|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
![]() |
#681 |
Acolyte of Víđarr
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 48,510
|
I'm ambivalent about this question. On its face it seems like quite a reasonable suggestion from my perspective--but I'm not an business owner. I suspect that if I were I'd be a lot less willing to take chances hiring people without extensive background checks and professional references under such a system. I work daily with both legal and illegal immigrants. Mostly the undocumented ones are caught working for low wages in substandard conditions for less than honest employers who know that these workers cannot report their abuses to the authorities. I'd imagine that, without better immigration policy/enforcement, your suggestion would push a lot more employers down this road as well.
OTOH, I gather that something similar to this is actually the case in some other countries. I don't think it's likely to gather enough political will to make such a change in the U.S. any time soon, though. |
__________________
As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy." "I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor .......... Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#682 |
Gatekeeper of The Left
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,534
|
|
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system? |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#683 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 41,543
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#684 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
|
|
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#685 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
A good way to consider it is to consider the rental law in NYC for rent stabilized buildings. It is next to impossible to evict a tenant who is not willing to go and because of this landlords are super picky about who they rent to. This ultimately winds up marginalizing minorities and the poor and anyone who struggled with any sort of financial situation. No matter how nice the tenant is, the landlord isn't willing to risk it. It's an observable situation that is happening now that reflects what would happen if employers couldn't fire at will. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#686 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,309
|
Which problem is that exactly?
See this is the part where I just completely disagree. There is no logic here. Losing a job simply isn't a big deal. The fact that people have made it out to be a big deal is complete bs. There is no right to work for someone else. You don't earn extra "bonus points" for being employed longer. If you don't like it feel free to start your own business where you can employ yourself for as long as you want. I seriously don't get this entitlement mentality when it comes to jobs. Let me repeat, you have no right to a job. A job is an economic transaction that needs to benefit both sides. Either side is free to leave if the transaction isn't working out for whatever reason. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#687 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,309
|
So just to be clear to you at-will employment is the same thing as serfdom?
I hope you realize how insulting that is to the many people in the world living in places that actually are oppressed. I wonder how many of them would prefer to live in the USA. It does seem like quite a few people want to immigrate... |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#688 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
|
Nah, losing your income and ability to put food on the table, even temporarily, is absolutely nothing to be worried about, right ? Assuming you can readily find a new job or have some savings, at least.
Reminds me of my previous employer, who said that he was doing me a favour by 'giving' me a job, apparently not understanding how business works. |
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#689 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,309
|
It's called planning and responsibility. It's something that should be planned for. First order of business for people should be staying out of debt and having an emergency fund. People are expected to change jobs several times during a career and in fact should be planning for this. The days of a lifetime job with a pension are long gone.
There is literally no such thing as job security. The only security you have is your skillset and your network of contacts.
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#690 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
Exactly. Here's what's funny, just because you are poor doesn't mean you are a victim, especially not in the US. I have been fired many times because I didn't like the way the company ran, I've quit many times as well. Then I finally opened my own company because I wasn't willing to work for someone else. I've had a successful business and I opened it with $300 and networked and used strategy to put it all together. This required me to be responsible and reliable. When I was it worked.
Seems to me people want to be able to be unprofessional and irresponsible and unreliable and still promised a job because life is hard and they might have kids. Ridiculous. I once worked for a vicious woman who was hated by everyone. She was a District Manager of a Community Board here in NYC. I worked there and tolerated her nasty ways because I needed the job and I needed the health coverage for my kids, plus I was having a baby. I was mindful of the way she flew off the handle and put up with it for three years. Another woman who worked there put up with it for 16 years because she was working on her retirement. She worked for the city of NY and so there were protections in place because it was a job with a city government, so she had to show cause to fire people. With a private business there is no such guarantee. The only reason people show cause for firing people is so they don't have to pay unemployment. There are plenty of protections in place at jobs. If that kind of security is important to you then go get a city job. When you work outside that arrangement you are at will. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#691 |
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Emily's shop
Posts: 17,580
|
Surely areas with low job security will cause people to save more money in order to be prapared for any eventuality. This lowered spending should in turn depress the economy, having a knock on impact on jobs.... I wouldn't be surprised that any benefit that is accrued from employers having more flexibility to sack is entirely negated by the lack of security for the employee. Hence the OECD finding that:
Quote:
|
__________________
Sponsor me please! http://www.justgiving.com/Catherine-Kiernan http://www.justgiving.com/Catherine-Kiernan1 My blog |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#692 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
|
Of course. But some people just can't plan ahead that much because their income isn't sufficiently above their costs. In any case, most people couldn't live for long without income or, barring that, government help. A few months, at most, but that some people can is, to me, not a very good reason to terminate an employee for spurious reasons. "Meh, they can live off their savings anyway." It's the same reason why people can't, at least in Canada, evict you from your home on a whim. It doesn't matter if you 'should' have friends or family able to shelter you.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#693 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
What does "most people can't afford it" have to do with anything. Reality is what reality is, in my example with the nasty boss, I kept my mouth shut and head down and remained professional because I needed the job and I needed the insurance.
Seems like people want to act like teenagers that can do whatever they want with no fear of consequences. The fact is, the woman engaged in sexual conversations with her boss and upset her coworker who was his wife. I call that stupid. Did she honestly think it would be no big deal if the wife found out? He was wrong in his behavior but she participated in it and let it slide. I do suspect that the reason she was so mad about getting fired was because she probably made more money there than she could elsewhere and resented the step down in economic status. So she used the situation to her advantage and it ran out. Live by the sword, die by the sword. It is the rule when you are doing work that is easy to find others to replace. You can really only have that attitude if your skill set is so special that the employer really needs you. Medical assistants are a dime a dozen. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#694 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
|
Which serves to show that losing one's job is something you don't want to see happen.
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#695 |
الشيطان الأبيض
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,212
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#696 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,309
|
There are a lot of things that aren't preferable but they are part of reality. It's unbelievably incredibly rare to work one job for an entire lifetime. I don't buy the excuse that people can't build an emergency fund for those transitions. It's just that people are mostly irresponsible. Well I'm sorry but I'm not your mommy people.
Quote:
Quote:
Being an employee is often times an incredible deal. There is the potential to learn a lot and get paid at the same time. You get to learn on someone else's dime without taking direct financial risk yourself. The stress level of being an employee from my direct experience is massively lower than running even the simplest business, especially if you have employees. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#697 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
|
Yeah, like arson. What's your point ? **** happens ?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
![]()
Quote:
|
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#698 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
You keep flip flopping all over the place. Basically your argument is that "income" is important and owed to people because they can't survive without it. But if the employee wants to act unprofessional we shouldn't be surprised and oh well, let it go.
So for example if you work in a restaurant and spit in someone's food, you shouldn't get fired because you need the income and besides you are giving a service for the money. Even prostitutes don't have such a crap version of a work ethic and professional standards. LOL You make no sense at all so I can only surmise that you are arguing out of boredom or something. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#699 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
|
If you can't get the basics right, it's no wonder you don't understand my points.
Quote:
Quote:
![]()
Quote:
![]() |
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#700 |
NWO Master Conspirator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#701 |
Philosophile
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,230
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#702 |
NWO Master Conspirator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#703 |
NWO Master Conspirator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
|
Far more relevant is your "loser pays" system of civil torts. In the US you just need a case that won't get laughed out of court on the first hearing (and that bar is very very high) and you will find a lawyer (and we have far morte lawyers per capita than any other country) who will represent you in return for 30% of the settlement. So no risk to sue. And there will be a settlement in most all cases, because it's cheaper than years of litigation.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#704 |
NWO Master Conspirator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#705 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
She did mention her unprofessional conduct though. People keep saying it is irrelevant but her conduct did contribute to her termination. If the wife found the text messages between the two of them about things not related to work and asked for him to fire her then both his and HER behavior contributed to that decision.
The woman also discussed her sex life with her boss which basically conveyed the idea that his comments were not unwelcomed or unwanted. She crossed the line. If he had harassed her sexually and made his comments and she had not participated in it and told him that it was unwelcomed and he fired her, then she could sue him for sexual harassment. She couldn't because she participated in the behavior. This is very simple to understand. The lawsuit was basically her effort to sue for damages because she was upset at being fired. I doubt very much that she went to the lawyer stating she wanted to sue for gender discrimination. I think she tried at first to sue for sexual harassment and the lawyer then stated that she couldn't because of her own conduct and tried a different angle. I'm also sure the ruling had more to do with seeing a frivolous vindictive law suit for what it was. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#706 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
|
|
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#707 |
Satan's Helper
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,234
|
You know, I was thinking about that today and I'm amazed no one mentioned this (or if they did, I missed it): There should just be a law for cases like this where, if the boss needs to fire the girl on the basis that he can't work with her without wanting to hump her on the desk, then he should transfer her to another clinic. Since he's the one who can't control his sexual urges, the burden is on him to find the girl a transfer to another hospital/office so she can keep her job, as opposed to just dumping her on the street. He would contact other hospitals, file letters of recommendation and find her a spot in another place. That way he can keep working without the threat of the hot girl that constantly awakens his Repitlian-Complex brain zone, and she doesn't get fired for an unjustified reason.
Yes, Prom. But regardless they are both equal forms of discrimination based on a person's physical appearance. That's why they are both equally unjustified and thus, wrong. And I don't care if in the vast majority of situations being attractive is an advantage (By the way, do you have the data to support your claim? It's only fair, you know). It shouldn't be neither an advantage nor a disadvantage, because it has no bearing on a person's ability to do the job (Except of course, in obvious cases where being hot is part of the job, such as an actor, model, etc) Interesting. You find the second one to be wronger than the first one. Could you explain why? |
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#708 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 80,935
|
|
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#709 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 80,935
|
|
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#710 |
Acolyte of Víđarr
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 48,510
|
If it is made illegal to fire employees without cause, illegal immigrants could still be fired for any reason with impunity, because they will not report their employers to the authorities for fear of getting themselves deported. Just like they cannot now report the various abuses they suffer. Dishonest employers may well take further advantage of this fact by hiring fewer legal workers and replacing them with illegals in order to retain the freedom to fire workers without cause.
|
__________________
As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy." "I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor .......... Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#711 |
Acolyte of Víđarr
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 48,510
|
I've worked with employers that felt it was their responsibility to attempt to place workers fired without cause in other jobs, but codifying this in law would be quite problematic, I think. How much of an employer's time/resources should be spent on such an endeavor, what if s/he can't find a reasonable placement? What if the employee doesn't think the new job found for him/her is truly equivalent? How liable would the employer be should the attempt fail? Would such a rule give employers with better/more extensive business contacts an unfair advantage over less well-connected employers?
I think this would be better handled via government through the same sort of publicly funded re-training program I suggested above. Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I don't see them as equivalent at all. Pervasive descrimination is worse than occasional discrimination. And people who find themselves victims of the latter are better able to overcome the ill effects of that discrimination. I'd also point out that "ability to do the job" can include quite a bit of gray area that may wll be pertinent. For instance, personal charisma/attractiveness may well yield better results in dealing with customers or business partners than an equally skilled but uglier worker would be able to attain. Because it effects more people, and a larger amount of money, in addition to the fact that a marriage contract comes with its own special baggage. I don't think I'm offbase in my belief that most married people feel a stronger duty to their spouses than to their coworkers. |
__________________
As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy." "I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor .......... Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#712 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
|
|
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#713 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 41,543
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#714 |
Satan's Helper
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,234
|
Sure. Neither you nor I are lawyers nor handle all the technicalities. I believe there are even more complexities far beyond what you listed. Still, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be studied as a viable option. That's the history of laws: Moral situations are studied and then laws are changed or added. Nobody said it was easy and codifying these things can be incredibly challenging... but it doesn't mean it isn't worth trying or at least considering.
Why? It is still discrimination after all. Care to elaborate? That sounds to me like armchair speculation. Care to provide some data to support that claim? For instance, it seems to me that a hot woman who is fired for being hot and who happens to be dealing with extreme bankruptcy and not being able to pay for her breast cancer screenings is not "better able to overcome the ill effects of that discrimination" just because she's hot. You're mistaking discrimination criteria for hiring new employers with firing employers who are already working for your company because of their physical appearance. I already said that there are jobs, such as acting, modeling and attending customers, in which being attractive is a criteria for being hired. For instance, they only hire hawt chicks in Hooters, because that's what it's about. Hot chicks with big tits. But that's not the same as hiring a hot person for a job where being hot never had anything to do with the job qualification and then firing them for being hot. Well, Prom.... man, I don't know. I really don't know if we can claim that just because more people are affected, it makes it wronger. This is where it starts getting dense and philosophical. For instance, what's wronger? A guy torturing one person with a knife, or a guy heckling seven comedians? Lets just say in the end that this case is indeed a tough situation where the ideal thing is that both parties can find a solution that is fair to both. I have already expressed my potential solution for that and like I said, I understand the innumerable complexities in codifying such law... but that was never an excuse not to try. Again, I'm no lawyer. Maybe if I had full awareness of how the laws works, I would have the criteria to say "Yeah, it's actually impossible to codify as a law".... maybe not. This is where I cannot go beyond my speculation, beyond my belief that if we don't know, it wouldn't hurt trying. Because these situations should not keep repeating. People shouldn't be fired for reasons like that. |
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#715 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
She discussed her sex life with her husband with her boss. She admitted to it. You all are hung up on her behavior as good or bad, you all also seem to ignore the fact that the man's wife was also a coworker of Ms Nelson.
The case would be entirely different if she was just his wife. Anyway, people pretending that talking about your sex life with your boss is not unprofessional and can't contribute to problems at work with your coworkers are just flat out denying reality. Not only is it unprofessional between the boss and employee it can also create a hostile work environment for the coworkers. The boss had a valid reason for firing her. So this entire debate is nonsense. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#716 |
Acolyte of Víđarr
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 48,510
|
It is worth considering. That's why I considered it.
![]() I did elaborate, in the next sentence sentence--because it's more difficult to overcome pervasive discrimination (that's sort of what "pervasive" means in this context--it's all over the place so it's harder to avoid) That's moving goalposts, though. I am assuming an "all other things being equal" stance. I'm not mistaking anything. I'm responding directly to your statement that hotness "it has no bearing on a person's ability to do the job (Except of course, in obvious cases where being hot is part of the job, such as an actor, model, etc) " I think there are any number of plausible albeit non-obvious ways in which attractiveness can indirectly yield better results for a worker. Yeah, well that's the age-old debate between proponents of Mills or Kant. I've never heard a convincing argument that there's an objective way to settle the debate--it's just personal value judgement. Though if you formulate it as a question of whether it's worse to heckle one person or torture seven comedians with a knife, then it's fairly obvious that the latter is less wrong. ![]() However, it is important to note that the two options in play here involve the same sort of hardship for different numbers of people (He can fire one employee or risk being forced to fire them all) as opposed to two very different types of hardship (heckling vs. knife torture). Plus there's the other considerations I mentioned--his own financial well-being, and his marriage vows/contract. What are you, some kind of Commie? ![]() FWIW I agree, but this one is just not very high up on my list of priorities. There are ways to avoid becoming a victim of this sort of thing if one is truly worried about it. Those who chose not to take such steps are taking a risk. Why not let people take their own risks and suffer the consequences of their own decisions? |
__________________
As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy." "I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor .......... Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#717 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 41,543
|
Where did she admit to it? It's certainly not covered in the article in the OP. Knight spoke to Nelson about her sex life, but there's no evidence that she volunteered information to him. Perhaps he found out from a third party.
From the article:
Quote:
You can imagine as much as you want about Nelson discussing her sex life with him. There's no evidence I've seen. Knight's own lawyer said that Nelson did no wrong. Why do you insist she did without any evidence? |
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#718 |
Acolyte of Víđarr
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 48,510
|
|
__________________
As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy." "I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor .......... Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#719 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
Because I can read and because I have common sense. How did he know she had an "infrequent sex life" if she didn't discuss it with him? He also sent her a message about her having an orgasm and she skipped over it and talked about her kids.
I am married, if a man sent me a text message asking me about my orgasms, I would not continue discussing my personal life with him. I would tell him it is completely inappropriate and ask that the relationship remain professional. Saying she didn't do anything wrong meant that she didn't do anything wrong at her job with regards to her job. But the lawyer is not the final authority on her conduct. It is wrong and it is unprofessional, anyway, but extremely so if you are married or the other person is married. It says a whole heck of a lot that so many people don't think there is anything wrong with her conduct. Seriously SMH |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#720 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 41,543
|
"Common sense" is not and has never been evidence.
How does the allegation that Knight sent Nelson a message about an orgasm prove that she acted unprofessionally? It's simply blaming the victim. Nope, no evidence whatsoever. |
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|