"You give the woman a victim hood mentality ."

First, sexual assault happens to both men and women.
Second, yes, because I am specifically talking about VICTIMS of sexual assault.

"What about the guy? He too carries this to his grave. He too sufferer a life of pain of a un erasable false accusation. "

Yes, a false accusation of rape is awful. I've said so multiple times now. But it's still not as bad as being raped. I don't want to break my arm, but I'll take it over being shot in the chest. See how too things can be bad, but one is worse than the other?

Plus, at least, with a false accusation of rape, there's a chance you will get your name cleared.

"The difference The man carries a tag on his back for all to see and discriminate against.
The woman carries internal pain. Which is hurt most?"

Easy. The rape victim.

"this does not give society the obligation to take her at her word just because she is a woman."

Which is exactly why I never said that. What I said is that anyone who makes a claim of sexual assault is "entitled to be taken seriously", i.e. have said claim investigated. Due process still applies.

"Even is false hoods are 1% - that is too much, if it is you. Just think today if a work colleague told your boss that you grabbed he upper spots? Not even rape. You would loose your job. Then what How do you explain this at the next job? No one would hire you , just to be on the safe side. You are black listed."

Can you please try using a spell checker? That is really hard to read. What the hell is "you grabbed he upper spots" supposed to mean?

Anyway, assuming you're talking about sexual harassment in the workplace, I would expect not to be fired until an investigation had proved I was in the wrong.

Again, false accusations are bad, and yeah, it would totally suck if it happened to you.

But it's just not that common. The numbers don't support your case at all. Rape far out numbers false accusations, and that's not even getting into other forms of sexual assault, like groping or catcalling, most of which isn't even reported.

Newsflash: most women don't WANT to be perceived as a victim of sexual assault.

"Trump has nothing to do with this."
Yeah, he does. He (and you) contributes to the culture that is more worried about a tiny percentage of false accusations than the NINETY FUCKING THOUSAND RAPES THAT OCCUR EVERY YEAR IN THE US.

Your statement.....

"Obviously, a false accusation of rape is a terrible thing. In the most extreme circumstances, it can lead to having years of your life taken away in prison. But sexual assault is a life sentence, you will carry that to your grave. "



Is quite naive. You give the woman a victim hood mentality .

What about the guy? He too carries this to his grave. He too sufferer a life of pain of a un erasable false accusation.

The difference The man carries a tag on his back for all to see and discriminate against.

The woman carries internal pain.

Which is hurt most?


Agreed most cases are he said she said and she mostly gets the wrong end of the deal. But this does not give society the obligation to take her at her word just because she is a woman.

Even is false hoods are 1% - that is too much, if it is you. Just think today if a work colleague told your boss that you grabbed he upper spots? Not even rape. You would loose your job. Then what How do you explain this at the next job? No one would hire you , just to be on the safe side. You are black listed.



Trump has nothing to do with this. False accusations of woman are. And it will ruin you.

I have Hyperhidrosis (fancy medical terms for excessive sweating). My palms & feet sweat like 80% of my waking hours. Even if it's just around freezing temperature you can see sweat from my palms turn into steam like you see in this video. So I hate the embarrassment (both sides) when friends/clients/new colleagues reach out for a handshake.

Ugh...

Yes, they all deserve to go to prison, but...

President Pence?

President Ryan?

Isn't it better to have an incompetent jerk who wants to take from everyone else and give to the rich over a barely competent jerk who wants to take from everyone else, give to the rich, and take basic human rights away from women?

And don't give me any of that "Ryan's a policy wonk" bullshit. He only looks smart in a room filled with his Republican colleagues.

Politico has a long piece on Boehner. It includes this little gem:

On Sunday, July 17, it appeared they had a deal. Boehner and Virginia Representative Eric Cantor—whom the speaker had reluctantly brought into the negotiations, knowing the majority leader’s distrust of Obama could poison the talks—worked out some final details that morning at the White House. When the president returned from church, Boehner says, he invited them both into the Oval Office and shook their hands. Some fine-tuning remained, but in Boehner’s mind the so-called grand bargain was done. The framework included reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security; $1.2 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending; and $800 billion in new revenue. “I was one happy son of a bitch,” Boehner tells me.

The next 48 hours changed everything. On Tuesday morning, the so-called Gang of Six—three senators from each party who had been discussing their own sweeping fiscal agreement—announced a briefing for their colleagues at the Capitol. They unveiled a separate framework, totally unaware of what Obama and Boehner had agreed to. This deal included significantly more revenue. Chambliss, by then a senator, was one of the GOP Gang members and had no idea—because Boehner had been negotiating with the president in private—that their announcement would kill the speaker’s deal with the White House. Obama saw that Republican senators were endorsing a deal that included far more revenue, and knew there was no way he could sell the grand bargain to his liberal base. When he came back with a counteroffer, seeking a higher revenue number, it validated Cantor’s warnings about not trusting the president. And by that point Boehner’s members had heard enough about the grand bargain to know they didn’t like it—with the $800 billion revenue figure, much less something higher.

So the deal fell apart, and the two sides peddled their competing versions of events: Boehner’s team said the White House moved the goal posts, while Obama’s allies said the speaker couldn’t sell his own members on the deal.

21. if you're a teleworker and I'm trying to help you over the phone don't give me vague descriptions like "I can't get to my stuff. I clicked on the thing and I can't get in now." I'm not in the room looking over your shoulder for the past 5 minutes, you need to describe the steps you took to get to where you are now. And don't give me this exasperated tone when I ask you to do something the Help Desk already asked you to do, like reboot your computer. You got a cab waiting?

22. Don't present a problem like "My FAX123 program won't connect" as if was working yesterday and stopped connecting today. When more likely you have been told many times your supervisor needs to request an account for you and you haven't bothered to start the process. And you think somehow I have the magic touch and can circumvent that whole process on the spot. And even if I could do it you would appreciate it for all of 3 seconds, then come to expect it every time. And so would your colleagues sitting within earshot.

23. Don't ask me to work on something without telling me another tech is already working on it and you just haven't heard back from them in a timely manner and thought you would start over with me.

24. Not everyone in IT knows each other and can do each others' jobs and are cross-trained on account creation, purchasing, application support, etc. So the guy at the home office in Virginia hasn't created your account after a week, you want me to drive there and stand over him? There are MBA's who get paid buckets to manage this mess, you want bottom-rung techs to somehow make it all better?

25. Make sure to follow the last instructions I gave you with troubleshooting an issue, like try it on a spare computer, or reboot, or try printing from a different app, etc. Because when you don't, and a week later when I get a high priority email from your manager saying "why is nobody helping them with this issue?" I will provide a record of our last contact where the ball was in your court.

26. You wonder why it's hard to get a hold me by IM, email or voice mail now? You no doubt wasted my time with one of the previous entries above, or sounded annoyed and impatient that I can't do everyone's job or escalate your issue instantly.

27. If you see me in the building don't ask me IT questions any more, I have moved on to SQL development.

Fascinating. I can't help but feel a bit sad for the man. But there are some aspects of his testimony that leave me scratching my head:

"[T]he administration then chose to defame me and more importantly the FBI by saying that the organization was in disarray, that it was poorly led, that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader. Those were lies, plain and simple."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295

"Yet there is a growing consensus that Comey has wielded the powers of the directorship more aggressively than anyone since Hoover—to the consternation, and even anger, of some of his colleagues."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/james-comey-fbi-accountability-214234

"Mr. Comey got so many calls from former agents and others after he decided this summer not to pursue charges that he had to change his phone number posted online. And at a recent meeting with retired agents, he was still fielding tough questions about the decision."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-clinton-emails-james-comey.html

I think it's fair to say that Comey helped to create a "turbulent" atmosphere at the FBI during the past year, one probably not matched since the firing of William Sessions in 1993.

I wish someone had thought to ask him what he'd imagine the results of the "hopes, loyalty and leaks" would have been if he hadn't been fired.

According to the JH website, it's not only wrong, the study could not show what you claim by it's design.
Excuse me...let me use their exact words....

Food Hypersensitivities and Their Link to RA

In some patients, specific foods have been shown to exacerbate the symptoms of RA.(ref 5) Avoiding these foods or food groups has been shown to have limited, short term benefits but no benefits long term. Even though different forms of dietary modification have reportedly improved symptoms in some patients, people with RA may have spontaneous temporary remissions. Therefore, it is important to perform double-blind, placebo controlled trials to differentiate diet effect from spontaneous remission. You may identify a food that is a particular trigger for you, and this phenomenon is real. However, the science is not able to reliably identify specific triggers for individuals.

Diet elimination therapy is a method of determining food hypersensitivities with patients. Elimination diets avoid a specific food or group of foods such as milk, meat or processed foods that are known to be prime allergy suspects. These foods are eliminated from the diet for a specific period of time. Foods are then gradually reintroduced one at a time, to determine whether any of them causes a reaction.

Panush and colleagues, demonstrated temporary improvement in the signs and symptoms of RA with diet elimination and modification in a controlled study where the symptoms associated with food sensitivities were studied.(ref 5) During this study when the patient was fasting or on a severely restricted diet, the patients symptoms improved significantly. However, when the patient had milk reintroduced into the diet, episodes of pain, swollen and tender joints and stiffness were experienced. Similarly, Kjeldsen-Kragh and colleagues(ref 6) noted that fasting may be effective in reducing the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis, however most patients relapsed as new foods were reintroduced into the diet. Pain and discomfort frequently returned once a patient reverted to a normal diet. These studies are few in number and should be interpreted and extrapolated to real life only with careful thought and caution.

Idiots, the thief and the construction workers.

-Jumping onto of a moving vehicle
-Punching the windscreen(not possible to break with your hand).
-Holding on the car as it continues to gain serious speed
-RAMMING SAID VEHICLE (causing $$$$ damage to your own car)while your colleague is still hanging onto the front.

For what? a $200 bit of machinery? Not even worth the damage you'd do to your hand from punching the windscreen (considering you're a construction worker and your income relies on working hands!) let alone the potential brain damage, disability or death if you come off the bonnet.

I'm also not sure how the law would interpret ramming a car off the road, or flipping it, or squishing it against other cars and causing more collateral than the tool is worth (which you'd have to do to make it stop), just to stop a petty thief. And honestly if you damaged my car to stop a thief, you'd be paying for my car.

Do these people think they are living in an action movie? I know the Terminator jumped onto a car and punched through the windscreen, but they used a hydraulic ram and hid it with special fx.

Idiots.

Would love to see how this ends though cause I'd be very surprised if everything /everyone was fine.

Ummm.....so Tillman slandering his colleague and Tillman throwing the first punch...ignore that and blame the victim who called Tillman a liar for spreading lies on the senate floor and on the record about his fellow senator while they weren't present to defend themselves? I don't get that at all, both verbally and physically, Tillman was the clear instigator (and a piece of shit).
The rule had nothing to do with his blatant racism and everything to do with the personal insults and the fist fight on the Senate floor that involved numerous senators when it was done. It was to stop Tillman from repeating his personal attacks, not to stop his colleague from defending his own reputation from Tillman's slanderous lies by calling them lies, as I read the record.
Edit: don't take me wrong, I'm not arguing against your contention that some may have said protecting Tillman was the reason for the rule, or even that they meant it, just that, logically, it doesn't make a bit of sense.
I think the rule is proper if they change it to slander, not just apt but unbecoming description, and certainly not a reasonable interpretation of their actions as a public servant. Lies shouldn't be accepted, no matter what lies or about whom....imo.

All that said, I like the idea of calling it the Tillman rule and claiming it was created with the intent of protecting racists from having their public records made public.

@newtboy

Tillman's words incited the incident, but it was his colleague's response, calling him a malicious liar, that started the fight and it was Tillman's ally in the senate who proposed the rule to protect him in the future.

The rule was made to protect Ben Tillman, who, among other things said:

"[We] agreed on on the policy of terrorizing the Negroes at the first opportunity by letting them provoke trouble and then having the whites demonstrate their superiority by killing as many of them as was justifiable."

"The action of President Roosevelt in entertaining that nigger will necessitate our killing a thousand niggers in the South before they learn their place again."

"We of the South have never recognized the right of the Negro to govern white men, and we never will. We have never believed him to be the equal of the white man, and we will not submit to his gratifying his lust on our wives and daughters without lynching him. I would to God the last one of them was in Africa and that none of them had ever been brought to our shores."

^--- This, I'd like to point out, is the guy @bobknight33 is effectively siding with. Rules that protect men like that should be followed, according to Bob.

*doublepromote

Fucking finally. I am so tired of obnoxious wankers whinging about smart phones disconnecting us from each other.

Know what I did on public transport prior to having a smartphone? I read a book and listened to my Walkman (yes, I'm that old).

I didn't talk to strangers on a bus, because most people are fucking boring. And they undoubtedly think I'm boring too.

We were previously forced to talk to neighbours, colleagues, etc because they were the only people we came in contact with, but these days instead of communicating with people who share our physical space, we communicate with people who share our interests.

Well, thank you, totally unknown actors. Of course I value your opinions more than that of your successful colleagues, you, who are so well known for making noticeable decisions, dear completely unimportant actors.

Oh, the irony.

Yeah, our South Australian office (along with the entire state!!!) lost power at 15:30 yesterday (their time, 4pm our time) and we're only just restarting their systems now.

My South Australian colleague had to walk up 10 flights of stairs this morning because the lifts weren't working yet (they fixed them just after).

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Yay - I knew it was coming - and here we are. I'm in furious agreement with my esteemed colleague @lucky760. You are woven into the fabric of this community. Badge and song are on their way ... (in the usual 2-3 weeks)