My point exactly. SHOW ME THE DOOR! You shouldn't have to WORK to get rid
of this one!
I should be able to leave quietly and peacefully on my own!
Yet, without expressed procedures, I CAN'T!
It would piss you off too if you kept trying to get off a listserve to no
avail, with the sys-op ignoring you and have 30 unwanted messages pouring
in a day you don't have any interest in!
>Some people one is only too happy to show where the door is. We are
>working on getting rid of this one.
> ----------
>From: Ryan Hensley
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: if it works ... Re: Get me off this list
>Date: Thursday, July 23, 1998 11:24PM
>
>Ditto!!!!! I've been trying unsuccessfully to get off this list for a
>MONTH
>now!!!!
>
>Hey List operator! You are doing a SHITTY job!!!!!
>
>Post removeable procedures once a month like everyone else
>does/should!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>--------------C7199889B0649EC6467C454D
>>I have tried for months to get my address removed from the futurework
>list
>>without success. I am goint to forward all
>>future work communications back to the list until somewone gets the
>>message and does something about my request to be
>>removed from this list.
>>
>>Mick
>>
>>--
>>Mick Holsclaw
>>Yuba Community College
>>voice (530)741-6981
>>FAX (530)741-3541
>>
>>
>>--------------C7199889B0649EC6467C454D
>>X-POP3-Rcpt: mholscla@mail2
>>Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Received: from yuba.cc.ca.us ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [207.62.206.3]) by
>>mail2.yuba.cc.ca.us (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA14219 for
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:45:05 -0700
>>Received: from dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca ([EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>[129.97.54.123])
>> by yuba.cc.ca.us (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA05206
>> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 10:31:41
>-0700 (PDT)
>>Received: (from root@localhost)
>> by dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA16242
>> for futurework-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 11:53:29 -0400
>>Received: from ns.easyinternet.net ([EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[207.176.244.6])
>> by dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA14956
>> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 22 Jul 1998
>11:53:24 -0400
>>Received: from default (user85.easyinternet.net [207.176.244.85]) by
>>ns.easyinternet.net (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id LAA18773; Wed, 22 Jul
>1998
>>11:37:31 -0400
>>From: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Cc: "Futurework" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: Re: Technology and change (and lack of progress...)
>>Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 12:25:28 -0400
>>Message-ID: <01bdb58d$56e36040$0100007f@default>
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>Content-Type: text/plain
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>X-Priority: 3
>>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
>>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
>>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Precedence: bulk
>>
>>>Ed Weick wrote:
>>>[snip]
>>>> The fact that women
>>>> have been able to enter the labour market in large numbers is at
>least
>>>> partly due to the fact that the amount of time needed for domestic
>>>> chores has been greatly diminished.
>>
>>
>>Brad McCormick::
>>
>>>I know all this is rather superficial hear-say type
>>>speculation, but I wonder if two of the big
>>>reasons more women are "working" are: (1) it has
>>>become socially acceptable, and (2) the husband does
>>>not earn enough for the family to live on. Obviously,
>>>decrease in the number of children (which is
>>>always a concern for the "Dulce et decorum est pro
>>>patria mori" set) is an enabling factor, too.
>>
>>
>>I'm sure you're right. Something happened to attitudes in the
>immediate
>>pre- and postwar period which made it all right for women to go to
>obtain
>>higher education and enter the workforce. At first, during the late
>1950s
>>and early 1960s, it was merely accepted that they could do so, though
>>grudgingly. A little later, that they could do so became something of
>a
>>feminist cause celebre. Now it is almost expected that they do so, and
>>women who do not leave to household to go to work have become objects
>of
>>curiosity. Many women work because the single paycheck is not enough
>to pay
>>all of the bills, but I would suspect that many, perhaps the majority,
>work
>>because they want to. And because they want to work, or have to, they
>have
>>fewer kids.
>>
>>My only point about technology is that it has helped women leave the
>>household. Whether they work outside of the home or not, most women
>still
>>do a disproportionate amount of the work needed to keep a household
>going.
>>The fact that they have dishwashers and various other appliances is
>>enormously helpful in this regard.
>>
>>Ed Weick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--------------C7199889B0649EC6467C454D
>>X-POP3-Rcpt: mholscla@mail2
>>Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Received: from yuba.cc.ca.us ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [207.62.206.3]) by
>>mail2.yuba.cc.ca.us (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA14229 for
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:45:58 -0700
>>Received: from dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca ([EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>[129.97.54.123])
>> by yuba.cc.ca.us (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA05215
>> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 10:32:34
>-0700 (PDT)
>>Received: (from root@localhost)
>> by dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA20348
>> for futurework-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 11:53:38 -0400
>>Received: from ns.easyinternet.net ([EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[207.176.244.6])
>> by dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA21622
>> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 22 Jul 1998
>11:53:33 -0400
>>Received: from default (user85.easyinternet.net [207.176.244.85]) by
>>ns.easyinternet.net (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id LAA18779; Wed, 22 Jul
>1998
>>11:37:39 -0400
>>From: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: "Futurework" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Ray E. Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: Re: working alternatives ?
>>Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 12:25:36 -0400
>>Message-ID: <01bdb58d$5b898fc0$0100007f@default>
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>Content-Type: text/plain
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>X-Priority: 3
>>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
>>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
>>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Precedence: bulk
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Ray E. Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: Ed Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Futurework
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Date: Monday, July 20, 1998 9:01 PM
>>Subject: Re: working alternatives ?
>>
>>
>>>So Ed,
>>>
>>>You know I admire you but I really hate this one. Most artists, by
>your
>>>definition, don't work until they make money on what they have done?
>By
>>that
>>>definition most of the world's great composers today never work. Van
>Gogh
>>never
>>>worked. He was an amateur?
>>
>>
>>Ray,
>>
>>This is a tough one. I would argue that Van Gogh worked because he
>produced
>>items of tremendous value. The problem is that he never got paid for
>them.
>>Others did. I doubt very much that he knew he was working or even
>cared.
>>
>>A very long time ago I attended an art school for a year. I had a
>friend
>>there who had the personality of Van Gogh, but not one iota of Van
>Gogh's
>>talent. My friend literally consumed himself during that year. While
>he
>>did not cut off his ear, he painted madly, wrecked his marriage, and
>wound
>>up a derilict. Was he working? He thought so. But I've never seen a
>>painting signed "Arny" next to a "Vincent" in any of the gallaries I've
>>visited.
>>
>>We should not overlook that many of the composers and artists we revere
>>today worked in a rather bazare market economy. They had patrons who
>>expected them to produce. Look at poor overworked (and overused)
>Mozart.
>>
>>Others were "amatuers" in the sense that had other jobs and could never
>>quite bring themselves to being full time artists. Brad McCormick
>mentioned
>>Charles Ives, an insurance broker. Wallace Stevens was a banker. They
>>were, nevertheless, successful artists because they left something of
>value
>>behind. And I'm sorry that I have to intrude the market here, but it
>does
>>come into play.
>>
>>There are two kinds of artists I feel sorry for. One is represented by
>my
>>friend Arny, who had all of the passion but none of the talent. The
>other
>>is like the fellow mentioned by Brad McCormick, who simply kept himself
>too
>>busy at other things to write that great book. I have known people
>like
>>that. They are the greater tragedy because they are afraid of finding
>out
>>who they really are.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Ed Weick
>>
>>
>>
>>--------------C7199889B0649EC6467C454D
>>X-POP3-Rcpt: mholscla@mail2
>>Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Received: from yuba.cc.ca.us ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [207.62.206.3]) by
>>mail2.yuba.cc.ca.us (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA14266 for
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:48:52 -0700
>>Received: from dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca ([EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>[129.97.54.123])
>> by yuba.cc.ca.us (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA05224
>> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 10:35:28
>-0700 (PDT)
>>Received: (from root@localhost)
>> by dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA22662
>> for futurework-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 11:53:55 -0400
>>Received: from ns.easyinternet.net ([EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[207.176.244.6])
>> by dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA22656
>> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 22 Jul 1998
>11:53:48 -0400
>>Received: from default (user85.easyinternet.net [207.176.244.85]) by
>>ns.easyinternet.net (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id LAA18787; Wed, 22 Jul
>1998
>>11:37:51 -0400
>>From: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: "Eva Durant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Cc: "Futurework" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: Re: Technology and change
>>Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 12:25:47 -0400
>>Message-ID: <01bdb58d$620d58e0$0100007f@default>
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>Content-Type: text/plain
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>X-Priority: 3
>>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
>>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
>>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Precedence: bulk
>>
>>Eva Durant:
>>
>>>I thought technology is the most
>>costly for the capitalists, more so than labour,
>>this is the reason for the tendecy of the rate of profit
>>to fall, exploiting labour is more and more expensive.
>>
>>
>>Last time I looked, labour costs were more significant that other
>costs.
>>Traditionally, labour costs have run to some 60% of GDP. The only data
>I
>>have at hand is from Canada's Provincial Economic Accounts for 1991.
>In
>>these, "Wages, salaries and supplementary labour income" accounts for
>57.2%
>>of the combined GDP of Canada's provinces. All of the items which
>might be
>>interpreted as suggesting returns to capital total less than 13%.
>However,
>>much would depend on the firm. Some firms rely much more heavily on
>capital
>>than others, and replacing old capital with newer and more efficient
>capital
>>could be the major cost.
>>
>>>Women worked in hell-factories and even mines
>>without any technological link... Women work now,
>>because to keep the standard of living required
>>by the social/cultural environment, and due to the
>>stagnation of wages, now two income is necessary for
>>most families. I cannot think of a new housework
>>easing device besides the microvawe in the last 3,4,5?
>>decades.
>>
>>I don't think too many people had dishwashers four or five decades ago.
>And
>>all of the other appliances have improved. We just recently bought a
>>washing machine to replace an old one that leaked all over the floor.
>It
>>does things the old one certainly couldn't do (besides not leak greasy
>>water).
>>
>>>Due to some improvement in making education more
>>gender-equal and more economic independence,
>>it will be difficult to push women back to the
>>kitchen again, though the present yet halfhidden
>>recession is already trying to do that, with the
>>idea, that only lone mothers have the moral duty to work,
>>middle class married women should be home-makers,
>>if they work, they are to be blamed for all ills of
>>society...
>>
>>I would predict that any attempt to push women back into the kitchen
>would
>>meet with extreme resistance.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Ed Weick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--------------C7199889B0649EC6467C454D
>>X-POP3-Rcpt: mholscla@mail2
>>Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Received: from yuba.cc.ca.us ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [207.62.206.3]) by
>>mail2.yuba.cc.ca.us (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA14259 for
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:48:31 -0700
>>Received: from dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca ([EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>[129.97.54.123])
>> by yuba.cc.ca.us (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA05220
>> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 10:35:07
>-0700 (PDT)
>>Received: (from root@localhost)
>> by dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA25232
>> for futurework-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jul 1998 11:54:12 -0400
>>Received: from ns.easyinternet.net ([EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[207.176.244.6])
>> by dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA20874
>> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 22 Jul 1998
>11:54:07 -0400
>>Received: from default (user85.easyinternet.net [207.176.244.85]) by
>>ns.easyinternet.net (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id LAA18799; Wed, 22 Jul
>1998
>>11:38:12 -0400
>>From: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tom Walker"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: Re: Technology and change
>>Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 12:26:06 -0400
>>Message-ID: <01bdb58d$6d92df00$0100007f@default>
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>Content-Type: text/plain
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>X-Priority: 3
>>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
>>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
>>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Precedence: bulk
>>
>>>Ed Weick wrote,
>>>
>>>>What's all this say, that we no longer need labor? No. I would say it
>>means
>>>>go find yourself something else to do. And that is exactly what
>people
>>have
>>>>done, generation after generation, age after age. The one thing that
>we
>>>>intend to discount in the march of technological progress and labor
>>>>displacement is human ingenuity.
>>
>>>The short answer to the last question is that there has been
>tremendous
>>>catastrophe bundled with the benign "finding something better to do"
>as you
>>>put it. The adjustment from "1900 to now" has included depression,
>>>holocaust, world wars, revolutions, counter-revolutions and famine.
>Nazis
>>>and Stalinists alike found what they thought was something better to
>do
>>>after being booted out of what they thought were secure jobs.
>>
>>(cut)
>>
>>>But I don't want to get sucked into an emotional discussion with
>>>you, Ed, because I suspect that you are explaining things to me that I
>>>already know and that I am explaining things to you that you already
>know.
>>>
>>>Our energy would be better spent seeking a richer understanding of
>what we
>>>don't know.
>>
>>
>>I agree, and I would also agree that this has probably been the most
>brutal
>>century on record. And I would not quarrel with the notion that
>advances in
>>science and technology have had a lot to do with it, not only making
>mass
>>extermination possible, but making it real. However, these advances
>have
>>also had a lot to do with improving the lot of humankind.
>>
>>I would also agree that many of the people who were displaced by
>technology,
>>or depressions or wars or crumbling and archaic social systems found
>>destructive things to do, either as leaders or pawns. However, ever so
>many
>>did not, and even if the pawns were destructive at times, they were
>>constructive at others. As humans, we are both angels and brutes, and
>it is
>>often impossible to predict which side of us will emerge in response to
>>particular ideas or events.
>>
>>Ed Weick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--------------C7199889B0649EC6467C454D--
