From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 11:37:54 GMT

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 ...)