From dave Tue Jan 26 07:51:31 1988
From: dave (dave "who can do? -- RATmandu!" ratcliffe)
To: all
Subject: Move over George Orwell--here comes BIGGE grand-daddy!
Cc: dave
George Orwell ALMOST had it right--but instead of big brother its
big grand-daddy. I SURE do feel GOOD knowing that "we're spending more
on education than on defense"+. Now if "we" can just slip in a law that
says you have to pray to God in school (what would be the appropriate
penalty for violators?--how about "re-orientation" with the church lady
for a day?) then everyone would sleep easier at night knowing that our
youth are receiving the proper "guidance" in the classroom, so that they
too can grow up to be as intolerant, ignorant, and just plain senile as
old loveable grand-daddy.
+ President Ronald Wilson Raygun, State of the Union Address, January 25, 1988
- davey ratboy
yer friendly neighborhood ratman
=========================================================
From chris@pigdog Tue Jan 26 11:44:35 1988
From: chris@pigdog (Chris Blumenthal)
To: dave
Subject: Re: Move over George Orwell--here comes BIGGE grand-daddy!
Cc: chris@pigdog
here here!
--
chris@sgi.com
=========================================================
From cliff@marasai Tue Jan 26 10:13:41 1988
From: cliff@marasai (Cliff Thompson)
To: all, dave
Subject: Re: Move over George Orwell--here comes BIGGE grand-daddy!
Don't sound so suprised, given Raygun's history of making such equations
as: mass murder = supporting human rights; giving money & guns to fascists =
defending democracy; flying in cocaine on government aircraft = fighting drugs;
supporting Abu Nidal = fighting terrorism; he knows people want to believe in
fairy tales, and are so desperate that they won't question anything he
says. Maybe we really are spending more on education, by not spending anything
on it at all. That way, we're teaching self-reliance to those kids, instead
of making them depend on the government dole, huh? The man's a shameful and
vicious lying dog, and there's no way around that.
=========================================================
From rich@vienna Tue Jan 26 12:03:52 1988
From: rich@vienna (Richard Houston)
To: dave@vienna
Cc: all@vienna
This is the first time I have ever responded to another persons
opinions via electronic mail, but since certain individuals
choose to repetitively use E-mail as a forum to voice their
opinions, I now feel a rebuttal to your last message should
be made.
It disturbs me the way the press in this country has supported
the notion that God should be removed from our lives. I like
to think that a religious belief, and installing a religious
belief in our children, is one of the things that helps
maintain a moral society.
Our founding fathers, who in their wisdom, gave us the freedom
of speech, also founded this country as "one nation under God".
Our current president was elected by one of the largest margins,
indicating he has very broad support (from all political
affiliations) for his views and opinions. If he takes
a stand and expresses his opinion, is this not what leadership
is all about, or at least one of the qualities we look for in
a leader?
I often wonder when I read some of the E-mail opinions sent
via our company E-mail, if the authors ever stop and ask
themselves, "could I be offending a majority (or even one)
of my SGI colleagues?"
The second part of this memo goes out to Cliff Thompson, whose
physical appearance unmistakable makes a statement as to
some of his beliefs and opinions; I support your right to
these opinions, but not expressing them using our company
mail system.
To call our president a "shameful and vicious lying dog", and
then broadcast it to the general population of this company, is
wrong.
I feel it is about time our company management put a lid on
these political opinions and set guide lines as to what
type of messages can be sent over E-mail.
=========================================================
From cliff@marasai Tue Jan 26 13:37:47 1988
From: cliff@marasai (Cliff Thompson)
To: dave
Subject: Re: this should have been sent to you
Hay, I'm drawin' fire! This is pretty exciting!
=========================================================
From dave Tue Jan 26 13:12:02 1988
From: dave (dave "who can do? -- RATmandu!" ratcliffe)
To: cliff
Subject: this should have been sent to you
From dale@elvin Tue Jan 26 13:02:53 1988
From: dale@elvin (Dale Witt)
To: rich@elvin
Cc: hw-sprt@elvin, sw-sprt@elvin
Subject: Rebuttal
Rich: I support your opinion, e-mail is for S.G.I. bussiness. All
people in this country have the constitutional right to individual
expression and should exersize it. The proper place to do so is at
the " VOTING BOX " or seeking " PUPLIC OFFICE ". The mail can be used
for general information and not offend anyone, however I find
" SOAPBOXING " annoying and not called for in business. Clif should
be asked if he votes?
Regards, Dale
- davey ratboy
yer friendly neighborhood ratman
=========================================================
From cliff@marasai Tue Jan 26 12:44:47 1988
From: cliff@marasai (Cliff Thompson)
To: dave@vienna, rich@vienna
Cc: all@vienna
Richard is, of course, right in everything that he says about using
company E-mail, with regard to offending people deliberately. My
basic concern was to let Dave know he was not alone in his feelings,
and his willingness to express them publicly. As to my appearance,
well, that sounds like a personal problem of yours, Richard, and has
nothing to do with the worth (or lack thereof) of my morals and opinions.
As to everything else I said, I stand by it, and had, as a matter of
fact, toned down my traditional rhetoric, specifically to avoid
offending people needlessly. The fact that I live in a country run
by someone whom I feel is amoral and criminal causes me great shame.
I do what I can to change that, and try to work within the limits of
our political system, which I have a great deal of faith and devotion
to. I consider myself a conservative and a patriot in the truest
sense, and some of the things being passed off on our people and pushed
off on the rest of the world in the name of values that I cherish make
me ill, and prone to being short tempered. If I've upset anyone by
this, I sincerely apologize, and am shutting my mouth and minding my
business now. Thanks for your patience.
=========================================================
From dale@elvin Tue Jan 26 13:02:53 1988
From: dale@elvin (Dale Witt)
To: rich@elvin
Cc: hw-sprt@elvin, sw-sprt@elvin
Subject: Rebuttal
Rich: I support your opinion, e-mail is for S.G.I. bussiness. All
people in this country have the constitutional right to individual
expression and should exersize it. The proper place to do so is at
the " VOTING BOX " or seeking " PUPLIC OFFICE ". The mail can be used
for general information and not offend anyone, however I find
" SOAPBOXING " annoying and not called for in business. Clif should
be asked if he votes?
Regards, Dale
=========================================================
From dave Tue Jan 26 14:59:53 1988
From: dave (dave "who can do? -- RATmandu!" ratcliffe)
To: all
Subject: If you feel you've been missing out...
not everyone has been able to keep up with the latest banter on the E-mail
due to mysterious causes. vernon recommends people try using news reading
sgi.general if they fell they are missing out.
for those intent on perusing all I have received--some of which was not ad-
dressed to all, but I feel is tremendously apropos and makes for fascina-
ting reading--check out the contents of
elvin:/usr/tmp/Orwell
Its great to be alive!
Its great to live in this country!
And its fantabulous to work at this company!
- davey ratboy
yer friendly neighborhood ratman
=========================================================
From johnm@voltron Tue Jan 26 16:49:28 1988
From: johnm@voltron (Foosball Addict)
To: dave@voltron
Subject: Orwell
Some of us can't get to Elvin.
Thanks,
John
=========================================================
From duncan@spectre Tue Jan 26 14:14:56 1988
From: duncan@spectre (Donald Duncan)
To: rich@spectre
Cc: all@spectre, cliff@spectre, dave@spectre, duncan@spectre
Subject: freedom
I can see this getting blown all out of proportion.
I generally redirect flames to /dev/null. Oh well.
>This is the first time I have ever responded to another persons
>opinions via electronic mail, but since certain individuals
>choose to repetitively use E-mail as a forum to voice their
>opinions, I now feel a rebuttal to your last message should
>be made.
You have that right. Let us keep it that way.
>It disturbs me the way the press in this country has supported
>the notion that God should be removed from our lives. I like
>to think that a religious belief, and installing a religious
>belief in our children, is one of the things that helps
>maintain a moral society.
that is your opinion. fine.
>Our founding fathers, who in their wisdom, gave us the freedom
>of speech, also founded this country as "one nation under God".
not to mention separation of church and state.
>Our current president was elected by one of the largest margins,
>indicating he has very broad support (from all political
>affiliations) for his views and opinions. If he takes
>a stand and expresses his opinion, is this not what leadership
>is all about, or at least one of the qualities we look for in
>a leader?
isn't that exactly what dave was doing?
>I often wonder when I read some of the E-mail opinions sent
>via our company E-mail, if the authors ever stop and ask
>themselves, "could I be offending a majority (or even one)
>of my SGI colleagues?"
I don't know - did you? I found YOUR message somewhat offending but I am
not recommending to the company that you keep your opinions to yourself.
>The second part of this memo goes out to Cliff Thompson, whose
>physical appearance unmistakable makes a statement as to
>some of his beliefs and opinions; I support your right to
>these opinions, but not expressing them using our company
>mail system.
no comment.
>To call our president a "shameful and vicious lying dog", and
>then broadcast it to the general population of this company, is
>wrong.
^^^^^
in your opinion. I am not going to say this is right but please don't
teach me my morals. Seems to me that Reagan has repeatedly refered to
the SU as the "evil empire". The big difference between us and them is
that we can have this conversation in public.
>I feel it is about time our company management put a lid on
>these political opinions and set guide lines as to what
>type of messages can be sent over E-mail.
Doesn't this conflict with your belief in the right of freedom of speech?
If I may quote you - " ... If he takes a stand and expresses his opinion,
is this not what leadership is all about, or at least one of the qualities
we look for in a leader?"
Now I'm not saying I agree or disagree with dave or you, but limiting ones
expression of his point of view is better left to the repressive governments.
Of course the English didn't like us expressing our point of view 200 years
ago either.
You could use rmm and ignore opinions which don't agree with yours rather than
imposing your will upon the entire population of sgi and preventing an exchange
of ideas.
~Don
=========================================================
From johnm@voltron Tue Jan 26 15:14:04 1988
From: johnm@voltron (Foosball Addict)
To: duncan@spectre (Donald Duncan)
Cc: all@spectre, cliff@spectre, dave@spectre, duncan@spectre, rich@spectre
Subject: Re: freedom
Hear Hear!!
=========================================================
From gb@puppy Wed Jan 27 11:10:04 1988
From: gb@puppy (Greg Boyd)
To: dave@puppy, jym@puppy, rich@vienna
Subject: guidelines
Cc: gb@puppy
As well as company management putting a lid on these political opinions and
setting guidelines as to what type of messages can be sent over E-mail,
it is high time that the government set limits on the types of political
demonstrations and activism which can be displayed in public. Thank God
the FBI is doing the background work for this right now - just read
this morning's Mercury.
-- gb
=========================================================
From jmb@patton Tue Jan 26 21:22:27 1988
From: jmb@patton (Jim Barton)
To: all@patton
Subject: ED - Two More Cents Worth
It's fun to see the pronouncements of the right regurgitated for all to
see and appreciate. One should be careful, though, not to miss the
message here.
Mr. Houston seems to believe he has a right to preach a specific religious
belief to all of us, while other beliefs should be suppressed by the
'powers that be'. You can't have free speech and still supress things
that make you uncomfortable and angry. After all, I still have to listen
to biased news shows and "save the family" charades even though I'd
rather not.
Add your own opinion, but don't tell me what I should think or believe.
I'll ignore you anyway.
-- jmb
P.S. I like the way Cliff dresses. Such individuality is precious, and
should be protected. Once the company starts dictating dress you
might as well go work for IBM.
=========================================================
From thant@vienna Wed Jan 27 10:20:28 1988
From: thant@vienna (Thant Tessman)
To: jmb@patton (Jim Barton)
Cc: all@patton, thant@vienna
Subject: Re: ED - Two More Cents Worth
It seems a lot of people read more into Huston's e-mail than was
really put there. He was sensitive to Ratcliffe's implication that Raygun's
God was everyone's God. His real point, which I don't think anyone picked
up on, is that he doesn't think e-mail is the appropriate forum. (I happen
to disagree, but it's for the people who paid for the e-mail to decide
how it's put to use. There are plenty of clear cut first ammendment
violations to be discussed.)
He also told Cliff that the refrence to his appearance
was not meant to condemn it and appologized if it came across that way.
It seemed everyone was really anxious for something to argue about.
Suffering causes righteousness, and vice versa.
thant
=========================================================
From cliff@marasai Wed Jan 27 11:47:43 1988
From: cliff@marasai (Cliff Thompson)
To: jmb@patton, thant@vienna
Subject: Re: ED - Two More Cents Worth
Cc: all@patton
You're partially right. I think we all feel that emotions can run higher
and hotter than they ought to. On the other hand, controversy is valuable and
indispensible. Gadflys, both right and left, are needed to keep free societies
vital. People may have been offended by things that Dave, Richard, or I said
yesterfday. We certainly all got plenty of mail (by the way, thanks to all
who wrote a response - it's good to know there are people here who feel
strong enough convictions, on all sides, to express them publicly). The kind
of polite and inoffensive debate that you propose has it's place, too, but
it isn't sufficient to keep a free society vital. Didn't Jefferson make a
remark about "renewed with the blood of patriots?" He was referring to the
possibility that regular outbreaks of civil war might be needed to protect
the citizens from any entrenchment of institutional power. I don't think
things need to go that far, but we shouldn't expect them to be cozy all
the time, either.
=========================================================
From jym@slsrc Tue Jan 26 15:36:35 1988
From: jym@slsrc (jim terhorst)
Apparently-To: all@slsrc
Richard -
I agree with your's and anyone else's right to express an opinion.
I disagree wholeheartedly with most of the things you said,
but being a "true american", i respect your right to that
opinion.
What disturbs me is the hints of facism in some of your statements.
But, since the unamerican president you are backing is a facist,
it doesn't surprise me too much.
Certianly, when the founding fathers gave us "freedom of speech", that
also included freedom to wear what one wants to wear, and the freedom
to express one's opinion about the president (especially when it is the
truth).
What i was taught that america was all about was freedom of thought,
expression and the right to be an individual.
The america i hear you espousing is one in which we all worship the
same god, have the same opinion and wear the same clothes.
Sounds alot like Hitler Germany to me.
As a "true american", i am saddened by the blind following of
a president who has perpetrated violence throughout the world
in the name of "freedom and democracy". I am brought to tears
when i read about the bombing of Libya and the invasion of Granada.
I dream of a day when the greatest country in the world can
set an example of peace with our soviet and Chinese brothers
and sisters and lead the entire planet to harmony.
thanks,
jim t(jym)
=========================================================
From keving@zelig Tue Jan 26 14:51:17 1988
From: keving@zelig (Kevin Gurney)
To: rich@zelig
Subject: "One nation under God"
Cc: all@zelig, keving@zelig
In point of fact, the founding fathers and mothers had nothing to do with this
nation's relative postion to God. The phrase "one nation under God" was
added to the pledge of allegiance (sp?) very recently, like the beginning of
this century. Ditto with "In God we trust" on our money.
I have a feeling, Richard, that the founding father's religious practices and
beliefs would surprise you. Thomas Jefferson was the equivilant of a modern
Unitarian (they're not even sure a belief in God is necessary). While
Washington and the other Virginia gentlemen were generally members of the
Church of England (pre-1776 of course), there is very little evidence that
they were in any way "born again". On the contrary, there is much evidence
that the "freedom of religion" clause put into the Bill of Rights by the
founding fathers was put there to insure freedom FROM religion. Having
seen what official state religions had done to most of Europe, the FFs were
more than happy to make sure that the states couldn't create officially
supported religions (although some still had church taxes for many more years).
So why did America suddenly become a God-blessed nation around the turn of the
century? Well, I'm not doing my thesis on religion in America (yet) so I'll
give you the short answer. Unfortunately (and I say that as both a Christian
and an American), America was deemed "blessed" by the providential hand of
God because of the realization of her "manifest destiny". By 1900,
the "heathen" tribes had been subdued and in some cases "shown the light",
Cuba had been conquered from the Jesuit papists (Spain), as had the
Phillipines, and the explotation of America's "endless" natural resources was
well under way. For an early 20th century white, male, wealthy capitalist,
America must have seemed very much like the Garden of Eden. (In case anyone's
wondering, I'm a late 20th centory white, male, well-enough-off capitalist.)
======
As for instilling values in children and so forth, I can't agree more that
a lot of our problems would be reduced if we lived our lives on a more
consistent moral and ethical basis. That's exactly why people like me and
Dave and Cliff (great; now I've grouped myself with the lunatic fringe :))
get so riled up by the Great Communicator. From our point of view, the
man says one thing and does another, and almost always invokes the name
of God to justify it.
Example: Terrorists are anti-God. ==> We'll never deal with them.
Americans are being held hostages and need to be freed ==> We'll pay
ransom for them.
But the ransom will have to go the anti-God terrorists with whom we
said we'll not deal with. So, we'll (1) not tell anyone we're paying
ransom and (2) if discovered, claim it was for the security of
God blessed nation. See what I mean? This is neither consistent nor
ethical.
Thanks for reading,
Kevin Gurney
=========================================================
From kirk@bubba Tue Jan 26 16:07:03 1988
From: kirk@bubba (Kirk Law)
To: all@bubba
Subject: Opinions or Personal Attack
I will have to admit that I truly admire all the rebuttal going on here and
feel that this IS what freedom of speech is all about.
I personally don't appreciate opinions that express a desire to judge and
and associate people by their appearance. Generally, I feel sorry for such
people as they often eliminate fruitful friendships and exchanges of different
points of view from theirs. Often these people don't want to hear points of
view different from theirs. This, however, is their choice albeit not mine.
The pointed attack, in my opinion, on Cliff's appearance I take very personal
as I, being a Black American, don't look like most of you. Is someone making
judgements and associating me as a class of people ? Luckily, I feel that the
people I have come in contact with here at SGI are more open minded and don't
dwell on such petty things. I have had to deal with such judgement stances
before and do not wish anyone to have to experience it.
I feel that some form of apology is due Cliff. The opinions expressed around
the attack of Cliff are just that, opinions that one has a right to voice.
But, I feel that personal attacks contaminate our rich environment here at
SGI.
-Kirk-
-------
=========================================================
From koontz@oregon Tue Jan 26 17:35:41 1988
From: koontz@oregon (David Koontz)
To: rich@vienna (Richard Houston)
Cc: all@oregon
I found your mail much more disturbing than any others.
E Mail either has freedom of speech or it hasn't.
If you didn't like comments on the president, maybe you should phone
him and offer to provide testimony in any libel trial.
=========================================================
From lindy@badbox Wed Jan 27 10:31:50 1988
From: lindy@badbox (John Lindquist)
To: all@hobbes
Subject: current "flame" stats
The current stats for the "flame" for 1/27/88 @ 10am are:
User # Lines in flame
dave 108
jym 44
kirk 37
jmb 34
markb 28
erb 24
koontz 22
So, dave is currently in first place for the honorary "politician" title
and koontz is making a bid for the "succinct" title.
=========================================================
From koontz@oregon Wed Jan 27 11:17:33 1988
To: lindy@badbox (John Lindquist)
Cc: all@hobbes
Subject: Re: current "flame" stats
I'd rather try and take charge and be last, than come in secound.
"The idea is not to win, but to make the other guy earn it"
A. Haig
=========================================================
From lindy@badbox Wed Jan 27 11:56:51 1988
From: lindy@badbox (John Lindquist)
To: all@hobbes
Subject: Re: current "flame" stats
I'm sorry if i left any one out of the flame stats. I started keeping
track of message length today and have no info about the "flames" of
yesterday. If you want to be included, please send me your message
from yesterday and I will add the total to the list.
-lindy
=========================================================
From markb@denali Tue Jan 26 15:47:34 1988
From: markb@denali
Apparently-To: all@denali
Subject: Choices
Personally, I like the way Cliff dresses. It's nice to see a bit of
individuality amongst all the ties, blue smocks, etc. Of course I
don't think I could carry it off....
Religious freedoms, huh? Religion seems to be a structured and bureaucratic
way to impose 'morality' as defined by a certain group of people.
My children are being raised with my and my wife's definitions of what
we think are the rights and wrongs. Those who don't think cows are
some sort of sacred creature may be considered evil in some religious
cultures, but my children are being taught that they taste particularly
good when marinated in light herbs and red wine then broiled quickly.
On the other hand, we think that wax beans should never be eaten.
markb
=========================================================
From msg@fuzz Tue Jan 26 14:42:31 1988
From: msg@fuzz (Mark Grossman)
To: cliff@fuzz, dave@fuzz, peter@fuzz
Subject: a reply I sent...
From msg Tue Jan 26 13:39:17 1988
From: msg (Mark Grossman)
To: rich@vienna
Subject: offenses
Cc: msg
Would it surprise you to hear that your public expression of opinion
offends ME? Maybe I should have management put a lid on your E-mail
use, since you are wasting the same set of company resources. However,
it may surprise you that I support your right to express yourself, as
fascistic and intolerant as I find your opinions. As a company
co-founder, I would find any move toward censorship far more
distasteful than any collection of political messages.
=========================================================
From erb@elvin Tue Jan 26 17:42:40 1988
From: erb@elvin (Herb Ebner)
Apparently-To: all@elvin
Mark:
I agree with your opinions and also find the remarks today interesting and
in some cases fascinating. An open forum as this is stimulating and healthy I
believe.
But please Mark, keep your deragatory remarks about wax beans to yourself.
Thanks,
erb member, National Organization for the Promotion of Wax Beans.
=========================================================
From mtoy@xman Tue Jan 26 15:26:10 1988
From: mtoy@xman (Michael Toy -- The S.G.I. XMAN)
To: dave@xman
Subject: elvin:/usr/tmp/Orwell
Can't seem to get it
rcp as guest doesn't work
rcp as root doesn't work
rlogin as guest,root all ask for passwords.
I was mildly amused to see the message "Permission denied" when I tried to
get a copy of the file.
--
Michael Toy, secret identity: the XMAN at Silicon Graphics
{ames,decwrl,sun}!sgi!mtoy
=========================================================
From dave Wed Jan 27 05:43:49 1988
From: dave (dave "who can do? -- RATmandu!" ratcliffe)
To: mtoy@xman
Subject: Re: elvin:/usr/tmp/Orwell
don't know why you can't get them: have experimented as guest on 3000
and 4D machines... none of them seem to complain.... perhaps yer running
some sort of mildly amusing kernel that isn't into granting permissions...??
(you do of course realize that this is directory not a simple file...)
- davey ratboy
yer friendly neighborhood ratman
=========================================================
From orcutt@mauler Tue Jan 26 14:25:57 1988
From: orcutt@mauler (Allen Orcutt)
To: dave@vienna, rich@vienna
Subject: free speech
Cc: all@vienna
*******************************************************************************
>From: rich@vienna (Richard Houston)
>To: dave@vienna
>Cc: all@vienna
>Date: Tue, 26 Jan 88 11:59:54 PST
>Our founding fathers, who in their wisdom, gave us the freedom
>of speech, also founded this country as "one nation under God".
.
.
.
>I feel it is about time our company management put a lid on
>these political opinions and set guide lines as to what
>type of messages can be sent over E-mail.
*******************************************************************************
Mr. Houston,
I'm a little confused. Are you arguing for or against free speech?
--
Allen A. Orcutt
"The Orc"
=========================================================
From peter@knot Tue Jan 26 14:03:17 1988
From: peter@knot (Peter Broadwell)
To: rich@vienna
Subject: ...The American Way.
Cc: all@knot
Good to hear from you, I have often wondered if anyone ever cares what
gets written on on our company e-mail. It is definitly another source
of information that needs careful scrutinizing before you belive it
all.
It would probably behove you to do the same with the stories you are
remembering from just after the election saying that Reagan won with a
landslide... Even a little analysis tell a very different story. Since
the 1960 election voter turnout for presidential elections has been
steadily declining. The 1980 and 1984 elections were no exceptions,
Reagan was elected by less than 1/3 of the elegible voters.
The press publishes whatever it can sell. Thats called free enterprise,
you can vote with your pocketbook if you don't like what they offer.
That is what I do.
There are other ways to foster a moral society as well, one is to make
examples of those who are immoral. Cliff's quote about Reagan being a
"shameful and vicious lying dog" is doing just that. I seemed to have
missed Cliff's message so I'm not sure of the context but it is
definitely the message I got from the Iran/Contra hearings.
When company management starts making censorship rules I will know we
have gotten too big. If you have trouble weeding through all the
opinionated mail perhaps you can ask that everyone sending out opinions
that are potentialy upsetting include EDITORIAL (or ED) in the subject
line. Then you could easily skip all such files. I myself might use
such a convention to let me know when to start paying attention. What
better way to feel the pulse of the commpany.
;;peter
=========================================================
From rich@vienna Tue Jan 26 15:11:36 1988
From: rich@vienna (Richard Houston)
To: cliff@vienna
Cc: all@vienna
Cliff,
I apologize for my reference of your appearance. I was making a
point as to the implied statement it makes about your opinions
and beliefs. It was by no ways a judgement. How you act or dress is
of no concern of mine, but an extension of your freedom of speech,
which I do support.
I am sorry.
P.S. This has been an enlightening experience.
=========================================================
From rick@rx Tue Jan 26 12:45:09 1988
From: rick@rx (Rick Downey)
Apparently-To: all@rx
Apparently-To: rick@rx
Richard,
Although I agree that the language of many of the e-mail political
opinions could be toned down as a matter of simple maturity, when
you ask SGI's management or anyone else to dictate what can and can't
be said, you are essentially eliminating a medium of expression that
helps some people get things off of their chests. I am sure by now
everyone knows that Rat and Cliff are radical in their opinions, but
then again, they aren't asking you to agree with them.
Once before, someone suggested that we eliminate the "all" alias from
elvin, and I sent out a message to "all" stating that I felt e-mail
is one of the last, if not the only means that folks can use to feel that
they can be heard. I received many replys from people here saying they
felt the same way. Having e-mail helps morale.
Just hit the "d" key if you don't want to read things, but don't ask that
the "d" key be automatically pushed for all of us! I like to make my own
choices.
Besides, your reply was good reading, too!!
Thanks for listening.
Rick Downey
=========================================================
From rmr@hobbes Tue Jan 26 14:40:24 1988
From: rmr@hobbes (Robert Reimann)
To: all@hobbes
Subject: Opinions
> This is the first time I have ever responded to another persons
> opinions via electronic mail, but since certain individuals
> choose to repetitively use E-mail as a forum to voice their
> opinions, I now feel a rebuttal to your last message should
> be made.
> It disturbs me the way the press in this country has supported
> the notion that God should be removed from our lives. I like
> to think that a religious belief, and installing a religious
> belief in our children, is one of the things that helps
> maintain a moral society.
As far as I can tell, the "press" has not supported "removing God
from out lives," but HAS supported the separation of Church and
State as guaranteed by our Constitution. If YOU choose to instill
a religious belief in your children, you have the right under the
Constitution. You do not have the right to tell others what they
can believe if you use the Government to do so (i.e., prayer in
public schools). You see, what makes this country great is the
fact that we are ALL entitled to our beliefs, with none receiving
favor over others.
> Our founding fathers, who in their wisdom, gave us the freedom
> of speech, also founded this country as "one nation under God".
Your quote is from the Pledge of Allegiance, "One nation, under God,
indivisible/With Liberty and Justice for All." The "under God"
portion of the Pledge was added to the original Pledge in the 1950's
under the Eisenhower administration. To the best of my recollection,
the Constitution contains no such language.
> Our current president was elected by one of the largest margins,
> indicating he has very broad support (from all political
> affiliations) for his views and opinions. If he takes
> a stand and expresses his opinion, is this not what leadership
> is all about, or at least one of the qualities we look for in
> a leader?
This is true only if you count electoral votes. The actual margin
by popular vote was, if I recall correctly, under 10%. And that's
only counting those who voted-- less than 50% did. So, with some
simple math, Reagan was elected by a popular vote of about 25%.
I take your point on leadership, but just because Reagan has the
ability to lead (some say) doesn't mean I have to agree with him.
I get very worried when people begin implying that you are "wrong"
if you don't agree with the majority. The Constitution protects
everyone's opinions, not just the "popular" ones.
> I often wonder when I read some of the E-mail opinions sent
> via our company E-mail, if the authors ever stop and ask
> themselves, "could I be offending a majority (or even one)
> of my SGI colleagues?"
Unfortunately, we all can't agree with each other (what would
politicians do if we did? ). I agree with Rick on this one;
if you start reading something offensive to you, stop reading
it. I realize this question is up to Management, but I'd
prefer an open forum. Perhaps a "politics"
alias could be set up for this kind of thing.
> To call our president a "shameful and vicious lying dog", and
> then broadcast it to the general population of this company, is
> wrong.
I would prefer to let individuals decide for themselves whether
it is wrong.
> The second part of this memo goes out to Cliff Thompson, whose
> physical appearance unmistakable makes a statement as to
> some of his beliefs and opinions; I support your right to
> these opinions, but not expressing them using our company
> mail system.
> I feel it is about time our company management put a lid on
> these political opinions and set guide lines as to what
> type of messages can be sent over E-mail.
One thing I would like to see is some personal restraint
regarding messages attacking employees based on the way they look or dress.
Such ad hominem attacks are both unprofessional and distasteful to me.
Robert.
=========================================================
From rmr@hobbes Tue Jan 26 15:27:07 1988
From: rmr@hobbes (Robert Reimann)
To: all@hobbes
Subject: Short Opinions
>Please be short and to the point in future replies.
> -lindy
Okay.
Robert.
=========================================================
From rmr@hobbes Wed Jan 27 11:52:39 1988
From: rmr@hobbes (Robert Reimann)
To: all@hobbes
Subject: Re: Two More Cents...
Thant writes:
>It seems a lot of people read more into Huston's e-mail than was
>really put there. He was sensitive to Ratcliffe's implication that Raygun's
>God was everyone's God. His real point, which I don't think anyone picked
>up on, is that he doesn't think e-mail is the appropriate forum. (I happen
>to disagree, but it's for the people who paid for the e-mail to decide
>how it's put to use. There are plenty of clear cut first ammendment
>violations to be discussed.)
I realized what his point was. However, if that was indeed his only
point, why didn't he simply say that? All that was necessary to convey
this was his first and last paragraphs. I'm sorry, but when I see
something posted to an open forum like e-mail that I disagree with, or
that is factually inaccurate, I respond to it. I agree that it's up
to Management to decide policy on our e-mail, but I hope they take
notice of employee opinion on the matter before they decide.
>He also told Cliff that the refrence to his appearance
>was not meant to condemn it and appologized if it came across that way.
I appreciated the apology, as I'm sure Cliff did. However, what led
me to comment on it initially was not that Richard was being judgemental
(I believe him when he says he wasn't), but rather that he is making
assumptions about people based on the way they LOOK, not by what they
DO. At least it sounded that way.
>It seemed everyone was really anxious for something to argue about.
No we weren't! :^) :^)
>Suffering causes righteousness, and vice versa.
But contrariwise, does verse cause vice?
Always the politician,
Robert.
=========================================================
From tingen@olympus Tue Jan 26 08:28:35 1988
From: tingen@olympus (John Tingen)
To: dave@olympus
Cc: tingen@olympus
Subject: Orwell
My simplistic solution:
No government schools. Therefore, no government control over the curriculum,
prayer or no prayer, etc. People with children pay for the education thereof.
I realize this viewpoint is not trendy due to the fact that it involves exer-
cising individual responsibility, a concept foreign to most these days.
However, if you don't have government schools, nobody has to get worked up
about what's going on in those schools because they won't exist. People
paying directly for the education of their children would pay for the type
of education they want their children to get. Socialist, Christian, Buddhist,
libertarian, whatever.
I still recall vividly that during my elementary education, we were required
to assemble and sing nationalistic songs and hear propaganda on a regular
basis. Took me a while to get "un-brainwashed".
I think it was H.L. Mencken who made the sage remark that "patriotism is the
last refuge of a scoundrel".
-tingen
=========================================================
From gb@puppy Wed Jan 27 16:21:01 1988
From: gb@puppy (Greg Boyd)
To: all@puppy
Subject: ED - clarification: Re: by the powers...
I wrote Robert a note responding to his assessment of Richard's apology
in which I used an example of racism, i.e:
>How on earth is Richard making assumptions about people based on the way
>they look NOT being judgemental? If I walk on the other side of the
>street because I see a black man a block away and I know that more
>muggings are caused per capita by blacks than whites, isn't that judgemental?
I apologize if the choice of this example offended anyone. I chose it as
it is (unfortunately) a common situtation, rather than because I believe
it to be true. The offended reader may be better appraised of my convictions
if (s)he had my entire message, particularly the following later paragraph:
>(Personally, I prefer the company of blacks to whites. I think they are
>MUCH more interesting, and less prone to talk about computers. I know, that's
>a judgement.)
-- gb
PS - Thank you, Robert, for a most enlightening discussion of judgementalism
vs. stereotyping.
=========================================================
From rmr@tigger Wed Jan 27 14:27:05 1988
From: rmr@tigger (Robert Reimann)
To: all@tigger
Subject: Re: By the powers...
Greg writes:
>How on earth is Richard making assumptions about people based on the way
>they look NOT being judgemental? If I walk on the other side of the
>street because I see a black man a block away and I know that more
>muggings are caused per capita by blacks than whites, isn't that judgemental?
>-- gb
Good point. I guess I should have said "overtly judgemental"
(He didn't, for instance, say "I don't approve.."). Humans are by
nature judgemental creatures; there's always a little voice in the
back of our heads saying "That was Good... this is Bad....," etc.
However, this situation is not so much a direct case of moral judgement, but
rather, a case of stereotyping. Stereotypes may have ethical values
attached to them, but are not themselves ethically based. Stereotypes
are, in fact, an important part of human psychology; they are part of
what enables us to classify things in like groups, even though few things
are exactly alike. The problem is, our instinct to associate things
sometimes gets in the way, especially when it comes to people. People
are special because each one has a unique personality. Yet, it is all
too easy for us to group people in our minds according to the way they look.
All of us sometimes have difficulty treating others as individuals, rather
than as part of some group. It is important to be aware of our tendencies
to stereotype, and although we cannot hope to rid ourselves of this
behavior, we can learn to appreciate others for their unique qualities--
the ones that really count.
I am not a number,
Robert.
=========================================================
From dave Wed Jan 27 08:10:26 1988
From: dave (dave "who can do? -- RATmandu!" ratcliffe)
To: all
Subject: WARNING! George Orwell was a visionary
Updated /usr/tmp/Orwell is now on olympus for those unable to reach elvin.
For any interested, I have copies of the full text of ronbo's State of
the Union. For precision's sake, the actual text I thought I was quoting
correctly reads:
As a nation we do, of course, spend heavily on education--more than
we do on defense
The reason I invoked George Orwell is because it greatly disturbs me
to study the words spoken and their implied "newspeak" meaning. To list a
few examples:
Tonight, then, we are strong. Prosperous. At peace. [--while we let others
do our fighting, terrorizing, and killing for us through the doctrine of
Low Intensity Conflict.]
Strategic Defenses that threaten no one [--except when you realize that
if the projected nuclear-power-plants-in-the-sky would have the precision
and accuracy to hit missiles soon after launch, they could just as easily
be targeted on cities and individuals walking down the streets of those
cities.]
Where others fear trade and economic growth, we see opportunities for
creating new wealth and undreamed-of opportunities for millions in our
land and beyond. [This is just the kind of thing workers in Canada fear
with the proposed new trade agreement--economic slavery to the US which
cannot be rescinded even with a future administration.]
We're for limited government because we understand, as the founding fa-
thers did, that it is the best way of insuring personal liberty and empow-
ering the individual so that every American of every race and region
shares fully in the flowering of American prosperity and freedom.
[There are a multitude of follow up sentences to this:
-Except Native Americans, Blacks, Hispanics, Palestinian Americans (whose
office was closed-down in Washington D.C), Gays, and Asians.
-Except when "national security" dictates we must continue to fund/support
American state-sponsored terrorism in the form of the contras--even when
public opinion polls ("empowering the individual") have consistently hov-
ered between 60 and 70 percent AGAINST further aid. The only time such
polls even approached 50 percent was during Grenada and that didn't last
long.
-Except for 52 percent of the population who are women when "we" say that
you do not have the right to control your own body and the majority of
those who would legislate such anti-abortion laws are men who've got
nothig to lose.
-Except when "we" want to murder foreign leaders such as Maurice Bishop
or Moamar Khadafy and then make excuses after the fact for which we never
produced a shred of conclusive evidence that our actions were justified.
-Except when "we" withdrew from the World Court when "we" claimed, "the
World Court is not equipped to handle this case", concerning that body's
condemnation of our mining of Nicaraguan harbors.
]
In all of these examples, I feel the double-talk, lies, inaccuracies,
and hypocrisy support Orwell's vision of a future he saw coming when he
wrote 1948 (it was changed to 1984 in 1949 with the first American edition
published by Harcourt and Brace) in the late 30's.
As a people, WE still have tremendous power to change those things in
our society and in our world with which we disagree. But the only way to
exercise that power is to speak out forcefully and continuously against
the kind of J. Edgar Hoover police-state tactics that threaten this power
of differing public opinion. One of the greatest proponents of a
police-state world is the military-industrial complex who are the most vo-
ciferous voices arguing all in the name of national security. President
Eisenhower understood this well when he spoke in his farewell address:
We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all
United States Corporations. This conjunction of an immense military
establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experi-
ence. The total influence--economic, political, even spiritual--is
felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal
Government. We recognize the imperative need for this development.
Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil,
resources, and livelihood are involved; so is the very structure of
our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by
the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous
rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the
weight of this combination endanger out liberties or democratic pro-
cesses. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and know-
ledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge indus-
trial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and
goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
We MUST indeed be forever alert, knowledgeable and willing to question
every aspect of what our leaders claim to be true and factual if we are to
insure against the kind of world so presciently postulated and detailed by
George Orwell.
- davey ratboy
yer friendly neighborhood ratman
=========================================================
From tingen@olympus Wed Jan 27 09:25:31 1988
From: tingen@olympus (John Tingen)
To: dave@olympus
Cc: tingen@olympus
Subject: How the Fed's Spend Our Bucks
I too grow weary of the government spending my money on stuff I would never
choose to support were I provided the choice. Seems like it would make sense
to have NO military budget and let the Pentagon brass (or Social Security,
Health and Human Services, Education, etc.) buy time on CBS and conduct a
telethon. Then, these functions would be funded to the exact level that
everybody is willing to finance! Choices for everybody! No need to feel
that we need to take Congress seriously (a concept I just can't get next to).
How about no funding for the Contras, but leave a forwarding address, i.e.:
print their P.O. Box in the newspaper so that anyone who wants to send them
a check can do so without implying that the U.S. collectively supports them.
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all people, entangling alliances
with none."
-Thomas Jefferson
-tingen
=========================================================
From mtoy@xman.sgi.com Wed Jan 27 11:55:10 1988
Path: dagwood!sgi!daemon
From: mtoy@xman.sgi.com
Newsgroups: sgi.general
Subject: Rebuttal to Dave's statements on women and abortion
It's been interesting and sometimes amusing to watch the flame wars going on
and I've been sitting here watching it all go by with a semi-detached smile,
but after the last mega-message I just couldn't sit out any longer so I'm
getting up on my high-horse to respond:
(In the middle of a series of examples of how Mr. Regan and his administration
have professed to support certain ideals and then done things which
go against these ideals, dave writes:)
...
-Except for 52 percent of the population who are women when "we" say that
you do not have the right to control your own body and the majority of
those who would legislate such anti-abortion laws are men who've got
nothing to lose.
...
In all of these examples, I feel the double-talk, lies, inaccuracies,
and hypocrisy support Orwell's vision of a future he saw coming when he
wrote 1948 (it was changed to 1984 in 1949 with the first American edition
published by Harcourt and Brace) in the late 30's.
Sorry Dave, but your statement is a fine example of double-talk, or you are
just mis-informed.
I'll accept this: 52% of the population are women (close enough)
I reject this implication: All women want abortion legalized and it is the
evil-empire of men-who-dont-care-about-women
who want to deny them.
I reject this phrase: "right to control your own body" This is not the issue.
First of all, the fetus is not part of the woman's
body, it is a seperate entity, different blood type,
different chromosones, different.
Second, it is emotionally charged and thus draws
the attention of the dialog off of the real issue
(To be fair, calling abortion "murder", or calling
anti-abortionists "pro-life" is the same thing,
and thus instead of a view of the real issues and
concerns on either side, we have instead a war
of propaganda. Slogan vs. Slogan.)
Facts:
1) Abortion is harmful to women. There are branches of the pro-life
movement who base their entire dialog against abortion on the
facts and figures associated with this.
2) The "Pro-Life" movement is not the men in the government trying to
steal the rights of women away. It is a grass roots movement with
men and women (and my experience has been that there are more women
involved than men, but that is my experience, I have no figures for that)
I don't want to go on a tirade about this so I'm only adressing the points made
in Dave's mail. There is a lot more that can be said about abortion and I'm
wiliing to carry the debate on further in a more proper forum (I believe that
the more public a forum is, the more susceptiple it is to sloganeering, that
a personal discussion is more likely to result in a meaningful dialog).
In the spirit of being on watch, however, I felt compelled to mail to "all" on
this subject so that Dave's statements which seemed as outrageous to me as some
of the things the President has said, would not go unchallenged.
That's MY piece of free speech.
--
Michael Toy, secret identity: the XMAN at Silicon Graphics
{ames,decwrl,sun}!sgi!mtoy
back to ratville times |
rat haus |
Index |
Search