13 Sep 15
Originally posted by finneganWe hardly have a legal system to fall back on here at RHP so please refer to any dictionary (NON-AMAZON) for the definition of 'categorical', I think you'll get the idea. While you're there check out 'slander'.
Please provide some justification for the allegation of "categorical slander" explaining who you even imagine has been "categorically slandered" and perhaps a definition of your novel legalistic term.
Here is the quote (again):
Finnegan: "Proudman has risked her career to make this protest and is earning not only the abuse of chauvenistic trolls like yourself but also a huge swell of support from women lawyers and others."
How have I abused Proudman? How was there any abuse in my post? You'd have trouble proving chauvinism on my part, but this accusation of 'abuse' is over the line.
So you have slandered my good name here finegan, as much as anyone can be slandered on an anonymous message board but it is slander none the less.
The great thing about these forums is that they are, to a large degree, libertarian. You and your control freak buddies can doof, eep and poop all the control freak noises you like but, you know what, no power to force your wet dreams on anyone. We have to deal with each other by mutual consent. But a consequence of that is a man has to rely on his integrity, and your accusation about my 'abuse' of Proudman is really not doing your raggedy integrity any good.
Time to unknot the panties and man up Finnegan.
Retract the statement, and show some balls (in a non-sexist way) with an apology.
13 Sep 15
Originally posted by finnegan🙄
Odd thing is that huge numbers of women have responded to this incident in a manner suggesting that what I wrote is not at all grandiose. It is you who is seeking to trivialise the matter and that of course is how harassment is defended.
To call this incident "harassment" is ridiculous.
13 Sep 15
The post that was quoted here has been removedShe has an legitimate minor complaint against Mr. Silk who probably ought to apologize.
She also has an enormous chip on her shoulder than she ought to get checked out.
From a business perspective (that is, after all, what Linkedin is about), I would not want to work with someone who bites the head off another person at an exceedingly minor provocation. That's my takeaway from the dialogue.
13 Sep 15
Originally posted by WajomaThis post belittles what Proudman has done and as such merits my description: chauvenistic trolls like yourself
Quite simply this is a matter between Proudman, Carter-Silk and LinkedIn.
No reason for anyone other than these three parties, male or female, to get their knickers in a twist.
13 Sep 15
Originally posted by no1marauderand i ask again, where do you think the line beyond which someone in her position is overreacting? do you think that maybe constantly receiving sexual advances through linkedin might bring that line a bit closer?
I already said the comment was inappropriate. But my other comments stand as well.
do your other comments stand in the context of having received no sexual advances ever? becuase i agree, she would be overreacting a little if this was her very first sexual advance ever.
women get unwanted sexual advances. on the street, on public transportation. it isn't unreasonable for one of them to "snap" and go on a little tweeting rampage to vent and raise awareness.
13 Sep 15
Originally posted by no1maraudersexual harassment has many degrees, just like one can steal a can of coke or a million dollars.
That seems rather absurdly grandiose. Woman puts picture on business oriented website, contacts man for business purposes, he makes an inappropriate comment, she goes on a crusade.
Doubt the world will change that much.
EDIT: And to label this incident "sexual harassment" seems to trivialize real cases of sexual harassment on the job.
13 Sep 15
Originally posted by Wajomano no, you don't understand. he didn't said you harassed that particular woman.
We hardly have a legal system to fall back on here at RHP so please refer to any dictionary (NON-AMAZON) for the definition of 'categorical', I think you'll get the idea. While you're there check out 'slander'.
Here is the quote (again):
Finnegan: [i]"Proudman has risked her career to make this protest and is earning not only the abuse of chauvenistic ...[text shortened]... p Finnegan.
Retract the statement, and show some balls (in a non-sexist way) with an apology.
he just said she made that public in order to raise awareness and to make mysoginists (of which group you happen to belong to) think twice before displaying similar behaviour.
it is addressed to both mysoginists who did this before and to ones who never had the balls to do it and are just looking for the right situation in which to safely display misogyny. like an online, anonymous forum
13 Sep 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziWriting on the Internet that a picture is stunning is hardly a "sexual advance."
and i ask again, where do you think the line beyond which someone in her position is overreacting? do you think that maybe constantly receiving sexual advances through linkedin might bring that line a bit closer?
do your other comments stand in the context of having received no sexual advances ever? becuase i agree, she would be overreacting a little if ...[text shortened]... nable for one of them to "snap" and go on a little tweeting rampage to vent and raise awareness.
