Exactly?? If you agree that the man is entitled to privacy and a fair
hearing, then why do you want to communicate the rumor to the store
owner? That will only help ensure that he loses both.
Paul
On Jan 8, 2006, at 6:40 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
Exactly!
Jack
--- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rumors have legs when busybodies repeat them. The man is entitled to
both privacy and a fair hearing.
Paul
On Jan 8, 2006, at 5:52 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
I went back to Kevin's original post and found nothing about an
"uncle". I read it as the employee himself is in the midst of an
investigation. If the uncle thing were true, then I agree with you.
If
not, as I wrote, the shops business could suffer directly as rumors
have legs.
Jack
--- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Davis"
Subject: Re: Vigilant or Bloody Minded
Try to carefully read and attempt to understand my messages.
Appears there is some "confusion".
Upon re reading what I replied to, I find you are saying that the
store
owner is in jeopardy because the uncle of one of his emplyees has
been
charged with a crime.
I am just wondering how the store owner is in jeopardy?
William Robb
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
