Jack, you never answered an earlier question.
What if I did same to you based on something I heard, knew, or thought I
knew?
Sorry, just looking out for everyones' interests...Oh you lost your job?...
Oh, now your new prospective employer wants a reference from your prior
one?... Oh, now you have no friends?... Oh now you have no place to live?
Oh, now when you go to court you have no income and have to rely on a
court-appointed public-defender? Oh, now since you got a bottom-of
-the-barrel lawyer jury selection was skewed against you? Oh, now you're in
prision because of a colossal misunderstanding?
Sorry Jack... I was just doing what I thought was best. Never mind I don't
actually know all the details. Sorry your life is screwed up.
Tom C.
From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Vigilant or Bloody Minded
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 18:47:57 -0800 (PST)
I know and that's why it should be discussed between the owner and
employee, with extreme clarity, to permit the situation the air it
needs for the relationship to stay healthy.
If the owner is troubled by the result, his options are clear and he
will be acting only for himself.
Jack
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 1/9/2006 6:16:52 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> If I may Marnie, your reaction is exactly that I initially offered.
> What a diatribe it launched.
> Why is it so difficult for many to grasp?
> Kevin, would like to learn your decision when reached.
>
> Jack
> =======
> Well, for one thing, I wasn't agreeing with the majority, though I
> haven't
> finished the thread yet. :-)
>
> But for me, it changed, when Kevin said he was personally involved
> even at a
> distance. That's a different kettle of fish. And I am not aware that
> he is
> under any "gag order" not to mention it. As a parent and a victim and
> a customer,
> Kevin is entitled to his reactions. And has the freedom of speech to
> voice
> them. And the vendor has the right to know they may have hired
> someone,
> unknowingly, that might turn customers off. Although the store owner
> may know already
> and he/she also has the right to hire whom he/she wants. Customers
> also have
> the right not to patronize his/her store.
>
> I think it's because, Jack, people do get accused that later turn out
> to be
> innocent. And that is something to be concerned about. But I don't
> think,
> personally, it negates the above.
>
> Marnie aka Doe
>
>
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
