Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't say they would win, I said they could sue and waste their own time, and somebody else's. You're the clueless one being that you can't even read apparently.
Well that's debateable but my comment may have been a bit harsh, so I have edited it.
Osito, Joe made a statement and when he pointed that out you replied, "No you didn't." He's now provided proof that he did make the statement and your response is to be rude.
It's not that big of a deal to admit you're wrong. In fact, you look worse responding the way you did, than if you would just admit you erred and apologize for it.
Osito, Joe made a statement and when he pointed that out you replied, "No you didn't." He's now provided proof that he did make the statement and your response is to be rude.
It's not that big of a deal to admit you're wrong. In fact, you look worse responding the way you did, than if you would just admit you erred and apologize for it.
No he didn't, he attacked me for pointing out that people can and do sue for anything. I didn't say anywhere that it was right and he took it personally and attacked me first and called me clueless. .
Now you're rewriting history. Your very first statement was that you didn't think by law employers were allowed to say a whole lot. And that statement was wrong, which Joe told you. He said by law they are allowed to say anything that is the truth.
You then said by law people can sue them for that and you added, "It is mind boggling that anybody would", which could be interpreted to mean that it's mind boggling that anyone would tell the truth, or it's mind boggling that anyone would sue. It wasn't clear at all what you were saying, but you later insisted with John, "I didn't say they would win, I said they could sue and waste their own time, and somebody else's. You're the clueless one being that you can't even read apparently."
So you took your nebulous statement and turned it into something else so you could attack John and call him clueless. Nobody called you clueless. Joe did not call you clueless. Yet here you are accusing Joe of calling you clueless.
Joe said he acknowledged anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason, but that doesn't mean the case has merit. And if you look back, you'll see he did. Your response to him was, "No you didn't." So he provided you with the post number and you came back with a rude reply.
You can rewrite history all you want, but your posts in this thread tell a different story.
No he didn't, he attacked me for pointing out that people can and do sue for anything. I didn't say anywhere that it was right and he took it personally and attacked me first and called me clueless. .
No, you did not start this conversation by stating that people can and do sue for anything, which is a statement I agree with. You made a categorically false statement that previous employers cannot provide information that they are legally allowed to provide potential employers. You then obfuscated your claim by making the focus of your statement about frivolous lawsuits, while refusing to acknowledge that your statement that started this ball rolling is demonstrably incorrect.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
