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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (50446)	6/11/2002 8:25:27 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

"Just how was the alleged allegation disproved?" Poor choice of words on my part, since I know that nothing like this can ever be totally disproved. Let me rephrase that. There was not enough evidence (your presumptions stood alone) to establish proof, and there was evidence to contradict your presumptions (Laz's denials). The likelihood that Laz knew what conditions brought him to the episode outweigh the contradicting presumtions you stated as if they were known. "What presumptions were false" The presumptions you stated about Outside Agitators being the case for the case study you presented (as contradicted by Laz's evidence). "and what criteria are you talking about?" The criteria you stated for defining what an Outside Agitator is. Why would you interpret that as a complaint? Simply because triggered a "bad outcome?" No, since I did not view the outcome as bad. I interpret it as a complaint because that is the way you framed it in your case study. "This is what I don't understand. I've spent decades in work environments where there are plenty of bad outcomes. People sit around and discuss them in a neutral way. Whoever ends up being instrumental in that bad outcome doesn't defend himself. He just learns, as do we all, and moves on. Surely others have been in work situations like that. It's standard business practice. And the way it's handled, to the best of my knowledge, is simply the way that adults handle group problem solving. Sure, except when there is a personal perspective driving the attempt at problem solving that involves the negative labeling of a person, a group of persons, or type of person, as in your case study. Not nuetral... My questions still stands. Why would you interpret that as a complaint? for the same reason I interpret the ski color to be blue today.