|  | 
| 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
    
 |  | 
 
 
	
		|  |  
	
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				October 20th, 2004, 03:47 PM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 General |  | 
					Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: United Kingdom 
						Posts: 3,603
					 Thanks: 0 
		
			
				Thanked 22 Times in 22 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: (OT) POWER of the Web (and apologies) 
 After having thought about a answer for quite a while, I am pleased to present my results: hardly anything at all.
 So, I will merely wish you well in your fight Slynky, as I cannot really do anything else (except an attempt at levity perhaps). If all else fails, my Pandora vessel remains at your disposal as usual.
 
 A bit more on topic: besides the harrasment itself, I must admit I am quite bothered about the "going part on a previous agreement" part as well. Not only is this simply going back to the same situation as before (despite what had happened back then, as it had been acknowledged with the first decision), but it is also carefully breaking the formal agreement made at that moment, without even making a meagre allusion to that previous decision of "moving the harrassing person somewhere else, to never, ever, been seen again". Are such decisions expected to "only Last until further notice, or when they are no longer convenient, whichever happens first", and I am simply being naïve?
 
			
			
			
			
				  |  
	
		
	
	
	| 
			
			 
			
				October 21st, 2004, 12:45 AM
			
			
			
		 |  
	| 
		
			|  | 
 General |  | 
					Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA 
						Posts: 3,499
					 Thanks: 0 
		
			
				Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
			
		
	      |  |  
    
	| 
				 Re: (OT) POWER of the Web (and apologies) 
 
	Quote: 
	
		| Alneyan said:A bit more on topic: besides the harrasment itself, I must admit I am quite bothered about the "going part on a previous agreement" part as well. Not only is this simply going back to the same situation as before (despite what had happened back then, as it had been acknowledged with the first decision), but it is also carefully breaking the formal agreement made at that moment, without even making a meagre allusion to that previous decision of "moving the harrassing person somewhere else, to never, ever, been seen again". Are such decisions expected to "only Last until further notice, or when they are no longer convenient, whichever happens first", and I am simply being naïve? 
 |  This is one of the problems.  For some strange reason, the outcome of her complaint years ago will not be given to her.  All she was allowed to receive was a copy of her complaint.  Seems funny (read: suspicious) to me.  Like, the victim in a rape trial isn't allowed to see what the punishment was for the convicted rapist.  
 
I know it's going to sound bad but since the guy who did this is black, his attorney is black, the judge is black, and the civil right/EEO officer in our office is black, well, you can imagine my worries as discrimmination and prejudice is NOT just a thing white people are quilty of.
				__________________ALLIANCE, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pocket that they cannot separately plunder a third. (Ambrose Bierce)
 |  
	
		
	
	
	
	
	
	
	| Thread Tools |  
	|  |  
	| Display Modes |  
	
	| 
		
		 Hybrid Mode |  
	| 
	|  Posting Rules |  
	| 
		
		You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts 
 HTML code is On 
 |  |  |  |  |