
>means... to me it means 'Don't let matters of difference be a Digital
>performance issue'.

That's fine as far as it goes, but there's more to it than that.  There are 
also the issues of dynamics *within* the work group, and company sponsored 
awards dinners/weekends, holiday parties, etc.  What about the employee who 
does good work but the other people in the department ostracize them...they 
won't have lunch with 'one of them', won't fill them in on pertinent 
information, 'forget' to tell them the deadline was moved up, etc.?

>It would seem to me that other people (based on comments in this
>conference) feel that it means "You must modify or abandon your own
>feelings and attitudes and adopt 'right thinking'"... and not just while
>doing your Digital job.

I don't think the goals of Valuing Diversity include changing people's 
feelings, attitudes or thinking.  (Although there are 'differences' that 
Digital does not 'value', such as violence, bigotry, discrimination, etc.)
To me, the message is that everyone is entitled to think whatever they want 
to, but to treat all colleagues with fairness and respect...no matter what 
color, religion, nationality, health status, or sexual orientation they are.

	deb

>     <<< Note 1616.340 by COOKIE::LENNARD "Rush Limbaugh, I Luv Ya Guy" >>>
>
>    The bible was compiled in the middle of one of the most sophisticated
>    civilizations the world has ever known, the Greco-Roman Empire(s).
>    Herdsmen, indeed.  I can't believe you are really a Catholic.
    
    Right.  I suppose they just whipped out their laptop tablets of stone
    and carved out a couple million words on the flight back to Florence. :-)
    Literal interpretation of the Bible is antiquated theology, and belongs
    in the history books, not in modern social morality.  The Bible is a
    teaching tool, not a history book, and certainly not a weapon to be
    wielded against those who simply hold different, albeit perfectly
    legitimate beliefs.
    
    I've had 14 years of Roman Catholic training - parochial school, private
    preparatory school (on scholarship) and private college.  We have several 
    members of the clergy in the immediate family too, and my three kids
    (yes, I have kids) just got off for the day at Incarnation Catholic School.
    
    Just because I don't agree with you, you shouldn't make assumptions
    about who I am, or why I hold my own beliefs.  That's a little quick to
    judge, and not really fair.  Really, that's just another form of prejudice.
    
    tim
    
    tim
    

    Okay - I went over to MRO1.  There was a table set up in the hallway
    going towards the dining room, outside of the cafeteria.  I don't 
    think one could have bought their food and walked to the DR without
    passing the table, but it was a very wide hallway so people could
    certainly avoid it if they wanted to.  While I was there it wasn't very 
    busy.  The three women manning ('personing'??) the table looked very 
    professional, and chatted pleasantly with the dozen-or-so people who 
    stopped by... most of whom were also in 'proper business attire.'

    They also had a video, but I don't remember the title. I couldn't hear
    it - it was of a man in a suit talking, like on a talk show.  The 
    women at the booth didn't hand anything to anyone, but people could
    peruse the handouts and take one.  I didn't have much time for perusal,
    so I took one of everything...Book list (fiction and nonfiction, 
    autobiographies, coming out stories, etc.); a history of the Stonewall
    Riots; Boston Globe articles on gay teens and on g/l/b visibility and
    antigay sentiment; Chapters from "Beyond Acceptance" (one of the books
    on the book list) written by parents of gays and lesbians; Parent's
    Magazine article "Gay or Straight?"; HR Magazine article on "Diversity
    in the Workplace;" "I am not a Label" by Denise Hurley; "Lesbian, Gay
    and Bisexual Employees in the Workplace" by Holly Hendricks; "Myths/
    Realities of Bisexuality" (copied from a book).  I haven't read them
    all yet, but from scanning them I don't see anything pornographic or
    obscene about them.

    Anyway, I had to leave at 12:20 to meet someone for lunch, so I hope 
    the last 40 minutes went as smoothly.  It was quite uneventful...
    unless you get grossed out by some old friends giving each other a
    friendly hug.  And no Steve (.316) they weren't bribing people with
    coffee mugs or subscriptions; they did have a bowl of buttons which
    people could take, though.

				* * * * *

    RE "Tongues Untied":  That is the exact description in the VoD
    Calendar (my manager forwards it to everyone).  WGBH in Boston was one
    of the stations which aired the program, and I was one of the people
    who watched it in its entirety.  Mostly, I was bored with it - the
    'narration' is poetry, and there are long scenes of guys dancing to
    the poetry.  It almost put me to sleep.  However, there were other
    parts where I would have given it an NC-17 rating for nudity and
    suggestive sexual acts.  They didn't actually *show* sexual acts, but
    it was suggestive enough that I can see how it would shock some people
    (and certainly would not be appropriate (imho) for children).  Did I
    like it?  No.  Was I offended by it?  No.

    RE .323  Lee,

> My question is why isn't Digital showing films that deal with
> in-the-workplace G/B/L issues instead of showing the private side of gay
> life? How does showing such a film reduce discrimination of G/B/L people
> at Digital?

    GOOD QUESTIONS!  Beats the hell outta me!!  I don't know how many
    gays-in-the-workplace films there are, but there must be *something*
    that could come a few light years closer to workplace issues.  

	deb

Re: <<< Note 1616.337 by SCAM::GRADY "tim grady" >>>

.337>Re: Tongues Untied...I haven't seen it, and so I can rightly comment
.337>one way or the other.  Lee, if you haven't seen it either, why do you
.337>oppose it based solely on a perfectly sane description of the film as
.337>being potentially offensive?  I'm confused.

The description of the film may be 'sane' (although I object to the use
of sugar-coated vernacular such as "comfort zones may be pushed") but
that is not my point.

I have read several accounts of the films contents. Based on those
accounts I find it incredible that Digital would utilize such a film as a
tool for Valuing Differences or, for that matter, any purpose.

One does not have to view somthing to comment on its suitabilty for use
in Digital. 

.337>How do you know that it only
.337>addresses homosexual's private lives, and shows homosexual sex?  Does
.337>it?

I have not suggest that it ONLY contains the above... please re-read my
entry.

Lee

>The description of the film may be 'sane' (although I object to the use
>of sugar-coated vernacular such as "comfort zones may be pushed") but
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that is not my point.
    
    Yeah, I have to agree.  That's pretty lame.  I just didn't agree with
    passing judgement on something sight unseen, especially on a topic as
    controversial as this one.
    
    tim
    
    P.S. I was sorta wondering just where my 'comfort zone' is.  The
    weekend's coming up and it sounded interesting.  ;-)
    

    Re: 339
    
    I have seen the argument used over and over again that disagreement
    with the homosexual lifestyle is by definition "hatred".  There
    are many ideologies and practices with which I disagree.  That does
    not imply that I hate those who believe/do them, or that I fear
    them (as in the ridiculous term "homophobe"), it simply means that
    I believe in thinking for myself, regardless of what the mainstream
    of politically correct or incorrect thought is.  I believe that
    the same applies to most of the people in this conference who have
    had the courage to think for themselves.  Perhaps it would be best
    if the gay community let people do that, and did not continue to
    insist on thinking for everyone.
    
    

    
    RE Toungues Untied:
    
    
    I saw "Tounges Untied" when it was shown on PBS in Boston a few
     months back.  The only "homosexual sex acts" I remember seeing were
     two men kissing.  (Maybe making out would be a more appropriate 
     description.)   I liked the show.  I know a number of people
     who thought for the most part it was kind of slow;  too much 
     poetry reading.
    
    As a white gay man, I found it gave me a better understanding
     of what it's like for many black gay men in America today.  
     I know a number of black gay men and still it opened my eyes to
     issues that I didn't realize existed.
    
    For people who have, or think they have, no exposure to gay issues,
     it is a show that could help them to understand life in another
     person's shoes.   
                                 
    How would it help reduce discrimination of G/L/B at Digital?
     Too many people to mention, in this string alone, have misconceptions
     about what gay life is like.  One person actually said that he
     knew he had misconceptions, he just didn't have any other information
     to replace them with.  Reducing these misconceptions, in my 
     opinion, would help reduce discrimination in the work place. 
                        
    I'd like to give a better explaination of how understanding
     helps reduce descrimination, but I've got to get back
     to work.  
    
    I'll add more later when I've got time.
    
    Steve
    
    

    re .341
    
    No, I would not show it to KO and ask for his endorsement...because of
    the nudity, swearing (particularly the F-word a zillion times) and the
    suggestive sexual acts.  
    
    Of course, I'm not in sales, so maybe I don't know the proper selling
    technique!  ;-)
    
    	deb

    Re: .348
>                                                        I believe that
>    the same applies to most of the people in this conference who have
>    had the courage to think for themselves.  
    
    Welcome to the herd of renegade individualists. ;-)  Seriously, that's
    fine with me.  I'm not disturbed by those who don't agree with me, I'm
    upset by those who want to make this an issue of religion or duality,
    venting the urge to call that disgusting, rather than just accepting the 
    plain fact that everyone is different.
    
    tim
    

    What we have been ignoring throughout this whole "discussion" is based
    on an unenforceable concept.
    
    Take job discrimination for example:
    
    Imagine that I am your boss and I do not promote you although you
    believe you deserve the promotion.  If I assert that my reason is that
    "I don't believe s/he is as qualified as <other candidate>" how could you
    prove that I am discriminating based on race, gender, religion, or
    any other characteristic?
    
    Some of your characteristics are visible but others are private.  I
    can't discriminate based on your private characteristics if I don't
    know them.  It is only good sense that you should keep private any 
    characteristics you think I might use against you.  "Coming out of the
    closet" may provide a needed catharsis, but it is always going to be
    risky.  None of us can change that because there is always someone else
    we can't control.
    
    Now, let's change the situation a bit.  You are not gay, you are an
    effeminate heterosexual male.  My naive idea is that any effeminate man
    is gay combined with your behavior pattern will lead me to discriminate
    against you, not because you  are gay, but because "I believe you are
    gay".  Surely that is an undesirable behavior on my part, but is it
    prohibited by anti-job-discrimination policies?
    
    I don't know the answers, all I know is that this topic is a logical
    swamp, full of quicksand.  The VoD people may be well meaning, but I
    think they have an impossible task.  You can't define fairness legally,
    and every attempt has been shown to be as divisive as the behavior it
    seeks to quell.
    
    Dick

    So, the language sucks. :-).  There are other films like that - 'Scared
    Straight' comes to mind - that have the same problem but still have a
    message to offer.  I agree, KO would certainly not appreciate it in
    either film himself, and I'd be hard pressed to want to show it to him
    when other more acceptable material might be found.  But that's not due
    to the central message.
    
    I also think they should drop the 'comfort zone...' cr*p and just come
    out and say it contains offensive language.  I think that sort of stuff
    just encourages these semantic digressions we've seen, and detracts from
    the overall point.  It masks the true nature of the material.
    
    tim
    

    I'm finally responding to this incredible string for several reasons: 
    
    1.) because the recently reposted self-righteous, whining note
    miraculously saved from the vile censor's evil clutch had the
    effrontery to refer to Christians as if we were a monolithic group
    united in a single attitude toward homosexuality. As a Christian, may I
    respectfully say bunk, sir, simply bunk. The myopia of that position is
    incredible: Christians are no more united in their attitudes toward 
    homosexuality than are homosexuals united in their view of
    Christianity. 
    
    2.) the same long reposting is virtually identical to the
    psuedo-reasonableness erstaz religion trotted out in defense of
    segregated schools (equally defended as the Only Possible Position A
    Christian Could Hold), segregated lunchcounters, segregated workplaces,
    and, irony of ironies, segregated churches. Just change the nouns and
    see how neatly it reads.
    
    3.) There are clear business reasons for G/L/B people to be better
    understood and to have a measure of respect, reasons this discussion
    has made much clearer to me: we rely for our success as a company on
    working together, on taking risks together, on sharing information
    freely and openly, on trusting. Based on many of the contributions to
    this discussion it seems perfectly reasonable to me for a G/L/B person
    to find themself unable to share, trust, risk, freely and, for reasons
    of self-preservation, to contribute less than their inclination,
    ability, and knowledge would enable. Were they to assume that some of
    the more virulent opinions expressed in here were held by most of their
    colleagues, no person on earth could walk around unaffected by the
    tension and uncertainty. When we (speaking as part of that Dread
    Majority WASPM here, something I had nothing to do with being, by the
    way) reduce the effectiveness of each other intentionally or otherwise,
    we reduce our own chances for success. 
    
    4.) it is time for tolerant people, for whom diversity is not a threat,
    to say something supportive of the simple purpose of the G/L/B
    awareness program. It has taken the enthusiasm with which some would
    deny such a harmless event to help me see how really important it is. I
    thank the VoD and G/L/B contributors to this discussion for the overall
    quality of their insight insight and for the chance they have afforded
    me, even if the MRO event hadn't occurred, to think seriously about
    these issues.
    
    5.) the moderator bashing has been unseemly and out of place and it
    seemed time to say I think they've done well with a very trying
    situation.
    
    John H.

    re: 351
    
    My point was that there are those who disagree with the practice
    of homosexuality DO NOT necessarily hate homosexuals, and that those
    who say that they disagree, even to the point of saying that such
    behavior is disgusting, are NOT necessarily doing so out of hatred,
    but may in fact be doing so because they believe that their opinions
    are reasonable and should be heard.
    
    Bob

re:  <<< Note 1616.333 by HIBOB::KINNEY >>>

As the facilitator for the CXO presentation on October 30, I feel it necessary
to respond to your discussion of that presentation.

<How many times have I read in this conference (and
<heard in public forums) that a person's lack of acceptance is due to
<"ignorance"?  IGNORANCE!  

I use it because I find it preferable to the alternate adjective which comes
to my mind, which is "malice".  If there are other choices, please let me know
what they are.  For instance, you said:
<
<The VoD presentation at CXO1 on October 30 maintains 4 stated objectives:
<
<		1) Recognizing the difference
<		2) Understanding the difference
<		3) Accepting the difference
<		4) Valuing the difference

Which is entirely false.  Since it seems to be a quote from the mail message
I wrote, I find it curious why you did not see the rest of the words in
the message.  Perhaps, though, it was just hearsay, and someone else did not
include the entire message when they told you about it.  With the assumption
that the problem is based on ignorance (not stupidity, but simply not knowing
all of the facts), I include the part that pertains:

<The purpose of this presentation is to introduce
<people to the lesbian/gay/bisexual differences and to serve as a supplement to
<existing Digital Diversity training (in particular, to supplement the
<Understanding the Dynamics of Difference course and the work done in Core
<Groups). 
<
<According to the existing Digital Diversity philosophy, there are four steps
<toward the valuing of any difference.  These steps are the following:
<	
<	o Recognizing the difference
<
<	o Understanding the difference
<
<	o Accepting the difference
<
<	o Valuing the difference
<
<The designers see this presentation as a "first step" for any group or 
<individual interested in doing work around "recognizing" and "understanding"
<the lesbian/gay/bisexual differences (no prior knowledge about gay people is
<assumed).  Those giving the presentation will use the Core Group philosophy of
<"the experts are in the room", answering questions and speaking from personal
<experience.  (Those presenting may speak generally about other gay people, but
<they do not "represent" all gay Digital employees.) 
<
<Since the two-and-a-half hour format can only accommodate so much information,
<the designers feel that more work must be done by a group if that group wants
<to continue the journey towards "accepting" and ultimately "valuing" the 
<lesbian/gay/bisexual difference.  For instance, this presentation only 
<touches on "problems in the workplace"; to schedule follow-up work on this
<topic, please contact Carol duBois (CXO, CSC32::DUBOIS) or send mail to
<COMET::DECPLUS.

Do you see now where "accepting" and "valuing" were never even *intended* to
be worked?  If not, then in what way have I been vague?

<Is there anyone reading this who doesn't know what the "difference" is between 
<a homosexual and a heterosexual?  

There is more than one difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual,
just as there is more than one difference between a black person and a white
one.  Our day to day experiences are different in some ways.  For instance,
we have fears of getting kicked out of our apartments, being disowned from 
our families, or being raped or beaten because of our difference.  These are
not unfounded fears.  I know people who have experienced these things.  It is
by knowing some of the differences surrounding, say, Jewish people, that you
can avoid unintentionally offending them (such as assuming they will feel
included when you invite them to a company ornament-exchange Christmas party). 
By knowing some of the differences regarding homosexuals and bisexuals, you can
help us to feel included in the workplace, and as part of "the team".  This
lets people put their energies into their work, instead of in protecting 
or defending themselves from their coworkers.

       Carol

    What I believe some are trying to say is that the money involved for
    this program could also have been spent on, say, RISC training or
    Alpha training, or UNIX, or other various upcoming Digital products that we
    as employees all need to be aware of, even at the most minute
    level. The Engineering side of Digital has been devastated by cutbacks 
    and the way the cutbacks have been done. Some of the best development 
    engineers have been let go because nobody bothered to look into the real 
    worth of the employee. What do we as a corporation value? Does it 
    increase our productivity to concentrate on societal differences or
    to concentrate on knowledge, on being ahead of the times, about
    Digital as a whole be the best we can be at what we are chartered to
    do?

    As far as differences, I have a difference. It's visible. I have long
    hair. I can't hide it. It's not subtle. You'll notice it. Do I get
    discriminated against? Socially? Perhaps with certain people. Career
    wise? I don't think so. Perhaps I don't go as far as I would if I
    dressed in very nice clothing and had my hair short. But I'm an
    engineer and I've always worked in situations where difference didn't 
    matter, the quality of your work did. Isn't that how it should be?
    Why has it come to the point where it is?

	/prc

    
    I've no degree in theology.
    
    But I seem to recall, God said "Adam and Eve"...Not "Adam and Steve".

I'm not sure where the need for censorship comes from here.

If I'm sitting in my office, minding my own business, and someone comes
barging in calling me "disgusting" just because they don't like the picture
of my S.O. on my desk, then they're violating company policy and acting in
an inappropriate manner.

If I'm walking down the hall and people shout obscenities at me, same
thing: It's inappropriate. 

But, if I walk past a group of people talking about something offensive to
me, it's none of my business unless they choose to make it my business by
shouting at me.  If they keep it to themselves, I might not like what
they're thinking and saying, but asking them not to say it is going to
serve no useful purpose.

By the same token, if I voluntarily enter into a conversation such as this
one, knowing full well that there will be participants in serious
disagreement with me, I'll have to accept being called "disgusting" as part
of the deal.

For that reason, I cannot think of any good reason why any of the notes in
this conference should have been censored.  Yes, I disagree very much with
what was said in those notes.  But, yes, I agreed to discuss the subject,
so I'll have to live with that action.

That's on the purely hypothetical level.  Closer to home, I don't see how
it helps anyone appreciate my position if they're shut up by the moderator
just because they say what they're thinking.  Such note deletion will only
upset the combatant, and I'm liable to get blamed for it.

Doesn't help me a bit.

What does help is to let their words stand in the notesfile so that
everyone can see what they really mean.  Only this way can others, closer
to the center, understand the need for the education.

    
    
    This must be a great event for the BiSexuals... Think of all the
    nice girls *AND* guys they get to meet.... /BK
    

re .338  SA1794::MOULTONB

I'm confused...Please calm down and make sense...

What's a "homey"?  

"Mainstream" what?  Mainstream = general public or mainstreaam in the 
"special interest" group?

Who is "spewing out rhetoric" to what "whining converts"?  To what?

"Plagiarizing" the word "minority" because it can only mean "race, color, 
and creed"?

What is a gay "lifestyle"?

And are you trying to say that "bestiality" is a "lifestyle"?  What about 
rape, child abuse, murder, bank robbery, plagiarism, embezzlement, smoking
or cheating on income tax?  Are they "lifestyles" too?

Which "norms of society"?  What "club" are such people threatening to 
"invade" where they "are not welcome"?

What "turf" are you not going to "trespass on"?

>    Everyone
>    is entitled to live their private lives the way they see fit. I have no
>    problem working with people with different life styles as long as they
>    don't try to impose their beliefs and behavior on me. 

Finally...something I can understand!  I even agree with you.  8-)

	deb

| > Apparently DEC has decided that this IS an appropriate area for free
| > speech. But, YOU have decided that this isn't the correct place.

| You totally ignored the reasons I gave about WHY the cafeteria is an
| inappropriate place for this sort of proselytizing.  

	You have only ASSUMED it would be in the cafe. You have based that on
what happened in your facility, but not on any hard core facts about MRO. Now,
the meeting happened, and as people have  stated in other notes it was in a 
rather large hallway where people could go by without any incident happening.
You see, you have based everything on the fact that it's being held in the
cafe. People have told you throughout these notes it wasn't. You based
everything on what you thought, not on any fact. You would rather the meeting
not take place because you thought it would be held in the cafe. Everything you
had said to try and support your feelings was based on no fact. How or even why
for that matter should we listen to your reasoning when there is no fact to
back them up?

| You have totally ignored the point that what is being controlled by
| limiting use of the cafeteria is not what ideas are being expressed but
| whether or not people are allowed to relax and eat in peace.  SINCE
| IDEAS ARE NOT BEING CONTROLLED, IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP.

	OK, seeing it did nothing to the employees being allowed to eat in
peace, then we are in agreement that this is a form of censorship?

| > From that one word you may end up changing your views on us.

| And once again, the PC show their prejudice.  Do you really want me to
| change your views on you (gays and lesbians, I presume)?  

	I was actually being sarcastic. By what I said in the rest of the note
I would have hoped you would have seen that. I'm sorry you didn't.

| You assumed that because I opposed bothering people in the cafeteria
| and because I oppose the PC attempting to thrust their beliefs on other
| people, that I oppose those beliefs.  That is wrong.  Your prejudice
| led you astray.  

	In what way? It was stated where it was going to be held, yet you tried
to get people to believe that there would be a problem with this. As people
have written, there was not a problem. No, there was no prejudice leading me
astray, as there was no fact in what you were trying to say.

| The difference between you and me is not that you
| believe in equal opportunity and I do not, but that I ALSO believe in
| not infringing upon freedom of beliefs.  You believe in free speech but
| not free religion.  I believe in both.  

	You keep saying I don't believe in free religion. Why is that? Do you
feel maybe that I was or had something to do with the note that contained two
biblical verses in it being removed? If this is how you feel, why is that? I
can honestly tell you that I didn't have anything to do with that. I was one
person who didn't want any of the notes touched. ANY OF THEM! I believe that
they showed all views from all sides. I wish they could be put back in their
origional form, but it looks as though that is a lost cause. But, if you don't
feel that I had anything to do with it, why do you feel I don't believe in free
religion?



Glen

| Come on, how many times does this have to be repeated before you
| comprehend it?  This is NOT IN A ROOM.  There are at least TWO aspects
| to the event.  ONE is in a separate room off in who knows where.  The
| OTHER is a table or display near the cafeteria.  

	Now you say near the cafe. Explain if you will how does near and being
directly in the cafe differ? Your big argument was that it would infringe on
the rights of those in the cafe from being able to eat in peace, that it would
take up the space of some people who may usually sit there. How does that jive
with being NEAR the cafe?

| By the way, I have a question for participants in this topic:  Would
| anybody oppose a table in or near the cafeteria at which literature was
| handed out promoting the idea that homosexuality is unethical?

	I guess you're missing the point of such an event. There are a number
of stereotypes that are applied to various groups of people. Each group has to
either live with them or prove them wrong. There are a lot of people who feel
that lesbigays are of a lesser person. With men they are effeminate, with women
they are bruisers. Some feel that we are out to pick up everyone we come
across. That we will have sex with animals, etc... Some hate lesbigays just for
the fact that they are gay. Some go as far as verbally and sometimes physically
hurting us. What this meeting, from my understanding, is trying to show is that
we are really no different that you, with the exception of the gender we sleep
with. You probably have met a lot of gays in your lifetime without ever knowing
it. I know of a lot of sports figures who are gay. These same sports figures
that I hear people talking about how good they are, how some will make it to
the hall of fame, etc. Would their view of this sports figure change if they
found out that they were gay? If it would, then why? This person is still the
same person they were before you knew. Still do the same great things. The only
difference is that they are gay. Now, apply this to the workplace. These same
things can and have happened. This meeting is to show that we aren't any
different, and that we should all realize that. If everyone thought of everyone
else as being a human being, then there probably wouldn't be a need for any
meetings like this.



Glen

| I need to ask, if some of the PBS stations in this country refused to air
| this film because of its content and DEC itself describes it as having
| "graphic imagery and language" and warns that people may get emotional.
| Just what purpose is the showing of it going to meet?

	This was discussed in the christian notesfile. It was stated that it
was religious leaders who helped with the stopping of this film showing on the
PBS stations. Now, to me this is a form of censorship. Why do I feel this way?
It's like this. Last season LA Law had a bisexual story plot. Religious and
other leaders all spoke up saying this shouldn't be allowed on tv. It's not
right, it's immoral and so forth. Gee, how come nothing gets said about the
people who sleep with others before marriage, during marriage, killing and
violence? Why are these allowed to go on but someone being gay isn't? Are we
allowed to pick and choose what sin we should fight to stop and let many others
just go by the wayside? What ever happened to no one sin is greater than
another? Unless they go after everything and stop picking and choosing, they
really don't have a leg to stand on and it is nothing more than censorship.
These tv stations didn't choose to not show it, they were forced to.

| Its a one hour film thats being, oops was shown between 12 and 1. Doesn't
| leave much time for discussion. I can hear it now.

| Moderator: Well, thats the end of the film, are there any questions?

| Employee: Yeah, I have one. Just what was the purpose of showing this?

| Moderator: Well, I see we are out of time. Thank you all for coming.

	That was pretty funny! :-) I think they call that congress. ;-)


Glen

| All "special interest" groups have some scheming militant types
| on board. Their main goal seems to be to sell "mainstream" on their
| beliefs and life styles. They seek validation by gaining acceptance.
| They use liberal establishment podiums to stand on to "spew out" their
| rhetoric in hopes of winning converts.  

			<turn on sarcasm>

	Yeah, I thought that blacks and women have been doing this for years.

			<turn off sarcasm>


| What really gets to me is when
| some group tries to "ride in on the coat-tails" of another group that has
| paved its own path to "mainstream". The title "minority" is such a case.

	I can only assume, and please let me know if I'm wrong, but I assume
you are referring to gays riding the coat tails of blacks/women, right? If so,
does that mean any group that comes into the scene is actually riding the case
of another already paved group? Does that mean when in court cases, when other
cases that are similar are stated to show how it was handled at other times,
that these very cases are just riding the coat tails of the former? It just
doesn't make sense to me.

| I can understand and accept the term of minority as it relates to race,
| color, and creed, but when some "special interest" group tries to plagiarize
| "minority" to include lifestyle, thats ridiculous. 

	It is easy for you to see what you believe as you are accustomed to it
and were brought up with it always around. Let's go back to Abe Lincoln. How
many people would have thought back then that blacks should be treated and seen
as equals? Not many. How about now? A heck of a lot more. Not everyone, but %
wise, a lot more. You see, just because something is new, it doesn't mean that
it's wrong. Get to know the issues. I think you'll see it has much more to do
with than just a lifestyle.

Glen

| The bible was compiled in the middle of one of the most sophisticated
| civilizations the world has ever known, the Greco-Roman Empire(s).
| Herdsmen, indeed.  I can't believe you are really a Catholic.

	The Bible was written back in the beginning. There are many books that
make it up. There were some books written after Christ had died. In fact,
according to the scholors, it was a while after He had died. In the 1600's
there was a council that got together to compile what books should go into the
Bible and what ones shouldn't. The ones that made it were the ones we see now.

| "FORGIVE THEM FATHER, FOR THEY KNOW WHAT THEY DO."

	or say....... ;-)


Glen

| I have seen the argument used over and over again that disagreement
| with the homosexual lifestyle is by definition "hatred".  There
| are many ideologies and practices with which I disagree.  That does
| not imply that I hate those who believe/do them, or that I fear
| them (as in the ridiculous term "homophobe"), it simply means that
| I believe in thinking for myself, regardless of what the mainstream
| of politically correct or incorrect thought is. 

	I agree with you 100%. But, I think where we differ is that it's not
the fact that people agree or disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. It's more
in what they do after that has been established. If I disagreed with the
heterosexual lifestyle and then said things like it was perverted, that it's
wrong to do, etc, these things I'm sure you would refute. It's the bigotted
viewpoint that is so annoying. I'm not going to like person X because they are
gay. This person could be one of the nicest people around, but not to the
person with the bigoted viewpoint. Words can say a lot. They can show so many
true viewpoints that otherwise can be hidden. As far as homophobe goes, there
are many who are. They fear gays because they feel we will automatically hit on
them. That we will go after their children. This isn't the case. If they took
the time to find out who the person is, not the label, then they could go on
with life with a lot less stress.



Glen

| I've no degree in theology.

| But I seem to recall, God said "Adam and Eve"...Not "Adam and Steve".


	I also seem to recall that we are to treat others the same way we would
treat ourselves. Do you follow this and all of the other wonderful rules? 



Glen

| What's a "homey"?

	Deb, homey is a clown. he's on "In Living Color"



Glen

| -< what a plan ... >-

	Only in your mind....

| This must be a great event for the BiSexuals... Think of all the
| nice girls *AND* guys they get to meet.... /BK

	I have to admit that when I read this I had to laugh. In your mind, and
maybe in others minds, there is this thought that we will meet new people. And
yes, we do. Is it for a date? No. Do we form friendships? You bet we do. You
want to know something? We form these friendships with both the straight and
gay communities. We form them with everyone we can! :-) You want to know 
something else? They form these same friendships with us because they see us
for what we are, human beings. 

	Oh, I agree that there are many stereotypes out there that people 
believe to be true. The fact that they believe these things isn't what anyone
finds offensive, it's how they came to believe these things. Not on fact, but
on someone elses preconceived notions. I know that because I too had believed
these stereotypes. I had always thought that gays would sleep with everyone,
that orgies were the norm, that everything was based on sex sex sex! I thought
that everyone would end up being effeminate, and to do that was wrong. It was
these fears that kept me from coming out for so long. In fact, I even used to
make a lot of jokes about gays. 

	What my whole problem was that I based my thoughts on what the 
mainstream had thought. I never went out and tried to find out the real 
answers. All I did was to just go with the flow. Boy was I wrong. 

	When I did find out about these things, I found out an awful lot. I 
found that you don't sleep with everyone. We use the same criteria that you 
would use. Some use looks, personality, job status, etc. You can end up with a 
phone number, a night with the person, all sorts of things. You choose, as in 
the straight world, who you want to see, or who you would like to sleep with,
form a relationship with, everything. 

	Orgies happen, yes, no more than in the heterosexual world. 

	I know many people that have been in long term relationships that have 
outlasted a lot of marriages. I think that everyone can see that it takes more 
than just sex to achieve this. 

	As far as everyone ending up effeminate, that's dumb. Being gay doesn't 
change how you are, it just lets you be a total you (meaning in most cases 
people are hiding that part from others and themselves). To be effeminate is 
far from having anything wrong with one. 

	Jokes about gays? I know within the community people will tell jokes 
about gays, some use the term fag, and so forth. But I think it's the intent 
of how it's said is what will make people offensive. If it's derogitory in 
nature, then there will almost always be a problem. There are some in the
community who don't want to hear any jokes about gays regardless of who is
saying them. I have many straight friends who have on occasion come up with 
some pretty funny jokes that include gays. These aren't derogitory jokes, but 
they can be funny. :-) They are always ask me if I would be offended if they
told me one, and my usual response is I won't know unless I hear it. I have yet
to hear one that offended me.

	I guess what I am trying to say is unless you go out and try and find 
out what it's all about (and no, I'm not solicitating you in any form) and 
either prove or disprove these myth's, you won't really know just who we are 
but will only base everything on false data with any facts to back it up.


Glen

    RE: .373
    
>| What's a "homey"?

	>Deb, homey is a clown. he's on "In Living Color"
    
    And here I thought it was something Marge said on "The Simpsons".
    

    re: several
    
    What is DECPLUS?
    
    Bob

    Re .335:
    
    > Why shouldn't 'handicapped' people have the right to determine the
    > words or terms that refer to them?  How is this any different than
    > 'black' people saying that they want to be referred to as African
    > Americans?
    
    To answer the second question first, it is not any different -- neither
    group should have this "right".
    
    To answer the first question, people generally should not have the
    "right" to determine the words or terms that refer to them.  The words
    or terms are used by OTHER people, and the former group does not have a
    right to force behavior from other people, so they have no right to
    control the words or terms used by those others.
    
    Saying that in another way, people have free speech and handicapped or
    black people do not have a right to censor that free speech.
    
    If words intended to insult were being used, it might be reasonable, in
    some forums (such as Digital's notes), to limit those words.  Perhaps
    even if words that were derived from derogatory meanings were being
    used, even if without intentional insult, it might be reasonable to
    limit those words.
    
    But when the words used do not convey insult or derogatory meaning, it
    is unreasonable to limit them.  Attempts to limit those are attempts to
    hide truth and attempts to control minds by suppressing access to
    truth.
    
    There are unfortunate realities in this world.  One of these realities
    is that some people are not able to perform common functions (e.g.,
    walking) as well as most people.  This is a handicap, a disadvantage. 
    Now, it makes perfect sense for handicapped people to want others not
    to discriminate against them on grounds unrelated to the actual effects
    of the handicap, and so it makes sense for them to _want_ people not to
    think of them as handicapped.  But it is also true that they are
    handicapped, and this does limit them in some ways -- this is reality,
    and it has real effects on both the handicapped person and others, and
    those others have a right to deal with the fact.  They have a right to
    think and communicate about the handicap.  They _must_ deal with the
    handicap when designing facilities to be shared by all people, for
    example.
    
    Wanting to prevent people from disriminating does not justify trying to
    hide the fact that there is a handicap.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .365:
    
    > 	You have only ASSUMED it would be in the cafe.
    
    Initially, I was assuming it would be in the cafeteria.  In later
    notes, I corrected this.  I even laid it out clearly for you.  You have
    once again totally ignored what I actually wrote.
    
    > You would rather the meeting not take place because you thought it
    > would be held in the cafe.
    
    And after several corrections, you are still completely ignoring the
    fact that the meeting and the table are separate events.  I NEVER
    thought the meeting was to be held in the cafeteria, and I NEVER
    objected to the meeting in any way.  You have been told this
    repeatedly, yet you repeat this lie about me.
    
    >> SINCE IDEAS ARE NOT BEING CONTROLLED, IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP.
    >
    >	OK, seeing it did nothing to the employees being allowed to eat in
    > peace, then we are in agreement that this is a form of censorship?
    
    That is a non sequitur.  My statement was not that preventing people
    from being bothered while eating was not censorship.  My statement was
    that limiting where free speech can occur based on the location and
    forum and NOT on the CONTENT of the speech was not censorship.
    
    Thus, saying people cannot play movies in the cafeteria would not be
    censorship.  Saying people cannot play Western movies in the cafeteria
    would be censorship.
    
    Saying people cannot set up tables in the hallway would not be
    censorship.  Saying people cannot set up pro-choice tables in the
    cafeteria would be censorship.
    
    > I was actually being sarcastic.
    
    You were being prejudiced and making groundless assumptions about me
    based upon it.
    
    > As people have written, there was not a problem.
    
    Who says there was not a problem?  Even if it did not bother people
    while they were eating, I still object to proselytizing at Digital,
    particularly with Digital's support.  And by "proselytizing" in this
    case, I certainly don't mean that the event organizers are trying to
    convert people to homosexuality -- but they ARE trying to convert
    people to certain beliefs, such as that homosexuality is good (or at
    least not bad).
    
    If a group of Christians or Muslims set up a table in the hallway for
    the same purposes, I would be annoyed.  Digital should not be trying to
    convert employee beliefs.  If any group of employees want to hold a
    meeting and Digital wants to let them, that's fine.  If the employees
    want to solicit others, let them use bulletin boards, Notes
    conferences, or other passive means of communication.  But do NOT give
    a group corporate support as proper beliefs and do NOT let them
    campaign for their cause in the halls.
    
    > You keep saying I don't believe in free religion. Why is that?
    
    Because you will not leave people alone in their beliefs.  For tolerant
    people, it is sufficient that other people behave ethically.  But that
    is not enough for you; you attempt to go beyond that and control
    beliefs.  Other people should be free to choose their own beliefs as
    long as they behave ethically, but you will not grant them that
    freedom.  Thus, you oppose free religion.
    
    Did you read my earlier analogy of Christians and Muslims?  You would
    like people who believe homosexuality is wrong to stop believing that,
    yes?  They would like you (and/or others) to stop engaging in
    homosexual behavior, yes?  Tell me, why is it necessary that you win? 
    Why can't you leave them alone in their life as long as they leave you
    alone in your life?
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .366:
    
    >> By the way, I have a question for participants in this topic:  Would
    >> anybody oppose a table in or near the cafeteria at which literature was
    >> handed out promoting the idea that homosexuality is unethical?
    
    > I guess you're missing the point of such an event.
    
    I am not missing the point; I am asking a question.  Please tell me, is
    the answer yes or no?  Would you oppose a table near the cafeteria at
    which literature was handed out promoting the idea that homosexuality
    is unethical?
    
    > This meeting is to show that we aren't any different, and that we
    > should all realize that.
    
    That is your BELIEF.  You have no right to make everybody else believe
    it.  Nobody has ever told me why it is not sufficient that other people
    BEHAVE acceptable toward homosexuals and others.  Why is it not
    sufficient that other people BEHAVE; why must you alter their BELIEFS?
    
    If you want to alter their beliefs and they want to alter yours, then
    there will be no solution, only war.  But if they tolerate you and you
    tolerate them, then there can be compromise.  Why is that not
    sufficient for you?
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .377:
    
    > I've searched EASYNOTES and did not find a conference devoted to
    > "Valuing Differences"!
    
    The Dynamics of Difference conference at RUSURE::DIFFERENCE is devoted
    to exploring all aspects of differences among people.
    
    Subjects for this conference include how differences relate to each
    other, how society reacts to differences, how differences are rewarded
    or punished, what causes misunderstanding, and how change can be
    effected.
    
    
    				-- edp

    
    
    
    
          Heterophobia is a disease.
    
    

    re .377 .....count me in Jerry.
    
    Now re .360 ....but don't you understand that censorship is an absolute
    fixed element of the PC movement?  They are the most close-minded of
    all people, and aggresively attack opposing views. and are especially
    fond of whining to whomever is in power to support them.  They also
    feel very free, floating in their sea of rightousness, to throw around
    terms like bigot.  The same people that want my notes deleted because
    they are "offensive" feel totally justified in offending me....and
    interestingly enough the silence coming from the VD folks is deafening.
    
    As a side note, I saw in the Colorado Springs paper this morning that
    Colorado College, Colorado's only bastion of ultra-liberalism, has
    announced that next week will be "Queer Week" (their term, not mine).
    Among the events planned will be the playing and discussion of our
    favorite video tape.  The outrage is already building in Colorado
    Springs.
    
    Oh well.......The Bigot
                                                                      

    Re .382:
    
    > . . . no sanction or input from any official Valuing Diversity
    > spokesperson.
    
    Now you point out the farce of Valuing Diversity.  Only
    officially-sanctioned differences are valid.  Other human beings can go
    to hell; only the Politically Correct matter.
    
    > I wonder why...with such pertinent Valuing Diversity at Digital
    > issues as "height and libertarianism" or "speeding tickets and
    > racism"...
    
    Do you know there is a sheriff in Florida who explicitly targets black
    males for traffic stops?  Do you not think this is racism or that it is
    serious?  Do you know how much pain a child goes through for being
    different in any noticeable way, even just height?  Why is the pain of
    these human beings insignificant to you?
    
    Thank you for making it obvious that your alleged values of valuign
    differences are nothing more than selfishness, that you are only
    interested in what you can get for yourself and that other human beings
    matter nothing to you.
    
    Valuing Differences is a farce.  It sucks.  Digital has no concern for
    its employees; Valuing Differences only exists to cover Digital's ass
    legally.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re: .-1
    
>   Valuing Differences is a farce.  It sucks.  Digital has no concern for
>   its employees; Valuing Differences only exists to cover Digital's ass
>   legally.
    
    Harsh words.
    
    I doubt, though, that most would agree.  It might be worthwhile to ask
    legal what, if anything, the VaD program might provide in a legal
    arena.  Stark little, I would suggest, but hardly even germaine.
    
    And not everyone's motives are as selfish as you presume.  Some of us
    have nothing whatsoever to materially gain by lending moral support to
    these issues.  Some may have even lost some ground.
    
    I've already seen what I was looking for.  People who commented in
    here, whom having heard this issue raised, they went, and looked, and
    found out something about the issue.  They found out something about
    their fellow workers.  They may have even found out something about
    themselves, if they so chose.
    
    And to me, that's worthwhile.
    
    tim
    

    "Valuing Differences is a farce.  It sucks.  Digital has no concern
    for its employees; Valuing Differences only exists to cover Digital's
    ass legally"
    
    AMEN!  No Truer words spoken!

    
    
    	Re: .385
    
    
    	Homey the Clown is not the origin, but the derivative
        of homey/home boy/home girl.  Your information and
    	definition are not quite accurate.
    
    
    	Re:  Previous entries
    
    
    	Whatever my proclivities, I find that assuming edp entries
    	function only as emetics makes life work better.

    Maybe one of the problems with the whole VD program is that it is
    a creature of Personnel (or whatever they call themselves lately).
    
    I submit that the personnel organization does not accurately reflect
    the demographics of Digital, and therefore is bound to generate less
    than enthusiastic response when this small, out-of-touch group decides
    what is "best" for the rest of us.  At least this makes it easy to
    understand their studied lack of interest in the largest minority
    by far in this country....the white, straight, over-50, married male.
    
    From purely personal observations over 19 years, Personnel appears to
    be dominated by females, with an unusually high percentage of black
    females.  I'd like to see the actual numbers.  I submit that these
    oppressed minorities are not in a position to make rational decisions
    about appropriate topics for VD efforts.   I'll betch'a that if the
    above-mentioned male minority was adequately represented in Personnel
    we wouldn't be having this discussion.
    
    ......and the really bad news is that the same bilesgay Dog and Pony
    Show is coming to CXO on October 30th.  Too bad.
     

<    What is DECPLUS?

It is different depending on if you are on the East Coast of the U.S. or
in Colorado.

Since I am a member of the Colorado group, then my answer will pertain mostly
that that group.  

DECplus stands for Digital Equipment Corporation People Like US.  It is a 
Digital-sponsored support group (and leadership group, as it is phrased here)
for Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals.  Membership is confidential and is not
restricted to people of any specific sexual orientation.  We have many 
heterosexual members, as a matter of fact.

DECplus Colorado Springs is involved in both social activities and in 
activities related to Diversity work at Digital.  We sponsor presentations,
provide information, and give general support to those members who might
need it.

The presentation being given here on the 30th is one that was also given
two years ago.  As in the cases of the other presentations I have been
involved in, attendance is voluntary.  If you wish to sign up for this
presentation, please send mail to COMET::DECPLUS.

       Carol

    home/home boy/girl is an Afro-American expression. I'm not sure
    of the exact meaning, but I think it means someone from your
    own neighborhood, group, etc.
    
    

    As used in Southeast LA - home boy is not a member of the gang, but
    lives in their territory and is friendly with the gang members.  He is
    from the "'hood"(neighborhood).  

>  Again, your trying once more to connect a valid minority issue with a behavi-
>orial issue. Sorry, you can't put the two together. Now you don't really think
>that me, Main, & Street are gonna let you get away with that one do you?
    
    But isn't religion "merely" a behavioral issue?  Let's see, if I follow
    this last, then discrimination based on religion is not as serious as
    discrimination based on race or physical gender, since you can easily
    change your religious behavior, right?  (Smiling as he reached for his
    sword...)
    
    Besides, most rednecks don't punish people for being of the wrong race,
    gender, etc.  Only for unacceptable behavior - like existance.
    
    /Dave

    re .385  MoultonB,

    Thanks (and thanks to others, too) for the "Homey" explanation.  I've 
    never seen the show.  As I suspected, your reply has nothing to do with 
    the topic, however...

>  "Mainstream as it pertains to the general public, traditional values,
>   normal life styles, (ie; Father, Mother, childern, house with a white
>   picket fence etc.) Normal sex as defined by nature with biological
>   designs for specific body parts.

    Well I guess I'm not "normal" then, nor are about 60-something% of the 
    households in the U.S. with single homeowners, single parents, combined 
    families of divorce, childless couples, people who live in highrises, 
    etc.  And obviously you don't consider gay people, celibate people, or 
    straight people who like variety from the 'missionary' position to be 
    "normal" either.  Personally, I prefer not to pass such arbitrary 
    judgments on people.

>   I think you might have misread this one. Did I really say "whining
>   converts"? The "who" could be any radical group such as black militants,
>   militant gays, extreme right wing groups, the KKK, and some religious
>   groups.

    Yes, you really said that.  I agree there are radical types in all those
    groups; there are also some very powerful and eloquent speakers who can
    not be dismissed so easily, and a lot of quiet individuals.

>   Means exactly what it states. In other words to steal the term "minority"
>   and attempt to attach ones lifestyle to it to validate such a lifestyle
>   and also try to gain acceptance under the guise of "minority".

    Strange, religion wasn't in your list of minorities, either.  That's
    probably because it's another 'lifestyle' based solely on one's
    behavior, right?  As for "steal[ing]" the term "minority" - maybe you 
    should look it up in a dictionary?

>   The gay lifestyle in my opinion is a lifestyle of "endless lusting",
>   promiscuous sex, frequent "cruising", sexual addiction, and unnatural
>   sexual intercourse (as defined by what specific organs where designed
>   for by nature, GOD, or whatever). The above definition is what I believe 
>   is true of the "general population" who engage in the gay lifestyle.

    I'm glad you said "in my opinion," because all that does is show your
    ignorance.  What you've described can be equally applicable to some
    gay people as well as some straight people.  Your "above definition"
    is true only for a minority of both.  (Of course, they get lots of
    publicity, like Wade Boggs, Rob Lowe, Jimmy Swaggart, etc.)

>   However, I also believe that there are indeed some exceptions. There
>   are couples who have monogamous relationships for long periods of
>   time who may or may not live in the same house and also raise childern
>   together. The only difference between this group of gays and heterosexuals
>   is that the "emotional romantic love" and sexual aspects of these people
>   are directed at people of their own sex. In all other areas pertaining to
>  "mainstream" life they may in fact be identical to their heterosexual
>   counterparts.

    I believe your "some exceptions" are the majority...the quiet, silent 
    majority who we never read about in the press.

>  For some,"bestiality is a lifestyle. For a murderer, murder is a lifestyle.
>  For a drug addict, drug use behavior is a lifestyle. Yes indeed, I answer
>  yes to all of your examples.

    Too funny.  You might consider looking up "lifestyle" in a dictionary.
    (And look up "proclivities" too, while you're at it.)

>  "Mainstream". Why do they want to join? Because that is where power in
>   our society resides.

    Are you serious?  Gay people have never worked, voted,paid taxes, held
    positions of authority?  I think you're too late to try to keep gay
    people out of "society."  Or are you saying it's only okay if they're
    invisible?

>  The gay turf is one of many I would not wish to trespass on. I wouldn't
>  expect to feel welcome in a gay establishment if my points of view were
>  known by those of their establishment. I would consider myself an intruder
>  in such a scenario.

    I can certainly see why you would not want to "invade" a gay 
    establishment, since you've already set yourself up as an enemy.  
    Fortunately not everyone automatically takes up such an adversarial 
    position, as evidenced by some noters here and by my own personal
    experiences.  I'm curious...What are the other "many" turfs you're 
    afraid to "trespass on"?

	deb

      <<< Note 1616.378 by ALIEN::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

With reference to the above reply, I wonder who will determine whether a term 
is offensive?  Is it the general public, or the group at whom it is aimed?
Is "offensive" context based?  It is obvious that it is (although anyone could 
tell me a WASP joke and I would enjoy the humor, but I have never experienced 
being called a WASP in a derogatory sense, or pinky, white boy, honky, etc.  I 
did experience discrimination as a white boy in Hawaii where I was called 
haole (sp?), which translates to the above.)  Does the name make a difference?

We have seen that it is accepted practice for certain subgroups to refer to 
themselves in terms that would be considered offensive had outsiders used 
those terms.  Comedy points this out with the use by minorities, among
themselves, of derogatory terms.  Eddie Murphy could use certain terms 
onstage, to a paying audience, and they would laugh.  Andrew Dice Clay is 
censured for his use of derogatory language.  If I used some of those terms in 
public in the wrong places, I could be shot. 

Is this only acceptable behavior within the group?  Yes.  Can it be made less 
offensive by the target of such slurs?  I think so.  Children often engage in 
name calling, and the best result the caller can hope for is a reaction from 
the callee.  This is proof positive that the caller has managed to gain the 
attention of the callee.  And what are children admonished to do?  Call them 
names back?  No.  This engagement acknowledges success on the part of the 
caller, otherwise, there would be no need to retaliate.  Ignore?  Yes.  It is
hard, but if you react, you only encourage them. 

One of the tactics that may be employed to defuse the opposition's strategy is
to take the weapon from their hands and use it to your advantage.  This is
evidenced by: 1) the rap group NWA, and 2) a gay rights group that has
"queer" in the name (I'm sorry I don't recall the exact name of the group). 

I wonder, if all the G/L/B participants were to overlook the childish name 
calling, would it go away?  Maybe not, but it would certainly become less 
effective, particularly since there would be no more "censoring" of the 
conference.  You may win the battle by having a note deleted, but have you won 
the war or only encouraged them to repeat the same message in other terms?  
Has acknowledging that a term (which they hoped would be offensive) has 
offended you gained you anything?  Is it worse to allow the "label" to stand 
in the conference?

Re: <<< Note 1616.390 by FSOA::RCOHEN >>>

> Homey the Clown is not the origin, but the derivative
> of homey/home boy/home girl.  Your information and
> definition are not quite accurate.
    
Just as a side note, when I was in Germany in the early seventies, the black 
GI's were calling each other "home" or "home-ay".  I was led to believe at the
time that this was a derivative of the French word for man, homme'.  I had
assumed that over the ensuing two decades, this had been transformed into home
boy or homey.  But I'm not a linguist and I always get caught in these
assumptions. 

    Re .398:
    
    > I am curious about your knowledge and experience in Valuing Diversity
    > matters,
    
    Digital's "Valuing Diversity" program professes to value people and
    their differences.  But I know, through personal experience and
    observation, that it only values certain groups:  women, blacks, et
    cetera.  Thus, what Digital says it does (value people) and what it
    actually does (value only certain groups) are different.  Digital is
    guilty of hypocrisy.  Digital's "Valuing Diversity" program serves a
    legal need -- it keeps Digital in-line with federal guidelines and
    helps protect Digital from lawsuits.  It was created for that reason,
    not because Digital cares for its employees.
    
    > I fail to see what this has to do with the "PC" stuff you keep
    > ranting about.
    
    Digital does not value its employees.  The Valuing Diversity program
    protects only those people on a certain list, I have seen that
    personally, and you have confirmed it by attacking differences that are
    not on the official list instead of supporting them.  "Politically
    Correct" is an appellation that describes such a list:  It is a list
    whose contents have been determined by politics; it is a list of the
    "in" groups.
    
    > However, it would seem logical to me to have at least *one*  person
    > who is familiar with Digital's VoD matters to be included in the 
    > moderation staff,
    
    This is total bull on your part, along with the garbage you wrote in
    .382 about "sanction or input from any official Valuing Diversity
    spokesperson".  No conference needs sanction, input, or participation
    from any Valuing Diversity spokesperson.  Such requirements would only
    strengthen the ties to Political Correctness, protecting only groups
    officially recognized and making it harder for other people with other
    differences to express themselves.  My conference has no less sanction
    from Digital or its "Valuing Diversity" program than any other
    conference.
    
    > Unless you can substantiate your accusations . . .
    
    In note .197, you wrote about how many differences result in pressures
    on people that are "uncomfortable, sometimes frightening".  As specific
    examples that are part of this process, you included "white shirts" as
    good and "earrings" as bad.  You said "The whole message (imo) of
    'Valuing Diversity' is that everyone is treated as equal while their
    differences are respected.".  But then in .382, regarding my conference
    and some of the differences I had posed in it as examples, you said
    "what a joke", you described differences that are important to me as
    "little hot buttons", and you indicated that they were not pertinent.
    
    In .197, you said differences are respected.  In .382, you belittled
    other people's differences.  You said one thing and you did another,
    therefore you are a liar.  You do NOT respect all differences as you
    pretended to.  You value only certain differences, and you ridicule
    others.  You pretended to have compassion for human beings, but you
    then went and deliberately hurt a human being trying to express their
    differences.
    
    > Lacking substantiation, an apology or retraction would be in order.
    
    You owe me an apology for your note .382.
                
    
    				-- edp

    Re .387:
    
    > And not everyone's motives are as selfish as you presume.  Some of us
    > have nothing whatsoever to materially gain by lending moral support to
    > these issues.
    
    Material gain?  Where did I say anything about material gain?  Does a
    Christian necessarily gain materially when they convert a Muslim, or
    when they suppress a Muslim's religious behavior?  No.  But is the
    Christian being selfish when they suppress a Muslim?  Yes.
    
    Certainly you are not so blind that you cannot see that goals you
    support have been served by the GLB Awareness Day.  Goals you support
    have been served at the expense of other people -- that is selfishness.
    
    
    				-- edp

....for a breather from unbridled hate.  It truly amazes me
how little heart and how much bile have been evidenced.

.402 I can agree with you to a point - ignoring idiocy is 
something I at times advocate.  However, there are times when
a reply is most certainly necessary because there have been
some things said which just shouldn't be allowed to pass -
and, BTW, you don't have to be g/l/b to object to a hateful
phase as you seem to imply.

.........

The controls are returned to you (you control the verticle....)
You may now resume your program of hate.

Barb

p.s. How long WILL you attempt to reason with a turnip?

I have one nagging question that I hope someone can answer.  Why would
a PROPONENT of the Valuing Diversity program:

	label someone a turnip
	label someone ignorant
	label someone an idiot
	question someone's ability to read and comprehend
	label someone unknowledgeable   ?

Isn't this contrary to the philosophy of the Valuing Diversity program?

    
|You have only ASSUMED it would be in the cafe.
    
|Initially, I was assuming it would be in the cafeteria.  In later
|notes, I corrected this.  I even laid it out clearly for you.  You have
|once again totally ignored what I actually wrote.

|And after several corrections, you are still completely ignoring the
|fact that the meeting and the table are separate events.  I NEVER
|thought the meeting was to be held in the cafeteria, and I NEVER
|objected to the meeting in any way.  You have been told this
|repeatedly, yet you repeat this lie about me.
 
	To start off with, when you say you NEVER thought the meeting was going
to be held in the cafe, but, when the paragraph above it says you initially
assumed this, how do the two make sense? Answer? They don't. Now, let's look at 
what you said a few replies ago. Remember, these are YOUR words:
   

================================================================================
Note 1616.324              G/L/B Awareness Day at MRO                 324 of 406
BEING::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."          49 lines  11-OCT-1991 12:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Re .309:
    
EDP    You totally ignored the reasons I gave about WHY the cafeteria is an
EDP    inappropriate place for this sort of proselytizing.  

Gee, in this note, which was put in on Friday, you have stated that the cafe is
not the correct place to hold this meeting. This was Friday now, which has to
make one believe that you still thought the meeting was going to be held in the
cafe.

EDP    Such use of the
EDP    cafeteria is improper not because I say so, but because it offends
EDP    employees, it is rude on Digital's part, and it is intolerant of
EDP    diverse beliefs.
    
No one was going to use the cafe for the meeting though. Your own words hang
you.

EDP    You have totally ignored the point that what is being controlled by
EDP    limiting use of the cafeteria is not what ideas are being expressed but
EDP    whether or not people are allowed to relax and eat in peace.  

Again, the use of the cafe comes into play. You say you thought that the cafe
wasn't going to be used, but did you ever really believe it?

EDP    your right to speak in an open, equal forum -- but not in the cafeteria.

My, how these words differ from what you have been saying. No, I do not
continuously lie about what you say, I only read your notes and they tell me
these things.

	Now, you did say this in a later note..... 7 minutes later.

================================================================================
Note 1616.325              G/L/B Awareness Day at MRO                 325 of 406
BEING::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."          23 lines  11-OCT-1991 12:38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| Come on, how many times does this have to be repeated before you
| comprehend it?  This is NOT IN A ROOM.  There are at least TWO aspects
| to the event.  ONE is in a separate room off in who knows where.  The
| OTHER is a table or display near the cafeteria.  

	Why in the first note was it clearly stated that you thought it was in
the cafe, but in the second note, which was put in 7 minutes later you changed
your mind on the matter? It really is clear to see that you are arguing for the
sake of arguing. You have two versions of the same story, you only use one in
your defense, but the other one is still there for all to see. Please, if
you're gonna call me a liar, be able to back it up a little better. 

|> I was actually being sarcastic.
    
 | You were being prejudiced and making groundless assumptions about me
 | based upon it.
  
	Can you back up this statement? If I was I'd love to know how. Please,
show me explicitly why you felt I wasn't being sarcastic and was actually being
prejudice.
  
|> As people have written, there was not a problem.
    
| Who says there was not a problem?  Even if it did not bother people
| while they were eating, I still object to proselytizing at Digital,
 
	Then it seems as though you are the one having the problem, not Digital
as a whole, am I right in stating this? Because you see, you did state:

EDP    Such use of the
EDP    cafeteria is improper not because I say so, but because it offends
EDP    employees, it is rude on Digital's part, and it is intolerant of
EDP    diverse beliefs.

	So, one can only come to the conclusion that you aren't really
concerned about the employees, just yourself. It's either that or you really
love to contradict yourself.

| And by "proselytizing" in this
| case, I certainly don't mean that the event organizers are trying to
| convert people to homosexuality -- but they ARE trying to convert
| people to certain beliefs, such as that homosexuality is good (or at
| least not bad).
 
	The meeting isn't about any converting. No one is going to be able to
convert anyone to changing their minds. They have to do that on their own. If
people are talking about the gay lifestyle, telling it like it really is, and
letting people form their own opinions from this is converting, then we're
looking at two different versions of Websters. You would get more of a feeling
of converting watching the PTL club than you ever could from going to this
meeting. This is not about converting, it's about the real truth on the
subject.
   
| > You keep saying I don't believe in free religion. Why is that?
    
| Because you will not leave people alone in their beliefs.  

	Do people who are Christians let others alone in their beliefs?
Do people of different denominations agree with each other on their religions?
Do they tell each other what's wrong with this religion and that religion? 
Wouldn't this in your terms be non-free religion? These are from religious 
groups now.

| For tolerant
| people, it is sufficient that other people behave ethically.  But that
| is not enough for you; you attempt to go beyond that and control
| beliefs.  Other people should be free to choose their own beliefs as
| long as they behave ethically, but you will not grant them that
| freedom.  Thus, you oppose free religion.
 
	Pardon my ignorance, but how does this connect with religion? I don't
care if person X doesn't like me. I feel sorry for person X if the only reason
they don't like me is because I'm gay. But, if person X decides to screw me
over because I'm gay, you had better believe I will say something about it. If
person X says things about me that are derogatory, then yes, you had better
believe I'm going to say something about it. It were to insert any other group
who wasn't out to hurt others instead of gay in these same situations, I'd feel 
the same way. Maybe if you explain what you mean ethically it would clear 
things up a bit. Because ethically has nothing to do with religion, but 
morality would. The Bible states no matter how good you act, you won't make it
to heaven. You have to believe in God and follow Jesus. To do this you must use
the Bible as a guide to help you to the promise land. Ethics don't come into
play.

| Tell me, why is it necessary that you win? 
| Why can't you leave them alone in their life as long as they leave you
| alone in your life?
    
	When they do leave me alone in my life then yes, I could see your
point. But, when some plan on boycotting certain shows because they may have a
gay theme to theme, some decide that gays should have their asses kicked
because they are gay, some will continuously say derogatory things about us,
then we really don't have our lives to ourselves. Again, insert other group who
isn't out to harm others in there and I would feel the same way.



Glen

re: .386,
    
    	Eric, it appears that upon learning of how the recent GLB event
    was staged in Marlboro such that it was unobtrusive to those eating
    their lunches, that now you have focussed your tirade against the
    way in which special interest alledgedly dominate the VoD program.

    	I find it extremely ironic that you of all people would complain
    about the practice of forming teams to further the special interest of
    a subgroup at Digital, especially after you defended this practice
    quite thoroughly in your sparrows example in note #1549.55.  I offer
    the following quotes from that note as evidence of your support for
    special interest groups:
    
1549.55> Bull.  Studies show that NATURAL teams form and continue on the basis
1549.55> of SELF interest.  Sparrows will eat in flocks because then each
1549.55> sparrow can spend less time watching for predators.  The group is
1549.55> beneficial because only a few sparrows at a time have to stop eating
1549.55> and look, so all the sparrows can spend more time eating.  But does the
1549.55> sparrow abandon "us versus them" to achieve this?  No.  If a sparrow
1549.55> finds food in many pieces, as in grains, the sparrow will make noises
1549.55> to call other sparrows to come share -- this is safer than the sparrow
1549.55> trying to eat all the grains by itself.  But if a sparrow finds a large
1549.55> piece of food, it will not call other sparrows to share.
    
1549.55> In a situation where people are willing to be partners and share,
1549.55> forming teams and maintaining self-interest are consistent, because
1549.55> nature is such that teams can work more efficiently than individuals,
1549.55> so EVERY INDIVIDUAL PROFITS from well-formed team.

1549.55> ...A good team is equitable to all and is nourished by self-interest.
    
    	Therefore, if VoD is truly only a collection of special interest
    groups, then according to the "sparrow" theory, every individual should
    profit by such a setup.  In such an environment, it is only those sparrows
    who chose not to participate in a special interest group who must forage
    for food on their own and at their own risk.  I submit that your obvious
    frustrations with VoD [as well as Digital in general] could be due to
    your not belonging to any particular interest group.

    	Why not take the advice given by others in this note string and
    start a VoD group for your own special interest and/or diversity
    (whatever that might be).  You could even call it SPARROW (for Strate
    Prolific Agitators for Rightwing Religious Offensive Wasps - or some
    such thing).  ;^)

				   -davo

NODEX::GEARIN,
  
>I have one nagging question that I hope someone can answer.  Why would
>a PROPONENT of the Valuing Diversity program:
>
>	label someone a turnip
>	label someone ignorant
>	label someone an idiot
>	question someone's ability to read and comprehend
>	label someone unknowledgeable   ?
>
>Isn't this contrary to the philosophy of the Valuing Diversity program?

I will give as good an answer as I can since some of this seems to refer
to my notes.  First of all, I have not labled anyone an idiot or ignorant.
These are ideas that I refer to and, especially, I think hate is idiocy.
I do suppose that it looks like I was calling folks turnips - I was 
trying to draw attention to the kind of stubborness that makes it seem
like you are trying to communicate with an inanimate object.  Not intended
to insult a person, so if anyone feels insulted, my apologies.

Your note seems like something taken out of context to try to discredit
folks who support Vauling Diversity, but I guess you have plenty of
precedent for that lately.  Yes, we are all human and we all make 
mistakes.  Too bad you have to take the focus away from the events and
point them back at "proponents" mistakes.

<sarcasm on>

But, hey, it works for Bush, why not for you?

<sarcasm off>

Barb_who_needs_to_learn_as_much_as_anyone_else

         I've been read only in this note the last several days. I've found
    many of the responses very interesting. I find myself agreeing with a
    great many responses from both persuasions. I don't condemn the gay
    lifestyle but I certainly don't embrace it either. According to my
    interpretation of the Bible the burden of judgement is not nor shall
    it ever be on my shoulders. I prefer to live and let live. 
         About 14 years ago I had two very close friends who were Lesbians.
    I found out when one of them after going out to lunch with me on
    several occasions came clean. I though it was great!! Heck we could
    still be friends and go out and do things no strings attached. I found 
    them both to be very honest and sensitive people. They were not
    sexually promiscuous at all. They introduced me to the woman I
    eventually married. One of them was even a bridesmaid at our wedding
    fancey that ,she was black too!
         
              Bob
            

    ...not to mention freely throwing the word "bigot" around at anyone
    who deviates ever so slightly from the PC_driven VD program.
    
    The Valuing Diversity program will gain credibility with me when they
    openly acknowledge that people who do not value diversity are a valid
    group for support as well.  I may accept diversity in the work place
    as something we have to live with in the...but value it?  Never!

| The Valuing Diversity program will gain credibility with me when they
| openly acknowledge that people who do not value diversity are a valid
| group for support as well.  

	If you don't value diversity, how could they offer you support? They
could offer, and because you don't value diversity you would tell them no, we
don't want your help! Talk about being stuck in a continuous loop!

(PWDVD = people who don't value diversity)


PWDVD : We want to be put under your umbrella!

VoD :   OK, we want to help you do just that!

PWDVD : No way! We don't value diversity! Go away!

VoD :   OK....

PWDVD : We want to be put under your umbrella!

VoD :   OK, we want to help you do just that!

PWDVD : No way! We don't value diversity! Go away!

VoD :   OK....

PWDVD : We want to be put under your umbrella!

VoD :   OK, we want to help you do just that!

PWDVD : No way! We don't value diversity! Go away!

VoD :   OK.... and so on and so on......




Glen

    Re .407:
    
    I see -- I've got you dead to rights, so you just resort to insults. 
    Again, I thank you for displaying what the PC groups are all about.
    
    By the way, now that I think of it, you were even more foolish than I
    realized.  Not only did you concoct a lie, but you were so foolish as
    to lie about something you could not possibly have any knowledge of. 
    What possible grounds could you have for saying my Dynamics of
    Difference conference has no official sanction?  How could you possibly
    know who I talked to about it?  You simply made up this lie without any
    information whatsoever.
    
    As it happens, Ron Glover personally urged me to start my own
    conference for discussing differences, and the Dynamics of Difference
    is a proximate result of that conversation.  I would think that the
    head of Corporate Employee Relations is official enough.  So you were
    lying through your teeth.
    
    I operate the only conference on the net devoted to discussing	
    _all_ differences.
    
    You professed to value all differences but immediately seized	
    upon opportunity to belittle differences you did not value.  Is that
    true or false?  Once more, I must thank you.  You have pointed out how
    people alleged supporting "Valuing Differences" really have their own
    agenda and do not care about the feelings of other human beings.
    
    
    				-- edp

I'd like to remind folks that personal attacks of any nature are prohibited in
this notes conference.  Feel free to disagree with what is said, but do so without
resorting to "ad hominem" attacks.  Otherwise, you are demonstrating that you
have no real basis for your position.

					Steve

    Re .409:
    
    > 	To start off with, when you say you NEVER thought the meeting was
    > going to be held in the cafe, but, when the paragraph above it says you
    > initially assumed this, how do the two make sense? Answer? They don't.
    
    The answer is not that they do not make sense, but that you do not
    appear capable of understanding.  The "it" in the first paragraph is
    the table:  "Initially, I was assuming it [the table for proselytizing]
    would be in the cafeteria.".
    
    Once again, in simple sentences:
    
    	I never thought the meeting would be in the cafeteria.
    	Initially, I thought the table would be in the cafeteria.
    	The table is not the meeting.
    	The meeting is not the table.
    	In later notes, I corrected my assumption regarding the table.
    
    Now go back over those quotes that puzzled you and look for "meeting"
    and "cafeteria".  You will see that where I wrote about what should not
    be in the cafeteria, I never used the word "meeting".  The reason I
    never used the word "meeting" when writing about what should not be in
    the cafeteria was because I was never writing about the meeting not
    being in the cafeteria.
    
    What a concept!
    
    When I wrote about what should not be in the cafeteria, I might have
    used words like "display" or "table" or "it" or "such use" or
    "proselytizing".  All of these things referred to the table.  I used
    words like "table" and words describing the table's use when talking
    about what should not be in the cafeteria because I was writing about
    not having the table in the cafeteria.
    
    Wow, amazing!  I used certain words in certain places and other words
    in other places, and never the twain shall meet.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .411:
    
    > 	I find it extremely ironic that you of all people would complain
    > about the practice of forming teams to further the special interest of
    > a subgroup at Digital, especially after you defended this practice
    > quite thoroughly in your sparrows example in note #1549.55.
    
    The sparrows example demonstrated how each member of a team joined for
    self-interest and how the organization of the team and its activities
    incorporated self-interest into its structure by serving EACH member's
    self-interest.  Recall that while giving this example, I sharply
    criticized the concept that a team serves only limited interests rather
    than the interests of all members.
    
    The "Valuing Differences" program does not serve the interests of all
    Digital employees.  It serves the interests of limited groups.  Thus,
    it is not advantageous for others to support it.  It will not promote
    teamwork; it will not help people live with each other.
    
    > I submit that your obvious frustrations with VoD [as well as Digital
    > in general] could be due to your not belonging to any particular
    > interest group.
    
    I belong to more than a few particular interest groups, of which only
    one or two would be recognized by Digital's "Valuing Differences"
    program.  But I will not ask for special favors for them or ask for
    special support or rights for them, because I will not selfishly place
    my interests over other people's.  Even if I did not think that were
    unethical, it could only produce a short-term win at the expense of
    the long-term friction and hatred that has appeared because of the
    action of the Politically Correct.
    
    > Why not take the advice given by others in this note string and start
    > a VoD group for your own special interest and/or diversity (whatever
    > that might be).
    
    Recall my philosophy in the sparrows example.  A good team is one that
    serves the interests of ALL its members.  I started the Dynamics of
    Difference conference, the only conference devoted to discussing ALL
    differences.
    
    The existing Politically Correct approach is to form subgroups and let
    them slug it out with the rest of society.  This approach places
    selfishness over teamwork, and it will ultimately generate friction and
    hatred, as Dinesh D'Souza showed in Illiberal Education.  It is
    unfortunate that programs such as Digital's "Valuing Differences"
    pretend to value all people when in fact they have specific agendas to
    advance and toe a Politically Correct line.  By this pretense, such
    programs hinder what we could have in its place:  Programs that truly
    value all people and that engender tolerance for all differences. 
    Instead of special interest groups each vying for their own favors, we
    could promote people living together with their differences.
    
    I operate the only conference on Digital's net devoted to tolerance
    among all people.  Digital's other "Valuing Differences" conference
    serve only special interests.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .415:
    
    > If you don't value diversity, how could they offer you support?
    
    The same way a person can love somebody who hates them.
    
    There are people who hold beliefs greatly at odds with mine.  I can
    live in this world with them, with my only requirement being that they
    leave me alone.  I do not require that they alter their beliefs, only
    that they leave me alone.
    
    Many advocating GLB Awareness Day do not seem to be capable of this
    tolerance.  It is not sufficient that other people behave
    appropriately; it seems to be necessary that they be converted in their
    beliefs.
    
    Digital's "Valuing Diversity" program could recognize that there are
    people who find some people's differences, and Digital's "Valuing
    Diversity" program could accept those people and recognize that they
    are human and they have value and they can be freely permitted to
    believe what they wish as long as they behave appropriately.
    
    Digital's "Valuing Diversity" program does not do that.  The program is
    intolerant.  It does not value human beings; instead it tries to
    further a social agenda.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .417:
    
    > In any case, someone called him a WASP - wonder if you know this 
    > personally or if you're just assuming that because of the stand he has 
    > taken?
    
    They are just assuming it -- and they are wrong on at least two of the
    three counts.  And I am certainly no stranger to differences; I have
    been aware I was a member of several minorities since elementary
    school.
    
    > I have not heard him attack gays. I  have heard him attack selective
    > support of some groups.
    
    Yay!  Thank you for observing this distinction.  From those supporting
    GLB Awareness Day, I have seen little or no recognition that I have not
    attacked gays.  And while I been supported by some on the other side, I
    am not at all sure how many of them realize I do not support views
    opposing homosexuality.  I find it always amazing and somewhat
    depressing that so few people realize there are more than just two
    possibilities, more than just "for" and "against".
    
    Thank you for your note showing that there are people who understand
    these issues.
    
    
    				-- edp

| To start off with, when you say you NEVER thought the meeting was
| going to be held in the cafe, but, when the paragraph above it says you
| initially assumed this, how do the two make sense? Answer? They don't.
    
| The answer is not that they do not make sense, but that you do not
| appear capable of understanding.  The "it" in the first paragraph is
| the table:  "Initially, I was assuming it [the table for proselytizing]
| would be in the cafeteria.".
  
	OK, let's apply that to what was said:

EDP    You totally ignored the reasons I gave about WHY the cafeteria is an
EDP    inappropriate place for this sort of proselytizing.  

EDP    Such use of the
EDP    cafeteria is improper not because I say so, but because it offends
EDP    employees, it is rude on Digital's part, and it is intolerant of
EDP    diverse beliefs.

EDP    your right to speak in an open, equal forum -- but not in the cafeteria. 

	With all of these words talking about a meeting in the cafe, how could
anyone ever think differently? Your own words tell us this.
  
| Once again, in simple sentences:
| I never thought the meeting would be in the cafeteria.

	You might want to reread your own words. They don't mention it, but
cafeteria. They mentioned the cafeteria on this past Friday. Plain and simple
for anyone to see.

| Initially, I thought the table would be in the cafeteria.
| The table is not the meeting.
| The meeting is not the table.
| In later notes, I corrected my assumption regarding the table.
   
	The table is not the meeting, the meeting is not the table. Hmmm....
could you please direct me to the notes that will explain this? Thanks.
 
| Now go back over those quotes that puzzled you and look for "meeting"
| and "cafeteria".  You will see that where I wrote about what should not
| be in the cafeteria, I never used the word "meeting".  The reason I
| never used the word "meeting" when writing about what should not be in
| the cafeteria was because I was never writing about the meeting not
| being in the cafeteria.
 
	Then what were you writing about?
   
| What a concept!
 
	It might be if it were understood.  
 
| When I wrote about what should not be in the cafeteria, I might have
| used words like "display" or "table" or "it" or "such use" or
| "proselytizing".  All of these things referred to the table.  I used
| words like "table" and words describing the table's use when talking
| about what should not be in the cafeteria because I was writing about
| not having the table in the cafeteria.
 
	Correct me if I'm wrong, but if having a table in the cafe was your
only concern, and not the meeting, then why was there a problem over people
actually hearing what was being said?  
  
|  Wow, amazing!  I used certain words in certain places and other words
|  in other places, and never the twain shall meet.
 
	For reasons unknown.......   
    



Glen

    RE: <<< Note 1616.393 by SA1794::MOULTONB >>>
    
       >    Some proclivities can lead to emetics or worse. I like the
       > word proclivities. If something is viewed as a "natural tendancy" 
       > it can greatly lessen self guilt. But what is society to do with
       > so many proclivities?  
       >   "If one sheep in a shepards's herd becomes rabid, shall we kill the 
       > one sheep so the others may live or shall we let this one sheep live 
       > amongst the others and inflict its disease onto the herd of which will 
       > die from the sickness of one."
    
    How is one to interpret the above quote, in the context of this 
    discussion?  Only one interpretation comes immediately to mind and
    I find it alarming because it advocates violence.....
    
    In any event, Mr. Moultonb - you've also been making an issue of
    this whole minority business, waxing indignant over the gall of
    lesbians, gays and bis to apply such a label to themselves.  Others
    have asked if you are equally offended by persons of various 
    religious persuasions whom also, quite often, use the "minority"
    label.  I'm curious myself.
    
    The crux of the matter, for you, seems to be "behavior."  That is, 
    a minority isn't a minority if membership in the category depends upon 
    a certain kind of behavior.  This is an interesting definition (to say 
    the least) and I was wondering if you'd mind expanding on it.
    
    /Greg
    

re: .421,

>    The sparrows example demonstrated how each member of a team joined for
>    self-interest and how the organization of the team and its activities
>    incorporated self-interest into its structure by serving EACH member's
>    self-interest.  Recall that while giving this example, I sharply
>    criticized the concept that a team serves only limited interests rather
>    than the interests of all members.

	In your sparrow example, you showed how a group of sparrows could
    maintain their own self-interests while also maintaining the common
    interest of protection from predators.  Unlike sparrows, humans have
    no significant natural predators other than themselves, so they must
    band together to prevent misanthropic consequences of man against man.
    You demonstrated this phenomenon by citing the banding together of DEC
    employees in an overall Digital team (or human sub-grouping) which is
    then capable of benefiting from the self-interested actions of each
    member of the team while protecting each member from predators (which
    in our case would be competitors).

    	There are other sub-groupings of humans at play within the work-
    place however.  These sub-groupings are what make up DEC's diverse
    work force and I think we can both agree that it is necessary for
    these sub-groupings to learn to deal with one another in an equitable
    fashion before we can ever hope to achieve any sort of unified Digital
    team.  To simply assume however, that all of these Digital sub-groups
    should suddenly be capable of blending into a single concerted Digital
    team without first allowing the process of understanding to proceed
    is to want your cake and eat it too.

    	IMHO, it is the process of arriving at this level of understanding
    which the VoD program is all about.  In order to achieve the desired
    common bond of the [Digital] team, there are some very basic steps
    involving compromise which each Digital sub-group must take before
    a concerted Digital team can be achieved.  These steps include the
    opening of minds and the acceptance (or at least tolerance) towards
    the other human beings which together comprise the Digital work force.

    	Since the culture of the majority is by default the dominant
    culture in most facets of corporate life, then it is incumbent upon
    the minority sub-groups to come forward and explain their differences
    to the majority (which they are attempting to do and which they should
    be given credit for having the to courage to do by the way).

    	In order to acheive the synergy neccesary to have an effective
    team you either have to learn to deal with the existing diversity in
    the workplace, or mandate a strict conformity to a given norm.  I am
    glad that Digital has chosen the former means to this end, yet I am
    continually troubled that many would seem to prefer the latter approach.

				    -davo

    RE: trying to change beliefs .vs. trying to change behavior.

    Seems to me, achieving the latter would be much easier if you
    could somehow make headway on the former.   The fact that racism
    still exists in this country and that *PEOPLE STILL ACT UPON IT*
    is proof to me that prohibiting discriminatory behavior *alone*
    is not enough to change our society.  Indeed, those who would act
    upon their racism (or sexism or "homohatred") would most likely
    tell you they don't want society to change.  They enjoy (not to
    mention benefit from) their ability to achieve at the expense
    of others.  It is probably human nature because we are beginning
    to see isolated cases where the shoe is now on the other foot;
    witness the occasional "reverse discrimination" lawsuit.  Many of
    these cases are justified due to the actions of over zealous left-
    wingers and those who labor under the unfortunate misconception that
    equality of *result* is achievable... I am further discouraged by 
    this whole mess because, predictably, the majority are using these 
    cases as a potent weapon to squash any further efforts by minorities
    which may result in an erosion of their privileged position.


    In any event, I continue to be amused by the outrage of some over this 
    whole "mind control" business - as if you were not capable of thinking 
    for yourself.  Display some propaganda on a table in a DEC cafe and people 
    blow their tops as if this were some kind of ominous conspiracy to 
    brainwash them against their will.

    I will repeat that other's try to get you to change your mind all 
    the time.  About all KINDS of things.  Advertising is a prime example.

    But no one forces you to watch TV or read a magazine.  And no one
    forces you to pay any attention to Digital VoD programs. 

    And so I wonder, living in a society that constantly bombards us
    with all kinds of ideas and opinions about what is right and what is
    wrong and what we ought to do and what we ought to "just say no" to,
    why *this* particular topic generates such emotion?  Is freely changing 
    your mind after all *that* threatening?  I guess it is...

    /Greg

Well, I have been following this topic and all I have to say is that its about 
as much a waste of time as the current Senate hearings.

Its quite incredible to see the time and energy spent my an admittedly select 
few on such a worthless topic.

We are all products of our upbringing and environment. Having been a manager 
at Digital for 8 years, I had to put aside all of the prejudices and biases 
that were instilled in me so that I would treat everyone equitably to the best 
of my ability. I have not lost those prejudices and biases. I just control 
them. The Valuing Diversity program wants to try to remove parts of our being;
to change part of what makes us us. I don't have a problem with them trying to 
educate those of us that want to be educated. However, just the name they have 
chosen makes me uncomfortable. I'm not really interested in valuing anyone's 
differences. I want to get along with people and value their contributions, 
perhaps. There are occasionally times that a person's behavior, looks, style 
of dress, personal hygiene or sexual orientation may disgust me. I may tell 
them that it does or I may not. To be honest with you, I don't generally value 
people's differences if they are different from what I find acceptable. And I 
don't want anyone telling me I have to.

At this point in time, I think all efforts should be devoted to supporting the 
changes Digital is going through. I do not think its the ignorance or 
discrimination of the g/l/b employee popoulation. It is the process of making 
sure everyone is fully utilized; and helping those that aren't to become fully 
utilized. Digital is quite a melting pot of race, creed, color, sexual 
orientation and any other label you want to use. We did fine before the 
current VoD program (in fact I suggest we did better) and we'll be fine after
it fades away (unless some of the participants in this conference kill each
other). 

The bottom-line question I have is what value does the VoD program add. We're 
constantly being asked that by our management and customers. I want someone to 
quantify clearly what VoD's value-added is to each of us and to the
corporation as a whole.

Jim

    Re .424:
    
    > With all of these words talking about a meeting in the cafe, how
    > could anyone ever think differently?
    
    Take a look at "these words talking about a meeting":
    
    	this sort of proselytizing
    
    	Such use of the cafeteria
    
    The word "meeting" is not in those words you quoted.  Those words are
    NOT talking about a meeting in the cafeteria.  They are talking about
    a table in (or near) the cafeteria.
    
    > The table is not the meeting, the meeting is not the table. Hmmm....
    > could you please direct me to the notes that will explain this?
    
    Are you serious?  Do you really not understand the difference between a
    table where handouts and other information are available to people
    passing by and a meeting in a closed room where more formal discussion
    takes place?
    
    >>  . . . I was never writing about the meeting not being in the
    >> cafeteria.
    >
    >	Then what were you writing about?
    
    The table!
    
    > Correct me if I'm wrong, but if having a table in the cafe was your
    > only concern, and not the meeting, then why was there a problem over
    > people actually hearing what was being said?  
    
    The people at the table were not mimes, were they?  They were speaking,
    even playing a tape.  A table of this sort in a public area is a
    solicitation.
    
    
    				-- edp  

    Re .426;
    
    > To simply assume however, that all of these Digital sub-groups should
    > suddenly be capable of blending into a single concerted Digital team
    > without first allowing the process of understanding to proceed is to
    > want your cake and eat it too.
    
    That is a straw man argument; I never assumed that all sub-groups
    should suddenly be capable of anything.
    
    > IMHO, it is the process of arriving at this level of understanding
    > which the VoD program is all about.
    
    I disagree.  What I have seen is not a program that advocates tolerance
    of differences but rather a program that advocates conversion of
    beliefs.  What I have seen is not a program that advocates accepting
    all people but rather a program that provides special privileges to
    favored groups.  What I have seen is not a program that generates
    harmony but rather a program that generates friction.  What I have seen
    is not a program that cares for human beings but rather a program that
    advances special interests at the expense of other people.
    
    > These steps include the opening of minds and the acceptance (or at
    > least tolerance) towards the other human beings which together comprise
    > the Digital work force.
    
    A Christian trying to convert a Muslim thinks they, the Christian, have
    an open mind and they are trying to open the Muslim's mind.  A Muslim
    trying to convert a Christian thinks they, the Muslim, have an open
    mind and they are trying to open the Christian's mind.  The truth is
    that neither such person has an open mind.  Digital's "Valuing
    Differences" program is like this; it is attempting to "open" minds and
    convert people to Digital-approved beliefs.
    
    Consider instead Christian and a Muslim who know they have conflicting
    beliefs but believe in, and perhaps even love, the essential humanity
    of each other and are therefore willing to live in harmony without
    insisting upon converting each other.  These two people have open
    minds.  This is what a Valuing Differences program should be: 
    Tolerance without demanding belief.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .428:
    
    > Please indicate to me your justification for such personal attacks.
    
    Personal attacks?  You lied about me and insulted me.  When a person
    lies about me and insults me, I have a right to rebut their lies and
    insults.
    
    In note .382, you lied about my conference and you insulted me and my
    values.
    
    > Where have I called you a "liar"?
    
    How is this relevant in any way?  Did I ever say you called me a liar?
    
    > Why are you so intent on belligerently assailing my personal
    > character and integrity with such vehemence and aggression?
    
    You hurt me in note .382, and I will defend myself vigorously from your
    attack.  You hurt a human being, and you have shown nothing but
    uncaring since then.  You professed to value all differences in note
    .197, but then you shamelessly attacked a human being's differences in
    note .382.  So your note was not only an attack, it was a betrayal of
    the noble principles you professed to believe.
    
    Do you really care about human beings and do you really value all
    differences, as you said you did in note .197?  Then you must realize
    that you violated that in note .382.  You caused hurt to a human being,
    and you should accept that you made a mistake.  The proper thing for
    you to do is at least to apologize for your error.
    
    Go back and look at my notes.  Did I say anything bad about you prior
    to your note .382?  No, because I had no reason to.  It was in note
    .382 that you initiated this.  Your note .382 attacked me, and because
    you attacked me, I defend myself.
    
    
    				-- edp

re: <<< Note 1616.429 by JMPSRV::MICKOL "Greetings from Rochester, NY" >>>

.429>We are all products of our upbringing and environment. Having been a
.429>manager at Digital for 8 years, I had to put aside all of the prejudices
.429>and biases that were instilled in me so that I would treat everyone
.429>equitably to the best of my ability. I have not lost those prejudices and
.429>biases. I just control them.

And I firmly believe this is what Digital's role should be... to
encourage control, promote fairness and honesty. Digital's role *SHOULD
NOT* be one of trying to modify our beliefs.

.429>At this point in time, I think all efforts should be devoted to
.429>supporting the changes Digital is going through. I do not think its the
.429>ignorance or discrimination of the g/l/b employee popoulation. It is the
.429>process of making sure everyone is fully utilized; and helping those that
.429>aren't to become fully utilized.

Dead right.

.429>Digital is quite a melting pot of race, creed, color, sexual orientation
.429>and any other label you want to use. We did fine before the current VoD
.429>program (in fact I suggest we did better) and we'll be fine after it
.429>fades away (unless some of the participants in this conference kill each
.429>other). 
.429>
.429>The bottom-line question I have is what value does the VoD program
.429>add. We're constantly being asked that by our management and customers. I
.429>want someone to quantify clearly what VoD's value-added is to each of us
.429>and to the corporation as a whole.

I doubt that few Digital employees would find a problem with the goals of
everyone being treated fairly without regard to race, gender, etc. The
negative feelings are being created by the mechanisims that are being
used (by the VoD folkes) to meet these goals... such as the showing of
films like 'Tongues Untied'.

The goals are to be commended... but the implementation in some cases is
just plain poor judgement.

Re: film showing in PKO of 'Tongues Untied'

I have heard little in the way of defense of showing this film and nobody
has yet stepped forward to say that it would be proper for KO to view and
recommend this film. It is evident that the film serves only to boost the
morale of gays and promote acceptance and de-sensitization (among the
'straights') of matters of privacy that may occur in gay life.

I would be equally opposed to the showing of a similar film that was of a
hetrosexual theme... foul language and implied sex acts have no place in
Digital. Period.

Lee

p.s. I find it interesting on just how 'inflexible' some of the attitudes
are about the VoD activities... almost as if to say that the VoD program
is above reproach and that any event, decree or action is totally proper
and justified.

| Why are you so intent on belligerently assailing my personal character and
| integrity with such vehemence and aggression?

	Because Deb, he doesn't have any facts to back up his statements, so he
has to feel like he won somehow......



Glen-who-has-been-down-that-road-with-him......

re .429 Jim Mickol: This may be outdated, but the following is quoted from 
the notebook I received at DME's "Dynamics of Difference" course in 1989:

		   VALUING DIFFERENCE PHILOSOPHY

-  Recognizing our differences

-  Examining our assumptions

-  Exploring the stereotypes we hold about groups of people, organizations,
   functions, geographic areas, etc.

-  Seeking out diversity and valuing the difference as assets

-  Understanding the significance of a value for difference as a major
   variable in Digital's continued profitability and productivity

	   UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF DIFFERENCE OVERVIEW

Digital exists in an increasing complex and competitive environment.  In 
order to increase our ability to meet the challenges of the next decade it 
will be necessary for us to develop a refined strategy in the utilization 
of our most important assets--human resources.  The DME organization is 
please to have worked in collaboration with the Field Personnel organiza-
tion to present this course to Digital managers and employees in order that 
they may begin to explore the dynamics of difference.  The Dynamics of 
Difference course provides an overview of the process 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.  This course is presented as a component of a Valuing 
Difference organizational strategy which should be developed by each group 
within Digital.

		"UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF DIFFERENCE"

At the end of the Understanding the Dynamics of Difference course 
participants will be able to:

o  Recognize that the dynamics of difference affects individuals within
   organizations

o  Become familiar with the process of examining assumptions

o  Begin to understand how to apply concepts from the course to work
   situations

    re: ...edp...is a WASP
    
    S'funny, I always thought edp was a Z80 microprocessor with 4K RAM and
    several GB of WORM.  
    
    But hey, I could be wrong...
    
    :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)
    
    Al
    

Over the past week, or so, I have been following the volleys that have been
fired in the replies to this note with ever-increasing trepidation.  The only
conclusion that can be drawn from this type of exchange is that there is still
much work to do in the area of Valuing Differences.  A sample of obvious items
that need to be addressed in this company (and, I believe, much of society)
includes the following:

o respect for the rights and feelings of everyone on this planet; this pertains
  not only to the right to exist, but also the right to self-expression without
  the intent to harm others.
o examination of the still prevailing stereotypes (and some new ones) that have
  and are being established in all of us (yes, all of us, as noone is immune)
  and awareness of how our actions based on these stereotypes harm others.
o acceptance of all people on this planet as human beings without the attach-
  ment of labels based on race, sex, religion, sexual preference, economic
  status, level of handicap or any other factor that might lead to labeling.

There is benefit in an effective Valuing of Difference program for everyone,
and not just for people in protected classes or others whose difference
might set them apart.  First of all, each of us is different and unique in
our own way, and desires to be treated with respect without regard for these
differences.  Second, the key premise to Valuing Difference, which seems to
have been overlooked in this entire exchange (as far as I could see), is that
the unique capabilities (skills, outlook, interpretation, approach, etc.)
which each of us has, can and does make for a better solution for any problem
we face, as a Company and a society, when used and valued in unison.  It is
my sincere hope that the days of Nietzsche's 'Uebermensch' are in the past,
and that all of us have come, or are coming, to the realization that we have
enough problems to pass around in this world to value everyone's contribution
to solving them.  This benefits the entire human race, and, yes, many other
species on this planet, whose lives we have made more than a little difficult.

To get back to the original context of this topic: it has been clearly demon-
strated in the messages written, that there was and still is need for G/L/B
awareness.  Even if this awareness only teaches all of us that there is dis-
crimination and insensitive treatment occurring to gay men, lesbians and bi-
sexuals, and that something needs to be done about these injustices.  Slowly,
but surely we will attack all the injustices on this planet and eradicate them
one at a time; this is what will give this planet a chance for survival, rather
than the traditional approach of eradicating everything and everyone that 
bothers us.  History is full of examples of the latter (persecution of
Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. and the stripping of forests, har-
vesting of elephants, whales, etc.), but is rather sparse on examples of what
happens when we work together as a human race, so let's right the balance
rather than tipping it even further until it cannot be righted.

Frank

re: .417, .423,

> I don't know anyone personally in this notesfile, so I'm not even sure of 
> some of the sexes. I don't know that EDP is a WASP, nor do I know that he 
> is straight or gay. He could be a three-piece suited VP for all I know - 
 
> In any case, someone called him a WASP - wonder if you know this 
> personally or if you're just assuming that because of the stand he has 
> taken?

    	Might I venture to guess that in your claim "someone called
    him a WASP" that you (and perhaps Eric as well) are referring to
    the following statement in my note #1616.411?

1616.411> Why not take the advice given by others in this note string and
1616.411> start a VoD group for your own special interest and/or diversity
1616.411> (whatever that might be).  You could even call it SPARROW (for Strate
1616.411> Prolific Agitators for Rightwing Religious Offensive Wasps - or some
1616.411> such thing).  ;^)

    	If so, then I should point out that you have misinterpreted my
    words.  In my statement, I suggested that Eric should start a VoD group
    for his own special interest (whatever that might be), and then I even
    went so far as to suggest he use the catchy "SPARROW" title for his
    VoD group, after which I offered a sarcastic suggestion for what that
    title might be an abbreviation of.  Now, since you both appear to have
    taken the sarcastic portion of the suggestion at face value (which wasn't
    exactly intended, but hey, if the shoe fits...), then you should also
    notice that one does not have to actually be a "Rightwing Religious
    Offensive WASP" in order to be a "Strate Prolific Agitator for Rightwing
    Religious Offensive WASPs".  Furthermore, I do not pretend to know of
    EDP's sexual preference either, but one would not have to actually be
    "Strate" to form a group of Strate Prolific Agitators either - but I
    digress...

    	If you reread my statement, I think you will see that I had
    absolutely no intention of affixing any sort of label to our esteemed
    colleague, Eric Postpischil.  For what it is worth, I have personally
    met Eric Postpischil, (or, as he might prefer to be called, "EDP"),
    and I can assure you that he is white, and this fact, coupled with
    his own statement in note #1616.423:
    
1616.423> They are just assuming it -- and they are wrong on at least two of the
1616.423> three counts.  And I am certainly no stranger to differences; I have
1616.423> been aware I was a member of several minorities since elementary
1616.423> school.

    	...then I can only assume that he is neither Anglo-Saxon, nor
    Protestant, but apparently has his roots in some religious and/or
    cultural minority.  In any case, I was not labeling Eric in any way,
    but I was instead suggesting that he consider forming a VoD group to
    address some of the concerns he has raised here.  Furthermore, the
    point of my suggestion had little to do with the exact words I chose
    for his group, but instead had to do with the use of the catchy "SPARROW"
    acronym, which might possibly be successful if used as a title for a
    sort of catch-all VoD group.  Obviously, if I were to propose a real
    title for such a group, I would choose words which stood for something
    which pointed towards a more positive and useful goal, rather than
    that which seems to be the net result of Eric's current argument.

    	It should also go without saying that I not only qualified
    the suggested long form of the suggested VoD group acronym with "- or
    some such thing" to point out that this is only one possible title for
    such an organization, but I also included the smiley face at the end
    of my statement to indicate without a doubt, that the entire paragraph
    was intended mainly to invoke a bit of comic relief in what appears to
    be a highly stressed-out discussion.  So lighten up a little, ok?  ;^)
    Thank you.

    				   -davo

    	(and now, we return to what is undoubtedly the longest and, at
    	times, the most heated discussion in the history of this notesfile).

    in re .437 MoultonB
    
    I don't believe that this conference or notes string is the appropriate
    place to discuss the nature of homosexuality. However, I would like
    to state briefly that even the slightest amount of research will show
    that those who are experts in the area of human sexuality state that
    sexual orientation is *not* a question of behavior or choice, but
    a combination of genetics, prenatal and postnatal influences and ones
    sexual oreintation is fixed in a person very early in life.
    
    Bonnie

    Jeeeeez!!! .439, what's your problem?  This company does not need to
    address a damned thing accept getting profitable again.  This is not
    a liberal arts college or a social welfare agency.
    
    Do you honestly believe that if Digital diverted 50% of its resouces
    to making this a "better world", it would have any impact?  We're
    talking about human nature here, and nothing is going to change that,
    thank God.
    
    I deal with my fellow man based on what I have learned in 58 years of
    stumbling around with my eyes and ears open (usually).  NO ONE, not
    you or Ken Olsen or all-the-valuing-differences-doodoos in DEC, is going
    to change the way I think.  I don't wanna be sensitized!!!  I don't
    want to be made aware of my misunderstandings!!!  I don't care how many
    of "them" there are in the workplace.  If they don't like it here, go
    the hell to Lotus.
    
    So there....I feel much better now.
       

>>     <<< Note 1616.443 by COOKIE::LENNARD "Rush Limbaugh, I Luv Ya Guy" >>>
>>                             -< Enough is enough >-

>>    Jeeeeez!!! .439, what's your problem?  

One would ask the same of you. Take a chill pill, your angry words and
hostility is infectious as is evidenced by my efforts to remain civil and
calm while talking with you.

>>    of "them" there are in the workplace.  If they don't like it here, go
>>    the hell to Lotus.
  

Oh, now there's a brilliant idea!! Get rid of some of the best in the field
so _YOU_ don't have to feel threatened or intimidated. Real smart.  
    

>> So there....I feel much better now.
       
Oh goody for you.


Scott

| Also being a powerful and eloquent speaker means nothing as Hiltler
| was such a speaker and he influenced a whole country.

	Gee, I remember hearing of those fireside chats........ a man that was
far from coming close to Hitler. 

| Ted Bundy would also fit nicely in the definition of minority,
| so whats your point?

	Have you noticed something? Whenever you make a point to a lifestyle,
you always choose one that does harm to ones self or to another. Lesbigays
don't go out and harm themselves or others. Can you see the difference? You
punish those who harm, not those who don't.

| >   The gay lifestyle in my opinion is a lifestyle of "endless lusting",
| >   promiscuous sex, frequent "cruising", sexual addiction, and unnatural
| >   sexual intercourse (as defined by what specific organs where designed
| >   for by nature, GOD, or whatever). The above definition is what I believe
| >   is true of the "general population" who engage in the gay lifestyle.

	This is cute. What are you using for fact to base what I presume is an
assumption? You have made some points that you seem to feel strongly about, but
how do you know these are true? I'd really be interested in knowing.

| Our opinions differ sharply here and its YOUR ignorance that shows
| itself here, in my opinion of course.

	Show us the fact behind the accusations so we can see our ignorance....
or yours.

| >   However, I also believe that there are indeed some exceptions. There
| >   are couples who have monogamous relationships for long periods of
| >   time who may or may not live in the same house and also raise childern
| >   together. The only difference between this group of gays and heterosexuals
| >   is that the "emotional romantic love" and sexual aspects of these people
| >   are directed at people of their own sex. In all other areas pertaining to
| >  "mainstream" life they may in fact be identical to their heterosexual
| >   counterparts.

| I believe my exceptions are in the minority, sorry if you can't deal with
| that.

	Again, just what are you using for fact? I'd really love to know. I
would imagine these questions won't get answered, but then again, I could get
surprised.

| >  For some,"bestiality is a lifestyle. For a murderer, murder is a lifestyle.
| >  For a drug addict, drug use behavior is a lifestyle. Yes indeed, I answer
| >  yes to all of your examples.

| The definitions are consistent with my use of the words.
| Are you sure your not "mentally screening" words and definitions
| that don't support your views?

	Supporting our views has nothing to what you are saying. You
consistantly use lifestyles that either harm others or themselves. We
are not in that catagory. 




Glen

Re: .443

Well, Dick, if you are that upset about it, why don't YOU leave?  After all,
it's Digital which has made the decision to support the Valuing Diversity
program and it's Digital which desires to help its gay employees (among others)
to lead a happier, more productive work life.  I'm sure you could find some
other employer which shares your views.  I'd think you wouldn't want to continue
to work for a company whose corporate goals are so different from your own.


Some other noters have asked why Digital should spend the money on Valuing
Diversity instead of so-called "work-related" areas.  To me, the answer is
obvious; Digital's management feels that by fostering a less hostile environment
for its gay employees, that it can help make them more productive as employees.
The same goes for other programs such as fitness centers, cholesterol screenings,
EAP services, etc.   I don't hear anyone complaining about those.

					Steve

    I am not gay!! if you are, don't hit on me. I won't bother you because I
    don't give a rosy rat's behind about your love life. I have had friends
    who were gay. (I don't know if any of the people I am now with are) 

    My daughter is not lesbian!! if you are, don't hit on her. Neither she
    nor I will bother you because we don't give etc, etc.. My older
    daughter's sister-in-law is lesbian.

    I am white!! you are not!!! big deal. My daughter's Godfather is Mexican
    and I have both black and American Indian relatives.

    Bottom line(s) 

    do your job so I don't have to carry your load and mine.
    live and act like a reasonable human being. 
    treat me as you want to be treated.
    don't try to force your life style on me.
    don't flaunt your life style in face.
    don't say that just because you are different I must give you
    special/preffered treatment  ( NOTE::::: the only exception to 
    this is in the area of special services for the handicapped)
     
    I will reciprocate and we can be great friends.

    re .442
    
    What the "experts state" is not necessarily true nor influential.
    
    I doubt that anyone, expert or no, has enough insight into problems of
    human sexuality to provide answers to such questions that will endure
    through the end of this century and will become part of the "universal
    culture" of humanity.
    
    We all talk as if these questions have definitive answers when the
    truth is that the questions are not even well understood by anyone but
    a small coterie of specialists.
    
    Finally, the comments by "experts" are suspect, just because of the
    emotional climate in the country.  Anyone who makes a statement which
    contradicts the "accepted liberal doctrines" will be attacked, publicly
    and vehemently.  This is enough to keep serious scholars from making
    public statements.  The only "experts" who will comment are those whose
    opinions satisfy the doctrine or are very courageous.
    
    You may feel supported by the opinions of the "experts" to whom you
    listen.  That is your privilege.  I have no such confidence.  For me,
    all of these questions remain highly speculative and all proposed
    answers dubious.
    
    Regards,
    
    Dick

>     <<< Note 1616.405 by BEING::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
>
>   Certainly you are not so blind that you cannot see that goals you
>   support have been served by the GLB Awareness Day.  Goals you support
>   have been served at the expense of other people -- that is selfishness.
>   
    
    Goals that I support have indeed been served by this event.  To the
    best of my knowledge, the event was not held at the expense of any
    unwilling or uninformed individual.  If the event HAD served those
    goals at the expense of others, then I would have objected, but that 
    is not the case.  That is UNselfishness.
    
    I would be interested in exactly what price was paid for this event by
    unwitting individuals, as you postulate.  No one was indoctrinated,
    recruited, displaced, inconvenienced, offended, put upon, slighted,
    interrupted, disturbed, defamed, hurt, cajoled, teased, irritated,
    jacked up, hauled off, run over, overlooked, oversexed, overheated or
    overburdened in any way whatsoever.
    
    Now as for this NOTES topic, that's a different story....
    
    tim
    

    Dick
    
    Just for the record, I'm 'straight' and a former college Biology
    instructor. I came to my opinion originally by doing as much
    research as I possibly could into the subject.
    
    Bonnie

>    What the "experts state" is not necessarily true nor influential.
    
    Yea, I've had a lot of trouble with Einstein's stuff lately, too, but I
    think he's got the right idea, generally speaking. :-)
    
>    Finally, the comments by "experts" are suspect, just because of the
>    emotional climate in the country.  Anyone who makes a statement which
>    contradicts the "accepted liberal doctrines" will be attacked, publicly
>    and vehemently.  This is enough to keep serious scholars from making
>    public statements.  The only "experts" who will comment are those whose
>    opinions satisfy the doctrine or are very courageous.
    
    Gotta differ with you there.  The emotional climate in the country is
    the most conservative I've ever seen.  But I was only a toddler during
    the Army-McCarthy hearings.  No smiley on that one.  Being vocally
    conservative takes about as much courage these days as being born
    white, anglo-saxon, heterosexual male.  Luckily, a lot of these people
    are killing two birds with one stone. :-)
    
    tim
    

  re: .451

  I agree heartily, Tim.  Being conservative these days is hardly
  courageous!  Also, I'm glad to see there are a few sane replies
  in here, such as .439, which was eloquent and well written.
  Certainly, this topic's replies demonstrate the need for an 
  effective valuing differences program.  And also, thanks for 
  the moderator's (Steve Lionel's) sane and balanced replies.

  Marden Seavey (a 62 year old white heterosexual male)

    Well Mr. Beldin has a point.   What the experts state is NOT necessarily 
    true and you do have to be careful about "science" that is performed only 
    for the benefit of those in power...

    What Mr. Beldin might not be aware of is the "science" done in the name 
    of enforced heterosexuality - "science" that involved medical and surgical 
    experiments on American citizens at Atascadero State Hospital in 
    California.  Experiments that rivaled the barbarism found in Nazi 
    concentration camps....

    Of course, those things happened 20+ years ago.  That "science" proved 
    futile - a waste of time (not to mention a waste of the lives of many 
    decent Americans).

    But there were other kinds of science going on 20 years ago as well.
    Research by people interested in why, in the face of such incredible 
    hostility, anyone would express an attraction to the same sex. 

    What the researchers found and what has *been confirmed several times by 
    others* in the nearly five decades since Kinsey published his often 
    maligned but nevertheless ground breaking report, is that for roughly 10% 
    of the population, attraction to the same sex is just as normal as 
    attraction to the same sex is for the remaining 90%.

    Kinsey's been criticized for doing his research on a population of
    prison inmates - that's why the Kinsey Institute has performed
    additional studies in the general population (as have many others).
    All come to roughly the same conclusions percentage wise.

    In addition, the American Medical Association (hardly an institution of
    "accepted liberal doctrine") decided in the early 1970s that
    homosexuality could be classified as neither an emotional nor medical
    illness.  For pete's sake, nearly everything imaginable had been tried
    as a "cure" ...and with extremely poor results.  Unfortunately they were 
    not able to proceed from the assumption that there's no harm in being gay
    to begin with because of the "emotional climate in the country" but 
    eventually they reached the only logical conclusion.

    There do remain a small number of evangelical Christian ministries that
    claim success in "converting" homosexuals.  What a careful study of the
    evidence suggests is that these ministries are able to convince a number 
    of bisexual men and woman (who are already in a state of confusion
    about their sexuality) to suppress their natural same sex desires in 
    favor of their natural opposite sex desires.  Indeed, with the powerful
    influence of religion and peer pressure, it does not surprise me that
    this actually works with some people.   It is complete lunacy however
    to assert the same methods will work with EVERYONE who is gay, lesbian
    or bisexual.  Especially those who are non-Christian.  And it is
    downright fascist to insist such methods be MANDATORY.

    The bottom line is that what the 90% think of the 10% minority HAS NO 
    BEARING on the *truth* of the minority's experience.  If you are NOT gay, 
    how can you possibly know what is normal or natural for someone who is,
    in a society where we are all taught, practically from birth, that it is 
    "wrong" to be gay?   

    I submit that neither "gut reaction" nor "religious belief" are valid 
    reasons to condemn an entire category of people to second class status
    (which is precisely what people like Mr. Moulton are advocating).
    And I resent the thinly veiled threats (shoot the rabid lamb) presented
    in some of the notes entered here.

    I am not going back into any closet.

    /Greg

    Oh - just to prevent any misunderstanding...
    
    My comment in .454:
    
    "bisexual men and woman (who are already in a state of confusion about 
     their sexuality)"
    
    ...should not be interpreted as a statement that bisexuals (nor anyone
    else) are inherently confused about their sexuality.  Most of the bis
    I know are quite certain who they are.  The statement I made was in 
    reference to the people turning to "change ministries" for help, who are 
    generally in a state of confusion (about their faith, their future, their 
    families...not to mention their sexuality)...
    
    Sorry if I offended anyone...
    
    /Greg
    

    RE .446.  If you really believe that Digital sponsors VD in order to
    provide a good work environment for its gay employees, you've got
    a real problem.  It's corporate anus-protectus, and that's all!
    
    In the event of a major law suit its a good thing to point to.  The
    fact that what they are doing creates a very uncomfortable work
    environment for me is not appreciated or addressed at all.  No, instead
    they waste good money trying to point out why I am in error.  Don't
    you see the conflict here?
    
    Oh, and if you don't think that speaking out conservatively in Digital
    is dangerous, you are very wrong.  I have not taken such a ration of
    .... in a long time, not to mention the threats.

    re.456 How does fostering a workplace/environment where someone 
    can simply and without censure acknowledge, "I am gay'" create
    an uncomfortable work environment for you?

    RE: <<< Note 1616.456 by COOKIE::LENNARD
    
    Has it occured to you that Digital might want to sponsor VoD
    for BOTH reasons?  1) for legal protection and 2) to create a
    better work environment?
    
    And why, in all your harping on how silly this is and what a
    waste of time and effort it all is, etc, etc, etc, have you
    failed to acknowledge that the company has stated it supports
    VoD because it believes the program will be beneficial to the 
    bottom line?
    
    >fact that what they are doing creates a very uncomfortable work
    >environment for me is not appreciated or addressed at all.  No,
    >instead they waste good money trying to point out why I am in error.
    
    Why is it uncomfortable for you to allow other's the ability to
    participate *fully* in society?  Perhaps if you could articulate
    this discomfort, you might get some assistance.  The gay folks
    as DEC who feel uncomfortable aren't screaming at others to shut
    up and go away in order to relieve their pain.  They/we are
    trying to work with others to create a better environment for
    everyone.   Do you think that in order to address your discomfort
    the company should ignore the discomfort of gay people?
    
    Truthfully, am I wasting my time (i.e. p___'n into the wind)
    asking you these questions?
    
    /Greg

    All right, let's talk evidence.
    
    If you accept drug experiments which use rats as surrogates for humans,
    try this one on.
    
    In a study I read about so many years ago I don't dare pretend to
    remember much, I was struck by one finding.
    
    When rats are crowded into very high density pens and provided all the
    "necesities of life", ie food, water, etc., the following starts to
    happen
    
    	1) Mother rats fail to care for their offspring, including what is
    	   analogous to child abuse.
    	2) Male rats attack other males sexually.
    	3) All sexual behavior has a much more violent tone.
    
    Notice that the rats were not subject to starvation, so human poverty
    is not suggested by the experiments.
    
    To my knowledge, no one has found the link(s) between overcrowding and
    unusual sexual and maternal behavior in rats, but there is a suggestion
    that similar human "problems" might be linked to human overcrowding.
    
    Does anyone have any data on the frequency of male homosexual behavior
    and child abuse in low and high density, but economically comfortable
    settings?  That seems to be the analogous human environment.
    
    for some more thoughtful consideration,
    
    Dick	

    
    
    I beg to differ.  Being vocally conservative today ISN'T that easy.
    You get called "close minded" or a "bigot" or your opinions get
    blasted as homophobic or harrassment.  Or you are assumed to be from
    that all things terrible and bad group, "straight white males", the
    skum of the earth who are to blame for most everything (including
    purposly wiping out the native population of America with Small Pox).
    
    
    Sorry, but I think that it's easier to stand up and say "hey I'M
    liberal. I love everybody. I have no prejudices. Live and let live"
    then it is to voice what you TRULY believe in your heart to be
    RIGHT.  Case in point Tippy Gore(?) who wanted to have warning labels
    put on record albums (AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH are we talking CENSORSHIP???).
    She was labeled a 'bored housewife' instead of people taking the
    attitude that she is just trying to do her best to raise her kids in
    a morally clean environment. SHe was just doing what she believed in
    and had to courage to stand up and voice her CONSERVATIVE opinion.
    Right or wrong, she was trounced and sent back home whipped like a
    bad puppy.
    
    It is NOT easy to be conservative in a world where the liberals are
    the squeaky wheels and have laws to back them up (ie "You can't talk
    to ME that way because I am a legally recognized minority").
    
    It is NOT easy to be conservative when I could lose my job for stating
    my opinion if YOU decide to take it as a personal attack. 
    
    I CANNOT start up a notesfile for Straight White Males though YOU can
    and do maintain a GAY notes and a Black NOTES. MY note would be
    rascist. YOUR note is serving a Valuing Diversity purpose. 
    In fact, even proposing the very idea puts you in the same league as
    the KKK and the nazis. 
    You are told to let it drop because it is making you look like a bigot
    or a homophobe.
    
    Did anyone get called a heterophobe when they suggested starting up
    a g/b/l conference? 
    Did anyone get called a bigot when they wanted to start up the Black
    Notes conference?
    
    Don't tell me how easy it is to be a vocal conservative. 
    Certainly NOT within this company. And CERTAINLY NOT in notes. 
    -------------
    
    By the way, I would like to protest the use of "HOMOPHOBIA IS A
    DISEASE" buttons at any 'outing'(??) rallies within Digital. 
    I believe that this is INTENDED as harrassment towards those not
    sharing the same love of diversity as some others, and as was noted
    (enough times to make me want to puke) in the Policies and Procedures,
    harrassment towards ANY Digital employee, regardless of Race, Gender,
    or SEX (or sexual orientation as is apparenlty being added in), then
    that ceratinly DOES constitute harrassment towards conservative
    heterosexuals. 
    

Just for the record, I am trying hard to distinguish my contributions to this
topic as a moderator from those in which I am "just another noter".  Though
I don't deny that I have a strong opinion on the issues here, I try to be very
careful not to let those opinions affect the decisions I make in my role as
a moderator.


Regarding Dick Lennard's suggestion that the VoD program exists to protect
Digital against lawsuits - I agree that this is a consideration, especially in
the area of discrimination against blacks and women.  Gays are not a "protected
subgroup" at the federal level yet, though there do exist states (Massachusetts I
think is one) which have laws which prohibit workplace discrimination against
gays.

Yet my belief is that even without such laws, Digital would still be doing the
same thing.  Perhaps some might disagree with some individual decisions made
by the various VoD committees but I wholeheartedly support the goal of the
program and I believe that it DOES enhance Digital's "bottom line" and makes
this a better place to work for all of us.

I find my own attitudes to have changed considerably over the years.  Though
I never developed the "gays are to be despised" attitiude which I see in so
many others (just as I never thought that "girls give you Cooties" as a
child), nevertheless I was distinctly uncomfortable in the physical presence
of those I knew to be gay, even though I didn't then and still don't know why.
However, I've come to know several gays well, some I consider friends, others
are co-workers, and though the discomfort hasn't vanished entirely, I find that
the more I knew about these people, the more I realized that we could share a lot
of interests, feelings and goals, the less I was afraid for myself and the
more I understood why they were afraid.  I remember one day, having lunch
with a lesbian friend who showed me her photo album containing pictures of her
wedding to her very pretty partner (whom I've also met), their honeymoon and
their delightful baby boy.  In almost no time, I stopped thinking "this is weird"
and started thinking "what a nice family," and we exchanged stories about our
kids.  I find myself wishing that everyone here could have such an experience.
I don't expect it would change everyone's mind, but I think that familiarity with
real people who just happen to be gay would go a long way to increase understanding
and acceptance.

					Steve

re: .446,

>Well, Dick, if you are that upset about it, why don't YOU leave?  After all,
>it's Digital which has made the decision to support the Valuing Diversity
>program and it's Digital which desires to help its gay employees (among others)
>to lead a happier, more productive work life.  I'm sure you could find some
>other employer which shares your views.  I'd think you wouldn't want to continue
>to work for a company whose corporate goals are so different from your own.

    	Steve, Dick has made it quite clear in his notes in this conference
    over the past year or so that he would simply love to leave DEC, but 
    not without a nice big package.  Here are just a couple of excerpts
    from Dick Lennard's earlier notes that support this conclusion:

1527.2> Personally, I'm getting a little sick and tired of hearing about the
1527.2> so-called "voluntary" program we had last year.  What a misleading
1527.2> bunch of crap.  I tried to volunteer, but was turned down.
    
1541.15> For the life of me, I can't understand why they won't sweeten the kitty
1541.15> with some aggressive early retirement incentives like HP just
1541.15> announced.  They are offering one year's pay...plus normal retirement.
1541.15> I'd take that so fast it would make their eyeballs click.

    				   -davo

    MODERATOR.....OH, MODERATOR.....getting a little personel here aren't
    we?  What a perfect illustration of why you can't take a conservative
    position without this kind of vomit being spewed.
    
    Also, I object very strongly to DEC sponsoring a forum at which buttons
    are passed out identifying me as diseased.  I am homophobic, but that
    is not a disease!  See what I mean about the VD people selling out?
    Can you imagine any other forum, anywhere, where direct attacks on any-
    one would be sanctioned?  But the gays get away with it because they
    are are a protected "class".  Disgusting.
    
    Oh, BTW, why should I leave without the package?  I may be diseased,
    but I ain't stoopid.  Guess you're stuck with me for a while yet.
    

| In reality, G/L/B people have always been a part of society. The differ-
| ence today as opposed to 20 years ago is that many are encouraged by their
| counterparts to "come out". Why come out I ask? The majority of society
| doesn't care and will NEVER accept that deep dark secret you've been
| harboring. 

	I'm so glad you don't really know what's going on. It would scare me if
you did. You see, any of us can show you that there are some who do accept the
deep dark secret and some who don't. I have come out to about 30 people
(friends and family) so far with only 2 negative responses. They accept me for
who I am and see past who I sleep with. By seeing past I mean they don't
consider it any different (with the exception of the gender) than their own
lives. The same questions come up that would if I were sleeping with women. You
yourself may never be able to accept it, but unless there is some fact to back
up what you are saying, then one can only conclude you don't know what you're
talking about......again.

| I value your basic rights as they relate to jobs, housing,
| etc. What more do you want? 

	How about seeing us for what we are? Human beings. You say lifestyles
don't come into play with minority. You seem to forget that it's not only skin
color that make blacks, orientals, mexicans, etc different. It's also their
lifestyle, a lifestyle that many change to try and fit into mainstream America.
When you see an Indian woman walking down the street with her head wrapped in a
shaw, is it the color of the skin that has your attention or a part of her
lifestyle? It's deeper than just color, but why you can't see that I don't
know. It's also deeper than a lifestyle. You have said you value our basic
rights for jobs, housing, etc. This is great. But do you value them to the
point that you feel we shouldn't be discriminated against having these because
of our sexual preference (I think that's what you meant, I just wanted to make
sure)? 

| I guess thats just wishful thinking on my part. Keep your facts
| "straight" and you'll be just fine.

	#1 on my wish list is that you would start providing facts to back up
your accusations. 




Glen

| RE .446.  If you really believe that Digital sponsors VD in order to
| provide a good work environment for its gay employees, you've got
| a real problem.  It's corporate anus-protectus, and that's all!

	Based on the what fact? You keep mentioning it, but never any facts?
How come?


Glen

    RE: disease
    
    Honestly I wish people would get their facts straight before they
    get so riled up.
    
    The button in question says "Homophobia is a social disease"  and
    is a statement about how homophobia breeds hatred and violence in
    our society (the hatred and violence part is the disease).
    
    Unless you think a society full of hatred and violence is a good
    and healthy thing, I don't see what the problem with the button is.
    
    /Greg

RE: Note 1616.459  SA1794::MOULTONB                                     

>>   "If one sheep in a shepards's herd becomes rabid, shall we kill the 
>> one sheep so the others may live or shall we let this one sheep live 
>> amongst the others and inflict its disease onto the herd of which will 
>> die from the sickness of one."
>    
>|   How is one to interpret the above quote, in the context of this 
>|   discussion?  Only one interpretation comes immediately to mind and
>|   I find it alarming because it advocates violence.....
>
>    No, I don't advocate violence. The statement I made is only an analogy.

	Well which parts of the analogy correspond to this discussion?
	The quote sounds like nothing more to me than a desire to "kill" 
	the "rabid infection" of homosexuality before it "infects" straight 
	people.  You don't consider that violent?

>|   In any event, Mr. Moultonb...
>    Mr.?

	ELF lists a Robert Moulton, a Bill Moulton and a Bang Moulton.
	I have no idea which one you are.  Bang doesn't sound feminine
	to me (though to  be honest I've never encountered anyone named
	Bang before), so I assumed "Mr."  I figured it would be more
	respectful than plain "Moulton" - and you didn't sign any of your
	notes.  If I was incorrect, I apologize.  

>    In reality, G/L/B people have always been a part of society. The differ-
>    ence today as opposed to 20 years ago is that many are encouraged by their 
>    counterparts to "come out". Why come out I ask? 
    
	Why come out?  I'm glad you asked that.  Perhaps you really don't
	know about the discrimination and violence faced by gay people in
	this society.  Perhaps you do and think we should suffer in silence.
	
	Sorry.  That isn't going to happen.  Coming out is the only way
	to get society to change so that passing restrictive laws against
    	gays and beating up on gays is *finally* considered wrong.
    
>    I mean really, this is not the same as being "black and proud"!

	Yes it is, sort of.  Gays haven't suffered the same as blacks.
	But there are parallels.  I am not proud of *being* gay, I am
	proud of what I have accomplished *in spite* of societies
	hatred of gays.  By the same token, I don't think blacks are 
	proud simply because of their skin color.  They are proud of the 
	fact they have survived and flourished in the face of horrendous 
	oppression.  It's just easier to say "black and proud" or "Gay
        pride."

>    Your private sexual behavior should remain private. I don't care what you
>    do behind closed doors. 

	Well lots of other people do.  They make what some people do in
	private illegal.  They arrest people and lock them up.  Or, more
	often, they simply beat them to a pulp on the street.  The Reagan
	Administration's Justice Department issued a report (in 1987 I think)
	that stated gay people are the number one victims of hate crimes
	in our society.  It's funny.  I often hear "I don't care what you do
	in private."   Well *somebody* certainly does!  And I am NOT going
	around telling them.  I do not invite people into my home to watch.
	They come with (or without) search warrants.  I do not invite 'phobes
	into gay establishments.  They hang around outside, waiting...
	I do not ask the government to support the children of gay parents.
	The government takes them away anyway when a straight relative
	complains....

>Do you feel so guilty that you have to seek approval or validation? 

	No, I do not feel guilty, though I suppose some do.  It's pretty
	difficult to ignore the overwhelming societal attitude you know.
	What I seek is equality.

>    I value your basic rights as they relate to jobs, housing,
>    etc. 

	I don't believe you.  What is "etc."?  What will you be allowed
	that I will be denied?  I want equality.

>    What more do you want? Abnormal sexual behavior lifestyles do not merit
>    "preferential treatment". 

	Please explain this preferential treatment I am (supposedly)
	asking for.

>    Religion is in a different classification. The constitution clearly states 
>    the separation of church and government. Maybe you would advocate a 
>    separation of the gay lifestyle and government, society too? I guess thats 
>    just wishful thinking on my part. Keep your facts "straight" and you'll be 
>    just fine.

	The Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal 
	and the bill of rights in the Constitution says (among other things)
	that the enumeration of certain rights *in* the bill of rights does 
	not mean there are no OTHER rights retained by the people.  One of
	those rights, in my opinion, is a right to privacy.  That right is
	not respected.   My facts are not "crooked."

>      -  Sexual freedom is something we all can enjoy, behind closed doors,
>         between consenting adults. 

	This is not true.  The laws say otherwise. 

>         does not mean that you can express your views on specific sexual 
>         life styles in public without being challenged. I think its important
>         however that the challenge and its intensity be proportionate to the
>         level of the opposing view. In other words, if "they" set up a booth,
>         you set up a booth. If "they" shoot a bullet, you shoot a bullet.

	Unfortunately, we are not being challenged by "booths" offering an
	opposing point of view.  We are being challenged by restrictive laws
	and physical violence.  Show me a mob of gays who go around beating
	up straight people, and I will take this last point of yours a bit 
	more seriously. 

	/Greg
         

| Also, I object very strongly to DEC sponsoring a forum at which buttons
| are passed out identifying me as diseased.  I am homophobic, but that
| is not a disease!  

	You're right. Being homophobic is NOT a disease. It is often compared
to a disease because like a disease, it can spread. Like a disease it can have
devastating results. That is why there is a comparason. Just as in being
prejudice. That too is compared to a disease. It really isn't one, but you can
see why often it is called one.

| See what I mean about the VD people selling out?
| Can you imagine any other forum, anywhere, where direct attacks on any-
| one would be sanctioned?  But the gays get away with it because they
| are are a protected "class".  Disgusting.

	Direct attack? There is no direct attack. hmmmmm.... You have admitted 
you're homophobic, but what is it about us that scares you so? There apparently 
is something there, but what? Please clue me in.




Glen

Well, for those of us that DO believe homosexuality is unnatural and DO
believe that the recent event on a DEC facility was a sort of Brave New 
World indoctrination, (as opposed to the Brown Shirts' tactics of the
twenties and early thirties that the act-up bunch seems to like),
...take heart.

I heard on an all news station while driving home this evening that the
University of Wisconsin tried the same sort of thought control by banning
all sexist, racist, and, in general, un-PC remarks.  They were taken to
court, and a federal judge agreed that this was mind control and the
rule was dropped.  From what I heard, the people that took the school to
court were the PC crowd.  Maybe there still is some sanity?

    re .468  ... Show me a mob of gays who go around beating up straight
    people and I will take your last point more seriously...
    
    Try reading the newspaper - LA TIMES, Sacramento Union, Sacramento Bee,
    or probably those in your area - When AB 101 was vetoed by the Govenor,
    there were 23 reported injuries on the first night.  Rioting has
    continued.  Two State Policeman were seriously injured in Sacramento.
    So maybe you should take his last point more seriously... You could
    also be better informed and much more tolerant.

    Odd how in nearly 500 replies, no one has mentioned an excellent reason
    for the awareness day in Marlboro.  Here in Massachusetts,
    discrimination based on sexual preference is illegal.  That's right, we
    are talking legitimate civil rights here in the Commonwealth.  So
    comparisons with past civil rights activism are quite apt.
    
    Note that the flamers from New Hampshire, Colorado and most other
    states are constrained only by common courtesy, not the law.  I applaud
    the low-key, positive approach Digital has taken in response to the
    Mass. gay rights law.  
    
    Wes

    Re .449:
    
    > No one was indoctrinated, recruited, displaced, inconvenienced,
    > offended, put upon, slighted, interrupted, disturbed, defamed, hurt,
    > cajoled, teased, irritated, jacked up, hauled off, run over,
    > overlooked, oversexed, overheated or overburdened in any way
    > whatsoever.
    
    How can you possibly have the gall to make that statement?  It is
    absurdly obvious that you cannot possibly know what was in the minds of
    most people who were confronted with the display on their way to lunch.
    How many people is it, hundreds?  If you were there the entire time,
    you might know the opinions of a few tens of people who participated or
    said something, but for the remaining hundreds, you have no way of
    knowing what was in their minds.  You are no telepath, and I very much
    doubt you conducted any sort of survey, let alone a scientific one.
    
    How would you know if somebody felt offended, put upon, slighted,
    disturbed, hurt, or irritated?  Would they have told YOU?  It is simply
    incredible to me that there is absolutely no question that you could
    not possibly know to be true what you said, yet you said it anyway. 
    Your entire statement is simply a fabrication.
    
    One of the purported rationales put forth by the "Valuing Differences"
    program is that people do NOT know when others are offended.  We, the
    public, are told that things which appear to be simple and normal are
    in fact set by the "majority" and are for their benefit but are
    inconvenient and offensive to "minorities".  E.g., one "Valuing
    Differences" article posted in TAY purported that praising an employee
    (who was a Native American) in front of other employees had offended
    that employee.  The supervisor had no inkling they were offending.  The
    lesson is that a person cannot know what is offensive.
    
    Yet here you turn around and purport to tell us that an activity you
    supported offended nobody.  This is another of the continuing
    revelations of the farce of "Valuing Differences".  They tell us to be
    sensitive to other people, yet they are completely insensitive
    themselves, at least toward non-protected groups.  It is a farce
    because "Valuing Differences" is not about sensitivity toward all
    people; it is only about serving certain special interests.  The same
    ethical principles it expounds for the treatment of people are the
    principles it totally ignores when pushing its own activity.
    
    Notes in this conference have made it clear there are people who are
    offended by proselytization of this sort, yet you have just denied that
    anybody was offended by what we know offends some people.  It is clear
    "Valuing Differences" does not value differences and is not tolerant of
    people with diverse beliefs.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .472:
    
    > Odd how in nearly 500 replies, no one has mentioned an excellent
    > reason for the awareness day in Marlboro.  Here in Massachusetts,
    > discrimination based on sexual preference is illegal.
    
    That's a non sequitur.  "Legal" and "valuable" are different things. 
    The awareness day is part of an attempt by its organizers, by the
    politically correct, and by Digital to sway employee beliefs, to make
    employees value homosexuals.
    
    This goes to the distinction I have been drawing over the past hundreds
    of responses.  If you make something legal (e.g., homosexuality) or
    even if you make discriminating based on something illegal, that means
    you are accepting the behavior.  It means you are tolerating the
    behavior.  It does not mean you value the behavior.
    
    It is perfect legal for a person to train chimpanzees to throw paint
    randomly on canvas and then for the person to sell the results as art. 
    This is legal.  I accept it.  I tolerate it.  I would not support
    discriminating against the person in employment because of what they do
    on the side.  But I do not value what this person does.  I would think
    it is pretty stupid.  I would not pay money for their "art" because I
    do not value it.
    
    This is the difference between valuing and tolerating.
    
    Everybody should tolerate; that is a good thing.  But everybody should
    be free to choose their own values.  As long as a person tolerates
    others, they should be free to believe whatever they want about the
    values of others.
    
    If Digital wants to promote Massachusetts' law prohibiting
    discrimination based on sexual orientation, that is reasonable.  Tell
    employees not to discriminate, and enforce that.  But that is not what
    Digital is doing.  Digital, its "Valuing Differences" program, and the
    organizers of this awareness day have not stopped there; they have not
    stopped at advocating tolerance.  They are pushing values on us.  They
    are attempting to change beliefs; they do not accept people who have
    different beliefs.
    
    That is intolerant.
    
    
    				-- edp  

I suppose, in a technical fashion, that Digital could be encouraging
employees to value illegal activity in the area of BiGayLes issues
because in some states there are still laws on the books that forbid some
types of sexual activity.

Lee

| re .468  ... Show me a mob of gays who go around beating up straight
| people and I will take your last point more seriously...

| Try reading the newspaper - LA TIMES, Sacramento Union, Sacramento Bee,
| or probably those in your area - When AB 101 was vetoed by the Govenor,
| there were 23 reported injuries on the first night.  Rioting has
| continued.  Two State Policeman were seriously injured in Sacramento.
| So maybe you should take his last point more seriously... You could
| also be better informed and much more tolerant.

	Oh, be serious! Next thing you'll be saying is that pro-life people are
all pro-choice beaters because they have had clashes with them! GIVE ME A
BREAK! 



Glen

| > No one was indoctrinated, recruited, displaced, inconvenienced,
| > offended, put upon, slighted, interrupted, disturbed, defamed, hurt,
| > cajoled, teased, irritated, jacked up, hauled off, run over,
| > overlooked, oversexed, overheated or overburdened in any way
| > whatsoever.

| How can you possibly have the gall to make that statement?  It is
| absurdly obvious that you cannot possibly know what was in the minds of
| most people who were confronted with the display on their way to lunch.

	You're right, no one can really know unless they ask. We couldn't
really know if it offended anyone and neither would you. I guess this is one of
those catch 22's?

| You are no telepath, 

	Are you sure? ;-)

| How would you know if somebody felt offended, put upon, slighted,
| disturbed, hurt, or irritated?  

	How would you?

| Your entire statement is simply a fabrication.

	I guess yours stating that others would be offended is also a
fabrication?



Glen

| > Odd how in nearly 500 replies, no one has mentioned an excellent
| > reason for the awareness day in Marlboro.  Here in Massachusetts,
| > discrimination based on sexual preference is illegal.

| That's a non sequitur.  "Legal" and "valuable" are different things.
| The awareness day is part of an attempt by its organizers, by the
| politically correct, and by Digital to sway employee beliefs, to make
| employees value homosexuals.

	Change that to all human beings and we have something, huh?

Glen

| I suppose, in a technical fashion, that Digital could be encouraging
| employees to value illegal activity in the area of BiGayLes issues
| because in some states there are still laws on the books that forbid some
| types of sexual activity.

	I suppose you're 100% right...... if these meetings were promoting
sexual activity. What they promote in reality is that if you were to look at us
as humans, see us as humans, treat us as humans and forget the label, then you
would find that things are right on track. This goes further than just the
label gay. Apply any group that doesn't go around hurting others and you will
have the same results. This group includes blacks, mexican, catholics, mormons,
whites, etc....

	Have they ever had a Spanish day at your facility? We did. It was well
presented and it was a blast. They had speakers, food, music, it was a blast.
Would you get upset at this type of meeting happening? It's the same type of
meeting, to get to really know a little about the Spanish, as was the lesbigay
one. 


Glen

	I'll give some people in here credit for courage - it's quite
	bold to argue that homosexuality is bad because it's "unnatural" over
	an electronic bulletin board:-).

	As for "indoctrination" - the event as described was quite low-key
	(considerably less than, say, Moonies at an airport or Jehovah's
	Witnesses going door-to-door). Have you so little faith in your
	convictions that you fear you will lose them at the sight of
	a table with the word "gay" on it?

	re: conservative/liberal - Liberals cry "close-minded" at the 
	slightest provocation. These days conservatives cry "PC"
	(formerly "bleeding heart" or "pinko"). "Fascist" gets used by
	both sides. What's the difference? They're all ways to attempt 
	to dismiss opposing opinions without going to the bother of 
	rationally discussing them specifically...

	Mike

    RE: .471 

       >>re .468  ... Show me a mob of gays who go around beating up
       >>straight people and I will take your last point more seriously...
       >
       > Try reading the newspaper - LA TIMES, Sacramento Union, Sacramento
       > Bee, or probably those in your area - When AB 101 was vetoed by the
       > Govenor, there were 23 reported injuries on the first night.  Rioting 
       > has continued.  Two State Policeman were seriously injured in 
       > Sacramento. So maybe you should take his last point more seriously... 
       > You could also be better informed and much more tolerant.

    I know all about the rioting in California.  There are two other
    examples of violence by the gay community that I know of as well.  
    The Stonewall Riot in 1969 and the riots that were a reaction to the
    Dan White murder trial in San Francisco in the late 1970s.  

    I don't think violence is the answer.

    I knew someone would seize on this though.  You ignored everything
    else in the note you quoted from (not to mention previous notes, not
    to mention everything that's been in the press about gay bashing).

    If I were to take Moulton's "eye for an eye" reasoning seriously, I
    *should* support the riots in California.  In fact, I should support 
    bombings in Pennsylvania (you probably don't know about the bookstore
    in Lancaster that has been bombed at least twice in the past 12 months).
    I probably should support execution-type murder in Texas and demand
    lenient sentencing because "the victims are only homophobic bigots."
    I probably should support throwing straight people off bridges to
    their deaths, or the murder of straight couples who have the gall to
    camp out in a tent.  And I should probably ignore injured policeman
    because....well "boys will be boys."

    Myself and a few million other gay people have to live with the
    knowledge that the above are only a few examples of what happens to
    the people in our communities.  On three occasions we've rioted (I
    still don't know about roving bands of gays beating to *death* innocent
    straight people).  And you tell me to be more tolerant.   Right.

    /Greg

Re: <<< Note 1616.479 by JURAN::SILVA "Ahn eyu ahn" >>>

| I suppose, in a technical fashion, that Digital could be encouraging
| employees to value illegal activity in the area of BiGayLes issues
| because in some states there are still laws on the books that forbid some
| types of sexual activity.

>I suppose you're 100% right...... if these meetings were promoting sexual
>activity. What they promote in reality is that if you were to look at us
>as humans, see us as humans, treat us as humans and forget the label,
>then you would find that things are right on track.[...]

Does the showing of the film 'Tongues Untied' (as you state) "promote in
reality is that if you were to look at us as humans, see us as humans,
treat us as humans and forget the label". Appears to me simply an attempt
to foster wider acceptance of gay sex practices.

Re: 'Spanish/Mexican Day' at facility.

I have no problem with that unless they showed films that hinted at
Mexican/Spanish sex practices and used the 'F' word.

Lee

re:               <<< Note 1616.478 by JURAN::SILVA "Ahn eyu ahn" >>>


>| That's a non sequitur.  "Legal" and "valuable" are different things.
>| The awareness day is part of an attempt by its organizers, by the
>| politically correct, and by Digital to sway employee beliefs, to make
>| employees value homosexuals.

|	Change that to all human beings and we have something, huh?

Well, I guess I'll practice noting like you and turn your statement around.
Show me the forum where VoD is advocating that the gay community value
homophobes? You cant, so therefore Digital is not trying to create an
environment where ALL people value ALL others, just one where the PC groups
are valued.

- George

re: .483,

> Show me the forum where VoD is advocating that the gay community value
> homophobes?

    	As has been suggested time and time again, why don't you form
    such a VoD group yourself???  My perception is that the VoD program
    is primarily a grassroots movement, so the only way VoD groups are
    formed is by concerted action on the part of those Digital employees
    who feel strongly enough about their particular difference or diversity
    that they feel they should share their views in a VoD forum.

    	It is amazing to count the number of replies in here which, on
    the one hand, criticize the VoD program for shoving other ideas down
    their throats, while, on the other hand, complaining when the VoD
    program doesn't offer a program for their given diversity (in this
    case the Homophobes).  I view this as sheer laziness and/or a lack
    of real committment on the part of these complainers to organize such
    a group - as if the VoD program were one big talk show whose job it
    was to keep these people entertained or something!

    				    -davo

The world IS a ghetto....at least a dismal, emotional one....

We have completely lost sight of the ability to reason, 
understand or show any compassion.  That makes us homonothing -
neither sapiens nor sexual.  We have managed to bring lowering
ourselves to an art form.  The absurdity of 95% of what has
been written here!

Now, go ahead and slice this up and let me know how much of a
jerk I am.  Ready.....2...4...6...8...Everbody hate, hate, hate!

Barb_who_is_gacking_(apologies to E)

Re:      <<< Note 1616.473 by BEING::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
    
>    How can you possibly have the gall to make that statement?  It is
>    absurdly obvious that you cannot possibly know what was in the minds of
>    most people who were confronted with the display on their way to lunch.
    
    ...ad nauseum.
    
    I believe I did say 'to the best of my knowledge'.  To further support
    what I said, not one complaint about the actual event has been mentioned 
    here.  I sincerely doubt it would have gone unnoticed in THIS audience.  
    Please, stop wasting our time with semantic rhetoric - try to concentrate 
    on the point, not the wording.  I'm not interested or impressed with 
    obvious attempts by several participants in this discussion, to bait
    others with inflammatory remarks to ellicit an emotional response.  That's 
    a cheap trick, unworthy of an intelligent discussion of the issues.  It
    is, in my opinion, juvenile and manipulative.
    
    ...and I am no more clairvoyant than you are, so just how do you know
    that you run the ONLY true Valuing Differences notes file?  Did you
    take a survey?
    
    Your persistent, albeit highly abrasive opposition to this harmless
    event seems inappropriate.  Why do you care?  Why does it bother you? 
    Did you attend?  If not, why make such a stink?  Is it the issue
    itself, or merely the attention you can attract as the courageous icon
    of conservative rhetoric?  Lighten up.  It isn't such a big deal.
    This event gave people the opportunity to learn something.  If you
    choose to decline, as you have every right to, then at least have the
    common courtesy to refrain from ridiculing those who choose NOT to keep
    their heads firmly planted where the sun never shines.
    
    As for valuing homophobes, I personally would not bother to waste my
    time trying to show them a different perspective on the issue, if I
    didn't value them.  I do think that fear and loathing of homosexuality
    is an uninformed, pathetic waste of time and energy.  Homosexuality is
    not a disease that needs curing, but homophobia, like any phobia, can
    be treated.  Homosexuals do not choose their lot in life, homophobes
    do.
    
    Would it be so difficult to even experiment with the idea that maybe
    the world is different then the way you currently insist on seeing it?
    Go ahead, we won't tell anyone. :-)
    
    tim

    re .487
    
    I think you will find that the level of overcrowding needed to
    stimulate the kind of rat behavior I mentioned is comparable to that in
    an inner city slum, not the average over (any) entire country.  Puerto
    Rico has a high population density as a "country", but there are areas
    where the density is lower than, say, Tennessee.  The valid comparison
    is between cities and rural areas within a cultural domain (like the
    US) not between the (average) density in different land masses.
    
    In any case, studies like this one are only suggestive.  They indicate
    areas of ignorance that we need to explore.  I don't have any hard
    data, but I'd be surprised if anyone has obtained any research support
    to evaluate the suggestion within human populations.  Until there is
    such research, all we can do is speculate.
    
    Dick

RE:   <<< Note 1616.484 by TOOK::DMCLURE "Did Da Vinci move into management?" >>>
        -< I see no one preventing a Homophobe VoD group from forming >-

>re: .483,

>> Show me the forum where VoD is advocating that the gay community value
>> homophobes?

Whoa, Whoa, I am neither a homophobe nor do I want to put on such an event.
I mearly wanted to challenge the idea that DIGITAL is
this altruistic (sp) entity, doing everything it can to promote
harmony amounst all employees. ALthough I believe this to be an ideal goal, 
IMHO, this is just not the case. If it were DEC would not be waiting around
for somebody to suggest, organize, promote and provide the event, it
through the VoD office would be doing this itself.

I wonder when this topic is going to die, it seems obvious to me that
neither side is going to concede anything. One side seems unwilling to 
admit that there is a problem and that the gays have a right to have held
the awareness day. On the otherhand, the gays seem unwilling to live &
let live in the sense that they feel this need to attack every note
that contains any bit of negativism toward the gay lifestyle.

We all want to be tolerated but, neither side seems to show any toleration
for the other, each must show the other the error of their ways.

I also think that the implimentation of the VoD program is a little
hypocritical. A noter stated that he was told that it
was ok to form a Christian group and hold an event but, that because
it contained material which condemned homosexuality, they could not
use the Bible. This is ok with me if thats the rule, that you can not
use material which would offend another group. Given this rule, I will
ask again, why was it OK for PKO to show a film (Tongues Untied) which
the VoD committee acknowledged to be offensive to some?

    .487
    
    Instead of simply repeating that such an organization wouldn't be
    allowed. Why don't you try and start such a group and prove it one
    way or another?

For a few who have asked, in this string, why it's important to come out,
or why it's important to answer these attacks on us human beings who are
gay, I think you have to realize that all those years of being quiet
just fostered all the hate and homophobia of today (nicely demonstrated
by 2 or 3 noters in this string).

Years of being quiet, of letting people assume we were heterosexual, or
at least ashamed of our awful affliction (heavy sacrcasm, please note --
personally, I think my sexuality is a gift along with the rest of what
I got handed), only hurt the future generations.

Because now, some people don't know of all the contributions to human
civilization made by all kinds of people, not just people like them.
Some people don't realize that some of the best people throughout
history (as well as some of the worst and some of the just average) have
also been gay.  Some people think that gay people aren't as good as
non-gay people.
(Burning question:
Does "I don't value diversity" mean "If you're not exactly like me,
I don't value  you"  or just "If you're not exactly like me, and a few
other people I know, I don't value you")

And when you get alot of this "you're scum" message, you can start to
internalize it, so you do have to keep saying "I'm gay and proud", because
you *know* that you're at least as worthy a person as anyone else
around, and no one has the right to tell you differently.  (Or they can
say it, and they will, and they can say the world is flat and they can
say that they're the Pope and we can just look at them funny and wonder
what their problem is.)

For our self respect, we need to remind people we're here, we need to
get to know you and come out to you, etc.  For the sake of *your children*,
one out of 10 of whom are likely to be gay, we need to do it.  

	MKV

This is a repeat, but a point I want to make again anyway:

Someone who thinks the company values them is going to be more willing
to go overboard to do their job 110%.  Someone who thinks they have to
hide part of themselves, or who thinks that Digital or their
management thinks they are less valuable a person than
their co-worker is just not going to have as positive and productive
an attitude.

That's common sense, that's business sense, it's not that hard to
figure out, even.

I sincerely hope that none of the people putting down gays in this
string manages any other Digital employees, some of whom might be gay
(and you probably won't know, since only a small percentage of
gays are actually out).  I sincerely hope that none of the people
putting down gays in this string works with or sells to our customers,
10% of whom are probably gay.

I hope that none of the people who tell us they do not value
diversity manages or sells or works with customers, who are a diverse
bunch, and may not take respond well to not being valued.

	MKV

    I was going to stay out of this fray, but what the hey.
    
    I personally could not care less whether someone is gay, straight, bi,
    or anything else.
    
    I do believe very strongly, however, that sexuality does not belong in
    the workplace.  (Nor does religion or politics for that matter.)  Why
    not?  Here's an example of a real-life discussion I had with a low
    level people manager about a group photo taken at the conclusion of a
    development program.  The photo was taken with a wide-angle lense and
    unfortunately I ended up in the middle of the picture.  Even more
    unfortunately,  I forgot my jacket at home.
    
    Me:  So do you want to publish this photo, or the one of the
    technical team?
    
    Manager (Young, sensitive, male of the 90s -- recent father to his
    firstborn, a daughter):  Aw, geez, will ya look at those tits.
    
    
    The fact is, people will be people -- many of them are prejudiced, rude
    and insensitive by nature. I could have taken this to personnel, but
    what would that have accomplished?  In all likelihood, my career would
    have been damaged far more than his.  And all the seminars and booths and
    everything else about not discriminating against women in the workplace
    have done nothing to change people's beliefs.  They can't even shut their
    stupid mouths. 
    
    My suggestion to everyone is to keep their personal beliefs and
    practices at home.  Not because there is something wrong with you --
    because there is something wrong with them.

    re: .493
    
    Sexual harassment in the workplace has nothing to do with ones
    sexuality or personal life.  A person could never say *anything*
    personal about him or herself and still be the victim of sexual
    harassment.
    
    I do agree that if this was the first instance of sexual harassment
    between you and this manager, then it wouldn't necessarily be
    appropriate to take it to personnel.  However, it might be wise for you
    to document the incident.  You have no way of knowing if this is a
    one-time comment or something that will develop into a pattern.  Also,
    it might be good if you can discuss this incident with this manager,
    explain to him why his comment was offensive and inappropriate.
    
    You are right that seminars that attempt to educate people about not
    discriminating or not sexual harassing people do little to change
    beliefs.  However, in the case of sexual harassment, there are Federal
    laws to protect people against this.
    
    In the case of l/g/b people, there are random State laws that protect
    against discrimination, but no Federal law.  And no, laws won't change
    attitudes.
    

    Hey .494 .....assuming you are a female, you should have gone to
    Personnel and pushed hard on this turkey.  To make that kind of
    statement in your presence is a pure form of sexual harassment.
    
    It might cost this sensitive, young, 90's male (whatever the hell
    that means), but he'd learn an important lesson early in his career.

    Hey .495,  
    
    Based on previous experiences, it would have cost *my* career far more 
    than his.  This time around (I've now been harrassed 3 times in working
    environments -- not necessarily at DEC -- and once by a doctor), I
    was older, wiser and tougher.  Although shocked when it happened, I was 
    not so shocked that I couldn't call him on it right then and there.  My 
    only regret is that I didn't come down harder on him...like with a 2x4.
    
    But my point was that, imho, tolerating any kind of focus on sexuality
    in the workplace serves to encourage thinking about it and acting on
    it -- for better *or* worse.
    
    I had long since forgotten this and other incidents until this note and 
    last weeks hearings reminded me.

    
    
    It's been brought to my attention that I have become some sort of a 
    'focus for discussion' at the local gay rights event!
    
    
    Perhaps someone would care to enlighten me on what makes me so
    interesting. 
    And perhaps if those of you who know me so well would care to actually
    ask me my opinion, instead of guessing who I am from my few notes,
    then you might be able to at least carry on an informed discussion.
    
    Harrassment? I hate the word. I'm SICK of the word, but it is SOOOOOO
    damned interesting how its OK for someone to ask a co-worker of mine
    "how can you SIT by her?" based on my entries in THIS notes conference.
    
    You demand that we "get to know 'me' as a person and don't pre judge
    me."  But based soley on entries in some notes where I THOUGHT people
    were encouraged to share their opinions, I have been judged. There is
    NOT ONE OF YOU who knows me., but please feel free to send me mail
    if there is something you'd like to verify before your
    next meeting.
    
    I am honoured, I'm sure. 
    
    
    
    

    Re .477:
    
    > How would you?

    People here have stated they are offended by this activity.  It is much
    more likely that there were a few at MRO that were offended than there
    were none.  Further, I have not made a blanket statement that people
    definitely were offended as Tim Grady made a blanket statement that
    there were none.  You have now admitted that there is at least a
    possibility people were offended.  Digital's "Valuing Difference"
    program failed to value these people.
    
    
    > Change that to all human beings and we have something, huh?

    Yeah, change that to all human beings, and you would have something. 
    That's one of the complaints I have made:  That Digital's program does
    NOT value all human beings.  So the program does not have something; it
    has nothing.
    
    
    				-- edp   

    Getting this .x00 is a dubious distinction in this string...  I've
    changed my personal_name in "honor" of the occasion...
    
    :-)

    Re .486:
    
    > I believe I did say 'to the best of my knowledge'.
    
    Oh, yes, in a separate paragraph, about a separate statement, you said
    it was to the best of your knowledge.  And the truth is that about how
    many people were offended, you have no knowledge.  Your statement was
    nothing more than an empty facade.
    
    > I sincerely doubt it would have gone unnoticed in THIS audience.
    
    People have already stated their offense at this activity.
    
    > Please, stop wasting our time with semantic rhetoric - try to
    > concentrate  on the point, not the wording.
    
    The wording has NOTHING to do with this.  I am not complaining about
    the words you used to make your preposterous statement; I am
    complaining about the statement itself and the total insensitivity
    toward other human beings the statement displayed.
    
    The truth is that while pressing for people to stop doing things that
    offend you, you are doing something that very probably offends other
    people.  It is this refusal to treat other people as you ask them to
    treat you that is intolerance and that Digital should not support.
    
    > ...and I am no more clairvoyant than you are, so just how do you know
    > that you run the ONLY true Valuing Differences notes file?
    
    Okay, I only know that I run the only ANNOUNCED conference for
    discussion of all differences -- I follow the announcements and have
    read the list more than once.  Do you suppose somebody's operating a
    secret conference in a dark closet somewhere?  Can you explain to me
    how a secret conference could be open to everybody, as a conference for
    all differences would have to be, and as Digital's policy requires?
    
    > Why do you care?  Why does it bother you?
    
    I have been explaining this since I entered this topic.  It bothers me
    because I do not want Digital attempting to change my beliefs.  Yes,
    THIS time the beliefs being advanced -- that homosexuality is
    acceptable and even ordinary -- are in accord with my beliefs.  But,
    firstly, it might not be that way next time.  Next time, Digital might
    be promoting something unethical.  I object to this form of propaganda
    not because I disagree with its message, but because I disagree with
    its methods.  And, secondly, there are other people who do not agree
    with me about homosexuality.  They have different beliefs, and I
    tolerate that, and I think Digital should tolerate it also.  I do not
    agree with those people, but I stand up for their right to have their
    own beliefs, free of undue influence from their employer.
    
    It bothers me because I do not want to be targeted for proselytization
    when I want to relax and eat.  It bothers me because Digital is
    promoting intolerance.
    
    > If you choose to decline, as you have every right to, then at least
    > have the common courtesy to refrain from ridiculing those who choose
    > NOT to keep their heads firmly planted where the sun never shines.
    
    Well, that excludes you.  I will NOT refrain from complaining about
    this.  You continually fail to see the point.  You end your note with
    railing against homophobes, thus proving once again you have ignored
    me, stuck to your prejudiced beliefs, and failed to understand the
    issues I have raised.  I have NEVER supported homophobia.  I have NEVER
    opposed homosexuality.  The issue most important to me is tolerance for
    all people, which Digital is not promoting.
    
    No matter how much you think you are right or how much you think
    homosexuality should be valued, taking advantage of Digital's
    relationship with its employees to push your values is not tolerance;
    it is intolerance.
                                         
    
    				-- edp

| Harrassment? I hate the word. I'm SICK of the word, but it is SOOOOOO
| damned interesting how its OK for someone to ask a co-worker of mine
| "how can you SIT by her?" based on my entries in THIS notes conference.

	It really stinks, doesn't it? To have been labeled, tried and
convicted, all before anyone ever got to know you. Just think, the word
Pitt makes people gringe, they get angry, say things that can be demeaning
towards you, all by basing it on some notes that were entered. Not ever
looking at the person. How does it feel? Now, can you see how wrong it is to
feel that way? This is one of the things that this awareness day was going to
be dealing with. Get to know the person, forget the label. Imagine if everyone
did that? 




Glen

| You have now admitted that there is at least a
| possibility people were offended.  Digital's "Valuing Difference"
| program failed to value these people.

	Like you said, you can't force them to. That's why it was voluntary.
But, one has to ask themselves just why they are offended? If it is based on
the fact that they are looking at the label and not the people, is that really
right? Why is it so hard to look at each individual? No one ever said you're
gonna like everyone, but if you look at each person for who they are and not
what you feel they are, things would come along a lot better in the "getting
along with others" part of our lives.

| > Change that to all human beings and we have something, huh?

| Yeah, change that to all human beings, and you would have something.
| That's one of the complaints I have made:  That Digital's program does
| NOT value all human beings.  So the program does not have something; it
| has nothing.

	Is it that they don't value all human beings or that all human beings
don't value each other? People have been upset about this meeting because of
the word gay. They have formed their own opinions on this subject, but never
went out to see if they were true or not. If they had they would have found the
fears they have towards gays really shouldn't be there. A lot of the things
people have stated in here have been nothing more than following the
stereotypes, following what is believed to be the mainstream way of thinking.
There has been no fact to back up what they are saying and when asked none is
provided. The bottom line is this, I don't know how many times I've said it or
will say it in the future, but get to know each person as a person. This goes
for everyone, not just between straight and gays. 



Glen

    	I'm afraid many people in here aren't quite getting the
    point EDP is trying to make.  You see, EDP is anything but a
    homophobe.  In fact, for all we know, he could even be gay!
    His point in pressing this issue here is not because he has
    anything against homosexuality per se.

    	On the contrary, if you haven't figured it out by now, you
    should learn that EDP is a man of unbending principles who
    apparently has his own long term goals for radically changing
    the way the VoD program is run, along with various other things
    which he feels are wrong with Digital in general (some of which
    probably even need changing - who knows?).

    	In the process of attempting to change things, he has hopped
    on what at first appeared to be a fast moving homophobic bandwagon
    (this note string) in order to garner support for his overall cause
    for change at Digital.  Unfortunately for him, this bandwagon has
    since become stuck in the very mud that was created by all of the
    furor, and despite his attempts to whip the horses, the bandwagon
    won't seem to budge an inch from the mud puddle.

    				    -davo

p.s.    My advice to EDP is to find a better mode of transporation
    	(i.e. something a little more modern perhaps?).		;^)

.504 pretty much sums it up to me. For some of us, the VoD program seems
to have some problems. I and others have sucessfully pointed out some of
them in regards to the G/B/L issues and stand accused of being homophobes
and other sorts of nonsense.

Some of the responses almost seem to say (gaspingly) "Blasphemer! You
dare to accuse the Valuing Difference program of making mistakes??"

Yes I do. As I stated before, the goals are noble but the implementation
lacks.

Does anyone have the name/mailstop of the person in charge of the VoD
program at DEC?

Thanks-

Lee

    
    
    re .505
    
    Ok, so SOME of you know me  :-)
    
    thanks!

I'd like to present a few comments based on what I have observed in this
discussion.  It would appear that albeit the topic of homosexuality has been
brought out into the open for everyone's "awareness", nobody has had a change
of heart.  Correct?  I would be surprised to know if there are any converts
on either side of the fence who before reading these notes was of a particular
mindset and has sense changed their mind as a consequence of what has been
said.  Noting the possiblity that only a very small number of people indeed
changed their minds, what has been accomplished?  Some noters seem to have a
propensity for arguing for the pure sake of argument alone,  badgering others
for "facts" when they themselves offer nothing more than opinion.

My guess is that few if any are unaware of the existence of homosexuals within
the workforce at DEC.  From my standpoint there is no need to make me "aware"
of something I already know.  I further contend as I have maintained in the
past that the insistence on the part of VoD and DECplus to advertise homosexual
values goes beyond that of "awareness".

Doesn't DEC already maintain a policy which states that ALL employees have a
right to a work environment free from harassment?  Then again I ask, why the
persistence of the VoD personnel to "educate" the workforce with regard to
homosexuality?  This policy rightfully demands that as DEC employees we
tolerate and respect one another as fellow workers.  But, it is ludicrous to
presume that individuals can be forced to accept values which are contrary to
their own.  When managers and supervisors are required to attend VoD
training classes which include homosexual acceptance, and when outspoken
opponents of homosexuality are asked (I was corrected by one of my colleagues
who felt that this should also be stated "required") to also attend these same
training seminars, VoD has gone beyond that of just bringing about awareness. 
The futile philosophy that through VoD sponsored events (like those occurring
within DEC throughout the month of October) minds will somehow be likened to
one another is preposterous.  Furthermore, the attempt to force such philosophy
can result in nothing more than what has occurred in this notes conference.

To bolster my claim, allow me to inject this fact.  There is a national
movement by homosexuals to introduce legislation at the city and state levels
which is aimed at granting them special rights.  Currently Hawaii, Wisconsin
and Massachusetts (I'm not sure if there are any others, yet) have instituted
such laws.  Recent attempts at the state level in Colorado have failed.  Also,
two attempts were made just recently to pass an ordinance in Colorado Springs.
The last attempt resulted in hundreds of Christians and concerned citizens
uniting vocally and politically to successfully bring about the demise of this
ordinance.  In addition, the city's human relations commission which was acting
as a puppet for homosexual interests was nearly abolished.  

Now, my point is this; do you think that people are suddenly jumping up and
saying something like "Hey, let's pick on homosexuals!" just out of the blue? 
Do you think that over 500 notes have been generated on this topic within
the last 2-3 weeks simply because people suddenly got the urge?  NO!  It is
happening because homosexuals are going out of their way to make themselves
known and demanding acceptance in the process.  In an unorthodox manner,
Newton's law of physics is applicable: Wherever there is an action, you can
expect a reaction in the opposite direction.  

If VoD truly represented ALL values I would expect it to include, among other
beliefs, Christian principles (and yes, use quotes from the Bible).  And if
VoD's practices were equally applicable to all, then those who vociferously
objected to Christian awareness would be, for example, required to attend Bible
study training classes.  If this were to happen, you could be assured that
there would be a rebellious uprising like you wouldn't believe!

I don't know who coined the phrase, "You can lead a horse to water but you
can't force it to drink.",  but I do know the statement was made a long time
ago and it still applies today.  


Dwight
    

So far, I've refrained from writing a reply to this note. I'm not gay, but
I don't care who I work with is. And a table as described is less disturbing
to me than walking by a conference room with a blood drive going on inside.
(PLEASE, NO comments on the worth of a blood drive. Medical things make
me queasy. You don't even have to value this difference; just don't start
another rathole.)

Some of the replies have demonstrated that events like this have their value.
However, the people who need to learn the most will not attend, and I agree
that we shouldn't force anyone to attend.

But we have the argument that some people are offended by others asking them
not to be offended! From .509, by edp:
  
>    The truth is that while pressing for people to stop doing things that
>    offend you, you are doing something that very probably offends other
>    people.  It is this refusal to treat other people as you ask them to
>    treat you that is intolerance and that Digital should not support.
 
It would offend Nazis (and some Christians) to have a table explaining Jewish
observances. Does this mean we should end such VoD activities?
Some people seem to be asking us to value the fact that they are offended by
other people. This, I cannot accept. I can accept people who want to be accepted
for who the are, when that is not something that is hurting others.
I cannot value bigotry. I cannot value murder. I can value people who are 
homosexual for what they can contribute to the company, and to humanity.

I wish I had time to make this clearer.

Steve Kovner 

    re: .506
    
>>Does anyone have the name/mailstop of the person in charge of the VoD
>>program at DEC?
    
    The World Wide Valuing Diversity Manager for DEC is
    
    MEMIT::ABERDALE (Liz)
    
    The US Valuing Diversity Manager for DEC is
    
    ICS::AARONSON (Susan)

When I worked for a division of Johnson & Johnson, most of the people in the
R&D department where I worked were gay.  They were not only gay but they were
open and quite militant towards those of us who were not gay.  They were always
telling us graphic descriptions of their sexual exploits the night before just
to watch the shock on our faces. Occasionally the guys would try to pinch us in
the rear as they walked by, or ask us if we wanted to go out for a beer at some
of the gay bars in Boston. Management was was either oblivious to what was
going on or knew and just didn't care. I left J&J as soon as I could find
another job, but the memories will always remain with me. 

I realize that many of the people in Digital are gay/lesbian and it doesn't
bother me that they are.  As long as they don't let their sexual preferences
get in the way of Digital business or infringe upon others rights not to be
gay, then that is OK.  However, I do not think Digital should be in the
business of promoting gay/lesbianism or encouraging them to come out of the
closet. If Digital insists upon doing this every year, then I demand an "MRO
Straight and Proud of it!" day for the rest of us.  

Jim

re:.512

	All your story proves is that being a homosexual does not prevent
anyone from being a jerk.  There's lots of evidence that heterosexuality
isn't a cure for this affliction either.

re: all the others

	Those of you from the 'leave it at home' camp seem to forget that
business often brings social obligations as well.  When I worked for (now
defunct) Internal Software Services [ISWS], there was at least one event a
year to which spouses/guests were invited.  We were expected to attend.
Why shouldn't people be able to bring same-sex partners?  Then there are the
holiday gatherings that many groups hold.  Spouses/friends were always
encouraged.

        When my cost center (two cc's ago now, I think) went through the
Valuing Differences sessions at our monthly meetings (over 5 months I believe),
anyone who wished to be excused from those portions of the meetings was
welcome to walk without penalty.  Several people did.  I don't see that as
'forcing' it down anyone's throat.  Your mileage may differ.

        There's a difference between saying "I disapprove of witchcraft" and
quoting "suffer not a witch to live."  Several folks seem to have a tough time
making this distinction.

        The long-lamented water coolers probably cost DEC more per year than
these events combined.  We're not going to solve our expense problems but
prohibiting a table in or near the cafeteria.

        I guess I'm not as sensitive as some folks in here, because I can
tolerate being displaced from my customary lunch table once in a while.  And
I can safely ignore groups who put out literature I don't wish to peruse.  I
can see VoD activities as a chance to put myself in someone else's shoes and
not believe that it's an evil corporate brainwashing attempt.  I can complain
and deal with what bothers me, and not claim to be offended on behalf of
someone else.  Maybe that's an advantage of being a white, (upper?) middle-
class, agnostic, hetrosexual male. I'm sitting in the middle of the default
view of the world.  And I'm not even particularly PC...

        Promoting homosexuality?  I have to agree with Steve on that one.
Maybe I should see if I can get a free travel coffe mug if I sign up for
more information, just like I did from DEC from requesting more info on
VMS V5.

					--Doug

    Re .503:
    
    >> You have now admitted that there is at least a possibility people
    >> were offended.  Digital's "Valuing Difference" program failed to value
    >> these people.
    
    >	Like you said, you can't force them to.
    
    I apologize, but that sentence does not make sense to me.  Would you
    please tell me what the antecedent of "them" is and complete the
    elliptic phrase beginning with "to"?
    
    > If it is based on the fact that they are looking at the label and not
    > the people, is that really right?
    
    You are missing the point.  Some people are offended neither by the
    labels nor the people -- some people are offended by the concepts being
    pushed, and other people are just offended by the fact that concepts
    ARE being pushed, even if they agree with those concepts.
    
    > Is it that they don't value all human beings or that all human beings
    > don't value each other?
    
    Digital's "Valuing Difference" program does not value all human beings.
    
    > People have been upset about this meeting because of the word gay.
    
    Wrong!  There are many reasons to be upset about this event; you keep
    returning to your prejudice that it has something to do with
    homophobia.  This is NOT the only event I have complained about; the
    others have had nothing to do with homosexuality.  It is the METHOD
    that Digital is using that I disagree with.
    
    If you want to make points about homosexuality and if you want to
    promote your beliefs about it, then you should do it in a forum for
    equal speech; you should NOT do it by taking advantage of Digital's
    relationship with its employees and you should NOT do it while
    employees are seeking relief from the pressures of work.
    
    Stop putting YOUR causes ahead of other people.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .504:
    
    > 	In the process of attempting to change things, he has hopped
    > on what at first appeared to be a fast moving homophobic bandwagon
    > . . .
    
    I never hopped on either side's bandwagon.  It is apparent that many
    people have assumptions (some quite properly called prejudices) that
    lead them to believe there are only two sides to opinions about
    "awareness days".  The problem with trying to present a third view is
    that too many people are locked into the idea that if you contradict
    them in any way, you must be on the "other" side.  The "Valuing
    Differences" program hardly needs to tell ME anything about prejudices,
    given that I am so often in the EXTREME minority of people who are in
    NEITHER the majority nor the leading minorities.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .510:
    
    > But we have the argument that some people are offended by others
    > asking them not to be offended!
    
    Wrong!  The offense is not that others are _asking_ them not to be
    offended, but that they are taking advantage of Digital's relationship
    with its employees to push their beliefs on people and that they are
    proselytizing at a time when people ought to be left alone.
    
    It is perfectly fine if somebody wants to _ask_ people not to be
    offended, if it is done in any of a variety of acceptable ways: 
    bulletin boards, Notes conferences, meetings in conference rooms, et
    cetera.  I would support equal access to these methods of communication
    for everybody.
    
    It is the _method_ of "asking" here that is offensive, not the asking
    itself.
    
    > It would offend Nazis (and some Christians) to have a table
    > explaining Jewish observances. Does this mean we should end such VoD
    > activities?
    
    Yes.  I have already said I don't want any such activities at lunch
    time.
    
    > I cannot value bigotry. I cannot value murder. I can value people who
    > are  homosexual for what they can contribute to the company, and to
    > humanity.
    
    Ah, note the change in your phrase in the last sentence.  You say you
    cannot value bigotry or murder, but then you say you can value PEOPLE
    who are homosexual -- you did not say you valued homosexuality.  You
    embraced the people, not the homosexuality.  Similarly, you can value
    people with different beliefs from yours even if you do not value their
    beliefs.  This is tolerance.  Let other people be, even if you disagree
    with their beliefs.
    
    
    				-- edp

	Bubba, my point exactly. Two wrongs don't make a right. She (PITT) can
now see what happens from the other side of the table.



Glen

re: .515,
    
>    > 	In the process of attempting to change things, he has hopped
>    > on what at first appeared to be a fast moving homophobic bandwagon
>    > . . .
    
>    I never hopped on either side's bandwagon.  It is apparent that many
>    people have assumptions (some quite properly called prejudices) that
>    lead them to believe there are only two sides to opinions about
>    "awareness days".

    	I submit that you have hitched your anti-VoD bandwagon to
    the homophobia bandwagon which is present in this notes string.
    In this sense, you have hopped on the homophobia bandwagon in an
    attempt to win unwitting supporters for your anti-VoD cause.

>    The problem with trying to present a third view is
>    that too many people are locked into the idea that if you contradict
>    them in any way, you must be on the "other" side.

    	Metaphores aside for a momment, you have proven my point yet
    again.  Your own words in this quote state quite clearly that you
    have yet a third agenda (or "view" as you put it) which you are
    trying to promote in this note string.  I submit that your "third
    view" is solely to eliminate and/or change the VoD program, and has
    little to do with the actual GLB Awareness Day event at MRO in
    itself.  By doing so, it would appear that you are attempting to
    stir up support for your anti-VoD campaign fueled by the controversy
    surrounding one particular instance of a VoD event (which is the
    topic of this particular note string).

    	By cloaking your efforts to change the overall VoD program
    by entering them as anti-GLB Awareness Day notes as you have done,
    you have unfairly singled-out one particular VoD group.  I suggest
    you start another topic regarding the VoD program in general as it
    is not fair to single out one particular VoD event or group as being
    the cause of all VoD-related problems and overall VoD program
    imperfections (assuming there are some).

    				-davo

    
    
    re .517
    
    you know...you really oughta reread the last 515 notes. 
    I want to know first of all where SHE(PITT) can now see what
    happens from the other side of the table.  
    
    I'm not whining to personnel. 
    
    I think it is VERY interesting how everything anyone says to you is 
    turned around to like like "well YOU said, then SHE said, then I said"
    
    Can't you see that my POINT in my last note was that if *YOU* feel
    harrassed, then why do *YOU* feel that you can harrass me and not
    understand why *I* should sit still and take it? 
    
    This sounds like "mommy he hit me first". 
    
    My notes were not intended to HARRASS ANYONE. They were simply intended
    to present AN OPINION, maKE a point that would hopefully make people
    THINK.  But instead, if the first two lines of any note does not
    reflect someones eagerness to embrase YOUR differEnce, then you read the
    rest of their note with your red pencil in hand, ready to jump back in
    their faces with your "see I was right" attitude.
    
    I don't know you. You don't know me. Since you have NO FREAKING idea
    of what I REALLY THINK, then you have no right assuming that now '*I*
    can see what happens from the other side of the table.'
    Just what 'other side of the table are you talking about'? Why do you
    insist on polarizing people?
    
    maybe the difference from 'MY side of the table' is that *I* will
    approach the problem head on, and when details become available, I will
    attack the problem one to one, and not through some big brother
    medium.  Or maybe I will simply consider the source and blow it off for
    what its worth. NOTHING. 
    
    And by the way, you who are so wise in the ways of life, PLEASE POINT
    OUT EXACTLY WHAT IN ANY OF MY ENTRIES IN THIS NOTE EXACTLY WHAT THE
    H*LL WAS SO DAMNED 'WRONG', AND I WILL BE GLAD TO DISCUSS THOSE POINTS
    WITH YOU.. PERHAPS WITH SOME HELPFUL HINTS, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO LOOK
    BEYOND *YOUR* OWN PREDJUCES AND SEE THINGS AS THEY ARE, OR WERE MEANT
    TO BE. 
    
    SHE(PITT)
    

    Hey folks we're all on the same team here. Digital. Good people with 
    differing viewpoints. Can we please stop calling each other names? 
    
    Thank you. 
    
    

re: .519,

.518> I submit that you have hitched your anti-VoD bandwagon to
.518> the homophobia bandwagon which is present in this notes string.

.519>    STOP! STOP!  STOP!   I am so  I N C R E D I B L Y  sick and tired of
.519>    this "homophobia" feces that I could scream!!!  My God!!!!!  Just
.519>    because people have an O-P-I-N-I-O-N which may differ from what you, or
.519>    I, may agree with, THEY ARE NOT, READ MY LIPS, N-O-T "homophobic"!!!!
.519>                                                   -------------------

    	Ok then, tell me what is the current term du jour I should be
    using for fear of / disgust towards / and/or hatred of homosexuality
    and/or homosexuals and I promise to use that word instead.  If homophobia
    is no longer an acceptable term, then please educate me.
        
.519>    This is going to drive me to distraction!!!  Why in the name of <insert
.519>    deity> is someone "homophobic" just because they happen to have an
.519>    opinion which is divergent from yours or mine!

    	I don't know why other people are homophobic.  I know one reason
    why *I* am (or at least used to be) homophobic, but I can't speak for
    others.  I do however know that homophobia does indeed exist.
    
.519>    Look up the definition of the word!!!!!!  Join reality!!!!! Take off
.519>    the "PC" glasses!!!!!
    
    	So, who's being "PC" here exactly?  Like I said above, if
    there is a more politically correct term I should be using for
    the phenomenon I refer to as "homophobia", then please enlighten
    me and I will try and use that term instead.

    				    -davo

    
    re .522
    
    
    davo.
    
    I would prefer to use the term 'conservative'.
    or even 'old fashioned'.
    or 'square' if you like.
    
    a PHOBIA implies an irrational persistant fear.
    
    I would agree with 'a lack of willingness to accept', but certainly not
    an irrational fear.  
    
    But there is no need to worry anyways.  I remember when I was young my
    mom telling me how disgusting it was for a black person to be dating a
    white person and how the children would certainly suffer in school, and
    the children certainly DID suffer in school.  But, for the most part,
    we've come past that (I said for the most part-->no rat holes please).
    Mixed marriages are even on TV! So society grows. Things change. Not
    everyone changes as easily as others. And for those people the approach
    should be one a gentle understanding instead of militant shoving. 
    For every action there is an equal REaction. So the harder YOU push,
    the harder back 'I'LL' push.
    
    But don't tell people that they don't like you because they are
    irrationally afraid of you.  Think of the things that YOU don't like
    and assume that there is a group of folks out there trying to tell you
    that you are being irrational. Beastiality comes to mind since so many
    folks reacted so negativley about what they precieved to be a
    comparison between homosexuality and beastiality. The reactions
    demonstated (to me at least) that EVERYONE has a 'limit' where X is
    acceptable and Y is not. Thankfully, most people can agree on MOST
    things. But while your 'limit' maybe X, mine may be Y. We should be
    able to appreciate that and not assume 'an irrational fear'.
    
    *IF* (:-) I was into beastiality (which I am not just for the record!!)
    I would, by the tone set it earlier notes, be offended by the comments
    that implied that that was sick and deviat and unnatural. I would be
    able to say that your hatred of my lifestyle(?) was a phobia because
    you didn't take the time to come get to know me as a person.
    I would call you close minded and insist that your comments constituted
    harrassment as described in policies and procedures under 'sexual
    orientation'. 
    (I'm really trying to make a point here so don't get all wound up in
    how I'm comparing your sexual orientation with beastiality...)
    
    You can substitue 'wife swapping' in the example if you like.
    I'm simply pointing out a 'sexual orientation' that is outside of the
    'comfort zone' (ugh!) of the majority of people in this company.
    
    This would ONLY prove that people are even MORE diverse than we can
    fully appreciate. And knowing that, it should not be difficult for
    anyone to understand that we ALL have our own 'line' on what is
    acceptable to us and what isn't. It doesn't make anyone bad or worse
    than anyone else. It just makes us differant. That will NEVER change.
       
    And a side note for those of you out there who have already decided
    that you have me all figured out, did I ever tell you about my room
    mate and absolute best ever friend in the Navy who was a lesbian? And
    how I lied my A** off in a formal Navy investigation to save her
    from being kicked out?? Not because I agreed with her 'lifestyle', not
    because I accepted her sexual orientation, but because I cared about
    her deeply as a great friend. (This isn't a 'pat me on the back' story.
    I'm just trying to make you see that most people in this conference
    aren't as 'black and white' as you make it seem. But most of us like to
    make choices, friends, decisions, changes, based on our OWN experiences
    and in our OWN time, and not on the timetable of someone else, under
    the threat of retribution if we don't 'come around' according to your
    schedule.) 
    
    It would appear that we are ALL stubborn here. Maybe that's why we're
    good at what we do.
    Enough rambling. It's late. 
    
    She(PITT)  <--I kinda like it! and it gets my husband off the hook!

    
    
    ref .524
    
    Bubba (Sir)  ;-),
    
    I don't think that "I don't like to be around homosexuals" demonstrates
    homophobia (an irrational FEAR of homosexuals) anymore than
    "I don't like to eat ice cream" demonstrates an irrational fear of
    ice cream. 
    
    Maybe some people just flat don't LIKE to be around XYZ. 
    Maybe some people DO have an irrational fear of XYZ.
    Maybe some people just like have their own personal likes and dislikes
    based on their own valid or invalid reasons.
    
    It's been said over and over in this string, live and let live.
    I believe that that applies to ALL of us.
     
    She(PITT)   ararar
    

    	Mr. Bubba --
    
    	You are right on the money.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

re: last few,

    	I appreciate the mellowing of decibal levels...  ;^)

    	As to my definition of homophobia, well, I already sort of
    defined it from my perspective anyway, and I should thank you for
    adding the one adjective I simply took for granted ("irrational").

    	As to identifying specific "homophobic" replies to this note,
    I think you can safely include every single note in this string to a
    certain extent.  Why?  Because I see a certain amount of fear woven
    into every single note in this string (including even the notes entered
    by GLB's).  There is a fear of being ostracized, a fear of being exposed,
    a fear of being lonely, a fear of being unloved, a fear of losing control,
    a fear of being converted, a fear of God, a fear of the Devil, a fear of
    those who believe in God and the Devil, and last but not least, a fear
    of discovering some hidden truth about one's own self.  These are all
    homophobic fears, and these fears are guaranteed to exist in every mental
    process and in every work situation in which the subject arises until
    such time that people - as a society - can begin to deal with these
    fears rationally.  Until then, they will remain most definitely and
    most assuredly - irrational.

    	Why do I know these fears exist?  Because I feel as though I
    have opened my mind enough to try and understand but I have to admit
    that I don't always understand.  You see, I too suffer from the affliction
    of "homophobia", and as a "liberal" who is supposedly immune to such
    afflictions, I can only guess that there must be alot more people
    out there who also suffer from this affliction as well.  As such, I
    look forward to a GLB event at LKG someday so that I might gather up
    enough courage to go over and check it out.

    				   -davo

It seems all the G/L/B posters in this note are suffering from
heterophobia.

Lee

    Re .518:
    
    > 	I submit that you have hitched your anti-VoD bandwagon to
    > the homophobia bandwagon which is present in this notes string.

    And with what do you submit this conjecture?  I never said anything to
    support homophobia.  Just because I and somebody else both want a
    certain display not to be made does not mean I agree with them on
    anything else.
    
    > By doing so, it would appear that you are attempting to stir up
    > support for your anti-VoD campaign fueled by the controversy
    > surrounding one particular instance of a VoD event (which is the topic
    > of this particular note string).
    
    This is nonsense.  My opinions in this matter are NOT related to this
    one particular instance; I have expressed similar opinions elsewhere in
    regard to other events.
    
    > By cloaking your efforts to change the overall VoD program by
    > entering them as anti-GLB Awareness Day notes as you have done, you
    > have unfairly singled-out one particular VoD group.
    
    This is more bull.  None of my notes have EVER cited anything about
    homosexuality as a reason for opposing awareness days; ALL of my notes
    have been equally applicable to any of the garbage produced by the
    "Valuing Differences" program.  Therefore, it is a lie to say I have
    singled out one particular group.  I have repeatedly mentioned other
    examples (Christmas carols in the halls at ZK, videotapes played in the
    cafeteria) and analogies (Christians versus Muslims).
    
    The truth is that I have objected to this proselytization of employees
    before, on other issues, in writing, and it is a lie to say I have
    picked out any one issue when I have not.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Isn't there something productive and meaningful that could benefit
    from the energies displayed in this topic?
    
    	- andy

Re:  Note 1616.514  by BEING::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."

>    > People have been upset about this meeting because of the word gay.
>    
>    Wrong!...

Re:  Note 1616.516  by BEING::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."

>    > But we have the argument that some people are offended by others
>    > asking them not to be offended!
>    
>    Wrong!...

Why does EDP always think he can answer for the whole noting community?

-  David

| It seems all the G/L/B posters in this note are suffering from
| heterophobia.

	Fear of heterosexuals? Nah..... no fear here! :-) 



Glen

re: .529,

>    > 	I submit that you have hitched your anti-VoD bandwagon to
>    > the homophobia bandwagon which is present in this notes string.

>    And with what do you submit this conjecture?  I never said anything to
>    support homophobia.  

    	I did not say you supported homophobia, I claimed that you were
    harnessing the homophobic ferver stirred-up in notes string to push
    for an end (or at least radical change to) the VoD program.

>    This is nonsense.  My opinions in this matter are NOT related to this
>    one particular instance; I have expressed similar opinions elsewhere in
>    regard to other events.

    	Expressing similar opinions elsewhere in regard to other events
    only indicates that you have used this same technique elsewhere.

>    This is more bull.  None of my notes have EVER cited anything about
>    homosexuality as a reason for opposing awareness days; ALL of my notes
>    have been equally applicable to any of the garbage produced by the
>    "Valuing Differences" program.  Therefore, it is a lie to say I have
>    singled out one particular group.  I have repeatedly mentioned other
>    examples (Christmas carols in the halls at ZK, videotapes played in the
>    cafeteria) and analogies (Christians versus Muslims).

    	I never said you EVER cited anything about homosexuality as
    a reason for opposing awareness days.  Had you done so, it might even
    belong in this note string.  Instead, you have used the emotional energy
    which has accompanied the discussion of GLB Awareness Day to garner
    support for your anti-VoD cause.

    	Once again, I do not criticize you for wanting to change the VoD
    program.  What I am criticizing is your attempt to do so in a note
    which is not intended for general VoD discussions.  By choosing to
    stage your anti-VoD debate in notes which address a single minority
    VoD event in particular, you unfairly single out that minority.
    
>    The truth is that I have objected to this proselytization of employees
>    before, on other issues, in writing, and it is a lie to say I have
>    picked out any one issue when I have not.

    	By your own words above, you apparently single out other VoD
    groups as well in your anti-VoD campaign.  Why can't you start a
    separate note for the discussion of VoD program in general?

    				   -davo

    Re .531:
    
    > Why does EDP always think he can answer for the whole noting
    > community?
    
    In the second of your examples, the author I said was wrong was
    directly describing my argument.  They EXPLICITLY, by note number,
    referred to a note of mine and said about it ". . . we have the
    argument that . . .".  They said they were describing my argument, but
    their description was incorrect, so I am perfectly entitled to call
    them wrong.
    
    The first argument was not so direct, but it is similar.  Further, the
    author's claim is spurious -- without grounds and meant only to
    polarize.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .534:
    
    > 	I did not say you supported homophobia, I claimed that you were
    > harnessing the homophobic ferver stirred-up in notes string to push
    > for an end (or at least radical change to) the VoD program.

    This is still bull.  I have done NOTHING to "harness" any "ferver".  I
    have not bridled it or led it in any direction.  I have made no
    attempts to gain anybody's support BECAUSE they oppose homosexuality.
    
    > What I am criticizing is your attempt to do so in a note
    > which is not intended for general VoD discussions.
    
    Comments about why THIS awareness day should not be held are
    appropriate in this topic even if the comments have a greater
    significance.
    
    > By choosing to stage your anti-VoD debate . . .
    
    I do not choose the stage; I discuss the subject where it arises.
    
    > By your own words above, you apparently single out other VoD groups
    > as well in your anti-VoD campaign.
    
    It is nonsense to say I "single out" "groups".  "Groups" is plural, not
    singular; I cannot be singling out many things.
    
    This puts the lie to your bigoted claims.  You are merely attempting to
    slur me, to put me in a predefined, prejudicial stereotype of somebody
    who opposes minorities.  That is the Politically Correct thing to do,
    to accuse anybody with a criticism of fostering hatred and opposing all
    that is good.  But it is total bull; it is a hatred and an intolerance
    of its own.
    
    You seek to discredit my views by discrediting the person.  That is
    dishonorable.
    
               
    				-- edp

    
    When thou cannot defend, accuse. EDP is correct.

| This puts the lie to your bigoted claims.  You are merely attempting to
| slur me, to put me in a predefined, prejudicial stereotype of somebody
| who opposes minorities.  

	Hey Eric! Why do you always tell us that a some of people lie about you,
that some are bigoted in their claims, yet make a stink when you feel someone
is slurring you?  I have seen a fair share of slurring by you Eric. You have 
called 3 people now that I know of liars and bigots. How many more people will 
this happen to? 

| You seek to discredit my views by discrediting the person.  That is
| dishonorable.

	By calling someone a liar and bigot isn't discrediting? Come on Eric, I
would hope you could see that it is.



Glen

re: .536,

>    > What I am criticizing is your attempt to do so in a note
>    > which is not intended for general VoD discussions.
    
>    Comments about why THIS awareness day should not be held are
>    appropriate in this topic even if the comments have a greater
>    significance.

    	I didn't say your comments were inappropriate, only that it
    is unfair to apply the alledged faults of the entire VoD program
    to the discussion of one particular VoD event.

>    > By your own words above, you apparently single out other VoD groups
>    > as well in your anti-VoD campaign.
    
>    It is nonsense to say I "single out" "groups".  "Groups" is plural, not
>    singular; I cannot be singling out many things.

    	Here are your own words to which I was referring here (from
    your note #1616.529):

.529>    My opinions in this matter are NOT related to this
.529>    one particular instance; I have expressed similar opinions elsewhere in
.529>    regard to other events.

        By this do you mean to say that you have "expressed similar opinions"
    about other VoD groups in other such event-specific notes as this?  Or,
    are you simply refering to the other events you mentioned in this note
    string (i.e. Christmas carols in the halls at ZK, videotapes played in
    the cafeteria, etc.)?

    	After having read close to 45 of your replies to this note on the
    subject, it is obvious that you feel quite strongly about the subject
    of the Valuing of Diversity (VoD) program.  I find it odd however, that
    if you are solely interested in changing the VoD program, that you have
    yet to enter any notes to the more generic VoD notes on the subject in
    this notesfile such as note #981, or even #923, or #1248 (to name a few).

    				   -davo

    Re .538:
    
    > Why do you always tell us that a some of people lie about you, that
    > some are bigoted in their claims, yet make a stink when you feel
    > someone is slurring you?
    
    I have explained already in a previous note:  I avoid initiating
    personal attacks, but I will defend myself from them.  That is my
    right, and it is correct to call somebody who has lied about me a liar.
    
    Example:  I defy you to find anything bad I said about Deb Arch prior
    to her note .382, which insulted me.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .539:
    
    > I didn't say your comments were inappropriate, only that it is unfair
    > to apply the alledged faults of the entire VoD program to the
    > discussion of one particular VoD event.
    
    It is perfectly fair.  Reasons that this event should not be held are
    reason that this event should not be held.  There is no reason this
    event should be excluded from criticism solely because it is one event
    and not the entire program.  It is a part of the program, and it shares
    the faults of the program.
    
    > By this do you mean to say that you have "expressed similar opinions"
    > about other VoD groups in other such event-specific notes as this?
    
    What do you mean by "Vod groups"?  Do you mean groups at various sites,
    such as the MRO group, the ZKO group, et cetera?  Or do you mean a gay,
    lesbian, and bisexual group, a Christian group, et cetera?  Or do you
    mean something else?  I don't think any of my comments have been
    directly at any of these groups distinguished from the general "Valuing
    Differences" program.  This alleged specificity is just in your head. 
    I'm not even sure some of these groupings even exist.
    
    There have been topics in other conferences about these issues -- a
    topic about the appropriateness of religious activity at the office, a
    topic about using the cafeteria as a theater.  In these topics, I have
    objected to subjecting employees to these things.
    
    > . . . you have yet to enter any notes to the more generic VoD notes
    > on the subject in this notesfile such as note #981, or even #923, or
    > #1248 (to name a few).
    
    0) Some of those topics were entered during periods when I could not
       arrange my schedule to give me the time to answer them.
    
    1) None of them discuss "Valuing Difference" events of the sort where
       employees are subjected to propaganda or other offensive material
       or nuisance.
    
    2) None of them are very specific about what "Valuing Difference"
       activities are being discussed.  They were vague conversations and
       did not have specific policies or actions mentioned that I could
       point out as flaws.
    
    3) 1248 is write-locked.
    
    4) The form of reasoning that X did not object to Y on Wednesday,
       therefore the objection is out of order on Thursday is specious.
                                                                       
    
    				-- edp

    
    	A constant bickering in the New_Hampshire, of which EDP (Eric)
    	was a MAJOR contributor, drove me out of that file.  Now it's
    	here.
    

	re: Deb Arch's dismissal of the mere *concept* of PC

	------------------------------------------------------------------

	It Is Now Incorrect to believe that 'PC' Exists

			by George F. Will

	On campuses there is a new tenet in the catechism of
	"political correctness," the enforced orthodoxy  of
	leftism.  The new tenet of political correctness is that
	political correctness does not exist.

	However, if you dare to question this non-existence, if you
	doubt aloud that free expression is uninhibited, you may be harassed 
	on campus, even driven from town, as was Professor Alan Gribben, 
	more about whom anon.

	The Chronicle of Higher Education recently reported the founding
	of "Teachers for a Democratic Culture" an organization of 	
	academics that "denies that left-wing students and academics are
	squelching dissent on college campuses."  That is "misinformation"
	and "distortion" from "right-wing ideologues."   Oh.

	The Chronicle of one week earlier had reported from Tempe, Ariz.:

	"In what has been called 'a classic instance of political
	correctness,' a speech by a Mexican-American woman who served
	in the Reagan administration has been cancelled at Arizona
	State University because of student opposition.

	Linda Chavez was invited to speak about her new book, "Out of
	the Barrio," on Hispanic-American politics and assimilation.  She
	was disinvited because the director of the lecture series
	had not realized that (these are the director's words) Chavez's
	"stand on the issue of bilingualism" is "so controversial among
	minority students."

	A spokesman for the university insisted that Chavez had not been 
	disinvited because she had not really been invited, a contract
	not having been issued.  And the letter disinviting Chaves used the 
	word "cancel":  "The Minority Coalition has requested that we cancel
	this engagement and bring other speakers whose views are more in 
	line with their politics."

	ASU's president urged that she be invited back.  She has been,
	in the politically correct manner -- not to give a speech, but
	to debate.  When politically incorrect people are invited to
	speak, they often are supposed to speak in tandem with a
	corrective person.

	The University of Northern Colorado withdrew its invitation to
	Chavez to give the commencement address.  UNC declared that the
	invitation had been intended as to show "sensitivity to cultural
	diversity" but now seemed "grossly insensitive."  UNC promised
	she would be invited back to be part of a forum.  She has not
	been invited.

	Invitations to her have been withdrawn from Rutgers' Camden, N.J.,
	campus and the StonyBrook campus of the State Univeristy of
	New York.  No one can say at how many colleges considerations of
	political correctness prevent any invitation from being issued.

	The Chronicle page that reported ASU's treatment of Chavez also
	reports this:  "Some professors are planning ways to 
	counter charges that universities have become centers of left-wing
	indoctrination."  Faculty and students at the University of
	Michigan are planning a conference the title of which refutes
	the point of the conference:  "The 'PC' Frame-up: What's
	Behind the Attack."  The title leaves no doubt that this
	conference disputing the reality of political correctness will be
	politically correct.

	Lynne Cheney, chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities,
	recently catalogued some costs of political correctness.  A Harvard
	historian has quit teaching a course on immigration rather than 
	endure more accusations of racism.  He found that to defend
	himself from such smears he would have to record all his classes and 
	conversations with students.  A Michigan professor stopped teaching
	a particular class rather than endure charges of "racial insensitivity"
	when he had students read the portions of Malcolm X's autobiography
	in which Malcolm describes himself as a pimp and a thief.

	Six University of Minnesota professors were charged with sexual
	harassment, their offenses included, says Cheney, "Not greeting
	a student in a friendly enough manner, for example.  Not teaching
	in a sensitive enough way.  Not having read a certain novel."  
	Cheney says these charges were eventually dropped, but not until
	the professors had suffered substantial expenses and pain.

	Alan Gribben has fared worse.

	In the early 1970s he was a student radical at Berkeley.  For 17
	years he taught English at the University of Texas at Austin.
	But this Mark Twain scholar ran afoul of political correctness when
	he voted against a master's level program in Third World
	literature (he favored a doctoral level program).  He was
	denounced as a racist. (His wife is Chinese-American.)

	Then when material with a pronounced left-wing slant was 
	made required reading for a required course in English
	composition, Gribben protested this subordination of instruction
	to political indoctrination.  He was shunned by colleagues, avoided
	by graduate students, effectively expelled from the life of the
	department, denounced as a racist at a campus rally.  He received
	hate mail and anonymous phone calls.

	He now teaches at Auburn University's campus in Montgomery, Ala.  
	You can tell him that political correctness has never existed.
	

    Well, the VD virus is apparent spreading west against prevailing winds.
    Just got a memo this morning announcing a "Recognizing and
    Understanding the L/B/G Differences" presentation here in CXN on 30
    Oct.  Seems we're going to be introduced to the differences in order
    to help us recognize them.  They're even gonna import "consultants"
    (Rick and Stuart) from ZKO to help us.  Suppose that's gonna cost
    DEC a pretty penny.
    
    This 2.5 hour fiasco is for straights only, and will help us recognize,
    understand, accept and value gays.  They even state: "No prior
    knowledge about gay people is assumed."  Isn't that nice??
    
    The agenda calls for role-playing amoung other things.
    
    You can start the name-calling now.
                                       

| > Why do you always tell us that a some of people lie about you, that
| > some are bigoted in their claims, yet make a stink when you feel
| > someone is slurring you?

| I have explained already in a previous note:  I avoid initiating
| personal attacks, but I will defend myself from them.  That is my
| right, and it is correct to call somebody who has lied about me a liar.

	So, to do the things you don't want others to do to you is ok? NOT!



Glen

| Well, the VD virus is apparent spreading west against prevailing winds.

	If you're spreading vd...... ;-)

| Just got a memo this morning announcing a "Recognizing and
| Understanding the L/B/G Differences" presentation here in CXN on 30
| Oct.  Seems we're going to be introduced to the differences in order
| to help us recognize them.  

	Do you plan on attending? 

| This 2.5 hour fiasco is for straights only, 

	It specifically says in the memo that it's for straights only? Can you
post the memo here for us to see?

| and will help us recognize,
| understand, accept and value gays.  

	I guess you won't know unless you go.

| They even state: "No prior
| knowledge about gay people is assumed."  Isn't that nice??

	Well, by some of your previous statements that have been made it would
seem that you would fit into this catagory.

| The agenda calls for role-playing amoung other things.
| You can start the name-calling now.

	Huh? Can you explain this?



Glen

    I dunno how to post something to notes.  I will quote from the memo:
    
        ..."the presentation was specifically set up for heterosexual
            Digital employees."
    
    Seriously, this is so upsetting to me that I find it impossible to
    work.
    
    No, I will not go!  I will stay home that day.

    RE: Dwight Kinney
    
    You mentioned "special privileges" for homosexuals that are now
    found in the laws of Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Hawaii and Connecticut
    (I believe).
    
    What are these "special privileges?"  What do the laws actually say?
    
    ***
    
    RE: difference of opinion
    
    A difference of opinion is one thing.  But a difference of opinion,
    based on lies and/or misinformation, that is shared by a majority
    which can and does *enforce* its opinion is quite another.
    
    If you accept my opinion, you need only deal with what may be 
    uncomfortable thoughts and, on occasion, uncomfortable images.  That
    many do not wish to even discuss *why* they find certain thoughts 
    and images uncomfortable speaks volumes about the levels of homophobia
    in our society, but that's for another discussion...
    
    If I accept *your* opinion, I must deal with discrimination, continued
    fear and hatred and acts of physical violence (all in the name of
    "preserving" the "comfort zone" of "conservatives.").  Say what you
    will about "respecting the rights of gays" - until those rights are
    affirmed in law and respected in spirit, we will remain unequal.
    
    Now, while embracing the right we all have to express our opinions,
    I would appeal to the reason and intelligence of all noters to
    analyze and compare these points of view.
    
    Is your "comfort zone" worth the price g/l/b people are paying to
    maintain it?
    
    /Greg
    

    Could you post here the part on the CXN VD Display that explains how
    they will include the information from the American Psychiatric Assn.
    that believes it's original position on homosexuality as a deviant life
    style was incorrect, the new information from the British "Lancelet"
    which fixes the number of homosexuals at closer to 1%, recognizing the
    error in Kinsey's work as well documented in "Kinsey, Sex and Fraud"
    and the reporting of the significant majority of thought in the United
    States which regards homosexuality as behavioral and not inherited.
    Certainly, there will be representatives of these views and from those
    12-Step programs which are reporting successes in helping people to
    change their homosexual lifestyle.  Certainly all sides of the issue
    will be presented.  Probably even some representative from Govenor
    Wilson's to explain why he felt AB 101 provided "special privlege".
    However, if only heterosexuals may attend, they probably wouldn't be
    interested in this kind of information...

re: .542,
    
.539>	 I didn't say your comments were inappropriate, only that it is unfair
.539>	 to apply the alledged faults of the entire VoD program to the
.539>	 discussion of one particular VoD event.
    
.542>    It is perfectly fair.

    	Fair in terms of noting policies perhaps, but not fair in terms
    of what is noble and honorable.

.539>	 By this do you mean to say that you have "expressed similar opinions"
.539>	 about other VoD groups in other such event-specific notes as this?
    
.542>    What do you mean by "Vod groups"?  Do you mean groups at various sites,
.542>    such as the MRO group, the ZKO group, et cetera?  Or do you mean a gay,
.542>    lesbian, and bisexual group, a Christian group, et cetera?  Or do you
.542>    mean something else?

    	My question asked for you to clarify your statement in note #1616.529:

.529>    My opinions in this matter are NOT related to this
.529>    one particular instance; I have expressed similar opinions elsewhere in
.529>    regard to other events.

    	Now, allow me to rephrase my question to you once more...

    	When you say that you had "expressed similar opinions elsewhere in
    regard to other events." exactly what did you mean by the term "other
    events"?  Were you referring to notes devoted to discussions of specific
    VoD events such as this note #1616 (which is devoted to the discussion
    of "G/L/B Awareness Day at MRO")?

.539>  ...I find it odd however, that
.539>  if you are solely interested in changing the VoD program, that you have
.539>  yet to enter any notes to the more generic VoD notes on the subject in
.539>  this notesfile such as note #981, or even #923, or #1248 (to name a few).
    
.542>    0) Some of those topics were entered during periods when I could not
.542>       arrange my schedule to give me the time to answer them.
    
    	Apparently your schedule has freed-up somewhat recently I take it?

.542>    1) None of them discuss "Valuing Difference" events of the sort where
.542>       employees are subjected to propaganda or other offensive material
.542>       or nuisance.

    	It has already been established by those who attended it that
    the G/L/B event in MRO did none of these things either.  Furthermore,
    I find it interesting that you should position yourself as the expert
    on things which are a nuisance to employees.
    
.542>    2) None of them are very specific about what "Valuing Difference"
.542>       activities are being discussed.  They were vague conversations and
.542>       did not have specific policies or actions mentioned that I could
.542>       point out as flaws.

    	Perhaps that is because there are no flaws in the VoD program?
    
.542>    3) 1248 is write-locked.
    
    	Perhaps so, but the main VoD note #981 is open and ready for
    your comments along with note #923, take your pick.  I'm sure we
    would all love to hear what EDP has to say about the VoD program.

.542>    4) The form of reasoning that X did not object to Y on Wednesday,
.542>       therefore the objection is out of order on Thursday is specious.
                                                                       
    	Perhaps so, but that is not what has been happening here.  What
    we have here is a case in which X has never objected to Y at all -
    except in discussions of Z (which is a smaller and less threatening
    partition of Y).

    				   -davo

    No Mistake, Jerry.  You just don't get it, do you?  For some issues
    there is all the money they need.  How PC can you get?

From:	COMET::DECPLUS "Digital Values ALL Its Employees  21-Oct-1991 1538" 21-OCT-1991 15:47:42.68
To:	@ALLSECS,@ALLMGRS
CC:	DECPLUS
Subj:	Presentation next Wednesday

To all managers and secretaries:

Next Wednesday will be a presentation open to all Digital employees.
Although the title is "Recognizing and Understanding the Lesbian, Gay, and
Bisexual Differences", the presentation was specifically set up for 
heterosexual Digital employees.

I would appreciate it very much if you would forward this announcement
to the people in your group(s).  It is a voluntary presentation, but in order
to go to it, people first have to learn of its existence.

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me.
If you wish to attend the presentation yourself, please send mail to 
COMET::DECPLUS.

Thank you!

      Carol duBois
      DECplus

********************



			     ANNOUNCING:

=========================================================================

	             Recognizing and Understanding 
				 The 
		       Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual 
			     Differences

==========================================================================

	Wednesday, October 30
	9:00-11:30 AM
	Columbine Conference Room, CXO1

All interested Digital employees are invited to attend.

This 2 1/2 hour presentation was originally developed by Gerry Fisher, 
members of the Digital support group DECpac, and by ZKO Personnel Consultants
Rick Doran and Stuart Lublin.  The purpose of this presentation is to introduce
people to the lesbian/gay/bisexual differences and to serve as a supplement to
existing Digital Diversity training (in particular, to supplement the
Understanding the Dynamics of Difference course and the work done in Core
Groups). 

According to the existing Digital Diversity philosophy, there are four steps
toward the valuing of any difference.  These steps are the following:
	
	o Recognizing the difference

	o Understanding the difference

	o Accepting the difference

	o Valuing the difference

The designers see this presentation as a "first step" for any group or 
individual interested in doing work around "recognizing" and "understanding"
the lesbian/gay/bisexual differences (no prior knowledge about gay people is
assumed).  Those giving the presentation will use the Core Group philosophy of
"the experts are in the room", answering questions and speaking from personal
experience.  (Those presenting may speak generally about other gay people, but
they do not "represent" all gay Digital employees.) 

Since the two-and-a-half hour format can only accommodate so much information,
the designers feel that more work must be done by a group if that group wants
to continue the journey towards "accepting" and ultimately "valuing" the 
lesbian/gay/bisexual difference.  For instance, this presentation only 
touches on "problems in the workplace"; to schedule follow-up work on this
topic, please contact Carol duBois (CXO, CSC32::DUBOIS) or send mail to
COMET::DECPLUS.

			AGENDA

	o Introductions

	o Valuing Differences/Diversity Overview

	o Role Plays

	o Break

	o Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Communities
	
	  - Outside of Digital

	  - Inside of Digital

	  - At This Site

	o Working the Issues at Work

	o One Last Thing Before You Go


This presentation is being sponsored by DECplus (Digital Equipment Corporation
People Like US), a Digital sponsored support/leadership group for lesbian,
gay male, and bisexual employees.

If interested in attending this presentation, please send mail to:

COMET::DECPLUS

    Regarding references, for example in reply 551...
    
    If people are going to sling around quotes, summaries and
    interpretations of various books and magazine articles, it would be
    helpful to have complete references, such as
    
    Smith and Smith, _The ABC of Blocks_, Random House, 1897
    Jones, John, "Blocks is Fun," _Science News_, Feb. 29, 1991, pp. 10-12
    
    I am personally skeptical of claims that "10% of the population is X,"
    but equally skeptical of unfindable "so-and-so takes this position"
    quotes.  Anyone care to back up his/her position with sources the rest
    of us can read independently?
    
    Wes

| No Mistake, Jerry.  You just don't get it, do you?  For some issues
| there is all the money they need.  How PC can you get?

	Well, as you can see your interpretation seems to have a flaw. How does
one come to the conclusion that a program that was set up by so and so mean
that so and so is actually going to fly out? Aren't we being a bit premature?
I'll tell you what. You have made the statement that they are going out there,
you have made the statement that for some things there is all the money in the
world, and then you have stated how PC can you get. Now, what I ask of you is
to please prove these things to be true. You see, if you can't, all it shows is
that you are making statements without facts to back them up. If you want to
make a point using this method, that's fine, but.... don't be too upset if no
one buys into it.

	Does anyone know just how much money the VoD program gets each year?
Does anyone know if their budgets have been cut down year to year like the rest
of the budgets in the company? Also, by "know", I mean with facts, not
someone's opinion.




Glen

    Ok. Ok......two things.
    
        1 - I never meant to imply that I was being forced to go.  Someone
            read that into my comments.  But, I am being forced to be in
            the same building with this lunacy, and that is very upsetting
            to me.
    
        2 - I guess you're probably correct in that I don't know whether
            these two guys are actually coming out, so I'll shut up for
            now on that.  Betch'a they are tho {:^).....
    
    I, too, would like to know what the budget is for this Valuing Whatever
    silliness.  I'd also like to know whether it is being propogated
    to our overseas subsidiaries.  I would tend to think not.  They're
    already too busy laughing at us.

    Re .546:
    
    > So, to do the things you don't want others to do to you is ok? NOT!

    Gosh, I am so impressed by a person who gets their debating technique
    from Saturday Night Live.  Wow, are you going to throw Married With
    Children at me next?
    
    Here is a simple concept:
    
    	Initiating an attack on a person is wrong.
                              
    	Defending oneself from an attack is right.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .552:
    
    > Fair in terms of noting policies perhaps, but not fair in terms of
    > what is noble and honorable.

    It is entirely fair in all terms; a reason this event should not take
    place IS a reason this event should not take place, and therefore it
    belongs in this topic.  There is NO justification for excluding reasons
    events of this sort should not take place from this topic.
    
    > When you say that you had "expressed similar opinions elsewhere in
    > regard to other events." exactly what did you mean by the term "other
    > events"?
    
    I have already explained this.
    
    > Apparently your schedule has freed-up somewhat recently I take it?
    
    I've changed groups.
    
    > It has already been established by those who attended it that the
    > G/L/B event in MRO did none of these things either.
    
    No, it has not.  It has been established the table was outside the
    cafeteria, but not that no employees were subjected to it.
    
    > Perhaps that is because there are no flaws in the VoD program?

    Nope, it is not.
    
    
    				-- edp

Re:                 <<< Note 1616.551 by SIERAS::MCCLUSKY >>>

>    style was incorrect, the new information from the British "Lancelet"

If you're referring to the British medical publication, it's the "Lancet".

-  David

    re .563
    You are correct.  Thank you.

    re .560
    
    When I read your comments, I got the impression that you were FORCED TO
    GO!  Maybe you should consider your wording a little more carefully.
    As for your other comments, I've been in a lot of buildings with
    considerably more lunacy than a presentation that I didn't have to
    attend, and it didn't bother me in the least.  Why does something in
    your facility, that you don't have to attend, threaten you so?
    
    /Dave

    Here is another simple concept:
    
    	When you've lost to 'em on substance, denigrate their debating
    	technique.
    
    	Intellectual snobbery usually works best in cases like this.

    >ZKO Personnel Consultants
    >Rick Doran and Stuart Lublin.  
    
    Hmm.  I can't find them in ELF anymore.  But I did know Stuart 
    (more recently known as Joshua) Lublin.

.562    > It has already been established by those who attended it that the
.562    > G/L/B event in MRO did none of these things either.

.562    No, it has not.  It has been established the table was outside the
.562    cafeteria, but not that no employees were subjected to it.

Au contraire.  As I reported ten days ago in 1616.364, 

.364    The table was placed in a very wide corridor-like open area between the
.364    cafe and the eating area.  Uninterested DECcies could give it a wide
.364    berth and (imo) not feel impinged upon.  Interested folks were greeted.

I may have observed at the wrong moment, of course.  There may have been times
when those crafty PC-crazed VoDons turned on a force field and drew in legions
of hapless DECcies to their VoDoom.  

Or are we dealing here with the opinion that FORCING employees to be in the
same AREA as a table they can avoid simply with a few steps and lack of eye
contact is somehow an imposition on those employees, and that the presence of
such a table represented a moral failure on the part of Digital for allowing
it?

Or that the mere PRESENCE in a DEC facility of a program held by some to be
objectionable constituted, in and of itself, the evil that "employees were
subjected to it."?    

This writer can but conclude (with some respectful hope) that the writer of
.562, being a person whose strength of principle is apparently superior even to
the moral fiber of the esteemed author of .560, will have difficulty coming to
work in ANY facility of Digital on 
                         "The Day That VoD Takes CXO."

                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Might I conclude by respectfully suggesting that those interested in debating
the pros and cons of The VoDons In Our Midst repair immediately to
RUSURE::DIFFERENCE (_vide_ .381), or to the forthcoming VoD conference to be
moderated by MORO::BEELER_JE (_vide_ 1616.377, .394, _et. seq._).  

                     Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

And in case anyone's fixin' to charge me with intellectual snobbery, bushwah;
this is only intellectual satire.  :-)

                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Or should I have saved you folks the time of reading all this and just said:

When it was written 
.562    No, it has not.  It has been established the table was outside the
.562    cafeteria, but not that no employees were subjected to it.

This was nonsense.  This was more bull.  Wrong!  This was in direct 
contradiction to what I wrote ten days ago in .364:
.364    The table was placed... blah blah ... Interested folks were greeted.

Why did the author of .562 LIE?  This was intolerant and dishonorable.
    
    Have a nice day, 
    
    Dan

    Interesting lot of comments since I last checked in.  More emotion than
    reasoning, IMNSHO.  Anyway, without trying to follow individual notes
    or stuff, a few comments based on my views and beliefs:
    
    On "discussing sexuality in the office". I don't discuss my sex life in
    the office, nor do most of the POLITE people I know, regardless of
    orientation.  (All of the impolite people I know so far have been
    heterosexual.)  I feel that the issue is NOT whether someone is free to 
    discuss their sexual orientation in the office, although boors of any 
    stripe may want to.  I think that the issue is whether you have to CONCEAL 
    your sexual identity lest your career (or your LIFE) be destroyed!  There 
    is a crucial difference between those two views! 
    
    On "PC".  Do you really think that politically correct
    thinking was created by the "liberal movement"?  EVERY SOCIETY has
    their own version of "PC".  Want to discuss the "Red Menace" of the
    50's?  How about one noters rather eloquent statement about a "PC" (aka
    MAINSTREAM) view of society?  (I think they forgot to mention that the 
    fence was not the only white part of that view of the "mainstream".)  Is 
    the view of Western culture as the core of American education not PC?  
    Why?  (Be precise, this is an extra credit question.)  As far as I'm
    concerned, the PC argument isn't about A "PC", it's about WHICH "PC".  
    (I was born in the South Pacific, raised in the Caribean and Hawaii - 
    my classmates were Buddhist, Taoist, Animist, and Old Hawaiian, a 
    minority were Christian - I got a lot of different views of the world.)
    
    On rights.  Amazing number of rights being invented here!  Seems to be
    a right "Not to be offended or challenged in my beliefs." that I don't
    ever remember from my study of the U.S. Constitution.  Also some
    fascinating interpretations of the right to free speech that I don't
    recall the founders ever having considered.
    
    First off - The right of free speech always exists, but it is
    restricted in practice.  Nobody has both the right of free speech AND the 
    right to exercise it in my living room AND stay there.  Similarly, the 
    right to free speech, ON DIGITAL PROPERTY AND USING DIGITAL RESOURCES, is
    restricted, within certain fairly broad categories.
    
    Second - as a private entity on its own property, Digital has the right
    to express its own views and require (within fairly broad guidelines
    and as long as it doesn't restrict our rights OUTSIDE Digital property
    or in certain specially protected areas) that you follow them as a 
    condition of employment.  (See the living room statement above.)
    
    Third - Digital is unfair to white het. males.  Again - GROW UP!  It 
    isn't a zero-sum game.  Digital trying to do something for someone else 
    DOESN'T make it unfair for white het. males - unless you can point to a 
    specific instance where YOUR career was blighted permanently due to
    that bias.  (If you can - welcome to the world of prejudice - what will
    you do to eliminate ALL prejudice, instead of just that against YOUR
    group?)
    
    Fourth - Digital's right to encourage certain groups.  Corporate
    business right - you don't like it and can't persuade the company to
    change, you always have the right to leave.  So far, I think Digital has
    concentrated on encouraging groups that have been seriously harmed by
    common prejudices.  Does that indicate prejudice against me?  Not in my
    experience - my career certainly hasn't suffered.  Has yours suffered in 
    a SPECIFIC way?  (Be precise - I don't consider general complaints without
    specific, personal examples to be valid.)
    
    Regards,
    Dave
    
    

1616.66 .90 .92 .95 .147 .150 .153 .156 .163 .202 .203 .214 .234 .269 .270 .304
.305 .321 .322 .324 .325 .378 .379 .380 .381 .386 .404 .405 .418 .420 .421 .422
.423 .431 .432 .433 .473 .474 .499 .501 .514 .515 .516 .529 .535 .536 .541 .542
.561 .562

 	Have a nice day

	Dan

    Re .568:
    
    > .364 The table was placed in a very wide corridor-like open area between the
    > .364 cafe and the eating area.  Uninterested DECcies could give it a wide
    > .364 berth and (imo) not feel impinged upon.  Interested folks were greeted.
    
    That is still a solicitation that employees were subjected to.
    
    > . . . a table they can avoid simply with a few steps and lack of eye
    > contact is somehow an imposition on those employees, and that the
    > presence of such a table represented a moral failure on the part of
    > Digital for allowing it?
    
    Yes, it is an imposition on employees, and it is a moral failure on the
    part of Digital.
    
    This business about how nobody would be affected by a solicitation they
    can ignore is garbage.  The entire point of such a table IS to get
    people involved and change their opinions.  Nobody would ever set up
    tables or even advertise at all in any way if it did not change
    people's opinions.  The table existed solely for the purpose of
    influencing people's beliefs.  So any argument that people were not
    affected by it is baloney.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .566:
    
    It seems to have escaped your notice that .546 was basically content
    free and was nothing more than an attempt to slur another person's
    argument based solely on style, not meaning.  When an empty argument is
    presented, it is a valid form of argument to point out the flaw.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .571:
    
    You seem to be confused.  Toleration means leaving people alone when
    they are not imposing themselves on a person.  An attack is an
    imposition, and a defense is proper and is not intolerance.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .570:
    
    I want to thank you for another example of what a farce "Valuing
    Differences" is.  The claim is that this program values all employees. 
    But we see what really happens.  When a person presents views that
    disagree with the majority, they are attacked personally.  The minority
    is excluded, degraded, and attacked.
    
    The people who make up "Valuing Differences" and the people who support
    it are no different from the myriads of selfish groups that have
    existed throughout history.  They see an opportunity to grab power for
    themselves and to push their desires on other people, and they use that
    opportunity fully, not caring a damn for the people they step on.
    
    When Digital, a representative of the "Valuing Differences" program, or
    many of its supporters say they value people, they lie.  They care only
    for themselves and those within their Politically Correct groups.  When
    they say they care, they lie.  When they say they try to be aware of
    all differences, they lie.  What makes this all particularly repugnant
    is that they do it under a false banner of "Valuing Differences".  They
    bring shame to a noble concept.  With every slur they make of a person
    who is different from them, they stain the banner with their ugly
    hatred.
    
    Digital's "Valuing Difference" program is filth.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .576:
    
    Your description does not match the dictionary definition.
    
    Nothing I said previously ever implied that people ought to tolerate
    personal attacks, as the false "Valuing Differences" supporters have
    made upon me.  This garbage you are spouting now amounts to the
    "Valuing Differences" hypocrites shouting "Hold still, we are not done
    hitting you yet".  What nonsense it is that spews forth from you, that
    other people (non-PC people) ought to "tolerate" personal attacks upon
    them, but that your favored groups cannot tolerate other people merely
    to have different beliefs!  The Politically Correct cannot even allow
    people to mind their own business with their own beliefs without the PC
    demanding to thrust their opinions down other people's throats, yet you
    claim I ought to shut up and allow people to make personal attacks. 
    That is stupid, selfish, hateful, and proof that "Valuing Differences"
    as a lie.
    
    These Politically Correct programs are equivalent to crusades, pogroms,
    witch hunts and other waves of hatred throughout history.  They operate
    in the same manner, targeting people who do not conform, crucifying
    anybody who objects.  The people participating in the programs are
    selfish, caring only for themselves.  Far from being people who seek to
    understand differences, the people who join a Politically Correct
    program are people who go along with the crowd.  They are joiners --
    mindless followers, unaware of the real meaning of the words "Valuing
    Differences".  Their very act of joining a cause belies their alleged
    appreciation for diversity.  I have no doubt that "Valuing Differences"
    supporters would readily operate the ovens when ordered to do so, that
    being the mentality of such crusaders.
    
    
    				-- edp

This topic is starting to degenerate into a VoD discussion.  If you wish to
discuss VoD, please see one of the other topics in this conference that were
mentioned earlier, or try one of the other conferences that was mentioned in
earlier notes.

Thank you,

Bob - co-moderator DIGITAL

    
    
    Mr. Lennard is not here to attend VD meetings about people with
    different sexual preferences. He is here to get work done. Digital
    pays him to achieve certain goals, it's called a job. 
    
    I would have gone to the one at MR01 but I HAD WORK TO DO.

| > So, to do the things you don't want others to do to you is ok? NOT!

| Gosh, I am so impressed by a person who gets their debating technique
| from Saturday Night Live.  

	Eric, Eric, Eric. How about from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure?
Saturday Night Live just did a parity on it. Besides Eric, there doesn't seem 
to be any debate anymore.

| Here is a simple concept:

| Initiating an attack on a person is wrong.

	I agree 100%.

| Defending oneself from an attack is right.

	Eric, are you saying it's ok to drop to that level that you think is 
wrong in the first place because they did it to you? Are we adults here? 
NOT! ;-) Eric, is this like playing tag? One does it so you must do it back? I
don't know Eric....... To defend oneself is fine. But what does calling someone
a liar do for you? I could see if it were true, but in every case you have
thrown that word around Eric, it has been proven that you were wrong. Does that
make a liar out of Eric? Not really. It COULD have been that maybe you
misinterpreted what people were saying Eric..... or maybe not. You are quick to
throw the words around Eric, but not so good at listening to them. 




Glen

| > . . . a table they can avoid simply with a few steps and lack of eye
| > contact is somehow an imposition on those employees, and that the
| > presence of such a table represented a moral failure on the part of
| > Digital for allowing it?

| Yes, it is an imposition on employees, and it is a moral failure on the
| part of Digital.

	In what way does this now become a moral issue Eric?

| This business about how nobody would be affected by a solicitation they
| can ignore is garbage.  

	Eric, when you walk down the streets in a city, someone hands you a
handbill advertising something, does that affect you? You either choose to
accept the literature or just keep walking, right? If not, tell us in your own
words just how this solicitation affects you? I'd love to know.

| The entire point of such a table IS to get
| people involved and change their opinions.  Nobody would ever set up
| tables or even advertise at all in any way if it did not change
| people's opinions.  The table existed solely for the purpose of
| influencing people's beliefs.  So any argument that people were not
| affected by it is baloney.

	You know all of this? How? Did you attend? I think someone else put it
very well Eric when they said the VoD people used a beam to draw people close
to the table and to their VoDoom! You weren't there. How in the world can you
make that statement Eric? 



Glen

| These Politically Correct programs are equivalent to crusades, pogroms,
| witch hunts and other waves of hatred throughout history.  

	Oh Eric, they were so into valuing people differences. It was more like
crushing people with valuing differences. But Eric, you wish to take this and 
apply it to what you feel is happening to you. That's fine. Now, why not do 
something about it? You know how you feel about the Vod Programs Eric, why not 
make it known to the VoD people? Could we have your permission Eric to send 
them all of your notes on the subject? After all, why not let us help you with 
your crusade? You have presented your views here Eric, now why not present them
to those who might be able to do something about it?




Glen

... in the absence of a response thus far to the request contained herein...

... one can only assume (due to the existence of contemporaneous noting by its
esteemed addressee) that he, though online, has thus far not decided whether or
not to respond to the following message.  Ah well, no matter; surely those
Privileged Few who have joined what FSOA::DARCH has so aptly called "The Liar's
Club" can infer the content of the message to which the following was my
response:
===== begin extracted VAXmail message =====
From:	RDVAX::KALIKOW      "Dan Kalikow, Corporate Research,"
				23-OCT-1991 08:11:44.64
To:	BEING::EDP
CC:	KALIKOW
Subj:	RE: Notefile DIGITAL Note 1616.570

Thank you for your message of this morning.  I should have realized that in 
the Digital Notes community one rarely if ever is allowed to "rathole" (to 
offhandedly coin a phrase) a topic or to comment on the style rather than 
the content of another noter's postings.  I cannot *conceive* of why I 
might have broken precedent to commit this apparent faux pas.  
Nevertheless, I feel the note has a certain innocuity in that any other 
noter could obtain (by now a subset of) the same information by simply 
giving the command 
dir 1616.* /auth=edp
Naturally, though, the results of such a command would be devoid of the 
EGREGIOUS characterization I gave in the title of 1616.570, but again as I 
say, I feel certain that the Digital noting community will understand this 
(as I say unprecedent comment on style or apparent intent rather than 
substance) characterization of a string, of which the plurality of replies 
are most probably entered by you (though to be sure, I have not verified 
this latter conjecture).

Might I request your permission to post the text of your mail message of 
this morning -- containing, as it does, a private communication from you?

Have a nice day

Dan
====== end extracted VAXmail message =====
... .572 .573 .574 .575 .577 ...

and _in re_ .577's ''I have no doubt that "Valuing Differences" supporters 
would readily operate the ovens when ordered to do so, that being the 
mentality of such crusaders.'', surely this gives new meaning to the term 
FLAMAGE

Have a nice day

Dan

    I really do have some work to do today, so I hope this will be my only
    comment.
    
    Dave (.560)...I'm sorry, but I feel threatened by the session scheduled
    here in CXN.  If I am to believe the VD propaganda, I have a right not
    to be offended in the workplace, and they have an obligation to make
    sure that I'm not.  I also adamantly reject the whole premise of these
    activities which is that somehow I need to be educated on the subject.
    
    I fully agree with EDP that this is a terribly moral failure on the
    part of Digital.   If KO knows about this controversy and does not step
    in personally, then I will lose a lot of respect for him.  The hidden
    agenda item of all of this garbage is still to get full benefits,
    particularly health care for homosexual partners, as well as relocation
    bennies, etc.  The GBL's will never admit it, but if you really want
    to get sick, I suggest you familiarize yourselves with the DECpac
    agenda.
    
    I also agree that the VD people lie-like-a-rug.  They "value" a narrow
    spectrum of PC-approved differences, and don't give a good bloody damn
    who they hurt in the process.
    
    Still disgusted...........Dick

 re:  <<< Note 1616.577 by BEING::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
    
>   Their very act of joining a cause belies their alleged
>   appreciation for diversity.  I have no doubt that "Valuing Differences"
>   supporters would readily operate the ovens when ordered to do so, that
>   being the mentality of such crusaders.
    
    I have a hard time understanding the first sentence - joining a cause
    hardly indicates a lack of appreciation for diversity.  I have yet to
    see any solid examples of the hypocrisy in the VoD program that has
    been so loudly touted, but perhaps I've overlooked something.  That
    still would not take away from the worth of this particular G/L/B
    awareness program.
    
    Now, as for the second sentence, I am personally startled at the depths 
    to which this conversation has stooped, and I decline to join in with 
    such emotional, incendiary tripe.  That was really offensive, and uncalled 
    for.  That isn't debate, that's just cheap, (didn't I say this in an
    earlier reply?), and I can only assume that it reflects a profound lack
    of class on the part of its source.
    
    The only crusader readily recognisable in this conversation, IMHO, is 
    the Don Quixote who authored the above.  Apparently 'Politically
    Correct' is the only name calling that can pass the moderators' duty to
    censor otherwise offensive and sophomoric, and I use this term very
    generously, debate.  So rave on, but at least be aware of the
    spectacle that you generate, and do not delude yourself into believing
    that you are only defending your honor.  Hardly.  
    
    tim

re: .562,

>    It is entirely fair in all terms; a reason this event should not take
>    place IS a reason this event should not take place, and therefore it
>    belongs in this topic.  There is NO justification for excluding reasons
>    events of this sort should not take place from this topic.

    	It is because it is eh?  Talk about Saturday Night Live, this
    debating technique is more akin to something from the Pee Wee Herman
    debating school.

    	Since you seem to feel that your personal account of a specific
    event which took place at the Spitbrook facility belongs in this
    notes string as proof of your claims that VoD events are a nuisance to
    DEC employees, then I will offer my own such proof that they are not:
    around a year ago I attended a Native American VoD event in my former
    facility (PKO3) and it took place just outside the cafeteria without
    bothering anyone.  I know it didn't bother anyone because there were
    apparently a few other such VoD events that year in PK03, and I must
    have missed them because I didn't even notice the rest of them when
    I ate my lunch in the cafeteria.  The only reason I even knew to attend
    the event I attended was because I knew someone involved in the event.

    	According to your own debating technique of offering your own
    accounts of completely unrelated VoD events as proof that a given
    VoD event (which you never even attended) was a nuisance, then you
    must accept my account as a counter to your proof.  It is becoming
    all the more obvious that you do not know what you are talking about
    when it comes to the GLB Awareness Day at MRO (the subject of this
    note).  Your continued arguments which claim that the MRO event was
    a nuisance to DEC employees despite your ignorance of the event are
    becoming a nuisance in and of themselves.  You have absolutely
    nothing to offer to the discussion of GLB Awareness Day at MRO, nor
    do you have anything to offer to the discussion of GLB Awareness in
    general.  You persist here only to exploit the particularly controversial
    nature of a specific VoD group (G/L/B) in order to promote your own
    self styled anti-VoD cause.

>    > When you say that you had "expressed similar opinions elsewhere in
>    > regard to other events." exactly what did you mean by the term "other
>    > events"?
    
>    I have already explained this.

    	You have explained nothing.  You have suggested possible clues
    as to what you might have been refering to, but you have repeatedly
    avoided answering the question of whether or not you have expressed
    similar opinions elsewhere in regards to other VoD events in other
    notes devoted to a particular VoD event such as this (as opposed to
    expressing such opinions in a generic note on the subject of the VoD 
    program in general such as note #981 or #923 in this conference).
    The reason you have avoided answering this question is because you
    know that either a yes or a no answer would prove you to be wrong.

    	If you were to answer yes to my question, then you would prove
    my assertion that you do in fact practice the exploitation of the
    fervor surrounding discussions of specific VoD events to garner
    support for your own anti-VoD campaign, while at the same time
    avoiding the more general VoD program discussions (such as notes
    #923 and #981 in this conference).  If you were to answer no,
    then you would only be contradicting your claim in note #1616.529
    that you "have expressed similar opinions elsewhere in regard to
    other events" (which was your own response to my previous assertion).

    	Therefore, you have argued yourself into a corner on this one.
    In your own Pee Wee Hermanesque fashion, I expect to see plenty
    more of your typical "No I didn't"'s and "Yes you did"'s, but you
    might as well concede now and save what little face you have left.
    Furthermore, in line with the caliber of your debating technique,
    I suppose I should reply to your insolent claims in earlier notes
    that I am a liar and a bigot by using the familiar Pee Wee Herman
    saying "I know you are, so what am I?"

    				   -davo

    I find it hard to believe that one event in one facility in this
    company is worthy of over 500 comments.  Why don't all of you guys go
    down to the cafeteria and get into a food fight or something.  You
    would probably feel better and it would release some of the load on
    this notes conference.
    
    
    Ken

    Eric,

    Your notes seem to be becoming more and more strident, and of late,
    somewhat hysterical. Further there seems to be an element of defining
    your own meanings for words in them, a meaning to suit your own
    purposes. This coupled with the strong under-current of hypocrisy
    flowing through them makes them almost laughable. 

    There are some points in there that I actually agree with, there are
    others  with which I disagree, occasionally strongly. However, given
    the above, how on  earth do you expect yourself or your notes to be
    taken seriously?
    
    It's only right and fair that you should have the opportunity to state
    your  views, but I'm afraid that I find your tone, manner and behaviour
    offensive.  Further, it's somewhat less than fair that you seem to seek
    to deny anyone  else the right to air an opposing view. I'm not sure if
    this is because you  cannot accept that there can be an opposing view,
    or simply that you refuse to  allow such a view. Whichever, it's an
    offence to civilised behaviour, and I'd like it to stop please. 

    Laurie.
    

	Eric, how about it? Do we have permission to forward all of your notes
that pertain to your views on the VoD programs to the actual VoD people? After
all, we can't really do anything about it in here, but maybe if the VoD people
knew how you felt that something could be done. 



Glen

    
    
    	re .584 {Lennard}
    
    	Hey Dick, what's DECpac? Never heard of it...
    
    	re .588 {Corbettke}
    
    	Food fight! I like that idea! But not in the cafeteria..it would
    	definitely interfere with my lunch! Do it OFF DEC property! ;)
    
    	John

| Dave (.560)...I'm sorry, but I feel threatened by the session scheduled
| here in CXN.  

	Dick, just what about this event threatens you?

| If I am to believe the VD propaganda, I have a right not
| to be offended in the workplace, 

	Dick, just what about this event offends you?

| I fully agree with EDP that this is a terribly moral failure on the
| part of Digital.   

	Dick, what is morally wrong with this event?

| The hidden
| agenda item of all of this garbage is still to get full benefits,
| particularly health care for homosexual partners, as well as relocation
| bennies, etc.  

	Dick, you offer a statement of our "hidden" agenda. What proof do you
offer to back up your claim? I'd be curious in knowing this.

| I also agree that the VD people lie-like-a-rug.  

	Dick, what proof do you offer to back up this statement?

| They "value" a narrow
| spectrum of PC-approved differences, and don't give a good bloody damn
| who they hurt in the process.

	Dick, who do you feel is being hurt in the process, how do you see
them getting hurt and what proof do you offer to back such claims?




Glen

    
    	re .592
    
    	If Dick told you what offended or threatened him, would you
    	take it upon yourself to offer to forward that to the VoD folks
    	who could ostensibly do something about it? Just curious...
    
    	John
    
    	P.S.  I like the way you mentioned Eric's name eleven times inside
    	      two short paragraphs... ;)

    RE: .593 John Sobecky

    If Dick would explain why and how he is offended, perhaps
    people might take him a bit more seriously.

    As it is, he makes incorrect statements about people and
    events (seemingly calculated statements designed to stir up
    anger) and then criticizes such fabrications.  "hidden agenda"
    indeed.  As if it is a mystery that gay people desire legal
    and corporate recognition of our relationships in order to
    receive the same benefits as the rest of society. 

    I don't believe he has approached this discussion in good faith.

    /Greg

    
    YO - to all the folks who are so dead set against the concept of being
    asked to Value Differences (and who want the right to state their
    opinions about how disgusting they find some groups...)
    
    You must surely support being called "disgusting" yourselves, right?
    I mean, if you want the right to call others disgusting, then why 
    aren't you fighting for other people's right to call YOU disgusting?
    
    If you support being allowed to NOT value differences, then why aren't
    you celebrating the fact that some people DON'T value your difference
    (the difference being "not being willing to value differences")?
    
    If you don't believe in Valuing Differences, then why do you want anyone
    to VALUE yours? 

| If Dick told you what offended or threatened him, would you
| take it upon yourself to offer to forward that to the VoD folks
| who could ostensibly do something about it? Just curious...

	Dick has mentioned in the particular note I responded to that HE would 
have a hard time with the event and not with the whole VoD program. Big
difference between the two. One has to do with an individual's fears and the
other has to do with a whole organization. As mentioned earlier, nothing can be
done by us in notes about how to change the VoD program, that has to be done by
those who wish it to be changed, but to know what reasons someone has for being
threatened or what have you would at least allow everyone to see where Dick is
coming from.




Glen

    
    	By the way, did someone just call "Valuing Differences" filth???
    
    	As a supporter of VoD, I've been attacked by this!
    
    	Did the same someone say that it was "GOOD" to use ad hominem
    	attacks against someone in defense (after being attacked?)
    
    	I guess I can say almost anything I want now, eh?  (heh, heh, heh)
    

    After nearly 600 entries from folks who will never agree, isn't it time
    to turn this dicsussion of and go back to work?

    	600 replies!

Well, its getting on to 600 replies and its becoming laughable.
Good entertainment, thats what it is, better than any soap. (-;    

Really now, "he called me a liar", "she said something bad about me",
"They think I'm disgusting and said so", and on and on and on.

Who Cares? Please I'm only asking to make a point, dont respond.

My god! are all you people so thin skinned that words hurt?
I can understand words from an adult hurting a child because a
child looks up to that adult. But, come now people, you are
not children nor do I suppose that you look up to those that are speaking
the words.

I have been called lots of things in my lifetime, none have affected me
permanently, so whats the problem? Eric doesn't like the idea that
Deb Arch said something bad about him, so what? 
Deb doesn't like being called a liar by Eric, as others also do.
So what?

Gee, I'm reminded of "Sticks 'n stones may break my bones but, names
will never hurt me"...


Mr Lennard repeatedly states that he doesn't like the G/L/B forum
and others repeatly feel the need to ask him why even thou they
never receive an answer.


On top of that we have Eric (EDP) and Davo going at it with:

I said this

you said that

I said that

You said this

Where, when, how, why, who  and on and on and on.


If you think that certain noters are spewing garbage, why not just ignore
them? next unseen has worked in the past why not here?
Why challenge them when history tells you that they are not open to change?
This goes for those on both sides of this issue....


Mr Moderators, dont you think that it is time to write lock this topic?
It appears that nothing fruitful has come out of it for sometime...

If not then I guess it will be good for a few more laughs with all the
subplots going on...

- George

	Dick, 

	The notice you posted in .554 states that the presentation 
	will take place at CXO1. In .584, you: 

	"feel threatened by the session scheduled here in CXN"
	
	What's the story? Has the presentation been moved, has another 
	one been scheduled here, or are you required to be at CXO on 
	the 30th?

	-Paul

    George - I agree this is getting rather absurd, however I 
    imagine you are not affected by a majority who finds you
    loathsome.   I am.   The words are not uttered in a vacuum,
    they are indicative of the kind of society we live in.  It
    may be just hunky dory for you but it isn't for me.
    
    Yes, I'm probably wasting my time - but I have hopes (based
    on past experience in other notesfiles) that someone
    reading this might stop and think - and so I continue when
    I have the time...
    
    /Greg

    RE: .601
    
    >If you think that certain noters are spewing garbage, why not just ignore
    >them? next unseen has worked in the past why not here?
    
    If you think a VoD presentation is "garbage" - it's voluntary, so just
    don't go!
    
    If you think a table outside a cafeteria during lunch has "garbage" on
    it, then don't stop to pick up literature or chat with the folks there.
    
    "Next unseen" isn't only possible in notes!
    
    Live and let live.  If people want to make themselves available to
    those employees who are WILLING to hear what they have to say - so
    what?

    Re .581:
    
    > In what way does this now become a moral issue Eric?

    Digital is abusing the employer-employee relationship.
    
    Digital is reneging on the promises it has made in its policies,
    various announcements, and statements made to me when soliciting my
    employ.
    
    Digital is imposing ideas without opportunity for free speech -- which
    means morally corrupt ideas are presented without the challenge and
    criticism that would reveal their corruption.
    
    > Eric, when you walk down the streets in a city, someone hands you a
    > handbill advertising something, does that affect you?
    
    Yes.
    
    > If not, tell us in your own words just how this solicitation affects
    > you?
    
    A handbill on an ordinary street is less of an effect than a
    solicitation at a place of employment, but it still has an effect.  To
    begin with, it is a nuisance in and of itself.  And then it must be
    disposed of, which is a further nuisance if one does not wish to
    litter.  Not a great nuisance, to be sure, but a nuisance nonetheless.
    
    A solicitation at one's place of employment is worse.  First, a person
    has more limited options regarding avoiding their place of employment
    than they do city streets.  Second, the solicitation, when supported by
    the employer, represents pressure from the employer.  Third, it is peer
    pressure (which is bad because ideas ought to be judged on their own
    merits, not on pressure from people).
    
    > You know all of this? How?
    
    The paragraph you quoted above this question contained the explanation: 
    Nobody would ever set up tables or even advertise at all in any way if
    it did not change people's opinions.  The purpose of the table was not
    to provide a place to eat.  The purpose of the table was not to provide
    a place for people already planning to attend to meeting to learn about
    the meeting.  The purpose of the table WAS to solicit people.  We know
    the "Valuing Differences" program is trying to change people's beliefs,
    and this table was one of the means of doing that.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .582:
    
    > Oh Eric, they [crusaders, etc.] were so into valuing people differences. 
    
    They thought the same as you -- they thought they were enlightening
    people.  Trying to "enlighten" people with one's own beliefs is a
    natural desire, but trying to impose it is a sickness, the same
    sickness which has infected crusaders, witch hunters, and the
    Politically Correct.  The Politically Correct are already quelling
    opposing speech and getting people fired and expelled; what is there to
    stop it from getting worse?
    
    > You know how you feel about the Vod Programs Eric, why not  make it
    > known to the VoD people?
    
    It's done; I responded today to mail I received from somebody
    purporting to be from MRO's "Valuing Difference" committee.
    
    > Could we have your permission Eric to send them all of your notes on
    > the subject?
    
    Go ahead.  You can even send them to Ken Olsen.
    
                                                               
    				-- edp

re:             <<< Note 1616.604 by GORE::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>

>    RE: .601
    
>    >If you think that certain noters are spewing garbage, why not just ignore
>    >them? next unseen has worked in the past why not here?
    
>    If you think a VoD presentation is "garbage" - it's voluntary, so just
>    don't go!
    
>    If you think a table outside a cafeteria during lunch has "garbage" on
>    it, then don't stop to pick up literature or chat with the folks there.
    
>    "Next unseen" isn't only possible in notes!
    
>    Live and let live.  If people want to make themselves available to
>    those employees who are WILLING to hear what they have to say - so
>    what?

As the author of 601, would you mind putting somemore context around what
your comments have to do with my statement.

I agree with what you say but, dont know why you are replying to my statement.

- George

    
    RE: .607  George
    
    I was just passing your advice along to a generic "you" - sorry for
    any confusion.
    

    Re .586:
    
    > I know it didn't bother anyone because there were apparently a few
    > other such VoD events that year in PK03, and I must have missed them
    > because I didn't even notice the rest of them when I ate my lunch in
    > the cafeteria. 
    
    That proves only that you have blinders on; it proves nothing about
    whether other employees were bothered.
    
    > According to your own debating technique of offering your own
    > accounts of completely unrelated VoD events as proof that a given VoD
    > event (which you never even attended) was a nuisance, . . .
    
    I have not stated that.  I brought up the examples only in response to
    the false accusation that I had not complained about previous events.
    I stated that the current event was a nuisance based on descriptions of
    it and based on the fact that some people have stated they are
    offended.
    
    > . . .  you have repeatedly avoided answering the question of whether
    > or not you have expressed similar opinions elsewhere in regards to
    > other VoD events in other notes devoted to a particular VoD event such
    > as this . . .
    
    That is incorrect; in note .542 I answered it directly:
    
         In these topics [referred to in preceding text], I have
    	 objected to subjecting employees to these things [previous
         events, also described above].
    
    That is an explicit affirmative answer to your question.  Why did you
    say I had not given such an answer when I had?
    
    As .542 stated, the topics referred to were in regard to the use of the
    cafeteria as a theater and the appropriateness of religious activity at
    the office.
    
    > 	If you were to answer yes to my question, then you would prove
    > my assertion that you do in fact practice the exploitation of the
    > fervor surrounding discussions of specific VoD events to garner
    > support for your own anti-VoD campaign, . . .
    
    That is more bull.  There was no fervor over the singing of Christmas
    carols in the office area nor over the use of the cafeteria as a
    theater while people were eating.  These two examples prove I am not
    "exploiting" any fervor, that it is merely coincidental to this issue
    and that I choose to object to "Valuing Differences" events that I
    believe should not be imposed on employees, not this imaginary motive
    you have concocted.  You are only continuing to prove that you are on a
    witch hunt and you attack a person instead of an idea.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .595:
    
    > YO - to all the folks who are so dead set against the concept of being
    > asked to Value Differences (and who want the right to state their
    > opinions about how disgusting they find some groups...)

    For the record, I have never objected to being _asked_ to value
    differences.  For the record, I have objected to the _manner_ being
    used to push Digital's "values" on employees.  I have stated this
    explicitly repeatedly.
    
    > I mean, if you want the right to call others disgusting, then why 
    > aren't you fighting for other people's right to call YOU disgusting?

    All the proposals I have made about how things _should_ be call for
    equal access for everybody.  No speech access to the cafeteria (or
    vicinity) is equal for everybody.  Free speech access to Notes
    conferences is equal for everybody.
    
    In point of fact, many of the people whose right to speech and right to
    be left alone I am defending here are people whose views I do not agree
    with.
    
    My proposal is tolerant; it allows all to express their views in
    appropriate forums and allows them to do so equally.
    
    Digital's method is intolerant; it limits speech and imposes some
    people's views on others.
    
    
    				-- edp

    
    	   I think the real problem here is that you folks actually
    	eat at Digital cafeterias, and have grown to expect them to be 
    	a place where you can eat without being harrassed.
    
    	   Out here in the field, we don't have cafeterias, so if they
    	want to hoist some VoD presentation on us they have to drag us
    	into a meeting first... and that ain't easy to do because we're
    	on the road so much.
    
    	   It's easier to get to you folks at the DECcentral locations...
    	most of you *will* eat at the cafeteria because it's cheaper than
    	eating real food (or, in some cases, the closest thing to real food
    	within a 10-mile radius, given the boondocks locations of some
    	DECcentral sites).  To make matters worse, you're probably in the
    	office more than you're out, which makes you particularly easy
    	targets.
    
    	   Say Eric... maybe you should consider taking a position in 
    	Sales Support.  You never know... you just might find happiness
    	in the freedom of a field position.  Besides, in sales support you 
    	get to eat at lots of fine restos... and the sales rep almost 
    	always pays your way.
    
    	- Greg

    I think 1026 in WOMANNOTES will explain the DECPac agenda...scary.
    
    Let's see now...CXO vs. CXN?  At that time I was told that there
    would be an event at CXO.....it's now at CXN....no biggee.  I stated
    previously that no one was forcing me to go...but I am compelled
    to work in the same building when this event is going on.  This
    upsets me and I chose to stay home that day...OK?
    
    Now, why am I threatened??  That's a toughie.  I'm threatened because
    I believe that the purpose of these events is to promote acceptance
    of homosexual lifestyles.  As I personally find those lifestyles
    morally abhorrent, I feel threatened.  As some of the results of
    those lifestyles (AIDS, etc.) are less than desirable, I feel
    threatened.  As I believe there is a hidden recruiting agenda, I
    feel threatened.  As increased acceptance of what I believe is an
    unnatural lifestyle happens, I feel threatened.  I feel threatened
    in much the same way that I feel threatened by increasing crime rates,
    or disintegrating marriages and familes, or run-away spouse and child
    abuse, or a thousand other things.  All of these things weaken the
    society I live in, and if the society is weak, I, and the things I
    believe in are in danger.  Is it OK if I feel threatened by that?
    
    Please note that I am talking about MY feelings here.  I am not
    accusing....I'm not pointing the finger at individuals...this is the
    way I feel, that's all.
    
    I have tolerated homosexuals all my working life.  I've knowingly
    worked with them on several occasions.  I managed to survive, although
    there was a discomfort factor.  I don't believe in "queer bashing"
    and would probably be quite likely to physically intercede on
    behalf of the bashee if I ever witnessed something like that.  But
    puleeeeeze!!, don't ever, never expect me to recognize, understand,
    accept or value those differences...it can't happen.
                     

    
    RE: .613  Cookie::Lennard
    
    > I stated previously that no one was forcing me to go...but I am 
    > compelled to work in the same building when this event is going on.  
    > This upsets me and I chose to stay home that day...OK?           
    
    Be sure you make proper arrangements if you decide not to show up 
    out of anger about a meeting your employer has arranged on your site 
    that day (which your employer does not require you to attend.)
    
    If you don't have specific, sanctioned arrangements about not being
    at work that day, I would think the consequences could be serious
    for you.                                      

    Nah-na-na-naaa-naaa.  What are you gonna do?  Tell my daddy?
    You can reach my boss at BAGELS::DUDDRIDGE.  I'm sure he'd love
    to hear from you.  Grow the hell up.

    
    	Cookie::, I have no intention of telling anyone.  If you decide
    	to go AWOL from DEC for a day (or call in "sick" after announcing
    	to the whole Digital world that you INTEND to stay home that day)
    	- it's your choice.
    
    	Good luck.
    

Re:   <<< Note 1616.605 by BEING::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

>    Digital is reneging on the promises it has made in its policies,
>    various announcements, and statements made to me when soliciting my
>    employ.
    
If you're so dissatisfied with the way Digital is treating you, you're quite
free to seek employment elsewhere.  There are many of us who are more than
content with our employment and would like to stay and help Digital through
these tough times without having to listen to continuous complaints.

-  David

    re:.613 - Very well said.
    
    This note has has digressed far and wide.  There are those of us who
    recognize the homosexual lifestyle as a choice that we feel is an
    abomination.  When the valuing diversity programs address the minority
    races, it is one thing, since those people have no choice.  But, when
    choice or preference is involved the feeling is quite different.  There
    are many of us who do not buy "...its merely an acceptable lifestyle
    difference...".  Many of us do not hate the homosexuals, we abhor the
    choice they have made.  We dislike Digital telling us it is okay - that
    is not the same as VD telling me about Blacks, Asians, Latinos...

re: .609,

.609>    That proves only that you have blinders on; it proves nothing about
.609>    whether other employees were bothered.

    	According to your entire argument Eric, it doesn't matter that
    anyone else was bothered.  According to you, it is enough that *you*
    felt bothered by a particular event in *your* cafeteria to justify
    the condemnation of another event in a completely different cafeteria.
    Based on evidence I have offered which counteracts identical evidence
    presented in your own argument, my point stands as "proof" that the
    G/L/B Awareness Day at MRO event was not offensive.

    	As I said before - case closed.  Please see note #981 for replies
    to your other arguments - as that is the note where the bulk of your
    arguments belong, and that is where several people including myself
    have already requested that the generic VoD discussions be moved to.

    				    -davo

    Sexual preference, for some, is no more chosen than race.  There is
    considerable research over the past ten years that indicates that
    chemical imbalances during pregnancy forms homosexual preferences in males
    before birth.  
    
    While I find the notion of a homosexual life style abhorent FOR ME, I
    refuse to pass judgement on other people's lives as they live them as
    responsible, mutually consenting adults.  Celibacy or chastity is not a
    natural or an easy state to maintain.  Talk to a person who has
    willingly made that commitment for religious purposes about his/her
    struggles.  How can you expect a person who for biological, or other
    reasons beyond their control, who is attracted to the same sex to not
    live their sexuality any more than you would expect a heterosexual not
    to live his/her sexuality.
    
    In response to earlier notes:
    
    The mindset about AIDS being a "homosexual curse" is excrement.  Yes,
    it has been widespread in male homosexual communities because of how it
    was introduced and how it most easily spreads.  However, it spreads
    through heterosexual sex as well.  If you are open to education read
    Beyond Love by Dominique LaPierre.  One of the reviews on the jacket:
    
    "Beyond Love is a remarkable testimony of human solidarity."
    						Pope John Paul II

    If sexual preference were a choice, then a heterosexual person should
    be able to "turn gay" if the right incentives were offered.
    
    Any heterosexual person who claims it is a choice should ask him/herself
    what "price" it would take to make them PREFER to love/sleep_with people
    of the same sex.  (Note that I said "PREFER" and not simply "ENGAGE IN
    SEX WITH" partners of the same sex.)
    
    Would a billion dollars be enough to make a hetero person PREFER gay
    sex?  It wouldn't be enough for me - although I suppose I'd be inclined
    to try faking it for that much money.  :-)  There isn't enough money on
    Earth to really *change* me from being hetero to gay, though. 
    
    Imagine how many people would "choose" to be gay since the main rewards
    offered are being_discriminated_against and hated. 
    
    Gee - not even a coffee mug!  Such a deal!

    Well, in the interests of "free speech," I guess I'm allowed to state
    that I find it a real stretch (measured in light years) to characterize
    a table of pamphlets as "PUSHING" values on employees.
    
    Our cafeteria brings the "Up with People" singers/dancers here from
    time to time.  They certainly use a great deal of volume and visual
    effect to promote their "message" - yet, I don't see how this could
    be regarded as "pushing" values on anyone, either, since no one is
    required to use Digital's cafeteria (much less BELIEVE anything said
    or sung in the cafeteria.)
    
    If "Up with People" is allowed to perform in the cafeteria, then it
    would be UNequal access to deny VoD the right to have a few quiet
    tables w/literature merely NEAR the cafeteria.  
    
    Digital is being tolerant by allowing VoD to have a table that can be
    accessed by those employees who CHOOSE TO DO SO during lunch time (when
    Digital's work will not be interrupted or hampered in any way.)
    
    It's good for business to promote Valuing Differences, so Digital has
    embraced it as a business decision (one I agree with heartily as being
    both ethically and morally sound.)

re: 619

>    	As I said before - case closed.  Please see note #981 for replies

For crying out loud Davo, if you have said it before why are you continuing?
Must you get the last word?

- George

    I have held off replying until catching up on ALL replies, but frankly
    must finally say something.  
    
    VoD does not mean Digital must or should or will value intolorance,
    ignorance nor bigotry.  
     
    It is important to understand that Digital's investment in VoD is real. 
    
    Not only because it is the right thing to do, nor even because it is 
    the legal thing to do, but also because it IS good business.  
    And helping dissolve the barriers and educate the folks
    who are willing and wish to grow is worth the effort (time, money,
    manpower, focus, etc.). 
    
    Many calm voices have tried to make this point, and I commend them
    (most recently reply .569 stands out as a fine example, and perhaps it
    should be re-read). 
    
    I am saddened by the hatred expressed.  I more firmly than ever believe
    that there is more work to do in Valueing Diversity/Differences.  
    
    Irene 

    disclaimer - previous reply may not have been spell-checked but the
    message is the same.
    
    ;-)

    re .616

    While I certainly don't want to be seen as supporting Mr. Lennard's
    attitude towards this whole subject, I wonder why you assume his
    staying home (for whatever reason) means he's not working? I
    frequently work from home for at least part of the day - whether via
    dial-in line or working on stuff which doesn't require face-to-face
    interaction. Quieter that way.

    
    	RE: .626  Paul
    
    	As I mentioned, I made a distinction between "sanctioned" time
    	away from the office, and something less than that.
    
    	"Sanctioned" time away from the office would include working
    	from home, among other things.
    

    Re .587:
    
    > You said, in .474, "Everybody should tolerate; that is a good thing".
    > You didn't make any exceptions.
    
    Oh, yes, you are absolutely correct, the proper interpretation of my
    statement is not to have any exceptions whatsoever.  You are correct; I
    meant that a person should tolerate personal attacks without rebutting
    them at all.  No exceptions.  Even an actual physical assault should be
    tolerated, without any self-defense.  No exceptions.  Tolerance in all
    cases means that blacks should tolerate slavery without objection.  No
    exceptions.  Tolerance means that every person should tolerate their
    hunger even to the point of not actually bothering to eat food.  No
    exceptions.
                                                                         
    I want to congratulate you on the most intelligent interpretation that
    anybody has ever made of anything I wrote.  Your astute reading is
    absolutely brilliant, reflecting the shining genius of its author.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .617:
    
    > If you're so dissatisfied with the way Digital is treating you,
    > you're quite free to seek employment elsewhere.
    
    Oh, so Digital is just free to break its promises without consequence?
    Sorry, but the opportunity to seek employment elsewhere does not
    relieve Digital of the responsibilities it took on freely.
    
    > There are many of us who are more than content with our employment
    > and would like to stay and help Digital through these tough times
    > without having to listen to continuous complaints.
                                    
    WOW, IMAGINE THAT!  You do not want to have to LISTEN to continuous
    complaints.  How amazingly similar to MY point, that I do not want to
    have to LISTEN to this garbage Digital is spooning out.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .619:
    
    > According to you, it is enough that *you* felt bothered by a
    > particular event in *your* cafeteria to justify the condemnation of
    > another event in a completely different cafeteria.
    
    I never said any such thing, and I told you I had not said such a
    thing.

    > As I said before - case closed.
    
    What case closed?  I show how your imagined motives are hooey, and you
    say "case closed"?  I want to know why you said I had not answered your
    question when in fact I had.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re 981.44:
    
    > 	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.

    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?
    
    > . . . 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"?
    
    See below.
    
    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.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
      <<< UCOUNT::DISK$USER02:[NOTES$LIBRARY]ZKO_SUGGESTION_BOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< ZKO Suggestion Box >-
================================================================================
Note 242.0                       Cafeteria Usage                       5 replies
BEING::POSTPISCHIL "Always mount a scratch monkey."  21 lines  20-JAN-1989 12:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Why is the cafeteria used as a theatre?  For an entire week, shows
    about the civil rights movement are being played at a volume loud
    enough to be disturbing.  Only eight people were watching today; more
    than that were being bothered.
    
    The cafeteria was not designed as a theatre.  I suggest a conference
    room would be a more appropriate place for this sort of activity.
    Those watching the show could hear better in the quiet of a conference
    room while those in the cafeteria would not be affected.
    
    In general, I question the appropriateness of Digital exposing its
    employees to influencing material of any sort.  A week on the civil
    rights movement is excessive.  So is littering the tables with
    advertisements to see the planetarium display which then contains
    solicitations for money.
    
    Lunch time is a BREAK.  The employees are on their own time, not
    Digital's.  Leave them alone. 
    
    
    				-- edp
                

    Re. .584 (I can't believe I found it back)
    
>    The hidden agenda item of all of this garbage is still to get full
>    benefits, particularly health care for homosexual partners, as well as
>    relocation bennies, etc. 
    
    This really shocked me to the bone. Are you suggesting they want to end
    an era of completely unfair discrimination against them? How disgusting
    indeed. You're right, I almost had to call in sick.
    
    
    Ad
    
    

| > In what way does this now become a moral issue Eric?

| Digital is abusing the employer-employee relationship.

	How is that Eric?

| Digital is reneging on the promises it has made in its policies,
| various announcements, and statements made to me when soliciting my
| employ.

	Specifically Eric, just what promises did they reneg on? What
announcements are you talking about and what statements were made when you were
hired?

| > Eric, when you walk down the streets in a city, someone hands you a
| > handbill advertising something, does that affect you?
| > If not, tell us in your own words just how this solicitation affects
| > you?

| A handbill on an ordinary street is less of an effect than a
| solicitation at a place of employment, 

	Because.......

| but it still has an effect.  To
| begin with, it is a nuisance in and of itself.  And then it must be
| disposed of, which is a further nuisance if one does not wish to
| litter.  Not a great nuisance, to be sure, but a nuisance nonetheless.

	Well, in the streets they walk up to you and hand you the thing while
with this meeting that was held in MRO they had a table in a LARGE hallway. In
the streets they try and get you to take the thing while in this meeting you
only saw what they had if you walked over. Funny how the work related one
bothers you more....

| A solicitation at one's place of employment is worse.  First, a person
| has more limited options regarding avoiding their place of employment
| than they do city streets.  

	To avoid a place of employment and to avoid a table in a large hallway
are two totally different things. The table is easily avoidable, while you are
correct, the place of employment isn't. 

| Second, the solicitation, when supported by
| the employer, represents pressure from the employer.  

	Pressure from a voluntary meeting? Good one.

| Third, it is peer
| pressure (which is bad because ideas ought to be judged on their own
| merits, not on pressure from people).

	Could you go into more detail on this for me. I don't see how peer
preasure comes into play.



Glen

| Now, why am I threatened??  That's a toughie.  I'm threatened because
| I believe that the purpose of these events is to promote acceptance
| of homosexual lifestyles.  

	The meeting informs people on the homosexual person. It will let you
find out who the homosexual person is. 

| As I personally find those lifestyles
| morally abhorrent, I feel threatened.  

	In what way? No one is going to try and pick you up, turn you into a
gay person. It isn't possible to do that. Just what exactly makes you feel
threatened?

| As some of the results of
| those lifestyles (AIDS, etc.) are less than desirable, 

	Have you ever read anything on AIDS? You might be surprised on just
what you find out about the disease. You would see it isn't a homosexual
disease, but a world disease.

| As I believe there is a hidden recruiting agenda, I
| feel threatened.  

	Recruiting? Maybe you should attend one and find out.

| I have tolerated homosexuals all my working life.  I've knowingly
| worked with them on several occasions.  I managed to survive, although
| there was a discomfort factor.  

	Maybe if you looked at them as people and nothing more the discomfort
level might drop?



Glen

    RE: .613  by COOKIE::LENNARD 
    
    >This upsets me and I chose to stay home that day...OK?
    
    I think you could justifiably take that as a "sick" day.
    

-EDP, Glen, and others...

Why don't you take this VoD discussion elsewhere? I believe there is a
notestring dedicated to VoD discussions. This note was originally intended to
discuss a 'SPECIFIC' event, that event being: G/L/B Awareness Day at MRO.

THIS NOTE WAS NOT CREATED TO DISCUSS THE PROs AND CONs OF VoD IN GENERAL.

Eric, (and others who just won't let it drop), you have now successfully 
managed to rathole the original topic into oblivion. 

RE:      <<< Note 1616.631 by BEING::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

    EDP, you can conspicuously ignore anything I enter if you so wish, but
    you might be pleased to know that nobody else is.
    
    .631 was a classic example of posturing, painting oneself into a
    corner, and of a refusal to accept that you've been hoist on your own
    petard. Once more the network is ringing with laughter at the spectacle
    of someone repeatedly shooting himself in the foot.
    
    I would remind you that I find your use of this conference as a forum
    for the insistent and relentless promotion of your own views and
    beliefs whilst shouting down those of others as "harassment", offensive
    in the extreme. I would doubtless find your childish and gauche attempt
    at belittling Mr. Edmunds in .631, equally offensive if it weren't so
    pathetic.
    
    Laurie.

    re:641
    Speak for yourself. Go for it EDP.
    
    Regards
    

    EDP has more silent supporters than anyone will ever imagine!
    
    I am one, but I wish this whole discussion would quietly subside.
    
    

    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.

   For thoses of you who might be interested there is a discussion currently
taking place in the Christian notes conference, GOLF::CHRISTIAN, Topic # 944,
regarding "Homosexuality and Christianity". I recommend reading the opening
note and the next 20 or so replies. The advocates of homosexuality are complet-
ely shutdown and humbled in this conference as they face the Scriptures which 
in no uncertain terms makes the Bible's position on homosexuality perfectly
clear. The homosexuals are so frustrated in their failed attempts to circum-
vent the Scriptures that some have exclaimed "I don't accept the Scriptures
at face value"! For the record, I'm hardly a "bible thumping" Christian
myself but its interesting to see the dilemma some are in when they want
to "belong in mainstream" as a Christian but see a need to denounce the bible
because it denounces their behavior.

RE: -.1


	You can also look into the christian perspective notesfile and see the
other viewpoint held by straight bible/non bible believing people. 


Glen

    
    You folks do realize, of course, that EDP isn't agreeing AT ALL with
    some of your positions against homosexuality.  
    
    He's taken a position that has some elements in common with what some
    of you (opponents of the G/L/B day at MRO) are saying - for one, he's 
    against having VoD G/L/B tables near DEC cafeterias.  Now some of you 
    are ready to stand behind him (and you think the majority will join
    you.)
    
    This is precisely what many politicians do to further their own goals.

  RE: .613

  Thank you Mr. Lennard for finally stating why you are bothered by the idea 
  of such an event in terms other than "it is sick!" or "disgusting!"
  
  If you continue to express yourself in this way perhaps we can get somewhere.
  
  Now as to your specific complaints, I suppose I could rebut your "beliefs"
  about the "homosexual lifestyles" as it is clear from reading your list that
  you are misinformed about who the majority of gay people are and how we live. 
  It seems the bottom line is that you object to things like the anonymous sex 
  and shallow, narcissistic "values" embraced by the stereotypical gay man and 
  perceive any attempt by *anyone* to foster acceptance of gay people as an 
  attempt to foster acceptance of that stereotypical image.   Am I correct, or 
  do you object just as strongly to the idea of two men or two woman in a long 
  term, monogamous relationship, living together in a suburban single family 
  home with a white picket fence, a garden and a golden retriever?
 
  I ask this because I can assure you that there are people, both gay and
  straight who live BOTH kinds off "lifestyles" - and every kind of lifestyle 
  in between.

  Homosexuals are not a single, monolithic force.  We do not all think and act
  alike.   For reasons I won't go into, I believe you should be *WELL* aware of 
  this fact, but you seem to chose to ignore it just the same.

  When all is said and done, what you have presented as a list of reasons for
  objecting to a g/l/b Valuing Diversity presentation is simply a logical
  fallacy.   You offer no proof for your slippery slope argument of doom and 
  gloom for humanity should gays be accepted.

  Your analogies to crime and child abuse don't wash.  Those things are 
  clearly and objectively measurable as threats to other people.  Crime
  violates the rights of others.  Child abuse violates the rights of others.
  A society that *refrains* from hateful and discriminatory practices towards
  gays is NOT violating your rights.  You are still free to live you life
  as you chose.  There are some issues around housing and employment rights
  that could on occasion cause the rights of two individuals to come into
  conflict and we need to be able to settle those conflicts in a peaceful
  way that maximizes everyone's freedom.  Reasonable people can disagree on
  such issues.  But what I don't understand is why you are so unwilling to 
  allow others that same freedom and opportunity you have.

>    I have tolerated homosexuals all my working life.  I've knowingly
>    worked with them on several occasions.  I managed to survive, although
>    there was a discomfort factor.  I don't believe in "queer bashing"
>    and would probably be quite likely to physically intercede on
>    behalf of the bashee if I ever witnessed something like that.  But
>    puleeeeeze!!, don't ever, never expect me to recognize, understand,
>    accept or value those differences...it can't happen.

  "Those differences" - all I can imagine is that you think you are being
  asked to "value" homosexual sexual practices.  Nothing could be further
  from the truth.  What Digital is asking employees to do is to recognize
  and understand the difficulties faced by gays in the workplace; our fears
  of being "found out" mainly, and the loss of productive energy expended
  trying to hide who we are.  What we are asking is that you make it CLEAR
  you don't believe in "queer bashing" and that you are capable of working
  alongside gay co-workers.   We have every reason to believe that a person
  who makes statements such as those you have made in this and other forums
  poses a serious threat not only to our careers, but even to our physical
  well being!

  If only you could experience what it is like to have to worry every waking 
  moment of every day how each individual you encounter might react if they 
  found out the truth about you, maybe then you'd see who faces the real 
  threat here.  The destruction of gay lives is not an abstract notion, 
  imagined in the heads of people who feel "uncomfortable" with a particular 
  idea or unprovoked sexual image. It is real and tangible.  It is a tragedy.
  And it is something that I, for one, hope to avoid.

  /Greg