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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (5061)	2/6/1998 11:59:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Holly, we are back to totally disagreeing. Perhaps we should talk about Pomona or something!!! Have you been a secretary lately, working in an office for a male employer? I know that at the medical practice, only the managers are allowed to do personal errands of any kind for the doctors, because all of the employees consider it very demeaning. I think this is very typical in office culture today, and I would also note that only men over about forty have any expectation whatsoever that an employee will bring them coffee or do anything personal for them. Younger men also know how to keyboard, so it is a much more egalitarian office environment in the making as the old guys retire. I am very happy it is that way. I think you are making way too much of the observation that testimony is somewhat subjective, in the sense that some eyewitness will report things slightly differently. If we did it your way, and threw up our hands because eyewitnesses do not tell exactly the same story, very few guilty people would ever be convicted, and that would not be very good for general societal health. That is why we have corroborative testimony, and I am sure Starr is busy finding some, if it exists. It is an insult to Betty Currie's intelligence, integrity and sense of awareness to assert that she is not able to answer simple questions about Bill Clinton. Creating legal immunity for secretaries would send a message to their employers that the law is easily broken, without consequence. Surely in a society where obeying the law is at least held up as the standard of appropriate business behavior, such legal policies would be sending a contradictory message. In workplace law, it certainly would also be abusive of employees to expect them to collude in illegal acts.