Ding Dong The Witch is Dead: Part 1 of a long upcoming series

[James Annan]

David L. Johnson wrote:

> > relationship between boss and employee, or co-workers on uneven
> > footings. I am aware that today's Dr Phil-level morality says, "oooh,
> > you must never have a relationship", and that many businesses forbid
> > inter-office romances. I am also aware that this was not the case just a
> > few short years ago,
>
> Not true at all. It has always been a violation of most company policies.
> Not many years ago company policies prevented even comparable-level
> employees to "fraternize", or to get married and have both stay employeed,
> or to employ husband and wife even in different departments.

However, I have never heard of it being considered a criminal matter,
anywhere, ever in the developed world at least. Being married to a
colleague has never presented any sort of problems to either of my wife
or I. From the employer's perspective it has the clear advantage that
they can eliminate the problem of the spouse moving and pulling the
employee with them...in fact my first employer offered my wife an
interview (with a strong likelihood of job) for precisely that reason.
However, her new employer also offered _me_ a job

> And there's the rub. A secretary/student cannot be reasonably construed
> as "consenting" if a salary or grade is on the line.

My previous employer had a policy to prohibit direct management
responsibility between people in relationships. I'm not sure if my
current one does. There are certainly no problems with my working with
her.

James

 

[Bill Sornson]

James Annan wrote:
> David L. Johnson wrote:
>
>>> relationship between boss and employee, or co-workers on uneven
>>> footings. I am aware that today's Dr Phil-level morality says,
>>> "oooh, you must never have a relationship", and that many
>>> businesses forbid inter-office romances. I am also aware that this
>>> was not the case just a few short years ago,
>>
>> Not true at all. It has always been a violation of most company
>> policies. Not many years ago company policies prevented even
>> comparable-level employees to "fraternize", or to get married and
>> have both stay employeed, or to employ husband and wife even in
>> different departments.
>
> However, I have never heard of it being considered a criminal matter

Neither was Clinton's "affair" with the human humidor. What was /criminal/
was his lying in a SEPARATE MATTER (the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit), and
then coercing Monica to file false testimony as part of his defense.

It WASN'T EVER "just about sex", despite the claims to the contrary.

 

[Bill Sornson]

James Annan wrote:
> David L. Johnson wrote:
>
>>> relationship between boss and employee, or co-workers on uneven
>>> footings. I am aware that today's Dr Phil-level morality says,
>>> "oooh, you must never have a relationship", and that many
>>> businesses forbid inter-office romances. I am also aware that this
>>> was not the case just a few short years ago,
>>
>> Not true at all. It has always been a violation of most company
>> policies. Not many years ago company policies prevented even
>> comparable-level employees to "fraternize", or to get married and
>> have both stay employeed, or to employ husband and wife even in
>> different departments.
>
> However, I have never heard of it being considered a criminal matter

Neither was Clinton's "affair" with the human humidor. What was /criminal/
was his lying in a SEPARATE MATTER (the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit), and
then coercing Monica to file false testimony as part of his defense.

It WASN'T EVER "just about sex", despite the claims to the contrary.

 

[Bill Sornson]

James Annan wrote:
> David L. Johnson wrote:
>
>>> relationship between boss and employee, or co-workers on uneven
>>> footings. I am aware that today's Dr Phil-level morality says,
>>> "oooh, you must never have a relationship", and that many
>>> businesses forbid inter-office romances. I am also aware that this
>>> was not the case just a few short years ago,
>>
>> Not true at all. It has always been a violation of most company
>> policies. Not many years ago company policies prevented even
>> comparable-level employees to "fraternize", or to get married and
>> have both stay employeed, or to employ husband and wife even in
>> different departments.
>
> However, I have never heard of it being considered a criminal matter

Neither was Clinton's "affair" with the human humidor. What was /criminal/
was his lying in a SEPARATE MATTER (the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit), and
then coercing Monica to file false testimony as part of his defense.

It WASN'T EVER "just about sex", despite the claims to the contrary.

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:18:08 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Speaking of spewing forth lies, how 'bout coming up with a quote that
>backs up your claim that the current administration ever said anything
>about Iraq having anything to do with the 9/11 attacks?

They sure did their damnedest to imply it at all corners, although the
Pres himself never made it explicit TTBOMK. Statements like "In the
post-9/11 world, Iraq is a major threat!" ought to be findable, though.


Jasper

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:18:08 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Speaking of spewing forth lies, how 'bout coming up with a quote that
>backs up your claim that the current administration ever said anything
>about Iraq having anything to do with the 9/11 attacks?

They sure did their damnedest to imply it at all corners, although the
Pres himself never made it explicit TTBOMK. Statements like "In the
post-9/11 world, Iraq is a major threat!" ought to be findable, though.


Jasper

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:18:08 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Speaking of spewing forth lies, how 'bout coming up with a quote that
>backs up your claim that the current administration ever said anything
>about Iraq having anything to do with the 9/11 attacks?

They sure did their damnedest to imply it at all corners, although the
Pres himself never made it explicit TTBOMK. Statements like "In the
post-9/11 world, Iraq is a major threat!" ought to be findable, though.


Jasper

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>James Annan wrote:

>> However, I have never heard of it being considered a criminal matter
>
>Neither was Clinton's "affair" with the human humidor. What was /criminal/
>was his lying in a SEPARATE MATTER (the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit), and
>then coercing Monica to file false testimony as part of his defense.
>
>It WASN'T EVER "just about sex", despite the claims to the contrary.

I get this picture of a LOT of people clamping their hands over their
ears and screaming "LALALALALALALALALALA". You think any reasonable
person would have figured this out by now... sigh.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>James Annan wrote:

>> However, I have never heard of it being considered a criminal matter
>
>Neither was Clinton's "affair" with the human humidor. What was /criminal/
>was his lying in a SEPARATE MATTER (the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit), and
>then coercing Monica to file false testimony as part of his defense.
>
>It WASN'T EVER "just about sex", despite the claims to the contrary.

I get this picture of a LOT of people clamping their hands over their
ears and screaming "LALALALALALALALALALA". You think any reasonable
person would have figured this out by now... sigh.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>James Annan wrote:

>> However, I have never heard of it being considered a criminal matter
>
>Neither was Clinton's "affair" with the human humidor. What was /criminal/
>was his lying in a SEPARATE MATTER (the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit), and
>then coercing Monica to file false testimony as part of his defense.
>
>It WASN'T EVER "just about sex", despite the claims to the contrary.

I get this picture of a LOT of people clamping their hands over their
ears and screaming "LALALALALALALALALALA". You think any reasonable
person would have figured this out by now... sigh.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Tom Ace]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> Each of the recent two-term presidents have gone through a crisis
> period in their fifth year. This one is IMHO waaaaay overblown,
> thanks to the lack of any real news apparently.

There is real news. It sure looks like your Veep lied
through his teeth to a grand jury.

And in case you think it's "just" perjury and obstruction,
why would he have lied if nothing shady had happened?

And about whether or not it's overblown: two years ago,
your president said the leaking was unacceptable, and anyone
in his staff who'd been involved would be shown the door.
He said that because it was the right thing to say;
too bad he didn't mean it.


Tom Ace

 

[Tom Ace]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> Each of the recent two-term presidents have gone through a crisis
> period in their fifth year. This one is IMHO waaaaay overblown,
> thanks to the lack of any real news apparently.

There is real news. It sure looks like your Veep lied
through his teeth to a grand jury.

And in case you think it's "just" perjury and obstruction,
why would he have lied if nothing shady had happened?

And about whether or not it's overblown: two years ago,
your president said the leaking was unacceptable, and anyone
in his staff who'd been involved would be shown the door.
He said that because it was the right thing to say;
too bad he didn't mean it.


Tom Ace

 

[Tom Ace]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> Each of the recent two-term presidents have gone through a crisis
> period in their fifth year. This one is IMHO waaaaay overblown,
> thanks to the lack of any real news apparently.

There is real news. It sure looks like your Veep lied
through his teeth to a grand jury.

And in case you think it's "just" perjury and obstruction,
why would he have lied if nothing shady had happened?

And about whether or not it's overblown: two years ago,
your president said the leaking was unacceptable, and anyone
in his staff who'd been involved would be shown the door.
He said that because it was the right thing to say;
too bad he didn't mean it.


Tom Ace

 

[Tom Ace]

I wrote:

> There is real news. It sure looks like your Veep lied
> through his teeth to a grand jury.

I meant to say your Veep's chief of staff.

Tom Ace

 

[Tom Ace]

I wrote:

> There is real news. It sure looks like your Veep lied
> through his teeth to a grand jury.

I meant to say your Veep's chief of staff.

Tom Ace

 

[Tom Ace]

I wrote:

> There is real news. It sure looks like your Veep lied
> through his teeth to a grand jury.

I meant to say your Veep's chief of staff.

Tom Ace

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Bill Sornson wrote:

>
> Jasper asked (Mark, but I butted in) what 9-11 changed, and I gave an
> opinion. I'm not a "victim" of anything, any more than you (or the
> anonymous blogheads who post on here). Unlike them (don't know about you),
> however, I actually hope that the Middle East IS transformed eventually, and
> that the seeds that foment terrorism eventually dry up. Might be a better,
> safer, more peaceful world some day.

Another example of American arrogance. Re-make the area in our own
image, not necessarily what the people in the region want. If they
don't listen either bomb them or bribe them.

Iraq is a mess by any measure. NEW ideas are needed. 'stay the course'
when the guy at the helm is clueless, is NOT the answer. Either go in
with more and finish it or leave now.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Bill Sornson wrote:

>
> Jasper asked (Mark, but I butted in) what 9-11 changed, and I gave an
> opinion. I'm not a "victim" of anything, any more than you (or the
> anonymous blogheads who post on here). Unlike them (don't know about you),
> however, I actually hope that the Middle East IS transformed eventually, and
> that the seeds that foment terrorism eventually dry up. Might be a better,
> safer, more peaceful world some day.

Another example of American arrogance. Re-make the area in our own
image, not necessarily what the people in the region want. If they
don't listen either bomb them or bribe them.

Iraq is a mess by any measure. NEW ideas are needed. 'stay the course'
when the guy at the helm is clueless, is NOT the answer. Either go in
with more and finish it or leave now.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Bill Sornson wrote:

>
> Jasper asked (Mark, but I butted in) what 9-11 changed, and I gave an
> opinion. I'm not a "victim" of anything, any more than you (or the
> anonymous blogheads who post on here). Unlike them (don't know about you),
> however, I actually hope that the Middle East IS transformed eventually, and
> that the seeds that foment terrorism eventually dry up. Might be a better,
> safer, more peaceful world some day.

Another example of American arrogance. Re-make the area in our own
image, not necessarily what the people in the region want. If they
don't listen either bomb them or bribe them.

Iraq is a mess by any measure. NEW ideas are needed. 'stay the course'
when the guy at the helm is clueless, is NOT the answer. Either go in
with more and finish it or leave now.

 

[Neil Brooks]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

>Oh, c'mon Peter... you can't believe every blog you read.

I'm not going to jump in to the meat of this topic -- been there, said
that -- but /do/ want to suggest that you and that other gentleman who
like to use this tactic reconsider.

Not everything that is in opposition with your beliefs comes from some
blogger with zero credibility (ex: I don't read /any/ blogs). Not
every position held via inference and the piecing together of vast
strings of facts is a baseless conspiracy theory. Some people paint
their own, well thought, pictures based on good information. It may
or may not match yours.

Not everybody who disagrees with you is a nutjob with totally
incredible sources.

Generally speaking, I find your arguments very well reasoned, Mark (or
is it Mike?). This tactic strikes me as something from a spin
machine, not part of a valid discussion.

As you were....
--
Live simply so that others may simply live