1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.AUDIO.OPINION

  • Being cancelled for trans debate

    From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 21 22:15:02 2023
    is even a bridge too far for NYT staffers.

    and the back and forth is a hoot.

    A large group of contributors and celebrities signed a letter demanding the Times stop reporting critically on gender identity issues.

    First off, the paper’s executive editor and opinion editor sent an email response which warned, “We do not welcome, and will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social
    media and other public forums.” In short, activism isn’t your job.

    …the New York guild president Susan DeCarava posted a public letter affirming the right for Times staff to criticize the paper and its masthead, stating that “employees are protected in collectively raising concerns that conditions of their
    employment constitute a hostile working environment. This was the concern explicitly raised in the letter at issue here.”

    reporter Stephanie Saul who wrote on the paper’s slack channel, “Criticism of workplace conditions does not include attacking the journalism of other members. I strongly object to this letter and I would hope other members of the unit agree with me.


    Vanity Fair is reporting dozens of journalists at the Times joined the pushback against DeCarava.

    We are writing to you privately in response to your February 17th letter, which we were surprised to see…

    Factual, accurate journalism that is written, edited, and published in accordance with Times standards does not create a hostile workplace.

    Every day, partisan actors seek to influence, attack, or discredit our work. We accept that. But what we don’t accept is what the Guild appears to be endorsing: A workplace in which any opinion or disagreement about Times coverage can be recast as a
    matter of “workplace conditions.”

    Our duty is to be independent. We pursue the facts wherever they may lead. We are journalists, not activists. That line should be clear.

    Debates over fairness and accuracy are perfectly reasonable. We understand and respect that the Guild has an absolute duty to offer representation to members when they are subject to discipline by management. But we do not think it is the role of our
    union to be engaged in – and taking sides in – public debates over internal editorial decisions.

    Sounds a lot like a similar path that led some colleges to bend over and let students start to run the asylum.....right into the ground.

    Moral of this story....don't the let the woke Karen's run the place. They'll spend all day whining about hostility in the workplace and no one will be able to get any real work done.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Wed Feb 22 09:09:40 2023
    On 2/22/23 12:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
    is even a bridge too far for NYT staffers.

    and the back and forth is a hoot.

    A large group of contributors and celebrities signed a letter
    demanding the Times stop reporting critically on gender identity
    issues.

    First off, the paper’s executive editor and opinion editor sent an
    email response which warned,

    Wow, it's like you were there! The NYT has been negative on LGBTQ+ for
    decades and had a recent spate of poorly reasoned anti-trans opinion pieces.

    As there's no longer a public editor, they're saying protesters aren't complaining right.

    https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1270785679744618497?lang=en

    1. This is the gravestone of Abe Rosenthal (1922-2006), managing editor
    of the New York Times from 1969-1977 and executive editor from
    1977-1986. It reads, "HE KEPT THE PAPER STRAIGHT." There's a story there.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 22 09:04:48 2023
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 7:09:42 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 12:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
    is even a bridge too far for NYT staffers.

    and the back and forth is a hoot.

    A large group of contributors and celebrities signed a letter
    demanding the Times stop reporting critically on gender identity
    issues.

    First off, the paper’s executive editor and opinion editor sent an
    email response which warned,
    Wow, it's like you were there! The NYT has been negative on LGBTQ+ for decades and had a recent spate of poorly reasoned anti-trans opinion pieces.

    So we now know what you'll read.
    As far as "poorly reasoned", it's apparent they would disagree.

    But that's really not the crux of those who are pushing your pro teen and child mutilation argument.
    Does printing a poorly reasoned piece create a "hostile work environment"?
    It's not like being openly called a whiny little bitch, no matter how they're acting.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Wed Feb 22 12:14:35 2023
    On 2/22/23 11:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 7:09:42 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 12:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
    is even a bridge too far for NYT staffers.

    and the back and forth is a hoot.

    A large group of contributors and celebrities signed a letter
    demanding the Times stop reporting critically on gender identity
    issues.

    First off, the paper’s executive editor and opinion editor sent an
    email response which warned,
    Wow, it's like you were there! The NYT has been negative on LGBTQ+ for
    decades and had a recent spate of poorly reasoned anti-trans opinion pieces.

    So we now know what you'll read.

    Like reading the NYT is somehow unusual. No, I learned of those from the reactions of other writers.

    As far as "poorly reasoned", it's apparent they would disagree.

    Yes, they have right-wing opinion columnists, too, so "poorly reasoned"
    is part of the brand.

    But that's really not the crux of those who are pushing your pro teen and child mutilation argument.
    Does printing a poorly reasoned piece create a "hostile work environment"?

    Was that the claim? And misnaming gender-care doesn't help your argument
    nor does the fact that gender-confirming surgery is very rare and
    includes uncontroversial conditions.

    https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/16227-enlarged-male-breast-tissue-gynecomastia

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to That you woud brand anything right- on Wed Feb 22 10:35:22 2023
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:14:37 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 11:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 7:09:42 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 12:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
    is even a bridge too far for NYT staffers.

    and the back and forth is a hoot.

    A large group of contributors and celebrities signed a letter
    demanding the Times stop reporting critically on gender identity
    issues.

    First off, the paper’s executive editor and opinion editor sent an
    email response which warned,
    Wow, it's like you were there! The NYT has been negative on LGBTQ+ for
    decades and had a recent spate of poorly reasoned anti-trans opinion pieces.

    So we now know what you'll read.
    Like reading the NYT is somehow unusual. No, I learned of those from the reactions of other writers.
    As far as "poorly reasoned", it's apparent they would disagree.
    Yes, they have right-wing opinion columnists, too, so "poorly reasoned"
    is part of the brand.

    That you woud brand anything right-wing as "poorly reasoned" says much
    on the closed state of your mind.


    But that's really not the crux of those who are pushing your pro teen and child mutilation argument.
    Does printing a poorly reasoned piece create a "hostile work environment"?
    Was that the claim?

    Duh.... Go back and do your homework. It requires reading.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Wed Feb 22 16:55:03 2023
    On 2/22/23 12:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:14:37 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 11:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 7:09:42 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 12:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
    is even a bridge too far for NYT staffers.

    and the back and forth is a hoot.

    A large group of contributors and celebrities signed a letter
    demanding the Times stop reporting critically on gender identity
    issues.

    First off, the paper’s executive editor and opinion editor sent an >>>>> email response which warned,
    Wow, it's like you were there! The NYT has been negative on LGBTQ+ for >>>> decades and had a recent spate of poorly reasoned anti-trans opinion pieces.

    So we now know what you'll read.
    Like reading the NYT is somehow unusual. No, I learned of those from the
    reactions of other writers.
    As far as "poorly reasoned", it's apparent they would disagree.
    Yes, they have right-wing opinion columnists, too, so "poorly reasoned"
    is part of the brand.

    That you woud brand anything right-wing as "poorly reasoned" says much
    on the closed state of your mind.

    No, not just anything, but specifically the NYT columnists on this subject.

    But that's really not the crux of those who are pushing your pro teen and child mutilation argument.
    Does printing a poorly reasoned piece create a "hostile work environment"? >> Was that the claim?

    Duh.... Go back and do your homework. It requires reading.

    If there's a "hostile work environment," it's from decades of
    anti-LGBTQ+ attitudes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Art Sackman@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 22 16:57:51 2023
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 5:55:06 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 12:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:14:37 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 11:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 7:09:42 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 12:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
    is even a bridge too far for NYT staffers.

    and the back and forth is a hoot.

    A large group of contributors and celebrities signed a letter
    demanding the Times stop reporting critically on gender identity
    issues.

    First off, the paper’s executive editor and opinion editor sent an >>>>> email response which warned,
    Wow, it's like you were there! The NYT has been negative on LGBTQ+ for >>>> decades and had a recent spate of poorly reasoned anti-trans opinion pieces.

    So we now know what you'll read.
    Like reading the NYT is somehow unusual. No, I learned of those from the >> reactions of other writers.
    As far as "poorly reasoned", it's apparent they would disagree.
    Yes, they have right-wing opinion columnists, too, so "poorly reasoned" >> is part of the brand.

    That you woud brand anything right-wing as "poorly reasoned" says much
    on the closed state of your mind.
    No, not just anything, but specifically the NYT columnists on this subject. >>> But that's really not the crux of those who are pushing your pro teen and child mutilation argument.
    Does printing a poorly reasoned piece create a "hostile work environment"?
    Was that the claim?

    Duh.... Go back and do your homework. It requires reading.
    If there's a "hostile work environment," it's from decades of
    anti-LGBTQ+ attitudes.

    No such claims.
    There you go, lying again.

    BTW, what is your genital equipment? Penis or vagina?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fascist Flea@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 22 17:41:47 2023
    The internet is forever.

    BTW, what is your genital equipment? Penis or vagina?

    You pose once, and the image haunts you 'till the end. Here's a
    portrait that Ms. Sackadoo never wanted us to see:

    https://tinyurl.com/edp3fb2z

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to Art Sackman on Thu Feb 23 09:27:35 2023
    On 2/22/23 6:57 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 5:55:06 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 12:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:14:37 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 11:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 7:09:42 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 2/22/23 12:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
    is even a bridge too far for NYT staffers.

    and the back and forth is a hoot.

    A large group of contributors and celebrities signed a letter
    demanding the Times stop reporting critically on gender identity >>>>>>> issues.

    First off, the paper’s executive editor and opinion editor sent an >>>>>>> email response which warned,
    Wow, it's like you were there! The NYT has been negative on LGBTQ+ for >>>>>> decades and had a recent spate of poorly reasoned anti-trans opinion pieces.

    So we now know what you'll read.
    Like reading the NYT is somehow unusual. No, I learned of those from the >>>> reactions of other writers.
    As far as "poorly reasoned", it's apparent they would disagree.
    Yes, they have right-wing opinion columnists, too, so "poorly reasoned" >>>> is part of the brand.

    That you woud brand anything right-wing as "poorly reasoned" says much
    on the closed state of your mind.
    No, not just anything, but specifically the NYT columnists on this subject. >>>>> But that's really not the crux of those who are pushing your pro teen and child mutilation argument.
    Does printing a poorly reasoned piece create a "hostile work environment"?
    Was that the claim?

    Duh.... Go back and do your homework. It requires reading.
    If there's a "hostile work environment," it's from decades of
    anti-LGBTQ+ attitudes.

    No such claims.

    Take it up with Scott. There may be reading involved.

    There you go, lying again.

    Baseless accusations again.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Art Sackman@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 24 12:52:28 2023
    On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 10:27:37 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 6:57 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 5:55:06 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 12:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:14:37 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>> On 2/22/23 11:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 7:09:42 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 2/22/23 12:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
    is even a bridge too far for NYT staffers.

    and the back and forth is a hoot.

    A large group of contributors and celebrities signed a letter >>>>>>> demanding the Times stop reporting critically on gender identity >>>>>>> issues.

    First off, the paper’s executive editor and opinion editor sent an >>>>>>> email response which warned,
    Wow, it's like you were there! The NYT has been negative on LGBTQ+ for
    decades and had a recent spate of poorly reasoned anti-trans opinion pieces.

    So we now know what you'll read.
    Like reading the NYT is somehow unusual. No, I learned of those from the
    reactions of other writers.
    As far as "poorly reasoned", it's apparent they would disagree.
    Yes, they have right-wing opinion columnists, too, so "poorly reasoned" >>>> is part of the brand.

    That you woud brand anything right-wing as "poorly reasoned" says much >>> on the closed state of your mind.
    No, not just anything, but specifically the NYT columnists on this subject.
    But that's really not the crux of those who are pushing your pro teen and child mutilation argument.
    Does printing a poorly reasoned piece create a "hostile work environment"?
    Was that the claim?

    Duh.... Go back and do your homework. It requires reading.
    If there's a "hostile work environment," it's from decades of
    anti-LGBTQ+ attitudes.

    No such claims.
    Take it up with Scott. There may be reading involved.
    There you go, lying again.
    Baseless accusations again.\

    another lie, your previous lie has been documented.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to Art Sackman on Fri Feb 24 15:22:29 2023
    On 2/24/23 2:52 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 10:27:37 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 6:57 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 5:55:06 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 12:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:14:37 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 2/22/23 11:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 7:09:42 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:

    If there's a "hostile work environment," it's from decades of
    anti-LGBTQ+ attitudes.

    No such claims.
    Take it up with Scott. There may be reading involved.
    There you go, lying again.

    Where's the lie? There's no reading involved?

    Baseless accusations again.\

    another lie, your previous lie has been documented.

    Seriously, your accusations of lying are meaningless. Here's the context
    of the "hostile work environment" statement:

    https://www.mediaite.com/news/top-new-york-times-journalists-sign-on-to-letter-slamming-their-own-union-for-defending-paper-amid-trans-coverage-row/

    The whole episode began last week when two letters signed by hundreds of activists, celebrities, pro-LGBTQ NGOs, and Times contributors accused
    the paper of “biased coverage of transgender people” and demanded a
    series of reforms.

    DeCarava responded to those letters, sent on behalf of groups like GLAAD
    and the Human Rights Campaign, by writing on the internal Times Guild
    listserv that “employees are protected in collectively raising concerns
    that conditions of their employment constitute a hostile working
    environment. This was the concern explicitly raised in the letter at
    issue here.”

    End quote.

    What you call a lie was conditional and refers to this complicated
    situation. I cited evidence the NYT has been seen as unfriendly to
    LGBTQ+ in the past.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/society/new-york-times-trans-coverage-gay-rights-history/

    Rosenthal, who led the Times from 1969 to 1986, is perhaps most
    frequently remembered now for something he adamantly refused to do:
    cover the LGBTQ rights movement, particularly the AIDS crisis, with the
    scope or respect it deserved. (The epitaph on his tombstone, HE KEPT THE
    PAPER STRAIGHT, now seems like a sick joke.)

    Instead, the Times under Rosenthal kept queer people at arm’s length. It
    even refused to use the word “gay” in its pages until June 1987,
    doggedly sticking to the more clinical “homosexual.” And it underplayed
    the spread of AIDS, waiting nearly two years after its first,
    now-legendary item broaching the subject to run a story about AIDS on
    its front page.

    At the time, plenty of people warned the paper that it was on the wrong
    side of history. But the Times ignored them.

    Now, decades later, Rosenthal’s homophobia, and the Times’ failure to properly chronicle the lives—and the deaths—of LGBTQ people at such a pivotal moment, is regarded as a low point in the paper’s history. The
    Times itself has issued mea culpas about its mishandling of the era. And
    the idea that gay people and lesbians deserve equal rights is
    uncontroversial.

    End quote.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Art Sackman@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 24 15:07:41 2023
    On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 4:22:34 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/24/23 2:52 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 10:27:37 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 6:57 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 5:55:06 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 12:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:14:37 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 2/22/23 11:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 7:09:42 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:

    If there's a "hostile work environment," it's from decades of
    anti-LGBTQ+ attitudes.

    No such claims.
    Take it up with Scott. There may be reading involved.
    There you go, lying again.
    Where's the lie? There's no reading involved?

    It's not a hostile work environment


    Baseless accusations again.\

    another lie, your previous lie has been documented.
    Seriously, your accusations of lying are meaningless. Here's the context
    of the "hostile work environment" statement:

    https://www.mediaite.com/news/top-new-york-times-journalists-sign-on-to-letter-slamming-their-own-union-for-defending-paper-amid-trans-coverage-row/

    That does not constitute a hostile work environment

    The whole episode began last week when two letters signed by hundreds of activists, celebrities, pro-LGBTQ NGOs, and Times contributors accused
    the paper of “biased coverage of transgender people” and demanded a series of reforms.

    DeCarava responded to those letters, sent on behalf of groups like GLAAD
    and the Human Rights Campaign, by writing on the internal Times Guild listserv that “employees are protected in collectively raising concerns that conditions of their employment constitute a hostile working environment. This was the concern explicitly raised in the letter at
    issue here.”
    End quote.

    What you call a lie was conditional and refers to this complicated situation. I cited evidence the NYT has been seen as unfriendly to
    LGBTQ+ in the past.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/society/new-york-times-trans-coverage-gay-rights-history/

    Rosenthal, who led the Times from 1969 to 1986, is perhaps most
    frequently remembered now for something he adamantly refused to do:
    cover the LGBTQ rights movement, particularly the AIDS crisis, with the scope or respect it deserved. (The epitaph on his tombstone, HE KEPT THE PAPER STRAIGHT, now seems like a sick joke.)

    Instead, the Times under Rosenthal kept queer people at arm’s length. It even refused to use the word “gay” in its pages until June 1987, doggedly sticking to the more clinical “homosexual.” And it underplayed the spread of AIDS, waiting nearly two years after its first,
    now-legendary item broaching the subject to run a story about AIDS on
    its front page.

    At the time, plenty of people warned the paper that it was on the wrong
    side of history. But the Times ignored them.

    Now, decades later, Rosenthal’s homophobia, and the Times’ failure to properly chronicle the lives—and the deaths—of LGBTQ people at such a pivotal moment, is regarded as a low point in the paper’s history. The Times itself has issued mea culpas about its mishandling of the era. And
    the idea that gay people and lesbians deserve equal rights is uncontroversial.

    End quote.



    That's not a hostile work environment

    Political disagreements between editors and staff writers do not'
    constitute a hostile work environment

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to Art Sackman on Sat Feb 25 08:55:34 2023
    On 2/24/23 5:07 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 4:22:34 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/24/23 2:52 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 10:27:37 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 6:57 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 5:55:06 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 2/22/23 12:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:14:37 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/22/23 11:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 7:09:42 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>
    If there's a "hostile work environment," it's from decades of
    anti-LGBTQ+ attitudes.

    No such claims.

    That's correct. I have not made such a claim.

    Take it up with Scott. There may be reading involved.
    There you go, lying again.
    Where's the lie? There's no reading involved?

    It's not a hostile work environment

    I posed it as a conditional in response to a question. The
    characterization came from the letters, not from me.

    Baseless accusations again.

    another lie, your previous lie has been documented.
    Seriously, your accusations of lying are meaningless. Here's the context
    of the "hostile work environment" statement:

    https://www.mediaite.com/news/top-new-york-times-journalists-sign-on-to-letter-slamming-their-own-union-for-defending-paper-amid-trans-coverage-row/

    That does not constitute a hostile work environment

    Setting that aside, focusing on the environment deflects from the
    greater issue of NYT LGBYQ+ negative coverage.


    What you call a lie was conditional and refers to this complicated
    situation. I cited evidence the NYT has been seen as unfriendly to
    LGBTQ+ in the past.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/society/new-york-times-trans-coverage-gay-rights-history/


    Now, decades later, Rosenthal’s homophobia, and the Times’ failure to
    properly chronicle the lives—and the deaths—of LGBTQ people at such a
    pivotal moment, is regarded as a low point in the paper’s history. The
    Times itself has issued mea culpas about its mishandling of the era. And
    the idea that gay people and lesbians deserve equal rights is
    uncontroversial.

    End quote.

    That's not a hostile work environment

    Political disagreements between editors and staff writers do not'
    constitute a hostile work environment.

    Take it up with Scott, who posed the question here.

    Then quote me saying it *is.*

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Art Sackman@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 25 13:30:02 2023
    On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 9:55:37 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/24/23 5:07 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 4:22:34 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/24/23 2:52 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 10:27:37 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote: >>>> On 2/22/23 6:57 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 5:55:06 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 2/22/23 12:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:14:37 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/22/23 11:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 7:09:42 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:

    If there's a "hostile work environment," it's from decades of
    anti-LGBTQ+ attitudes.

    No such claims.
    That's correct. I have not made such a claim.
    Take it up with Scott. There may be reading involved.
    There you go, lying again.
    Where's the lie? There's no reading involved?

    It's not a hostile work environment
    I posed it as a conditional in response to a question. The
    characterization came from the letters, not from me.
    Baseless accusations again.

    another lie, your previous lie has been documented.
    Seriously, your accusations of lying are meaningless. Here's the context >> of the "hostile work environment" statement:

    https://www.mediaite.com/news/top-new-york-times-journalists-sign-on-to-letter-slamming-their-own-union-for-defending-paper-amid-trans-coverage-row/

    That does not constitute a hostile work environment
    Setting that aside, focusing on the environment deflects from the
    greater issue of NYT LGBYQ+ negative coverage.

    Setting that aside???
    That's the whole point of this thread,



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to Art Sackman on Sat Feb 25 16:50:22 2023
    On 2/25/23 3:30 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 9:55:37 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/24/23 5:07 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 4:22:34 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/24/23 2:52 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 10:27:37 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 2/22/23 6:57 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 5:55:06 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/22/23 12:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:14:37 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/23 11:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 7:09:42 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:

    If there's a "hostile work environment," it's from decades of
    anti-LGBTQ+ attitudes.

    That does not constitute a hostile work environment
    Setting that aside, focusing on the environment deflects from the
    greater issue of NYT LGBYQ+ negative coverage.

    Setting that aside???
    That's the whole point of this thread,

    No, the greater point is that two different groups wrote open letters to
    the NYT protesting coverage of LGBTQ+. Scott was finding joy in the
    conflicted responses.

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/02/new-york-times-journalists-letter-guild

    "Hostile work environment" is down the list at least a couple of places.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 25 16:52:41 2023
    On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 6:55:37 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/24/23 5:07 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 4:22:34 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/24/23 2:52 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 10:27:37 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote: >>>> On 2/22/23 6:57 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 5:55:06 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 2/22/23 12:35 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:14:37 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/22/23 11:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 7:09:42 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:

    If there's a "hostile work environment," it's from decades of
    anti-LGBTQ+ attitudes.

    No such claims.
    That's correct. I have not made such a claim.

    If then I didn't say anything.

    It's comedic.

    Scottw

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)