This is why I always say that the current health care in America would make perfect sense only to a medieval feudal lord.
And so are you, in effect.
Are you saying that large employers never discriminate against employees who may raise insurance rates?
More sense than what?
What I have learned is that the side that is often wrong does not want to reveal right away their side of the story.
Better news, but so far it is clear that she lost her job anyhow.
Well, more sense than firing someone who sold $1,000,000 of jewelry in one year, allegedly for the first time ever in the company’s Northeast District. The more I think about this, the less sense it makes. If it were I running a business, I’d certainly hold a job open for someone with that kind of ability. And - I’ll add, before you reiterate that it must be some other reason - I’d put up with an awful lot of prima donna from someone with that kind of ability.
That’s really an excellent way to phrase it.
Please either (1) show me where I claimed that it must be some other reason; or (2) apologize and admit that I made no such claim.
Your choice. Thank you.
Your first post in this thread said, precisely:
That qualifies as “some other reason,” as far as i can tell.
For some reason, i was under the impression that your stupidity and lack of reasoning ability was largely confined to the issue of AGW. Guess i was wrong.
Interesting point. If you had merely suggested that we reserve judgment until we heard Zales’ side of the story, you wouldn’t be getting any grief. But you’ve loaded your posts with either outright statements or innuendos that they probably had another reason, or were looking for good reasons to downsize staff generally, etc. And while you’re right that we haven’t heard the employer’s side of the story, if any, such evidence as we do have suggests that it was done purely to avoid having someone on the roster who would be out for surgery on the company health insurance’s tab. In short, you’ve taken on yourself to blacken this woman’s reputation for no evident reason except that you hear lies from unemployed people at your job. (If YOU can be believed…)
If you want balance, be balanced. If you denigrate and slander, expect to be denigrated and slandered.
Do you understand that there is a difference between “there’s a pretty good chance of X” and “X must be so”?
Seriously, do you understand that there is a difference?
I’ll assume that you did not read my post carefully before I conclude that you are stupid.
Do you admit that I never claimed that there “must” be another reason?
:shrug: I’m skeptical of self-serving and uncorroborated claims. With respect to the particular claim in question, I have heard many claims of a similar nature and they have usually turned out to be false or wildly exaggerated.
By analogy, if somebody told a story of being abducted by extraterrestrial aliens, we could also say that the only evidence we have suggests that the abduction did in fact take place. But it would still be smart to be skeptical.
ETA: By the way, I’m not claiming that this woman’s story is as non-credible as an alien abduction story. Although I imagine the strawmanners will try to pretend this.
Whoa, **Polycarp ** don’t hold up, tell us how you really feel about brazil84. 
And to me it is clear that brazil84 is just demonstrating his idiocy here (In the sense that he wants all to ignore the context and that he resorts to Ad nauseam arguments when he does not have anything else to say in the defense of his sorry points), there is no need to say that brazil84 is an idiot mhendo, the evidence just accumulates.
An example here: Already others have confirmed what the lady said, brazil84 just expects that dopers will miss that other confirmation (the OP posted 2 cites) of what she is saying does not exist.
There is not enough difference between the two to conclude you meant anything other than her firing was probably justified. Perhaps you should work on clarity if you are misunderstood so often.
I noticed that too coming from brasil84, but I did not want to jump on his bullshit explanation until others confirmed my assessment without pointing that out.
When it happens to me I can blame the fact that English is my second language, but the fact that even I can spot the BS of other posters that are supposed to be born with English as the original language should make those posters die of the embarrassment.
I still wonder what in hell is his excuse for not understanding or expressing points in a proper way.
I’m a little confused. Are you saying that “her firing was probably justified” means basically the same thing as “her firing must have been justified”?
Simple yes or no question.
And perhaps people should respond to the point I actually make, as opposed to the point they wish I had made.
For the purpose of messageboard debate, yes.
Holy fuck, you’re pathetic.
Given the resulting publicity, I’d imagine several area jewelers will be lining up at her hospital room door on Monday morning to try to hire her, and likely for a healthy signing bonus too.
That’s what I hope too. She has a proven track record of being great at sales, and hell, she may even try her hand at selling something else…advertising, maybe.
For me it’s different. However, from now on, whenever you claim that there is a “pretty good chance” of something or that something is “probably” true, I will interpret it to mean you are saying that the thing “must be” true. Ok?
OK.
Nothing obvious on the corporate website; perhaps if they ignore it, it will go away.