Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)

At 07:38 PM 1/23/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
>> We here all know that this is right but it's obvious that
>> the language is sliding towards Internet = Web. Most people
>
>Typical modern American attitude, getting it right is too much work so 
>let's lower the benchmark so anyone can be 'right'. 
>You'll be supporting Ebonics next.

One of the points of the Ebonics program is to recognize that
other people don't always speak the same way you do, and that
if you want to communicate with them, you'll be more successful
if you realize it, understand when they're talking in their dialect,
and if you're going to talk back to them in yours, remember to
translate on occasion.  _Regardless_ of whose dialect is "right"
(of course on technical issues, we technical people are right,
but if you've got the hacker nature, treat it as a problem in
social engineering.......)

					Speaker to Marketers

Bill Stewart wrote:
> At 07:38 PM 1/23/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
> One of the points of the Ebonics program is to recognize that
> other people don't always speak the same way you do, and that
> if you want to communicate with them, you'll be more successful
> if you realize it, understand when they're talking in their dialect,

I could agree with "some of the points" of the Ebonics program were
it not for the fact of the hidden points.  Unbeknownst to most folks,
supporting a program on any erstwhile points will give support to the
program on *all* points.

One specific example:

When I worked for Firestone corporate from 1970 to 1981, we were
bullied into giving to the United Fund. (BTW, I learned how much
my boss was making by reading the punches on the IBM cards.) The one
bone they tossed us was we could specify which worthy causes our
personal contribution would go towards.  The trick was, if a certain
greater-than-expected number of people specified a Catholic charity,
for example, more funds would then be moved into the other charities
to balance that out.  Presumably those funds would come from those
folks who hadn't declared a designee.

In my view, once the contributors' specific designations were made,
the remaining undesignated contributions should have been split
across the designees according to the original percentages declared
in the U.F. literature.  Anything else would be a farce.