|
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: You're a lawyer working on sexual harassment litigation I presume? I doubt it. Are you saying that all the 1000s of businesses are wrong? I'm a retired HR Manager with experience in this and you are wrong... Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. WHAT???? You've been in Calidornia too long...there are plenty of corporations in the midwest that vertainly do have those kind of policies in place, especially regarding a boss/employee relationship....get yuour head out of the sand, Jon...California is not the world... It's not, but it is the largest state. We do things right from time to time. Like your energy policy? Like your immigration policies? Sorry, couldn't help that. Too convenient. Max I guess that's how the fly-over states feel. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. Most sexual harassment suits aren't matters of criminal codes. They are civil suits. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Enforcement is irrelevant. If the secretary sues the boss after being dumped, she generally wins. We're talking civil suits, not criminal trials. Perjury is perjury. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. No one is intruding in anyone's business. It's a matter of civil litigation, Jon. Not lawbreaking. You have a tough time with that distinction, don't you? So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message You're a lawyer working on sexual harassment litigation I presume? I doubt it. Are you saying that all the 1000s of businesses are wrong? When did you become a spokesman for the thousands of businesses in the country? My guess is that they are far more up-to-date on the subject than thou. When did you become a spokesman for moral purity? My guess is that you aren't much involved in corporate life. I guess you should talk to Larry Ellison. In any case, anyone can sue anyone for any reason, but that doesn't mean it'll get any where. You're just grasping at staws now. Nope. Like I said, you're unenlightened on this subject. Your information is about ten years out of date. As far as Larry Ellison is concerned, he'll never get sued for sexual harassment--he only has to write a nice 6-figure check to the agrieved young lady and she's happy. According to you. Are you suggesting that we should investigate and prosecute all those people who lie about an affair in divorce court for example? I still have no idea what you're asking, considering I never advocated anything at all. No kidding. Really? So, you can't accept the possibility that a Democrat might actually have the best interests of the country in mind. Got it. It was a joke, son. Yes, I'm still laughing. "In your opinion" In my opinion, he's a damn liar and should be impeached. It's not going to happen, but it should. Your hatred for Bush has distorted any attempt at reason, Jon. My hatred of Bush is your fantasy. And, he should be forgiven... no big deal, 1000s died, and Bush **may** have lied... *probably* lied (IN MY OPINION), but that's ok with you. You don't care. I never indicated that it's "okay" with me. But I'm openminded enough to wait until some substantive evidence that he lied is presented. So far all I've heard from you is left-wing hatred and antipathy toward a President who disagrees with your personal brand of dogma. Have a trial. Justice should prevail. But, you sure do care about Clinton's wandering among young women. I couldn't care less what Bill Clinton did with that porky pig, Monica Lewinski. But he was accused by several other women of sexual harassment, dating from his days as governor of Arkansas all the way to the White House. Some of those women were fired for not playing along with him. The left-wing women's rights organizations should have been outraged, but they placed political dogma ahead of their core beliefs, obviously. Hypocrites of the first degree. Of course you do! You brought it up. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
Capt. JG wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. Most sexual harassment suits aren't matters of criminal codes. They are civil suits. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Enforcement is irrelevant. If the secretary sues the boss after being dumped, she generally wins. We're talking civil suits, not criminal trials. Perjury is perjury. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. No one is intruding in anyone's business. It's a matter of civil litigation, Jon. Not lawbreaking. You have a tough time with that distinction, don't you? So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Civil for the sexual harrassment issues and criminal for the lying about it...he perjured himself...that's criminal... |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
katy wrote:
So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Civil for the sexual harrassment issues and criminal for the lying about it...he perjured himself...that's criminal... You'd press a criminal prosecution upon a President for such a small thing? In the overall scheme of things the only thing that would be accomplished would be to further harm the repution of the USA. Ask yourself why Ford gave Nixon immunity. Cheers Marty ------------ And now a word from our sponsor --------------------- For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption upgrade to SurgeFTP ---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ---- |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"katy" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. Most sexual harassment suits aren't matters of criminal codes. They are civil suits. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Enforcement is irrelevant. If the secretary sues the boss after being dumped, she generally wins. We're talking civil suits, not criminal trials. Perjury is perjury. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. No one is intruding in anyone's business. It's a matter of civil litigation, Jon. Not lawbreaking. You have a tough time with that distinction, don't you? So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Civil for the sexual harrassment issues and criminal for the lying about it...he perjured himself...that's criminal... And, compared to what Bush lied about, you think that's about the same level, right? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
... katy wrote: So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Civil for the sexual harrassment issues and criminal for the lying about it...he perjured himself...that's criminal... You'd press a criminal prosecution upon a President for such a small thing? In the overall scheme of things the only thing that would be accomplished would be to further harm the repution of the USA. Ask yourself why Ford gave Nixon immunity. Cheers Marty ------------ And now a word from our sponsor --------------------- For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption upgrade to SurgeFTP ---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ---- When it comes to hating Clinton, there is no end to the madness. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
Martin Baxter wrote:
katy wrote: So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Civil for the sexual harrassment issues and criminal for the lying about it...he perjured himself...that's criminal... You'd press a criminal prosecution upon a President for such a small thing? In the overall scheme of things the only thing that would be accomplished would be to further harm the repution of the USA. Ask yourself why Ford gave Nixon immunity. Cheers Marty ------------ And now a word from our sponsor --------------------- For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption upgrade to SurgeFTP ---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ---- He shouldn'y have...he would have been re-elected if he had not pardoned Nixon and the US would have had a decent and moral President for 6 years.... |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message hlink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. Most sexual harassment suits aren't matters of criminal codes. They are civil suits. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Enforcement is irrelevant. If the secretary sues the boss after being dumped, she generally wins. We're talking civil suits, not criminal trials. Perjury is perjury. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. No one is intruding in anyone's business. It's a matter of civil litigation, Jon. Not lawbreaking. You have a tough time with that distinction, don't you? So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Civil for the sexual harrassment issues and criminal for the lying about it...he perjured himself...that's criminal... And, compared to what Bush lied about, you think that's about the same level, right? I didn't know Bush lied in a court of law...didn't know he had been brought up on charges...it has not been proven that Bush lied...it has been proven that Clinton lied...when Bush is tried and prosecuted for lying, that would be a different situation...but that hasn't happened...and won't happen...and until; then, if you are an upholder of the Constitution, you must proceed as if he were innocent...give it a rest... |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:46:50 -0500, katy wrote
(in article ): Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. Most sexual harassment suits aren't matters of criminal codes. They are civil suits. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Enforcement is irrelevant. If the secretary sues the boss after being dumped, she generally wins. We're talking civil suits, not criminal trials. Perjury is perjury. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. No one is intruding in anyone's business. It's a matter of civil litigation, Jon. Not lawbreaking. You have a tough time with that distinction, don't you? So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Civil for the sexual harrassment issues and criminal for the lying about it...he perjured himself...that's criminal... And, compared to what Bush lied about, you think that's about the same level, right? I didn't know Bush lied in a court of law...didn't know he had been brought up on charges...it has not been proven that Bush lied...it has been proven that Clinton lied...when Bush is tried and prosecuted for lying, that would be a different situation...but that hasn't happened...and won't happen...and until; then, if you are an upholder of the Constitution, you must proceed as if he were innocent...give it a rest... Katy, Even Bush has admitted he was wrong/ spin for lying. Maybe it is time to get on with the reality. I hate to be the one to break it to you. Is it 2008 yet? -- Mundo, The Captain who is a bully and an ass |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:27 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com