"Capt. JG" wrote in message

So, please show us the "precedence" of these redundant court decisions.
The passage I quoted is what is used as a guideline for businesses. Are
you saying that they're not valid?

That's precisely what I'm saying. If you're using and abiding by them,
you're leaving yourself open for litigation.

How did you come to that conclusion. Should we alert the media?

The media are well aware of it. Where have you been?

Basically, what you're saying is that it's not ok for two consenting
adults who happen to work with each other to have an affair.

Not if they are at the opposite ends of the power spectrum. Today a CEO who
has an consensual affair with his secretary is leaving himself open to
charges if she all of a sudden decides she doesn't like the guy anymore. It
especially happens if he dumps her for another tryst.

And, further, you're saying that this should be investigated and
prosecuted for lying about it. Is that what you're really saying??? Seems
kind of like a lot of gov't intrusion into someone's private life to me.
But, you're the conservative not me.

I have no idea what you're asking here.

I already did, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

Better show that evidence to Nancy Pelosi. Maybe she'll put impeachment
back on the table. ;-)

In any case, you're understanding of the impeachment process is flawed:

During Clinton's presidency, the world continued to transition from the
political order of the Cold War, and the United States experienced the
longest period of economic expansion in its history. In 1998, he became
the second president to be impeached by the United States House of
Representatives. He was subsequently acquitted by the United States Senate
and remained in office to complete his term.

Thanks for the history lesson, Jon, but now tell me something I don't
already know.

How am *I* supposed to show you that? I'm calling for an investigation.

No problem with that. If an investigation is warranted, it should happen.
But I could probably retire if I had a dollar for every time you've called
Bush a liar. You seem to have some evidence to which no one else is privvy.
I don't like Bush, but I like left-wing dogmatic garbage even less.

He knew that based on the intelligence or he should have known. For a guy
with an MBA, he sure didn't check to carefully or have his minions check.

Really? When some of the top intel people in the country are telling him
there is a strong possibility of WMDs, and a couple of others are saying
'probably not,' does he opt for the naysayers while taking the risk that
they may be wrong? Bush's only mistake, IMO, is staying in Iraq to help
nation-build. He once said he would not do that, but he has done exactly
that. And it's become a quagmire in which we are embroiled and losing
American lives, not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi lives that
have been lost in the process.

You don't believe. Well, that's an opinion and we need a full
investigation.
What if he DID lie? Do you really want someone who lies and 1000s die to
remain in office?

I don't want him to remain in office, regardless. I'm predicting he'll be
out of the White House in, oh, I don't know, less than two years.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

So, please show us the "precedence" of these redundant court decisions.
The passage I quoted is what is used as a guideline for businesses. Are
you saying that they're not valid?

That's precisely what I'm saying. If you're using and abiding by them,
you're leaving yourself open for litigation.

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?


How did you come to that conclusion. Should we alert the media?

The media are well aware of it. Where have you been?

??

Basically, what you're saying is that it's not ok for two consenting
adults who happen to work with each other to have an affair.

Not if they are at the opposite ends of the power spectrum. Today a CEO
who has an consensual affair with his secretary is leaving himself open to
charges if she all of a sudden decides she doesn't like the guy anymore.
It especially happens if he dumps her for another tryst.

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.

And, further, you're saying that this should be investigated and
prosecuted for lying about it. Is that what you're really saying??? Seems
kind of like a lot of gov't intrusion into someone's private life to me.
But, you're the conservative not me.

I have no idea what you're asking here.

Are you suggesting that we should investigate and prosecute all those people
who lie about an affair in divorce court for example?

I already did, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

Better show that evidence to Nancy Pelosi. Maybe she'll put impeachment
back on the table. ;-)

So, you can't accept the possibility that a Democrat might actually have the
best interests of the country in mind. Got it.

In any case, you're understanding of the impeachment process is flawed:

During Clinton's presidency, the world continued to transition from the
political order of the Cold War, and the United States experienced the
longest period of economic expansion in its history. In 1998, he became
the second president to be impeached by the United States House of
Representatives. He was subsequently acquitted by the United States
Senate and remained in office to complete his term.

Thanks for the history lesson, Jon, but now tell me something I don't
already know.

I said, "He was also found not guilty by the Senate."
You said, "No, he wasn't."

You are wrong. Why not admit it.

How am *I* supposed to show you that? I'm calling for an investigation.

No problem with that. If an investigation is warranted, it should happen.
But I could probably retire if I had a dollar for every time you've called
Bush a liar. You seem to have some evidence to which no one else is
privvy. I don't like Bush, but I like left-wing dogmatic garbage even
less.

He knew that based on the intelligence or he should have known. For a guy
with an MBA, he sure didn't check to carefully or have his minions check.

Really? When some of the top intel people in the country are telling him
there is a strong possibility of WMDs, and a couple of others are saying
'probably not,' does he opt for the naysayers while taking the risk that
they may be wrong? Bush's only mistake, IMO, is staying in Iraq to help
nation-build. He once said he would not do that, but he has done exactly
that. And it's become a quagmire in which we are embroiled and losing
American lives, not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi lives that
have been lost in the process.

"In your opinion" In my opinion, he's a damn liar and should be impeached.
It's not going to happen, but it should.

You don't believe. Well, that's an opinion and we need a full
investigation.
What if he DID lie? Do you really want someone who lies and 1000s die to
remain in office?

I don't want him to remain in office, regardless. I'm predicting he'll be
out of the White House in, oh, I don't know, less than two years.

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. But, you sure do care about Clinton's wandering among young women.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

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...

"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.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

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...

"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.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
"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.


When was that?

"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

"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.

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?

Max

"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