RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Mon Aug 20, 2018 2:24 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 322 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 13  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:01 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10162
Yes, but I said removed or forced to resign?

Why won't you answer the question?


Because you are treating me as hostile witness. When you follow a question with the demand that the answer be given in a yes or no format that is treating someone poorly.

In a courtroom setting a lawyer has to ask a judge for permission to treat a witness hostile. The reason is because that form of questioning is hostile and if a witness hasn't been being hostile as well, question them in that fashion and they soon will become hostile.




Now that I have covered that issue, with regard to the question you asked. "Was he forced to resign?"

A yes or no answer will not answer that question. The situation is more complex than a simple yes or no will convey. There are several interconnecting parts.

It does not appear to me he had his position in the first place. That is to say he was temporally holding that position contingent upon being issued a security clearance. And he failed to get that security clearance. That doesn't seem to me to be situation of either being removed, or being forced to resign. He was unable to meet the requirements needed to fill that post permanently.

There was a cover up, the administration was pretending that an investigation for that the security clearance was still on going when in fact it had been completed, and they were stonewalling to keep him in that post he was not able to fill.

Then there is the issue of why, complicated by why now. Was it because news of what his former spouses had told the FBI leaked into the press embarrassing the administration. Is that why, and why it was now?

And/or was it because the administration could no longer pretend that he ever would get that security clearance, and then be able to move into his job in a permanent way?

And/or was because he did to his former spouses what they have said he did and that is so awful he had to go?

In it's full complexity some of all three possibilities are allowed to coexist, each being a part and factor of the whole.




Isn't that a more complete, better, answer than a simple yes or no answer you demanded would have been? :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:04 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36257
No, it's obfuscation that's Trumpian. And quit playing the victim card.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:09 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10162
OK, I'm done, looser.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:34 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36257
OK, I'm done, looser.

Play the victim card and run away!

If you can't run with the Big Dogs, get under the porch.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:37 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6338

Because you are treating me as hostile witness. When you follow a question with the demand that the answer be given in a yes or no format that is treating someone poorly.

In a courtroom setting a lawyer has to ask a judge for permission to treat a witness hostile. The reason is because that form of questioning is hostile and if a witness hasn't been being hostile as well, question them in that fashion and they soon will become hostile.




Now that I have covered that issue, with regard to the question you asked. "Was he forced to resign?"

A yes or no answer will not answer that question. The situation is more complex than a simple yes or no will convey. There are several interconnecting parts.

It does not appear to me he had his position in the first place. That is to say he was temporally holding that position contingent upon being issued a security clearance. And he failed to get that security clearance. That doesn't seem to me to be situation of either being removed, or being forced to resign. He was unable to meet the requirements needed to fill that post permanently.

There was a cover up, the administration was pretending that an investigation for that the security clearance was still on going when in fact it had been completed, and they were stonewalling to keep him in that post he was not able to fill.

Then there is the issue of why, complicated by why now. Was it because news of what his former spouses had told the FBI leaked into the press embarrassing the administration. Is that why, and why it was now?

And/or was it because the administration could no longer pretend that he ever would get that security clearance, and then be able to move into his job in a permanent way?

And/or was because he did to his former spouses what they have said he did and that is so awful he had to go?

In it's full complexity some of all three possibilities are allowed to coexist, each being a part and factor of the whole.




Isn't that a more complete, better, answer than a simple yes or no answer you demanded would have been? :D


I understood it. Maybe it's too "nuanced" for some folks? Truth is you can't always answer questions related to human beings and human conditions with a "yes" or "no" answer. Do you want ice cream is a "yes" or "no" question? Should someone lose their job? Depends on the circumstances.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:46 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10162
Play the victim card and run away!

If you can't run with the Big Dogs, get under the porch.


Big Dog.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:50 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10162

I understood it. Maybe it's too "nuanced" for some folks? Truth is you can't always answer questions related to human beings and human conditions with a "yes" or "no" answer. Do you want ice cream is a "yes" or "no" question? Should someone lose their job? Depends on the circumstances.


Thanks Joe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:50 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36257

Big Dog.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Translation: "I've got nothin'!"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:52 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6338

Big Dog.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Some of the dumbest dogs at the dog park are big dogs. Not a great analogy IMO. I've watched my 16lb border terrier back up a great dane.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:53 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36257

I understood it. Maybe it's too "nuanced" for some folks? Truth is you can't always answer questions related to human beings and human conditions with a "yes" or "no" answer. Do you want ice cream is a "yes" or "no" question? Should someone lose their job? Depends on the circumstances.

Joe, you have to look at it in context of this post:

I'm becoming better at resisting the temptation to speculate about whether the charges these women bring are valid or invalid. At first i did a little of that. But then I realized that I can't possibly read an article or two about it and know.

I stand for due process. Neither believing or disbelieving anyone. I say allow due process of courts of law to sort out the evidence. I'm done with calling for people to resign or be fired based upon an unruly mob's suspicion.


It said it's all "unruly mobs" - oh, and that's what he called me.

I asked if, in light of this, he felt that Weinstein and Wynn should have lost their jobs, then? I also asked about Portman.

He still hasn't answered the questions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:54 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36257

Some of the dumbest dogs at the dog park are big dogs. Not a great analogy IMO. I've watched my 16lb border terrier back up a great dane.

If he can't handle the heat of simple questions, he really doesn't belong here. I don't have a problem justifying my views, and asking questions based upon them.

Sam can't handle it. He starts whining about how he's treated.

He didn't answer my questions at all - now he's dancing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:04 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6338
Joe, you have to look at it in context of this post:



It said it's all "unruly mobs" - oh, and that's what he called me.

I asked if, in light of this, he felt that Weinstein and Wynn should have lost their jobs, then? I also asked about Portman.

He still hasn't answered the questions.


I have terminated a few folks in my time as I imagine you have as well. Often what is said or known to outsiders isn't the whole truth or all the facts. Whether somebody should lose their job or not depends on the facts some of which may not be public knowledge. That is a question for whomever the employer might be and who and what he/she chooses to believe. Weinstein and Wynn answer to boards and investors and they make that decision. In Portman's case he resigned. If he was forced to resign then that was the Chief of Staff or Potus's decision. This isn't a criminal case. It's an employment decision. That's what management gets paid to do.

I thought Sam's answer was on point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:32 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 17000

I have terminated a few folks in my time as I imagine you have as well. Often what is said or known to outsiders isn't the whole truth or all the facts. Whether somebody should lose their job or not depends on the facts some of which may not be public knowledge.


Ding ding ding we have a winnah!

How come you guys whining about #metoo believe these people are getting canned based solely on what the public knows?

Have you canned somebody based on less than the facts?

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:34 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10162

Some of the dumbest dogs at the dog park are big dogs. Not a great analogy IMO. I've watched my 16lb border terrier back up a great dane.


I've never been to a dog park. But I get your drift.

I think he actually thinks folks are awed and cowered by his bark. I don't think he's doing a pulling our leg kind of a comedy routine gag act thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:48 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6338

Ding ding ding we have a winnah!

How come you guys whining about #metoo believe these people are getting canned based solely on what the public knows?

Have you canned somebody based on less than the facts?


First, I have not complained one time about #metoo so maybe you should direct that part of your question elsewhere.

Second, as a young manager I became angry and terminated someone on the spot. I have always regretted that decision. I might have terminated this individual anyway but I do not believe in making those decisions while you are angry. So I do not know if I had all the facts because I didn't give the man a chance to explain himself. I told myself that I would never make that mistake again and I never have.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:52 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 17000

First, I have not complained one time about #metoo so maybe you should direct that part of your question elsewhere.

Second, as a young manager I became angry and terminated someone on the spot. I have always regretted that decision. I might have terminated this individual anyway but I do not believe in making those decisions while you are angry. So I do not know if I had all the facts because I didn't give the man a chance to explain himself. I told myself that I would never make that mistake again and I never have.


Uh-huh.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:05 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36257

I have terminated a few folks in my time as I imagine you have as well.

No, I haven't, hope I never do. But one of my best managers once told me if he had to terminate someone, it was as much his fault as theirs. A great manager brings the best out in employees.
Quote:
Often what is said or known to outsiders isn't the whole truth or all the facts. Whether somebody should lose their job or not depends on the facts some of which may not be public knowledge. That is a question for whomever the employer might be and who and what he/she chooses to believe. Weinstein and Wynn answer to boards and investors and they make that decision. In Portman's case he resigned. If he was forced to resign then that was the Chief of Staff or Potus's decision. This isn't a criminal case. It's an employment decision. That's what management gets paid to do.

I thought Sam's answer was on point.

Not in the context of his earlier post that I reposted. He didn't want ANYTHING to happen to a male unless he was convicted in court.

Makes it kind of hard to fires someone then, doesn't it? Gotta have a court case before you can fire someone for sexually harassing a woman. That's what he said.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:10 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6338
No, I haven't, hope I never do. But one of my best managers once told me if he had to terminate someone, it was as much his fault as theirs. A great manager brings the best out in employees.

Not in the context of his earlier post that I reposted. He didn't want ANYTHING to happen to a male unless he was convicted in court.

Makes it kind of hard to fires someone then, doesn't it? Gotta have a court case before you can fire someone for sexually harassing a woman. That's what he said.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:19 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6338
Terminations are hard as they represent failures. Sometimes it's the manager. Sometimes the employee. Sometimes both. Not all relationships work.

As far as your second paragraph on Sam. I think his last post should clear up any questions about where he stands. It's okay to say there should be a process. That everyone deserves a chance to defend themselves. Even guilty people. And you shouldn't just fire someone based upon what other people may think. Who could argue with that? But sometimes those decisions must get made. It's part of managements job to make them. Not the public. I am not saying that public opinion isn't sometimes a factor or that life is fair. It isn't. But as a manager you do your best to strike that balance.

JMHO


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:47 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 17000
Terminations are hard as they represent failures. Sometimes it's the manager. Sometimes the employee. Sometimes both. Not all relationships work.

As far as your second paragraph on Sam. I think his last post should clear up any questions about where he stands. It's okay to say there should be a process. That everyone deserves a chance to defend themselves. Even guilty people. And you shouldn't just fire someone based upon what other people may think. Who could argue with that? But sometimes those decisions must get made. It's part of managements job to make them. Not the public. I am not saying that public opinion isn't sometimes a factor or that life is fair. It isn't. But as a manager you do your best to strike that balance.

JMHO


"The public" can't fire anybody, Joe. It's not possible.

"The public doesn't fire people, people in management fire people."
-- very famous saying

:problem:

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:52 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6338

"The public" can't fire anybody, Joe. It's not possible.

"The public doesn't fire people, people in management fire people."
-- very famous saying

:problem:


That's pretty much what I said. Happy to know that you agree.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:59 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 17000

That's pretty much what I said. Happy to know that you agree.


We do not agree. "The public" hasn't made any decisions to fire anybody, so this bit: "It's part of managements job to make them. Not the public." is pure red herring.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:19 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6338

We do not agree. "The public" hasn't made any decisions to fire anybody, so this bit: "It's part of managements job to make them. Not the public." is pure red herring.


Carmen
I was making the same point you made. Hence the sentence "It's part of managements job to make them." So we agree. Whether you like it or not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:20 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 17000

Carmen
I was making the same point you made. Hence the sentence "It's part of managements job to make them." So we agree. Whether you like it or not.


Yeah, you don't get it, any more than you get the word "no".

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:25 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6338

Yeah, you don't get it, any more than you get the word "no".


Carmen
At least I can read. I can't help that you have trouble in this area. Take some classes.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 322 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 13  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: glenfs, Google [Bot], Libertas, Majestic-12 [Bot], marindem, ZoWie and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group