Many of these bullies are cowards who bow and scrape to those upstairs, so management will not be aware until the incidents pile up. Some years back I had one piece of shit talk to me like I was muck when he met me in the the workshop when I was wearing a stained lab coat, and then later it was funny looking at his face go pale when I went into a meeting with all the other department managers including his boss. He had his "yes boss" voice and his "lick my boots serf" voice. The others hadn't noticed. They didn't approve, they didn't even know despite him making one of the receptionists cry (I didn't know that until later either).
The irony here is you are saying "Lose the DailyKos talk" and then use some weird slang of "virtue-signaling" WTF does that mean? I asked another poster who used that earlier but they did not reply.
You do have a point that just pointing out instances of bullying is better than using the slang term "gaslighting" even if it fits better for people who know that slang.
You can get back if you've let it slide a few times. It's just a little bit stressful with loud arguments and the pathetic bully acting as if you have "betrayed" him and going around telling everyone you are "passive agressive". It doesn't go on like that forever even though the pathetic bully is very likely to try a few more things before giving up. Also don't be afraid of official channels. The pathetic bullies are not and will sometimes make noise even if you don't. Putting an emphasis on "wasting time" and "childish pranks" is a good way to frame things with official channels. I had one spiteful loser "prank" with "the office phone system is down" in the middle of a server outage that was holding up everyone's work, so once I confirmed the phones were up I rang his supervisor asking him to keep that loser off my back with his inappropriately timed childish antics. While the loser did later confront me redfaced with rage he didn't try any more shit like that again.
Work around the damage, do the best job you can and wait for their inevitable fuckup when they go after one too many people with this shit. I had a "dog ate my homework" type who kept trying to get me fired for losing all the work he was apparently doing on Friday afternoons when he was really going home early and ignoring deadlines. It had a positive effect in that I implemented more frequent filesystem snapshotting (on top of the existing tape backups) to counter his "the file servers keep losing files" claims. There was a lot of other stuff he did which resulted in more changes to work around the damage - the Simpsons joke "this ticket is not to be taken internally" and Homer saying "they wrote that because of me" comes to mind. Workflows ended up being documented in ridiculous detail because he'd find a weak point and deliberately fuck up and blame it on another. All of this stuff was very public. More than a couple of times managers took him aside for a quiet word about his activities and eventually he left. However if I was in a more junior position and had less time in the workplace that pathetic bully probably could have got me sacked in his first two months with nothing more than a series of wild claims. After a couple of months several managers knew he couldn't be trusted much but they needed someone to do the work, so long as he didn't go too far. The "dog ate my homework" thing was tried and disproved around ten times and management were making jokes about him, but it sounded pretty fucking serious the first time he tried that stunt and it could have got a junior staff member fired if he had blamed it on them early on.
As I was saying: "nobody can tell what those numbers actually ought to be"
You keep on going on as if that's a reason to not find out the numbers at all and see if there are blatant abuses going on. Why do you do that? You are surely not as stupid as you appear so what is your motivation for pushing such a ridiculous line that a head in the sand is the best option?
Trump might simply drop the case
The same Trump who keeps on going on about illegal immigrants and building a big wall? Do you really think so? Come on now - you are not a cocaine-ravaged ex-DJ making noise on Fox, you have a working brain. There is no need to express a naive view that a government can just ignore problems and they will go away by magic.
You didn't answer my question about what you thought of the government funded employment agency that was turning away Catholics and Jews despite their contract stating they had to help all who applied. What do you think of a breach of contract like that? Do you think that is OK as well? Do you really think that gathering information to make a case about removing their funding is also an invalid way to gather statistics and "both morally wrong and dangerous"?
If a government doesn't know what the fuck is going on even with the people they have contracted work out to then how do you expect them to govern? By magic?
OK it was that easy. It's good to see that "Detroit Free Press" hasn't gone under yet and has an article. Stupid Diebold machines, it was only a matter of time before an obvious fuckup or hack happened to those flaky and insecure pieces of shit with the software written by a convicted computer fraudster (Jeffrey Dean - twenty-three counts of felony Theft in the First Degree).
That's changing the subject because in those situations the government isn't giving them money.
What do you think of that government funded "Christian" employment agency that was breaking the rules by not offering jobs to Catholics, Mormons, Jews etc? Should they be free to illegally discriminate with your taxes?
Oh do grow up. There are laws other than the constitution.
Laws can't override the Constitution, and 14A prohibits any other racial quotas besides those justifiable by ensuring equal treatment.
I highlighted the bit that applies in this case. Why have you been pretending that something so obvious is not there?
It looks very much like the answer to my question way above you have been evading all this time is that you consider it acceptable for someone to not stick to the terms of a contract if the other party is the government. Is that the case? Yes or no.
Despite it being a very imperfect tool it's all we've got when people are discriminated against, such as the story here a few weeks ago about the company that was only accepting people from India. Your perfect world where it is not required does not exist.
That sounds interesting. I'm not doubting you (especially with those stupid Diebold machines), I just have not heard that. Do you have a link to that story?
You mean the sort of people who voted for Reagan over and over back in the day? The sort of people who voted for Arnie? Why do you see it as a problem now when you don't seem to have seen it as a problem earlier?
Personally I think every resident over 18 should get the vote. Felons, illegals the lot. If you are insane someone is your proxy. It seems to work in other places and would probably break the deadlock of a two party system.
The "illegals" thing is ridiculous so long as there is no way to keep them out and so long as they are a massive part of the economy. The unscrupulous are just using them as a substitute for indentured labor and both parties are happy with that. Despite various noise there hasn't been much action. If the Republicans actually cared about the issue they would have used their numbers to do something over the last four years instead of playing debt ceiling games.
A cat is dead. Socrates is dead. Therefore Socrates is a cat.
Such a braindead level of logic is utterly fucking useless so please do not attempt to use such a chain to call me racist just because I mentioned that Google is being asked to stick to the terms of a contract that they initially approved.
nobody can tell what those numbers actually ought to be
Of course they can. It is called setting policy.
Please work on that naive streak of yours instead of trying to propagate it to others. The ridiculous equating to fascism above was almost to the point of being retarded.
The existing windscreens are a "sandwich" of glass and a soft plastic that keeps the glass in place when it shatters. A gorilla glass alternative would be replacing the glass layers but not the entire thing.
Also when polycarbonate breaks it can have sharp edges so 100% polycarbonate in a windscreen is almost as bad an idea as 100% glass.
If you plug your phone into your computer, suddenly you can't use your phone anymore. This is because the internal storage is now used by the computer and cannot be touched
The Nokia N900 didn't have that problem years back - it's a software flaw that shouldn't be present today.
On the other hand: Whoever released the DNC/Podesta emails did us all a huge favor
There were no real shocks there, it was just a slimy political party acting like a slimy political party, but I suppose there are so many that are ridiculously naive about politics that it may have made a difference.
I will add to that - he won a war there without even telling Russia he was going in, let alone Russia's involvement in what they saw as their "backyard". The pissed off Putin and many other Russians immensely. Putin used Clinton's actions as an example in his climb up the political ladder, stirring up a fair bit of hate for the USA. It was his often cited example of how Russia was no longer "great" and needed a "strong leader" to fix it. With authoritarians the personal is political so his hate for Bill would have become hate for Hillary and he's very likely to have used his political resources to do something to slow down Hillary.
Since you are a narrow-minded bigot unwilling to listen to reason
What a cop-out. Just because I raised details that show that it is not a simplistic issue of you go and build a straw man in my name and set it on fire - pathetic!
The contract clauses are to stop actions like Google or others sacking entire departments and filling them full of illegal immigrants at low wages. It's kind of useless without gathering information to see if the contract has been adhered to.
Slashdot Mirror
Many of these bullies are cowards who bow and scrape to those upstairs, so management will not be aware until the incidents pile up. Some years back I had one piece of shit talk to me like I was muck when he met me in the the workshop when I was wearing a stained lab coat, and then later it was funny looking at his face go pale when I went into a meeting with all the other department managers including his boss. He had his "yes boss" voice and his "lick my boots serf" voice. The others hadn't noticed. They didn't approve, they didn't even know despite him making one of the receptionists cry (I didn't know that until later either).
The irony here is you are saying "Lose the DailyKos talk" and then use some weird slang of "virtue-signaling"
WTF does that mean?
I asked another poster who used that earlier but they did not reply.
You do have a point that just pointing out instances of bullying is better than using the slang term "gaslighting" even if it fits better for people who know that slang.
You can get back if you've let it slide a few times. It's just a little bit stressful with loud arguments and the pathetic bully acting as if you have "betrayed" him and going around telling everyone you are "passive agressive". It doesn't go on like that forever even though the pathetic bully is very likely to try a few more things before giving up.
Also don't be afraid of official channels. The pathetic bullies are not and will sometimes make noise even if you don't. Putting an emphasis on "wasting time" and "childish pranks" is a good way to frame things with official channels. I had one spiteful loser "prank" with "the office phone system is down" in the middle of a server outage that was holding up everyone's work, so once I confirmed the phones were up I rang his supervisor asking him to keep that loser off my back with his inappropriately timed childish antics. While the loser did later confront me redfaced with rage he didn't try any more shit like that again.
Work around the damage, do the best job you can and wait for their inevitable fuckup when they go after one too many people with this shit.
I had a "dog ate my homework" type who kept trying to get me fired for losing all the work he was apparently doing on Friday afternoons when he was really going home early and ignoring deadlines. It had a positive effect in that I implemented more frequent filesystem snapshotting (on top of the existing tape backups) to counter his "the file servers keep losing files" claims. There was a lot of other stuff he did which resulted in more changes to work around the damage - the Simpsons joke "this ticket is not to be taken internally" and Homer saying "they wrote that because of me" comes to mind. Workflows ended up being documented in ridiculous detail because he'd find a weak point and deliberately fuck up and blame it on another. All of this stuff was very public. More than a couple of times managers took him aside for a quiet word about his activities and eventually he left.
However if I was in a more junior position and had less time in the workplace that pathetic bully probably could have got me sacked in his first two months with nothing more than a series of wild claims. After a couple of months several managers knew he couldn't be trusted much but they needed someone to do the work, so long as he didn't go too far. The "dog ate my homework" thing was tried and disproved around ten times and management were making jokes about him, but it sounded pretty fucking serious the first time he tried that stunt and it could have got a junior staff member fired if he had blamed it on them early on.
You keep on going on as if that's a reason to not find out the numbers at all and see if there are blatant abuses going on. Why do you do that? You are surely not as stupid as you appear so what is your motivation for pushing such a ridiculous line that a head in the sand is the best option?
The same Trump who keeps on going on about illegal immigrants and building a big wall? Do you really think so? Come on now - you are not a cocaine-ravaged ex-DJ making noise on Fox, you have a working brain. There is no need to express a naive view that a government can just ignore problems and they will go away by magic.
You didn't answer my question about what you thought of the government funded employment agency that was turning away Catholics and Jews despite their contract stating they had to help all who applied. What do you think of a breach of contract like that? Do you think that is OK as well? Do you really think that gathering information to make a case about removing their funding is also an invalid way to gather statistics and "both morally wrong and dangerous"?
If a government doesn't know what the fuck is going on even with the people they have contracted work out to then how do you expect them to govern? By magic?
OK it was that easy. It's good to see that "Detroit Free Press" hasn't gone under yet and has an article.
Stupid Diebold machines, it was only a matter of time before an obvious fuckup or hack happened to those flaky and insecure pieces of shit with the software written by a convicted computer fraudster (Jeffrey Dean - twenty-three counts of felony Theft in the First Degree).
That's changing the subject because in those situations the government isn't giving them money.
What do you think of that government funded "Christian" employment agency that was breaking the rules by not offering jobs to Catholics, Mormons, Jews etc? Should they be free to illegally discriminate with your taxes?
Laws can't override the Constitution, and 14A prohibits any other racial quotas besides those justifiable by ensuring equal treatment.
I highlighted the bit that applies in this case. Why have you been pretending that something so obvious is not there?
It looks very much like the answer to my question way above you have been evading all this time is that you consider it acceptable for someone to not stick to the terms of a contract if the other party is the government. Is that the case? Yes or no.
It is a LOT tougher than acrylic but it still cracks as a brittle fracture under enough of an impact.
Fair enough. My view is coming from Russian ex-pats that visit every couple of years instead of live there so is probably biased.
Oh do grow up. There are laws other than the constitution.
Despite it being a very imperfect tool it's all we've got when people are discriminated against, such as the story here a few weeks ago about the company that was only accepting people from India.
Your perfect world where it is not required does not exist.
A lot of effort has gone into making it "seem" that way including murdered journalists.
That sounds interesting. I'm not doubting you (especially with those stupid Diebold machines), I just have not heard that. Do you have a link to that story?
You mean the sort of people who voted for Reagan over and over back in the day? The sort of people who voted for Arnie? Why do you see it as a problem now when you don't seem to have seen it as a problem earlier?
Personally I think every resident over 18 should get the vote. Felons, illegals the lot. If you are insane someone is your proxy. It seems to work in other places and would probably break the deadlock of a two party system.
The "illegals" thing is ridiculous so long as there is no way to keep them out and so long as they are a massive part of the economy. The unscrupulous are just using them as a substitute for indentured labor and both parties are happy with that. Despite various noise there hasn't been much action. If the Republicans actually cared about the issue they would have used their numbers to do something over the last four years instead of playing debt ceiling games.
No I did not. Two people were discussing two different things and were critical of that.
A cat is dead. Socrates is dead. Therefore Socrates is a cat.
Such a braindead level of logic is utterly fucking useless so please do not attempt to use such a chain to call me racist just because I mentioned that Google is being asked to stick to the terms of a contract that they initially approved.
Of course they can. It is called setting policy.
Please work on that naive streak of yours instead of trying to propagate it to others. The ridiculous equating to fascism above was almost to the point of being retarded.
The existing windscreens are a "sandwich" of glass and a soft plastic that keeps the glass in place when it shatters. A gorilla glass alternative would be replacing the glass layers but not the entire thing.
Also when polycarbonate breaks it can have sharp edges so 100% polycarbonate in a windscreen is almost as bad an idea as 100% glass.
The Nokia N900 didn't have that problem years back - it's a software flaw that shouldn't be present today.
The above should be modded up to 11 IMHO.
There were no real shocks there, it was just a slimy political party acting like a slimy political party, but I suppose there are so many that are ridiculously naive about politics that it may have made a difference.
Jimmy Carter!
He lost because he told the American people the truth - nobody in politics is going to make that mistake for a while.
I will add to that - he won a war there without even telling Russia he was going in, let alone Russia's involvement in what they saw as their "backyard". The pissed off Putin and many other Russians immensely. Putin used Clinton's actions as an example in his climb up the political ladder, stirring up a fair bit of hate for the USA. It was his often cited example of how Russia was no longer "great" and needed a "strong leader" to fix it.
With authoritarians the personal is political so his hate for Bill would have become hate for Hillary and he's very likely to have used his political resources to do something to slow down Hillary.
What a cop-out. Just because I raised details that show that it is not a simplistic issue of you go and build a straw man in my name and set it on fire - pathetic!
The contract clauses are to stop actions like Google or others sacking entire departments and filling them full of illegal immigrants at low wages. It's kind of useless without gathering information to see if the contract has been adhered to.