 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
<388E2A0B.67DF7930@voyager.net> <Fowz19.44A@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit (...) Because person X _took_ that responsibility freely. I agree that it wouldn't be fair the law just decided (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Soylent green is people. Dave! (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) Just to clarify - I'm assuming that responsibility goes up the management tree in a serious case? Ie, the employee, his boss, his bosses boss.. the CEO. In a lot of cases, managers would claim that sub-managers hadn't informed them of a (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
James Brown wrote in message ... (...) are (...) Boiled (...) contrary, (...) in (...) direction - (...) First off, the CEO is only responsible for the activities of his employees which are reasonably related to their job. If one of your employees (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <388E2BFD.FB5B993@vo...er.net>... (...) Interesting, I guess either of two cases would apply: 1. They're trespassers. I guess the property owner is responsible for dealing with the bodies (though his community (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) I understand the sentiment, but I don't understand the position. You(the collective you) appear to say that the officers of a company are liable for the actions of that company REGARDLESS of whether or not they are personally responsible, or (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Right you are. But why were they starving where they were? Were they starving enroute? And why would they starve once they *got* to libertopia, if they wanted to work? (and, since there's no public assistance, why would they want to come to (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
<3885F82B.31DF@mindspring.com> <FoLIpw.MEu@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I wasn't a 100% fan of Truman but he did have one thing on his desk that pretty much summed it up for me... A sign (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Yeah, they can starve here just as well as anywhere else. But who buries them? That costs money and presents health problems if not done. Bruce (This wasn't meant seriously, but I suppose it does apply) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) And if you give government assistance to those who are in need. Absent that, there is no good reason. (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
