Re: Land of the Free

gekko wrote:
Nine out of ten dentists agree that "Bob (this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in news:45dlaaF61ee7U3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

She "implicated" no one.

Poohdiddles, you really don't manage to think, do you?

You know, Nancy, your whole style is a bit much, even for someone of small intellectual grasp like you, perhaps especially for someone like you. It ill-becomes you to strut and swagger like this when your position is - as so many others in the past have been - flaccid, lifeless and utterly manufactured out of whole cloth as this one. But let's forge on together...

When she identified herself in her letter as a nurse for the VA, she,
by the way employers view these things, began speaking *as* a VA nurse.

Yes. And only as a VA nurse. VA nurses are legally entitled to speak as what they are. Not more, just what they are.

As a representative of the VA Hospital.

No. She has no authority to speak as a representative. She identified
herself by her job very clearly. She didn't assert any capacity other
than "nurse."

That, sad to say, is how employers have had to look at these things,
thanks in part to lawyers.

Bull***. As though you know anything about corporate management.

One of the kids killed in that disgraceful shooting at Kent State was the child of a co-worker. He went all over the country making speeches and calling for investigations. The printed materials about him said who his employer was. No one assumed he was speaking for the organization. He was calling for the removal of state and federal officials. He was calling for the removal of military officers who led the event. He was routinely identified as an engineer working at Westinghouse in newspaper and magazine articles.

Just as magazines and newspapers routinely include that kind of information all the time.

When I've been interviewed for media reports and I identified where I worked, nowhere in any of the articles or broadcasts did the impression reside that I was speaking for the organization.

When "experts" are interviewed on news programs, no one assumes that they're speaking for the organization unless it's so stated.

When I've written pieces for publication that profiled people, I used their personal material as background to help round the picture, but nowhere, never did I impute that the person was speaking for anyone other than himself if it was the case.

When op-ed pieces are printed in newspapers, if a person speaks for an organization, that's always made clear.

When she said "act forcefully to remove the government" the employers, who may or may not understand the differences between "act
forcefully" and "act forcibly", reacted.

New fractional definitions. Nice.

"Laura Berg, a clinical nurse specialist for 15 years, wrote a letter in
September to a weekly Albuquerque newspaper criticizing how the
administration handled Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq Wwr. She urged
people to "act forcefully" by *bringing criminal charges* against top
administration officials, including the president, to remove them from
power because they played games of "vicious deceit." She added: "This
country needs to get out of Iraq now and return to our original vision
and priorities of caring for land and people and resources rather than
killing for oil....Otherwise, many more of us will be facing living hell
in these times." " (*emphasis added*)
<http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001995631>

She called for criminal charges to be brought, not rifles and bombs like you're trying to make it sound. Not only is that not seditious, it's recognizing the rule of law and it's central place in American life. That the laws and procedures of the nation should be brought to bear "forcefully" in the situation.

The employers panicked. Plain and simple.

An employee, implicating them by identifying herself as their representative, just advocated the forceful removal of the government.

Not a chance. You obviously didn't read any further than what was posted
here the first time around. She absolutely *didn't* identify herself as a representative of anyone but herself. She said she was a nurse.

That is how people see things, Piddlepads.

Sorry. That is how *you* see it because it reinforces what you think you
know. And what you want to promote.

That is why they overreacted, and that is why they "seized" their own
computer, the one she gets to use while working for them, and that is
why mutters of being fired crossed lips.

They "overreacted" because they're bureaucrats, like all bureaucrats. The last thing any of them want is to have a potentially negative spotlight on them. They overreacted - good of you to acknowledge that - to try to cover their own asses. That's why so many accusations flew so fast. Divert attention to her character flaws that they were inventing.

It is _not_, as people like you and the ACLU would have it, some vast
conspiracy on the part of the present administration to wreak vengeance on some poor, hardworking, timid little nurseypooh who didn't do nuffin' but write a letter to the editor.

Stuff, it, cutie. Not only have I not said or suggested this, I don't believe the administration had anything directly to do with it. But all your extraneous bull*** delivered with so much effort to discredit and divert only brings it home that you really don't have much to say, but you're going to say it anyway.

It's an employer trying to cover its silly ass.

And only an employer trying to cover its silly ass. Yet you offer so many justifications/explanations above about how reasonable and understandable it is for them to have acted as they did. Because it's how people see these things. And how employers *have to* see these things. And how bad lawyers are. All cancelled by "It's an employer trying to cover its silly ass."

And when all is said and done, she didn't write a seditious letter, she called for criminal charges to be placed. She didn't write it on her work computer. She didn't claim to be speaking for anyone but herself, and if anyone saw it that way, they were inventing it for themselves. She hasn't violated any laws. In fact, she called for upholding the law; using the law; staying within the confines of the law.

And an employer trying to cover its silly ass in somehow correct by your reckoning. Comprehensible?

Turn it around - not reprehensible? Not worthy of a figurative slap for their precipitous - and demonstrably false - accusations?

You're so caught up in your sneer you ended up forgetting to unhook the rim of your anus from your lip.

<LOL> Do you ever actually read the bizarrely off-the-mark crap that you type...?

Pastorio
.

Loading