Very well put. There's a certain kind of internet poster that really rubs me the wrong way, dressing up "you suck because you're teh stupid LOL" with freshman debating tactics.
I see. So my request that people stick to posting on subjects that they know something about offends you?
The most likely reason for that would be that you are one of those who constantly posts on subjects you know nothing about.
The phrase is used extensively in the law. In addition, even in cases where 'constructive discharge' is more commonly used, constructive termination is widely known to mean the same thing. See for example:
"Alternatively, the micromanager may attempt by this or other means to create a stressful workplace in which the undesired employees no longer desire to participate; when such stress is severe or pervasive enough, its creation may be regarded as constructive discharge (also known in the United Kingdom as "constructive dismissal" and in the United States as "constructive termination")."
So none of your rant has any validity.
Calling a perfectly reasonable rebuttal a "rant" is another one of those asshat tics that really seals the deal. I'm editing my ignore list as well.
Calling a perfectly reasonable rebuttal a "rant" is another one of those asshat tics that really seals the deal. I'm editing my ignore list as well.
Sorry, it wasn't even close to 'perfectly reasonable'.
He claimed that I was uninformed because I used the term 'constructive termination'. I gave a couple of citations showing that 'constructive termination' is perfectly acceptable terminology.
So he posted several hundred words attacking me (including telling me to stfu) - when it was clear that HE was the one in error.
Sorry, it wasn't even close to 'perfectly reasonable'.
He claimed that I was uninformed because I used the term 'constructive termination'. I gave a couple of citations showing that 'constructive termination' is perfectly acceptable terminology.
So he posted several hundred words attacking me (including telling me to stfu) - when it was clear that HE was the one in error.
That's a rant by any standard.
He never said you were uninformed. He said that that's not the only term for it, and implied it's lesser used. That doesn't mean he's in error.
Besides, a cursory review of your posting history has you debating on a wide variety of topics. Should we believe you're an expert in patent law, Chinese anthroplogy, and economic theory (to name a few)? While briefly reviewing your responses in said subjects, you made no claims based upon fact but instead lashed out with personal attacks ( http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...98#post1755398 ). I'm not going to try to claim some kind of moral high-ground here. I said you were a "fucking troll" in my first post on this forum, and the more I dig, it appears my assumption was correct.
So if you want to talk to peers of equal education, dedication, and interest in law --- I suggest you find another forum that meets your requirements, since you have attacked nearly every person who responded to you for being uninformed. If you'd like to participate in light discussion with people of varied backgrounds, then I'd suggest you hold yourself to the same standard as you're attempting to apply to others: Stay in the topics where you're an expert.
He never said you were uninformed. He said that that's not the only term for it, and implied it's lesser used. That doesn't mean he's in error.
Read what he wrote. He was clearly attacking me because I happened to use the phrase 'constructive termination'. Since 'constructive termination' is the phrase used by the Florida guy who filed suit against Apple (remember what this thread is all about?), I was simply using the term that was in play in this law suit. That's entirely reasonable and correct and his attack was sorely misplaced.
That's entirely different from someone posting who doesn't even have a clue about some of the most important issues in employment law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paroxysm
Besides, a cursory review of your posting history has you debating on a wide variety of topics. Should we believe you're an expert in patent law, Chinese anthroplogy, and economic theory (to name a few)? While briefly reviewing your responses in said subjects, you made no claims based upon fact but instead lashed out with personal attacks ( http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...98#post1755398 ). I'm not going to try to claim some kind of moral high-ground here. I said you were a "fucking troll" in my first post on this forum, and the more I dig, it appears my assumption was correct.
Where did I claim to be an expert in all of those things? And where did I say that you had to be an expert to post?
Let's get the facts right: I stated that it was appropriate for a person to know enough about a subject to be able to discuss it intelligently and factually before they clutter the forum with posts. I do happen to know a wide range of subjects well enough to discuss them intelligently and factually. If you're limited to knowing something about one subject, that's your limitation, not mine.
If you can point to factual errors in what I've said, feel free to point them out. If you can show where I posted something about a topic that I was entirely clueless about, feel free to demonstrate it. Until then, your attacks on my are foolish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paroxysm
So if you want to talk to peers of equal education, dedication, and interest in law --- I suggest you find another forum that meets your requirements, since you have attacked nearly every person who responded to you for being uninformed. If you'd like to participate in light discussion with people of varied backgrounds, then I'd suggest you hold yourself to the same standard as you're attempting to apply to others: Stay in the topics where you're an expert.
I'd suggest that you learn to read.
I never suggested that only experts should be able to discuss the topic. I merely suggested that it would be better if people who didn't have a freaking clue what they were talking about kept their mouths shut. Maybe you've heard the saying "better to let others think you're a fool than to open your mouth and prove it".
Bottom line is that the forum is most useful if people stick to topics they know enough about to be able to discuss them rationally and intelligently. What is the objection to that statement? Do you REALLY think that the forum is well-served by idiots posting inane, endless comments about subjects that they know absolutely zero about? Is that REALLY the position you want to be defending?
He never said you were uninformed. He said that that's not the only term for it, and implied it's lesser used. That doesn't mean he's in error.
Heh...whether I'm in error or not about the term (who really cares?) I never told him to STFU either. Seems like he evaded the primary point anyway (probably aided by poor reading comprehension) but it's not worth unhiding his post to see.
I never claimed to be an expert in Chinese anthropology. I do know enough about some aspects of it to discuss it intelligently, though.
It really is amazing that:
1. You (and the others attacking me on this subject) seem to think that knowledge of a subject isn't necessary before you post your ignorance world wide.
and
2. You seem to be incapable of comprehending that a person can be knowledgeable about more than one subject.
Read what he wrote. He was clearly attacking me because I happened to use the phrase 'constructive termination'. Since 'constructive termination' is the phrase used by the Florida guy who filed suit against Apple (remember what this thread is all about?), I was simply using the term that was in play in this law suit. That's entirely reasonable and correct and his attack was sorely misplaced.
That's entirely different from someone posting who doesn't even have a clue about some of the most important issues in employment law.
Where did I claim to be an expert in all of those things? And where did I say that you had to be an expert to post?
Let's get the facts right: I stated that it was appropriate for a person to know enough about a subject to be able to discuss it intelligently and factually before they clutter the forum with posts. I do happen to know a wide range of subjects well enough to discuss them intelligently and factually. If you're limited to knowing something about one subject, that's your limitation, not mine.
If you can point to factual errors in what I've said, feel free to point them out. If you can show where I posted something about a topic that I was entirely clueless about, feel free to demonstrate it. Until then, your attacks on my are foolish.
I'd suggest that you learn to read.
I never suggested that only experts should be able to discuss the topic. I merely suggested that it would be better if people who didn't have a freaking clue what they were talking about kept their mouths shut. Maybe you've heard the saying "better to let others think you're a fool than to open your mouth and prove it".
Bottom line is that the forum is most useful if people stick to topics they know enough about to be able to discuss them rationally and intelligently. What is the objection to that statement? Do you REALLY think that the forum is well-served by idiots posting inane, endless comments about subjects that they know absolutely zero about? Is that REALLY the position you want to be defending?
I like the spin you attempted at the bottom. Adhere to your own suggestion, and learn to read because you completely missed the point. You know damned well no one is trying to support the position of posting uninformed. What you've proposed is that YOU somehow serve as the judge of whom is competent enough to post about a subject. You're welcome to do that for yourself, but not for everyone else. But until you have "moderator" next to your handle, keep your judgement to yourself, kid.
I like the spin you attempted at the bottom. Adhere to your own suggestion, and learn to read because you completely missed the point. You know damned well no one is trying to support the position of posting uninformed.
Wrong. LOTS of people are defending the concept that people should be able to post whether they know something about a subject or not.
Look at the facts. I suggested that people shouldn't post on a subject that they don't know well enough to have a reasonably intelligent and informed discussion. Not an expert discussion. Not knowing everything. Just knowing enough to be able to talk intelligently about it.
Then a bunch of people attacked me for having an 'elitist' and 'hypocritical' position and insisted that people should be able to post - no matter how ignorant they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paroxysm
What you've proposed is that YOU somehow serve as the judge of whom is competent enough to post about a subject. You're welcome to do that for yourself, but not for everyone else. But until you have "moderator" next to your handle, keep your judgement to yourself, kid.
Where did I say that I was supposed to serve as the judge? Answer: nowhere.
In fact, my posts were very clear that I expected people to stop posting if they didn't know something about the topic - not that I (or anyone else for that matter) should filter out posts that were uninformed.
It really amazes me how many people think that it's OK to post endlessly on subjects that they know nothing about. Sad.
Wrong. LOTS of people are defending the concept that people should be able to post whether they know something about a subject or not.
Look at the facts. I suggested that people shouldn't post on a subject that they don't know well enough to have a reasonably intelligent and informed discussion. Not an expert discussion. Not knowing everything. Just knowing enough to be able to talk intelligently about it.
Then a bunch of people attacked me for having an 'elitist' and 'hypocritical' position and insisted that people should be able to post - no matter how ignorant they are.
Where did I say that I was supposed to serve as the judge? Answer: nowhere.
In fact, my posts were very clear that I expected people to stop posting if they didn't know something about the topic - not that I (or anyone else for that matter) should filter out posts that were uninformed.
It really amazes me how many people think that it's OK to post endlessly on subjects that they know nothing about. Sad.
And to reiterate it so maybe you can keep up: No one is suggesting uninformed, random posting. Not you, not me, not anyone (so far). Your strawman argument about that is completely offtrack. I'll await your quote from anywhere else on this forum where someone suggested they'll "post whether they know something about a subject or not." Go ahead --- I'll wait.
As for judging the validity of posts: Your ignore button should serve nicely for that. At the end of the day, no matter whether you agree with anything I've said or not, the posters of this forum will post whatever they wish.
And to reiterate it so maybe you can keep up: No one is suggesting uninformed, random posting. Not you, not me, not anyone (so far). Your strawman argument about that is completely offtrack. .
Really? Then please explain why so many people attacked me for simply suggesting that people should know something about a topic before posting? The fact that there are so many attacks, means that they obviously disagreed with the premise I posted (that people should know something about a topic before posting).
I have to say, I've never seen anyone working in an apple store who looked over 23, and not only that, they are all physically attractive too, ever seen a man with a receding hair line as an apple store employee? How about a lady with waist measurements not in "proper proportion" to chest measurements? I have not.
Apple wants pretty people, no different than any other modeling job, the difference, and the thing that will end up hanging them in this matter is that they don't call it what it is, modeling (read looking pretty to sell shit)- they classify it as tech support/advising/retail sales.
The local Apple Store here has not only older folks (that is older than my 50 or so years) working there, but other who have your cited "hairline issues" as well as not necessarily being as you so quaintly put it "physically attractive" (based on some hitherto mysterious and apparently personal set of standards you have yet to share with the rest of us). And to put a wrapper on this posting, the store has probably the most diverse and eclectic set of personalities, body types and ages I've seen in Retail (outside of seasonal panic hiring standards anyway). In fact I've seen similar sets of Apple staff in other stores as well, so I apparently haven't been to any of the ones you frequent.
Retail is a unique employment environment and unless you are used to dealing with all the people that are shopping your store - not many people actually enjoy being on the sales side. Consumers can tend to be onerous, demanding entitled shits with delusions of godhood. I know - I'm not far from the description myself. That being said - Apple tends to have one of the best retail operations I've ever experienced - and I've seen a lot. Any one (as well evidenced by the earlier postings) who is reading this baldly and forming opinions based on the filing are demonstrating a level of cupidity that is at once awe-inspiring and undermines their claims of native intelligence.
Any store in any chain is only as good as the management staff running it, and decisions are made that don't sort well with anyone not privy to the inside knowledge that will be ferreted out in the course of this case. So to make certain calls on what the facts and circumstances are based on what was released in the blog entry is a clear demonstration of idiocy bordering on desperate boredom.
Really? Then please explain why so many people attacked me for simply suggesting that people should know something about a topic before posting? The fact that there are so many attacks, means that they obviously disagreed with the premise I posted (that people should know something about a topic before posting).
It wasn't "simply suggesting":
-----------------------------
Originally Posted by solipsism
Thank you. I wasn?t aware of that phrasing.
Originally Posted by jragosta
I really wish people who don't understand a topic would refrain from posting. 'Constructive termination' is a very standard phrase in employment law. If you don't know the phrase, you have no business posting on an employment matter.
-----------------------------
Your response was viewed by at least (3) people that I can count in the thread so far as a passive-aggressive attack, when it's obvious (to me at least) that Solipsism was actually saying "Thank you for informing me". No matter how you phrase it, if you post on a lively discussion and tell others to leave, you're viewed as a troll and will be responded to in kind.
Now if you wanted to participate in the discussion, a simple reply of " 'Constructive termination' is a very standard phrase in employment law." and adding an informative link would have been far more helpful. If you merely misinterpreted his original post, ok --- lesson learned for you. Many (including myself) have done it when you can't take body language and vocal inflection into account.
But all I've seen so far in your posts are vague descriptions of "should know something about a topic", which can only be determined by the reader. What standard would you apply? What certification or credential should a person have for each topic? Who, besides each reader, evaluates their level of expertise? I'm serious --- I'm really trying to understand what you mean, because maybe I've misinterpreted your genuine wish to promote intellectual discussion for pure asshattery.
I certainly cannot comment on the merits of this case -- there's just not enough information.
But aside from this case, I suspect we are about to see an avalanche of these types of lawsuits throughout all industries over the next few years. The most self-centered, "entitled" generation in the history of the world is now entering old age. The babyboomers are going to take the idea of "grumpy old man" to a whole new level.
I really wish people who don't understand a topic would refrain from posting. 'Constructive termination' is a very standard phrase in employment law. If you don't know the phrase, you have no business posting on an employment matter.
-----------------------------
Sorry, but if you see that as saying that I should be the one who expects to review posts for content, then you're very, very confused. I said exactly what I said - that people should know enough about a topic to discuss it rationally before posting.
If you think that total idiots who know nothing about a topic should be posting, that's your problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paroxysm
Your response was viewed by at least (3) people that I can count in the thread so far as a passive-aggressive attack, when it's obvious (to me at least) that Solipsism was actually saying "Thank you for informing me". No matter how you phrase it, if you post on a lively discussion and tell others to leave, you're viewed as a troll and will be responded to in kind.
Where did I ask anyone to leave? I asked for people to restrict their posts to topics that they know something about.
As for the people who are bitching about my post, they appear to be just the kind of people who would be best served by listening to my advice. The ONLY people who are going to be offended by what I'm suggesting are people who routinely post about subjects they know nothing about.
And I really couldn't care less what they think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paroxysm
Now if you wanted to participate in the discussion, a simple reply of " 'Constructive termination' is a very standard phrase in employment law." and adding an informative link would have been far more helpful. If you merely misinterpreted his original post, ok --- lesson learned for you. Many (including myself) have done it when you can't take body language and vocal inflection into account.
But all I've seen so far in your posts are vague descriptions of "should know something about a topic", which can only be determined by the reader. What standard would you apply? What certification or credential should a person have for each topic? Who, besides each reader, evaluates their level of expertise? I'm serious --- I'm really trying to understand what you mean, because maybe I've misinterpreted your genuine wish to promote intellectual discussion for pure asshattery.
I'm not applying any standard, nor am I suggesting that anyone but the poster should determine whether they're qualified (see how you keep coming back to the same lies?)
It's really very simple. If a poster doesn't understand a topic well enough to discuss it intelligently, they should keep their mouths shut. No one else should have to tell them anything - you'd think that people would want to be mature enough to talk about things they understand.
But, as you and your buddies have shown, that's apparently not the case. There are some people who think it's their God-given right to spew ignorance endlessly - no matter how much it fills these forums with falsehoods.
Sorry, but if you see that as saying that I should be the one who expects to review posts for content, then you're very, very confused. I said exactly what I said - that people should know enough about a topic to discuss it rationally before posting.
If you think that total idiots who know nothing about a topic should be posting, that's your problem.
Where did I ask anyone to leave? I asked for people to restrict their posts to topics that they know something about.
As for the people who are bitching about my post, they appear to be just the kind of people who would be best served by listening to my advice. The ONLY people who are going to be offended by what I'm suggesting are people who routinely post about subjects they know nothing about.
And I really couldn't care less what they think.
I'm not applying any standard, nor am I suggesting that anyone but the poster should determine whether they're qualified (see how you keep coming back to the same lies?)
It's really very simple. If a poster doesn't understand a topic well enough to discuss it intelligently, they should keep their mouths shut. No one else should have to tell them anything - you'd think that people would want to be mature enough to talk about things they understand.
But, as you and your buddies have shown, that's apparently not the case. There are some people who think it's their God-given right to spew ignorance endlessly - no matter how much it fills these forums with falsehoods.
You're delusional. I never said once for idiots to post. Just link it on the forums where i said such, and I'll concede the point to you. Otherwise, quit trying to build a strawman argument and stick with the facts. It's obvious you have at least some minor research into law --- at least be factual with your argument.
You specifically told Solopsism to leave (the thread). It was inferred in my last post, but I suppose I need to bring it down a notch. You can attempt to deny it, or try to explain your original intent, but your words stand on their own. Solopsism didn't meet your required level of expertise, or did he/she? If Solopsism didn't meet your requirements, then why quote him/her?
One thing I've enjoyed from this banter, is that I'm tying up your time in this thread so you can no longer infect the rest of the forum. I await your "witty" response
I really wish people who don't understand a topic would refrain from posting. 'Constructive termination' is a very standard phrase in employment law. If you don't know the phrase, you have no business posting on an employment matter.
It's not just you, but there's an endless stream of people posting here who have no clue what they're talking about. Just this week:
- People arguing that challenging the validity of a patent is 'unprecedented'
- People arguing that a sample of 65 can not ever deliver meaningful results
- People arguing that you can't sue for discrimination in a 'right to work' state
- Not to mention all the knee jerk reactions from people who automatically assume Apple is guilty every time someone complains about something
Look, people, these matters are legal and technical issues. Please do not post if you don't have sufficient knowledge of a subject to be able to discuss it rationally and factually.
Look yourself. You have summed up certain comments incorrectly, inputting your own agenda for some reason. For example, I never said that Mr. Katz can't sue for discrimination in a 'right to work' state. What I did say is that you don't need a reason to terminate. And as an employer, that's a fact. So either get your ramble straight, or take yourself off of your self made legal pedestal and move on, as it sounds like you need to join the masses of the ill informed.
However, I have to say that I have noticed how there are almost no older people working in Apple stores.
There is a lady in her late 50s, probably pushing 60, working in my local Apple Store, though she's just a greeter and not a tech or sales person. What bothers me is not that they don't hire more older people, but some of the young kids they've hired don't know what they are talking about. Sometimes I feel I know more about what's going on than those kids just by reading AppleInsider.
Comments
Very well put. There's a certain kind of internet poster that really rubs me the wrong way, dressing up "you suck because you're teh stupid LOL" with freshman debating tactics.
I see. So my request that people stick to posting on subjects that they know something about offends you?
The most likely reason for that would be that you are one of those who constantly posts on subjects you know nothing about.
Figures.
http://www.rutan.com/publications/B8...4A650DA957.pdf
The phrase is used extensively in the law. In addition, even in cases where 'constructive discharge' is more commonly used, constructive termination is widely known to mean the same thing. See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromanagement
"Alternatively, the micromanager may attempt by this or other means to create a stressful workplace in which the undesired employees no longer desire to participate; when such stress is severe or pervasive enough, its creation may be regarded as constructive discharge (also known in the United Kingdom as "constructive dismissal" and in the United States as "constructive termination")."
So none of your rant has any validity.
Calling a perfectly reasonable rebuttal a "rant" is another one of those asshat tics that really seals the deal. I'm editing my ignore list as well.
Calling a perfectly reasonable rebuttal a "rant" is another one of those asshat tics that really seals the deal. I'm editing my ignore list as well.
Sorry, it wasn't even close to 'perfectly reasonable'.
He claimed that I was uninformed because I used the term 'constructive termination'. I gave a couple of citations showing that 'constructive termination' is perfectly acceptable terminology.
So he posted several hundred words attacking me (including telling me to stfu) - when it was clear that HE was the one in error.
That's a rant by any standard.
Sorry, it wasn't even close to 'perfectly reasonable'.
He claimed that I was uninformed because I used the term 'constructive termination'. I gave a couple of citations showing that 'constructive termination' is perfectly acceptable terminology.
So he posted several hundred words attacking me (including telling me to stfu) - when it was clear that HE was the one in error.
That's a rant by any standard.
He never said you were uninformed. He said that that's not the only term for it, and implied it's lesser used. That doesn't mean he's in error.
Besides, a cursory review of your posting history has you debating on a wide variety of topics. Should we believe you're an expert in patent law, Chinese anthroplogy, and economic theory (to name a few)? While briefly reviewing your responses in said subjects, you made no claims based upon fact but instead lashed out with personal attacks ( http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...98#post1755398 ). I'm not going to try to claim some kind of moral high-ground here. I said you were a "fucking troll" in my first post on this forum, and the more I dig, it appears my assumption was correct.
So if you want to talk to peers of equal education, dedication, and interest in law --- I suggest you find another forum that meets your requirements, since you have attacked nearly every person who responded to you for being uninformed. If you'd like to participate in light discussion with people of varied backgrounds, then I'd suggest you hold yourself to the same standard as you're attempting to apply to others: Stay in the topics where you're an expert.
And nothing else.
He never said you were uninformed. He said that that's not the only term for it, and implied it's lesser used. That doesn't mean he's in error.
Read what he wrote. He was clearly attacking me because I happened to use the phrase 'constructive termination'. Since 'constructive termination' is the phrase used by the Florida guy who filed suit against Apple (remember what this thread is all about?), I was simply using the term that was in play in this law suit. That's entirely reasonable and correct and his attack was sorely misplaced.
That's entirely different from someone posting who doesn't even have a clue about some of the most important issues in employment law.
Besides, a cursory review of your posting history has you debating on a wide variety of topics. Should we believe you're an expert in patent law, Chinese anthroplogy, and economic theory (to name a few)? While briefly reviewing your responses in said subjects, you made no claims based upon fact but instead lashed out with personal attacks ( http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...98#post1755398 ). I'm not going to try to claim some kind of moral high-ground here. I said you were a "fucking troll" in my first post on this forum, and the more I dig, it appears my assumption was correct.
Where did I claim to be an expert in all of those things? And where did I say that you had to be an expert to post?
Let's get the facts right: I stated that it was appropriate for a person to know enough about a subject to be able to discuss it intelligently and factually before they clutter the forum with posts. I do happen to know a wide range of subjects well enough to discuss them intelligently and factually. If you're limited to knowing something about one subject, that's your limitation, not mine.
If you can point to factual errors in what I've said, feel free to point them out. If you can show where I posted something about a topic that I was entirely clueless about, feel free to demonstrate it. Until then, your attacks on my are foolish.
So if you want to talk to peers of equal education, dedication, and interest in law --- I suggest you find another forum that meets your requirements, since you have attacked nearly every person who responded to you for being uninformed. If you'd like to participate in light discussion with people of varied backgrounds, then I'd suggest you hold yourself to the same standard as you're attempting to apply to others: Stay in the topics where you're an expert.
I'd suggest that you learn to read.
I never suggested that only experts should be able to discuss the topic. I merely suggested that it would be better if people who didn't have a freaking clue what they were talking about kept their mouths shut. Maybe you've heard the saying "better to let others think you're a fool than to open your mouth and prove it".
Bottom line is that the forum is most useful if people stick to topics they know enough about to be able to discuss them rationally and intelligently. What is the objection to that statement? Do you REALLY think that the forum is well-served by idiots posting inane, endless comments about subjects that they know absolutely zero about? Is that REALLY the position you want to be defending?
He never said you were uninformed. He said that that's not the only term for it, and implied it's lesser used. That doesn't mean he's in error.
Heh...whether I'm in error or not about the term (who really cares?) I never told him to STFU either. Seems like he evaded the primary point anyway (probably aided by poor reading comprehension) but it's not worth unhiding his post to see.
He's an expert in Chinese anthropology? Neat.
He's an expert in Chinese anthropology? Neat.
What is it with you people who can't even read?
I never claimed to be an expert in Chinese anthropology. I do know enough about some aspects of it to discuss it intelligently, though.
It really is amazing that:
1. You (and the others attacking me on this subject) seem to think that knowledge of a subject isn't necessary before you post your ignorance world wide.
and
2. You seem to be incapable of comprehending that a person can be knowledgeable about more than one subject.
Sad, really.
Read what he wrote. He was clearly attacking me because I happened to use the phrase 'constructive termination'. Since 'constructive termination' is the phrase used by the Florida guy who filed suit against Apple (remember what this thread is all about?), I was simply using the term that was in play in this law suit. That's entirely reasonable and correct and his attack was sorely misplaced.
That's entirely different from someone posting who doesn't even have a clue about some of the most important issues in employment law.
Where did I claim to be an expert in all of those things? And where did I say that you had to be an expert to post?
Let's get the facts right: I stated that it was appropriate for a person to know enough about a subject to be able to discuss it intelligently and factually before they clutter the forum with posts. I do happen to know a wide range of subjects well enough to discuss them intelligently and factually. If you're limited to knowing something about one subject, that's your limitation, not mine.
If you can point to factual errors in what I've said, feel free to point them out. If you can show where I posted something about a topic that I was entirely clueless about, feel free to demonstrate it. Until then, your attacks on my are foolish.
I'd suggest that you learn to read.
I never suggested that only experts should be able to discuss the topic. I merely suggested that it would be better if people who didn't have a freaking clue what they were talking about kept their mouths shut. Maybe you've heard the saying "better to let others think you're a fool than to open your mouth and prove it".
Bottom line is that the forum is most useful if people stick to topics they know enough about to be able to discuss them rationally and intelligently. What is the objection to that statement? Do you REALLY think that the forum is well-served by idiots posting inane, endless comments about subjects that they know absolutely zero about? Is that REALLY the position you want to be defending?
I like the spin you attempted at the bottom. Adhere to your own suggestion, and learn to read because you completely missed the point. You know damned well no one is trying to support the position of posting uninformed. What you've proposed is that YOU somehow serve as the judge of whom is competent enough to post about a subject. You're welcome to do that for yourself, but not for everyone else. But until you have "moderator" next to your handle, keep your judgement to yourself, kid.
Or maybe you could stick to the topic instead?
I like the spin you attempted at the bottom. Adhere to your own suggestion, and learn to read because you completely missed the point. You know damned well no one is trying to support the position of posting uninformed.
Wrong. LOTS of people are defending the concept that people should be able to post whether they know something about a subject or not.
Look at the facts. I suggested that people shouldn't post on a subject that they don't know well enough to have a reasonably intelligent and informed discussion. Not an expert discussion. Not knowing everything. Just knowing enough to be able to talk intelligently about it.
Then a bunch of people attacked me for having an 'elitist' and 'hypocritical' position and insisted that people should be able to post - no matter how ignorant they are.
What you've proposed is that YOU somehow serve as the judge of whom is competent enough to post about a subject. You're welcome to do that for yourself, but not for everyone else. But until you have "moderator" next to your handle, keep your judgement to yourself, kid.
Where did I say that I was supposed to serve as the judge? Answer: nowhere.
In fact, my posts were very clear that I expected people to stop posting if they didn't know something about the topic - not that I (or anyone else for that matter) should filter out posts that were uninformed.
It really amazes me how many people think that it's OK to post endlessly on subjects that they know nothing about. Sad.
Wrong. LOTS of people are defending the concept that people should be able to post whether they know something about a subject or not.
Look at the facts. I suggested that people shouldn't post on a subject that they don't know well enough to have a reasonably intelligent and informed discussion. Not an expert discussion. Not knowing everything. Just knowing enough to be able to talk intelligently about it.
Then a bunch of people attacked me for having an 'elitist' and 'hypocritical' position and insisted that people should be able to post - no matter how ignorant they are.
Where did I say that I was supposed to serve as the judge? Answer: nowhere.
In fact, my posts were very clear that I expected people to stop posting if they didn't know something about the topic - not that I (or anyone else for that matter) should filter out posts that were uninformed.
It really amazes me how many people think that it's OK to post endlessly on subjects that they know nothing about. Sad.
And to reiterate it so maybe you can keep up: No one is suggesting uninformed, random posting. Not you, not me, not anyone (so far). Your strawman argument about that is completely offtrack. I'll await your quote from anywhere else on this forum where someone suggested they'll "post whether they know something about a subject or not." Go ahead --- I'll wait.
As for judging the validity of posts: Your ignore button should serve nicely for that. At the end of the day, no matter whether you agree with anything I've said or not, the posters of this forum will post whatever they wish.
Including you.
And to reiterate it so maybe you can keep up: No one is suggesting uninformed, random posting. Not you, not me, not anyone (so far). Your strawman argument about that is completely offtrack. .
Really? Then please explain why so many people attacked me for simply suggesting that people should know something about a topic before posting? The fact that there are so many attacks, means that they obviously disagreed with the premise I posted (that people should know something about a topic before posting).
I have to say, I've never seen anyone working in an apple store who looked over 23, and not only that, they are all physically attractive too, ever seen a man with a receding hair line as an apple store employee? How about a lady with waist measurements not in "proper proportion" to chest measurements? I have not.
Apple wants pretty people, no different than any other modeling job, the difference, and the thing that will end up hanging them in this matter is that they don't call it what it is, modeling (read looking pretty to sell shit)- they classify it as tech support/advising/retail sales.
The local Apple Store here has not only older folks (that is older than my 50 or so years) working there, but other who have your cited "hairline issues" as well as not necessarily being as you so quaintly put it "physically attractive" (based on some hitherto mysterious and apparently personal set of standards you have yet to share with the rest of us). And to put a wrapper on this posting, the store has probably the most diverse and eclectic set of personalities, body types and ages I've seen in Retail (outside of seasonal panic hiring standards anyway). In fact I've seen similar sets of Apple staff in other stores as well, so I apparently haven't been to any of the ones you frequent.
Retail is a unique employment environment and unless you are used to dealing with all the people that are shopping your store - not many people actually enjoy being on the sales side. Consumers can tend to be onerous, demanding entitled shits with delusions of godhood. I know - I'm not far from the description myself. That being said - Apple tends to have one of the best retail operations I've ever experienced - and I've seen a lot. Any one (as well evidenced by the earlier postings) who is reading this baldly and forming opinions based on the filing are demonstrating a level of cupidity that is at once awe-inspiring and undermines their claims of native intelligence.
Any store in any chain is only as good as the management staff running it, and decisions are made that don't sort well with anyone not privy to the inside knowledge that will be ferreted out in the course of this case. So to make certain calls on what the facts and circumstances are based on what was released in the blog entry is a clear demonstration of idiocy bordering on desperate boredom.
Move along l'il doggies.....
Really? Then please explain why so many people attacked me for simply suggesting that people should know something about a topic before posting? The fact that there are so many attacks, means that they obviously disagreed with the premise I posted (that people should know something about a topic before posting).
It wasn't "simply suggesting":
-----------------------------
Originally Posted by solipsism
Thank you. I wasn?t aware of that phrasing.
Originally Posted by jragosta
I really wish people who don't understand a topic would refrain from posting. 'Constructive termination' is a very standard phrase in employment law. If you don't know the phrase, you have no business posting on an employment matter.
-----------------------------
Your response was viewed by at least (3) people that I can count in the thread so far as a passive-aggressive attack, when it's obvious (to me at least) that Solipsism was actually saying "Thank you for informing me". No matter how you phrase it, if you post on a lively discussion and tell others to leave, you're viewed as a troll and will be responded to in kind.
Now if you wanted to participate in the discussion, a simple reply of " 'Constructive termination' is a very standard phrase in employment law." and adding an informative link would have been far more helpful. If you merely misinterpreted his original post, ok --- lesson learned for you. Many (including myself) have done it when you can't take body language and vocal inflection into account.
But all I've seen so far in your posts are vague descriptions of "should know something about a topic", which can only be determined by the reader. What standard would you apply? What certification or credential should a person have for each topic? Who, besides each reader, evaluates their level of expertise? I'm serious --- I'm really trying to understand what you mean, because maybe I've misinterpreted your genuine wish to promote intellectual discussion for pure asshattery.
I certainly cannot comment on the merits of this case -- there's just not enough information.
But aside from this case, I suspect we are about to see an avalanche of these types of lawsuits throughout all industries over the next few years. The most self-centered, "entitled" generation in the history of the world is now entering old age. The babyboomers are going to take the idea of "grumpy old man" to a whole new level.
You are pretty grumpy yourself.
It wasn't "simply suggesting":
-----------------------------
Originally Posted by solipsism
Thank you. I wasn?t aware of that phrasing.
Originally Posted by jragosta
I really wish people who don't understand a topic would refrain from posting. 'Constructive termination' is a very standard phrase in employment law. If you don't know the phrase, you have no business posting on an employment matter.
-----------------------------
Sorry, but if you see that as saying that I should be the one who expects to review posts for content, then you're very, very confused. I said exactly what I said - that people should know enough about a topic to discuss it rationally before posting.
If you think that total idiots who know nothing about a topic should be posting, that's your problem.
Your response was viewed by at least (3) people that I can count in the thread so far as a passive-aggressive attack, when it's obvious (to me at least) that Solipsism was actually saying "Thank you for informing me". No matter how you phrase it, if you post on a lively discussion and tell others to leave, you're viewed as a troll and will be responded to in kind.
Where did I ask anyone to leave? I asked for people to restrict their posts to topics that they know something about.
As for the people who are bitching about my post, they appear to be just the kind of people who would be best served by listening to my advice. The ONLY people who are going to be offended by what I'm suggesting are people who routinely post about subjects they know nothing about.
And I really couldn't care less what they think.
Now if you wanted to participate in the discussion, a simple reply of " 'Constructive termination' is a very standard phrase in employment law." and adding an informative link would have been far more helpful. If you merely misinterpreted his original post, ok --- lesson learned for you. Many (including myself) have done it when you can't take body language and vocal inflection into account.
But all I've seen so far in your posts are vague descriptions of "should know something about a topic", which can only be determined by the reader. What standard would you apply? What certification or credential should a person have for each topic? Who, besides each reader, evaluates their level of expertise? I'm serious --- I'm really trying to understand what you mean, because maybe I've misinterpreted your genuine wish to promote intellectual discussion for pure asshattery.
I'm not applying any standard, nor am I suggesting that anyone but the poster should determine whether they're qualified (see how you keep coming back to the same lies?)
It's really very simple. If a poster doesn't understand a topic well enough to discuss it intelligently, they should keep their mouths shut. No one else should have to tell them anything - you'd think that people would want to be mature enough to talk about things they understand.
But, as you and your buddies have shown, that's apparently not the case. There are some people who think it's their God-given right to spew ignorance endlessly - no matter how much it fills these forums with falsehoods.
Sorry, but if you see that as saying that I should be the one who expects to review posts for content, then you're very, very confused. I said exactly what I said - that people should know enough about a topic to discuss it rationally before posting.
If you think that total idiots who know nothing about a topic should be posting, that's your problem.
Where did I ask anyone to leave? I asked for people to restrict their posts to topics that they know something about.
As for the people who are bitching about my post, they appear to be just the kind of people who would be best served by listening to my advice. The ONLY people who are going to be offended by what I'm suggesting are people who routinely post about subjects they know nothing about.
And I really couldn't care less what they think.
I'm not applying any standard, nor am I suggesting that anyone but the poster should determine whether they're qualified (see how you keep coming back to the same lies?)
It's really very simple. If a poster doesn't understand a topic well enough to discuss it intelligently, they should keep their mouths shut. No one else should have to tell them anything - you'd think that people would want to be mature enough to talk about things they understand.
But, as you and your buddies have shown, that's apparently not the case. There are some people who think it's their God-given right to spew ignorance endlessly - no matter how much it fills these forums with falsehoods.
You're delusional. I never said once for idiots to post. Just link it on the forums where i said such, and I'll concede the point to you. Otherwise, quit trying to build a strawman argument and stick with the facts. It's obvious you have at least some minor research into law --- at least be factual with your argument.
You specifically told Solopsism to leave (the thread). It was inferred in my last post, but I suppose I need to bring it down a notch. You can attempt to deny it, or try to explain your original intent, but your words stand on their own. Solopsism didn't meet your required level of expertise, or did he/she? If Solopsism didn't meet your requirements, then why quote him/her?
One thing I've enjoyed from this banter, is that I'm tying up your time in this thread so you can no longer infect the rest of the forum. I await your "witty" response
You're delusional. I never said once for idiots to post.
No, you just attacked me when I said that idiots shouldn't post. That amounts to the same thing.
No, you just attacked me when I said that idiots shouldn't post. That amounts to the same thing.
Acutally, it doesn't.
"I never said once for idiots to post."
"...when I said that idiots shouldn't post."
I just wish sometimes people wouldn't comment on a forum unless they have a basic grasp of the English language. It just gets filled with drivel.
I really wish people who don't understand a topic would refrain from posting. 'Constructive termination' is a very standard phrase in employment law. If you don't know the phrase, you have no business posting on an employment matter.
It's not just you, but there's an endless stream of people posting here who have no clue what they're talking about. Just this week:
- People arguing that challenging the validity of a patent is 'unprecedented'
- People arguing that a sample of 65 can not ever deliver meaningful results
- People arguing that you can't sue for discrimination in a 'right to work' state
- Not to mention all the knee jerk reactions from people who automatically assume Apple is guilty every time someone complains about something
Look, people, these matters are legal and technical issues. Please do not post if you don't have sufficient knowledge of a subject to be able to discuss it rationally and factually.
Look yourself. You have summed up certain comments incorrectly, inputting your own agenda for some reason. For example, I never said that Mr. Katz can't sue for discrimination in a 'right to work' state. What I did say is that you don't need a reason to terminate. And as an employer, that's a fact. So either get your ramble straight, or take yourself off of your self made legal pedestal and move on, as it sounds like you need to join the masses of the ill informed.
However, I have to say that I have noticed how there are almost no older people working in Apple stores.
There is a lady in her late 50s, probably pushing 60, working in my local Apple Store, though she's just a greeter and not a tech or sales person. What bothers me is not that they don't hire more older people, but some of the young kids they've hired don't know what they are talking about. Sometimes I feel I know more about what's going on than those kids just by reading AppleInsider.