"Monopoly" is a board game published by Parker Brothers, a subsidiary of Hasbro. The game is named after the economic concept of "monopoly", the domination of a market by a single entity.
If you feel strongly enough that it's a moral obligation to speak out, I'd suggest:
(a) That you may be in the wrong job if an action/decision your company has made has affected your morals
and/or
(b) That whomever it is that you're doing the speaking to won't know that this has affected you and, more relevantly, won't know that this is affecting anyone in their business.
and finally
(c) I'll go back to it, but an anonymous comment could/would/should be discarded on the grounds that it carries no weight, if the 'boss' is that far up his own ass that he/she can't and wont take constructive comments from his/her staff, I'd suggest this kind of person is likely to dismiss the comment as somebody messing about/trying to cause trouble, OR they'd be too blinkered to take the point seriously at all.
Correct, until it's deemed that a change is necessary, then you whack in an amendment to counter the original text, even if it can take centuries to get passed.
If it's anonymous, you're not sticking up for anybody and that is the issue, a point made without a reference carries little to no weight.
I'm also not sure I ridiculed anyoONE, but if it's conceived that I did then I think that's a bit harsh, it's my opinion on how certain matters should be handled to get an appropriate response.
I agree that not speaking up is a huge problem globally, but making it so you can say what you like and have no responsibility for it because you're anonymous kind of goes against the whole idea that it is speaking up in the first place...
I thought the constitution WAS a living document, hence the (27?) amendments?
From Wiki:
"The framers of the Constitution were aware that changes would be necessary if the Constitution was to endure as the nation grew. However, they were also conscious that such change should not be easy, lest it permit ill-conceived and hastily passed amendments. On the other hand, they also wanted to ensure that a rigid requirement of unanimity would not block action desired by the vast majority of the population. Their solution was a two-step process for proposing and ratifying new amendments."
Surely, if you think it's going to get you fired then you shouldn't be saying it at all, anonymously or not, or find another job and then say it whilst you're working your notice (again, probably different employment laws, but whilst you're working your notice in the UK, the only thing you can get fired for is gross misconduct).
I still think that if you've got a point to make, the person you're making the point to would take more notice if they know who you are.
BTW "newly minted balls" = incredibly chuckle worthy, kudos Mr Mouse.
I get that, but if you've got a point to make - grow a set and make it.
Of course you could just sit about make anon comments and hope the person/company you aimed it at takes notice; whilst stewing in your own misery until they do. Personally, I prefer to make my point and clear the air, but I could just be being idealist?
I doubt only five, especially considering my history, but carry on, if you want to meet up for a drink, let me know where my local is and what time you'll meet me there.
I don't get the point of saying something (critical or not) if the person you're saying it to doesn't know who it is. If you've got a problem with your boss, tell them, don't live in misery. (Qualifying this, the UK has much stricter employment laws than the US, there has to be a reason, and a very good and provable reason, for firing somebody; unless you want an unfair dismissal case which can cost you a lifetime of salary in one hit)
You missed out on the working class, they are probably the ones paying for 'all this'.
it's butcherer79, and no it isn't, but hey-ho, must mean I'm gutless.... though it is my last name and year of birth, so maybe I'm just half gutless...
Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a difference between saying
"What if the accused had written something like, "[Dead teenager name here] drugged and raped me"? What if it was even true? I'm sure the family would be equally offended by such comments (assuming they didn't know about it). Should that person go to jail? What if they can't prove it was true?"
The accused didn't and what he did write wasn't true, by his own admission, IF that had been the case, then presumably he would be able to prove the worthiness of his claim, however, he didn't know the girl so the argument is invalid - this was about a stranger getting kicks out of maliscious posts, not posting the truth...
Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a difference between saying
"This is the internet where it is par for the course that people write foolish, insensitive, and ignorant comments anonymously."
Followed by:
"Stop using shitty analogies."
So, because they didn't have a full list of facebook accounts that would want to post respectfully (maybe some family members didn't have a facebook account and only wanted to share in others memories?), they have, indirectly, invited abuse from an alcoholic loner (quoted from the telegraph article linked somewhere above) who knew what he was doing would cause offence and has led a wrongfully accused cyberbully (in a seperate case, again quoted from the telegraph) taking an overdose?
I again point towards what is free speech and what is defamation (see my libel/slander post on this thread)
On the post: Patent Trolls Cost The Economy Half A Trillion Dollars
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Lawyer Wants To Wipe Out Anonymous Speech If It's Critical Of Someone
Re:
(a) That you may be in the wrong job if an action/decision your company has made has affected your morals
and/or
(b) That whomever it is that you're doing the speaking to won't know that this has affected you and, more relevantly, won't know that this is affecting anyone in their business.
and finally
(c) I'll go back to it, but an anonymous comment could/would/should be discarded on the grounds that it carries no weight, if the 'boss' is that far up his own ass that he/she can't and wont take constructive comments from his/her staff, I'd suggest this kind of person is likely to dismiss the comment as somebody messing about/trying to cause trouble, OR they'd be too blinkered to take the point seriously at all.
On the post: Lawyer Wants To Wipe Out Anonymous Speech If It's Critical Of Someone
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
unless this is a joke, in which case:
I don't know, why would anyone want to go to El Paso, TX?
On the post: Are You More Or Less Likely To Change Your Mind When The Majority Disagrees With You?
Re: It
On the post: Lawyer Wants To Wipe Out Anonymous Speech If It's Critical Of Someone
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm also not sure I ridiculed anyoONE, but if it's conceived that I did then I think that's a bit harsh, it's my opinion on how certain matters should be handled to get an appropriate response.
I agree that not speaking up is a huge problem globally, but making it so you can say what you like and have no responsibility for it because you're anonymous kind of goes against the whole idea that it is speaking up in the first place...
On the post: Are You More Or Less Likely To Change Your Mind When The Majority Disagrees With You?
Re:
From Wiki:
"The framers of the Constitution were aware that changes would be necessary if the Constitution was to endure as the nation grew. However, they were also conscious that such change should not be easy, lest it permit ill-conceived and hastily passed amendments. On the other hand, they also wanted to ensure that a rigid requirement of unanimity would not block action desired by the vast majority of the population. Their solution was a two-step process for proposing and ratifying new amendments."
On the post: Are You More Or Less Likely To Change Your Mind When The Majority Disagrees With You?
Re: game changer
On the post: Are You More Or Less Likely To Change Your Mind When The Majority Disagrees With You?
But generally, no, it won't make me change my mind... NEXT!!
On the post: Lawyer Wants To Wipe Out Anonymous Speech If It's Critical Of Someone
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I still think that if you've got a point to make, the person you're making the point to would take more notice if they know who you are.
BTW "newly minted balls" = incredibly chuckle worthy, kudos Mr Mouse.
On the post: Lawyer Wants To Wipe Out Anonymous Speech If It's Critical Of Someone
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course you could just sit about make anon comments and hope the person/company you aimed it at takes notice; whilst stewing in your own misery until they do. Personally, I prefer to make my point and clear the air, but I could just be being idealist?
On the post: Lawyer Wants To Wipe Out Anonymous Speech If It's Critical Of Someone
Re: Re: Visceral Lackage
On the post: Lawyer Wants To Wipe Out Anonymous Speech If It's Critical Of Someone
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Lawyer Wants To Wipe Out Anonymous Speech If It's Critical Of Someone
Re: Re: If you don't have anything to say...
On the post: Lawyer Wants To Wipe Out Anonymous Speech If It's Critical Of Someone
Re: Re:
You missed out on the working class, they are probably the ones paying for 'all this'.
On the post: Lawyer Wants To Wipe Out Anonymous Speech If It's Critical Of Someone
Re: Re:
On the post: Lawyer Wants To Wipe Out Anonymous Speech If It's Critical Of Someone
On the post: How Payola Works Today... Or Why You Only Hear Major Label Songs On The Radio
Re:
On the post: Internet Troll Jailed In The UK For Being A Jerk Online
Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a difference between saying
The accused didn't and what he did write wasn't true, by his own admission, IF that had been the case, then presumably he would be able to prove the worthiness of his claim, however, he didn't know the girl so the argument is invalid - this was about a stranger getting kicks out of maliscious posts, not posting the truth...
On the post: Internet Troll Jailed In The UK For Being A Jerk Online
Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a difference between saying
Followed by:
"Stop using shitty analogies."
Priceless...
On the post: Internet Troll Jailed In The UK For Being A Jerk Online
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I again point towards what is free speech and what is defamation (see my libel/slander post on this thread)
Next >>