• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

I really screwed myself this time.

#161
MatticusMania said:
I get what youre saying, because youve said it again and again.
What Im saying is that you dont always have the option of keeping that information in the dark.
This isnt a conversation about preferences, because Im sure we'd all prefer not to be cheated on in the first place, and then the whole discussion would be moot.
Click to expand...

and here's another example: speaking in absolutes. "oh well just because someone can do that with ONE event doesn't mean ALL events are able to be like that."

The guy said his preference is no information comes to light. What isn't clear about that?
 
#165
scorpionldr said:
Considering he cut the relationship with the co-worker off so quickly by telling his girlfriend first, I'd say the focus was that his company would find out.
Click to expand...

This contradicts what you said earlier...

scorpionldr said:
it sounded like he just did it because he thought he'd get fired/demoted and wanted to save face in his explanation to his SO of why his wage was suddenly plummeting, while getting the one that he got a one-time in on out of his face.
Click to expand...

You also seem to lack the ability of making clear, concise statements. So was the focus on his work finding out? Or on his girlfriend finding out?

scorpionldr said:
and here's another example: speaking in absolutes. "oh well just because someone can do that with ONE event doesn't mean ALL events are able to be like that."

The guy said his preference is no information comes to light. What isn't clear about that?
Click to expand...

Do you know what an absolute statement is? Because I didnt make one there.
 
#169
scorpionldr said:
He told the girlfriend first so that his wage plummeting wouldnt' be a surprise.

IE He expected a conflict with the co-worker.

What don't you understand?
Click to expand...

You!

So was the focus on his work finding out? Or on his girlfriend finding out?

Ziltoid said:
See, I never said you never make sense. Matticus was right, you do have reading comprehension problems.
Click to expand...

Thats the nicest way I could put it.
 
#170
Ziltoid said:
See, I never said you never make sense. Matticus was right, you do have reading comprehension problems.
Click to expand...

or maybe I comprehend the information fine but the way I arrange my response to the information is confusing to YOU.

Not everything is one sided.

This understanding of what happened started my first sarcastic response "Great job. Be sure to share pictures. Meeting adjourned."
 
#174
scorpionldr said:
or maybe I comprehend the information fine but the way I arrange my response to the information is confusing to YOU.

Not everything is one sided.

This understanding of what happened started my first sarcastic response "Great job. Be sure to share pictures. Meeting adjourned."
Click to expand...

You have comprehensions issues. You extrapolate and imagine things that are not in the text, and most of the time not even suggested by it. Then you argue tooth and nails for your interpretation, even if the one who wrote the original text tells you that you see invisible crap.
 
#175
Ziltoid said:
You have comprehensions issues. You extrapolate and imagine things that are not in the text, and most of the time not even suggested by it. Then you argue tooth and nails for your interpretation, even if the one who wrote the original text tells you that you see invisible crap.
Click to expand...

dude not everything is so cut and dry! Why would he be discussing his "screwing up"? Because he was worried about being left? Or by the abundance of information and recommendations on what to do so he could get another job?

And now I forget what we're talking about to begin with. Getting old is awesome.
 
#177
MatticusMania said:
I get what youre saying, because youve said it again and again.
What Im saying is that you dont always have the option of keeping that information in the dark.
This isnt a conversation about preferences, because Im sure we'd all prefer not to be cheated on in the first place, and then the whole discussion would be moot.
Click to expand...

Ive had to say it "again and again" for a reason.

My part of this convo was always about preference. Could be considered moot or food for thought, whichever you..... prefer.......
 
#178
Munjibunga said:
I don't disagree with your point about the absence of a formal policy. In my early employment with my company, it was small, and we had no policy manual. I left the company for 11 years and, by the time I returned, it had grown to the point where we needed a policy manual. I liked it when we were small and flew by the seat of the pants. But when you have (in our case) hundreds of employees, you're going to get more people with issues, and the policy manual helps deal with them. But even before we had the manual, we sat in the owners' meeting and the boss said, "Anyone who ****s an employee is fired." That was the policy, and remained so after he retired.
Click to expand...


So ya did have a policy. Just was an unwritten one.


I like my employer's take on it. There are no restrictions on dating fellow employees regardless of rank. Supervisors can't date those that they supervise but if the situation does happen - and it does from time to time - the supervisor is responsible for letting his manager know and one of the two gets transferred.

Maybe it's a securities industry thing, but my current and former employers, both do work for securities industry, had lots of employee couples and a surprising number of husband/wife teams (in many cases they met on the job).
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back