"Ultimately, a lot of this will be either first degree hearsay or second degree hearsay, so let the lawyers fight it out, and a judge direct them and the jury to come up with a conclusion."
again, sane advice to be given to frogboy. not to me. this is not a trial room. this is a forum. HE wants to chat. let's chat.
anyway, i didn't hear you or the other guy jumping in to withhold judgment when everyone was hailing wardell as their personal lord and savior.
"Anyways, what your dog in this fight?"
as i intimated above - what's yours? if you love him so much, why don't you marry him? (best heard in your head as delivered by a 9 year old girl)
"you seem to be taking it very personally. If you dislike Frogboy so much, why even post here? you are the one who is up-at-arms and ready for executing justice."
i don't particularly dislike him. as i wrote in my previous post (first?), i was a fan. things that he said i liked. things that he said i disliked. and actually was signed onto stardock forums awhiiiiiile back. and it was his twitter post linking to this forum (i followed him) that brought me back here trying to figure out what my password was.
and i don't believe i actually am taking this personally or emotionally. though when people criticize me for not "thinking things through" (i defy you to find fault with the logic of what i have said thus far) i think - in terms of emotionality - people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
i have no dog in the fight except to be twitter following someone who has a kotaku article written about him and then who wanted to talk about it but who seemed to be presenting only his side. if you "thought things through" and looked at all the information in the said kotaku article, it would be apparent that the discussion here is pretty one sided... and considering the subject matter - that rubbed me the wrong way.
but as i said, i have no dog in the fight. let me deconstruct brad's position favorably as well and lay his position out as plainly as i see it.
"I am an inappropriate, sexist, vulgar, and embarrassing person and I'm not inclined to change my behavior."
i'm pretty sure he didn't mean "sexist". again, from context, he probably meant something like "racy" or "saucy". if he is truly "sexist" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism , at the very least, he should be given a round of applause for having the courage of his prehistoric and misguided convictions. but again - i think he mis-spoke. he's saying he's a vulgar, non pc, racy kinda guy.
like with the plaintiff's email, unfortunate wordings obscure meaning and create oportunities for enemies to exploit. this should be a sobering thought - if you set up strawmen, it's hard to complain when it's done back to you.
besides all this legal mumbo jumbo, i'm of the opinion that "where there's smoke, there's fire".
did this "outstanding" employee making six figures just, out of the freakin' blue, decide to file a sex lawsuit just for shits and giggles?
i find it hard to buy. i'm sure there are women who would. but i don't think they would be so excellent at their jobs.
i think it's probably just a case of flirting gone bad.
1. flirtation was engaged in
2. reaction was far more negative than expected (we've all been there... though the boss/employee thing is inadvisable)
3. counter-reaction driven by anger results in a reply that ends with an also inadvisable expression of "my way or the highway - 'this is MY house!' "
4. ego bruise>ego bruise>ego bruise + terms that are legally dicey... that setup the grounds for a lawsuit. based on bruised egos and inadvisable, hasty words driven by emotion.
and here we are.
is this something she should be suing over? probably not. should he have said what he did in just the way he did putting her job at stake? probably not.
but here we are.
and then if the chronology is sex lawsuit first, then the "crazy bitch deleted all the files" lawsuit second (and again, for someone who is so outstanding, meriting a six figure salary... she sure is playing this fast, loose and CA-RAZY according to the story) one would ask oneself - as the kotaku article does - is the second lawsuit simple meritless retaliation hoping for a legal war of attrition - and that driven by just pure spite?
especially since brad has expressed his personal disgust with such frivolous legal activity, i hope for his sake that that he himself is not culpable of such abuse.
but ya wonder.
i really really hope that's not true. cuz if it is... again, i have a big facepalm with frogboy's name on it.
so a mountain out of a mole hill. if i'm right (hey, i'm not guaranteeing that i am... i'm just telling you what i smell) it's compounded misunderstandings amped by the heightened emotions and ego surrounding flirtation.
a simple thing spiraled badly out of control. hopefully at worst, a "michael scott" moment with real world consequences piling on.
and now it'll all just be obfuscated and made complicated by a wall of legalese and technical nit picking that will enrich nothing but lawyers.
and if this is what happened, they should fucking print this out, have a meeting, apologize sincerely, shake hands and just be human beings about it. she's making six figures, does she need the money? he's got a company and the game is done, does he?