Paul Harvey stole your what?

The fact is, OKC Mallen, you posted this on a forum to discuss.
The fact is, you obviously already have your mind made up, so why do you need our thoughts?

The fact is, OKC Mallen, you signed a contract without reading it through.
The fact is, that is your fault and your fault only.
The fact is, there are consequences for not reading what you sign.
The fact that you are unhappy with these facts doesn't change these facts.

Virginity.

Hrm.. I have been hit by people who had no money or insurance which resulted in my car being a total loss with all of the costs absorbed by me. One time the guy was nice enough to say "My Bad" before he drove off.

How can a employer know that the employee lies? If we fired every single person that was even accused of doing such a thing, no one would have a job. We can't sit there and baby sit each employee, if we had that time we wouldn't have the need to hire people as we could just do everything ourselves. So we hire someone, and someone SAYS that they lied so we get sued?

You think employers are out there hiring people for the purpose if lying?

The idea is that the employer can put the terms into a simple to understand piece of paper, and as long as people are reading it there should be no problem?

Would it be so bad for people to take responsibility for themselves? Business would ZOOM along if we didn't have to be terrified of being sued all the time.

First thing I saw when I got home today..

Glued To His Seat - June 13, 2008

Great, so what is next? Good thing we already declared our bathrooms as private(better to offer people nothing than face liability).


Well, the day that a lawyer makes something right I will remember this thread, come back to it, and post how right you were.

Or maybe his ex-wife was upset that he was awarded soul custody of the child..

Actually, DHS never investigated the household the child was removed from. No one from DHS or the police has even been inside that household to see what it looked like or interviewed any of the people that lived in it. No one from DHS or the police talked to anyone at the child's private school. The person accused of doing the abuse could have simply left the home while an investigation took place, but that is moot because the entire state of Oklahoma spent less than 1.5 man hours looking into it.

DHS is under no legal obligation to consider the harm that might come from removing a child from a home. Because of lawyers they have to take a "whatever it takes" approach to solving problems.

Right, we should because hurting a child is a crime. In the good days we would hold a trial and send people to prison that hurt children. If my brother really hurt her, I would be more than happy to see him rot.

Now we have a court system that gives huge power to people who are on the losing end of a custody dispute and want to get ahead. The person who makes the accusation is presumed to be telling the truth.


What does going over the line mean? Does it mean committing a crime? Who decides who went over the line? Do we just leave it up to one social worker who spends 1.5 hours on the case and only heard the mother's side? I'm not making this up, I pray to God that you never find yourself in this situation because you will be stuck in it for years if the intake worker doesn't like you.


I did, before the courts took it away. Her grandparents, her friends, and the rest of the family she knew was able to see her before our wonderful system stepped in.


I'm not suggesting we throw the baby out with the bathwater, but our courts need to stop being so freaking naive and get with the program. The system works great when it works, but it can really hurt people when it does not work and it seems that people who really know how to take advantage of the system win in the end.

I have no problem with the system protecting us from criminals. The day that I get robbed and something stolen from me is returned in a condition besides worthless, I will also return to this thread.

But I throughly despise the courts getting involved in he said/she said situations or discussing things that can not even be proved without talking to a jury about it.

Oh good lord.

OKCMallen - I'm very impressed at your tone in handling this.

No, but I am getting some of my money back and feel good about GTG, and both parties walked away with the warm, fuzzy feeling of compromise, so at least there's that!

Good! It's good to hear that it turned out well.

I understand how Toadrax feels...no need for tones to be anything other than cordial, even if we are each stern in our viewpoints.

I agree with you on all points, except the fact that employers are responsible for the behavior of their employees. It's the cost of doing business, and it sucks it has to fall with someone, and I agree with you. It's a function of "what's fair" v. "spreading costs over society." The legal explanation is that you, as an employer, have the ability to pass these costs onto your customer, so that justifies saddling such employer with more risk. I agree, it ain't fair in a Kantian sense, but it is utilitarian and practical.

As tot eh Home Depot thing- you'll note from that article (I love the Smoking Gun) the last guy that tried this lost. Home Depot certainly does owe its patrons certain safety guarantees. Are toilets free from glue one of them...? Well, I guess not.

Look, I'm not overly litigious myself, and I believe in personal responsibility for your own actions. But when someone reaches out and affects you and your rights, then I simply don't think there's anything wrong with asserting yourself.

Bingo. I find these type of discussions fun, and I admit I learn from them.

Me too.

I think it was said earlier, but just because something is written on paper doesn't make it right, and just because someone's verbal statements conflict with written word doesn't mean that the verbal statements wouldn't be considered to some degree in a court challenge. So even with contracts there are gray areas.