Re: Nice Planet 2012
If that is the exact wording, then yes, he has a case.
If that is the exact wording, then yes, he has a case.
USCHO Fan Forum
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Nice Planet 2012
- Thread starter Old Pio
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
There is no "wording." This "policy" is apparantly like being on double secret probation. They're not likely to have a sign restricting the children's area to women and kids only.
If that is the exact wording, then yes, he has a case.
There is no "wording." This "policy" is apparantly like being on double secret probation. They're not likely to have a sign restricting the children's area to women and kids only.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Then good luck on the lawsuit. The business will just say that the employee didn't relate this policy in the correct manner.
Again, this is a horrible thing that happened, I'm just stating the probability of what's going to happen if he tries to sue.
There is no "wording." This "policy" is apparantly like being on double secret probation. They're not likely to have a sign restricting the children's area to women and kids only.
Then good luck on the lawsuit. The business will just say that the employee didn't relate this policy in the correct manner.
Again, this is a horrible thing that happened, I'm just stating the probability of what's going to happen if he tries to sue.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
What are the odds this guy decided to run off a customer based on a complaint by a delusional b*tch on his own? Or is it more likely that he responded to a company "policy." And if there's some sort of "policy" then aren't similarly placed employees likely to know about it too and be able to testify about it? Not all of them are going to be intimidated by some book selling suit somewhere.
Then good luck on the lawsuit. The business will just say that the employee didn't relate this policy in the correct manner.
Again, this is a horrible thing that happened, I'm just stating the probability of what's going to happen if he tries to sue.
What are the odds this guy decided to run off a customer based on a complaint by a delusional b*tch on his own? Or is it more likely that he responded to a company "policy." And if there's some sort of "policy" then aren't similarly placed employees likely to know about it too and be able to testify about it? Not all of them are going to be intimidated by some book selling suit somewhere.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
That could happen. Again, the business would then say the offending employee in question merely mis-stated the policy, and nothing really would happen.
What are the odds this guy decided to run off a customer based on a complaint by a delusional b*tch on his own? Or is it more likely that he responded to a company "policy." And if there's some sort of "policy" then aren't similarly placed employees likely to know about it too and able to testify about it? Not all of them are going to be intimidated by some book selling suit somewhere.
That could happen. Again, the business would then say the offending employee in question merely mis-stated the policy, and nothing really would happen.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
If a parade of employees testified that was the policy: no men in the children's section. And you must leave the store. It would then be a matter that the guy followed the policy to the letter. They'd have to come up with another excuse. Or somehow establish all those other employees misunderstood it, too.
If it were me, I'd also want to put Hester Prynne in the shiza if I could. How 'bout you mind your own freakin' business, sister? Even if the guy's a pedophile, there are no freaking kids in the store right now. She should go somewhere else to spray that sunshine.
That could happen. Again, the business would then say the offending employee in question merely mis-stated the policy, and nothing really would happen.
If a parade of employees testified that was the policy: no men in the children's section. And you must leave the store. It would then be a matter that the guy followed the policy to the letter. They'd have to come up with another excuse. Or somehow establish all those other employees misunderstood it, too.
If it were me, I'd also want to put Hester Prynne in the shiza if I could. How 'bout you mind your own freakin' business, sister? Even if the guy's a pedophile, there are no freaking kids in the store right now. She should go somewhere else to spray that sunshine.
Last edited:
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Agree on the psycho Suzy. However, unless the policy is actually written down, it'd be tough to prove in a court of law. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
If a parade of employees testified that was the policy: no men in the children's section. And you must leave the store. It would then be a matter that the guy followed the policy to the letter. They'd have to come up with another excuse. Or somehow establish all those other employees misunderstood it, too.
If it were me, I'd also want to put Hester Prynne in the shiza if I could. How 'bout you mind your own freakin' business, sister? Even if the guy's a pedophile, there are no freaking kids in the store right now. She should go somewhere else to spray that sunshine.
Agree on the psycho Suzy. However, unless the policy is actually written down, it'd be tough to prove in a court of law. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Big companies don't leave much to chance these days. Although a policy of overt gender discrimination might be one not written down. But there are managers and district managers and a host of other types, not all of whom would be willing to perjure themselves for the good of the comany. If it's a policy, written or unwritten, formal or informal, somebody would be willing to talk.
My sense is this is sort of a wink, wink, nudge, nudge policy. Reading between the lines of the original story, I got the impression that if there hadn't been a complaint, they wouldn't have thrown him out. I could be dead wrong about that.
Agree on the psycho Suzy. However, unless the policy is actually written down, it'd be tough to prove in a court of law. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
Big companies don't leave much to chance these days. Although a policy of overt gender discrimination might be one not written down. But there are managers and district managers and a host of other types, not all of whom would be willing to perjure themselves for the good of the comany. If it's a policy, written or unwritten, formal or informal, somebody would be willing to talk.
My sense is this is sort of a wink, wink, nudge, nudge policy. Reading between the lines of the original story, I got the impression that if there hadn't been a complaint, they wouldn't have thrown him out. I could be dead wrong about that.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
They were probably afraid of Psycho Suzy and the press she'd generate, and then it backfired. You and I both know this happens a lot.
Big companies don't leave much to chance these days. Although a policy of overt gender discrimination might be one not written down. But there are managers and district managers and a host of other types, not all of whom would be willing to perjure themselves for the good of the comany. If it's a policy, written or unwritten, formal or informal, somebody would be willing to talk.
My sense is this is sort of a wink, wink, nudge, nudge policy. Reading between the lines of the original story, I got the impression that if there hadn't been a complaint, they wouldn't have thrown him out. I could be dead wrong about that.
They were probably afraid of Psycho Suzy and the press she'd generate, and then it backfired. You and I both know this happens a lot.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Plus she just happened to pick a PhD and owner of his own business who is presumably quite successful. Doesn't really fit the profile.
'Course I'm the guy who thinks there's at least a 50/50 chance Michael Jackson didn't abuse any kids.
They were probably afraid of Psycho Suzy and the press she'd generate, and then it backfired. You and I both know this happens a lot.
Plus she just happened to pick a PhD and owner of his own business who is presumably quite successful. Doesn't really fit the profile.
'Course I'm the guy who thinks there's at least a 50/50 chance Michael Jackson didn't abuse any kids.
Last edited:
Re: Nice Planet 2012
I could see him abusing the first kid, and the rest, seeing the money, letting their kids stay at his place, and getting a payoff. Um, after that first accusation, my kid would NEVER come within 100 miles of MJ. Those following parents were not right in the head.
Plus she just happened to pick a PhD and owner of his own business who is presumably quite successful. Doesn't really fit the profile.
'Course I'm the guy who thinks there's at least a 50/50 chance Michael Jackson didn't abuse any kids.
I could see him abusing the first kid, and the rest, seeing the money, letting their kids stay at his place, and getting a payoff. Um, after that first accusation, my kid would NEVER come within 100 miles of MJ. Those following parents were not right in the head.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
The first kid was the object of a very bitter custody battle. And what better way for this hollywood dentist to prove his ex-wife was an unfit mother than to prove she put him in the hands of a pedophile? Maureen Orth (Tim Russert's widow) wrote in Vanity Fair that the only time the kid made sexual allegations against Jackson, he was under the influence of some powerful drug, administered under the direction of the father. Juice that kid enough and he'll claim to be in contact with Mrs. Woodrow Wilson.
Daddy also had delusions of being a script writer and in addition to the gigantic settlement his kid got (15 million? 20 million?) he got a big chunk of change and some sort of "developmental" deal. Besides, Jackson is the perfect guy to extort. More money than God. And an enormousy creepy lifestyle and persona. In the trial a few years later, the DA had a website, asking for "victims" to come forward with their stories. None did. With a boxcar full of money on the line, how many people wouldn't at least be tempted to fabricate? I would be much more inclined to believe the kid and his father if they both weren't living very high on the hog because of Michael Jackson's money.*
But being creepy and weird is not the same as being a pedophile. We'll never know for sure of course. Like I say, I think it's 50/50 or better that in the first instance he was extorted and in the second was victimized by grifters who would make Gypsy "driveway repair" guys blush and a vindictive DA.
In these discussions of the private lives of celebrities whom we "know" are gay or whatever, I'm reminded of a quote from Tallulah Bankhead (she of so many wonderful quotes). When asked if some well known actor was gay, she said: "I wouldn't know dahling, he's never offered to suck MY d*ck."
*Daddy has since blown his brains out.
I could see him abusing the first kid, and the rest, seeing the money, letting their kids stay at his place, and getting a payoff. Um, after that first accusation, my kid would NEVER come within 100 miles of MJ. Those following parents were not right in the head.
The first kid was the object of a very bitter custody battle. And what better way for this hollywood dentist to prove his ex-wife was an unfit mother than to prove she put him in the hands of a pedophile? Maureen Orth (Tim Russert's widow) wrote in Vanity Fair that the only time the kid made sexual allegations against Jackson, he was under the influence of some powerful drug, administered under the direction of the father. Juice that kid enough and he'll claim to be in contact with Mrs. Woodrow Wilson.
Daddy also had delusions of being a script writer and in addition to the gigantic settlement his kid got (15 million? 20 million?) he got a big chunk of change and some sort of "developmental" deal. Besides, Jackson is the perfect guy to extort. More money than God. And an enormousy creepy lifestyle and persona. In the trial a few years later, the DA had a website, asking for "victims" to come forward with their stories. None did. With a boxcar full of money on the line, how many people wouldn't at least be tempted to fabricate? I would be much more inclined to believe the kid and his father if they both weren't living very high on the hog because of Michael Jackson's money.*
But being creepy and weird is not the same as being a pedophile. We'll never know for sure of course. Like I say, I think it's 50/50 or better that in the first instance he was extorted and in the second was victimized by grifters who would make Gypsy "driveway repair" guys blush and a vindictive DA.
In these discussions of the private lives of celebrities whom we "know" are gay or whatever, I'm reminded of a quote from Tallulah Bankhead (she of so many wonderful quotes). When asked if some well known actor was gay, she said: "I wouldn't know dahling, he's never offered to suck MY d*ck."
*Daddy has since blown his brains out.
Last edited:
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Well, well. Barnes & Noble has apologized to Dr. Amin for throwing him out of their Scottsdale store for "shopping while male" in the children's section. I'm pretty sure this is an indication of the company's generosity of spirit and not because their lawyers told 'em the old man was gonna bust their bollocks. Aren't you?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/0...-for-being-alone-in-children/?test=latestnews
Well, well. Barnes & Noble has apologized to Dr. Amin for throwing him out of their Scottsdale store for "shopping while male" in the children's section. I'm pretty sure this is an indication of the company's generosity of spirit and not because their lawyers told 'em the old man was gonna bust their bollocks. Aren't you?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/0...-for-being-alone-in-children/?test=latestnews
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Here's a silly b*tch landlady who evidently thinks her political opinions give her the right to discriminate against a national guardsman who served in Iraq and Afghanistan BECAUSE he served in Irag and Afghanistan.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/0...ton-landlady-refused-to-rent-to-him-over-war/
Here's a silly b*tch landlady who evidently thinks her political opinions give her the right to discriminate against a national guardsman who served in Iraq and Afghanistan BECAUSE he served in Irag and Afghanistan.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/0...ton-landlady-refused-to-rent-to-him-over-war/
Last edited:
MountieBoyOz
Eater of Worlds
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Really? What a a-wad! Who shoots a dog in the face?
http://watertowndailytimes.com/section/breakingnews#2012706059785
Really? What a a-wad! Who shoots a dog in the face?
http://watertowndailytimes.com/section/breakingnews#2012706059785
MountieBoyOz
Eater of Worlds
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Sorry to double post, but this Magnotta thing is getting creepier by the second.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/06/05/bc-false-creek-st-georges.html
Sorry to double post, but this Magnotta thing is getting creepier by the second.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/06/05/bc-false-creek-st-georges.html
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Not in the same category, really, but where else to put this? One of the reasons I dislike golf.
http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/...m-fairway-memorial-cellphone-usage-being-hand
Oh, you can't concentrate because of a click of a cameraphone, etc. Try having 20,000-50,000 people hassle you at once while you try and do your job. Buncha arrogant priks.
Not in the same category, really, but where else to put this? One of the reasons I dislike golf.
http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/...m-fairway-memorial-cellphone-usage-being-hand
Oh, you can't concentrate because of a click of a cameraphone, etc. Try having 20,000-50,000 people hassle you at once while you try and do your job. Buncha arrogant priks.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Softball coach claims reverse discrimination after ousting because school insisted on hiring a woman
Maybe I'm old school, but I believe that the only reason why a coach should be fired is based on their win-loss record, not that you just want to have a woman coach on your staff. Call me a Neanderthal if you wanna, but that's just me.
Softball coach claims reverse discrimination after ousting because school insisted on hiring a woman
Maybe I'm old school, but I believe that the only reason why a coach should be fired is based on their win-loss record, not that you just want to have a woman coach on your staff. Call me a Neanderthal if you wanna, but that's just me.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
My old man always used to say that as long as you didn't interfere with his backswing, he didn't much care what you did.
Not in the same category, really, but where else to put this? One of the reasons I dislike golf.
http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/...m-fairway-memorial-cellphone-usage-being-hand
Oh, you can't concentrate because of a click of a cameraphone, etc. Try having 20,000-50,000 people hassle you at once while you try and do your job. Buncha arrogant priks.
My old man always used to say that as long as you didn't interfere with his backswing, he didn't much care what you did.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.