A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes - Page 289

Bad_Rich_Chic · 03-07-2005, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ummm, it was a joke. conservatives don't like Hillary either, maybe more so.

OK, just checking - my current deal definitely has me humor impaired these days.

Then again, a lot of people took bizzare positions on Bill's BJ to cope with their political cognitive dissonance - I recall the stunning silence of women's organizations. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy emerging as the defender of "those poor, poor girls" wouldn't be much of a stretch.

bilmore · 03-07-2005, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since there are no feminists of that particular ilk here right now, it's nice of you to make sure their viewpoint is represented here, but since no one at Boeing appears to have offered that justification, I'm not sure why else you'd bother.

Huh? This is basic "Power and the Penis 101" from ten years of CLE's.

Tyrone Slothrop · 03-07-2005, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Huh? This is basic "Power and the Penis 101" from ten years of CLE's.

You don't have to go to the adult bookstore to get CLE materials anymore, bilmore. I'm sure your old firm said it was cheaper, but trust me, there's a better way.

bilmore · 03-07-2005, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You don't have to go to the adult bookstore to get CLE materials anymore, bilmore.

You get your credits the way you see fit, and leave me be.

sgtclub · 03-07-2005, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It may be significant that this is the guy who was brought in to clean things up after all the indictments and stuff. who probably oversaw putting in the new code of conduct etc. What a moron.

Not that I think this is a firing offense.

Most companies I represent require executive officers to report intracompany relationships to the board. I have been involved in one such report. Not only is it likely against company policy, but it also shows incredibly bad judgment not to do so. Whether he should be fired for it is another matter.

Tyrone Slothrop · 03-07-2005, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
You get your credits the way you see fit, and leave me be.

OK. Sorry. Just to make sure you understand what the rest of us are talking about, though, know that "Boeing" is a big company that makes airplanes, not just a sound effect.

Tyrone Slothrop · 03-07-2005, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Most companies I represent require executive officers to report intracompany relationships to the board. I have been involved in one such report. Not only is it likely against company policy, but it also shows incredibly bad judgment not to do so. Whether he should be fired for it is another matter.

Did anyone else see that news this morning and not think, "I wonder what was really going on." I assumed the board had other reasons to can him, or something, and that this pretext had the advantage of spooking investors less, or something.

bilmore · 03-07-2005, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK. Sorry. Just to make sure you understand what the rest of us are talking about, though, know that "Boeing" is a big company that makes airplanes, not just a sound effect.

Don't do much compliance counseling, do you?

Tyrone Slothrop · 03-07-2005, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Don't do much compliance counseling, do you?

If -- and I really mean if, because your meaning is a little opaque -- you mean to suggest that state or federal law reflects the sort of analysis about consent that you were describing above, then I ask again, so what? That's not why Boeing said it was canning him, so who cares?

sgtclub · 03-07-2005, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Did anyone else see that news this morning and not think, "I wonder what was really going on." I assumed the board had other reasons to can him, or something, and that this pretext had the advantage of spooking investors less, or something.

More likely is that this allowed them to terminate him for "cause" under his employment agreement.

bilmore · 03-07-2005, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If -- and I really mean if, because your meaning is a little opaque -- you mean to suggest that state or federal law reflects the sort of analysis about consent that you were describing above, then I ask again, so what? That's not why Boeing said it was canning him, so who cares?

I was responding to a "why wasn't she fired" comment. I pointed out that the legal evironment currently holds her as a victim, for the reason I set out. You ran with that, as you are wont to do, somewhere else. So, yes, if you took my comment to mean that I believe that Elizabeth Dole invented Zoloft, or some other completely unrelated thing, I hereby acknowledge your merit and correctness.

Tyrone Slothrop · 03-07-2005, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I was responding to a "why wasn't she fired" comment. I pointed out that the legal evironment currently holds her as a victim, for the reason I set out. You ran with that, as you are wont to do, somewhere else. So, yes, if you took my comment to mean that I believe that Elizabeth Dole invented Zoloft, or some other completely unrelated thing, I hereby acknowledge your merit and correctness.

I guess I wasn't clear what you were talking about, since you appeared to be responding to me, but all I said was that she wasn't his direct report. Perhaps we were both distracted by the outbreak of stupid socks. I thought Burger was asking why she wasn't named, and I assume it's because no one is interested in fucking up her life.

bilmore · 03-07-2005, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I guess I wasn't clear what you were talking about, since you appeared to be responding to me, but all I said was that she wasn't his direct report. Perhaps we were both distracted by the outbreak of stupid socks. I thought Burger was asking why she wasn't named, and I assume it's because no one is interested in fucking up her life.

Ships passing in the night.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 03-07-2005, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought Burger was asking why she wasn't named, and I assume it's because no one is interested in fucking up her life.

Given the ambiguity of the reasons for his termination, it's a reasonable question. If the policy is no intra-corporate affairs, why isn't she on the hook? Double standard?

Is the policy "you have to report any affairs if you're in x position" and she either reported it or isn't in x position? Then there's a reason.

Why are they interested in fucking up his life? They'll end up having to settle with him over the inevitable suit over whether the termination was for cause (assuming he hasn't settled already).

Didn't anyone see that terrible movie with michael douglas and demi moore?

Hank Chinaski · 03-07-2005, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Given the ambiguity of the reasons for his termination, it's a reasonable question. If the policy is no intra-corporate affairs, why isn't she on the hook? Double standard?

Is the policy "you have to report any affairs if you're in x position" and she either reported it or isn't in x position? Then there's a reason.

Why are they interested in fucking up his life? They'll end up having to settle with him over the inevitable suit over whether the termination was for cause (assuming he hasn't settled already).

Didn't anyone see that terrible movie with michael douglas and demi moore?

What f'ed up is because they are keeping her ID secret, we can't see photos. Did this pass the Victoria Principal principle? We may never know.