What about equal rights to the freedom of speech? Of course, there are obvious exceptions to that as well. For example, libel and slander.
What it has done is given people more control over their own destiny. The risk itself has not changed at all. The only thing that has changed is who takes on the risk. It used to be the business, now it is the employee. I'd much rather manage my own risk & know where I'm at than trust that a company is doing what is best for me.
Ah, I was wondering what your issue was. I wasn't trying to communicate that, even after I discovered all the facts, I would apportion the fault of selfishness 50%/50%. When I said my guess was that their was selfishness involved on both sides, I just meant it wasn't 100%/0%, like Stacey was claiming in her favor. I'm just saying that their is always another side to the story. Maybe its valid, maybe its crap, but I doubt it would turn into a 100%/0% win or a 50%/50% tie. Normally it is somewhere in between.
Sorry CParso - you're missing my point. Which is that John can't seem to settle on a point. Anyway. I'll leave you to it. Best of luck.
Indeed I did miss your point. John's all over the place and this thread doesn't have much direction, but I still see no need to lock it.
That is total supposition on your part. Considering you espoused the chance to hear each side before passing judgment,and you know you will not get that chance, you should have not commented on it at all. When you did comment, you passed judgment and assessed blame. You have contradicted your stated purpose, you were wrong, and you probably need to let it go, since you will not now admit it.
