home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: ba.politics
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!phil
- From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
- Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
- Message-ID: <1992Dec23.113754.20358@netcom.com>
- Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
- References: <ljfbdgINN1gf@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <1992Dec23.064014.16249@netcom.com> <1992Dec23.083415.10736@netcom.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 11:37:54 GMT
- Lines: 78
-
- phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >
-
- >Ugh. I know the Michels. My personal, own and private opinion, based on
- >experiences I have seen and documented (there, that'll keep the libel
- >lawyers at bay I hope) is that they are lying scum. Perosnal direct
- >experience.
- >
- >But the point I want to make is the workings of freedom (and capitalism) in
- >>No charges have been filed, yet Michels has stepped down. As
- >>SCO wishes to go public, it is not good for an IPO to have
- >>such shit going on. He was most likely forced out.
- >>
- >Wrong again. Charges have been filed with the State EEO
- >office by two of the five. Civil lawsuits have also been
- >filed. So what are you talking about?
-
- As I said, no charges have been filed. A complaint is not a charge,
- nor is a lawsuit. When the District Attorney and a Grand Jury indict
- Michels for rape, now THAT's a charge. As in "an indictment charging ...".
-
- Now, care to publicly admit you're wrong?
-
- Now, care to publicly admit you're wrong?
-
-
- >>What kind of an explanation is that? And what does it make
- >>that lawyer?
- >>
- >It's called reality. Said woman (don't know if she was a
- >>What kind of an explanation is that? And what does it make
- >>that lawyer?
- >>
- >It's called reality. Said woman (don't know if she was a
- >lawyer or a secretary, since the articles I read only
- >mentioned secretaries) needed her job, just like she said.
-
- It mentioned her as being a lawyer, and presumably not a stereotyped
- scared entry level clerk.
-
- What kind of person tolerates sexual conduct that they don't like in
- retrun for money?
-
- >If you had
- >to feed your family and had a huge mortgage and couldn't
- >afford to miss one paycheck (a very typical situation in
- >Silicon Valley with our $300,000 homes), would you call on
- >your manager if he played fast and loose with his ethics?
- >Remember, if you blow the whistle, you'll probably lose your
- >job, and a lawsuit will drag on for years. Meanwhile, who is
- >going to feed your children when your paycheck goes away.
- >Answer: that's probably why she put up with it.
-
- Sorry, that's no excuse to act immorally. In 1979, when working for
- CSC for DNS, their first distributed system, I found out, after a while
- of working on it, that it was being used for that Gerald Ford project
- of tarcking down "missing" dads by use of their Social Security numbers,
- I quite by the end of the week (it took that long to get another job).
- I considered the projecty immoral.
-
- I quite another job at a very well know workstaion company when requested
- to forge Federal reports -- to state as true things that weren't. Much
- less than the morality was the obviousness that if (or when) the Feds
- caught up, guess who'd be left hanging in the wind. The VP at the time,
- the pressur-er, is now an "individual contributor" as they say.
-
- If the first women that Michels had bothered had (assume he physically
- touched her), slapped him, kneed him in the groin, and called the police,
- I would rather imagine that about zero further indicdents would have happened.
-
- Don't you?
-
-
-
-
- --
- I believe Gennifer Flowers.
-
- These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
-