1) You implied that by i) suggesting that the court decision can't be questioned nor disagreed with and ii) stating it can't be a serious response to link to a list of high profile decisions that the author deemed wrong.
2) Now you're claiming the 13 are all the wrong decisions ever made by a court because the author limited it that many? I guess that means the 10 stupid criminals caught on tape that I linked are the only 10 on record¡
3) If I were listing poor decisions made my courts I would not list this one with Apple simply because it's such a minor issue compared to larger civil right violations.
1) I implied no such thing. That's a laughable statement. Of course it can be questioned (and is being questioned in this thread, isn't it?). I was simply pointing out to @Gatorguy (who rarely has anything good to say about Apple in his many many thousands of posts) that the court, in this instance, said it was the right thing for Apple to do. You provided the link to the 13 decisions (with a sarcasm tag attached). I responded to it in detail -- that some were from the 1800s, others from before 2WW, that things evolve, that others, #9-#13, are debatable as to their incorrectness, that I have no clue who Findlaw is, and invited you to tell me more about them. You brushed away every serious point in that post, and did not respond. Perhaps because you found a random link and posted it and could not answer my questions?
That's just not serious on your part. Back up your links/posts, or don't link/post.
2) Perhaps you did not realize you gave me only 13.? I can only respond to what you post. If you have more, tell me. OTOH, if you're saying that there are many decisions that courts make that can be wrong, just say that. Don't provide some silly, partial, sarcastic link that you can't back up. It lowers the quality of the discussion. We expect better from you. (IMHO, over the many years and many tens of thousands of posts you've made, I've noticed that you also have a tendency to get increasingly defensive and lash out when your posts are challenged; this is exactly what you seem to be doing here; however, I'll admit that is a totally subjective opinion).
3) Obviously, not everyone thinks this was a poor decision by the court. You ? everyone. At least 50% of the posters in this forum (I'll venture a guess that it's well over that number, but I haven't counted) agree with the court's ruling and disagree with your and @Gatorguy's take on this decision.
Most importantly, you have completely ignored the most substantive point I've been trying to make (including in response to your point about the seven mile drive from the gate of the nuclear facility), which is that, there is a difference between company-related job attributes that impact all employees and hence imply responsibilities for the accommodations the company has to make (in your example, the fact that all employees arriving at that facility have to make a seven-mile trek), versus those that, by employee choice, affect different employees differentially. And that, in the latter case, it would be impossible for a company to take into account every employee contingency to tailor its policies (I even gave you many other such instances in which similar issues could arise, implying that accommodations would just lead to a slippery slope of appeasements).
Well, instead of "don't bring a bag", why isn't the solution, "search them before they clock out"?
That comes out of the company's (and the customers') time, and the fact that the employee chooses to bring a bag is not Apple's problem, as numerous posters have pointed out?
Sorry to inform you, but you are not quoting any comments in your replies.
Please forgive me for forgetting to include the quote ... not.
Surely, you have better things to do with your time than dream some snarky reply designed to convey your sense of superiority or express your dislike of my opinions. Oh you don't? I'm not surprised.
1) I implied no such thing. That's a laughable statement. Of course it can be questioned (and is being questioned in this thread, isn't it?). I was simply pointing out to <a data-huddler-embed="href" href="/u/100667/Gatorguy" style="display:inline-block;">@Gatorguy</a>
(who rarely has anything good to say about Apple in his many many thousands of posts) that the court, in this instance, said it was the right thing for Apple to do. You provided the link to the 13 decisions (with a sarcasm tag attached). I responded to it in detail -- that some were from the 1800s, others from before 2WW, that things evolve, that others, #9-#13, are debatable as to their incorrectness, that I have no clue who Findlaw is, and invited you to tell me more about them. You brushed away every serious point in that post, and did not respond. Perhaps because you found a random link and posted it and could not answer my questions?
That's just not serious on your part. Back up your links/posts, or don't link/post.
2) Perhaps you did not realize you gave me only 13.? I can only respond to what you post. If you have more, tell me. OTOH, if you're saying that there are many decisions that courts make that can be wrong, just say that. Don't provide some silly, partial, sarcastic link that you can't back up. It lowers the quality of the discussion. We expect better from you. (IMHO, over the many years and many tens of thousands of posts you've made, I've noticed that you also have a tendency to get increasingly defensive and lash out when your posts are challenged; this is exactly what you seem to be doing here; however, I'll admit that is a totally subjective opinion).
3) Obviously, not everyone thinks this was a poor decision by the court. You ? everyone. At least 50% of the posters in this forum (I'll venture a guess that it's well over that number, but I haven't counted) agree with the court's ruling and disagree with your and @Gatorguy's take on this decision.
Most importantly, you have completely ignored the most substantive point I've been trying to make (including in response to your point about the seven mile drive from the gate of the nuclear facility), which is that, there is a difference between company-related job attributes that impact all employees and hence imply responsibilities for the accommodations the company has to make (in your example, the fact that all employees arriving at that facility have to make a seven-mile trek), versus those that, by employee choice, affect different employees differentially. And that, in the latter case, it would be impossible for a company to take into account every employee contingency to tailor its policies (I even gave you many other such instances in which similar issues could arise, implying that accommodations would just lead to a slippery slope of appeasements).
1) Yes you did when you suggested that they couldn't be submitted as wrong decisions because they weren't recent enough. Additionally, providing you with a link is backing up my comment.
2) 1 is enough to show that a decision by a court isn't proof of a correct decision. I gave you 13, which you claim don't count for reasons I can't begin to understand.
3) I did address the all employees notion as my example does not affect all the company's employees.
Please forgive me for forgetting to include the quote ... not.
Surely, you have better things to do with your time than dream some snarky reply designed to convey your sense of superiority or express your dislike of my opinions. Oh you don't? I'm not surprised.
1) That's the definition of irony.
2) Are you or are you not trying to communicate? If not, then why post at all; if you are then post cryptic comments where it looks like you're having a debate with yourself. Every seen a homeless person having a conversation with themselves. Yep, it looks that crazy online, too.
1) Yes you did when you suggested that they couldn't be submitted as wrong decisions because they weren't recent enough. Additionally, providing you with a link is backing up my comment.
2) 1 is enough to show that a decision by a court isn't proof of a correct decision. I gave you 13, which you claim don't count for reasons I can't begin to understand.
3) I did address the all employees notion as my example does not affect all the company's employees.
Your first and second points are just lies. Why are you clearly and knowingly lying to all of us. He gave you credit for all of them possibly being legiymately bad decisions when he came upwith the figure of 99.87 percent of total decisions being correct. You acknowledged this part of his comment by saying these 13 aren't the limit of the courts mistakes, so you yourself addressed his acceptance of these as possible mistakes. Please stop the nonsense!
Your first and second points are just lies. Why are you clearly and knowingly lying to all of us. He gave you credit for all of them possibly being legiymately bad decisions when he came upwith the figure of 99.87 percent of total decisions being correct. You acknowledged this part of his comment by saying these 13 aren't the limit of the courts mistakes, so you yourself addressed his acceptance of these as possible mistakes. Please stop the nonsense!
So giving a link to bad decisons is NOT supporting my point?
"Perhaps you did not realize you gave me only 13…"
Exactly how many do I need to list before it's no longer a lie that I believe courts can make bad decisions?
I'm really curious why this "you shouldn't disagree with the court's decisions" isn't brought up when Apple is found in the wrong. Very curious¡
I have figured out the solution to the problem that will allow the company to pay to search personal bags that the individual brought to work.
The company agrees to pay the $1 dollar a day on average (the time it takes to search the bags), and the company will charge $2 for using company property to store personal property on corporate premises.... No more free storage.
So giving a link to bad decisons is NOT supporting my point?
"Perhaps you did not realize you gave me only 13…"
Exactly how many do I need to list before it's no longer a lie that I believe courts can make bad decisions?
I'm really curious why this "you shouldn't disagree with the court's decisions" isn't brought up when Apple is found in the wrong. Very curious¡
Your lies
#1 "Yes you did when you suggested that they couldn't be submitted as wrong decisions because they weren't recent enough." He did not say anywhere that they could not be submitted as wrong decisions. Please show us where he said this.
#2 - "I gave you 13, which you claim don't count for reasons I can't begin to understand." He did not claim in any way that they didn't count. He implied their value of "counting" should be evaluated and probably should be "counted" less due to the far distant history they represent. No where did he say or imply that they didn't count.
Yet you continue to ignore and obfuscate every time your lies, falsehoods and comments apropos-of-nothing are directly and reasonably questioned.
#1 "Yes you did when you suggested that they couldn't be submitted as wrong decisions because they weren't recent enough." He did not say anywhere that they could not be submitted as wrong decisions. Please show us where he said this.
#2 - "I gave you 13, which you claim don't count for reasons I can't begin to understand." He did not claim in any way that they didn't count. He implied their value of "counting" should be evaluated and probably should be "counted" less due to the far distant history they represent. No where did he say or imply that they didn't count.
Saying "leaving aside" and then going into detail about why they shouldn't count is NOT leaving it aside.
"Leaving aside the fact that more than half of them pre-date an era when…"
Yes, he did suggest they shouldn't count when he used that same facile argument.
#2 - "I gave you 13, which you claim don't count for reasons I can't begin to understand." He did not claim in any way that they didn't count. He implied their value of "counting" should be evaluated and probably should be "counted" less due to the far distant history they represent. No where did he say or imply that they didn't count.
Court cases are not applicable if they are based on laws that did not exist at the time (i.e. in this case pre-1947).
There is one remaining wrong: The lawyer(s) of the plaintiffs should have been given the death penalty for bringing such a lawsuit that they should have realized would be lost from the onset. Looks like they were simply looking for Apple to settle so that they could get "millions", leaving little for the plaintiffs.
Greed.
At the very least, Apple should get its legal fees paid by the plaintiffs and their lawyers.
1) Yes you did when you suggested that they couldn't be submitted as wrong decisions because they weren't recent enough. Additionally, providing you with a link is backing up my comment.
2) 1 is enough to show that a decision by a court isn't proof of a correct decision. I gave you 13, which you claim don't count for reasons I can't begin to understand.
3) I did address the all employees notion as my example does not affect all the company's employees.
I was expecting nothing more than this utterly pointless and pedantic response.
I was expecting nothing more than this utterly pointless and pedantic response.
Says the guy whose argument is that it's not the right era for court cases and suggests that if GG agrees with me that I'm wrong to believe a company should pay for employees having to wait extended periods of time before being allowed to leave. The saddening thing about this is that I am certain you and others would have argued the other way had it been about a MS store, and probably even made comments about "why would anyone steal any of the crap from MS?"
Your first and second points are just lies. Why are you clearly and knowingly lying to all of us. He gave you credit for all of them possibly being legiymately bad decisions when he came upwith the figure of 99.87 percent of total decisions being correct. You acknowledged this part of his comment by saying these 13 aren't the limit of the courts mistakes, so you yourself addressed his acceptance of these as possible mistakes. Please stop the nonsense!
So giving a link to bad decisons is NOT supporting my point?
"Perhaps you did not realize you gave me only 13…"
Exactly how many do I need to list before it's no longer a lie that I believe courts can make bad decisions?
I'm really curious why this "you shouldn't disagree with the court's decisions" isn't brought up when Apple is found in the wrong. Very curious¡
Ah, in the typical deceptive fashion in which you have sliced/diced/ and selectively responded to most of my posts in this thread, you left out the most crucial part of my post you quote above (in red, just so that the average reader knows): the "¡".
?As you know (and others might recall), you are the creator of this "¡" symbol, and as you well know (and some may not know) it stands for "/sarcasm." I had specifically added the "¡"at the end of my sentence.
Put it back. And repost with an honest response.
Very curious¡. And deeply disappointing from a veteran (and often value-addd) poster on AI./¡
Says the guy whose argument is that it's not the right era for court cases and suggests that if GG agrees with me that I'm wrong to believe a company should pay for employees having to wait extended periods of time before being allowed to leave. The saddening thing about this is that I am certain you and others would have argued the other way had it been about a MS store, and probably even made comments about "why would anyone steal any of the crap from MS?"
Now you're adding cheap speculation to try and cover your ass over a set of deceptive posts.
For the record, I would not have. (Perhaps you might have, given the lack of ethics you've displayed in responding to replies to your posts in this thread).
Saying "leaving aside" and then going into detail about why they shouldn't count is NOT leaving it aside.
"Leaving aside the fact that more than half of them pre-date an era when…"
Yes, he did suggest they shouldn't count when he used that same facile argument.
Not at all.
I provided the key points I made prior so as to make my post self-contained (to the average person reading it), and more importantly, because you had completely ignored it in your response. I was specifically pointing out that you had again selectively (and in my view, deceptively) sliced/diced and selectively responded to or quoted my posts.
Ah, in the typical deceptive fashion in which you have sliced/diced/ and selectively responded to most of my posts in this thread, you left out the most crucial part of my post you quote above (in red, just so that the average reader knows): the "¡".
?As you know (and others might recall), you are the creator of this "¡" symbol, and as you well know (and some may not know) it stands for "/sarcasm." I had specifically added the "¡"at the end of my sentence.
Put it back. And repost with an honest response.
Very curious¡. And deeply disappointing from a veteran (and often value-addd) poster on AI./¡
1) And you used, what, the smallest possible font for what reason? So you can have a "gotcha" moment when I didn't see it? Well Done¡ FOX News has taught you well. (See how I used the normal-sized font?)
2) And where is your sarcasm for your era argument or do you going to do a 180° again on suggesting the legal system of man is somehow now above reproach or that I'm not allowed to disagree with a decision? I pulled a screenshot for fear that you might alter the text. Plus, you can't say I ignored your comment when I post the whole fucking thing, instead of the reverent stupidity.
With that small "i" which to be quite honest I had never heard such nonsense before about having a special i....
1. When you select quote does it drop the i?
2. Do you have to manually go back and edit out the i?
How did this "i" disappear (apparently if I am reading it right). If the i was deleted, then it was not too difficult to see....
Sorry, too lazy to read through all the posts looking for "i" or no "i" ....
It only looks like a lower-case 'I' because be purposely choose to use a small font, making it look like a typo, if it was even noticed at all. Maybe he used a lower-case 'i' in his original post. It's too small for me to tell from the screenshot. In his latest comment he uses the upside-down exclamation point known as temperate slaqî , which is an irony mark in the Ethiopian language.
edit: I just verified that he did purposely use a period followed by a lower-case "I" in the original post and then tried to say it's my fault for not notice it. He then used the correct symbol twice in that rebuke, which I surmise is to get me to assume he used the correct symbol all along. Nice try¡
Comments
1) You implied that by i) suggesting that the court decision can't be questioned nor disagreed with and ii) stating it can't be a serious response to link to a list of high profile decisions that the author deemed wrong.
2) Now you're claiming the 13 are all the wrong decisions ever made by a court because the author limited it that many? I guess that means the 10 stupid criminals caught on tape that I linked are the only 10 on record¡
3) If I were listing poor decisions made my courts I would not list this one with Apple simply because it's such a minor issue compared to larger civil right violations.
1) I implied no such thing. That's a laughable statement. Of course it can be questioned (and is being questioned in this thread, isn't it?). I was simply pointing out to @Gatorguy (who rarely has anything good to say about Apple in his many many thousands of posts) that the court, in this instance, said it was the right thing for Apple to do. You provided the link to the 13 decisions (with a sarcasm tag attached). I responded to it in detail -- that some were from the 1800s, others from before 2WW, that things evolve, that others, #9-#13, are debatable as to their incorrectness, that I have no clue who Findlaw is, and invited you to tell me more about them. You brushed away every serious point in that post, and did not respond. Perhaps because you found a random link and posted it and could not answer my questions?
That's just not serious on your part. Back up your links/posts, or don't link/post.
2) Perhaps you did not realize you gave me only 13.? I can only respond to what you post. If you have more, tell me. OTOH, if you're saying that there are many decisions that courts make that can be wrong, just say that. Don't provide some silly, partial, sarcastic link that you can't back up. It lowers the quality of the discussion. We expect better from you. (IMHO, over the many years and many tens of thousands of posts you've made, I've noticed that you also have a tendency to get increasingly defensive and lash out when your posts are challenged; this is exactly what you seem to be doing here; however, I'll admit that is a totally subjective opinion).
3) Obviously, not everyone thinks this was a poor decision by the court. You ? everyone. At least 50% of the posters in this forum (I'll venture a guess that it's well over that number, but I haven't counted) agree with the court's ruling and disagree with your and @Gatorguy's take on this decision.
Most importantly, you have completely ignored the most substantive point I've been trying to make (including in response to your point about the seven mile drive from the gate of the nuclear facility), which is that, there is a difference between company-related job attributes that impact all employees and hence imply responsibilities for the accommodations the company has to make (in your example, the fact that all employees arriving at that facility have to make a seven-mile trek), versus those that, by employee choice, affect different employees differentially. And that, in the latter case, it would be impossible for a company to take into account every employee contingency to tailor its policies (I even gave you many other such instances in which similar issues could arise, implying that accommodations would just lead to a slippery slope of appeasements).
Well, instead of "don't bring a bag", why isn't the solution, "search them before they clock out"?
That comes out of the company's (and the customers') time, and the fact that the employee chooses to bring a bag is not Apple's problem, as numerous posters have pointed out?
Sorry to inform you, but you are not quoting any comments in your replies.
Please forgive me for forgetting to include the quote ... not.
Surely, you have better things to do with your time than dream some snarky reply designed to convey your sense of superiority or express your dislike of my opinions. Oh you don't? I'm not surprised.
1) Yes you did when you suggested that they couldn't be submitted as wrong decisions because they weren't recent enough. Additionally, providing you with a link is backing up my comment.
2) 1 is enough to show that a decision by a court isn't proof of a correct decision. I gave you 13, which you claim don't count for reasons I can't begin to understand.
3) I did address the all employees notion as my example does not affect all the company's employees.
1) That's the definition of irony.
2) Are you or are you not trying to communicate? If not, then why post at all; if you are then post cryptic comments where it looks like you're having a debate with yourself. Every seen a homeless person having a conversation with themselves. Yep, it looks that crazy online, too.
Your first and second points are just lies. Why are you clearly and knowingly lying to all of us. He gave you credit for all of them possibly being legiymately bad decisions when he came upwith the figure of 99.87 percent of total decisions being correct. You acknowledged this part of his comment by saying these 13 aren't the limit of the courts mistakes, so you yourself addressed his acceptance of these as possible mistakes. Please stop the nonsense!
So giving a link to bad decisons is NOT supporting my point?
"Perhaps you did not realize you gave me only 13…"
Exactly how many do I need to list before it's no longer a lie that I believe courts can make bad decisions?
I'm really curious why this "you shouldn't disagree with the court's decisions" isn't brought up when Apple is found in the wrong. Very curious¡
I have figured out the solution to the problem that will allow the company to pay to search personal bags that the individual brought to work.
The company agrees to pay the $1 dollar a day on average (the time it takes to search the bags), and the company will charge $2 for using company property to store personal property on corporate premises.... No more free storage.
So giving a link to bad decisons is NOT supporting my point?
"Perhaps you did not realize you gave me only 13…"
Exactly how many do I need to list before it's no longer a lie that I believe courts can make bad decisions?
I'm really curious why this "you shouldn't disagree with the court's decisions" isn't brought up when Apple is found in the wrong. Very curious¡
Your lies
#1 "Yes you did when you suggested that they couldn't be submitted as wrong decisions because they weren't recent enough." He did not say anywhere that they could not be submitted as wrong decisions. Please show us where he said this.
#2 - "I gave you 13, which you claim don't count for reasons I can't begin to understand." He did not claim in any way that they didn't count. He implied their value of "counting" should be evaluated and probably should be "counted" less due to the far distant history they represent. No where did he say or imply that they didn't count.
Yet you continue to ignore and obfuscate every time your lies, falsehoods and comments apropos-of-nothing are directly and reasonably questioned.
"Leaving aside the fact that more than half of them pre-date an era when…"
Yes, he did suggest they shouldn't count when he used that same facile argument.
Your lies
#2 - "I gave you 13, which you claim don't count for reasons I can't begin to understand." He did not claim in any way that they didn't count. He implied their value of "counting" should be evaluated and probably should be "counted" less due to the far distant history they represent. No where did he say or imply that they didn't count.
Court cases are not applicable if they are based on laws that did not exist at the time (i.e. in this case pre-1947).
Common sense prevails.
There is one remaining wrong: The lawyer(s) of the plaintiffs should have been given the death penalty for bringing such a lawsuit that they should have realized would be lost from the onset. Looks like they were simply looking for Apple to settle so that they could get "millions", leaving little for the plaintiffs.
Greed.
At the very least, Apple should get its legal fees paid by the plaintiffs and their lawyers.
1) Yes you did when you suggested that they couldn't be submitted as wrong decisions because they weren't recent enough. Additionally, providing you with a link is backing up my comment.
2) 1 is enough to show that a decision by a court isn't proof of a correct decision. I gave you 13, which you claim don't count for reasons I can't begin to understand.
3) I did address the all employees notion as my example does not affect all the company's employees.
I was expecting nothing more than this utterly pointless and pedantic response.
Says the guy whose argument is that it's not the right era for court cases and suggests that if GG agrees with me that I'm wrong to believe a company should pay for employees having to wait extended periods of time before being allowed to leave. The saddening thing about this is that I am certain you and others would have argued the other way had it been about a MS store, and probably even made comments about "why would anyone steal any of the crap from MS?"
Your first and second points are just lies. Why are you clearly and knowingly lying to all of us. He gave you credit for all of them possibly being legiymately bad decisions when he came upwith the figure of 99.87 percent of total decisions being correct. You acknowledged this part of his comment by saying these 13 aren't the limit of the courts mistakes, so you yourself addressed his acceptance of these as possible mistakes. Please stop the nonsense!
So giving a link to bad decisons is NOT supporting my point?
"Perhaps you did not realize you gave me only 13…"
Exactly how many do I need to list before it's no longer a lie that I believe courts can make bad decisions?
I'm really curious why this "you shouldn't disagree with the court's decisions" isn't brought up when Apple is found in the wrong. Very curious¡
Ah, in the typical deceptive fashion in which you have sliced/diced/ and selectively responded to most of my posts in this thread, you left out the most crucial part of my post you quote above (in red, just so that the average reader knows): the "¡".
?As you know (and others might recall), you are the creator of this "¡" symbol, and as you well know (and some may not know) it stands for "/sarcasm." I had specifically added the "¡"at the end of my sentence.
Put it back. And repost with an honest response.
Very curious¡. And deeply disappointing from a veteran (and often value-addd) poster on AI./¡
Says the guy whose argument is that it's not the right era for court cases and suggests that if GG agrees with me that I'm wrong to believe a company should pay for employees having to wait extended periods of time before being allowed to leave. The saddening thing about this is that I am certain you and others would have argued the other way had it been about a MS store, and probably even made comments about "why would anyone steal any of the crap from MS?"
Now you're adding cheap speculation to try and cover your ass over a set of deceptive posts.
For the record, I would not have. (Perhaps you might have, given the lack of ethics you've displayed in responding to replies to your posts in this thread).
Saying "leaving aside" and then going into detail about why they shouldn't count is NOT leaving it aside.
"Leaving aside the fact that more than half of them pre-date an era when…"
Yes, he did suggest they shouldn't count when he used that same facile argument.
Not at all.
I provided the key points I made prior so as to make my post self-contained (to the average person reading it), and more importantly, because you had completely ignored it in your response. I was specifically pointing out that you had again selectively (and in my view, deceptively) sliced/diced and selectively responded to or quoted my posts.
1) And you used, what, the smallest possible font for what reason? So you can have a "gotcha" moment when I didn't see it? Well Done¡ FOX News has taught you well. (See how I used the normal-sized font?)
2) And where is your sarcasm for your era argument or do you going to do a 180° again on suggesting the legal system of man is somehow now above reproach or that I'm not allowed to disagree with a decision? I pulled a screenshot for fear that you might alter the text. Plus, you can't say I ignored your comment when I post the whole fucking thing, instead of the reverent stupidity.
With that small "i" which to be quite honest I had never heard such nonsense before about having a special i....
1. When you select quote does it drop the i?
2. Do you have to manually go back and edit out the i?
How did this "i" disappear (apparently if I am reading it right). If the i was deleted, then it was not too difficult to see....
Sorry, too lazy to read through all the posts looking for "i" or no "i" ....
It only looks like a lower-case 'I' because be purposely choose to use a small font, making it look like a typo, if it was even noticed at all. Maybe he used a lower-case 'i' in his original post. It's too small for me to tell from the screenshot. In his latest comment he uses the upside-down exclamation point known as temperate slaqî , which is an irony mark in the Ethiopian language.
edit: I just verified that he did purposely use a period followed by a lower-case "I" in the original post and then tried to say it's my fault for not notice it. He then used the correct symbol twice in that rebuke, which I surmise is to get me to assume he used the correct symbol all along. Nice try¡