MessageSharrieff, We all have personas when we post to the list. Those personas may not be so much like our personalities.
Yours has always seemed a bit pompous, like your tie was too tight. But after watching you go ballistic after being called the "List Sheriff," certainly a lame play on words considering your name, I realize you just don't have a sense of humor. Sande Knight ----- Original Message ----- From: S. Sharrieff Ali<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 12:41 PM Subject: RE: [UC] case dismissed The messages I sent to the list was to show Bruce naming me as a "Listserv Police" and "The Listserv Sheriff" which he denied. I also wanted to establish an on-going harassment by Bruce on and off-list over a period of time. I sent the messages after receiving comments on and off-list questioning if I fabricated the post I sent to the list regarding Carolyn. The ones from the listserv are searchable through archive. I didn't post all the messages I received (too many) or the one with the F-word in it because I still don't think it is appropriate. Saying that I have overstated my case is to ignore the obvious. I asked Bruce on-list to stop making references to me in his e-mails, he did not stop. I regularly receive harsh and non-pc e-mails privately. Typical Placism. S -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 11:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [UC] case dismissed <<Bruce knows he wrote to me privately many times with harsh language and insults. >> So far, that's one private message and it is debateably contains harsh language and insults. And to be fair, the message to which it responds could be characterized the same way. It seems that you've overstated your case. And that's coming from someone who agrees that some policing is in order on the list. Paul -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 9:50 PM Subject: FW: [UC] Wal-Mart and its treatment of Pennsylvania workers on trial in Philadelphia with permission. -----Original Message----- From: B Andersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 1:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UC] Wal-Mart and its treatment of Pennsylvania workers on trial in Philadelphia Who died and made you the listserve police? On 9/11/06, S. Sharrieff Ali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]', '');>> wrote: This is the kind of post I hate to see on the U-City Listserv. It has nothing to do with U-City, it is very political, and it sucks energy away from post that are focused on U-City Life. Your post belongs on a Philly-Blog, not our local listserv. Are you that desperate for an audience? -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]<javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]', '');> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<javascript:parent.ComposeTo('[EMAIL PROTECTED]', '');>] On Behalf Of B Andersen Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 10:05 PM To: University City List Subject: [UC] Wal-Mart and its treatment of Pennsylvania workers on trial in Philadelphia Today, in a completely random situation, I heard that there is a class action suit<http://www.walmartpaclassaction.com/> against Wal-Mart going on here in Pennsylvania claiming that the company failed to pay hourly wages for all time worked. The case, Michelle Braun & Delores Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, went to trial at the beginning of the month in the Court of Common Pleas<http://courts.phila.gov/common-pleas/>. There appears to be more than 70 similar lawsuits filed nation-wide in both federal and state courts. In California, employees won, a $172 million verdict last December, and in New Jersey the employees lost and the case is on appeal. The Bloomberg news service<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a_Nj4JQ7qvGg&refer> reports that the next trial is in Massachusetts in October. There has been no local press about this! According to a Arkansas Democrat Gazette<http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Business/166079>: Wal-Mart Stores Inc. boosted profit at the expense of employees by pressuring store managers to cut payroll costs, a lawyer for two former workers said at the start of a trial in Philadelphia. Hourly workers at Wal-Mart's Pennsylvania stores were forced to skip more than 33 million breaks and 2 million meal periods between 1998 and 2001 because of the focus on cost cuts, attorney Michael Donovan said Friday in state court. His clients are suing Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, on behalf of about 186,000 current and former employees in Pennsylvania. The missed breaks and meals, mandated by Pennsylvania labor laws, added up to about 9 million hours of employee time, he said. Michelle Braun and Dolores Hummel are seeking $ 300 million in damages in the lawsuit, one of more than 70 filed in federal and state courts that claim Wal-Mart failed to pay hourly wages for all time worked. Why aren't we hearing about this in Philadelphia? http://throwing-spaghetti-against-the-wall.blogspot.com/2006/09/wal-mart-and-its-treatment-of.html<http://throwing-spaghetti-against-the-wall.blogspot.com/2006/09/wal-mart-and-its-treatment-of.html> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new AOL<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol%2Ecom%2Fnewaol>. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
