boxingfred Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 <mod hat>please refrain from personal attacks on any members of our forums. thanks </mod hat> you may now resume your regularly scheduled programming. Sorry! Could you close the thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommeee Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 <mod hat>please refrain from personal attacks on any members of our forums. thanks </mod hat> you may now resume your regularly scheduled programming. Krista, You are right about the personal attacks. They are far too prevalent on here. I apologize if someone took my previous comments as a personal attack. And now that you brought up the rules of this forum, please remove your "Obama '08" avatar. As it clearly states in the community guidelines, political references are not allowed. And it specifically mentions that this pertains to avatars also. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawker Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Krista,You are right about the personal attacks. They are far too prevalent on here. I apologize if someone took my previous comments as a personal attack. And now that you brought up the rules of this forum, please remove your "Obama '08" avatar. As it clearly states in the community guidelines, political references are not allowed. And it specifically mentions that this pertains to avatars also. Thanks! . . .excepting the ones that are / were approved for use during the election, which hers is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 In addition, for information on the political avatars that are allowed, please see here: http://www.drumcorpsplanet.com/forums/inde...howtopic=109479 Have a good day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicdirect Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 No big deal.....move on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sideways Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 This is not the answer you sought, but it's the information you need: You are neither hero nor saint in this situation.Allow me to recap: You receive an email from the YEA CFO with content you find objectionable. Your objection stems from the fact that you think details about and perhaps impressions of a former employee shouldn't have been published in that email. When your questions to YEA in this regard aren't answered, you publish that email to this forum. Right? Wrong. Though I am certain my account of YOUR behavior accurately renders events, your behavior is anything but right. If you truly believe it was a mistake to publish that information, what possessed you to publish that information? Climb down from the holier-than-thou pulpit. If they're in the gutter, you're there too. You didn't even make the minimal effort it would have taken to paraphrase the issue and thus avoid repetition of the alleged offense. Instead, you published the very phrases you say shouldn't have been published in the first place. And you did it - according to you - after agonizing about what was the right thing to do. I can tell you this without doubt. What you did wasn't the right thing. It was wrong. HH Flamebait is never wrong. It's what makes this place so very entertaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sideways Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 In Canada to publicly address reasons why an individual was either fired or quit is illegal. Privacy and confidentialality act. Where's that image of Hop saying "I will make it legal" when you need it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byline Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) The lack of a reply indicates to me a general indifference toward this matter, which troubles me greatly, especially since YEA has now opened itself up to liability in a slander lawsuit, and this activity cannot afford to have its corps in legal trouble. Needless pedantry here, but since the comments were made in print, technically speaking the potential complaint would be libel, not slander (which is spoken). fyi, this is neither libel or slander.unprofessional? yeah. poor taste? definitely. unlawful? nope. I disagree. First of all, keep in mind that if a lawsuit were filed, it would be a civil action for damages, not criminal charges. Secondly, the point to keep in mind is the definition of libel. Going by my Associated Press Stylebook, AP defines libel as "injury to reputation"; no more, no less. AP goes on to say, "Words, pictures or cartoons that expose a person to public hatred, shame, disgrace or ridicule, or induce an ill opinion of a person are libelous." The fact that the individual was named (at least by first name), and her position specified, pretty clearly identifies who she is. At the very least, she could make a case for this damaging her reputation with potential employers. I'm really incredulous that this was aired so publicly. I know it was a mistake, probably done in haste, and one that was corrected later on, but the thing is, in the electronic age, putting things through a shredder doesn't mean a whole lot because once something is disseminated, there's an electronic copy "out there" somewhere. That's why you need PR people to keep these things from going out in such an unprofessional and potentially damaging (to the individual and the organization) form. you've already convicted yea! in the court of public opinion by using the term "lawsuit," when in fact such a suit would never even be filed. ethical rules prohibit lawyers from signing frivolous complaints -- which this most certainly would be. there is exactly a 0% chance of that ever happening.it is disingenuous to say "well, they cooooooooould find themselves on the wrong end of a complaint," when that is a legal impossibility since literally NO lawyer -- at least none that i know/work with -- would touch that case with a ten foot pole. Again, I think if the individual named in the e-mail could provide evidence that it harmed her reputation, especially with a prospective employer -- and yes, maybe this is an extreme long shot, but given our litigious society combined with the enduring powers of electronic correspondence, I can see the possibilities -- then I think it moves beyond the realm of frivolous. Edited June 14, 2009 by byline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmo Blatch Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Here are a couple facts that everybody knows: 1. George is a self-centered, hard-driven, workaholic. He lives, breathes, eats, sleeps Cadets. He is not known for being the nice guy. He gets results from his corps. Cadets fans adore the success (and perhaps attitude) that he brings to the activity. 2. The email in question was seen as completely inappropriate by non-Cadets fans and conversely as acceptable by Cadets fans. There will never be a retraction by George about said email. He will not apologize for it, nor has he ever apologized for any wrongdoing that he or his organization have been accused. This is the way that YEA is managed. Cadets fans understand it, non-Cadets fans don't. 3. The season will be under way in a week. The Cadets will be good, as always. The moral to the story: caveat emptor. When you dance with the devil, you might sometimes get burned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 2. The email in question was seen as completely inappropriate by non-Cadets fans and conversely as acceptable by Cadets fans. You are the second person to imply this but it isn't true. Most of the Cadets fans in the thread have said that the email was inappropriate. Stop trying to make this into black and white Cadets fans against the world bull #### Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.