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: Janice Shell who wrote (12698)	4/2/1998 2:13:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

>>Hence her (idiotic) complaint that she hadn't been given Secretary's Day flowers. Wrigtht also found that she hadn't been denied salary increases, etc.etc., So: no case.<< Excellent point Janice, glad you brought it up. One of the aspects that I find particularly odious about this situation is that in order to make a case, the victim has to "prove" she suffered subsequent damages from the big bad boor's behavior. I liken that kind of reasoning to somebody getting their face punched in by an assailant and find it's not actionable because they didn't need plastic surgery or perhaps psychiatric (God' forbid) help later. It really goes to the issue of what we as a society are going to tolerate as "acceptable" behavior. Honestly, when a person is assaulted physically, imo, that alone should make the case actionable. You know where I'm going with this..."he didn't actually commit rape, he just slid his hand up her groin." Yeah, I agree that the damages are "contrived" but unfortunately, taht's the way you gotta play the game according to the rules. I think we need a rule change.