From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 05:31:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.023425.1502@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes:
    >>Michels stepped down NOT because of lawsuits (any company
    >>that size has lawsuits against it on an ongoing basis) nor
    >>because of EEO complaints (again, any company that size will
    >>have continual EEO complaints), but because of FOA.
    >>
    >Assertion without proof. Elaborate. At no point do you show
    >he stepped down due to FOA. Your later remark shows he
    >stepped due because of money, so you destroy your own
    >argument.

Multiple discussions of this very issue have been in both the WSJ, BW,
and our own SJMN. As you seem to be of the very PC/fascist bent, I don't
think you can even see the point, much less understand it.

A good size number of people, all of which have a financial stake in the
IPO, put pressure on Michels to step down. He may very well return after the
IPO. No coercive laws, no PC hysteria (although that is growing), just basic
FOA.

    >Fine. You have now advanced the hypothesis that the senior
    >Michels stepped down due to money. Demonstrate what this has
    >to do with FOA.

Boy, you really ARE dense. Probably the MOST effective way to use FOA is
by money -- we even have names for some forms of this, like "boycott".
Ever hear of the word "boycott" Maddi? Ah, good entity, I knew you could
read it ...

    >I've already addressed this issue, and it's even included in
    >this article, but you choose to ignore it. Charges occur for
    >rapes. Short of that, the way to go is a lawsuit or an EEO
    >complaint. It's that simple.
    >
    >>How would YOU like someone to erroneously say that you were
    >>charged with various felonies? I don't think you'd like it
    >>one bit. Get your act together and get your facts straight.
    >>
    >Well, given there are also no lawsuits or complaints filed
    >against me, I'd just ignore it. Stop changing the subject.
    >The issue is that Michels was forced to step down because of
    >scandal and money. FOA and PC-ness have zero to do with this
    >situation.
    >
    >Your problem is you think FOA and PC apply to every
    >situation. Get help. You're seriously off the deep end.

Excuse me, let's try a "maddi rant" -- duh, this is the N'th time Maddi,
are you ready to admit you were wrong aboyut Michels stepping down because
of criminal charges?

Michels did not step down because of any coercive law. He stepped down because
it was shown to him that it was going to hurt his pocketbook and others if
he didn't. I.e., an important group of people were NOT going to associate
with him because of his actions -- actions which have yet to see any criminal
charges (and from the accounts, there aren't any).


Which brings up another point -- you seem to say that it is O.K. for a woman
to put up with this shit because "she needs the job". Is this correct?
And, what do we call a woman that accepts unwanted sexual advances in return
for money? And, how many other women suffer because the first one or two
encouraged it by their silence?



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics