General Discussion

herding cats

(20,049 posts)

27. Ok.

Tue Dec 12, 2017, 01:11 AM

Dec 2017

You personally attacked me as “ Being right about one thing, that I don’t know anything” but now somehow that’s a systemic problem with HR? Sure. If that gets you to feeling better.

Personally, I laughed my butt off at our conversation. I don’t get upset when someone disagrees with me and make personal attacks on them. That’s just me.

Truth is, stuff does happen. In this case we don’t know the details, and pretending we do based on our preferences is just silly.

Honestly, having deleted your attack on me makes you’re apologizing weak sauce. I’d have felt much better if you’d have actually owned your words, but whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

91 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is Ryan Lizza another set up? [View all] Bibluca Dec 2017 OP

If he's factually innocent he should sue for wrongful termination. DemocratSinceBirth Dec 2017 #1

Virtually impossible to prove. BannonsLiver Dec 2017 #5

Seems very circumstantial ClarendonDem Dec 2017 #2

But he was fired from all 3 of his gigs Bibluca Dec 2017 #3

She has an attorney. herding cats Dec 2017 #10

Thats actually not how things are supposed to work at all and there is no such right stevenleser Dec 2017 #34

He knows who she is as does the New Yorker. herding cats Dec 2017 #63

Lizza has every right to publish her name. He knows exactly who she is. VermontKevin Dec 2017 #73

And he would be rightfully ripped to shreds mythology Dec 2017 #82

It is reported they had a relationship. Corporations will fire employees who cause them trouble Demsrule86 Dec 2017 #38

Me too. This is why we need to demand due process/investigations over anonymous accusations.. anneboleyn Dec 2017 #57

And if it is revenge...then it just sucks. Demsrule86 Dec 2017 #69

The idea that you can run to court is laughable...folks who suggest that have never been to court. Demsrule86 Dec 2017 #72

Lizza can sue if its false. herding cats Dec 2017 #67

That is bullshit...very hard to sue...expensive too...so the idea that anyone wrongly accused...can Demsrule86 Dec 2017 #68

He can sue her with ease if shes lying. herding cats Dec 2017 #70

That is simply not true...nothing easy about suing someone. Demsrule86 Dec 2017 #71

That is not true and a very simple google search will tell you that. stevenleser Dec 2017 #86

You mean Libel or Slander? Do you know how hard it is to meet the three stevenleser Dec 2017 #85

Show me exactly where she has any such right? Loki Liesmith Dec 2017 #51

Exactly. Being anonymous goes against our entire legal system. The whole point is that an accused anneboleyn Dec 2017 #55

She's NOT "anonymous". Lizza, and The New Yorker know who she is. n/t PoliticAverse Dec 2017 #90

He knows who she is as does the New Yorker. herding cats Dec 2017 #64

The me too kwalter66 Dec 2017 #81

She's not "anonymous"; she's "unnamed". lapucelle Dec 2017 #89

And since when did non-criminal sexual antics Bibluca Dec 2017 #4

You know this was outside of work? herding cats Dec 2017 #11

Are we back, so quickly, to assuming all women are liars? mcar Dec 2017 #6

I hope we are at the point where we judge each accusation on its merits, on a case by case basis. woolldog Dec 2017 #7

And you know this is all true how? mcar Dec 2017 #8

All what? woolldog Dec 2017 #9

Stop and reconsider what youre saying. herding cats Dec 2017 #13

You can read his account and the New Yorker's account and it's obvious what happened. woolldog Dec 2017 #15

So, this is all about the fact that he dated a coworker. herding cats Dec 2017 #16

What misconduct did he commit? woolldog Dec 2017 #17

Ask that question of the attorneys at the New Yorker, oh wiser one. herding cats Dec 2017 #18

in other words, woolldog Dec 2017 #19

You're kidding me right? herding cats Dec 2017 #20

This message was self-deleted by its author woolldog Dec 2017 #21

Wow. Youre not being nice. herding cats Dec 2017 #22

I dont understand your mean personal reply to me. herding cats Dec 2017 #23

You're right. On rereading that post, I was too harsh. woolldog Dec 2017 #24

Ok. herding cats Dec 2017 #27

lol woolldog Dec 2017 #29

Peace doggy. herding cats Dec 2017 #30

This message was self-deleted by its author herding cats Dec 2017 #25

Was It Flirting Me. Dec 2017 #26

Now apparently its an issue with an overreaching HR and their legal team. herding cats Dec 2017 #28

... Me. Dec 2017 #31

It's difficult for many people to infer fire when only smoke LanternWaste Dec 2017 #53

Apparently a victim shielding their identity from the public is now wrong, too. herding cats Dec 2017 #12

Yeah, notice how the New Yorker carefully shielded the victim's identity to the public, KitSileya Dec 2017 #32

I saw it. It was completely by design by his legal representation. herding cats Dec 2017 #33

It is called the right to face ones accusser Motownman78 Dec 2017 #36

He isn't facing criminal sanction at this point mythology Dec 2017 #46

Oh who needs that when you can just take the lazy, "all men are pigs" approach? BannonsLiver Dec 2017 #61

+1 OnDoutside Dec 2017 #80

He knows who accused him. herding cats Dec 2017 #65

I think it's time to face the truth. Too many on our side minimize this KitSileya Dec 2017 #37

I totally disagree with you. I believe in due process including appropriate investigations before anneboleyn Dec 2017 #60

Did New Yorker had to announce the reason they fired him? LisaL Dec 2017 #42

Take that up with The New Yorker. herding cats Dec 2017 #66

No, that is not the correct answer. Workplaces can not divulge most personnel actions. nt stevenleser Dec 2017 #88

They most likely can, but choose not to to avoid lawsuits. Just like many businesses these days.. PoliticAverse Dec 2017 #91

It is wrong...people have a right to face their accusers...and I can think of 1000's of ways this Demsrule86 Dec 2017 #74

I Used To Think Like This RobinA Dec 2017 #14

Not all women Motownman78 Dec 2017 #35

Do you think we should assume that all women tell the truth? and any accusation is all that takes Demsrule86 Dec 2017 #40

That is the opposite of what I said mcar Dec 2017 #48

I doubt they investigated at all. They washed their hands of the mess by firing the guy. Demsrule86 Dec 2017 #75

No, we're still stuck in the mindset that all men are liars. n/t Bibluca Dec 2017 #45

Bullshit. We have been stuck in the all women are liars mode for centuries. MrsCoffee Dec 2017 #56

Good question. Here's another one. kstewart33 Dec 2017 #58

No. We hold them to the same standard as EVERYONE ELSE IN OUR LEGAL SYSTEM. SIMPLE. anneboleyn Dec 2017 #59

I think a number of things are happening. One of them is... stevenleser Dec 2017 #84

Sadly, there are and will be women DeminPennswoods Dec 2017 #39

This is what I believe. In the end, this will hurt women Demsrule86 Dec 2017 #41

This is why the accused must be protected as well. This thread is depressing as so many seem to anneboleyn Dec 2017 #62

I find it depressing that people continue to mistake mythology Dec 2017 #83

I find it depressing that folks like you dont know the difference between that stevenleser Dec 2017 #87

any actual evidence? brooklynite Dec 2017 #43

Nope Bibluca Dec 2017 #44

Do you feel the same way when a rape victim isn't named? mythology Dec 2017 #47

Another straw man Bibluca Dec 2017 #49

This is not a sexual crime...this was a relationship outside the office. Demsrule86 Dec 2017 #76

Most employers are within their rights to fire anyone for almost any reason. alarimer Dec 2017 #50

Lizza says there's nothing there Bibluca Dec 2017 #52

Obviously the New Yorker thinks it was enough. alarimer Dec 2017 #54

That doesn't sound progressive... The fact he was fired is meaningless... Demsrule86 Dec 2017 #77

Women don't always lie...women don't always tell the truth. And if you notice ...most people losing Demsrule86 Dec 2017 #78

So little information to go on... PoliticAverse Dec 2017 #79