From: Dan Stromberg <strombrg@nis.acs.uci.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 11:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
To: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@openpgp.net>
Subject: Re: LACC: Re: Is hate code speech?
In-Reply-To: <199808261844.NAA016.34@geiger.com>
Message-ID: <35E45A31.1CD2@nis.acs.uci.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


William H. Geiger III wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> In <35E44AD1.442F@nis.acs.uci.edu>, on 08/26/98
>    at 12:50 PM, Dan Stromberg <strombrg@nis.acs.uci.edu> said:
> 
> >William H. Geiger III wrote:
> >>
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>
> >> In <Pine.SUN.3.91.980825155854.3483A-100000@baker>, on 08/25/98
> >>    at 04:19 PM, Xcott Craver <caj@math.niu.edu> said:
> >>
> >> >On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, William H. Geiger III wrote:
> >>
> >> >> <sigh> Now we have to worry about PC variable and function names. What a
> >> >> crock.
> >>
> >> >       Oh, yeah, you really have to worry about *accidentally*
> >> >       calling your variables getwatermelons and somefriedchicken.
> >> >       Reminds me of this one guy in our neighborhood who was just
> >> >       jogging by our house, bent down to tie a shoelace, lost
> >> >       his balance and accidentally planted a huge burning cross
> >> >       in our front lawn.  Woops!  Those damn PC-mongers are
> >> >       making it a crime to jog!
> >>
> >> Yes and if I want to name my variables getwatermelons and somefiredchicken
> >> who are you to tell me I can't?
> 
> >A company worth working for will have a policy that tells you you cannot.
> >(Ok, those variables are a fuzzy issue - Very bad taste. The violent
> >stuff mentioned in the original article is clear cut, however)
> 
> Company policy and federal law are two different things. A company should
> be able to set their policy to whatever they want, don't like it don't
> work there.

Gosh, no kidding?  Company policy isn't the same as fed law?

As I said, a company worth working for, will have a policy that
creates/preserves a decent working environment.

> Also please explain exactly what "violent stuff" you are in reference to
> and how it is "clear cut".

Violence is obviously out of line.  Or do you like being threatened?

> >Creating a hostile environment with the expectation that you'll never
> >hire someone who's black is "ok"?
> 
> 1st off the whole notion of "hostile environment" is bunk. It is a loosely
> undefined term to mean anything the PC crowd wants it to. If you do or say

I can see you're not worth bothering with.

Sad that I wasted this much time responding.