Gossip is top office peeve in survey
Gossiping, a favorite pastime of commenters on this blog, was the top workplace peeve in a survey reported in a news article:
A poll on the biggest pet peeves in the workplace by market researcher Harris Interactive found 60 percent of 2,429 U.S. respondents listed gossip as the biggest annoyance.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 10/30/2007 08:04:00 PM
28 Comments:
Don't lie about yourself and nobody will have to make the corrections that you call "gossip".
>>>>>> Don't lie about yourself and nobody will have to make the corrections that you call "gossip". <<<<<<
Dunghill, I am not the one who initiates discussions of my personal affairs.
Gossip may be the number one peeve, but narcissistic wounding is also the number one office sport.
> Dunghill, I am not the one who initiates discussions of my personal affairs. <
Dunghill, you are. One example is when you discussed your "legal genius". Bringing up your unmatched record of failure is not gossip at that point.
>>>>> One example is when you discussed your "legal genius". <<<<<<
That is not one of my personal affairs -- my legal genius is in public court records and I have also demonstrated my legal genius on this blog. For example, in my very first court case outside of small claims courts, I did what a whole team of lawyers failed to do: find a precedent in support of federal court jurisdiction over California's unconstitutional "smog impact fee." The precedent said that a state that "leaves the sphere that is exclusively its own" -- which California did by basing the fee entirely upon the state's special status under federal auto-emissions laws -- loses its immunity to suit in federal court. I was later vindicated when a top California auto-emissions control official testified in state court that the smog impact fee required the approval of the US EPA. The failure of judges to recognize my legal genius was their fault, not mine. In my smog impact fee lawsuit, the State of California did not answer my above argument, there was no oral hearing, and the district court judge issued no opinion!
This blog has also analyzed many other legal issues. If you can find one of my legal analyses that you think is wrong, identify it and we can argue about it here.
You have once more made a fool of yourself. You never learn.
> my legal genius is in public court records <
Where you have lost every single case you have filed? (Oh yes. The judges were all crooked and scheming against you.)
> and I have also demonstrated my legal genius on this blog. <
You have shown yourself to be a fool on this blog.
> For example, in my very first court case outside of small claims courts <
Which you lost, just like the small claims experiences.
"The failure of judges to recognize my legal genius was their fault, not mine."
Is this an entry for the Lunatic of the Month contest?
> In my smog impact fee lawsuit, the State of California did not answer my above argument, there was no oral hearing, and the district court judge issued no opinion! <
Since your filing was faulty, there was no need to go further. If someone is brought into a hospital with their head missing and a cannon sized hole in the middle of their chest, it is not necessary to do a detailed autopsy.
> This blog has also analyzed many other legal issues. If you can find one of my legal analyses that you think is wrong, identify it and we can argue about it here. <
They have been analyzed. The result is always the same. Once your theory is shot down logically, you first sling insults and then refuse to answer further questions.
You have once more made a fool of yourself. You never learn.
As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls. No matter how badly you demolish their arguments, they just keep coming back with more nonsense.
See The Resistant Learner.
> No matter how badly you demolish their arguments <
As usual, Larry has no answers. After falling flat on his face, as usual, Larry declares victory.
O.K. Larry. Give us an example of where you have even made, let alone won, a coherent legal argument.
>>>>> Give us an example of where you have even made, let alone won, a coherent legal argument. <<<<<<
I just gave a coherent legal argument above, dunghill, about the smog impact fee, but you ignored it.
> I just gave a coherent legal argument above, dunghill, about the smog impact fee, but you ignored it. <
I said coherent. You just described how your irrelevant discovery was ignored by the judges because they, just like the little green men who you say publish the Los Angeles Times, were conspiring against you.
>>>> I said coherent. <<<<<
It is coherent. Since when is a state fee that requires federal approval "exclusively" within a state's own "sphere"? Answer that, dunghill. Put up or shut up, damn you.
> Since when is a state fee that requires federal approval "exclusively" within a state's own "sphere"? <
A man arrives in a hospital headless with both legs blown off. You argue that he must be entered as a bicyclist in the Olympics because they can't discriminate by religion or national origin.
The issue of Federal jurisdiction is not why that case, like all of your others, was laughed out of court.
Perhaps you should give a counter argument as to why you were laughed out of court?
> That's no answer <
It went over your head, as usual.
> I have won the argument. <
You didn't present an argument.
This "tis", "tis not" business is a waste of time. Larry, why don't you actually give a logical argument about something and then we will have something to judge.
So far I see only bald unsupported pronouncements from you and unanswered questions from others. You have earned your reputation as an argumentative nut case.
>>>>>It went over your head, as usual. <<<<<<
It went over my head like a lead balloon.
>>>>> This "tis", "tis not" business is a waste of time. Larry, why don't you actually give a logical argument about something and then we will have something to judge. <<<<<<
Under the Social Darwinism that you love so much, you jerks would be among the first to be euthanized for the purpose of eliminating feeble-mindedness in the human race.
I will again ask a simple question that a normal three-year-old can answer:
Since when is a state fee that requires federal approval "exclusively" within a state's own "sphere"?
> Under the Social Darwinism that you love so much ... <
More mindless repetition. We have heard that before. It only shows your further mental deterioration and pegs you as a candidate for euthanization.
> I will again ask a simple question that a normal three-year-old can answer: <
And I will again ask you a question that you will duck:
Since your case was moot for other reasons, what is the relevance of that statement?
>>>>> Since your case was moot for other reasons, what is the relevance of that statement? <<<<<<
What reasons? Name one, dunghill. Anyway, it is too late to present any other reasons, because the judge did not present any. People don't get any credit for things they don't say.
> What reasons? Name one <
We have already covered this numerous times, dunghill. Kevin described the case in some detail.
The bottom line is that you were laughed out of court that time just as you always have been. You were angry because the judge did not get into irrelevancies.
>>>>>>> We have already covered this numerous times, dunghill. Kevin described the case in some detail. <<<<<<<
You can't weasel out of this one by just waving your arms about Kevin's comments, jerko. And whether or not my case was moot has nothing to do with the coherence of my argument that -- in the words of the Supreme Court -- California lost its immunity in federal court by "leaving the sphere that is exclusively its own" by enacting a tax that was based on and subject to federal law and regulation. You claimed that I never made a coherent legal argument -- remember, jerko?
>>>>>> The bottom line is that you were laughed out of court <<<<<<
How could I have been "laughed out of court" when there was no oral hearing and the lousy judge did not write an opinion?
You don't even have enough originality to come up with your own insults but have to use mine. Stop wasting my time, you worthless sack of shit. You are just too dumb to comment on this blog or any blog. Since I can't delete your crap because of my no-censorship policy, all I can do is pray that you drop dead and go to hell, and I'm not even religious.
Only Muslims pray that way (aside from not leaving the "drop dead" part up to chance).
> You claimed that I never made a coherent legal argument -- remember, jerko? <
Is this still going on? Larry, If you can make, or have ever made a coherent legal argument, post it here rather than waving your arms.
> How could I have been "laughed out of court" when there was no oral hearing and the lousy judge did not write an opinion? <
Your use of the term "lousy judge" would suggest that you lost your case at best (or were "laughed out of court") at worst. Did you or did you not lose this case?
> You don't even have enough originality to come up with your own insults but have to use mine. <
Perhaps everyone could dispense with the insults. They serve only to make this website "crappy" as described by Wikipedia.
> You don't even have enough originality to come up with your own insults but have to use mine. <
He is trying to show you how stupid and childish you look with those insults. Obviously he has failed to do so but your reply has proven it to the rest of us.
Polonius driveled,
>>>>>> Did you or did you not lose this case? <<<<<<
Jerko, the issue is not whether I "lost" the case (one can hardly "lose" a case when there is no oral hearing, no opinion, and no evidence whatsoever that the judge ever read the briefs) but whether my above legal argument is "coherent."
Hectoring Hector driveled . . . . .
>>>>>>> You don't even have enough originality to come up with your own insults but have to use mine. <
He is trying to show you how stupid and childish you look with those insults. <<<<<<
Jerko, I didn't criticize his use of insults -- I criticized his lack of originality.
So you think that the arbitrary censorship practiced by Fatheaded Ed Brayton, Sleazy PZ Myers, Wes "Ding" Elsberry et al. is better?
> Jerko, the issue is not whether I "lost" the case <
You could cut that down to fewer words. You lost.
> whether my above legal argument is "coherent." <
It is not an argument at all. It is just a statement of something that may or may not be relevant to the case. I guess the judge decided that it was not.
> Jerko, I didn't criticize his use of insults -- I criticized his lack of originality. <
You criticize a judge for possibly not reading something and then you show that you either did not read, or did not understand Hector's comment.
> So you think that the arbitrary censorship practiced by Fatheaded Ed Brayton, Sleazy PZ Myers, Wes "Ding" Elsberry et al. is better? <
As ViU has pointed out. You have given no evidence that any of these blogs have ever practiced "arbitrary" censorship. I understand that you admitted practicing censorship in the past and according to some commenters, it continues. Their credibility seems to be better than yours.
>>>>> It is not an argument at all. It is just a statement of something that may or may not be relevant to the case. <<<<<<<
You are just full of crap, dunghill. You are just messing up my blog and wasting my time. Drop dead and go to hell.
> You are just full of crap, dunghill. You are just messing up my blog and wasting my time. Drop dead and go to hell. <
The above is an example of Larry's faultless eloquence. How could anyone feel that he is unable to answer the question?
Post a Comment
<< Home