SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3135)10/18/2006 5:02:38 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10087
 
For all those reasons, I expect the ruling to be over turned but who knows. I can't imagine why it even needed to go to judgement in the first place if people were so concerned about tolerance. If you were his supervisor and you knew he felt that strongly about it, wouldn't you have just said, 'ok why don't you just take ole number 666 today and we'll let Emanual take that'n, he likes the newer models.'



To: Lane3 who wrote (3135)10/18/2006 5:04:50 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10087
 
I think it is more reasonable to question an imposed requirement for an exception, than the exception itself.

Its one thing to make a law, pushing the bus service to make such an exception. Its quite another for the bus service to decide to make an exception itself.

In this particular case I can't think of any reason to be seriously offended by the exception.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News