Sorry for the circumstances in which a prudent action resulted in "unfair" treatment of anyone, but obscure possibilities shouldn't negate responsible action. Look the other way, don't get involved, pontificate a magnanimous selfless tolerance toward all, at a cocktail party, is a clouded performance of an unrealistic view of reality.
Jack --- Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jack, you never answered an earlier question. > > What if I did same to you based on something I heard, knew, or > thought I > knew? > > Sorry, just looking out for everyones' interests...Oh you lost your > job?... > Oh, now your new prospective employer wants a reference from your > prior > one?... Oh, now you have no friends?... Oh now you have no place to > live? > Oh, now when you go to court you have no income and have to rely on a > > court-appointed public-defender? Oh, now since you got a bottom-of > -the-barrel lawyer jury selection was skewed against you? Oh, now > you're in > prision because of a colossal misunderstanding? > > Sorry Jack... I was just doing what I thought was best. Never mind > I don't > actually know all the details. Sorry your life is screwed up. > > Tom C. > > > > > >From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: Vigilant or Bloody Minded > >Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 18:47:57 -0800 (PST) > > > >I know and that's why it should be discussed between the owner and > >employee, with extreme clarity, to permit the situation the air it > >needs for the relationship to stay healthy. > >If the owner is troubled by the result, his options are clear and he > >will be acting only for himself. > > > >Jack > > > > > > > >--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 1/9/2006 6:16:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > If I may Marnie, your reaction is exactly that I initially > offered. > > > What a diatribe it launched. > > > Why is it so difficult for many to grasp? > > > Kevin, would like to learn your decision when reached. > > > > > > Jack > > > ======= > > > Well, for one thing, I wasn't agreeing with the majority, though > I > > > haven't > > > finished the thread yet. :-) > > > > > > But for me, it changed, when Kevin said he was personally > involved > > > even at a > > > distance. That's a different kettle of fish. And I am not aware > that > > > he is > > > under any "gag order" not to mention it. As a parent and a victim > and > > > a customer, > > > Kevin is entitled to his reactions. And has the freedom of speech > to > > > voice > > > them. And the vendor has the right to know they may have hired > > > someone, > > > unknowingly, that might turn customers off. Although the store > owner > > > may know already > > > and he/she also has the right to hire whom he/she wants. > Customers > > > also have > > > the right not to patronize his/her store. > > > > > > I think it's because, Jack, people do get accused that later turn > out > > > to be > > > innocent. And that is something to be concerned about. But I > don't > > > think, > > > personally, it negates the above. > > > > > > Marnie aka Doe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >__________________________________________ > >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
