FREE TAPATALK APP

gumboot · 27th December 2012, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

eta: and at the bottom Australia has 105,000 homeless people on any given day, or .46% of the population. The US has 650,000 homeless on any given day, or .22% of the population. So per capita Australia has twice as many homeless as the US does.

These are not meaningful comparisons. The Australian homeless statistics include people in circumstances that do not constitute "homelessness" under the US definition. For example Secondary Homeless people in Australia represent 37% of all homeless people in Australia, and Tertiary Homeless people represent 45% of all homeless people. Neither groups are included in the US homeless figure cited by you.

In the United States, the 1.56 million people who would constitute Secondary Homeless in Australia are in addition to the 650,000 statistical homeless people (who in essence are comparable with Primary Homeless people in Australia).

If we compare like with like, the Australian homeless figure is more like 18,900 people or 0.08% of the total population.

Belz... · 27th December 2012, 03:37 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Yeah, that's the "how to fire an employee" propaganda they teach in HR classes. And I imagine very rarely it may happen. But honestly, I've seen employers do it to people they've worked with and known personally for years. It's a bit paranoid IMO.

Would you take the chance ?

Belz... · 27th December 2012, 03:41 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You don't see the point of removing the temptation?

Humans are not candy. Removing the temptation of candy is not like removing someone from their source of income.

Quote:

People do not all have the same abilities.

Tough.

Quote:

And yet people in the thread act like he's the scum of the Earth.

Ridiculous hyperbole doesn't help the discussion.

Belz... · 27th December 2012, 03:42 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

Scum of the earth for mine.

Ah, I stand corrected. Not a hyperbole.

Belz... · 27th December 2012, 03:45 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

No, more strawman arguments. We are not talking about your life experience. We are discussing a specific court case. We are discussing law.

I understood that we were, amongst other things, discussing what is professional discussions in the workplace. Ginger was talking about that, so I don't see why it's suddenly off-topic to you.

You simply don't seem to understand that people discuss all sorts of personal and/or weird things in the workplace.

Belz... · 27th December 2012, 03:52 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Except the people I'm addressing have specifically criticized the court opinion.

Yes, as being wrong, not illegal.

Originally Posted by WildCat

It would be wrong for the court to rule in anything but a legal sense. Would you want courts to rule according to the emotions of the judges as opposed to the law?

Who said that ?

Dancing David · 27th December 2012, 03:58 AM

Originally Posted by Stout

What's special about this bloke is how he behaved like he was in a confessional booth and freely admitted to behaviour which is/was getting him crucified in both the media and forums like this.

And the basis in law for her suit is?

Dancing David · 27th December 2012, 04:03 AM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

^ This. Pretty much this.

I don't argue against the fact that he acted within the law when firing the girl. But that was far from solving the problem with his marriage.

Sure, but unfortunately that is always the issue with some employers, many are decent hard working individuals. Many are also lazy, capricious, abusive and engage is fraudulent shenanigans, then the conservative media echo chamber will talk about the 'efficiency of the marketplace', when it comes to management decisions.

truethat · 27th December 2012, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

I understood that we were, amongst other things, discussing what is professional discussions in the workplace. Ginger was talking about that, so I don't see why it's suddenly off-topic to you.

You simply don't seem to understand that people discuss all sorts of personal and/or weird things in the workplace.

I do understand that. Sexual harassment law is designed around that idea, that sexual banter would not be considered harassment if both parties participated.

I do understand that people talk in a low class sexual way at work. However it's illegal to do this and unfair to the other employees in the office.

Most people don't try to sue someone over it. Now in her case she's suing and this is what is bogus in my opinion. Basically she acted like a trashy ho at work and then tried to turn around and play victim.

If you discuss your sex life with your boss at work and take it in a personal direction and don't tel him that discussing his erections with you is not ok, you've crossed a boundary into unprofessionalism. If you get fired, not only do you deserve it, you have noone to blame but yourself.

angrysoba · 27th December 2012, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

I do understand that. Sexual harassment law is designed around that idea, that sexual banter would not be considered harassment if both parties participated.

I do understand that people talk in a low class sexual way at work. However it's illegal to do this and unfair to the other employees in the office.

It's illegal to talk in a low class sexual way?

Originally Posted by truethat

Most people don't try to sue someone over it. Now in her case she's suing and this is what is bogus in my opinion. Basically she acted like a trashy ho at work and then tried to turn around and play victim.

If you discuss your sex life with your boss at work and take it in a personal direction and don't tel him that discussing his erections with you is not ok, you've crossed a boundary into unprofessionalism. If you get fired, not only do you deserve it, you have noone to blame but yourself.

I think if he initiated sexual talk and she didn't object then it should be no problem, right?

If she reciprocates the sexual talk, then surely she would presume he wouldn't object either. Right?

Seems unfair of him to fire her, instead. And it seems you support her being fired for talking like a "trashy ho".

Is he not a trashy boss for engaging in the talk in the first place and then firing her when she followed his lead?

halleyscomet · 27th December 2012, 09:47 AM

Consequences will never be the same. The Yelp reviews of James H Knight, DDS have been dominated with discussion of his need to fire a woman because he finds her attractive.

For example:

Quote:

Los Angeles, CA
1.0 star rating
12/24/2012

I concur with the the reviews against Him based that He actually admitted in Court the rationale behind Her firing was due to,"...having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it..." That's pretty high on the Creepy Dentist Scale?
So, what He's admitting is that if you're an attractive woman or mildly attractive man, you may....be assaulted while under anesthetic because He becomes overly excited?
And He may attempt to "drive You"? Not the kind of Guy you'd want to have His fingers
roaming around Your mouth? Who knows where they might have been?

Here's a suggestion,.anyone who happens to be one of His patients may want to
contact Him and discuss His lack of Self-Control. In the mean time, seriously, find yourself another dentist.

Quote:

This dentist seems to think he can't control his own sexual desires, so instead he just fires an employee because she's attractive! He admits all of this in court and still won! As a woman, I would NEVER go to a dentist who admits to be so self-centered and blameless as this douche. What if he has an attractive patient and can't control himself then? What if she's under anesthesia, will he also blame the patient for dressing too provacitively?? What a slimeball

Stout · 27th December 2012, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by halleyscomet

Consequences will never be the same. The Yelp reviews of James H Knight, DDS have been dominated with discussion of his need to fire a woman because he finds her attractive.

For example:

Excellent !!!

Maybe all those out of state reviews will force this doofus to shut down his practice abd take early retirement. Then everybody else in the office can be unemployed ( or waiting tables ) too.

Social justice for the win !!!

Janadele · 27th December 2012, 10:47 AM

Well said:

Originally Posted by truethat

...
Most people don't try to sue someone over it. Now in her case she's suing and this is what is bogus in my opinion. Basically she acted like a trashy ho at work and then tried to turn around and play victim.

If you discuss your sex life with your boss at work and take it in a personal direction and don't tel him that discussing his erections with you is not ok, you've crossed a boundary into unprofessionalism. If you get fired, not only do you deserve it, you have noone to blame but yourself.

WildCat · 27th December 2012, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by gumboot

Deal with the situation as a responsible business owner.

Which is exactly what he did. When owners and/or employees have a clash and one of them has to go, it's not going to be the business owner or his wife.

WildCat · 27th December 2012, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Yes, as being wrong, not illegal.

Who said that ?

You just said that... in this very post!

Unless you have a legal reason the court was wrong? If not, the court was right. Unless you're claiming courts should rule not according to law, but according to personal morals. But you just said no one was doing that...

WildCat · 27th December 2012, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Sure, but unfortunately that is always the issue with some employers, many are decent hard working individuals. Many are also lazy, capricious, abusive and engage is fraudulent shenanigans, then the conservative media echo chamber will talk about the 'efficiency of the marketplace', when it comes to management decisions.

The efficiency of the marketplace does not in any way, shape, or form imply that management will always make the right decisions.

What it does guarantee is that prices, supply, and demand will be in balance.

truethat · 27th December 2012, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

It's illegal to talk in a low class sexual way?

It can be. You can sue the company for damages. Most people don't. This is why this story is interesting to me because technically the wife could sue him for sexual harassment. Keep in mind that although both the doctor and Ms. Nelson were willing participants their behavior created a hostile work environment for the other women in the office.

Quote:

I think if he initiated sexual talk and she didn't object then it should be no problem, right?

If she reciprocates the sexual talk, then surely she would presume he wouldn't object either. Right?

Seems unfair of him to fire her, instead. And it seems you support her being fired for talking like a "trashy ho".

Is he not a trashy boss for engaging in the talk in the first place and then firing her when she followed his lead?

You are only looking at them in the situation. There were other women working in the office, including his wife. Both of their behaviors were unprofessional and created a hostile work environment for the others there. And yes I think an employee who talks to her immediate supervisor about her sex life should be fired.

He's also a trashy boss. She should be fired and he should be sued for sexual harassment by the other women in the office.

He fired her and she deserved to be fired. Her law suit is what makes me have no sympathy.\

Also what is this 'following his lead" crap? Why do people always paint women as simpering victims and men as perpetrators. They are both scum in this position. But she deserved to be fired, her lawsuit was obviously some attempt at retaliation for getting fired. I am pretty sure her lawyer told her to play the law suit this way and that originally she wanted to sue for sexual harassment, but when he told her that her behavior was complicit she realized she didn't have a case.

What exactly is she trying to sue him for? Money?

WildCat · 27th December 2012, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Seems unfair of him to fire her, instead. And it seems you support her being fired for talking like a "trashy ho".

Is he not a trashy boss for engaging in the talk in the first place and then firing her when she followed his lead?

You think he should fire himself instead?

Then everyone loses their jobs. I don't think you've thought through how this works in a sole proprietership business.

3point14 · 27th December 2012, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You see my point you just don't see my point.

Pure straw, not what I said at all.

And?

One way to resist the temptation is to remove it.

The world according to the morally righteous among us?

A straw man and a hypothetical not under consideration in this incident.

More preaching from the morally righteous among us?

No preaching, just an opinion.

I believe that when a man gives his word (like a vow of marriage) he should stick to it.

I believe there is no such thing as an irresistible woman (or man).

I think sacking a co-worker with the excuse that he could not control himself is the act of a douche.

I just think that a man should keep to his given word, if that makes me morally righteous, then so be it.

This man gave his word in some sort of solemn ceremony, probably in front of many friends and relations and now he's found out that he's not capable of self control? I still think he's a douche.

Skeptic Ginger · 27th December 2012, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Ah, I stand corrected. Not a hyperbole.

Not mine anyway.

Titanic Explorer · 27th December 2012, 11:06 AM

Does this mean people can also be fired for being too ugly?

Skeptic Ginger · 27th December 2012, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Which is exactly what he did. When owners and/or employees have a clash and one of them has to go, it's not going to be the business owner or his wife.

Miracle of all miracles. You've said one of those rare things I agree with.

I can't imagine the atmosphere of that workplace if the dentist allowed it to continue. The wife hates the employee, the employer is distracted by the employee and worried every comment will be misinterpreted by the wife. And the employee, either being told why and becoming nervous of both, or not being told and wondering what the heck was going on.

Keep it in his pants and deal with it indeed.

Skeptic Ginger · 27th December 2012, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

It can be.

Right. But that doesn't mean it always is.

Originally Posted by truethat

You are only looking at them in the situation. There were other women working in the office, including his wife. Both of their behaviors were unprofessional and created a hostile work environment for the others there....

It might have. But you don't know that and it wouldn't always be the case.

We're all going by what we perceive workplaces to be like. I've seen some where people talk about some pretty risque stuff and everyone contributes and laughs. It depends on the people and the number of employees and the setting.

Skeptic Ginger · 27th December 2012, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Titanic Explorer

Does this mean people can also be fired for being too ugly?

That happens but it's usually that they don't get hired in the first place.

truethat · 27th December 2012, 11:14 AM

Why do you even bother replying? LOL Of COURSE it may not always be the case.

Skeptic Ginger · 27th December 2012, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by 3point14

No preaching, just an opinion.

I believe that when a man gives his word (like a vow of marriage) he should stick to it.

I believe there is no such thing as an irresistible woman (or man).

I think sacking a co-worker with the excuse that he could not control himself is the act of a douche.

I just think that a man should keep to his given word, if that makes me morally righteous, then so be it.

This man gave his word in some sort of solemn ceremony, probably in front of many friends and relations and now he's found out that he's not capable of self control? I still think he's a douche.

Preaching your opinion is more like it. Your opinion is morals sans reality.

Skeptic Ginger · 27th December 2012, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

...
What it does guarantee is that prices, supply, and demand will be in balance.

There's the old WildCat I know and never agree with.

Only theoretically, in reality it doesn't work that way. Prices all too often don't reflect true costs, among other things. [/sidetrack]

3point14 · 27th December 2012, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Preaching your opinion is more like it. Your opinion is morals sans reality.

Hardly preaching, you don't need to read it. There's an ignore button.

This place is for opinions. It hardly achieves much else other than as a willy waving contest for intellectuals of all creeds.

Bottom line is this:

A man can control his own actions.

This man's actions were predicated on him not being able to control his actions.

I believe that if he genuinely cannot control his own actions he needs to seek psychological help to stop him being a danger to society.

truethat · 27th December 2012, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Preaching your opinion is more like it. Your opinion is morals sans reality.

I'm just curious why you think your reality is everyone else's? Just because you think it's fine to talk to men you work with about their penis, erections and your sex life doesn't mean that others think it's reality.

I personally know many people both men and women who would be very very offended to see this kind of conversation at work. Responsible mature professionals don't behave this way at work.

You also said you are not married and that's a big difference. Have you ever been married? Would you think it's ok to talk to your boss about your sex life when you are married?

The moral issue comes from being married. But the professional issue has nothing to do with that. If you speak like this at work all the time let me reassure you that the "reality" is that many people at your job probably think your behavior is trashy, unprofessional and not wanted. They probably don't want to get involved but are uncomfortable. (ETA this is not directed at you specifically but you in general)

You need to take your blinders off.

Skeptic Ginger · 27th December 2012, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

Why do you even bother replying? LOL Of COURSE it may not always be the case.

Show me the post you wrote before this one where you admitted it wasn't always the case. I missed it.

truethat · 27th December 2012, 11:23 AM

Again common sense dear. I didn't realize everything needed to be spelled out for you. Mea culpa.

WildCat · 27th December 2012, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

There's the old WildCat I know and never agree with.

Only theoretically, in reality it doesn't work that way. Prices all too often don't reflect true costs, among other things. [/sidetrack]

Prices often don't reflect actual costs, let alone some arbitrarily assigned "true cost". In times of glut goods may be sold for less than it cost to produce them, in times of shortage they can be sold for much more.

But that's for another thread.

WildCat · 27th December 2012, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by 3point14

Hardly preaching, you don't need to read it. There's an ignore button.

This place is for opinions. It hardly achieves much else other than as a willy waving contest for intellectuals of all creeds.

Bottom line is this:

A man can control his own actions.

This man's actions were predicated on him not being able to control his actions.

I believe that if he genuinely cannot control his own actions he needs to seek psychological help to stop him being a danger to society.

Why do you keep ignoring the role of the wife in this? None of this was an issue until the wife found out.

lionking · 27th December 2012, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by halleyscomet

Consequences will never be the same. The Yelp reviews of James H Knight, DDS have been dominated with discussion of his need to fire a woman because he finds her attractive.

For example:

Good points you quoted. I hope to see a boycott of this unprofessional, juvenile dentist

Morrigan · 27th December 2012, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by truethat

Again common sense dear. I didn't realize everything needed to be spelled out for you. Mea culpa.

Could you try to sound more condescending?

3point14 · 27th December 2012, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Why do you keep ignoring the role of the wife in this? None of this was an issue until the wife found out.

As far as I'm aware, she didn't fire the lady, he did. Someone suggested upthread that because they were married she part owned the company. I haven't seen any evidence of that, but I wouldn't rule it out completely.

SezMe · 27th December 2012, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Show me the post you wrote before this one where you admitted it wasn't always the case. I missed it.

Originally Posted by truethat

Again common sense dear.

SG, I restate my previous post to help you respond to this.

Originally Posted by SezMe

You've used that phrase several times in this thread. It appears that you mean:

common sense = my opinion.

Repeatedly using the phrase adds nothing to the discussion.

truethat · 27th December 2012, 02:28 PM

No common sense doesn't mean my opinion. But what is fun about deductions is that every time you or lionking post in a thread it generally will be a personal attack towards me and nothing at all to do at the conversation. I predict it before I even open the thread. LOL

I will say this, if it isn't obvious to you that we are discussing generalities in this case outside of the specifics of the actual case, and you don't realize that when discussing generalities there are no absolutes, I feel very very sorry for you. If it isn't common sense to know that no one in this thread or on this site means "every single time forever and ever" then I don't know what to tell you.

Sad.

gumboot · 27th December 2012, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Which is exactly what he did. When owners and/or employees have a clash and one of them has to go, it's not going to be the business owner or his wife.

The employment contract is between the dentist and his employee. It has nothing to do with his wife. The dentist allowed his personal life to interfere with the operation of his business. That is by definition unprofessional.

One of the advantages of a country that doesn't permit at-will employment is that business owners are forced to be responsible and professional in their conduct.

Skeptic Ginger · 27th December 2012, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

SG, I restate my previous post to help you respond to this.

Thank you, and Morrigan as well. I try to ignore the irrelevant condescension.

27th December 2012, 12:56 AM	#321
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,196	Originally Posted by WildCat eta: and at the bottom Australia has 105,000 homeless people on any given day, or .46% of the population. The US has 650,000 homeless on any given day, or .22% of the population. So per capita Australia has twice as many homeless as the US does. These are not meaningful comparisons. The Australian homeless statistics include people in circumstances that do not constitute "homelessness" under the US definition. For example Secondary Homeless people in Australia represent 37% of all homeless people in Australia, and Tertiary Homeless people represent 45% of all homeless people. Neither groups are included in the US homeless figure cited by you. In the United States, the 1.56 million people who would constitute Secondary Homeless in Australia are in addition to the 650,000 statistical homeless people (who in essence are comparable with Primary Homeless people in Australia). If we compare like with like, the Australian homeless figure is more like 18,900 people or 0.08% of the total population.
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

27th December 2012, 03:37 AM	#322
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,980	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Yeah, that's the "how to fire an employee" propaganda they teach in HR classes. And I imagine very rarely it may happen. But honestly, I've seen employers do it to people they've worked with and known personally for years. It's a bit paranoid IMO. Would you take the chance ?
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za. "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey

27th December 2012, 03:41 AM	#323
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,980	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger You don't see the point of removing the temptation? Humans are not candy. Removing the temptation of candy is not like removing someone from their source of income. Quote: People do not all have the same abilities. Tough. Quote: And yet people in the thread act like he's the scum of the Earth. Ridiculous hyperbole doesn't help the discussion.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za. "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey

27th December 2012, 03:42 AM	#324
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,980	Originally Posted by lionking Scum of the earth for mine. Ah, I stand corrected. Not a hyperbole.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za. "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey

27th December 2012, 03:45 AM	#325
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,980	Originally Posted by truethat No, more strawman arguments. We are not talking about your life experience. We are discussing a specific court case. We are discussing law. I understood that we were, amongst other things, discussing what is professional discussions in the workplace. Ginger was talking about that, so I don't see why it's suddenly off-topic to you. You simply don't seem to understand that people discuss all sorts of personal and/or weird things in the workplace.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za. "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey

27th December 2012, 03:52 AM	#326
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,980	Originally Posted by WildCat Except the people I'm addressing have specifically criticized the court opinion. Yes, as being wrong, not illegal. Originally Posted by WildCat It would be wrong for the court to rule in anything but a legal sense. Would you want courts to rule according to the emotions of the judges as opposed to the law? Who said that ?
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za. "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey Last edited by Belz...; 27th December 2012 at 03:54 AM.

27th December 2012, 03:58 AM	#327
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,931	Originally Posted by Stout What's special about this bloke is how he behaved like he was in a confessional booth and freely admitted to behaviour which is/was getting him crucified in both the media and forums like this. And the basis in law for her suit is?
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

27th December 2012, 04:03 AM	#328
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,931	Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins ^ This. Pretty much this. I don't argue against the fact that he acted within the law when firing the girl. But that was far from solving the problem with his marriage. Sure, but unfortunately that is always the issue with some employers, many are decent hard working individuals. Many are also lazy, capricious, abusive and engage is fraudulent shenanigans, then the conservative media echo chamber will talk about the 'efficiency of the marketplace', when it comes to management decisions.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

27th December 2012, 06:18 AM	#329
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Originally Posted by Belz... I understood that we were, amongst other things, discussing what is professional discussions in the workplace. Ginger was talking about that, so I don't see why it's suddenly off-topic to you. You simply don't seem to understand that people discuss all sorts of personal and/or weird things in the workplace. I do understand that. Sexual harassment law is designed around that idea, that sexual banter would not be considered harassment if both parties participated. I do understand that people talk in a low class sexual way at work. However it's illegal to do this and unfair to the other employees in the office. Most people don't try to sue someone over it. Now in her case she's suing and this is what is bogus in my opinion. Basically she acted like a trashy ho at work and then tried to turn around and play victim. If you discuss your sex life with your boss at work and take it in a personal direction and don't tel him that discussing his erections with you is not ok, you've crossed a boundary into unprofessionalism. If you get fired, not only do you deserve it, you have noone to blame but yourself.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	__________________ “Now I understand what is so intriguing about Zombie themed movies. When the pile on of stupid begins it's like being trapped in a Zombie movie. Seemingly normal people have suddenly turned into brainless gobs of hostility” ― Dan

27th December 2012, 07:29 AM	#330
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,889	Originally Posted by truethat I do understand that. Sexual harassment law is designed around that idea, that sexual banter would not be considered harassment if both parties participated. I do understand that people talk in a low class sexual way at work. However it's illegal to do this and unfair to the other employees in the office. It's illegal to talk in a low class sexual way? Originally Posted by truethat Most people don't try to sue someone over it. Now in her case she's suing and this is what is bogus in my opinion. Basically she acted like a trashy ho at work and then tried to turn around and play victim. If you discuss your sex life with your boss at work and take it in a personal direction and don't tel him that discussing his erections with you is not ok, you've crossed a boundary into unprofessionalism. If you get fired, not only do you deserve it, you have noone to blame but yourself. I think if he initiated sexual talk and she didn't object then it should be no problem, right? If she reciprocates the sexual talk, then surely she would presume he wouldn't object either. Right? Seems unfair of him to fire her, instead. And it seems you support her being fired for talking like a "trashy ho". Is he not a trashy boss for engaging in the talk in the first place and then firing her when she followed his lead?

27th December 2012, 09:47 AM	#331
halleyscomet Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 435	Consequences will never be the same. The Yelp reviews of James H Knight, DDS have been dominated with discussion of his need to fire a woman because he finds her attractive. For example: Quote: Los Angeles, CA 1.0 star rating 12/24/2012 I concur with the the reviews against Him based that He actually admitted in Court the rationale behind Her firing was due to,"...having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it..." That's pretty high on the Creepy Dentist Scale? So, what He's admitting is that if you're an attractive woman or mildly attractive man, you may....be assaulted while under anesthetic because He becomes overly excited? And He may attempt to "drive You"? Not the kind of Guy you'd want to have His fingers roaming around Your mouth? Who knows where they might have been? Here's a suggestion,.anyone who happens to be one of His patients may want to contact Him and discuss His lack of Self-Control. In the mean time, seriously, find yourself another dentist. Quote: This dentist seems to think he can't control his own sexual desires, so instead he just fires an employee because she's attractive! He admits all of this in court and still won! As a woman, I would NEVER go to a dentist who admits to be so self-centered and blameless as this douche. What if he has an attractive patient and can't control himself then? What if she's under anesthesia, will he also blame the patient for dressing too provacitively?? What a slimeball

27th December 2012, 10:40 AM	#332
Stout Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 2,008	Originally Posted by halleyscomet Consequences will never be the same. The Yelp reviews of James H Knight, DDS have been dominated with discussion of his need to fire a woman because he finds her attractive. For example: Excellent !!! Maybe all those out of state reviews will force this doofus to shut down his practice abd take early retirement. Then everybody else in the office can be unemployed ( or waiting tables ) too. Social justice for the win !!!

27th December 2012, 10:47 AM	#333
Janadele Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: East Coast Australia Posts: 1,745	Well said: Originally Posted by truethat ... Most people don't try to sue someone over it. Now in her case she's suing and this is what is bogus in my opinion. Basically she acted like a trashy ho at work and then tried to turn around and play victim. If you discuss your sex life with your boss at work and take it in a personal direction and don't tel him that discussing his erections with you is not ok, you've crossed a boundary into unprofessionalism. If you get fired, not only do you deserve it, you have noone to blame but yourself.
	__________________ All articles reproduced are in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use, for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Choose ye this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

27th December 2012, 10:48 AM	#334
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,474	Originally Posted by gumboot Deal with the situation as a responsible business owner. Which is exactly what he did. When owners and/or employees have a clash and one of them has to go, it's not going to be the business owner or his wife.

27th December 2012, 10:54 AM	#335
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,474	Originally Posted by Belz... Yes, as being wrong, not illegal. Who said that ? You just said that... in this very post! Unless you have a legal reason the court was wrong? If not, the court was right. Unless you're claiming courts should rule not according to law, but according to personal morals. But you just said no one was doing that...

27th December 2012, 10:58 AM	#336
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,474	Originally Posted by Dancing David Sure, but unfortunately that is always the issue with some employers, many are decent hard working individuals. Many are also lazy, capricious, abusive and engage is fraudulent shenanigans, then the conservative media echo chamber will talk about the 'efficiency of the marketplace', when it comes to management decisions. The efficiency of the marketplace does not in any way, shape, or form imply that management will always make the right decisions. What it does guarantee is that prices, supply, and demand will be in balance.

27th December 2012, 11:01 AM	#337
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Originally Posted by angrysoba It's illegal to talk in a low class sexual way? It can be. You can sue the company for damages. Most people don't. This is why this story is interesting to me because technically the wife could sue him for sexual harassment. Keep in mind that although both the doctor and Ms. Nelson were willing participants their behavior created a hostile work environment for the other women in the office. Quote: I think if he initiated sexual talk and she didn't object then it should be no problem, right? If she reciprocates the sexual talk, then surely she would presume he wouldn't object either. Right? Seems unfair of him to fire her, instead. And it seems you support her being fired for talking like a "trashy ho". Is he not a trashy boss for engaging in the talk in the first place and then firing her when she followed his lead? You are only looking at them in the situation. There were other women working in the office, including his wife. Both of their behaviors were unprofessional and created a hostile work environment for the others there. And yes I think an employee who talks to her immediate supervisor about her sex life should be fired. He's also a trashy boss. She should be fired and he should be sued for sexual harassment by the other women in the office. He fired her and she deserved to be fired. Her law suit is what makes me have no sympathy.\ Also what is this 'following his lead" crap? Why do people always paint women as simpering victims and men as perpetrators. They are both scum in this position. But she deserved to be fired, her lawsuit was obviously some attempt at retaliation for getting fired. I am pretty sure her lawyer told her to play the law suit this way and that originally she wanted to sue for sexual harassment, but when he told her that her behavior was complicit she realized she didn't have a case. What exactly is she trying to sue him for? Money?
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	__________________ “Now I understand what is so intriguing about Zombie themed movies. When the pile on of stupid begins it's like being trapped in a Zombie movie. Seemingly normal people have suddenly turned into brainless gobs of hostility” ― Dan Last edited by truethat; 27th December 2012 at 11:05 AM.

27th December 2012, 11:01 AM	#338
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,474	Originally Posted by angrysoba Seems unfair of him to fire her, instead. And it seems you support her being fired for talking like a "trashy ho". Is he not a trashy boss for engaging in the talk in the first place and then firing her when she followed his lead? You think he should fire himself instead? Then everyone loses their jobs. I don't think you've thought through how this works in a sole proprietership business.

27th December 2012, 11:02 AM	#339
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: London ish Posts: 3,703	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger You see my point you just don't see my point. Pure straw, not what I said at all. And? One way to resist the temptation is to remove it. The world according to the morally righteous among us? A straw man and a hypothetical not under consideration in this incident. More preaching from the morally righteous among us? No preaching, just an opinion. I believe that when a man gives his word (like a vow of marriage) he should stick to it. I believe there is no such thing as an irresistible woman (or man). I think sacking a co-worker with the excuse that he could not control himself is the act of a douche. I just think that a man should keep to his given word, if that makes me morally righteous, then so be it. This man gave his word in some sort of solemn ceremony, probably in front of many friends and relations and now he's found out that he's not capable of self control? I still think he's a douche.
	__________________ Cull the delusional.

27th December 2012, 11:02 AM	#340
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Originally Posted by Belz... Ah, I stand corrected. Not a hyperbole. Not mine anyway.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

27th December 2012, 11:06 AM	#341
Titanic Explorer Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Boston Posts: 1,285	Does this mean people can also be fired for being too ugly?

27th December 2012, 11:08 AM	#342
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Originally Posted by WildCat Which is exactly what he did. When owners and/or employees have a clash and one of them has to go, it's not going to be the business owner or his wife. Miracle of all miracles. You've said one of those rare things I agree with. I can't imagine the atmosphere of that workplace if the dentist allowed it to continue. The wife hates the employee, the employer is distracted by the employee and worried every comment will be misinterpreted by the wife. And the employee, either being told why and becoming nervous of both, or not being told and wondering what the heck was going on. Keep it in his pants and deal with it indeed.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

27th December 2012, 11:12 AM	#343
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Originally Posted by truethat It can be. Right. But that doesn't mean it always is. Originally Posted by truethat You are only looking at them in the situation. There were other women working in the office, including his wife. Both of their behaviors were unprofessional and created a hostile work environment for the others there.... It might have. But you don't know that and it wouldn't always be the case. We're all going by what we perceive workplaces to be like. I've seen some where people talk about some pretty risque stuff and everyone contributes and laughs. It depends on the people and the number of employees and the setting.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

27th December 2012, 11:13 AM	#344
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Originally Posted by Titanic Explorer Does this mean people can also be fired for being too ugly? That happens but it's usually that they don't get hired in the first place.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

27th December 2012, 11:14 AM	#345
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Why do you even bother replying? LOL Of COURSE it may not always be the case.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	__________________ “Now I understand what is so intriguing about Zombie themed movies. When the pile on of stupid begins it's like being trapped in a Zombie movie. Seemingly normal people have suddenly turned into brainless gobs of hostility” ― Dan

27th December 2012, 11:16 AM	#346
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Originally Posted by 3point14 No preaching, just an opinion. I believe that when a man gives his word (like a vow of marriage) he should stick to it. I believe there is no such thing as an irresistible woman (or man). I think sacking a co-worker with the excuse that he could not control himself is the act of a douche. I just think that a man should keep to his given word, if that makes me morally righteous, then so be it. This man gave his word in some sort of solemn ceremony, probably in front of many friends and relations and now he's found out that he's not capable of self control? I still think he's a douche. Preaching your opinion is more like it. Your opinion is morals sans reality.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

27th December 2012, 11:18 AM	#347
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Originally Posted by WildCat ... What it does guarantee is that prices, supply, and demand will be in balance. There's the old WildCat I know and never agree with. Only theoretically, in reality it doesn't work that way. Prices all too often don't reflect true costs, among other things. [/sidetrack]
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

27th December 2012, 11:19 AM	#348
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: London ish Posts: 3,703	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Preaching your opinion is more like it. Your opinion is morals sans reality. Hardly preaching, you don't need to read it. There's an ignore button. This place is for opinions. It hardly achieves much else other than as a willy waving contest for intellectuals of all creeds. Bottom line is this: A man can control his own actions. This man's actions were predicated on him not being able to control his actions. I believe that if he genuinely cannot control his own actions he needs to seek psychological help to stop him being a danger to society.
	__________________ Cull the delusional.

27th December 2012, 11:22 AM	#349
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Preaching your opinion is more like it. Your opinion is morals sans reality. I'm just curious why you think your reality is everyone else's? Just because you think it's fine to talk to men you work with about their penis, erections and your sex life doesn't mean that others think it's reality. I personally know many people both men and women who would be very very offended to see this kind of conversation at work. Responsible mature professionals don't behave this way at work. You also said you are not married and that's a big difference. Have you ever been married? Would you think it's ok to talk to your boss about your sex life when you are married? The moral issue comes from being married. But the professional issue has nothing to do with that. If you speak like this at work all the time let me reassure you that the "reality" is that many people at your job probably think your behavior is trashy, unprofessional and not wanted. They probably don't want to get involved but are uncomfortable. (ETA this is not directed at you specifically but you in general) You need to take your blinders off.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	__________________ “Now I understand what is so intriguing about Zombie themed movies. When the pile on of stupid begins it's like being trapped in a Zombie movie. Seemingly normal people have suddenly turned into brainless gobs of hostility” ― Dan Last edited by truethat; 27th December 2012 at 11:28 AM.

27th December 2012, 11:22 AM	#350
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Originally Posted by truethat Why do you even bother replying? LOL Of COURSE it may not always be the case. Show me the post you wrote before this one where you admitted it wasn't always the case. I missed it.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

27th December 2012, 11:23 AM	#351
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Again common sense dear. I didn't realize everything needed to be spelled out for you. Mea culpa.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	__________________ “Now I understand what is so intriguing about Zombie themed movies. When the pile on of stupid begins it's like being trapped in a Zombie movie. Seemingly normal people have suddenly turned into brainless gobs of hostility” ― Dan

27th December 2012, 11:39 AM	#352
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,474	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger There's the old WildCat I know and never agree with. Only theoretically, in reality it doesn't work that way. Prices all too often don't reflect true costs, among other things. [/sidetrack] Prices often don't reflect actual costs, let alone some arbitrarily assigned "true cost". In times of glut goods may be sold for less than it cost to produce them, in times of shortage they can be sold for much more. But that's for another thread.

27th December 2012, 11:41 AM	#353
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,474	Originally Posted by 3point14 Hardly preaching, you don't need to read it. There's an ignore button. This place is for opinions. It hardly achieves much else other than as a willy waving contest for intellectuals of all creeds. Bottom line is this: A man can control his own actions. This man's actions were predicated on him not being able to control his actions. I believe that if he genuinely cannot control his own actions he needs to seek psychological help to stop him being a danger to society. Why do you keep ignoring the role of the wife in this? None of this was an issue until the wife found out.

27th December 2012, 11:49 AM	#354
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,986	Originally Posted by halleyscomet Consequences will never be the same. The Yelp reviews of James H Knight, DDS have been dominated with discussion of his need to fire a woman because he finds her attractive. For example: Good points you quoted. I hope to see a boycott of this unprofessional, juvenile dentist
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

27th December 2012, 12:25 PM	#355
Morrigan Crone of War Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 7,010	Originally Posted by truethat Again common sense dear. I didn't realize everything needed to be spelled out for you. Mea culpa. Could you try to sound more condescending?
Morrigan Crone of War Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 7,010	__________________ curi0us: "Many kids grow up in environments where if the worse thing they had to deal with was a pervy gym teacher wanting to **** them they would considere themselves to be privileged and living the good life."