Fat hurts wrote:
The other smart thing to do is to use glass offices so only your conversation is private. Problem solved.
This. Or, failing glass walls, always keep your office door open and your desk situated so both individuals could be seen (though perhaps not heard) at any point by a random passerby.
Actually it seems like this is a good policy for *any* two people in a business setting, whether opposite sexes or not.
Racket wrote:
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?
Never. My view on gambling is not novel so no book is forthcoming. My view is just the correct one. I would not be that interested in discussing it except that several here (or at least one with several handles) are trying to get me to accept a bet, and I will not do that as I do not bet. Why do I not bet? Betting is low class.
Betting is way more accepted in our culture than it should be. It's low class, and we should avoid things that are low class...like people should avoid being gold-digging strumpets.
Fat hurts wrote:
P wrote:
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.
Those feeling that males and females should not meet alone in business must work in male dominated occupations.
Am I right?
Those working in setting with a gender balance wouldn't think that way....I believe.
Fat hurts wrote:
Shrugger wrote:
I get the caution of sexual harassment accusations.
But if you don't harass a woman, you're not going to be accused.
And if you fear false accusations, they can happen without meeting someone alone at all.
This policy says that you will give a man more access to communications than a woman.
Yeah, innocent people never get accused of things. Again, you have to live in the real world.
Face-to-face, one-on-one conversations are rare these days. It's even more rare that you really need to have this kind of conversation.
Nobody is getting hurt by being careful. And you avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
I clearly wrote that a person can be falsely accused of harassment without meeting them alone. So avoiding one-on-one meetings does not prevent a false accusation.
Innocent people are not usually accused of things, so acting appropriately is the best way to prevent any accusations.
And we are talking about a specific discrimination here.
A Republican candidate would not let a reporter cover his campaign trip because she was a woman.
But would allow a male reporter to do this.
Okay, now that we've beaten the dead horses and stomped on the hides a few times, can we get away from betting and one-on-ones and get back to the Trump Administration?
--
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.
I was trying to help you out, brother.
Using your own idiotic scenario:
Rush Limbaugh: "If the Affordable Care Act passes, I will move to Costa Rica."
Flagpole: "If Trump wins, I will stop posting here."
I assume you would say that Limbaugh "bet" that if the Affordable Care Act passed he would leave the U.S." LAMAO
Not a BET.
You can't admit when you are OBVIOUSLY wrong. It is clear that you are a VERY insecure person.
And the guy who brought up insurance as a bet is spot on. Confirms that you take part in low class activities. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Just Stop wrote:
By the way, I am wrong plenty and I own up to it every time I am.... .
If you were true to your "word" you would never have made a post on this thread. You have been wrong the entire time. A pathetic troll.
Just sayin'... wrote:
Okay, now that we've beaten the dead horses and stomped on the hides a few times, can we get away from betting and one-on-ones and get back to the Trump Administration?
--
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/07/12/house-passes-dollar733b-defense-bill-after-trump-threatens-veto/23768773/
That's unbelievable!
AOL is still around?
Yes? No? wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
By the way, I am wrong plenty and I own up to it every time I am.... .
If you were true to your "word" you would never have made a post on this thread. You have been wrong the entire time. A pathetic troll.
Never said that. Stop making up quotes.
Just Stop wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
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.
I was trying to help you out, brother.
Using your own idiotic scenario:
Rush Limbaugh: "If the Affordable Care Act passes, I will move to Costa Rica."
Flagpole: "If Trump wins, I will stop posting here."
I assume you would say that Limbaugh "bet" that if the Affordable Care Act passed he would leave the U.S." LAMAO
Not a BET.
You can't admit when you are OBVIOUSLY wrong. It is clear that you are a VERY insecure person.
And the guy who brought up insurance as a bet is spot on. Confirms that you take part in low class activities. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
It IS a bet. Someone is asking me prove my certainty that Trump will not win in 2020 to not post here anymore if Trump wins in 2020. THAT is a bet. I do not bet. Betting is low class.
I am not wrong. I would say so if I were wrong, but I am correct in this case. I am also not insecure at all, demonstrated by me mowing the front yard with my shirt off.
And another thing!!! (fake anger, because I don't get angry)
Buying insurance is not betting. That is a ridiculous position.
Just Stop wrote:
Yes? No? wrote:
If you were true to your "word" you would never have made a post on this thread. You have been wrong the entire time. A pathetic troll.
Never said that. Stop making up quotes.
You are too stupid to even read your own post.
Yes? No? wrote:
Just Stop wrote:
By the way, I am wrong plenty and I own up to it every time I am.... .
If you were true to your "word" you would never have made a post on this thread. You have been wrong the entire time. A pathetic troll.
Replay.
Yes? No? wrote:
Yes? No? wrote:
If you were true to your "word" you would never have made a post on this thread. You have been wrong the entire time. A pathetic troll.
Replay.
Okay. You caught me. I changed my post to attribute it to Flagpole. So what?
Flagpole wrote:
Just Stop wrote:
I was trying to help you out, brother.
Using your own idiotic scenario:
Rush Limbaugh: "If the Affordable Care Act passes, I will move to Costa Rica."
Flagpole: "If Trump wins, I will stop posting here."
I assume you would say that Limbaugh "bet" that if the Affordable Care Act passed he would leave the U.S." LAMAO
Not a BET.
You can't admit when you are OBVIOUSLY wrong. It is clear that you are a VERY insecure person.
And the guy who brought up insurance as a bet is spot on. Confirms that you take part in low class activities. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
It IS a bet. Someone is asking me prove my certainty that Trump will not win in 2020 to not post here anymore if Trump wins in 2020. THAT is a bet. I do not bet. Betting is low class.
I am not wrong. I would say so if I were wrong, but I am correct in this case. I am also not insecure at all, demonstrated by me mowing the front yard with my shirt off.
Who is asking you to prove your certainty?
Shrugger wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Yeah, innocent people never get accused of things. Again, you have to live in the real world.
Face-to-face, one-on-one conversations are rare these days. It's even more rare that you really need to have this kind of conversation.
Nobody is getting hurt by being careful. And you avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
I clearly wrote that a person can be falsely accused of harassment without meeting them alone. So avoiding one-on-one meetings does not prevent a false accusation.
Innocent people are not usually accused of things, so acting appropriately is the best way to prevent any accusations.
And we are talking about a specific discrimination here.
A Republican candidate would not let a reporter cover his campaign trip because she was a woman.
But would allow a male reporter to do this.
And I never said it would prevent ALL accusations of harassment. But it helps a lot.
And innocent people DO get accused of things all the time. What planet are you from?
This candidate would not allow this particular reporter to cover his campaign trip solely because she is a woman.
Flagpole wrote:
And another thing!!! (fake anger, because I don't get angry)
Buying insurance is not betting. That is a ridiculous position.
INCORRECT!
Shrugger wrote:
This candidate would not allow this particular reporter to cover his campaign trip solely because she is a woman.
She may cover his campaign. However, she has to agree to his conditions.
Big Difference.
Flagpole wrote:
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sounds like you are BETTING me that it was not you.
Low class.