Red Mosquito

wtf is approximately 2 employees?

bune wrote:

wtf is approximately 2 employees?

Counting isn't easy, man.

It means he was one employee, but kind of wanted to count the cleaning lady that comes once a week through Merry Maids.

depends on if you count the office dog.

BurtReynolds wrote:depends on if you count the office dog.

not that I know for sure or anything, but i used to work for a "business intelligence" company. A lot of the company profiles we'd receive would include this kind of info.
It was usually an approximation based on the area of the country where a business was located, the industry they were classified under, and the number of executives in management.


Sorry to ruin the joke

I think I speak for everyone on RM when I say "Great news!"

BurtReynolds wrote:I think I speak for everyone on RM when I say "Great news!"

The coverage on this was great. On NPR, some apologist for the "Dear Colleague" letter was trying to make a case for offenses less serious than crimes being dealt with at the school level, and that apologetic sexual offenders might be subject to some minor re-education courses.

Has that happened at all under this guidance? Is any sanction other than kicking a 'guilty' offender off campus appropriate, based on the guidelines?

Its almost as if they want to impose employment style "sexual harassment" law on sexual partners, and demanding enthusiastic consent. Its totally unworkable.

simple schoolboy wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I think I speak for everyone on RM when I say "Great news!"

The coverage on this was great. On NPR, some apologist for the "Dear Colleague" letter was trying to make a case for offenses less serious than crimes being dealt with at the school level, and that apologetic sexual offenders might be subject to some minor re-education courses.

Has that happened at all under this guidance? Is any sanction other than kicking a 'guilty' offender off campus appropriate, based on the guidelines?

Its almost as if they want to impose employment style "sexual harassment" law on sexual partners, and demanding enthusiastic consent. Its totally unworkable.

I get what you're saying about due process, but enthusiastic consent seems like a reasonable requirement for sex.

We've seen these kind of headlines before but this is a big one. Just go ahead and freeze you credit.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/07/technol ... index.html

Bi_3 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I think I speak for everyone on RM when I say "Great news!"

The coverage on this was great. On NPR, some apologist for the "Dear Colleague" letter was trying to make a case for offenses less serious than crimes being dealt with at the school level, and that apologetic sexual offenders might be subject to some minor re-education courses.

Has that happened at all under this guidance? Is any sanction other than kicking a 'guilty' offender off campus appropriate, based on the guidelines?

Its almost as if they want to impose employment style "sexual harassment" law on sexual partners, and demanding enthusiastic consent. Its totally unworkable.

I get what you're saying about due process, but enthusiastic consent seems like a reasonable requirement for sex.

Good sex anyway, amirite?

BurtReynolds wrote:I think I speak for everyone on RM when I say "Great news!"

Not me.

simple schoolboy wrote:The coverage on this was great. On NPR, some apologist for the "Dear Colleague" letter was trying to make a case for offenses less serious than crimes being dealt with at the school level, and that apologetic sexual offenders might be subject to some minor re-education courses.

Has that happened at all under this guidance? Is any sanction other than kicking a 'guilty' offender off campus appropriate, based on the guidelines?

From the letter itself:

https://www2.ed.gov/print/about/offices ... 01104.html

I tried to google words like "suspend", "expel", or "expulsion" and came up empty. It's pretty nondescript on what disciplinary action should be taken against the offender. And I think that's fine: there should be room for mitigating factors as appropriate, but I also wouldn't take expulsion off the table altogether.

simple schoolboy wrote:Its almost as if they want to impose employment style "sexual harassment" law on sexual partners, and demanding enthusiastic consent. Its totally unworkable.

Most of the complaints stem from the insistence on using the preponderance of the evidence standard in these cases. But I don't see why that's unreasonable. This doesn't deal with throwing the offenders in jail, or even seeking civil remedies. At worst, it's kicking offenders off a campus in which they've been deemed to make life a living hell for at least one person among the campus population. That shouldn't mean that the offender can't pursue higher education at a different school, but does mean that their presence at the school where this happened has become so toxic that their continued presence is harming the student population as a whole.

Biff Pocoroba wrote:We've seen these kind of headlines before but this is a big one. Just go ahead and freeze you credit.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/07/technol ... index.html

well that's just great

Freezes are some of the best action you can take in the age of your info always being leaked. You may find value in blocking electronic access to your SSN: https://secure.ssa.gov/acu/IPS_INTR/blockaccess

A few days old now.

A woman who threw her poo out of her date's toilet window because it "would not flush" had to be rescued after she got stuck trying to retrieve it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-41167296

bune wrote:

Freezes are some of the best action you can take in the age of your info always being leaked. You may find value in blocking electronic access to your SSN: https://secure.ssa.gov/acu/IPS_INTR/blockaccess

It gets worse:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/theres-l ... 37655.html

Unbelievable.

bune wrote:

Freezes are some of the best action you can take in the age of your info always being leaked. You may find value in blocking electronic access to your SSN: https://secure.ssa.gov/acu/IPS_INTR/blockaccess

My browser doesn't recognize the SSA website as secure. Go figure. I would also like to understand how the unblocking process works because I don't much enjoy the idea of interacting with the Federal equivalent of the DMV.

simple schoolboy wrote:

bune wrote:

Freezes are some of the best action you can take in the age of your info always being leaked. You may find value in blocking electronic access to your SSN: https://secure.ssa.gov/acu/IPS_INTR/blockaccess

My browser doesn't recognize the SSA website as secure. Go figure. I would also like to understand how the unblocking process works because I don't much enjoy the idea of interacting with the Federal equivalent of the DMV.

My browser, FF 55 w/https everywhere, sees it as secure.


And everyone should do this.

Bi_3 wrote:

bune wrote:

Freezes are some of the best action you can take in the age of your info always being leaked. You may find value in blocking electronic access to your SSN: https://secure.ssa.gov/acu/IPS_INTR/blockaccess

It gets worse:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/theres-l ... 37655.html

Unbelievable.

I'm not even being snarky when I say this doesn't surprise me.

Green Habit wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I think I speak for everyone on RM when I say "Great news!"

Not me.

simple schoolboy wrote:The coverage on this was great. On NPR, some apologist for the "Dear Colleague" letter was trying to make a case for offenses less serious than crimes being dealt with at the school level, and that apologetic sexual offenders might be subject to some minor re-education courses.

Has that happened at all under this guidance? Is any sanction other than kicking a 'guilty' offender off campus appropriate, based on the guidelines?

From the letter itself:

https://www2.ed.gov/print/about/offices ... 01104.html

I tried to google words like "suspend", "expel", or "expulsion" and came up empty. It's pretty nondescript on what disciplinary action should be taken against the offender. And I think that's fine: there should be room for mitigating factors as appropriate, but I also wouldn't take expulsion off the table altogether.

simple schoolboy wrote:Its almost as if they want to impose employment style "sexual harassment" law on sexual partners, and demanding enthusiastic consent. Its totally unworkable.

Most of the complaints stem from the insistence on using the preponderance of the evidence standard in these cases. But I don't see why that's unreasonable. This doesn't deal with throwing the offenders in jail, or even seeking civil remedies. At worst, it's kicking offenders off a campus in which they've been deemed to make life a living hell for at least one person among the campus population. That shouldn't mean that the offender can't pursue higher education at a different school, but does mean that their presence at the school where this happened has become so toxic that their continued presence is harming the student population as a whole.

Preponderance of evidence is one of the lesser issues. There is no due process. The normal Title IX type hearing entails getting notice a few days before a hearing, and receiving no indication of what the accusations are before the hearing. Generally, the accused is barred from bringing a lawyer, or anyone allowed to advocate on their behalf. The accused is not allowed to introduce evidence, or at least the investigator is not required to accept any submissions.

Its wholly one sided, and completely unfair. This also goes beyond alleged sexual misconduct. Professors have had complaints filed against them for writing papers that are insufficiently pro rape hysteria.

If being kicked off campus is an un-serious punishment, then it seems totally inappropriate for this to be the sanction that rapists get.