^Flagpole in rapid fire mode.
LOL
^Flagpole in rapid fire mode.
LOL
weak sauce wrote:
P wrote:
Wow, unbelievable. Sorry, but the 1950's called. They want to call you back to a time where you might feel more comfortable.
You are basically saying that women have to have chaperones? Yeah, this modus operandi certainly will not cause women in general to be less successful in their professions! SMH
The less successful argument is so weak.
INCORRECT!
The less successful argument is 100% valid and extremely important. If you are unable to see this that suggests severe intellectual limitations on your part.
Somebody’s Daughter wrote:
P wrote:
This strikes me as absurd to the point of being not believable.
I have worked with men and women my entire (30+ year) career. Not once have I given it a second thought about meeting with a woman alone. Not once has the topic come up within any workplace that I have been involved with.
Glad you would have no issue with your daughter having closed door meetings with Trump, Biden, Clinton, or Epstein.
0/10
P wrote:
weak sauce wrote:
The less successful argument is so weak.
INCORRECT!
The less successful argument is 100% valid and extremely important. If you are unable to see this that suggests severe intellectual limitations on your part.
Prove it.
Fat hurts wrote:
P wrote:
Wow, unbelievable. Sorry, but the 1950's called. They want to call you back to a time where you might feel more comfortable.
You are basically saying that women have to have chaperones? Yeah, this modus operandi certainly will not cause women in general to be less successful in their professions! SMH
Sorry, but reality called. In 2019, both men and women need to protect themselves from potential lawsuits.
Look, I know that you are not the sharpest tool in the shed. But I am hopeful that even you have some capacity to see the obvious. Placing limitations on women in their professional lives such as this chaperone rule immediately relegates them to second class status. It is fundamentally no different than businessmen meeting at strip joints and golf courses where most women will not feel comfortable. Then, surprise, surprise, the men are more tied in with what is really going on in the company, establish more comfortable working relationships with their superiors and are much more likely to get the next promotion.
Sorry, dude, but your attitude belongs in the 1950's. And possibly in Trump country today.
corner office wrote:
P wrote:
INCORRECT!
The less successful argument is 100% valid and extremely important. If you are unable to see this that suggests severe intellectual limitations on your part.
Prove it.
See above post.
If you remain unable to see the obvious then the only logical conclusion is that you are simply not very bright.
corner office wrote:
Prove it.
Your corner office is located in the toilet room.
Flagpole wrote:
Actually, a bet does NOT require transfer of something of value to another person. It is ONLY a requirement that it be a RISK to you.
BUT, even if we were to accept your assertion (it's false), in this case, if I were to bet that I wouldn't post here anymore if Trump wins, then that would be a loss for me and a likely gain for the person who proposed the bet...because they don't want anti-Trump people posting here anymore.
When does your 300 page book on the ethics and phenomenology of gambling come out?
P wrote:
corner office wrote:
Prove it.
See above post.
If you remain unable to see the obvious then the only logical conclusion is that you are simply not very bright.
Nice story.
I’ll give you 1/10 for at least making it sound plausible.
P wrote:
corner office wrote:
Prove it.
See above post.
If you remain unable to see the obvious then the only logical conclusion is that you are simply not very bright.
That’s some well documented proof there brother.
This isn’t the 1950s when men dominated the workforce.
My advice is to stop watching “Anchorman.”
P wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Sorry, but reality called. In 2019, both men and women need to protect themselves from potential lawsuits.
Look, I know that you are not the sharpest tool in the shed. But I am hopeful that even you have some capacity to see the obvious. Placing limitations on women in their professional lives such as this chaperone rule immediately relegates them to second class status.
You can run this argument the other way to suggest that it's not women that need a chaperone, but the man. And inferring that a man needs a chaperone to meet professionally with a woman suggests he has no or little agency over his body and/or thoughts. Honestly there's just so many arguments you can build from the premise that it's tough to preempt them all.
corner office wrote:
... at least making it sound plausible.
You have no clue what "plausible" means.
Pudding wrote:
My advice is to stop watching “Anchorman.”
Never heard of that show? movie? whatever it is? You must watch it a lot.
You're in Good Hands wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
No...it is a bet.
A "pledge" is a solemn promise that you undertake that is not conditional. "I pledge to try to better understand all the stupid people on this site."
A "bet" is putting something of value up as collateral against an undetermined outcome of some event. If you have an action to make based on an outcome that you did not predict, THAT is a bet.
Betting is low class. I do not bet.
Not a big believer in insurance, eh?
A "bet" is putting something of value up as collateral...
Premium
...against an undetermined outcome of some event
The end of your life, for example.
If you have an action to make based on an outcome that you did not predict, THAT is a bet.
Voilà. Insurance is a bet.
You are going to argue that insurance is a bet? I would argue it is a bet NOT to have it. Besides, insurance of many kinds is required. Here in Ohio I am required to have auto insurance.
Insurance is not a bet.
Just Stop wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
No...it is a bet.
A "pledge" is a solemn promise that you undertake that is not conditional. "I pledge to try to better understand all the stupid people on this site."
A "bet" is putting something of value up as collateral against an undetermined outcome of some event. If you have an action to make based on an outcome that you did not predict, THAT is a bet.
Betting is low class. I do not bet.
Guys just stop.
Flagpole is never going to admit that he is wrong (and he is wrong).
He would never pledge, bet, agree to ever stop posting here anyway. It all he has. No family and no friends. He would just make a new name like Flagpole 2 and day the pledge, bet, agreement never included posting under another name or some weaslely excuse like he always comes up with.
So, please stop. Just sit back and laugh at him like the rest of us.
You want others to stop and yet you just posted that noise.
What is being asked of me is if I would bet my continued posting here against Trump winning in 2020...so that if Trump wins in 2020 I will no longer post here. That is not a "pledge". That is a bet. You can't just put in the word "pledge" and make it not a bet.
"Excuse me Mr. Bookie, I would like to 'pledge' $100 that Team X will beat Team Y."
By the way, I am wrong plenty and I own up to it every time I am. In this particular case, I am NOT wrong; I am correct.
I do not bet. Betting is low class.
True Sweester wrote:
^Flagpole in rapid fire mode.
LOL
Actually, that was a pretty good and correct post by that person, but that person is NOT me if that's what you are insinuating.
WEJO, DO AN IP CHECK, AND IF I LIE, BAN ME FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Flagpole wrote:
Just Stop wrote:
Guys just stop.
Flagpole is never going to admit that he is wrong (and he is wrong).
He would never pledge, bet, agree to ever stop posting here anyway. It all he has. No family and no friends. He would just make a new name like Flagpole 2 and day the pledge, bet, agreement never included posting under another name or some weaslely excuse like he always comes up with.
So, please stop. Just sit back and laugh at him like the rest of us.
You want others to stop and yet you just posted that noise.
What is being asked of me is if I would bet my continued posting here against Trump winning in 2020...so that if Trump wins in 2020 I will no longer post here. That is not a "pledge". That is a bet. You can't just put in the word "pledge" and make it not a bet.
"Excuse me Mr. Bookie, I would like to 'pledge' $100 that Team X will beat Team Y."
By the way, I am wrong plenty and I own up to it every time I am. In this particular case, I am NOT wrong; I am correct.
I do not bet. Betting is low class.
A pledge is nothing more than a solemn promise. Nothing more. Flagpole pledges to leave this site permanently if Trump wins re-election. Now isn't that easy? You are not betting on anything. You are making a pledge to leave this site forever if Trump wins. That is all. Make the pledge, Flagpole, if you have any balls.
P wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Sorry, but reality called. In 2019, both men and women need to protect themselves from potential lawsuits.
Look, I know that you are not the sharpest tool in the shed. But I am hopeful that even you have some capacity to see the obvious. Placing limitations on women in their professional lives such as this chaperone rule immediately relegates them to second class status. It is fundamentally no different than businessmen meeting at strip joints and golf courses where most women will not feel comfortable. Then, surprise, surprise, the men are more tied in with what is really going on in the company, establish more comfortable working relationships with their superiors and are much more likely to get the next promotion.
Sorry, dude, but your attitude belongs in the 1950's. And possibly in Trump country today.
Fine. Go have lots of closed-door private meetings with the opposite sex. Let the rumor mill go wild and let the lawsuits fly. It's your life.
It's not a rule. It's just the smart thing to do. Don't put yourself in a vulnerable position.
The other smart thing to do is to use glass offices so only your conversation is private. Problem solved.