Re: [OT] M Galbreath

2005-07-06 Thread Nick Andros
 Oh, please.  That's why the idiot shouldn't have been using a government
 email address.  I've skipped almost all of this, but at the very least he
 _did_ make threatening noises.  You just can't go doing that on government
 time.

Yep.  If you can't say it to your boss' face, then you shouldn't be
writing it/doing it on company time.  If you ever read your employment
agreement, you'll see that they have the right to monitor anything and
everything you do online while at work.

Now if he was spouting off the same ignorant, profane stuff on this
list from home and he got canned because of THAT, then it'd be a
different story.  There'd have to be some sort of ethics clause in his
contract explicitly prohibiting that type of behavior (highly
unlikely).

In either case, I doubt we've heard the last of him.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [OT] Re: Fired???? was...Re: Struts Books Recommendations

2005-07-06 Thread Nick Andros
talk about an OT thread!

 1) The inconsistency in what is protected. For example everyone today
 talks about tolerance. But what does this mean? What it ends up
 meaning is There are no moral absolutes so the only valid belief system
 protected is one that doesn't espouse moral judgments. But what about
 being tolerant to the idea that someone might feel otherwise?  Why is
 state sanctioned secularism the only valid religion (and yes secularism
 is a belief system - a religion). It's sort of funny that those whom
 often claim to be the most 'tolerant' are often the most vicious when it
 comes to attacking someone that disagrees with their view of
 tolerance. There are many views I could state that would get me
 labeled as being 'intolerant,' yet, somehow it's supposedly not
 offensive to state All views on X,Y,orZ are equally acceptable. To me,
 and many others, that later position can be considered extremely
 offensive. Why is only one view (secular humanism) considered 'non
 offensive' but other religious views are some how bigoted and
 intolerant. It's pure hypocrisy.
 

The key difference here as I see it is how far some people want to
take these disagreements.  For many conservatives (granted, this is
a generalization here... so let's say many conservative politicians
instead), it is not enough to simply state I find Y and Z to be
offensive but they often want to take it to the next level and say
not only are Y and Z offensive, X is the only legitimate option and
we should make Y and Z illegal.

Consider if I was a vegan (I'm not) and you're a meat-eater.  Let's
say that I'm passionate about it being morally offensive to kill and
consume animals.  It's entirely my right to believe that and state my
opinion to you and anyone else I can find to try and spread my belief
system onto others (as it is your right to do likewise).  However, it
would be ridiculous for me to try to pass legislation or, God forbid,
a constitutional amendment stating that meat consumption is illegal. 
It would be wrong for me to try to impose my belief system on people
who have differing, but still legitimate, beliefs.

To me, tolerance doesn't imply that I have to agree with what
everyone else says or does - it just means that I am willing to allow
them to believe what they want to believe.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]