PDA

View Full Version : I am so embarrassed.



Pages : [1] 2

Jay Calderwood
16-Jul-2007, 05:22 PM
Ok. Sometimes it's embarrassing to use g33k sp34k when talking to a hot
female (l)user with a bunch of guys in the room...

This (l)user calls and says she tries to boot up her machine and gets
beeping sounds and no video...

I walk over and she boots... And without thinking I say:

"I think it's a memory issue... Can you please slide back, I need to get
under your desk and look inside your box..."

She turned red and the guys started laughing....

And stupid me is like what???

Then I thought... And apologized... but she laughed....


It's been one of those days.....

--
Jay Calderwood
http://jaycalderwood.blogspot.com

Quote: "I have worked HARD for everything I have. A beautiful family
which includes a beautiful Soon-to-be wife,
a bunch of beautiful healthy kids, 2 annoying pooches, and an occasional
Pooh Bear (silly ol' bear he is).
Like I said I worked hard for what I have and I'm not going to lose this
because this is what I always have wanted.
I need to remove those cancerous people from my life to keep what I
have, and I will. I'm tired of all
the backstabbing and deceit. This is my world, I created it, now it is
time to undo what I let happen. I will not turn back."

-- or --

If you would like to purchase this space for you're own creepy comment,
like the one you see above, please email.

Stevo
16-Jul-2007, 05:50 PM
Jay Calderwood scribbled something like:

> "I think it's a memory issue... Can you please slide back, I need to
> get under your desk and look inside your box..."
>
> She turned red and the guys started laughing....

LMAO!!!! That's what I *want* to say to some of the hot female users
here when I work on their pc.

Jay Calderwood
16-Jul-2007, 05:57 PM
Joseph Marton wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:22:47 +0000, Jay Calderwood wrote:
>
>> "I think it's a memory issue... Can you please slide back, I need to get
>> under your desk and look inside your box..."
>
> Was it pink on the inside?
>
> You know... from the lights glowing red and from the heat and stuff.
>

LOL! no... it was dusty...

--
Jay Calderwood
http://jaycalderwood.blogspot.com

Quote: "I have worked HARD for everything I have. A beautiful family
which includes a beautiful Soon-to-be wife,
a bunch of beautiful healthy kids, 2 annoying pooches, and an occasional
Pooh Bear (silly ol' bear he is).
Like I said I worked hard for what I have and I'm not going to lose this
because this is what I always have wanted.
I need to remove those cancerous people from my life to keep what I
have, and I will. I'm tired of all
the backstabbing and deceit. This is my world, I created it, now it is
time to undo what I let happen. I will not turn back."

-- or --

If you would like to purchase this space for you're own creepy comment,
like the one you see above, please email.

Mary Matthews
16-Jul-2007, 06:05 PM
Thank you for apologizing to her. I'm sure her reaction was such because
the guys around her harass her on a daily basis.

I'm no hottie, but have been harassed as the single female on a
team...luckily not much bothers me and I can dish it back as quickly as
they dished it out. (My grandfather could swear like a sailor and he
taught me well). :)

Kathryn Carruthers
16-Jul-2007, 06:46 PM
You should be embarrassed. That kind of thing comes under the category
of running your words through your brain before letting them out of your
mouth. How do you think you'd feel if your wife, daughter or sister had
to handle that kind of ****? (Not necessarily just your funny comment,
but the reaction you got from the other guys). Ask one of them whether
they would laugh it off, or just laugh in the hopes that it would end
there.

Jay Calderwood
16-Jul-2007, 06:49 PM
Kathryn Carruthers wrote:
> You should be embarrassed. That kind of thing comes under the category
> of running your words through your brain before letting them out of your
> mouth. How do you think you'd feel if your wife, daughter or sister had
> to handle that kind of ****? (Not necessarily just your funny comment,
> but the reaction you got from the other guys). Ask one of them whether
> they would laugh it off, or just laugh in the hopes that it would end
> there.

Well... My sister wouldn't get the joke... And she got the joke because
her girlfriend is a computer tech and knows the lingo. I am swamped and
if you knew half of what is going on like stevo does then you would
forgive me this once...I'm a good guy i tell you...

--
Jay Calderwood
http://jaycalderwood.blogspot.com

Quote: "I have worked HARD for everything I have. A beautiful family
which includes a beautiful Soon-to-be wife,
a bunch of beautiful healthy kids, 2 annoying pooches, and an occasional
Pooh Bear (silly ol' bear he is).
Like I said I worked hard for what I have and I'm not going to lose this
because this is what I always have wanted.
I need to remove those cancerous people from my life to keep what I
have, and I will. I'm tired of all
the backstabbing and deceit. This is my world, I created it, now it is
time to undo what I let happen. I will not turn back."

-- or --

If you would like to purchase this space for you're own creepy comment,
like the one you see above, please email.

Rick Chisholm
16-Jul-2007, 07:04 PM
heh -

one of my first days working here, I was indeed, under a lady's desk when
she gets a call from my mom, as my mom is her client. The lady says - "oh
hi, your son is under my desk right now" - my mom fires back - "hope you're
wearing slacks"


--
http://brokertech.parallel42.ca/blog

Rick Chisholm
16-Jul-2007, 07:05 PM
can't imagine that post staying around long...
--
http://brokertech.parallel42.ca/blog

Jay Calderwood
16-Jul-2007, 07:06 PM
Rick Chisholm wrote:
> heh -
>
> one of my first days working here, I was indeed, under a lady's desk when
> she gets a call from my mom, as my mom is her client. The lady says - "oh
> hi, your son is under my desk right now" - my mom fires back - "hope you're
> wearing slacks"
>
>

LOL!!!!! Nice!

--
Jay Calderwood
http://jaycalderwood.blogspot.com

Quote: "I have worked HARD for everything I have. A beautiful family
which includes a beautiful Soon-to-be wife,
a bunch of beautiful healthy kids, 2 annoying pooches, and an occasional
Pooh Bear (silly ol' bear he is).
Like I said I worked hard for what I have and I'm not going to lose this
because this is what I always have wanted.
I need to remove those cancerous people from my life to keep what I
have, and I will. I'm tired of all
the backstabbing and deceit. This is my world, I created it, now it is
time to undo what I let happen. I will not turn back."

-- or --

If you would like to purchase this space for you're own creepy comment,
like the one you see above, please email.

Timothy Leerhoff
16-Jul-2007, 07:09 PM
Just to show harrassment is not one sided, I worked for 4 months in a
divisional IT area of a major company with 4 ladies. They are smart,
nice looking, fun to work with, and have decent personalities most of
the time.

one week a month I went through major harrassment. I could have EASILY
won a lawsuit for a significant dollar sum with all quite nasty
statements about males of the species during that week (directly and
indirectly referencing me at times).

Upon going home those days I didn't have to say anything, wifie seeing
me just said "Is it that time of the month?" All I did was nod.

Being a married man for many a year (experienced with the emotional
swings you ladies get and VERY happy I don't have to have that issue),
a consultant on-site, and this being the first gig for a new company I
was able to let it roll off the back.

--
Timothy Leerhoff
Novell Support Forum Sysop

Beth Cole
16-Jul-2007, 07:10 PM
Jay Calderwood wrote:
> I am swamped and
> if you knew half of what is going on like stevo does then you would
> forgive me this once...I'm a good guy i tell you...


Congratulations. You just used every excuse I've ever heard for what
ends up being a hostile environment for women to work in.

I work with a "nice guy". He's so nice that he has, on several
occasions, emailed me pictures from his home address to my work address
that involved things that could have gotten me fired just for having
them in my email. Because he's so busy and "doesn't think".

I can always manage to think before I make a comment to a co-worker that
is inappropriate. It's not difficult. It requires engaging the brain
before opening the mouth. It is something I learned before I got to
third grade, because my parents recognized that someone who just blurts
out the first thing that comes to mind without doing at least a quick
second scan of it is someone that no one wants to be around.

Beth

--
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you
nothing. It was here first. ~Mark Twain

Joseph Marton
16-Jul-2007, 07:21 PM
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:05:39 +0000, Rick Chisholm wrote:

> can't imagine that post staying around long...

Me, neither, but it's funny while it lasts...

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Joseph Marton
16-Jul-2007, 07:22 PM
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:09:06 +0000, Timothy Leerhoff wrote:

> wifie seeing me
> just said "Is it that time of the month?" All I did was nod.

Yeah I hate it when I get my time of the month as well. And the rest of
this post has been censored as it's probably even more crass as the one I
did in response to Jay earlier.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Beth Cole
16-Jul-2007, 07:23 PM
Jay Calderwood wrote:
> But I didn't mean it as a sexual comment...

But what you said was construed by everyone around you as a heavy
innuendo, and it would have been construed that way by virtually
everyone I know.


> I meant it as a geeky comment... that was interpreted as sicko.

Remember, the listener's perception is what they act on. However you
meant it, the words you chose to use all carry a slang meaning that
everyone else in the room picked up on and at least one person found
extremely embarrassing (at least, I'd guess that was why her face went red).

Her perception & reality was that you were making inappropriate remarks
to her in front of a number of her co-workers. That you apologized
helps, but it doesn't change what was said. Assuming that you didn't
mean them in that manner, the solution is to think before you act or speak.

I work in a business that is heavily dominated by women. The men that
work here could very easily find it a hostile environment. My
organization makes a point to deal with this sort of thing as soon as it
arises, because we are professional colleagues. Generic gender-bashing,
sexually charged remarks... They don't fly. I've reported women for
inappropriate marks to other women & to men, and I've reported men for
similar remarks to women or men. It doesn't matter who is making them,
it's wrong. It creates an environment where people find it difficult to
work.


--
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you
nothing. It was here first. ~Mark Twain

Ben A L Jemmett
16-Jul-2007, 07:30 PM
In <N9Omi.2041$QE3.502@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com>, Kathryn Carruthers
wrote:
> You should be embarrassed. That kind of thing comes under the
> category of running your words through your brain before letting them
> out of your mouth.

Wow. I wouldn't even have thought twice about saying it, although to
be honest I tend to use the word "machine" anyway -- but then again,
it's hardly the most common slang in the world.

--
Regards,
Ben A L Jemmett.
http://flatpack.microwavepizza.co.uk/

Jay Calderwood
16-Jul-2007, 07:31 PM
Beth Cole wrote:
> Jay Calderwood wrote:
>> But I didn't mean it as a sexual comment...
>
> But what you said was construed by everyone around you as a heavy
> innuendo, and it would have been construed that way by virtually
> everyone I know.

I didn't mention that they had to explain to me what they were laughing
at...

>
>> I meant it as a geeky comment... that was interpreted as sicko.
>
> Remember, the listener's perception is what they act on. However you
> meant it, the words you chose to use all carry a slang meaning that
> everyone else in the room picked up on and at least one person found
> extremely embarrassing (at least, I'd guess that was why her face went
> red).
>
> Her perception & reality was that you were making inappropriate remarks
> to her in front of a number of her co-workers. That you apologized
> helps, but it doesn't change what was said. Assuming that you didn't
> mean them in that manner, the solution is to think before you act or speak.
>
> I work in a business that is heavily dominated by women. The men that
> work here could very easily find it a hostile environment. My
> organization makes a point to deal with this sort of thing as soon as it
> arises, because we are professional colleagues. Generic gender-bashing,
> sexually charged remarks... They don't fly. I've reported women for
> inappropriate marks to other women & to men, and I've reported men for
> similar remarks to women or men. It doesn't matter who is making them,
> it's wrong. It creates an environment where people find it difficult to
> work.
>
>


--
Jay Calderwood
http://jaycalderwood.blogspot.com

Quote: "I have worked HARD for everything I have. A beautiful family
which includes a beautiful Soon-to-be wife,
a bunch of beautiful healthy kids, 2 annoying pooches, and an occasional
Pooh Bear (silly ol' bear he is).
Like I said I worked hard for what I have and I'm not going to lose this
because this is what I always have wanted.
I need to remove those cancerous people from my life to keep what I
have, and I will. I'm tired of all
the backstabbing and deceit. This is my world, I created it, now it is
time to undo what I let happen. I will not turn back."

-- or --

If you would like to purchase this space for you're own creepy comment,
like the one you see above, please email.

Rick Chisholm
16-Jul-2007, 07:33 PM
I dropped a heavy innuendo on my toe once, hurt like the dickens, way more
than the time I tripped over the double entendre.

--
http://brokertech.parallel42.ca/blog

Mary Matthews
16-Jul-2007, 08:07 PM
You're right about it not being one-sided...it's just more noticeable when
you're the single one of whatever (sex, gender, religion, orientation...).
It's just that I've found that as the single female on the team, when
reporting the issue it's been ignored and I've even been blamed for
bringing it on myself (this was at a BIG bank), but when the guys
complained (same sex abuse) it was taken seriously. I could see the same
happening in reverse too...and the bummer is it can make for a rough work
environment for everyone.

Although, I have to admit, the most fun team I was ever on was mutually
abusive (always joking, never serious, and no physical contact was ever
made), but we understood each other so well it was never taken seriously.
It was just a way to blow off steam during a tough merger and reorg.

Mary Matthews
16-Jul-2007, 08:08 PM
ROFL!!!

Mary Matthews
16-Jul-2007, 08:10 PM
Can I borrow some of your training tips? I've always had the problem of
"open mouth, insert foot"...which is why one of my nicknames growing up was
"jabber jaws". My mom was never successful in "re-training" me, doesn't
seem to matter how old I get, I still have those days...

Stevo
16-Jul-2007, 08:11 PM
Mary Matthews scribbled something like:

> Although, I have to admit, the most fun team I was ever on was
> mutually abusive (always joking, never serious, and no physical
> contact was ever made), but we understood each other so well it was
> never taken seriously. It was just a way to blow off steam during a
> tough merger and reorg.

I couldn't imagine working on a team that wasn't this way. It makes
things *so* much more easy to get things done (IMO anyway).

Craig
16-Jul-2007, 08:13 PM
Interesting what a hornet's nest has ensued here. And yet I still hear
people everywhere complain that we are ""too PC in society" and we should
all "lighten up". Most often these complaints come from those who do not
have to put up with harassment, racism, or intolerance (intended or not).




"Jay Calderwood" <jeromecalderwood@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:rXMmi.2013$QE3.946@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
> Ok. Sometimes it's embarrassing to use g33k sp34k when talking to a hot
> female (l)user with a bunch of guys in the room...
>
> This (l)user calls and says she tries to boot up her machine and gets
> beeping sounds and no video...
>
> I walk over and she boots... And without thinking I say:
>
> "I think it's a memory issue... Can you please slide back, I need to get
> under your desk and look inside your box..."
>
> She turned red and the guys started laughing....
>
> And stupid me is like what???
>
> Then I thought... And apologized... but she laughed....
>
>
> It's been one of those days.....
>
> --
> Jay Calderwood
> http://jaycalderwood.blogspot.com
>
> Quote: "I have worked HARD for everything I have. A beautiful family which
> includes a beautiful Soon-to-be wife,
> a bunch of beautiful healthy kids, 2 annoying pooches, and an occasional
> Pooh Bear (silly ol' bear he is).
> Like I said I worked hard for what I have and I'm not going to lose this
> because this is what I always have wanted.
> I need to remove those cancerous people from my life to keep what I have,
> and I will. I'm tired of all
> the backstabbing and deceit. This is my world, I created it, now it is
> time to undo what I let happen. I will not turn back."
>
> -- or --
>
> If you would like to purchase this space for you're own creepy comment,
> like the one you see above, please email.

Mary Matthews
16-Jul-2007, 08:18 PM
LOL!! I had a Roger Rabbit visual going on...complete with vises labeled
"innuendo" and "double entendre". It MUST be a Monday!

Beth Cole
16-Jul-2007, 08:22 PM
Mary Matthews wrote:
> Can I borrow some of your training tips? I've always had the problem of
> "open mouth, insert foot"...which is why one of my nicknames growing up was
> "jabber jaws". My mom was never successful in "re-training" me, doesn't
> seem to matter how old I get, I still have those days...

My mother always said "Now would you say that to Mrs Melick?", with a
cocked eyebrow and shaking head. She was my piano teacher, a woman in
her mid-80's, in a wheelchair with failing vision, but who knew before
you hit the note that it was WRONG and would nudge your finger to the
right key with her little baton.

Mrs Melick was a Lady, and every one who ever took a lesson from her was
terrified of offending her. I don't know a single person who took
lessons from her who didn't learn to think about what they were going to
say before they said said it rather than risk having her be offended or
disappointed.

Even now, when I'm about to say something, I will get a flash of Mrs
Melick's face, with her tight white curls and heavy stare, and I'll do a
quick "Is how I'm planning on saying this the best way to say it?" run
and many times change what I'm saying.

My older brother, who didn't take lessons from her, is a naturally
quiet, thoughtful person. He didn't require the raised eyebrows and
reminder that someone on the other end was listening that I needed.

I always tell people to think about the family member that everyone
loves, generally an elderly aunt, and who you can't bear to hurt, and
imagine them listening to what you're saying. If they can miscontrue
what you're saying so that they would be hurt or offended by it, it
either needs to be rephrased or not said at all.

--
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you
nothing. It was here first. ~Mark Twain

Craig
16-Jul-2007, 08:24 PM
Michael Feldman has a book, "Innuendo and out the other". :)


"Rick Chisholm" <rchisholm@SPAMsouthlandonline.com> wrote in message
news:yROmi.2181$QE3.1743@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
>I dropped a heavy innuendo on my toe once, hurt like the dickens, way more
> than the time I tripped over the double entendre.
>
> --
> http://brokertech.parallel42.ca/blog

Kathryn Carruthers
16-Jul-2007, 08:35 PM
Mary Matthews wrote:
> Can I borrow some of your training tips? I've always had the problem of
> "open mouth, insert foot"...which is why one of my nicknames growing up was
> "jabber jaws". My mom was never successful in "re-training" me, doesn't
> seem to matter how old I get, I still have those days...

I found yoga and the accompanying meditation helped a lot. It taught me
to slow things down in my head, so I can still carry on a conversation
but apply some filters to what's going to come out of my mouth instead
of it being a constant stream of everything that flows through my brain.
My mom always said "Ensure that brain is fully engaged before
releasing mouth". Of course I didn't learn to drive until this year, so
I guess the car reference was not really the best.

To amend my previous scathing of Jay, although there are always some
people that you can just let loose with, I don't find those people are
usually in your office. Especially not if you've just started a job
recently, so you don't really know anybody yet, or who they're going to
blame for things (and seeing as how you always seem to be getting the
short end of the stick, you should watch out a little more than most).

Mary Matthews
16-Jul-2007, 08:50 PM
LOL!! On the driving reference anyway. :)

Guess I need to look into Yoga more...we have lunchtime classes here at
work that I can take. My aunt uses it to help her degenerative spinal
arthritis. I know it works great for her...and I most certainly can use
the exercise! :)

Kathryn Carruthers
16-Jul-2007, 08:58 PM
Mary Matthews wrote:
> LOL!! On the driving reference anyway. :)
>
> Guess I need to look into Yoga more...we have lunchtime classes here at
> work that I can take. My aunt uses it to help her degenerative spinal
> arthritis. I know it works great for her...and I most certainly can use
> the exercise! :)

I took lunchtime yoga at one place I worked, and I found that on those
afternoons, nothing could get me upset. I was totally okay with the
world (and it was good for the arthritis also, although I don't think
with the kind of relaxation yoga I like, you'd ever consider it serious
exercise). I've put two of my kids into yoga and it's helped them
tremendously dealing with stress and ADD-type behaviour.

Craig
16-Jul-2007, 09:04 PM
The driving joke is hysterical. :)


"Mary Matthews" <mlm23NO@SPAMcalvin.edu> wrote in message
news:469B93E5.F781.00FC.0@SPAMcalvin.edu...
> LOL!! On the driving reference anyway. :)
>
> Guess I need to look into Yoga more...we have lunchtime classes here at
> work that I can take. My aunt uses it to help her degenerative spinal
> arthritis. I know it works great for her...and I most certainly can use
> the exercise! :)

Beth Cole
16-Jul-2007, 09:15 PM
Craig wrote:
> Interesting what a hornet's nest has ensued here. And yet I still hear
> people everywhere complain that we are ""too PC in society" and we should
> all "lighten up". Most often these complaints come from those who do not
> have to put up with harassment, racism, or intolerance (intended or not).

I get very frustrated with those who make those statements. When I'm at
home, joking around with my neighbor whose little puppy thinks I'm his
mama, I can be as joking and earthy as anyone else. When I'm at work, I
am a professional. I have a responsibility to my employer and to my
co-workers to be just that. I ask that others act as professionals, too.

Having to tolerate remarks that denigrate my ethnic background or gender
isn't professional. Having to work in an atmosphere that reeks of
unconscious bias because of my gender isn't professional. Four women
sharing an office while the three men in the department, all of whom are
lower in seniority and job level than the women, get individual offices
because "men deserve it" (the implication being, of course, that women
don't deserve offices to themselves) isn't professional.


--
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you
nothing. It was here first. ~Mark Twain

Kathryn Carruthers
16-Jul-2007, 09:20 PM
Craig wrote:
> Interesting what a hornet's nest has ensued here. And yet I still hear
> people everywhere complain that we are ""too PC in society" and we should
> all "lighten up". Most often these complaints come from those who do not
> have to put up with harassment, racism, or intolerance (intended or not).
>
A very long time ago, I was a clerk transcribing the discussion during a
Board meeting, and during the drafting of a sexual harassment policy,
one member was heard in the background (sitting too close to an active
mike) saying "But I do that all the time!".

Mary Matthews
16-Jul-2007, 09:44 PM
I love to surprise people around here (who have a thing against Native
Americans...no idea why) when I blurt out how I'm part Sioux, part Nes
Pierce, part German, part UK, and the rest is clear as mud.

Sorry you're stuck in a sucky office...I'd be having fits about the offices
and looking for a new job at the same time.

Beth Cole
16-Jul-2007, 09:50 PM
Mary Matthews wrote:
> Sorry you're stuck in a sucky office...I'd be having fits about the offices
> and looking for a new job at the same time.

When it happened, I decided that just playing along wasn't getting me
anywhere. I had it out with our HR director, and she put a bug in the
CEO & CFO's ears. Not to long after that, we got a new boss (old boss
was/is still around) and he determined that that was ridiculous. Not to
long after that, the entire department was rearranged, based on job
duties & seniority, rather than gender. I ended up with my own office,
because I write a lot of policies & procedures, as well as holding a lot
of conference calls.

OB's biases are still plenty evident. Whenever he does something
boneheaded, I drag my patootie back to HR and he gets another lesson in
gender politics and proper behavior. He will either learn or he will
leave. Which he does is up to him. Either way, I'm not just going to
put up & shut up anymore.

--
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you
nothing. It was here first. ~Mark Twain

unsigned@ @digerati.us
16-Jul-2007, 09:54 PM
Referring to a PC case as a 'box' is not only very common, it is also
technically accurate and easy for a non-technical user to understand. I
too wouldn't have thought twice about using that phrase.

The real issue is how others in the room took it to the next level, not
the words themselves. Almost anything can be made into a dirty joke
these days, its up to the people involved to discern the meaning behind
the statement and be mature enough to not turn it into something out of
original context.


Kathryn Carruthers wrote:
> You should be embarrassed. That kind of thing comes under the category
> of running your words through your brain before letting them out of your
> mouth. How do you think you'd feel if your wife, daughter or sister had
> to handle that kind of ****? (Not necessarily just your funny comment,
> but the reaction you got from the other guys). Ask one of them whether
> they would laugh it off, or just laugh in the hopes that it would end
> there.

Craig
16-Jul-2007, 10:27 PM
Potty mouth!
<unsigned@ @digerati.us> wrote in message
news:tWQmi.2272$QE3.1765@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
> Referring to a PC case as a 'box' is not only very common, it is also
> technically accurate and easy for a non-technical user to understand. I
> too wouldn't have thought twice about using that phrase.
>
> The real issue is how others in the room took it to the next level, not
> the words themselves. Almost anything can be made into a dirty joke these
> days, its up to the people involved to discern the meaning behind the
> statement and be mature enough to not turn it into something out of
> original context.
>
>
> Kathryn Carruthers wrote:
>> You should be embarrassed. That kind of thing comes under the category
>> of running your words through your brain before letting them out of your
>> mouth. How do you think you'd feel if your wife, daughter or sister had
>> to handle that kind of ****? (Not necessarily just your funny comment,
>> but the reaction you got from the other guys). Ask one of them whether
>> they would laugh it off, or just laugh in the hopes that it would end
>> there.

Craig
16-Jul-2007, 10:29 PM
Girl power!!!! :)

"Beth Cole" <eacole@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cSQmi.2269$QE3.447@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
> Mary Matthews wrote:
>> Sorry you're stuck in a sucky office...I'd be having fits about the
>> offices
>> and looking for a new job at the same time.
>
> When it happened, I decided that just playing along wasn't getting me
> anywhere. I had it out with our HR director, and she put a bug in the CEO
> & CFO's ears. Not to long after that, we got a new boss (old boss was/is
> still around) and he determined that that was ridiculous. Not to long
> after that, the entire department was rearranged, based on job duties &
> seniority, rather than gender. I ended up with my own office, because I
> write a lot of policies & procedures, as well as holding a lot of
> conference calls.
>
> OB's biases are still plenty evident. Whenever he does something
> boneheaded, I drag my patootie back to HR and he gets another lesson in
> gender politics and proper behavior. He will either learn or he will
> leave. Which he does is up to him. Either way, I'm not just going to put
> up & shut up anymore.
>
> --
> Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you
> nothing. It was here first. ~Mark Twain

Craig
16-Jul-2007, 10:32 PM
In fairness to that feller, whenever I attend a harassment seminar I get a
bit of a rude awakening. Not that I do anything wrong, but it makes you
scared of just about anything you do or may do. You even wonder if you may
have done that! (What's a leer, anyway?)

Being a little scared is probably a good thing.


"Kathryn Carruthers" <kath.carruthers@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7qQmi.2257$QE3.1955@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
> Craig wrote:
>> Interesting what a hornet's nest has ensued here. And yet I still hear
>> people everywhere complain that we are ""too PC in society" and we should
>> all "lighten up". Most often these complaints come from those who do
>> not have to put up with harassment, racism, or intolerance (intended or
>> not).
>>
> A very long time ago, I was a clerk transcribing the discussion during a
> Board meeting, and during the drafting of a sexual harassment policy, one
> member was heard in the background (sitting too close to an active mike)
> saying "But I do that all the time!".

unsigned@ @digerati.us
16-Jul-2007, 11:00 PM
Well, so be it then, I've been called worse and have called worse. :D

Craig wrote:
> Potty mouth!

Joseph Marton
16-Jul-2007, 11:10 PM
Kathryn Carruthers wrote:

> You should be embarrassed. That kind of thing comes under the category
> of running your words through your brain before letting them out of your
> mouth. How do you think you'd feel if your wife, daughter or sister had
> to handle that kind of ****?

Well, I don't see anything wrong with what Jay said. I mean anyone "in
the know" knows that "box" is a slang term for a computer. I personally
use it all the time, and not to be perverted or anything, but just
because a computer is a freaking box. The problem today is that people
are oh so worried about being politically correct and sexual harassment
and all of that stuff that it's like you practically should have a law
degree regardless of your profession to make sure that you always say
the "right" thing. Had Jay said the same thing while working on a male
employee's computer, no one would think twice.

Reminds me of something that happened once to someone who worked here.
This girl was completely innocent and naive and I don't think had ever
even heard of any sort of derogatory terms for anyone or anything.
Anyways, she sees another guy in the office eating a banana and tells
him he looks like a monkey. The comment was purely because he *is*
eating a banana. He just also happened to be African-American--but her
term wasn't meant to be a racial slur. She had never even *heard* of
that term. Now this guy is pretty cool about stuff anyways, but every
now and then he'll make it look like he's offended about something just
to give people ****. So he takes her into this room where people have
"meetings" and proceeds to act like he's all upset and stuff. In the
meantime the rest of us are now snickering because we know he's just
joking around but she has no idea and thinks she's really horked him
off. The look on her face...

But the thing is, had he not been African-American, none of that would
have happened. And the same thing with Jay's situation. You know I
could go up to someone and say "The sky is blue" and with the right
attorney that person I'm sure could get some sexual harassment money
from my company. What it all boils down to is common sense. You
typically know if a person is trying to be crass or if they are saying
something completely innocent. If you don't know, fine, go to your
manager and let your manager ask the person in question. But we need to
just lay off and not worry about stupid **** and tie up the court system
with all of this junk. How about we worry about murderers and rapists
and thieves instead? But enough about our senators and representatives.

> (Not necessarily just your funny comment,
> but the reaction you got from the other guys).

If anybody is at fault for anything, it's these guys for acting immature
around the female coworker. If they wanted to make a joke they could've
all waited until later but instead started snickering there.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Joseph Marton
16-Jul-2007, 11:11 PM
Jay Calderwood wrote:

> But I didn't mean it as a sexual comment...

Doesn't matter Jay. Some people just have a bone to pick, regardless.
Oops, that's probably a comment that could leave me open for a sexual
harassment suit...

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Joseph Marton
16-Jul-2007, 11:12 PM
Beth Cole wrote:

> Congratulations. You just used every excuse I've ever heard for what
> ends up being a hostile environment for women to work in.

*rolls eyes*

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Craig
16-Jul-2007, 11:33 PM
Mundane noodle!
<unsigned@ @digerati.us> wrote in message
news:JTRmi.2301$QE3.455@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
> Well, so be it then, I've been called worse and have called worse. :D
>
> Craig wrote:
>> Potty mouth!

G of Borg
16-Jul-2007, 11:42 PM
My sentiments exactly. It was the
pervs that created an issue out of the statement.
It's the old 'get your mind out of the gutter' idea.
What I hate is when you make a statement like that
to a woman who is a bit more 'streetwise' and SHE goes
off about it when nothing was intended. I think everyone
words things wrong from time to time and if there is no
pattern of this type of behavior people should get over whatever perceived
sleight they've encountered. Now if there is a pattern of it then
maybe some action is required. I've seen many naive women make statements
that are just wrong in sooo many ways, and I may grin about it...to which
they say why are you grinning, but I just move on to something else.
The point is there doesn't HAVE to be an issue on the statement, it's those
around at that moment that can make it into one.

G of Borg
16-Jul-2007, 11:51 PM
> Does the liquid ever go stale and need to be replaced, lest it get not so
> fresh and thusly doesn't cool adequately?

I believe it is a sealed system. However, time will tell if these products
may eventually need to be flushed. In some cases I have heard of fluids
having leaked from the system and out of the box requiring replacement.
Failure to observe the condition of the liquid cooling system can result in
overheating and premature failure of the box causing frustration and
downtime.

unsigned@ @digerati.us
17-Jul-2007, 12:08 AM
Now, see you have crossed the line. I totally resemble that.

:D



Craig wrote:
> Mundane noodle!

Miles58
17-Jul-2007, 01:01 AM
I am offering 2-1 odds that at least one of three people in this thread
undergo mandatory sensitivity training to keep their job within the next
five years.

Joseph Marton
17-Jul-2007, 01:52 AM
G of Borg wrote:

> I believe it is a sealed system.

Sometimes the seal breaks, however, leaking red coolant. Best to get a
white cloth to wipe it up or even plug the seal as quickly as possible.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Joseph Marton
17-Jul-2007, 01:57 AM
G of Borg wrote:

> My sentiments exactly. It was the
> pervs that created an issue out of the statement.
> It's the old 'get your mind out of the gutter' idea.
> What I hate is when you make a statement like that
> to a woman who is a bit more 'streetwise' and SHE goes
> off about it when nothing was intended. I think everyone
> words things wrong from time to time and if there is no
> pattern of this type of behavior people should get over whatever perceived
> sleight they've encountered. Now if there is a pattern of it then
> maybe some action is required.

Yes, exactly. Hey, I agree that people shouldn't say mean or hurtful
things or attempt to create a hostile work environment. That's just
common sense and something most people are (or should be) taught as a
child. So if a person has no history of this, then suddenly says
something that *could* be taken in a "bad" way well for goodness sakes
let's again show some common sense and look at the person & context. No
need for us to be like Beavis & Butt-Head, taking everything that could
be perverted in just that fashion.

> I've seen many naive women make statements
> that are just wrong in sooo many ways, and I may grin about it...to which
> they say why are you grinning, but I just move on to something else.
> The point is there doesn't HAVE to be an issue on the statement, it's those
> around at that moment that can make it into one.

Only thing is, while on paper in the U.S. at least people are innocent
until proven guilty, in practice it's the other way around. You said
something that could be taken as mean, hurtful, or harassing? Prove
that you didn't mean it that way.

That's so messed up. Let's just all be responsible, mature adults and
none of this would happen. Life's too short.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Timothy Leerhoff
17-Jul-2007, 01:58 AM
I had my manager up to date on the situation in case I needed to pull
the trigger and get out of the client. As it turned out the gig was
short enough I didn't need to.

I am in a great group these days. The boss was a co-worker. My
manager asked me if I though my co-worker would be a good choice and if
I minded working under him. I said I thought he was a great choice (to
do the groups paperwork).

One project boss and I did was to evaluate a client's IT department and
recommend different ways to do their work. One co-worker and I tossed
around quipsw from "Office Space" in the office. After a month of
frowning at our comments, he finally laughed (he rented the movie over
the weekend). Yes we were "the Bobs." We even found a Milton.

--
Timothy Leerhoff
Novell Support Forum Sysop

Kathryn Carruthers
17-Jul-2007, 03:27 AM
unsigned@ @digerati.us wrote:
> The real issue is how others in the room took it to the next level, not
> the words themselves. Almost anything can be made into a dirty joke
> these days, its up to the people involved to discern the meaning behind
> the statement and be mature enough to not turn it into something out of
> original context.
>
I agree with that. In the same situation, I would tell the laughing
jerks to grow up. I don't really have an issue with what Jay said, it's
the reaction. I don't think that harassment is exclusively against
females, or people of colour. Bullies will always find somebody to
bully, and some things are apparently funnier when you're in a group.
But laughing at anyone else's expense just isn't funny to me.

Susan
17-Jul-2007, 04:39 AM
Okay, that one's gone. Over the top, Joe. No blame, no shame, this
just isn't the place for it. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

Susan
17-Jul-2007, 04:39 AM
Okay, that one is gone, also. Very clever, but not for here. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

Susan
17-Jul-2007, 04:39 AM
And your quoteback is gone.

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

Susan
17-Jul-2007, 04:39 AM
Sorry, that one is gone, also. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

wasted
17-Jul-2007, 04:41 AM
Joseph Marton wrote:
> Kathryn Carruthers wrote:
>
>> You should be embarrassed. That kind of thing comes under the
>> category of running your words through your brain before letting them
>> out of your mouth. How do you think you'd feel if your wife, daughter
>> or sister had to handle that kind of ****?
>
> Well, I don't see anything wrong with what Jay said. I mean anyone "in
> the know" knows that "box" is a slang term for a computer. I personally
> use it all the time, and not to be perverted or anything, but just
> because a computer is a freaking box. The problem today is that people
> are oh so worried about being politically correct and sexual harassment
> and all of that stuff that it's like you practically should have a law
> degree regardless of your profession to make sure that you always say
> the "right" thing. Had Jay said the same thing while working on a male
> employee's computer, no one would think twice.
>
> Reminds me of something that happened once to someone who worked here.
> This girl was completely innocent and naive and I don't think had ever
> even heard of any sort of derogatory terms for anyone or anything.
> Anyways, she sees another guy in the office eating a banana and tells
> him he looks like a monkey. The comment was purely because he *is*
> eating a banana. He just also happened to be African-American--but her
> term wasn't meant to be a racial slur. She had never even *heard* of
> that term. Now this guy is pretty cool about stuff anyways, but every
> now and then he'll make it look like he's offended about something just
> to give people ****. So he takes her into this room where people have
> "meetings" and proceeds to act like he's all upset and stuff. In the
> meantime the rest of us are now snickering because we know he's just
> joking around but she has no idea and thinks she's really horked him
> off. The look on her face...
>
> But the thing is, had he not been African-American, none of that would
> have happened. And the same thing with Jay's situation. You know I
> could go up to someone and say "The sky is blue" and with the right
> attorney that person I'm sure could get some sexual harassment money
> from my company. What it all boils down to is common sense. You
> typically know if a person is trying to be crass or if they are saying
> something completely innocent. If you don't know, fine, go to your
> manager and let your manager ask the person in question. But we need to
> just lay off and not worry about stupid **** and tie up the court system
> with all of this junk. How about we worry about murderers and rapists
> and thieves instead? But enough about our senators and representatives.
>
>> (Not necessarily just your funny comment, but the reaction you got
>> from the other guys).
>
> If anybody is at fault for anything, it's these guys for acting immature
> around the female coworker. If they wanted to make a joke they could've
> all waited until later but instead started snickering there.
>

Well put Joe. Your my hero(well, next to the vacationing Geoff)!

Ted Novak
TRA#5512
IEAS#75

Susan
17-Jul-2007, 04:49 AM
Kathryn:

He said he wasn't aware he'd been offensive. Intent matters. I think
you're being a little harsh, and we prefer we be friendly to one
another in here. I think you're a great woman, just being a little
harsh in this. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

Susan
17-Jul-2007, 04:49 AM
Kathryn:

I'm sorry, your message has been deleted because it can be construed as
a personal attack, and we prefer not to have those in here. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

Susan
17-Jul-2007, 04:49 AM
And your reply to Kathryn is gone, Jay, because of the quoteback.

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

Susan
17-Jul-2007, 04:54 AM
Beth:

I think Jay is being bashed a bit, and I think that's unfair,
considering he clearly stated he had not intended his comment as
anything but professional. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

Susan
17-Jul-2007, 04:54 AM
Joe:

We prefer a friendly atmosphere, and things like your comment aren't
helping, I'm afraid. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

Uwe Buckesfeld
17-Jul-2007, 05:23 AM
Jay,

this is a very weird thread for a German (and probably any European). I
consider the situation you described pretty funny, and the reaction of all
people involved (woman, co-workers, even you ;-) ) looks absolutely normal
to me.

And when I read the replies here, I again realize Americans only *look* like
Europeans, but live in a cultural environment totally different from mine.
And I mean both the comments which now have been deleted as well as the
harsh comments from some of the women here.

U

Heff
17-Jul-2007, 07:32 AM
Honi soit qui mal y pense

Shaun Pond
17-Jul-2007, 07:54 AM
Uwe,

same here - in every office I've ever worked in, things like that get
said all the time, "against" men as well as women, in a light-hearted
way. In 28 years working in an office (the last two, i've been working
form home, so sexual harassment is encouraged <G>) I've never seen or
even heard of anyone being offended by such behaviour.
Now I am sure that there are places where such things are threatening:
being the only "x" in an office full of "y" could lead to unhappiness
if the "x" doesn't want to join in in the banter
ban·ter –noun
1. an exchange of light, playful, teasing remarks; good-natured
raillery.

Note the word "exchange"

--

Shaun Pond

Heff
17-Jul-2007, 08:38 AM
Shaun Said:
> Now I am sure that there are places where such things are threatening:
> being the only "x" in an office full of "y" could lead to unhappiness
> if the "x" doesn't want to join in in the banter

Shouldn't that be "xx" and "xy"?

Shaun Pond
17-Jul-2007, 09:08 AM
Heff,

only for certain meanings of "x" and "y" ;)

--

Shaun Pond

Shaun Pond
17-Jul-2007, 09:13 AM
Heff,

after all, wasn't it Paul Simon who said "Please don't take my
chromosome away"?

--

Shaun Pond

Howard Yuan
17-Jul-2007, 09:38 AM
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:58:11 +0000, Kathryn Carruthers wrote:

>
> I took lunchtime yoga at one place I worked, and I found that on those
> afternoons, nothing could get me upset. I was totally okay with the
> world (and it was good for the arthritis also, although I don't think
> with the kind of relaxation yoga I like, you'd ever consider it serious
> exercise). I've put two of my kids into yoga and it's helped them
> tremendously dealing with stress and ADD-type behaviour.

Wow...I never knew Yoga was good for that. Always thought it was just
another exercise thingie-majiggy.

Joseph Marton
17-Jul-2007, 12:30 PM
Susan wrote:

> We prefer a friendly atmosphere, and things like your comment aren't
> helping, I'm afraid. : )

Sorry Susan, I'll try to keep my comments on the D.L. :-)

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Joseph Marton
17-Jul-2007, 12:31 PM
wasted wrote:

> Well put Joe. Your my hero(well, next to the vacationing Geoff)!

Now if only I could beat that #!%$#%$%$! Desktop Tower Defense *I* would
be *my* hero.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Joseph Marton
17-Jul-2007, 12:36 PM
Uwe Buckesfeld wrote:

> And when I read the replies here, I again realize Americans only *look* like
> Europeans, but live in a cultural environment totally different from mine.

You know it's not like that everywhere here though admittedly what's
being described in this thread unfortunately is "the norm." Where I
used to work, everyone used to throw out these sort of comments that Jay
did but on purpose, and I mean everyone--the men and the women. It
simply led to a fun work environment where people were allowed to joke
around all the time. You knew when to be serious, like around or a
client or when the owner was around (not that the owner probably would
have cared by hey he *is* the owner). It wasn't some stuffy environment
where everyone was afraid of each other or what might be said or how
things might be taken. From that perspective, it was a great place to work.

Now that doesn't mean it was a perfect place to work. There were other
issues like salespeople being idiots and selling technology solutions
that didn't work, some people in management not wanting to take care of
the customer properly, etc. Those types of issues you'll probably get
at any technology company. But still, the environment itself when in
the office was great. I haven't worked at a place like that since, and
I doubt I ever will again unfortunately.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Joseph Marton
17-Jul-2007, 12:37 PM
Shaun Pond wrote:

> only for certain meanings of "x" and "y" ;)

Or for extremely large values for 'x'.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Mary Matthews
17-Jul-2007, 02:33 PM
LOL! I love that movie, and Milton was a hoot. :)

Mary Matthews
17-Jul-2007, 02:43 PM
I complained at one of my more recent previous employers about "the boys"
behavior and the need for sensitivity training. The head of HR was female
as was the president - both had Master's degree's in HR and Org. Behavior.
Here's their version of "sensitivity" training - they gathered all of the
engineers together (male and female) and read aloud our harassment policy.
Which didn't contain a word about racial, sexual orientation, or religious
biases.

And all this started because I removed some photocopied pictures of the Red
Wings, holding a sports "cup" over their heads (photoshop'd over a Stanley
cup) from cubicle overheads, that were in plain and public sight, prior to
the arrival of the Superior Mother, nuns, and the Bishop from the local
Catholic Archdiocese (clients of ours).

And I'm the one who got in trouble for removing said copies without
"permission" from "the boys" workstations. Apparently I should have called
them all the night before when I was busy cleaning up their messy desks, as
I was asked to do by the president, late the night before said visit to get
permission to remove what could be construed as offensive materials.

Mary Matthews
17-Jul-2007, 02:45 PM
Until I moved to the MidWest, I had manadatory sensitivity training at all
my previous jobs...some were an annual event as part of a policy refresher
course. Not a bad idea really, because how often do you re-read policies
(which probably changed in some infinitesimal way) after your first
orientation?

Kathryn Carruthers
17-Jul-2007, 03:14 PM
Sincerest apologies to all.

Susan
17-Jul-2007, 03:26 PM
Joe:

Let me just say that the concern over political correctness in terms of
sexual harassment arose from real cases of real sexual harassment.

Over the years that I've been in business, I've had to deal with an
attorney who was the managing partner of a firm, who I found out was
taking an 18 year old secretary down into the basement to "get some
files" only to back her into a corner and fondle her. She was
desperate for the job, it was a rough employment market, she was from
an abusive environment, so she kept her mouth shut.

Another attorney asked his 19 year old secretary if she'd mind coming
over to his house for him to take some professional photos of her in
the nude. None of the twelve male attorneys in the firm felt
comfortable talking to him about it, so I did. And even after
explaining how a person in a position of authority over another person
has to be mindful of these things, he still didn't understand what was
wrong with it. So I just simply told him, don't do again or you'll be
fired. Take all the photos you want of women who aren't employed here,
but don't ever bring it up again to a women who is employed here. That
he understood.

I had one fellow plop on the desk in front of me a magazine open to a
page with a pornographic photo, and then get upset when I was offended.
I'd never seen anything like it before, and wish to this day I hadn't.
I was in my early 20's.

That sort of behavior was common once. Women lost their jobs if they
complained. Men advanced despite that kind of behavior. It was
admired.

One would have thought that all of those men, as adults would know
better, but they didn't. Laws come about because of those who don't
know better, and for whom their "that's too far" judgement is too far
over the line of good taste.

I personally have had to redirect the advances of several men in
positions of influence, and suffered once as a result of doing so,
because I wasn't cooperative.

So, let's be mindful that sexual harassment is more prevalent towards
females than it is towards males, that women are more often the target
of such things, that many women are not brought up in a "worldly"
fashion, so innuendo is uncomfortable to them because for most women,
sex is a private matter, not a public one, and that sexual overtones
can, at times, be a means of "putting women in their place" and putting
them down.

I wish I could say that the world is fair and women are treated fairly,
but they simply are not, even now, and sexuality is one of the ways in
which they are not treated fairly in the market place.

So, before complaining about not being able to say anything that comes
to mind, just because you want to, you might consider that first. Most
sexual harassment happens not in front of others, but in private.
However, an environment that supports it can be in place, in the
language and behaviors that are tolerated in the workplace.

I enjoy banter very much, and many, many time there's nothing offensive
about it. But when the environment is one where someone turns red
because of something that's been said, then the line has been stepped
over. Kathryn and Beth were likely speaking to the issue of the
discomfort of the young woman in Jay's story. Likely they've both,
like me, been in that place, themselves, which says that the
environment of all workplaces is not always healthy, even all these
years after sexual harassment laws went into place.

It takes time. When pay is equal, and advancement opportunities are
equal, and people learn that the office isn't the same as the living
room at home or the bar, then PC probably won't be an issue.

The pendulum often swings too far to one side or another, before
equilibrium is achieved. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

Mary Matthews
17-Jul-2007, 03:41 PM
Well put!

I've been fairly lucky myself, not because I haven't been a victim, but as
a victim I haven't charged with assault when I've chosen to "physically"
get my point across. I tend to be a hitter. :)

Susan
17-Jul-2007, 03:43 PM
Jay:

Okay, now to you. Your apology was wonderful, and the right thing to
do. The laughter that resulted might have been real or could have been
from discomfort at whether to believe you or not - a defense mechanism.

None of this would have happened if you'd said "the box" instead of
personalizing it. That's all it often takes to avoid the discomfort of
someone else, and discomfort for yourself. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

brain
17-Jul-2007, 03:45 PM
Here here!

To forget we are human is the worst thing we can do (do you people
watch Star Trek)? To work in a hostile environment is a terrible thing,
it can't be tolerated. But to go to the extreme that things have become
in the US is equally hostile.

Americans in general have issues with communications, now add all this
stop and think for ten minutes before you say good morning because it
might be considered offensive and you have a serious problem.

I don't know what happened in Jay's situation but if an apology was
given, then that is enough. That is what apologies are for.

I think many other issues have been brought up that have nothing to do
with a bad choice of words in the original post.

--
brain, not brain


Joseph Marton scrivi:

> Uwe Buckesfeld wrote:
>
> > And when I read the replies here, I again realize Americans only
> > look like Europeans, but live in a cultural environment totally
> > different from mine.
>
> You know it's not like that everywhere here though admittedly what's
> being described in this thread unfortunately is "the norm." Where I
> used to work, everyone used to throw out these sort of comments that
> Jay did but on purpose, and I mean everyone--the men and the women.
> It simply led to a fun work environment where people were allowed to
> joke around all the time. You knew when to be serious, like around
> or a client or when the owner was around (not that the owner probably
> would have cared by hey he is the owner). It wasn't some stuffy
> environment where everyone was afraid of each other or what might be
> said or how things might be taken. From that perspective, it was a
> great place to work.
>
> Now that doesn't mean it was a perfect place to work. There were
> other issues like salespeople being idiots and selling technology
> solutions that didn't work, some people in management not wanting to
> take care of the customer properly, etc. Those types of issues
> you'll probably get at any technology company. But still, the
> environment itself when in the office was great. I haven't worked at
> a place like that since, and I doubt I ever will again unfortunately.

Jay Calderwood
17-Jul-2007, 03:45 PM
Susan,

You are so wise my Goddess... I am not worthy...I am not worthy...I am
not worthy...

*bows*

--
Jay Calderwood
http://jaycalderwood.blogspot.com

Quote: "I have worked HARD for everything I have. A beautiful family
which includes a beautiful Soon-to-be wife,
a bunch of beautiful healthy kids, 2 annoying pooches, and an occasional
Pooh Bear (silly ol' bear he is).
Like I said I worked hard for what I have and I'm not going to lose this
because this is what I always have wanted.
I need to remove those cancerous people from my life to keep what I
have, and I will. I'm tired of all
the backstabbing and deceit. This is my world, I created it, now it is
time to undo what I let happen. I will not turn back."

-- or --

If you would like to purchase this space for you're own creepy comment,
like the one you see above, please email.

Joseph Marton
17-Jul-2007, 03:59 PM
Susan wrote:

> Let me just say that the concern over political correctness in terms of
> sexual harassment arose from real cases of real sexual harassment.
[examples deleted]
> That sort of behavior was common once. Women lost their jobs if they
> complained. Men advanced despite that kind of behavior. It was
> admired.

Well, the examples you have mentioned are definitely not acceptable.
It's a shame that was once common, and I'm sure that today that type of
thing still happens even though it shouldn't.

> One would have thought that all of those men, as adults would know
> better, but they didn't. Laws come about because of those who don't
> know better, and for whom their "that's too far" judgement is too far
> over the line of good taste.
>
> So, let's be mindful that sexual harassment is more prevalent towards
> females than it is towards males,

Yes, sexual harassment towards women is more common than towards man,
just as racial discrimination is more common towards African-Americans
than it is towards Caucasians. But regardless of who most commonly
suffers, *anyone* can suffer and it's not acceptable for that type of
behavior to be exhibited towards *anyone*.

> that women are more often the target
> of such things, that many women are not brought up in a "worldly"
> fashion, so innuendo is uncomfortable to them because for most women,
> sex is a private matter, not a public one, and that sexual overtones
> can, at times, be a means of "putting women in their place" and putting
> them down.
>
> But when the environment is one where someone turns red
> because of something that's been said, then the line has been stepped
> over.

See, this is where I disagree. Someone can say something and be totally
innocent about it. Assuming that's Jay's situation, and he says that
was the case so for now let's take it at that, I don't see how he
crossed the line. In fact someone had to explain to him why the
employee's face turned red. It's similar to the example I gave about
the employee that worked here and the "monkey" comment. Again she had
no idea there even was a potential derogatory meaning, so I can't see
how she did anything wrong. This is why I say you almost need to be a
lawyer regardless of your actual position. A person can say something
they believe is completely harmless and yet someone winds up being
offended by it.

It's a difficult area when dealing with this. On the one hand, you want
to say the person should demonstrate repeated offenses. But then in the
example of the fondling attorney just one offense is one too many. This
is where I say it all boils down to common sense. Don't fly off the
handle because someone says something that could be construed as
offensive. Look at the person and the context and try to determine if
the person truly was trying to be offensive. If the person is in fact
innocent, all that's needed is a slight nudge to say "hey dude you
probably shouldn't say that in the future." That's all.

> It takes time. When pay is equal, and advancement opportunities are
> equal,

You know there are many things that cause discrepancies in this area
that are completely unfair. Don't get me started on the employers that
think just because you don't have a degree you must be a complete moron
not worthy of a job. There are a lot of things in our society that are
unfair. We just need to make sure as a society we don't create problems
out of nothing since we already have enough other problems to deal with.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Joseph Marton
17-Jul-2007, 04:04 PM
Susan wrote:

> None of this would have happened if you'd said "the box" instead of
> personalizing it.

But if you're talking directly to a person you don't suddenly start
speaking in the third person. I say his computer/her computer/your
computer all the time. Now replace computer with box, PC, machine, etc.
They all have the same meaning. Unfortunately one of those terms has
a secondary meaning.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Craig
17-Jul-2007, 04:11 PM
"Common sense" is not that common, I'm afraid. If it were, we wouldn't need
laws.


"Joseph Marton" <jmartonNO@SPAMhsemuni.com> wrote in message
news:XO4ni.2855$QE3.172@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
> Susan wrote:
>
>> Let me just say that the concern over political correctness in terms of
>> sexual harassment arose from real cases of real sexual harassment.
> [examples deleted]
>> That sort of behavior was common once. Women lost their jobs if they
>> complained. Men advanced despite that kind of behavior. It was admired.
>
> Well, the examples you have mentioned are definitely not acceptable. It's
> a shame that was once common, and I'm sure that today that type of thing
> still happens even though it shouldn't.
>
>> One would have thought that all of those men, as adults would know
>> better, but they didn't. Laws come about because of those who don't know
>> better, and for whom their "that's too far" judgement is too far over the
>> line of good taste.
>>
>> So, let's be mindful that sexual harassment is more prevalent towards
>> females than it is towards males,
>
> Yes, sexual harassment towards women is more common than towards man, just
> as racial discrimination is more common towards African-Americans than it
> is towards Caucasians. But regardless of who most commonly suffers,
> *anyone* can suffer and it's not acceptable for that type of behavior to
> be exhibited towards *anyone*.
>
>> that women are more often the target of such things, that many women are
>> not brought up in a "worldly" fashion, so innuendo is uncomfortable to
>> them because for most women, sex is a private matter, not a public one,
>> and that sexual overtones can, at times, be a means of "putting women in
>> their place" and putting them down.
> >
>> But when the environment is one where someone turns red because of
>> something that's been said, then the line has been stepped over.
>
> See, this is where I disagree. Someone can say something and be totally
> innocent about it. Assuming that's Jay's situation, and he says that was
> the case so for now let's take it at that, I don't see how he crossed the
> line. In fact someone had to explain to him why the employee's face
> turned red. It's similar to the example I gave about the employee that
> worked here and the "monkey" comment. Again she had no idea there even
> was a potential derogatory meaning, so I can't see how she did anything
> wrong. This is why I say you almost need to be a lawyer regardless of
> your actual position. A person can say something they believe is
> completely harmless and yet someone winds up being offended by it.
>
> It's a difficult area when dealing with this. On the one hand, you want
> to say the person should demonstrate repeated offenses. But then in the
> example of the fondling attorney just one offense is one too many. This
> is where I say it all boils down to common sense. Don't fly off the
> handle because someone says something that could be construed as
> offensive. Look at the person and the context and try to determine if the
> person truly was trying to be offensive. If the person is in fact
> innocent, all that's needed is a slight nudge to say "hey dude you
> probably shouldn't say that in the future." That's all.
>
>> It takes time. When pay is equal, and advancement opportunities are
>> equal,
>
> You know there are many things that cause discrepancies in this area that
> are completely unfair. Don't get me started on the employers that think
> just because you don't have a degree you must be a complete moron not
> worthy of a job. There are a lot of things in our society that are
> unfair. We just need to make sure as a society we don't create problems
> out of nothing since we already have enough other problems to deal with.
>
> --
> Joe
> "Mostly me, mostly you."

Jim Henderson
17-Jul-2007, 04:33 PM
My own personal rule of thumb is that I can choose to be offended or not
by what people say. If I feel something crosses the line, I have two
courses of action: 1 - don't be around the people who say things that
cross the line, 2 - talk to them privately about it and say "I don't find
this appropriate". If 2 doesn't work, then I might take it to a manager.

I also believe that we're far too litigious and there are better ways of
dealing with situations like this in the workplace.

Jim

Beth Cole
17-Jul-2007, 04:36 PM
Joseph Marton wrote:
> Susan wrote:
>
>> None of this would have happened if you'd said "the box" instead of
>> personalizing it.
>
> But if you're talking directly to a person you don't suddenly start
> speaking in the third person. I say his computer/her computer/your
> computer all the time. Now replace computer with box, PC, machine, etc.
> They all have the same meaning. Unfortunately one of those terms has a
> secondary meaning.

What is wrong with using "computer" to mean "computer" and "box" to mean
"box"? Why use a slang/jargon term for something that someone might
easily confuse with another word?

--
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you
nothing. It was here first. ~Mark Twain

Joseph Marton
17-Jul-2007, 04:37 PM
Jim Henderson wrote:

> I also believe that we're far too litigious and there are better ways of
> dealing with situations like this in the workplace.

How dare you say that! I'm contacting my attorney right now...

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Jim Henderson
17-Jul-2007, 04:42 PM
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:37:49 +0000, Joseph Marton wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> I also believe that we're far too litigious and there are better ways
>> of dealing with situations like this in the workplace.
>
> How dare you say that! I'm contacting my attorney right now...

Sadly, there are people who feel that way all the time.

And just to be clear, the types of situations that Susan outlined are
clearly unacceptable and actionable, and those victims certainly *should*
take legal recourse if they feel it's necessary. But I think as a
society, we tiptoe around far too much because we haven't learned
properly how to interact with other people. Tech people especially, I
think, because many tech people are introverts and don't get a lot of
practice as a result of being near-phobic of people.

One of the reasons is this need of some people to take everything as
having a double meaning.

Jim

Mary Matthews
17-Jul-2007, 04:42 PM
LOL!!

Joseph Marton
17-Jul-2007, 04:46 PM
Beth Cole wrote:

> What is wrong with using "computer" to mean "computer" and "box" to mean
> "box"? Why use a slang/jargon term for something that someone might
> easily confuse with another word?

Many of my users don't even know that "computer" means "computer". A
"computer" is a monitor, a "screen" is a monitor, a "hard drive" is a
computer, etc. I have heard so many terms from my users to describe
various components it's just crazy. And honestly, "box" meaning
computer is I would say a much more common use than "box" meaning the
thing which causes offense.

I would say I use computer, machine, PC, and box all interchangeably
fairly often even though really only one of those terms is accurate.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Jay Calderwood
17-Jul-2007, 04:46 PM
Joseph Marton wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> I also believe that we're far too litigious and there are better ways
>> of dealing with situations like this in the workplace.
>
> How dare you say that! I'm contacting my attorney right now...
>

That reminds me... I'm already 10,000 in on mine and he wants more...

--
Jay Calderwood
http://jaycalderwood.blogspot.com

Quote: "I have worked HARD for everything I have. A beautiful family
which includes a beautiful Soon-to-be wife,
a bunch of beautiful healthy kids, 2 annoying pooches, and an occasional
Pooh Bear (silly ol' bear he is).
Like I said I worked hard for what I have and I'm not going to lose this
because this is what I always have wanted.
I need to remove those cancerous people from my life to keep what I
have, and I will. I'm tired of all
the backstabbing and deceit. This is my world, I created it, now it is
time to undo what I let happen. I will not turn back."

-- or --

If you would like to purchase this space for you're own creepy comment,
like the one you see above, please email.

Joseph Marton
17-Jul-2007, 04:47 PM
Jim Henderson wrote:

> Sadly, there are people who feel that way all the time.

Like people suing McDonald's because they didn't know coffee was hot...

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

brain
17-Jul-2007, 04:50 PM
> And just to be clear, the types of situations that Susan outlined are
> clearly unacceptable and actionable, and those victims certainly
> should take legal recourse if they feel it's necessary.

Absolutely correct.

--
brain, not brain

J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)
17-Jul-2007, 05:07 PM
Joseph Marton <jmartonNO@SPAMhsemuni.com> wrote:
> Now replace computer with box, PC, machine, etc.
> They all have the same meaning. Unfortunately one of those terms has a
> secondary meaning.

That is unfortunate indeed. But political correctness at least makes for a
good stand up comedy topic :-)
--
Ray Dassen
Technical Support Engineer, EMEA Services Center, Novell Technical Services
Novell, Inc. Software for the Open Enterprise http://www.novell.com/open

Joseph Marton
17-Jul-2007, 05:08 PM
J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:

> That is unfortunate indeed. But political correctness at least makes for a
> good stand up comedy topic :-)

Where's Andrew Dice Clay when you need him...

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Jay Calderwood
17-Jul-2007, 05:14 PM
Joseph Marton wrote:
> J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
>
>> That is unfortunate indeed. But political correctness at least makes
>> for a
>> good stand up comedy topic :-)
>
> Where's Andrew Dice Clay when you need him...
>

On VH1?

--
Jay Calderwood
http://jaycalderwood.blogspot.com

Quote: "I have worked HARD for everything I have. A beautiful family
which includes a beautiful Soon-to-be wife,
a bunch of beautiful healthy kids, 2 annoying pooches, and an occasional
Pooh Bear (silly ol' bear he is).
Like I said I worked hard for what I have and I'm not going to lose this
because this is what I always have wanted.
I need to remove those cancerous people from my life to keep what I
have, and I will. I'm tired of all
the backstabbing and deceit. This is my world, I created it, now it is
time to undo what I let happen. I will not turn back."

-- or --

If you would like to purchase this space for you're own creepy comment,
like the one you see above, please email.

J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)
17-Jul-2007, 05:17 PM
Joseph Marton <jmartonNO@SPAMhsemuni.com> wrote:
> Where's Andrew Dice Clay when you need him...

Off somewhere becoming more and more unsuitable for family viewing, I'm
afraid.
--
Ray Dassen
Technical Support Engineer, EMEA Services Center, Novell Technical Services
Novell, Inc. Software for the Open Enterprise http://www.novell.com/open

Doug Black
17-Jul-2007, 05:33 PM
Joseph Marton wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Sadly, there are people who feel that way all the time.
>
> Like people suing McDonald's because they didn't know coffee was hot...
>

Not THAT canard again. You DO know that the woman sustained *2nd-degree
burns* from that cup of coffee? That at that time, McDonalds coffee was
served at a far higher temperature than at other restaurants? That all
she initially asked for was that McDonalds pay her medical bills, and
they refused?


Sheesh.

Mary Matthews
17-Jul-2007, 05:47 PM
What, didn't your mother ever tell you to not drive with a drink between
your legs? :)

Regardless of it was pop or coffee, she was old enough to know better.

Doug Black
17-Jul-2007, 05:54 PM
Mary Matthews wrote:
> What, didn't your mother ever tell you to not drive with a drink between
> your legs? :)

Umm, no.

Timothy Leerhoff
17-Jul-2007, 05:54 PM
> LOL! I love that movie, and Milton was a hoot. :)

I would never have believed we would find someone that was fired 6
months earlier. Boss gave him some time to find work, after 2 or 3
extensions the boss was fired.....what a group this was....

--
Timothy Leerhoff
Novell Support Forum Sysop

Joseph Marton
17-Jul-2007, 05:56 PM
Mary Matthews wrote:

> LOL! I love that movie, and Milton was a hoot. :)

And I said no, no salt. I'll put stricknine in the margaritas...

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Joseph Marton
17-Jul-2007, 05:58 PM
Doug Black > wrote:

> Not THAT canard again. You DO know that the woman sustained *2nd-degree
> burns* from that cup of coffee? That at that time, McDonalds coffee was
> served at a far higher temperature than at other restaurants?

Yes, I do know they had their coffee at some temp that's supposed to be
really high. But guess what...

IT'S FREAKING HOT COFFEE.

You've got people like my father-in-law that will nuke his coffee until
it's at a rolling boil, take it out, take a sip, and then say "it's not
hot enough."

Common sense... if it's coffee, assume it's hot and you could burn
yourself if you spill it.

> That all
> she initially asked for was that McDonalds pay her medical bills, and
> they refused?

Why should they? Did they force her to buy the HOT coffee? Did she
think she was getting iced tea when instead she received HOT coffee?

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Joseph Marton
17-Jul-2007, 05:58 PM
Mary Matthews wrote:

> Regardless of it was pop or coffee, she was old enough to know better.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Timothy Leerhoff
17-Jul-2007, 06:15 PM
For Christmas my coworker and I bought the boss a "Office Space Kit"

He was rolling going through it.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/books/humor/8e6c/

For next Christmas we are going to get the Bob cube:

http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/cubegoodies/722a/

--
Timothy Leerhoff
Novell Support Forum Sysop

Jim Henderson
17-Jul-2007, 06:24 PM
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:47:14 +0000, Joseph Marton wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Sadly, there are people who feel that way all the time.
>
> Like people suing McDonald's because they didn't know coffee was hot...

Yes, exactly. There is a problem in at least US society in that people
aren't responsible for the things they do, it's always got to be someone
*else's* fault.

That doesn't mean that there aren't times when it is, but it's far from
the frequency with which we sue others, like in the Stella case you
cite. The good news is that in that case, the massive judgment she
received was overturned (or reduced significantly).

Jim

G of Borg
17-Jul-2007, 06:25 PM
Well you know there was an uproar awhile back when someone discovered
that ATA/IDE drives had a master/slave arrangement. 'Box' is universally the
only term for the enclosure used here by staffers or IT.

Jim Henderson
17-Jul-2007, 06:25 PM
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:08:58 +0000, Joseph Marton wrote:

> J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
>
>> That is unfortunate indeed. But political correctness at least makes
>> for a good stand up comedy topic :-)
>
> Where's Andrew Dice Clay when you need him...

Ugh, now *there's* someone I can't stand.

Jim

tdstr
17-Jul-2007, 06:34 PM
Joseph Marton wrote:
> Doug Black > wrote:
>
>> Not THAT canard again. You DO know that the woman sustained
>> *2nd-degree burns* from that cup of coffee? That at that time,
>> McDonalds coffee was served at a far higher temperature than at other
>> restaurants?

> You've got people like my father-in-law that will nuke his coffee until
> it's at a rolling boil, take it out, take a sip, and then say "it's not
> hot enough."

For the record I *know* such people. People like that are just *never*
satisfied. Will complain at any given moment when dining out.

Yeah, I used to work in the restaurant biz.

>
> Common sense... if it's coffee, assume it's hot and you could burn
> yourself if you spill it.

No argument there.

>
>> That all she initially asked for was that McDonalds pay her medical
>> bills, and they refused?
>
> Why should they? Did they force her to buy the HOT coffee? Did she
> think she was getting iced tea when instead she received HOT coffee?
>

McDonald's should have offered to pay her bills immediately after the
incident. Could have saved them millions of $$$$ AND saved them bad press.

McDonald's arrogance was the only reason this made it a press frenzy.

Ted Novak
TRA#5512
IEAS#75

Jim Henderson
17-Jul-2007, 07:06 PM
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:25:32 +0000, Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:08:58 +0000, Joseph Marton wrote:
>
>> J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
>>
>>> That is unfortunate indeed. But political correctness at least makes
>>> for a good stand up comedy topic :-)
>>
>> Where's Andrew Dice Clay when you need him...
>
> Ugh, now *there's* someone I can't stand.

Oh, and yes, it's the character he plays I'm talking about. I've no idea
about his real personality, just that his comedy is done by a character
he plays.

Jim

Mary Matthews
17-Jul-2007, 07:33 PM
Yeah, I would have like to be on the jury for that - I would have hung the
case and made it go to a mistrial. But then, I am evil that way. :)

Craig
17-Jul-2007, 07:47 PM
See? Blame the victim...it works in almost every scenario. I mean, of
COURSE McDonald's would never do anything wrong. :)

"Mary Matthews" <mlm23NO@SPAMcalvin.edu> wrote in message
news:469CBA7D.F781.00FC.0@SPAMcalvin.edu...
> What, didn't your mother ever tell you to not drive with a drink between
> your legs? :)
>
> Regardless of it was pop or coffee, she was old enough to know better.

Beth Cole
17-Jul-2007, 07:53 PM
Joseph Marton wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Sadly, there are people who feel that way all the time.
>
> Like people suing McDonald's because they didn't know coffee was hot...

You might want to check this out:
http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts

The Consumer Attorneys of California have dissected the case. While on
the surface it appears frivolous, once there is more than a cursory
inspection, it becomes apparent that it was anything but.

--
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you
nothing. It was here first. ~Mark Twain

Beth Cole
17-Jul-2007, 07:56 PM
Mary Matthews wrote:
> What, didn't your mother ever tell you to not drive with a drink between
> your legs? :)
>
> Regardless of it was pop or coffee, she was old enough to know better.

http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts

She wasn't driving.

Most of what everyone "knows" about the case is factually incorrect.

--
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you
nothing. It was here first. ~Mark Twain

Mary Matthews
17-Jul-2007, 07:58 PM
Well of course not, if they did then they wouldn't have sent me my "Mater"
truck from the Cars Happy Meals. :)

Jay Calderwood
17-Jul-2007, 07:58 PM
Mary Matthews wrote:
> Well of course not, if they did then they wouldn't have sent me my "Mater"
> truck from the Cars Happy Meals. :)

MATER ROCKS!!!!!

--
Jay Calderwood
http://jaycalderwood.blogspot.com

Quote: "I have worked HARD for everything I have. A beautiful family
which includes a beautiful Soon-to-be wife,
a bunch of beautiful healthy kids, 2 annoying pooches, and an occasional
Pooh Bear (silly ol' bear he is).
Like I said I worked hard for what I have and I'm not going to lose this
because this is what I always have wanted.
I need to remove those cancerous people from my life to keep what I
have, and I will. I'm tired of all
the backstabbing and deceit. This is my world, I created it, now it is
time to undo what I let happen. I will not turn back."

-- or --

If you would like to purchase this space for you're own creepy comment,
like the one you see above, please email.

Mary Matthews
17-Jul-2007, 08:00 PM
You mean the media "lies"? ;)

dan c.
17-Jul-2007, 08:04 PM
Wow, he was able to take color photos with just his chromosomes???

Shaun Pond wrote:
> Heff,
>
> after all, wasn't it Paul Simon who said "Please don't take my
> chromosome away"?
>

Craig
17-Jul-2007, 08:08 PM
Well said. If I may add, women are co-workers and deserving of the same
respect as their male counterparts. A man must and can differentiate
between his hormonal impulses and the fact that this is a WORKPLACE. A
place where we all go to work, and a place assumed to be free of unwanted
gestures, comments, pictures, impulses, stares, etc. If one finds
themselves incapable of distinguishing between "peer" and "sexual object"
they should stay home.

I give as my most obvious example you, Susan and this forum. You are
treated with respect here and coincidentally are female. Is it that
difficult to do the same when the woman happens to be near you? Seated by
you? In the same building as you?

It is most telling that the women here (those most often being subjugated by
these actions) have the most visceral reactions. Isn't that enough to show
that this oppression is alive and well? Can't we as men stop this behavior
simply because it's makes women uncomfortable? Out of respect? Or is our
sense of entitlement so great that we can't be bothered to even slightly
modify any of our most boorish behaviors?







"Susan" <nscv.sysop.susan@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:VA.0000582e.0038c294@myrealbox.com...
> Joe:
>
> Let me just say that the concern over political correctness in terms of
> sexual harassment arose from real cases of real sexual harassment.
>
> Over the years that I've been in business, I've had to deal with an
> attorney who was the managing partner of a firm, who I found out was
> taking an 18 year old secretary down into the basement to "get some
> files" only to back her into a corner and fondle her. She was
> desperate for the job, it was a rough employment market, she was from
> an abusive environment, so she kept her mouth shut.
>
> Another attorney asked his 19 year old secretary if she'd mind coming
> over to his house for him to take some professional photos of her in
> the nude. None of the twelve male attorneys in the firm felt
> comfortable talking to him about it, so I did. And even after
> explaining how a person in a position of authority over another person
> has to be mindful of these things, he still didn't understand what was
> wrong with it. So I just simply told him, don't do again or you'll be
> fired. Take all the photos you want of women who aren't employed here,
> but don't ever bring it up again to a women who is employed here. That
> he understood.
>
> I had one fellow plop on the desk in front of me a magazine open to a
> page with a pornographic photo, and then get upset when I was offended.
> I'd never seen anything like it before, and wish to this day I hadn't.
> I was in my early 20's.
>
> That sort of behavior was common once. Women lost their jobs if they
> complained. Men advanced despite that kind of behavior. It was
> admired.
>
> One would have thought that all of those men, as adults would know
> better, but they didn't. Laws come about because of those who don't
> know better, and for whom their "that's too far" judgement is too far
> over the line of good taste.
>
> I personally have had to redirect the advances of several men in
> positions of influence, and suffered once as a result of doing so,
> because I wasn't cooperative.
>
> So, let's be mindful that sexual harassment is more prevalent towards
> females than it is towards males, that women are more often the target
> of such things, that many women are not brought up in a "worldly"
> fashion, so innuendo is uncomfortable to them because for most women,
> sex is a private matter, not a public one, and that sexual overtones
> can, at times, be a means of "putting women in their place" and putting
> them down.
>
> I wish I could say that the world is fair and women are treated fairly,
> but they simply are not, even now, and sexuality is one of the ways in
> which they are not treated fairly in the market place.
>
> So, before complaining about not being able to say anything that comes
> to mind, just because you want to, you might consider that first. Most
> sexual harassment happens not in front of others, but in private.
> However, an environment that supports it can be in place, in the
> language and behaviors that are tolerated in the workplace.
>
> I enjoy banter very much, and many, many time there's nothing offensive
> about it. But when the environment is one where someone turns red
> because of something that's been said, then the line has been stepped
> over. Kathryn and Beth were likely speaking to the issue of the
> discomfort of the young woman in Jay's story. Likely they've both,
> like me, been in that place, themselves, which says that the
> environment of all workplaces is not always healthy, even all these
> years after sexual harassment laws went into place.
>
> It takes time. When pay is equal, and advancement opportunities are
> equal, and people learn that the office isn't the same as the living
> room at home or the bar, then PC probably won't be an issue.
>
> The pendulum often swings too far to one side or another, before
> equilibrium is achieved. : )
>
> Susan
> Novell Community Chat Moderator
>
> http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
> http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site
>

Beth Cole
17-Jul-2007, 08:10 PM
Mary Matthews wrote:
> You mean the media "lies"? ;)

Lies? I don't know if I'd go that far. Distortions and missing facts,
perhaps.

--
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you
nothing. It was here first. ~Mark Twain

Craig
17-Jul-2007, 08:13 PM
"The Nazis had flare they made the Jews wear!" His exasperation during that
scene always cracks me up, that and Jennifer Aniston's puzzled look.


"Joseph Marton" <jmartonNO@SPAMhsemuni.com> wrote in message
news:Yw6ni.2958$QE3.900@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
> Mary Matthews wrote:
>
>> LOL! I love that movie, and Milton was a hoot. :)
>
> And I said no, no salt. I'll put stricknine in the margaritas...
>
> --
> Joe
> "Mostly me, mostly you."

Doug Black
17-Jul-2007, 08:14 PM
Beth Cole,
>
> http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts
>
> She wasn't driving.
>
> Most of what everyone "knows" about the case is factually incorrect.
>

Ah, but here's one that IS true, courtesy of Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

"While driving, a man who had placed a milkshake between his legs,
leaned over to reach into his bag of food and squeezed the milkshake
container in the process. When the lid popped off and spilled half the
drink in his lap, this driver became distracted and ran into another
man's car. That man in turn tried to sue McDonalds for causing the
accident, saying the restaurant should have cautioned the man who had
hit him against eating while driving."

Oh, wait a minute. His suit was unsuccessful. Darn.

Craig
17-Jul-2007, 08:33 PM
She was also 80, hospitalized for 8 days and had to undergo skin grafting.

That's why I am always really leery of the "litigious society" canard. I
suspect someone has something to gain from the public being averse to
seeking redress under the law but I have no idea who that entity might be.
:)


"Beth Cole" <eacole@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ch8ni.3038$QE3.2977@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
> Mary Matthews wrote:
>> What, didn't your mother ever tell you to not drive with a drink between
>> your legs? :) Regardless of it was pop or coffee, she was old enough to
>> know better.
>
> http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts
>
> She wasn't driving.
>
> Most of what everyone "knows" about the case is factually incorrect.
>
> --
> Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you
> nothing. It was here first. ~Mark Twain

Joseph Marton
17-Jul-2007, 08:46 PM
Beth Cole wrote:

> Most of what everyone "knows" about the case is factually incorrect.

I think the most pertinent facts are known, though.

1) Woman orders hot coffee from McDonald's.
2) Woman places coffee between her legs.
3) Woman spills coffee.

If I was wearing sweat pants at home, made coffee in my Mr. Coffee,
placed it between my legs in my seat and then spilled the coffee, would
I be able to sue Mr. Coffee (or whoever makes those coffee makers)?
Even if my Mr. Coffee produces coffee that's "only" 140 degrees as
opposed to the 180 degrees McDonald's used at the time, there's still a
chance in that case I could get injured.

So who is at blame... Mr. Coffee corporation for allowing me to brew hot
coffee at home, or me for spilling it?

People just don't want to take responsibility for their actions. Plain
and simple.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Joseph Marton
17-Jul-2007, 08:47 PM
Doug Black > wrote:

> Oh, wait a minute. His suit was unsuccessful. Darn.

Well it's a good thing. But still time in our courts was wasted over
something this frivolous.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Mary Matthews
17-Jul-2007, 08:49 PM
He's my favorite. BTW, here's a tip: if your kids REALLY want a particular
Happy Meals toy and you're not having luck finding it locally, simply email
McDonald's about your inability to find one and they will most likely pop
one in the mail to you. It's worked for a couple of folks that I work with
since I got my Mater...and the kids are really happy to have their
favorites.

Joseph Marton
17-Jul-2007, 08:51 PM
tdstr wrote:

> For the record I *know* such people. People like that are just *never*
> satisfied. Will complain at any given moment when dining out.

The saying used to be "you can't please everyone all the time."
Unfortunately today in the United States, everyone has a legal right to
be please at all times. If they are displeased at anytime, they have
the right to use an attorney to seek compensation for not being happy.
Or just take some Xanax. Your choice.

> McDonald's should have offered to pay her bills immediately after the
> incident. Could have saved them millions of $$$$ AND saved them bad press.

It definitely could have saved them money & PR, I agree there. It's
just a shame that they should even have to worry about it. Even if
their coffee temperature was the same as what everyone else uses and
they had a disclaimer "caution: coffee may be hot" the person could
still have hurt herself. I mean at what point do we as individuals have
to take responsibility for our own actions?

BTW, I'm not trying to defend McDonald's. Many corporations are evil,
and McDonald's no doubt has done "bad" things. I just think *everyone*
should get their fair shake, whether it's your Average Joe or some big
huge corporation.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Joseph Marton
17-Jul-2007, 08:54 PM
Jim Henderson wrote:

> Yes, exactly. There is a problem in at least US society in that people
> aren't responsible for the things they do, it's always got to be someone
> *else's* fault.

That's precisely the problem today. If I do something silly and harm
myself, I have no one to blame but myself. But if I did nothing wrong
and the situation was caused by a faulty product created by someone
else, then that someone else is at fault.

But with the right lawyer you can practically get away with murder.
Wait, OJ already did. :-)

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Joseph Marton
17-Jul-2007, 08:55 PM
G of Borg wrote:

> Well you know there was an uproar awhile back when someone discovered
> that ATA/IDE drives had a master/slave arrangement.

Oh I'm sure...

> 'Box' is universally the
> only term for the enclosure used here by staffers or IT.

I would think it's pretty commonly used throughout IT.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Craig
17-Jul-2007, 09:12 PM
Well, the judgement was for punitive damages. The jury was shocked at
McDonald's brazen and callous attitudes. Punitive damages were lowered to
around 400K, which I think McDonald's probably didn't even notice. (Their
legal team probably was more expensive)

They did lower their temperature though, but I suspect that was due to the
publicity more than anything.


"Jim Henderson" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aX6ni.2971$QE3.2916@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:47:14 +0000, Joseph Marton wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> Sadly, there are people who feel that way all the time.
>>
>> Like people suing McDonald's because they didn't know coffee was hot...
>
> Yes, exactly. There is a problem in at least US society in that people
> aren't responsible for the things they do, it's always got to be someone
> *else's* fault.
>
> That doesn't mean that there aren't times when it is, but it's far from
> the frequency with which we sue others, like in the Stella case you
> cite. The good news is that in that case, the massive judgment she
> received was overturned (or reduced significantly).
>
> Jim

tdstr
17-Jul-2007, 09:32 PM
Joseph Marton wrote:
> tdstr wrote:
>
>> For the record I *know* such people. People like that are just
>> *never* satisfied. Will complain at any given moment when dining out.
>
> The saying used to be "you can't please everyone all the time."
> Unfortunately today in the United States, everyone has a legal right to
> be please at all times.

Um, not *legally*, no. But there are fussy butts who certainly think so :(

If you can believe this, if I witnessed your father-n-law pull that
boiling cup of coffee out of a microwave and still complain it wasn't
hot enough, I'd be chewing his butt off royally just to point out his
idiotic reasoning that boiling coffee is not hot enough :)

And that is my problem, when I witness sheer blatant stupidity I won't
clam up. It has gotten me in trouble, but I feel it's my civic duty to
ridicule idiotic people that they're being idiotic :)

>
>I mean at what point do we as individuals have
> to take responsibility for our own actions?

I think that responsibility went bye bye when people became sheeple.
Nobody can think for themselves. They can only think of themselves.

>
> BTW, I'm not trying to defend McDonald's. Many corporations are evil,
> and McDonald's no doubt has done "bad" things. I just think *everyone*
> should get their fair shake, whether it's your Average Joe or some big
> huge corporation.
>

I'm far more cynical...big huge corporations don't deserve a fair shake
only because big huge corporations will *never* give such a courtesy to
the Average Joe.

Ted Novak
TRA#5512
IEAS#75

Joseph Marton
17-Jul-2007, 09:48 PM
tdstr wrote:

> Um, not *legally*, no. But there are fussy butts who certainly think so :(

And with them getting lawyers and winning cases, it's practically like
it's the law. Darn legal precedents and all.

> If you can believe this, if I witnessed your father-n-law pull that
> boiling cup of coffee out of a microwave and still complain it wasn't
> hot enough, I'd be chewing his butt off royally just to point out his
> idiotic reasoning that boiling coffee is not hot enough :)

Well at his age I just let it slip by. :-)

> I think that responsibility went bye bye when people became sheeple.
> Nobody can think for themselves. They can only think of themselves.

Sheeple... I like that. That will be my new term for people who run all
M$. :-)

> I'm far more cynical...big huge corporations don't deserve a fair shake
> only because big huge corporations will *never* give such a courtesy to
> the Average Joe.

I know the corporations would never do that. But I feel if I'm purely
all anti-corporation instead of trying to be fair to everyone, then I'm
no better than them.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

tdstr
17-Jul-2007, 09:54 PM
Joseph Marton wrote:
> tdstr wrote:
>
>> Um, not *legally*, no. But there are fussy butts who certainly think
>> so :(
>
> And with them getting lawyers and winning cases, it's practically like
> it's the law. Darn legal precedents and all.

All it takes is a good lawyer...

>
>> If you can believe this, if I witnessed your father-n-law pull that
>> boiling cup of coffee out of a microwave and still complain it wasn't
>> hot enough, I'd be chewing his butt off royally just to point out his
>> idiotic reasoning that boiling coffee is not hot enough :)
>
> Well at his age I just let it slip by. :-)

Ah, that makes sense. Reminds me of a Seinfeld episode :)

>
>> I think that responsibility went bye bye when people became sheeple.
>> Nobody can think for themselves. They can only think of themselves.
>
> Sheeple... I like that. That will be my new term for people who run all
> M$. :-)

They drank the koolaid :)

>
>> I'm far more cynical...big huge corporations don't deserve a fair
>> shake only because big huge corporations will *never* give such a
>> courtesy to the Average Joe.
>
> I know the corporations would never do that.

Phunny

> But I feel if I'm purely all anti-corporation instead of trying to be fair to everyone, then I'm
> no better than them.
>

But you *are* better than them!

Ted Novak
TRA#5512
IEAS#75

Doug
17-Jul-2007, 09:59 PM
tdstr wrote:

> All it takes is a good lawyer...

"Good" Lawyer ?

:)

tdstr
17-Jul-2007, 10:00 PM
Doug wrote:
> tdstr wrote:
>
>> All it takes is a good lawyer...
>
> "Good" Lawyer ?
>
> :)
>

I *knew* that was going to come back and haunt me :(

Ted Novak
TRA#5512
IEAS#75

Jim Henderson
17-Jul-2007, 10:45 PM
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:12:02 +0000, Craig wrote:

> Well, the judgement was for punitive damages. The jury was shocked at
> McDonald's brazen and callous attitudes. Punitive damages were lowered
> to around 400K, which I think McDonald's probably didn't even notice.
> (Their legal team probably was more expensive)

Yup.

> They did lower their temperature though, but I suspect that was due to
> the publicity more than anything.

From what I've read, they didn't lower the temperature at all, or at
least not down to what OSHA (or whomever) said was safe...

Jim

Jim Henderson
17-Jul-2007, 10:47 PM
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:33:23 +0000, Mary Matthews wrote:

> Yeah, I would have like to be on the jury for that - I would have hung
> the case and made it go to a mistrial. But then, I am evil that way.
> :)

You're not alone in that. ;-)

I think I'm going to institute a new law - kinda like Godwin's law,
called "Stella's Law" - if it's not been done already. Seems whenever I
get into a discussion on stupid lawsuits, Stella's case gets brought up
as a prime example of what's wrong with the system, but the bit about the
judgment being reduced is always left out...

Jim

Jim Henderson
17-Jul-2007, 10:48 PM
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:54:04 +0000, Joseph Marton wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Yes, exactly. There is a problem in at least US society in that people
>> aren't responsible for the things they do, it's always got to be
>> someone *else's* fault.
>
> That's precisely the problem today. If I do something silly and harm
> myself, I have no one to blame but myself. But if I did nothing wrong
> and the situation was caused by a faulty product created by someone
> else, then that someone else is at fault.

Yep. When I broke my leg 10-ish years ago, the girl who ran into me on
the skating rink was *afraid* to come over and say she was sorry, because
she thought she might get sued. To me, yeah, I had a broken leg, but it
was my own fault for being on the speed rink in the first place when I
knew (a) I had a lousy sense of balance, and (b) it was my second time on
rollerblades.

Jim

> But with the right lawyer you can practically get away with murder.
> Wait, OJ already did. :-)

Joseph Marton
17-Jul-2007, 10:49 PM
Jim Henderson wrote:

> From what I've read, they didn't lower the temperature at all, or at
> least not down to what OSHA (or whomever) said was safe...

The government can determine safe temperature levels for coffee served
at restaurants, yet they can't figure out how to fund our schools. Go
figure.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Jim Henderson
17-Jul-2007, 10:49 PM
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:46:04 +0000, Joseph Marton wrote:

> would I be able
> to sue Mr. Coffee (or whoever makes those coffee makers)?

Sadly, some people believe they should be able to.

Jim

Jim Henderson
17-Jul-2007, 10:50 PM
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:33:03 +0000, Craig wrote:

> She was also 80, hospitalized for 8 days and had to undergo skin
> grafting.
>
> That's why I am always really leery of the "litigious society" canard.

Hey, I broke my leg because someone ran into me at a skating rink, and I
was on long term disability because the accident was severe enough to
require *surgery*.

I didn't sue anyone. Why? Because it was my own darn fault for doing
something I wasn't qualified to do. Just like Stella - she wasn't
"qualified" to put coffee someplace where it wasn't safe to do so and she
got burned for her trouble. That's nobody's fault but HERS.

Jim

Jim Henderson
17-Jul-2007, 10:52 PM
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:59:16 +0000, Doug wrote:

> tdstr wrote:
>
>> All it takes is a good lawyer...
>
> "Good" Lawyer ?
>
> :)

They exist - my wife's divorce attorney, for example....Excellent on the
job, knows what needs to be done to get what's necessary. And likes
having a client who is looking for a *fair* outcome, not a punitive one.

Jim

Craig
17-Jul-2007, 10:52 PM
Don't worry, the corporations have far more legal protections than we do.
Have you ever seen the documentary, "The Corporation". It's quite good, and
not really anti-corporate. But they do show that although coporations are
treated as people, they have no conscience and answer to nobody but the
money.


"Joseph Marton" <jmartonNO@SPAMhsemuni.com> wrote in message
news:cW9ni.3206$QE3.307@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
> tdstr wrote:
>
>> Um, not *legally*, no. But there are fussy butts who certainly think so
>> :(
>
> And with them getting lawyers and winning cases, it's practically like
> it's the law. Darn legal precedents and all.
>
>> If you can believe this, if I witnessed your father-n-law pull that
>> boiling cup of coffee out of a microwave and still complain it wasn't hot
>> enough, I'd be chewing his butt off royally just to point out his idiotic
>> reasoning that boiling coffee is not hot enough :)
>
> Well at his age I just let it slip by. :-)
>
>> I think that responsibility went bye bye when people became sheeple.
>> Nobody can think for themselves. They can only think of themselves.
>
> Sheeple... I like that. That will be my new term for people who run all
> M$. :-)
>
>> I'm far more cynical...big huge corporations don't deserve a fair shake
>> only because big huge corporations will *never* give such a courtesy to
>> the Average Joe.
>
> I know the corporations would never do that. But I feel if I'm purely all
> anti-corporation instead of trying to be fair to everyone, then I'm no
> better than them.
>
> --
> Joe
> "Mostly me, mostly you."

Craig
17-Jul-2007, 10:53 PM
I thought they kicked it back 40 degrees?
"Jim Henderson" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nMani.3234$QE3.1103@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:12:02 +0000, Craig wrote:
>
>> Well, the judgement was for punitive damages. The jury was shocked at
>> McDonald's brazen and callous attitudes. Punitive damages were lowered
>> to around 400K, which I think McDonald's probably didn't even notice.
>> (Their legal team probably was more expensive)
>
> Yup.
>
>> They did lower their temperature though, but I suspect that was due to
>> the publicity more than anything.
>
> From what I've read, they didn't lower the temperature at all, or at
> least not down to what OSHA (or whomever) said was safe...
>
> Jim

Jim Henderson
17-Jul-2007, 11:11 PM
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:53:09 +0000, Craig wrote:

> I thought they kicked it back 40 degrees? "Jim Henderson"
> <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:nMani.3234$QE3.1103@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:12:02 +0000, Craig wrote:
>>
>>> Well, the judgement was for punitive damages. The jury was shocked at
>>> McDonald's brazen and callous attitudes. Punitive damages were
>>> lowered to around 400K, which I think McDonald's probably didn't even
>>> notice. (Their legal team probably was more expensive)
>>
>> Yup.
>>
>>> They did lower their temperature though, but I suspect that was due to
>>> the publicity more than anything.
>>
>> From what I've read, they didn't lower the temperature at all, or at
>> least not down to what OSHA (or whomever) said was safe...
>>
>> Jim

http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html has the definitive facts from the
case - Randy Cassingham (who also authors "This is TRUE" - a very good
newsletter that I and several others here pay to receive; there is a free
edition as well) is very meticulous about making sure what he's reporting
is accurate.

According to that site, coffee is supposed to be served at 185 degrees F,
and the National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed between
195 and 205 degrees F.

Which is the range in which McDonald's coffee is brewed and served.

I'm no fan of McDonald's, but I'm less of a fan of stupid lawsuits.

Jim

Jim Henderson
17-Jul-2007, 11:11 PM
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:49:02 +0000, Joseph Marton wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> From what I've read, they didn't lower the temperature at all, or at
>> least not down to what OSHA (or whomever) said was safe...
>
> The government can determine safe temperature levels for coffee served
> at restaurants, yet they can't figure out how to fund our schools. Go
> figure.

Yeah, that's kinda scary. Actually, it's not OSHA, but a non-government
organization that makes the recommendation.

Jim

Craig
18-Jul-2007, 12:54 AM
This would be like if your rental shoes melted your toes off. That would
NOT be your fault.

If coffee can scald your skin to the point of needing a graft it would
surely destroy your mouth, lips, gums, esophagus, plus the large and small
intestines.


"Jim Henderson" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MQani.3239$QE3.1158@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:33:03 +0000, Craig wrote:
>
>> She was also 80, hospitalized for 8 days and had to undergo skin
>> grafting.
>>
>> That's why I am always really leery of the "litigious society" canard.
>
> Hey, I broke my leg because someone ran into me at a skating rink, and I
> was on long term disability because the accident was severe enough to
> require *surgery*.
>
> I didn't sue anyone. Why? Because it was my own darn fault for doing
> something I wasn't qualified to do. Just like Stella - she wasn't
> "qualified" to put coffee someplace where it wasn't safe to do so and she
> got burned for her trouble. That's nobody's fault but HERS.
>
> Jim

Craig
18-Jul-2007, 01:13 AM
Interesting, but the site seems to indict McDonalds more than Stella.
"Jim Henderson" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:X7bni.3258$QE3.746@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:53:09 +0000, Craig wrote:
>
>> I thought they kicked it back 40 degrees? "Jim Henderson"
>> <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:nMani.3234$QE3.1103@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
>>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:12:02 +0000, Craig wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, the judgement was for punitive damages. The jury was shocked at
>>>> McDonald's brazen and callous attitudes. Punitive damages were
>>>> lowered to around 400K, which I think McDonald's probably didn't even
>>>> notice. (Their legal team probably was more expensive)
>>>
>>> Yup.
>>>
>>>> They did lower their temperature though, but I suspect that was due to
>>>> the publicity more than anything.
>>>
>>> From what I've read, they didn't lower the temperature at all, or at
>>> least not down to what OSHA (or whomever) said was safe...
>>>
>>> Jim
>
> http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html has the definitive facts from the
> case - Randy Cassingham (who also authors "This is TRUE" - a very good
> newsletter that I and several others here pay to receive; there is a free
> edition as well) is very meticulous about making sure what he's reporting
> is accurate.
>
> According to that site, coffee is supposed to be served at 185 degrees F,
> and the National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed between
> 195 and 205 degrees F.
>
> Which is the range in which McDonald's coffee is brewed and served.
>
> I'm no fan of McDonald's, but I'm less of a fan of stupid lawsuits.
>
> Jim

Susan
18-Jul-2007, 01:59 AM
Joseph,

> Don't fly off the
> handle because someone says something that could be construed as
> offensive.

I don't think most people do. The laws aren't there because only a few
people misbehaved in the past or misbehave now, they're there because
it was pandemic for a long time and still happens. They aren't there
because a plethora of frivolous lawsuits were brought.

Until those who still behave that way, or their children that they
taught to behave that way, are in the single digits of percentages of
those in the population, it will still be an issue.

It takes very little creativity to be able to deal with others without
any concern of something being taken the wrong way. Pins and needles
aren't necessary to be walked. As pointed out to Jay, a single word
could have changed the scenario he found himself in.

I don't think people even have to think about it, if they truly
understand the issue, of sexual harassment, racial prejudice, religious
prejudice, or any of the other prejudices that are possible.

I don't think our society has created a problem out of nothing where
sexual harassment is concerned. Nor with racial prejudice, religious
prejudice, political prejudice, or any of the others. Prejudice
doesn't belong in the world, in any form. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

Susan
18-Jul-2007, 02:04 AM
Craig:

How nice to hear this being said by a man. Thank you. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

Craig
18-Jul-2007, 02:06 AM
I know what side my bread is buttered on! ;) (but I meant it, too!)
"Susan" <nscv.sysop.susan@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:VA.00005831.0280fac2@myrealbox.com...
> Craig:
>
> How nice to hear this being said by a man. Thank you. : )
>
> Susan
> Novell Community Chat Moderator
>
> http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
> http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site
>

Susan
18-Jul-2007, 02:19 AM
Jim:

If I'm not mistaken, most skating rinks have a "Skate at your own risk"
prominently displayed on the premises. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

Susan
18-Jul-2007, 02:29 AM
Tdstr,

> when people became sheeple

What a wonderful turn of phrase, and very graphic. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

wasted
18-Jul-2007, 02:39 AM
Susan wrote:
> Tdstr,
>
>> when people became sheeple
>
> What a wonderful turn of phrase, and very graphic. : )

And so sad to be true...

Ted Novak
TRA#5512
IEAS#75

Susan
18-Jul-2007, 03:04 AM
Craig:

My favorite part was:

"It is most telling that the women here (those most often being
subjugated by these actions) have the most visceral reactions. Isn't
that enough to show that this oppression is alive and well?"

That pretty much says it all, because it's absolutely true. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

Susan
18-Jul-2007, 03:04 AM
Ted:

I agree. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

Susan
18-Jul-2007, 03:14 AM
Joe:

And it only has a clearly bad secondary meaning by using
personalization. The situation likely would have been different with
the change of a single word. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

Susan
18-Jul-2007, 03:14 AM
Joseph,

> I would think it's pretty commonly used throughout IT.

You would think wrong. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

Joseph Marton
18-Jul-2007, 03:31 AM
Craig wrote:

> If coffee can scald your skin to the point of needing a graft it would
> surely destroy your mouth, lips, gums, esophagus, plus the large and small
> intestines.

It's one thing to spill a whole cup of coffee on your sweat pants that
absorb all the coffee and hold it all over your skin. It's another to
take small sips and blow on it to cool it. Keeping it at 180 degrees
will likely not destroy your mouth, lips, gums, esophagus, or your
intestines.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Joseph Marton
18-Jul-2007, 03:32 AM
Susan wrote:

> You would think wrong. : )

SURVEY TIME!

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Jim Henderson
18-Jul-2007, 04:57 AM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:13:21 +0000, Craig wrote:

> Interesting, but the site seems to indict McDonalds more than Stella.

Yes, but the facts are clearly spelled out. McDonald's could've avoided
a lot of bad publicity by just dealing with the issue - but that's
unfortunate.

Jim

Jim Henderson
18-Jul-2007, 04:58 AM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 01:19:35 +0000, Susan wrote:

> Jim:
>
> If I'm not mistaken, most skating rinks have a "Skate at your own risk"
> prominently displayed on the premises. : )

Yes, they do. Just as Stella placed the cup of coffee where she did *at
her own risk*. :-)

Jim

Jim Henderson
18-Jul-2007, 05:00 AM
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:54:56 +0000, Craig wrote:

> This would be like if your rental shoes melted your toes off. That
> would NOT be your fault.
>
> If coffee can scald your skin to the point of needing a graft it would
> surely destroy your mouth, lips, gums, esophagus, plus the large and
> small intestines.

If coffee is going to scald you and you put it someplace where it can,
then it most certainly *is* your fault.

Very much so given that even in an insulated cup, you can feel how hot
the liquid is. Those cups aren't fully insulated, you know.

Jim

Jim Henderson
18-Jul-2007, 05:04 AM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 02:14:40 +0000, Susan wrote:

> Joe:
>
> And it only has a clearly bad secondary meaning by using
> personalization. The situation likely would have been different with the
> change of a single word. : )

But PC stands for "Personal Computer" - it's not "the computer" when you
walk into someone's office, it's "your computer". Desktop computers tend
to be shaped like a rectangular prism that contains components - ie, a
box.

The situation likely would have been different had there not been
juvenile minds in the room. I am driven *crazy* by people who think
everything has to have a double meaning. The intent of the *speaker*,
and not the people in the room is the important thing. If Jay had been
*trying* for a double endendre in order to invoke embarrassment, that's
one thing. That someone interpreted it that way and created a situation
by failing to keep their mouth shut is entirely out of his control.

And the places I've worked in - not as long as you I grant, but still 18
years is 18 years, that term has been used *consistently* by techs to
describe the PC sitting on or under someone's desk.

Jim

Susan
18-Jul-2007, 05:07 AM
Joe:

If you think this group is a fair sampling of the whole IT population,
you're wrong again. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

Susan
18-Jul-2007, 05:07 AM
Jim:

I'm not arguing for or against that case. Neither site linked to was
an entity I know well enough about to consider them trustworthy or
without bias of one sort or another, and I personally don't know enough
about the case facts to give an opinion.

Your mention of skating just reminded me of the large signs at skating
places of any sort. I doubt McDonald's had a large "Hot-drink at your
own risk" sign. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

Shaun Pond
18-Jul-2007, 05:58 AM
Dan,

you mix chromosomes, something usually develops...

--

Shaun Pond

Shaun Pond
18-Jul-2007, 05:58 AM
Joseph,

common term in every place I've ever worked

--

Shaun Pond

Shaun Pond
18-Jul-2007, 06:01 AM
Susan,

...and stores that sell knives don't have a sign warning that sharp
blades can cut, there isn't a sign on every sidewalk warning that
stepping in front of traffic can kill, yet these things are more likely
to do you damage. Strange world.

--

Shaun Pond

Jim Henderson
18-Jul-2007, 06:12 AM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 04:07:45 +0000, Susan wrote:

> Your mention of skating just reminded me of the large signs at skating
> places of any sort. I doubt McDonald's had a large "Hot-drink at your
> own risk" sign. : )

That's because coffee is served hot. :-)

I do know the Stella site, and know it's well-researched. I'd venture to
guess, in fact, that you'd find the Stella newsletter quite
interesting. :-)

Jim

Uwe Buckesfeld
18-Jul-2007, 08:28 AM
Shaun Pond wrote:

> Strange world.

Yes. In that strange world, the most important source of nutrition for
children under 3 seems to be small plastic parts.

And on one of my favorite roads for the motorcycle, there's a huge traffic
sign telling me I should drive slowly because of a nearby drinking water
reservoir. I never found out why this should make me reduce speed. Is it
that the reservoir is easily scared by fast vehicles or loud noise and
might try to escape? Or is it lurking behind the trees trying to swamp me?

U

Uwe Buckesfeld
18-Jul-2007, 08:37 AM
G of Borg wrote:

> Well you know there was an uproar awhile back when someone discovered
> that ATA/IDE drives had a master/slave arrangement.

Yeah, must be terrible, especially when you are an IDE drive.
Wait, *only* if you are an IDE drive.

> 'Box' is universally
> the only term for the enclosure used here by staffers or IT.

"Box" translates "Kiste", and it is used as a slang term for almost any
technical device as well as for the backside of a person. I have told users
they have a "@%&$§ Kiste". The question is, where were my eyes when i said
that :-)

U

Shaun Pond
18-Jul-2007, 08:59 AM
Uwe,

"not suitable for children under 3 because of small parts" - of
_course_ children under 3 have small parts!

--

Shaun Pond

Marcel Cox
18-Jul-2007, 01:49 PM
Beth Cole wrote:

>
>You might want to check this out:
>http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts

Personally, on that web page, I find the whole discussion about coffee
temperature absurd. For me, coffee and tea are beverages made with boiling
water. The implication of this is that if it's fresh, it is *very* hot and
can indeed burn you. OTOH, if it is cooled down, it is not so fresh
anymore and as such, lower quality. So in essence, people find it natural
to impose lower quality just because all people are children and don't
know how to handle hot bevarages.
But maybe this is just because I live in a different world were "quality"
and "coffee" are words which can still go together.

A second problem I have with the judgement is that even if I would
consider some fault with McDonalds, I find the amounts of money involved
rediculous. If I understand the article correctly, reasonable dammage of
the incident could be evaluated at $20000. Yet, the jury awarded $160000
of damage and on top of that $2.7 million. This is more than 100 times the
actual damage of the whole affair. Even if in the end, the amount paid was
maybe just $400000, that's still 20 times the damange. Why do people have
to be compensated 10 to 100 times the damange they receive?

With such ridicoulous amounts paid as compensation, it is just normal that
everyone tries to get money out of such cases. Even if the chance of
winning is small, the benefit is so huge that it is worth trying any time.

--
Marcel Cox
http://support.novell.com/forums

Joseph Marton
18-Jul-2007, 02:19 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:49:38 +0000, Marcel Cox wrote:

> Personally, on that web page, I find the whole discussion about coffee
> temperature absurd. For me, coffee and tea are beverages made with boiling
> water. The implication of this is that if it's fresh, it is *very* hot and
> can indeed burn you.

Unfortunately common sense such as this has been lost here in the U.S.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Joseph Marton
18-Jul-2007, 02:20 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:13:21 +0000, Craig wrote:

> Interesting, but the site seems to indict McDonalds more than Stella.

Stellaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Joseph Marton
18-Jul-2007, 02:30 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:59:36 +0000, Susan wrote:

> I don't think most people do. The laws aren't there because only a few
> people misbehaved in the past or misbehave now, they're there because it
> was pandemic for a long time and still happens. They aren't there because
> a plethora of frivolous lawsuits were brought.

Unfortunately with the laws in place people will manipulate them so that
something minor and harmless turns into a lawsuit and potential income for
the person bringing forth the suit.

> It takes very little creativity to be able to deal with others without
> any concern of something being taken the wrong way. Pins and needles
> aren't necessary to be walked. As pointed out to Jay, a single word
> could have changed the scenario he found himself in.

The thing is, that single word should have caused the scenario! Certain
words are truly hurtful or have a meaning widely accepted as creating a
hostile environment. The word he used was completely harmless, but
through the actions of *others* suddenly an incident was created.

> I don't think people even have to think about it, if they truly
> understand the issue, of sexual harassment, racial prejudice, religious
> prejudice, or any of the other prejudices that are possible.

But almost any word or phrase can have a second meaning in the English
language, with that second meaning potentially infringing on one of those
areas. So should people simply make sure they only use words which in all
cases only have a single meaning?

> I don't think our society has created a problem out of nothing where
> sexual harassment is concerned. Nor with racial prejudice, religious
> prejudice, political prejudice, or any of the others. Prejudice doesn't
> belong in the world, in any form. : )

Hey, I agree that in all these areas problems did exist in the past and
continue to exist. Unfortunately there are enough people that also want
to create a problem where none exists (the Jay example) that makes it
difficult to work through these issues.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Joseph Marton
18-Jul-2007, 02:31 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 04:58:38 +0000, Shaun Pond wrote:

> common term in every place I've ever worked

WWSD

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Shaun Pond
18-Jul-2007, 02:54 PM
Joseph,

I don't think *that* is a standard others should strive to achieve ;)

--

Shaun Pond

dan c.
18-Jul-2007, 02:55 PM
Hybrids?

Shaun Pond wrote:
> Dan,
>
> you mix chromosomes, something usually develops...
>

Susan
18-Jul-2007, 03:09 PM
Joe:

It's the males at Jay's employment who caused the scenario. Go blather
at them. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

Susan
18-Jul-2007, 03:14 PM
Shaun:

What does that have to do with skating and me doubting McDonald's had a
sign? You, like Jim, seem to be trying to make me take sides in the
McDonald's case, and I'm not. As I said, I don't know enough about it
to form an opinion one way or another. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

Jay Calderwood
18-Jul-2007, 03:15 PM
Susan wrote:
> Joe:
>
> It's the males at Jay's employment who caused the scenario. Go blather
> at them. : )
>
> Susan
> Novell Community Chat Moderator
>
> http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
> http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site
>


That is a line you should not read fast.... I read that fast and read
blather as lather.

--
Jay Calderwood
http://jaycalderwood.blogspot.com

Quote: "Oh well...Single yet again..."

Susan
18-Jul-2007, 03:42 PM
Jim:

Yes, and you can fall skating, too. It's almost guaranteed, in fact.
I'm not saying McDonald's should have a sign, I said I doubted they
did, but skating rinks do. If you want to construe that some way, go
right ahead, but it was just a brief thought and observation, upon
which I drew no conclusions.

I find the Onion interesting also, but don't believe a word of it. <G>

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

Susan
18-Jul-2007, 03:42 PM
Sorry, Jay, that's gone. You know why. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

Susan
18-Jul-2007, 03:42 PM
Shaun:

Good for you! Not common anywhere I've ever consulted. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

Susan
18-Jul-2007, 03:42 PM
Jim:

And I disagree. As a professional, for me and for all the
professionals I've personally experienced in consulting situations,
it's "the computer." Further, it's not the box, it's the CPU when
referring to the CPU.

Unless the computer is in someone's house, it belongs to the company,
not to the person using it, in my view. Most of them have enough
trouble just trying to use it.

Personalizing it is also personalizing any problems with it, which is
not a good thing to do to the person using it.

And I totally agree that had there been different individuals in the
room, it might have been different. And it would have been different
if one word were changed, also. : )

Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator

http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site

unsigned@ @digerati.us
18-Jul-2007, 03:47 PM
Yes, commonly used every shop I've been in. 12 years of IT experience
here...

Joseph Marton wrote:
> Susan wrote:
>
>> You would think wrong. : )
>
> SURVEY TIME!
>

Joseph Marton
18-Jul-2007, 03:48 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:42:14 +0000, Susan wrote:

> And I disagree. As a professional, for me and for all the professionals
> I've personally experienced in consulting situations, it's "the computer."
> Further, it's not the box, it's the CPU when referring to the CPU.

Do you know how many people I've met refer to the computer as the "hard
drive?" There was one time when I actually opened up this lady's computer
(so tempted to say box right there) and pointed out the hard drive in it.
You know what? She still referred to the entire computer as the hard
drive.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Craig
18-Jul-2007, 03:49 PM
LOL
"Jay Calderwood" <jeromecalderwood@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Kfpni.3461$QE3.2283@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
> Susan wrote:
>> Joe:
>>
>> It's the males at Jay's employment who caused the scenario. Go blather
>> at them. : )
>>
>> Susan
>> Novell Community Chat Moderator
>>
>> http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
>> http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site
>>
>
>
> That is a line you should not read fast.... I read that fast and read
> blather as lather.
>
> --
> Jay Calderwood
> http://jaycalderwood.blogspot.com
>
> Quote: "Oh well...Single yet again..."

Joseph Marton
18-Jul-2007, 03:49 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:42:13 +0000, Susan wrote:

> Sorry, Jay, that's gone. You know why. : )

You know I had absolutely no idea what that was about. But the deletion
intrigued me. Now I understand... gotta love Google. :-)

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Jay Calderwood
18-Jul-2007, 03:49 PM
Susan wrote:
> Sorry, Jay, that's gone. You know why. : )
>
> Susan
> Novell Community Chat Moderator
>
> http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
> http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site
>

Sorry... Didn't think that would of started anything but a chuckle.

--
Jay Calderwood
http://jaycalderwood.blogspot.com

Quote: "Oh well...Single yet again..."

Uwe Buckesfeld
18-Jul-2007, 03:49 PM
Shaun Pond wrote:

> "not suitable for children under 3 because of small parts" - of
> _course_ children under 3 have small parts!

LOL!

U

Jay Calderwood
18-Jul-2007, 03:51 PM
Uwe Buckesfeld wrote:
> Shaun Pond wrote:
>
>> "not suitable for children under 3 because of small parts" - of
>> _course_ children under 3 have small parts!
>
> LOL!
>
> U

Thanks!!!! There goes my coke all over my monitor.

--
Jay Calderwood
http://jaycalderwood.blogspot.com

Quote: "Oh well...Single yet again..."

Uwe Buckesfeld
18-Jul-2007, 03:56 PM
Marcel,

I think that sums up the European point of view quite nicely.

U

Shaun Pond
18-Jul-2007, 04:00 PM
Jay,

<G> glad to help

--

Shaun Pond

Shaun Pond
18-Jul-2007, 04:01 PM
Susan,

I hope I'm not trying to get you to take sides, just pointing out that
signs stating the £$%^ing obvious aren't generally required :)

--

Shaun Pond

Shaun Pond
18-Jul-2007, 04:01 PM
Dan,

aren't we all?

--

Shaun Pond

Shaun Pond
18-Jul-2007, 04:02 PM
Susan,

ah well, consultants: you breeze in, you charge a fortune, you breeze
out... ;) I was talking about real work [runs away]

--

Shaun Pond

Jay Calderwood
18-Jul-2007, 04:07 PM
Shaun Pond wrote:
> Jay,
>
> <G> glad to help
>
I didn't want that coke anyways.

--
Jay Calderwood
http://jaycalderwood.blogspot.com

Quote: "Oh well...Single yet again..."

Craig
18-Jul-2007, 04:21 PM
Did you read what McDonalds' lawyers did? They actually argued in court
that she got burned so badly because she was old...and old people have
thinner skin...and ya know, move slower. In any case, she should have
removed her clothes faster!

You guys are right to hate lawyers...McDonalds' lawyers.


"Jim Henderson" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Afgni.3326$QE3.2823@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:54:56 +0000, Craig wrote:
>
>> This would be like if your rental shoes melted your toes off. That
>> would NOT be your fault.
>>
>> If coffee can scald your skin to the point of needing a graft it would
>> surely destroy your mouth, lips, gums, esophagus, plus the large and
>> small intestines.
>
> If coffee is going to scald you and you put it someplace where it can,
> then it most certainly *is* your fault.
>
> Very much so given that even in an insulated cup, you can feel how hot
> the liquid is. Those cups aren't fully insulated, you know.
>
> Jim

Craig
18-Jul-2007, 04:38 PM
When a corporation causes injury, you can't imprison them. They are given
more rights than human beings. The only thing they understand is money;
therefore the victim is entitled to compensation for expenses, injuries,
loss of work, etc....in addition a jury will/may add an extra charge to
punish the corporation.

McDonald's lost this case because of their own callous attitudes. A
McDonalds representative got on the stand and said "Only 700 people have
been badly burned". He also added that they had no intention of lowering the
temperature. Meanwhile the defense showed pictures of this 80 year old
lady's mutilated body.

The jury wanted to send a message to the corporation that if they continued
it would cost them plenty (then this was reduced).

Corporations will often make decisions based on the risk to themselves, not
to their customers, the citizenry or the environment.

Think: if it is cheaper to dump toxins into the ocean they will choose that.
The only solution is to raise the fines, or make the correct behavior "sexy"
enough for the companies to become "green"




"Marcel Cox" <cimetmc@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:f7l1uf$3bf$1@linux.cie.etat.lu...
> Beth Cole wrote:
>
>>
>>You might want to check this out:
>>http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts
>
> Personally, on that web page, I find the whole discussion about coffee
> temperature absurd. For me, coffee and tea are beverages made with boiling
> water. The implication of this is that if it's fresh, it is *very* hot and
> can indeed burn you. OTOH, if it is cooled down, it is not so fresh
> anymore and as such, lower quality. So in essence, people find it natural
> to impose lower quality just because all people are children and don't
> know how to handle hot bevarages.
> But maybe this is just because I live in a different world were "quality"
> and "coffee" are words which can still go together.
>
> A second problem I have with the judgement is that even if I would
> consider some fault with McDonalds, I find the amounts of money involved
> rediculous. If I understand the article correctly, reasonable dammage of
> the incident could be evaluated at $20000. Yet, the jury awarded $160000
> of damage and on top of that $2.7 million. This is more than 100 times the
> actual damage of the whole affair. Even if in the end, the amount paid was
> maybe just $400000, that's still 20 times the damange. Why do people have
> to be compensated 10 to 100 times the damange they receive?
>
> With such ridicoulous amounts paid as compensation, it is just normal that
> everyone tries to get money out of such cases. Even if the chance of
> winning is small, the benefit is so huge that it is worth trying any time.
>
> --
> Marcel Cox
> http://support.novell.com/forums

Shaun Pond
18-Jul-2007, 04:41 PM
Jay,

think how much good I've done your teeth. Your monitor OTOH...

--

Shaun Pond

Shaun Pond
18-Jul-2007, 04:41 PM
Craig,

> correct behavior
>
ah, but that's where definitions vary...

--

Shaun Pond

Doug
18-Jul-2007, 04:45 PM
Susan wrote:

> Jim:
>
> And I disagree. As a professional, for me and for all the
> professionals I've personally experienced in consulting situations,
> it's "the computer." Further, it's not the box, it's the CPU when
> referring to the CPU.

Technically the CPU is on the motherboard inside the box.

:)

Blinky Bill
18-Jul-2007, 04:47 PM
Jay,

You sure copped it for this one didn't you!

I undersatnd where you are coming from and made similar mistakes myself
so I feel for you.


--

Chris Murzda
18-Jul-2007, 04:49 PM
Jim,

I think that you make a great point! Quite a few people who get into the
IT field do so because they are not comfortable working with other people.
When the massacre happened at VT, there was a lot of discussion
concerning personality types in the engineering fields.

I am not sure what can be done to "personalize" IT staff.

Chris

Jim Henderson
18-Jul-2007, 05:01 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:49:12 +0000, Chris Murzda wrote:

> Jim,
>
> I think that you make a great point! Quite a few people who get into
> the IT field do so because they are not comfortable working with other
> people.
> When the massacre happened at VT, there was a lot of discussion
> concerning personality types in the engineering fields.
>
> I am not sure what can be done to "personalize" IT staff.

It just takes practice. I used to be a fairly quiet, introverted IT
person. Then I started teaching classes - that'll change you a bit, but
maybe not as much as you think. Another guy I worked with here as a
trainer described himself as an "extroverted introvert" when he's
teaching.

Jim

Jim Henderson
18-Jul-2007, 05:02 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:21:36 +0000, Craig wrote:

> Did you read what McDonalds' lawyers did? They actually argued in court
> that she got burned so badly because she was old...and old people have
> thinner skin...and ya know, move slower. In any case, she should have
> removed her clothes faster!
>
> You guys are right to hate lawyers...McDonalds' lawyers.

I certainly wouldn't say that McDs acted responsibly, and the PR
nightmare that resulted for them certainly is evidence of that...

Jim

Jim Henderson
18-Jul-2007, 05:02 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:01:16 +0000, Shaun Pond wrote:

> Susan,
>
> I hope I'm not trying to get you to take sides, just pointing out that
> signs stating the £$%^ing obvious aren't generally required :)

Ditto. :-)

Jim

Jim Henderson
18-Jul-2007, 05:05 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:42:13 +0000, Susan wrote:

> I find the Onion interesting also, but don't believe a word of it. <G>

As do I, but the Onion tries to be satirical and it's pretty clear, just
as clear as anyone who's read Randy's works that he strives to be as
factual as he can with the information at hand at the time.

I knew you didn't draw any conclusions, but often in friendly debate, the
reason someone does bring something up in that manner is in an effort to
draw a parallel, and for someone watching from the sidelines who doesn't
know the people talking, it can be taken that way. :-)

Jim

Jim Henderson
18-Jul-2007, 05:05 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:56:42 +0000, Uwe Buckesfeld wrote:

> Marcel,
>
> I think that sums up the European point of view quite nicely.
>
> U

Not just the European view, for that matter; a lot of people in the US
found it absurd as well.

Jim

Jim Henderson
18-Jul-2007, 05:16 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:42:14 +0000, Susan wrote:

> Jim:
>
> And I disagree. As a professional, for me and for all the professionals
> I've personally experienced in consulting situations, it's "the
> computer." Further, it's not the box, it's the CPU when referring to
> the CPU.

The CPU isn't the entire system - it's the processor plugged into the
main board. I doubt very much Jay was going to check the CPU.

> Unless the computer is in someone's house, it belongs to the company,
> not to the person using it, in my view. Most of them have enough
> trouble just trying to use it.

Everywhere I've worked, nobody has ever made that distinction - for work
purposes, the machine sitting on "your" desk is "your" computer. I've
never heard anyone call it "the company's desk", or "the company's
telephone".

> Personalizing it is also personalizing any problems with it, which is
> not a good thing to do to the person using it.

I disagree. If you say "your system has problems", you're not blaming
the individual, and probably 99% of the users I've ever personally helped
have ever took that as meaning "you're stupid, you don't know what you're
doing" or some variation on that.

This includes work done at a company where the wallpaper on the desktop
was the corporate logo, so users would be clear they were using a company
resource. Every IT person in that Fortune 50 company would personalize
the reference to a system they were working on - "I'm going to work on
John's machine", or "your machine isn't working right - here, use this
loaner". It's shorthand for "the machine on the desk the company affords
you to use" - surely you wouldn't want to draw out the discourse by
having a ridiculous amount of description like that, would you? People
don't talk that way, at least not in my experience.

> And I totally agree that had there been different individuals in the
> room, it might have been different. And it would have been different if
> one word were changed, also. : )

I had a think about this while getting ready for work - I had heard the
term used in the "bad" way before, but couldn't place where until this
morning: The extended version of George Carlin's 7 Words You Can't Say
on Television, when he talks about "two way words". That's the ONLY time
I've ever heard the word used in a sexual way, and I had to stop and
think about where I'd heard it used that way before.

So, if it were me, I might've said the same thing - in the interest of
being not seen as "insensitive", I've avoided using the word, but I have
had to go back and selectively *replace* using this word since it's been
deemed to be such a "bad" word.

If *anyone* here thinks I *am* insensitive to these issues because I
think Jay's usage was completely appropriate, I'd say you don't know
anything about me or my attitudes about this sort of thing - I've been
involved in discussions about unfortunate program names in the past, and
they've been VERY touchy subjects that I've had to tiptoe around while
still making my point, and good thing I did, too, because one name in
particular would've been VERY unfortunate indeed. And no, I won't tell
what it was, because it wouldn't be appropriate for discussion here, and
it was embarrassing for everyone involved once it was realised what was
nearly done.

I'll just leave the discussion with something George Carlin once said:
There are no bad words. Bad thoughts. Bad intentions. And words.

Jim

Chris Murzda
18-Jul-2007, 05:23 PM
All lawyers are bad until you need one.

Joseph Marton
18-Jul-2007, 05:24 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:16:40 +0000, Jim Henderson wrote:

> I disagree. If you say "your system has problems", you're not blaming the
> individual, and probably 99% of the users I've ever personally helped have
> ever took that as meaning "you're stupid, you don't know what you're
> doing" or some variation on that.

Actually, I blame them all the time. It usually *is* their fault, and
they know it.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Chris Murzda
18-Jul-2007, 05:35 PM
I agree that it can be overcome, but are we willing as employees to take
that into consideration when these incidents ocurr?

Chris

Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:49:12 +0000, Chris Murzda wrote:

>> Jim,
>>
>> I think that you make a great point! Quite a few people who get into
>> the IT field do so because they are not comfortable working with other
>> people.
>> When the massacre happened at VT, there was a lot of discussion
>> concerning personality types in the engineering fields.
>>
>> I am not sure what can be done to "personalize" IT staff.

> It just takes practice. I used to be a fairly quiet, introverted IT
> person. Then I started teaching classes - that'll change you a bit, but
> maybe not as much as you think. Another guy I worked with here as a
> trainer described himself as an "extroverted introvert" when he's
> teaching.

> Jim

Shaun Pond
18-Jul-2007, 05:43 PM
Jim,

would that be someone with the initial "J"?

--

Shaun Pond

unsigned@ @digerati.us
18-Jul-2007, 05:49 PM
Do they call you 'Nick Burns' when you aren't around? :D

Joseph Marton wrote:
> Actually, I blame them all the time. It usually *is* their fault, and
> they know it.
>

Chris Murzda
18-Jul-2007, 05:54 PM
Shaun Pond wrote:

> Joseph,

> common term in every place I've ever worked

Same here and i have worked for 8 different companies since I've been in
the IT field in different areas of the country.

Chris

Jay Calderwood
18-Jul-2007, 05:54 PM
Shaun Pond wrote:
> Jim,
>
> would that be someone with the initial "J"?
>

Um... What I do now? <EG>

--
Jay Calderwood
http://jaycalderwood.blogspot.com

Quote: "Oh well...Single yet again..."

Jim Henderson
18-Jul-2007, 05:55 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:43:46 +0000, Shaun Pond wrote:

> Jim,
>
> would that be someone with the initial "J"?

Nope, someone with the initial "M" - I don't know that you know him,
though I do know you met him at least once.

Jim

Jim Henderson
18-Jul-2007, 05:55 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:35:38 +0000, Chris Murzda wrote:

> I agree that it can be overcome, but are we willing as employees to take
> that into consideration when these incidents ocurr?

I think the intent of any statement needs to be figured into it - "zero
tolerance" approaches tend to remove any sort of judgment or thought from
the process, and that's bad.

Jim

Jim Henderson
18-Jul-2007, 05:56 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:24:03 +0000, Joseph Marton wrote:

> Actually, I blame them all the time. It usually *is* their fault, and
> they know it.

Well, yes, but I try to be politically correct about it. It usually was
Windows for me, after all. ;-)

Jim

Chris Murzda
18-Jul-2007, 06:01 PM
Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:42:14 +0000, Susan wrote:

>> Jim:
>>
>> And I disagree. As a professional, for me and for all the professionals
>> I've personally experienced in consulting situations, it's "the
>> computer." Further, it's not the box, it's the CPU when referring to
>> the CPU.

> The CPU isn't the entire system - it's the processor plugged into the
> main board. I doubt very much Jay was going to check the CPU.

>> Unless the computer is in someone's house, it belongs to the company,
>> not to the person using it, in my view. Most of them have enough
>> trouble just trying to use it.

> Everywhere I've worked, nobody has ever made that distinction - for work
> purposes, the machine sitting on "your" desk is "your" computer. I've
> never heard anyone call it "the company's desk", or "the company's
> telephone".

>> Personalizing it is also personalizing any problems with it, which is
>> not a good thing to do to the person using it.

> I disagree. If you say "your system has problems", you're not blaming
> the individual, and probably 99% of the users I've ever personally helped
> have ever took that as meaning "you're stupid, you don't know what you're
> doing" or some variation on that.

> This includes work done at a company where the wallpaper on the desktop
> was the corporate logo, so users would be clear they were using a company
> resource. Every IT person in that Fortune 50 company would personalize
> the reference to a system they were working on - "I'm going to work on
> John's machine", or "your machine isn't working right - here, use this
> loaner". It's shorthand for "the machine on the desk the company affords
> you to use" - surely you wouldn't want to draw out the discourse by
> having a ridiculous amount of description like that, would you? People
> don't talk that way, at least not in my experience.

>> And I totally agree that had there been different individuals in the
>> room, it might have been different. And it would have been different if
>> one word were changed, also. : )

> I had a think about this while getting ready for work - I had heard the
> term used in the "bad" way before, but couldn't place where until this
> morning: The extended version of George Carlin's 7 Words You Can't Say
> on Television, when he talks about "two way words". That's the ONLY time
> I've ever heard the word used in a sexual way, and I had to stop and
> think about where I'd heard it used that way before.

> So, if it were me, I might've said the same thing - in the interest of
> being not seen as "insensitive", I've avoided using the word, but I have
> had to go back and selectively *replace* using this word since it's been
> deemed to be such a "bad" word.

> If *anyone* here thinks I *am* insensitive to these issues because I
> think Jay's usage was completely appropriate, I'd say you don't know
> anything about me or my attitudes about this sort of thing - I've been
> involved in discussions about unfortunate program names in the past, and
> they've been VERY touchy subjects that I've had to tiptoe around while
> still making my point, and good thing I did, too, because one name in
> particular would've been VERY unfortunate indeed. And no, I won't tell
> what it was, because it wouldn't be appropriate for discussion here, and
> it was embarrassing for everyone involved once it was realised what was
> nearly done.

Tell me about it, I had to work with a system called PMS.

Chris

> I'll just leave the discussion with something George Carlin once said:
> There are no bad words. Bad thoughts. Bad intentions. And words.

> Jim

unsigned@ @digerati.us
18-Jul-2007, 06:01 PM
'CPU' is not the correct term, it is as wrong as calling the PC a 'hard
drive.' Calling it a 'computer' or a 'system' would also be correct, but
often (l)users refer to the monitor as the 'computer.'
I mentioned in an earlier post that calling the PC a box is technically
accurate and *easy for an end user to understand.* I've never had a
situation where the term is taken out of context or misunderstood as a
reference for another electronic device.

Anybody that has spent time directly managing PC support for a large
number of PC's or come up through the ranks of PC support knows that the
end users have to be hand held through even the simplest terms and that
each user will have their own special spin on technical terms.




Susan wrote:
> And I disagree. As a professional, for me and for all the
> professionals I've personally experienced in consulting situations,
> it's "the computer." Further, it's not the box, it's the CPU when
> referring to the CPU.
>

unsigned@ @digerati.us
18-Jul-2007, 06:04 PM
His monitor can have my Friday morning dentist appointment if it likes.

Shaun Pond wrote:
> Jay,
>
> think how much good I've done your teeth. Your monitor OTOH...
>

Craig
18-Jul-2007, 06:05 PM
Unbelievable. Another thing I was thinking, we blame "litigious society"
but isn't that kind of a Hallmark of our Democracy? If not for lawsuits,
and a jury of our peers, people would just grab their guns or pitchforks to
right a perceived wrong...right?


"Jim Henderson" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:gQqni.3533$QE3.1623@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:21:36 +0000, Craig wrote:
>
>> Did you read what McDonalds' lawyers did? They actually argued in court
>> that she got burned so badly because she was old...and old people have
>> thinner skin...and ya know, move slower. In any case, she should have
>> removed her clothes faster!
>>
>> You guys are right to hate lawyers...McDonalds' lawyers.
>
> I certainly wouldn't say that McDs acted responsibly, and the PR
> nightmare that resulted for them certainly is evidence of that...
>
> Jim

Craig
18-Jul-2007, 06:07 PM
That's what I always say! Not only that, but we have an adversarial system,
right? Make your claim, fight it out in court. It's democracy in action!

"Chris Murzda" <Chris.Murzda@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:b8rni.3552$QE3.572@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
> All lawyers are bad until you need one.
>

Craig
18-Jul-2007, 06:07 PM
But then we would complain about them being extorted... :)


"Jim Henderson" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bdgni.3324$QE3.1292@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:13:21 +0000, Craig wrote:
>
>> Interesting, but the site seems to indict McDonalds more than Stella.
>
> Yes, but the facts are clearly spelled out. McDonald's could've avoided
> a lot of bad publicity by just dealing with the issue - but that's
> unfortunate.
>
> Jim

Craig
18-Jul-2007, 06:09 PM
Of course....but that's for the jury to decide. Unless legal action is
used, the corporation will and do run roughshod over anything they are
*allowed* to.


"Shaun Pond" <shaun@false.email> wrote in message
news:VA.0000b38f.029af9f8@false.email...
> Craig,
>
>> correct behavior
>>
> ah, but that's where definitions vary...
>
> --
>
> Shaun Pond
>
>

Shaun Pond
18-Jul-2007, 06:11 PM
LOL!

--

Shaun Pond

Shaun Pond
18-Jul-2007, 06:14 PM
Jay,

keep quiet

--

Shaun Pond

Shaun Pond
18-Jul-2007, 06:14 PM
Jim,

most people I meet once...

--

Shaun Pond

Jay Calderwood
18-Jul-2007, 06:19 PM
Shaun Pond wrote:
> Jay,
>
> keep quiet
>

That is an oxymoron...

Just like Microsoft works...



--
Jay Calderwood
http://jaycalderwood.blogspot.com

Quote: "Oh well...Single yet again..."

Shaun Pond
18-Jul-2007, 06:21 PM
Craig,

true, but a system is corrupted beyond use if "common sense" holds no
sway...

--

Shaun Pond

Craig
18-Jul-2007, 06:23 PM
Hah!
"Chris Murzda" <Chris.Murzda@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:LHrni.3575$QE3.1417@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:42:14 +0000, Susan wrote:
>
>>> Jim:
>>>
>>> And I disagree. As a professional, for me and for all the professionals
>>> I've personally experienced in consulting situations, it's "the
>>> computer." Further, it's not the box, it's the CPU when referring to
>>> the CPU.
>
>> The CPU isn't the entire system - it's the processor plugged into the
>> main board. I doubt very much Jay was going to check the CPU.
>
>>> Unless the computer is in someone's house, it belongs to the company,
>>> not to the person using it, in my view. Most of them have enough
>>> trouble just trying to use it.
>
>> Everywhere I've worked, nobody has ever made that distinction - for work
>> purposes, the machine sitting on "your" desk is "your" computer. I've
>> never heard anyone call it "the company's desk", or "the company's
>> telephone".
>
>>> Personalizing it is also personalizing any problems with it, which is
>>> not a good thing to do to the person using it.
>
>> I disagree. If you say "your system has problems", you're not blaming
>> the individual, and probably 99% of the users I've ever personally helped
>> have ever took that as meaning "you're stupid, you don't know what you're
>> doing" or some variation on that.
>
>> This includes work done at a company where the wallpaper on the desktop
>> was the corporate logo, so users would be clear they were using a company
>> resource. Every IT person in that Fortune 50 company would personalize
>> the reference to a system they were working on - "I'm going to work on
>> John's machine", or "your machine isn't working right - here, use this
>> loaner". It's shorthand for "the machine on the desk the company affords
>> you to use" - surely you wouldn't want to draw out the discourse by
>> having a ridiculous amount of description like that, would you? People
>> don't talk that way, at least not in my experience.
>
>>> And I totally agree that had there been different individuals in the
>>> room, it might have been different. And it would have been different if
>>> one word were changed, also. : )
>
>> I had a think about this while getting ready for work - I had heard the
>> term used in the "bad" way before, but couldn't place where until this
>> morning: The extended version of George Carlin's 7 Words You Can't Say
>> on Television, when he talks about "two way words". That's the ONLY time
>> I've ever heard the word used in a sexual way, and I had to stop and
>> think about where I'd heard it used that way before.
>
>> So, if it were me, I might've said the same thing - in the interest of
>> being not seen as "insensitive", I've avoided using the word, but I have
>> had to go back and selectively *replace* using this word since it's been
>> deemed to be such a "bad" word.
>
>> If *anyone* here thinks I *am* insensitive to these issues because I
>> think Jay's usage was completely appropriate, I'd say you don't know
>> anything about me or my attitudes about this sort of thing - I've been
>> involved in discussions about unfortunate program names in the past, and
>> they've been VERY touchy subjects that I've had to tiptoe around while
>> still making my point, and good thing I did, too, because one name in
>> particular would've been VERY unfortunate indeed. And no, I won't tell
>> what it was, because it wouldn't be appropriate for discussion here, and
>> it was embarrassing for everyone involved once it was realised what was
>> nearly done.
>
> Tell me about it, I had to work with a system called PMS.
> Chris
>
>> I'll just leave the discussion with something George Carlin once said:
>> There are no bad words. Bad thoughts. Bad intentions. And words.
>
>> Jim
>
>
>

Craig
18-Jul-2007, 06:27 PM
Jay, you should use the word "unit" instead of "box". Nobody would have
been offended if you had said "Let me take a peek at your unit", would they?
:)




"Jay Calderwood" <jeromecalderwood@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:rXMmi.2013$QE3.946@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
> Ok. Sometimes it's embarrassing to use g33k sp34k when talking to a hot
> female (l)user with a bunch of guys in the room...
>
> This (l)user calls and says she tries to boot up her machine and gets
> beeping sounds and no video...
>
> I walk over and she boots... And without thinking I say:
>
> "I think it's a memory issue... Can you please slide back, I need to get
> under your desk and look inside your box..."
>
> She turned red and the guys started laughing....
>
> And stupid me is like what???
>
> Then I thought... And apologized... but she laughed....
>
>
> It's been one of those days.....
>
> --
> Jay Calderwood
> http://jaycalderwood.blogspot.com
>
> Quote: "I have worked HARD for everything I have. A beautiful family which
> includes a beautiful Soon-to-be wife,
> a bunch of beautiful healthy kids, 2 annoying pooches, and an occasional
> Pooh Bear (silly ol' bear he is).
> Like I said I worked hard for what I have and I'm not going to lose this
> because this is what I always have wanted.
> I need to remove those cancerous people from my life to keep what I have,
> and I will. I'm tired of all
> the backstabbing and deceit. This is my world, I created it, now it is
> time to undo what I let happen. I will not turn back."
>
> -- or --
>
> If you would like to purchase this space for you're own creepy comment,
> like the one you see above, please email.

Joseph Marton
18-Jul-2007, 06:27 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:01:43 +0000, unsigned wrote:

> 'CPU' is not the correct term, it is as wrong as calling the PC a 'hard
> drive.'

Isn't a PC an x86-based computer which runs DOS, Windows, Linux, or other
various x86-based operating systems other than the Apple operating system
(which until recently wouldn't run at all any form of x86 hardware)? So
really a "computer" or "system" or "box" is more accurate as that covers
both Macs and PCs.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Joseph Marton
18-Jul-2007, 06:28 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:49:12 +0000, unsigned wrote:

> Do they call you 'Nick Burns' when you aren't around? :D

Oh, and by the way...

YOU'RE WELCOME!

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Joseph Marton
18-Jul-2007, 06:28 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:56:26 +0000, Jim Henderson wrote:

> Well, yes, but I try to be politically correct about it. It usually was
> Windows for me, after all. ;-)

Bah. Only (l)users find a way to make the impossible possible.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Joseph Marton
18-Jul-2007, 06:29 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:14:46 +0000, Shaun Pond wrote:

> most people I meet once...

Wow that's a loaded statement.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

brain
18-Jul-2007, 06:30 PM
There is *always* someone with their mind in the gutter.

> Jay, you should use the word "unit" instead of "box". Nobody would
> have been offended if you had said "Let me take a peek at your unit",
> would they? :)

--
brain, not brain

Joseph Marton
18-Jul-2007, 06:30 PM
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:22:47 +0000, Jay Calderwood wrote:

My my... I wonder if this thread could eventually rival the "Knees"
thread. I actually don't even have that entire thread, even though when I
initially loaded up my groups in Pan I had it go pretty far back for ncc.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

Stevo
18-Jul-2007, 06:30 PM
brain scribbled something like:

> There is always someone with their mind in the gutter.

<raises hand>

Craig
18-Jul-2007, 06:31 PM
I coulda been somebody....instead of a bum...which is what I am.
"Joseph Marton" <jmartonNO@SPAMhsemuni.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.07.18.13.21.29.851434@SPAMhsemuni.co m...
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:13:21 +0000, Craig wrote:
>
>> Interesting, but the site seems to indict McDonalds more than Stella.
>
> Stellaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
>
> --
> Joe
> "Mostly me, mostly you."
>

Joseph Marton
18-Jul-2007, 06:32 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:27:20 +0000, Craig wrote:

> Jay, you should use the word "unit" instead of "box". Nobody would have
> been offended if you had said "Let me take a peek at your unit", would
> they?

Yes, because now you are saying that she's so ugly she looks like a man.

--
Joe
"Mostly me, mostly you."

brain
18-Jul-2007, 06:34 PM
I knew I could count on you Stevo.

Stevo wrote:

> brain scribbled something like:
>
> > There is always someone with their mind in the gutter.
>
> <raises hand>



--

brain, not brain

Jim Henderson
18-Jul-2007, 06:35 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:07:54 +0000, Craig wrote:

> But then we would complain about them being extorted...

Someone would, surely. But there usually are better ways of dealing with
PR issues than just saying "tough".

Jim

Jim Henderson
18-Jul-2007, 06:37 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:05:39 +0000, Craig wrote:

> Unbelievable. Another thing I was thinking, we blame "litigious
> society" but isn't that kind of a Hallmark of our Democracy?

Not abuse of the system, at least I don't think so.

> If not for
> lawsuits, and a jury of our peers, people would just grab their guns or
> pitchforks to right a perceived wrong...right?

Sadly, most juries are not "of our peers" but rather "of people who
couldn't get out of it". Myself, I enjoyed the experience - and I think
it's sad that the attitude is that Jury Duty is something "to get out of".

Jim

Craig
18-Jul-2007, 06:37 PM
2 things:

1) If a jury has determined it, it must be common (or so we believe)
2) I believe the stories are circulated deliberately to manipulate the
public into not seeking redress that they are entitled to.

On Jim's site there's another story of a man who was entitled to large
punitive damages and he refused it. He said that the message was loud and
clear that the business had to clean up its act. Has anyone heard of this
man? Why not?

Did you know that most frivolous lawsuits are from corporations? Can
anyone cite one of those? Why not?

Did you know that both the number of lawsuits AND the median punitive damage
award have been in decline since the 70s?

Is the system really "broken"? Who gains from the goal of limiting class
action lawsuits?


"Shaun Pond" <shaun@false.email> wrote in message
news:VA.0000b399.02f5e04b@false.email...
> Craig,
>
> true, but a system is corrupted beyond use if "common sense" holds no
> sway...
>
> --
>
> Shaun Pond
>
>

Jim Henderson
18-Jul-2007, 06:37 PM
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:14:46 +0000, Shaun Pond wrote:

> Jim,
>
> most people I meet once...

At least everyone you've met you've met at least once. :-)

He would've been at the party at least one year you were there.

Jim