Community > Posts By > daniel48706

 
daniel48706's photo
Sun 10/04/09 05:45 PM

i had to break it off because she was too controling, to jealous, and wouldent try and work things out. Offered to go to counseling to get communication back but she was to bipolar to accept it. Feel bad because i know women can go through certain emotions after they have a child but it was to far out of control


Please do not take what I am about to say personally, but in regards to the two issues you brought up, bipolar, and "women going through certain emotions after they have a child...".

There is no such thing as "too bipolar". Either you are or your not. It is something that CAN be helped with proper counseling and medication, but you will have to be on the medication for the rest of your life in most cases, and counseling caries as to how long it can last. You stated that your daughters mother is not willing to seek counseling (I am assuming marriage or something along those lines), so I trust this means she is not seeking help with the bipolar issues either? If this is the case, then you have to decide what's best for you and your daughter and follow through. but keep in mind that it is going to be a very difficult time and choice, no matter which decision you make. I have been there and speak from experience; and no you don't EVER truly get over leaving them when they are obviously sick. But, again sometimes you have to decide whats better for you, and especially your baby daughter.

The other side of it though is the fact that yes many women DO go through what is commonly known as post partem depression, which can be a very major and sometimes very scary, deal for everyone concerned, especially the mother. And again, it comes down to her having to be willing to seek treatment for this issue if she does suffer from it.

In both cases, there is nothing you can personally do to help her other than support her emotionally, and make sure she knows you love her and are there for her no matter what. Just whatever you do, if you decide the better choice is to seperate, do not EVER hold it against her, or talk bad about her to your daughter. Both of my boys know their mother is "sick" and that that is the reason for what she does and does not do in their lives. I have gone to great pains to make sure that they both know how much she loves them, even though she has problems showing that love in a way they always understand.

Good luck and God Bless.


daniel48706's photo
Sun 10/04/09 05:28 PM
Exactly. There's an older movie I like, even with some of the language in it starring Chris Rock, entitled "head of state". He plays a black Alderman, who is picked to run for President of the United States, because he is black, and because the political party in question expects him to lose.
BUT, when they introduce him to his staff, the have hired on a "professional hooker" on the grounds that they are tired of all the sex scandals that erupt during Presidential campaigns, and figure it would be better just to have somebody on hand to begin with.
Although intended as a joke, it goes a long way towards saying the obvious, which is most politicians (I wont say all), do not care about sexual morals. I think this extends not only to the majority of politicians, but to anyone with a bit of fame and "power" as well.




Too bad somebody had to try to blackmail him cause I know I don't care who he has sex with as long as they are of age and mental consent. Now I know more than I need to about him.


I don't think he is the only person who has affair with the staff, it just happened to be that someone blackmailed him so he had to come out of the closet.

I bet ya at least half of the well known entertainers and most likely politicians too.

daniel48706's photo
Sun 10/04/09 05:15 PM
exactly dragoness. I said the same thing about President Clinton. His personal life and actions are of no concern of mine, so long as they do not affect his position or our country. Adultry is not a legal matter, not even in a divorce anymore as far as I am aware; it is a moral matter, and a religious matter. And in all honesty, I have a hard time even defining it as a moral matter, as it is more an issue of religion than anything else.



Too bad somebody had to try to blackmail him cause I know I don't care who he has sex with as long as they are of age and mental consent. Now I know more than I need to about him.

daniel48706's photo
Sun 10/04/09 05:10 PM
Let me get this straight. You do not accept his apologies and statements that he will accept whatever comes of this, because he made them AFTER he made some bad decisions? When is he suPPOSED to make the apologies and acceptance remarks? During his actions? Or prior to having made them in the first case.

The man stood up, admitted he had done what he was accused of, and is willing to accept anything that comes of it. I suggest you remember he is human, as are you and I, and make sure that you yourself live to the same standards that you are trying to claim others should live by flowerforyou




While I didn't see his show, I did read the transcript. He admitted to having numerous affairs over the years, he's been with the same woman for 13 years so presumably he overlapped. I am making the assumption it is against company policy for him to have relationships with co-workers as it is against most companies' policies. None of these women sued him for sexual harrassment so presumably they were ok with it. He admitted wrong, he admitted to doing/being creepy and he said that if he was fired, or his wife left him, he deserved it and would take whatever consequences came his way. He apologized to the women he had affairs with, his wife, his family, his friends and his employers. In other words, he manned up.

While I don't watch him and neither like nor dislike him, I do admire him going on his show and doing what he did. It couldn't have been easy and he must be horribly embarrassed. While what he did was wrong on many levels, at least he has made the first steps toward an attempt to make things right, which is more than most people do.



After the fact.

daniel48706's photo
Sun 10/04/09 05:07 PM
Very well put Suzen, however if he did nothing illegal (such as cooerced the sex), or break any company policies then he did not do anything "WRONG". Immoral? Definitely. But not wrong.



While I didn't see his show, I did read the transcript. He admitted to having numerous affairs over the years, he's been with the same woman for 13 years so presumably he overlapped. I am making the assumption it is against company policy for him to have relationships with co-workers as it is against most companies' policies. None of these women sued him for sexual harrassment so presumably they were ok with it. He admitted wrong, he admitted to doing/being creepy and he said that if he was fired, or his wife left him, he deserved it and would take whatever consequences came his way. He apologized to the women he had affairs with, his wife, his family, his friends and his employers. In other words, he manned up.

While I don't watch him and neither like nor dislike him, I do admire him going on his show and doing what he did. It couldn't have been easy and he must be horribly embarrassed. While what he did was wrong on many levels, at least he has made the first steps toward an attempt to make things right, which is more than most people do.

daniel48706's photo
Sun 10/04/09 05:03 PM
And people wonder why so many men are turning gay. Some people just need to grow up and have an attitude adjustment.




he's a true piece of crap.....and this comes from an early, early fan of his----up until his old man grumpiness took over and he started lashing out at palin's teenage daughters.

his just desserts would be

1) cancellation of his contract by CBS, invoking a morals or moral turpitude clause AND insubordination, as he had no permission to drop that bomb on their show.

(it is THEIR show, btw, as he is hired by their network and is their on their good graces.)

hopefully a snarky lawyer could find grounds based on letterman's misdeeds to avoid paying him a dime on a contract cancel.

2) sexual harassment suits from the women involved, if there was ANY misuse of boss-employee relationships as governed by laws---with any settlements or awards paid by the defendant, not CBS, who had no control over the runaway ego of their arrogantly stupid star, regardless of their having provided the venue or platform for Letterman to break the law......just get another snarky lawyer for this piece of it and have his snarky talents work for CBS's interests, not Letterman's;

3) a long, slow divorce by his rather plain, "older", no-career wife---meaning she takes him for most of what he's got AND puts him through hell while she makes up her mind whether to keep him enroute to her planned divorce----when she then takes the REST of his dough;

4)tabloid story sales by insiders of letterman's miserable performance in bed;

5) his son removed from his custody with only supervised visits allowed;

6) everybody he's ever mocked on his show be brought on for a timed payback to Letterman, couched around his foolish and arrogant sexual escapades AND taking an unware audience of admiring and loyal fans along on his ride the night he announced this jazz;

7) full justice under new york law for the perp, who terrorized Letterman with the package sneaked onto his car seat AND forced possible career damage, presumed marital discord and eventual embarassment to little Harry Letterman----who probably regarded Daddy as his hero and loved Mommy ONLY the way good Daddies do----before Letterman shat on his son and the boy's mother with this doo doo.

(disclaimer: no, my husband was never unfaithful to me; never looked at another woman in 30 years together.)


draconian, aren't i?







daniel48706's photo
Sun 10/04/09 04:59 PM
As you said, he probably confused the two daughters. This doesn't excuse his failing to make sure of the facts prior to making jokes regarding them, I agree there, but I am sure it was still an accident. No tv personality with HIS history and credentials would intentionally do something like that.





Letterman is a hypocrite and a tool. He ripped on Sarah Palin's daughter for what she did in her personal life, and now he's getting exactly what he deserves. What a scumbag.


I don't watch television enough so didnt see this happen. What exactly did he do to "rip Sarah Palin's daughter"?


Palin has two daughters. one is 17 and got pregnant by her boyfriend. the other daughter is like 10 years old or something near that age range. Palin went to a yankees game with her 10 year old daughter (not the pregnant 17 year old), and Letterman made a joke about A-Rod having sex with her 10 year old daughter (probably confused the two). it started a media frenzy and made Letterman look like a douchebag. he gave a half assed apology and went on with his usual schtick. I don't think Sara Palin is good in any shape or form but cracking sexual jokes about ten year old girls is abysmal. i'm going to stick to watching conan from now on.

daniel48706's photo
Sat 10/03/09 06:33 PM
Sucker

daniel48706's photo
Sat 10/03/09 06:28 PM
I get this line all the time. I mean what the he!!? I am not perfect, and I sure as heck do not expect you to be perfect. Let me decide if you are good enough for me or not.



I should have read this a while ago. I hear all too often, you're so sweet, you deserve better. I guess I need to change some things.

daniel48706's photo
Sat 10/03/09 06:24 PM

I dump them the second they slurp their soup!!


SLLUUUURRRRRPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

daniel48706's photo
Sat 10/03/09 02:42 PM

Sorry but dating a co-worker never works out and I have worked for a company that said something simular to that policy. It's in the best interest of the employees.


see, the thing I have the biggest problem with is the concept of absolutes. You can not state that they NEVER work out, cause I can introduce you to couples who it does work for. And it doesn't work less when you work together than if you don't.

Let's say for the sake of argument however, that you and I worked together and decided to start dating (again for the sake of argument). Because company policy dictates that we can not work together and date, I quit and look for another job.

After about 6 months, things are going badly enough that w decide to break up. I am no longer working there, however I decide to call you at work all the time, like I always did while we were seeing each other. You in turn get an order of protection, and I ignore it (no I would never do any of this, but we all know people do do this very scenario). Now the company has all kinds of drama, the police are likely involved as I have ignored the protection order on company premises, etc. Employees are all upset and less productive, maybe even afraid of what will happen next.

What did company policy truly prevent from happening? Absolutely nothing. And the scenario I gave, I did so specifically cause a gentleman I supervised once, had a girlfriend who had never worked for the company, do this very stunt to him of ignoring the order of protection and everything. I ended up having to fire him for the better good of the company and staff (not my decision, though I would have done so anyway).

So i makes no difference (except in cases of leadership) if you date an employee or not.

daniel48706's photo
Sat 10/03/09 02:33 PM
having to fire the irresponsible and trouble causer is part of being a boss. You don't like that part then choose to be the employee instead. Bosses do not have total and all authority, as much as they would like to make it out that they do. Yes yu control your workplace, and what you allow in it. But hat should not give you the power to tell somebody else that they can not date who they want to. You are not their mother (or in some cases father), and you should not have the right to tell them they can not date someone. Again, relationships go bad whether you are working with the person or not. And they do not go bad more, just because you work with them. You have to deal with employees going through divorces and break ups even if they are not working together, then it should not make any difference if they do.



You are correct in saying I do not have the right to turn the office into a soap opera. However you as an employer do not have the right to say that I WILL, without a doubt, cause drama, jealousy, conflict etc. because I have an interoffice affair. And y are right it is not your position to judge who is mature enough. It is the individual persons responsibility. And if they turn out to be wrong about that and cause all kinds of mayhem THEN you have the right to fire them yes. But you do not have the right to take away their choice to try.

And again, I reiterate there is no place for a relationship if one of the two people is in a leadership position over the other one. I agree with everyone on that.

I can't legally fire them for doing something that I allowed them to do.
I do have the right as an employer to decide what behavior is acceptable in my workplace.
I do not have to prove that you will for sure cause drama and jealousy. It doesn't always happen. But sometimes, it does. It's called being proactive instead of reactive. Proactive is always better in the long run than reactive. If I allow it to happen, and then if it does turn ugly, and I do have to fire someone, then I have to pick up all the pieces. I have to hire again, train again. Get the workplace back to "normal"
All I have to do is provide you with our company policies and you, as a mature adult, gets to decide if you want to abide by those policies and continue to work for me. That's your right.

daniel48706's photo
Sat 10/03/09 10:34 AM

Letterman is a hypocrite and a tool. He ripped on Sarah Palin's daughter for what she did in her personal life, and now he's getting exactly what he deserves. What a scumbag.


I don't watch television enough so didnt see this happen. What exactly did he do to "rip Sarah Palin's daughter"?

daniel48706's photo
Sat 10/03/09 10:31 AM
You are correct in saying I do not have the right to turn the office into a soap opera. However you as an employer do not have the right to say that I WILL, without a doubt, cause drama, jealousy, conflict etc. because I have an interoffice affair. And y are right it is not your position to judge who is mature enough. It is the individual persons responsibility. And if they turn out to be wrong about that and cause all kinds of mayhem THEN you have the right to fire them yes. But you do not have the right to take away their choice to try.

And again, I reiterate there is no place for a relationship if one of the two people is in a leadership position over the other one. I agree with everyone on that.




but the question is, does anyone other than the two people involved, truly have the right to determine whether or not you see each other? yes, the way it is now, you have the right to quit if you start seeing someone you work with. But why should you HAVE to, just because there MIGHT be a problem down the road due to it. If two employees agree that they can handle the situation on their own if the relationship does not work out, then they have the right to see each other. And if they FAIL to maintain proper decorum in the ofice, or let relationship drama come into play at the office, then yes the employer has the right to stop the drama, etc. But he does nto have the right to stereotype you and claim that you can not do something just becaucse it mIGHT have an undue reaction at work.

It boils down to people being mature, and immaturity is a legal reason to fire someone.
The thing is... is who decides who's mature enough to deal with these situations? The boss? The employees? I'm a boss. I wouldn't dare decide which one of my staff is mature enough to date another one and which ones can't.
You keep talking about your rights. Yes. You, as the employee have rights. But you don't however have the right to work for me. You have the right to be treated equal and fair as the rest of the staff. You have the right to take breaks. You have rights to equal pay. These are your legal rights. You don't have the right to turn the work place into a soap opera drama by dating other staff members. I also have the right to fire you for violating my policies that I set forth when you were hired. If an employee is aware of the policies, and he / she chooses to ignore them, then that employee has earned the right to be fired.

daniel48706's photo
Sat 10/03/09 10:26 AM
This includes religious artifacts as well. Your employer has the legal right to deny you to wear it ONLY if it poss a safety risk for yourself or the company. If it is not a safety risk then they can require you to wear a suit, yes, but they can not stop you from wearing the religious artifact as well. A good example is a cross on a chain. One factory had the o=policy that you could not wear a chain at work cause it could get caught int eh machines. however, an employee was willing to tape the chain and cross to his chest every day with medical tape, to keep it from dangling or getting caught. The judge ruled in the employees favor due to he fact that it did not cause undue risk while taped to his body.


And again, everyone seems to keep bringing up that inter work relationships MIGHT ring drama, envy, jealousy etc into the work place. But the simple fact is a work related romance does not bring any more of these issues in than any other type of romance. So if the employer is going to say no employee romances, they HAVE to say also no relationships outside of work period, otherwise they are discriminating between the two. And they can not tell you that you can not have a relationship. They do not have that right.

This also comes down to the American right to the pursuit of happiness, NOBODY can deny you that right so long as you are not causing harm or damage to other people and property.

I think people confuse LEGAL rights with workplace dress codes. If you are not at work, you have the RIGHT to wear whatever you wish. But at a place of business, the employer has a right to set a DRESS Code and if it is not a code you can abide by , that is not the job for you. The only exceptions are those things covered under the EEO laws( things like sexual persuasion, race,,etc,,) that an employer cannot make mandates about.

daniel48706's photo
Sat 10/03/09 09:22 AM
There are inherent risks in operating a business, and no matter what you do there will ALWAYS be inherent risks. It is not possible to reduce all of them, nor is any company insurance policy that I am aware of, capable of dictating it's terms based upon office romance.

So it comes down to where do you draw the line? What is reasonable to try and prevent, and what isnt?

Also keep in ind, that wether you are in a relationship with a fellow employee or not, there is always the chance that if your relationships ends badly that it will carry over to the work place. I have had to fire more than one person, because they would not keep their troubled marriage out of the company.

With that being said, then it would be right for an employer to state you can not be in any relationship period, nor married, or anything else while you work here, because if something happens down the road, you MIGHT bring it into the office.

daniel48706's photo
Sat 10/03/09 09:17 AM


it boils down to the issue of whether or not the employees are adult and mature. As an adult you have the right to see anyone you want to know matter who says what (except the potential partner of course laugh)

In regards to sexual harassment charges, those are going to be around forever whether company policy "allows" relationships or not. I am not referring to whether someone should be allowed to proposition somebody at work with the promises of favors, that is definitely wrong and illegal. But in regards to actual relationships, it should be up to the individuals concerned to decide whether or not they can handle it. And of course if they can not handle it, THEN it becomes a company issue and the company has the right to fire you for disrupting flow of business, or whatever.


In case you haven't noticed, too many ADULTS are not mature and cannot behave and handle these matters, especially when the relationship fails or is un-equal. And why ask for trouble as an employer? Too many shades of grey and it's their liability insurance policy on the line. And if a relationship is SO IMPORTANT to two coworkers, then they should oblige company policy by removing themselves from that work environment.


And as I said, immaturity is grounds for dismissal in any working environment. Has nothing specific to do with relationships verses showing up on time, or not wearing the proper safety gear because you dont like it.

To say that because SOMETIMES a relationship doesn't work out, and SOMETIMES the people involved are too immature to work things out on their own then NO ONE can choose for themselves who they will see is stereotyping which is a form of discrimination.

daniel48706's photo
Sat 10/03/09 09:14 AM
I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying the person suing is wrong because she shouldn't wear her religious headgear if company policy dictates otherwise? That isnt true. As long as tehre is not a safety issue involved (like the headgear getting caught in a machine and causing her or the machinery major damage, then she has the legal right to wear that headgear) (freedom of religion))

In regards to alcohol and smoking versus watercooler romances, tobacco and alcohol; alcohol is proven to affect your behavior, and to reduce your capabilities, and tobacco has been proven to be hazardous to the health even if you are just standing in the same genera area as someone else smoking. You do NOT have the right to endanger someone else's safety or health. However, a watercooler romance does not harm anybody ever. It is the immaturity of SOME people if it doesn't work out that cause problems and difficulties.




While I agree that some policies a company has the right to make, I do not agree that it should be legal for someones boss to be able to dictate to them who they can and can not have a relationship with. I mean, who the hell is the employer to tell you that you can not date, or marry, etc a fellow co-worker?

No smoking on company grounds, no alcohol on company grounds, no sex on company grounds, yes those are all valid policies. But as an adult you have the right to see who you want to when not at work, and have a relationship with whomever you want to. That right should nt be able to be denied to you by your boss.

Who agrees, or disagrees?


Well, if forbidden relationships aren't mandated, then why not unravel the other policies, too? After all, if you get your relationships, dammit, I want my alcohol and cigarettes. It's only fair!!
Just because you say those other rules are valid doesn't mean they are. The company does, and they are the ones who OWN a business, and unless it's against the law, they can have their rules. Just like I am sure a business has had experience with alcohol and smoking, they have likely had experiences with water cooler romances with devastating impact.

This smacks of the idiot who wants to sue A&F because she wants to wear her religious headgear, not what the A&F policy wants her to wear.

daniel48706's photo
Sat 10/03/09 09:08 AM
but the question is, does anyone other than the two people involved, truly have the right to determine whether or not you see each other? yes, the way it is now, you have the right to quit if you start seeing someone you work with. But why should you HAVE to, just because there MIGHT be a problem down the road due to it. If two employees agree that they can handle the situation on their own if the relationship does not work out, then they have the right to see each other. And if they FAIL to maintain proper decorum in the ofice, or let relationship drama come into play at the office, then yes the employer has the right to stop the drama, etc. But he does nto have the right to stereotype you and claim that you can not do something just becaucse it mIGHT have an undue reaction at work.

It boils down to people being mature, and immaturity is a legal reason to fire someone.

daniel48706's photo
Sat 10/03/09 09:01 AM
Some of them do. And I DO have to say I agree with a person not being able to date someone who is in leadership position(s) over them (unless they were dating prior to the person gaining the position, then one of them should be moved to a different area)



work and relationships they don't work:: oops :whoa