Letterman,

[Heel n Toe]

Sez Mr. Easily Entertained Lunatic Fringe himself.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

Sez Mr. Easily Entertained Lunatic Fringe himself.

Now you're stalking me from thread to thread? HAHAHAHA!

[David]

Breaking company policy and cheating on your girlfriend is not breaking the law.

It's not sexual harassment until somebody claims harassment. Until then it's just two consenting adults even if one is the CEO and the other is the janitor.

[herr_oberst]

Originally Posted by DAEpperson

I'll never watch Letterman again after what he did to Palin.

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by DARISC

Now you're stalking me from thread to thread?

No, I was just here reading this thread and you showed up, portraying your usual snarky and weaselly self... imagine my glee.

[legion]

Originally Posted by speeder

If it was Rush Limbaugh, you'd be washing his balls afterward, wouldn't you.

Yes, using a childish personal attack is a great way to express an opinion with no grounds in reality. It really drives the point home.

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by 125shifter

Breaking company policy and cheating on your girlfriend is not breaking the law.

It's not sexual harassment until somebody claims harassment. Until then it's just two consenting adults even if one is the CEO and the other is the janitor.

Especially when it appears that they had a long term, consensual relationship. It doesn't seem to be a boss using his power over an employee, it appears to be two people who spent lots of time next to each other, and extended it to the bedroom. Footage from years ago is coming back out showing that they had a relationship that even appeared on stage, neither was abusing or taking advantage of the other one, and I don't believe that he she got to where she is because he made it happen (any more than you could say the same for the Deli guy, for example).

[Schumi]

Man, I like the deli guy.

[speeder]

Originally Posted by legion

Yes, using a childish personal attack is a great way to express an opinion with no grounds in reality. It really drives the point home.

You're right, I was out of line and I apologize. It's just that some of these threads are so tiresome and predictable w/ everyone who hates the subject of the thread piling on and everyone who doesn't hate him holding their comments. Doesn't matter who it is, same every time. But that's what I should have said. Sorry.

[DARISC]

And we should LEAVE SARAH ALONE!

[Heel n Toe]

Troll

[DARISC]

Conservatard

[legion]

Originally Posted by speeder

You're right, I was out of line and I apologize. It's just that some of these threads are so tiresome and predictable w/ everyone who hates the subject of the thread piling on and everyone who doesn't hate him holding their comments. Doesn't matter who it is, same every time. But that's what I should have said. Sorry.

Thank you for "manning up" and apologizing Dennis.

[BeyGon]

Originally Posted by DARISC

Conservatard

we don't have to make funny ugly pictures of Michelle Obama, she already comes that way.
You have to doctor these,

[KaptKaos]

Originally Posted by 125shifter

Breaking company policy and cheating on your girlfriend is not breaking the law.

It's not sexual harassment until somebody claims harassment. Until then it's just two consenting adults even if one is the CEO and the other is the janitor.

Actually, the National Organization for Women (remember them?) used to say that there is an implied quid pro quo when there is a sexual relationship between the boss and an underling and therefore it's defacto harassment.

Of course NOW changed that course in the 90s because of you-know-who, but there is still some logic in the position.

[Dottore]

Originally Posted by KaptKaos

... there is an implied quid pro quo when there is a sexual relationship between the boss and an underling and therefore it's defacto harassment.

...there is still some logic in the position.

That is truly an absurd position.

Substitute "boss" with "male" ,and "underling" with "female"...and you have the logical extension of that argument.

All sex now becomes "harassment" because of the implied quid pro quo.

Looney Tunes.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Dottore

That is truly an absurd position.

Substitute "boss" with "male" ,and "underling" with "female"...and you have the logical extension of that argument.

All sex now becomes "harassment" because of the implied quid pro quo.

Looney Tunes.

It's not the law here. But they are good words to live by if you're a male boss and are thinking of banging female subordinates. Yes, lots of us have done it. But we all know it's our ass if said female subordinate feels wronged, scorned or passed over for a promotion.

[Dottore]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

It's not the law here. But they are good words to live by if you're a male boss and are thinking of banging female subordinates. Yes, lots of us have done it. But we all know it's our ass if said female subordinate feels wronged, scorned or passed over for a promotion.

There are lots of stupid laws in your fine land. But your rules on sexual harassment in the workplace are right at the top of that list.

[Heel n Toe]

If anyone ever needed proof that Darisc was a card-carrying member of the hate-filled lunatic fringe extreme left with Kratch, you now have it.

I feel deeply sorry for those guys.

[bivenator]

I think that there were more than one woman that Dave was doing. We will see, I can't believe that none have come forward with harassment lawsuits, warrented or frivilous. Early reports on the story indicated more than a few young female staffers were "victims". Worldwide Pants has deep pockets and would be an attractive target for legal action.