OBSCURE POSSIBILTIES should negate *irresponsible* action.
The action would not have been prudent, it would have been imprudent.
Prudent -
a : marked by wisdom or judiciousness b : shrewd in the management of
practical affairs c : marked by circumspection :
Tom C.
From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Vigilant or Bloody Minded
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:11:29 -0800 (PST)
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
