If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I'm trying so hard to see if there's some mistake... like if this is some kind of parody website (nope), or if the author is writing ironically to make a point (not that I can see), or if it was written in 1955 (nope), or on April Fools Day (nope), or it's distinguishing between a one-time harmless flirt and true harassment (nada)...
I don't take abuse well. My managers already know this. And my now ex coworker knows this (he transferred stores). No sexual harassment but still harassment which is a loss prevention issue for us.
The last part is the only part of the article that makes a lick of sense. What's considered sexual harassment is very loosely defined so I could see how one could "accidentley" harass someone (ie: unknowingly making them uncomfortable in some way). Had the article focused on that, it wouldn't have been such a pile of steaming horse shit. But the author had to make other points... points that have no place in enlightened times.
Okay... this article is three years old? How is that making such a splash now?
"You are who you are on your worst day, Durkon. Anything less is a comforting lie you tell yourself to numb the pain." - Evil
"You're trying to be Lawful Good. People forget how crucial it is to keep trying, even if they screw it up now and then." - Good
Comment