Orogogus wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 17:46:

You mean "...not just making stuff up out of thin air", I assume.

Prez wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 17:33:

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 17:18:
Beh.

Sexual harassment complaints are the easiest "get rich quick" schemes on the planet these days.

That and claims of racism. I've seen too many bogus claims of each where I have worked to just take anything at face value anymore. While the evidence in the emails at least make it clear that at the very least the woman is just making stuff up out of thin air

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 17:18:
Beh.

Sexual harassment complaints are the easiest "get rich quick" schemes on the planet these days.

Beelzebud wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 17:29:

RollinThundr wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 16:52:

Creston wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 15:11:

Teddy wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 15:05:

Creston wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 14:24:
nice...
One thing I do agree with, however, is that since he owns the company, he can pretty much do whatever he wants to in it (within legal boundaries, of course.) It is NOT against the law to make vulgar jokes that make people uncomfortable, despite all the efforts of the US to apparently make it so.

I don't know what hole you're living in, but where I'm from it absolutely IS illegal, regardless of whether your company is publicly traded or not. It's a violation of human rights law, not employment law.

Further, if it -were- legal to do what he did, then the judge would not have refused to toss the case when Wardell tried to get them to do so. Frankly, I think you're operating on an ancient and idiotic supposition that will get you sued one day, and rightfully so.

Human rights law. Oookay, Teddy. Keep huffing the glue, buddy. Every single one of your posts becomes fucking dumber and dumber, so now you go on the dumbass list.

Creston

Remember the Politically Correct/Liberal crowd tends to like to make up reality as they go along to suit their views.

Says the guy siding with the person that is completely wrong about what the laws actually say.

RollinThundr wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 16:52:

Creston wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 15:11:

Teddy wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 15:05:

Creston wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 14:24:
nice...
One thing I do agree with, however, is that since he owns the company, he can pretty much do whatever he wants to in it (within legal boundaries, of course.) It is NOT against the law to make vulgar jokes that make people uncomfortable, despite all the efforts of the US to apparently make it so.

I don't know what hole you're living in, but where I'm from it absolutely IS illegal, regardless of whether your company is publicly traded or not. It's a violation of human rights law, not employment law.

Further, if it -were- legal to do what he did, then the judge would not have refused to toss the case when Wardell tried to get them to do so. Frankly, I think you're operating on an ancient and idiotic supposition that will get you sued one day, and rightfully so.

Human rights law. Oookay, Teddy. Keep huffing the glue, buddy. Every single one of your posts becomes fucking dumber and dumber, so now you go on the dumbass list.

Creston

Remember the Politically Correct/Liberal crowd tends to like to make up reality as they go along to suit their views.

nin wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 17:14:

RollinThundr wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 16:52:

Creston wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 15:11:

Teddy wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 15:05:

Creston wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 14:24:
nice...
One thing I do agree with, however, is that since he owns the company, he can pretty much do whatever he wants to in it (within legal boundaries, of course.) It is NOT against the law to make vulgar jokes that make people uncomfortable, despite all the efforts of the US to apparently make it so.

I don't know what hole you're living in, but where I'm from it absolutely IS illegal, regardless of whether your company is publicly traded or not. It's a violation of human rights law, not employment law.

Further, if it -were- legal to do what he did, then the judge would not have refused to toss the case when Wardell tried to get them to do so. Frankly, I think you're operating on an ancient and idiotic supposition that will get you sued one day, and rightfully so.

Human rights law. Oookay, Teddy. Keep huffing the glue, buddy. Every single one of your posts becomes fucking dumber and dumber, so now you go on the dumbass list.

Creston

Remember the Politically Correct/Liberal crowd tends to like to make up reality as they go along to suit their views.

Oh look, another political hijack from you! Typical.

Prez wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 17:14:
I'm not sure that what we've been told so far of the exchanges actually meets the criteria for being sexual harrassment (though it might, which is why I presume, the judge refused to dismiss the case outright), but it sure does meet the criteria for being extremely ill-advised unprofessional behavior. Not surprising given Wardell's penchant for acting less than professionally at all times.

ASeven wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 16:22:
I wouldn't be surprised if his lawyers quit on him since he keeps digging the hole deeper in the forums. Holy shit that's a great way to destroy your own defense.

RollinThundr wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 16:52:

Creston wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 15:11:

Teddy wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 15:05:

Creston wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 14:24:
nice...
One thing I do agree with, however, is that since he owns the company, he can pretty much do whatever he wants to in it (within legal boundaries, of course.) It is NOT against the law to make vulgar jokes that make people uncomfortable, despite all the efforts of the US to apparently make it so.

I don't know what hole you're living in, but where I'm from it absolutely IS illegal, regardless of whether your company is publicly traded or not. It's a violation of human rights law, not employment law.

Further, if it -were- legal to do what he did, then the judge would not have refused to toss the case when Wardell tried to get them to do so. Frankly, I think you're operating on an ancient and idiotic supposition that will get you sued one day, and rightfully so.

Human rights law. Oookay, Teddy. Keep huffing the glue, buddy. Every single one of your posts becomes fucking dumber and dumber, so now you go on the dumbass list.

Creston

Remember the Politically Correct/Liberal crowd tends to like to make up reality as they go along to suit their views.

RollinThundr wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 16:52:
Remember the Politically Correct/Liberal crowd tends to like to make up reality as they go along to suit their views.

Creston wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 15:11:

Teddy wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 15:05:

Creston wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 14:24:
nice...
One thing I do agree with, however, is that since he owns the company, he can pretty much do whatever he wants to in it (within legal boundaries, of course.) It is NOT against the law to make vulgar jokes that make people uncomfortable, despite all the efforts of the US to apparently make it so.

I don't know what hole you're living in, but where I'm from it absolutely IS illegal, regardless of whether your company is publicly traded or not. It's a violation of human rights law, not employment law.

Further, if it -were- legal to do what he did, then the judge would not have refused to toss the case when Wardell tried to get them to do so. Frankly, I think you're operating on an ancient and idiotic supposition that will get you sued one day, and rightfully so.

Human rights law. Oookay, Teddy. Keep huffing the glue, buddy. Every single one of your posts becomes fucking dumber and dumber, so now you go on the dumbass list.

Creston

Draugr wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 16:08:
The fact that he is on a forum providing more evidence is pretty hilarious.

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Sep 6, 2012, 15:54:
Since Rebellion was off Impulse, I was erroneously convinced that they were split from Stardock finally. I am not sure what the nature of the relationship is, funding/publishing on some level apparently, but it's still there. Ugh. They have only abandoned Impulse as a delivery service, it seems. :(