Sharrieff,
What is "placism?"
----- Original Message -----
From: B Andersen<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: [UC] case dismissed
a.. I never publicly named anyone as the listserve police. I named you once
as the listserve sherrif (though I have grown to like the term and use it when
I can).
b.. One private message asking "who died and made you the police" does not
constitute on-going harassment. I don't believe there are any regular harsh and
non-pc e-mails privately sent.
c.. Do you really have a private message with the f-word in it? If you do
It's not in my message archive any more - please send it along.
d.. What is placism?
On 1/21/07, S. Sharrieff Ali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
wrote:
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]> [mailto: [EMAIL
PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] On Behalf Of [EMAIL
PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 11:44 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 1:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[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]<>> 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]<> [mailto:[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.
