Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : SI vs. iHub - Battle of the Boards Part 2 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bob who wrote (2636)	5/25/2001 3:42:00 PM
From: (Bob) Zumbrunnen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5315

Despite it having been explained to him at length and in great detail not a month ago.

To: bob who wrote (2636)	5/25/2001 6:10:01 PM
From: bob	Respond to of 5315

This is the talent at IHUB...Read it and weep! >>in Register FREE! Home Mail Box Discussions Favorites Hot! The Lounge \| The Sheriff's Office \| The Former Q&A Board < Previous \| Respond \| Private Msg \| Next > Posted by: Georgia Bard In reply to: Island Life who wrote msg# 3385 Date: 5/25/2001 5:52:27 PM (ET) Post # of 3394 Island so how do you represent say that someone did not know until just before his resignation that he did not do proper evaluation of the scope of his duites as being the fault of his employer? Or that the employee by his own admission that he did not support moderated threads and took employment on a site that is nothing but moderated threads? Seems like a conflict to me so did he make his objections in the negotiations of getting the employment? Example: Would a company not have a problem if they discover that someone they hired had a deep seeded with say Blacks and his scope of duites would be to oversee blacks? or maybe You want to apply it to other areas outside sexual harassment, like physical assault (well we know that has not happened), public ridicule ( well Bob riduled himself), verbal abuse (I doubt that has happened with IHUB / However, in the public forum Bobology is to allow it and refute BUT what this goes against the "Bad mouth all you want" or the "I say what I like" which follows Bob but that is freedom of speech), racial slurs (naw), and sabotage (maybe this is where someone in the organization undermined Bob. Wait maybe you will try to use the freedom of speech as the catalysts for this. Maybe this sabotage is it EXACTLY what the SI Posse is known for and gotten away with for years but wait they are not affiliated within the corporation they bad mouth. MAybe this is that only the employee's advisors or spring boards or whatever is used to evaluate whatever is the only accept resource (like the nielson families) and no one else can have people who voice their concerns and those concerns be considered. OR Maybe the fact that Tony to get an unbias public feedback did not disclose who he, which would have compromised the feedback, prefered to find out what the public thought other than 4 select individuals. Hey could the public opinions on the site be the sabotage.) Oh MY, As you can see I find this whole line of litigation to be highly interesting consider all the factors. I am not even remotely an attorney and I think I could defend this nonsense and show it to be merely a case of "I did not get my way and I quit because they would not give me my way and by not getting my way I could not stay and do my job because I wanted to change the job ... etc." Sounds like a familiar common termination to me. PLEASE!<< :=) Gary Swancey