Tablets, Too modest Tom stewart, Logistics, Linda, and Lifestreams

ThosStew@aol.com ThosStew@aol.com
Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:57:57 EST


In a message dated 1/16/2002 5:25:49 PM, dl@silcom.com writes:

>Since Mr. Stewart is old enough to remember
>circulating correspondence, perhaps he can
>tell us if the secretaries of 30 years ago
>really were the non-coms of business.
>


I used to know that, but in my dotage my memory is beginning to double-fault 
as often as it serves :-)

>(and the point of the
>non-com was to make sure *someone* had the
>wetware, even if the commissioned officer
>lacked it)

I love that point. One of the best things about a great secretary/assistant 
(now I remember her: comely, energetic, dashing, and so much smarter than me) 
was her or his knack for knowing how to find backup or context--expert human, 
documentary, etc.--so that the boss wouldn't fly blind. Covered by a gauze 
(and a reality) of sexism, this became known as "covering for my 
idiot/drunk/over-the-hill/out-to-lunch/in-over-his-head/wet-behind-the-ears/to

o-busy/whatever [male] boss." It's a pity that sex roles mucked up a basic 
reality: Every Cisco needs  Pancho, every Wild Bill a Jingles, every officer 
a non-com, and (almost) every writer an editor.


Tom