NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/motss/54185

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 3.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!smithw
From: [e-mail] (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Attention Skiers Boycotting Colorado
Date: 30 Dec 1992 21:33:28 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

[e-mail] (Bob Donahue) writes:
>     Yeah, so?  What's your point:  that he shouldn't have
> come out against it?

If he is against it, he should be free to say so.

> that his not liking it has made it go away?

Not yet, but politically, if it comes to a political
solution, it'll help.

> that in the 9 mothns before the election the adgenda of the
> poeple who hate should have been made more clear?

Yes.

>     Thus a boycott --- their invisibilty is going to cost
> them $$$ in the long run.  From what you're saying here, that
> coming out anti-2 is worse than saying nothing, implying
> that CO is at this point in control of those who hate.

Its like the old adage; don't talk about religion or politics.

> >Look at it from a practical point of view.  A company may not
> >want to get involved in the political issue when it is being
> >turned into a battle of wills.  Instead, they emphasize the fact
> >that *they* are against discrimination, and have policies they
> >enforce to that effect.
>
>     And CO:2 makes it impossible for me to *use* those policies
> should I need to.  How many times must we say this before it sinks in?
> An EE statement on paper is worthless if my rights have been abrogated
> from making sure its enforced.

You really think a company is going to go against its own EE?

> I know that some people were confused but that's a
> direct result of the purposely ambiguous way it was worded on the
> ballot, plus the lies that were continually put forth in the media
> without rebuttal.

So what are YOU doing to see that the misinformation that caused it
to pass is cleared up?

> It is the onus of the
> people of Colorado (that's you Walter) to "fix" it.  IF you
> don't want to fix it, fine say so, and we'll be sure to never
> bother you again.  If you're intending to fix it - DO IT and
> stop whining about the ways the rest of the country registers
> their disapproval.  Get it?

Yeah, I get it. Do you get it?  Do you *get* that the reason I've
subjected myself to so much CRAP over this subject is to explain
WHY a lot of people voted for it, so something can be done about
the  misinformation that contributed to its passing?  Do you GET
that identifying the issues so that they can be discussed and
cleared up is MY way of doing something to fix it?  or are you
going to dictate to me how I am to go about fixing it?  Now,
this is a HELL of a lot more than you have offered in the way
of 'guidance' on how YOU think I should go about getting it
fixed.  All you've done is pissed and moaned that #2 exists;
and only offered a boycott on how it should be fixed.  Which,
not only does a boycott do absolutelty NOTHING to FIX why it
passed, it reinforces the misinformation that caused it to be
passed in the FIRST PLACE!!@!  Can you GET IT thru your thick
skull that some people are against both the boycott AND #2,
because they are of the same mentality, and only serve to
feed each other?  Can you GET IT that what needs to be done
is show people WHY #2 was bad and unneccesary to avoid "Special
rights" and quotas from coming along down the road?  Do you GET IT
that boycotting people, and thus polarizing them and alienating
them furthur, does NOTHING to help what needs to be done to
defeat the mentality that let #2 pass in the first place??????

Walter