 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Piethagoras' Theorem 
the hypotenuse, is always a cakewalk
Joined: 29 May 2006
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
He's either got severe delusions about his looks or is a tripod.
_________________
Formally frankiboy and FrankieGoesToCollingwood. |
|
|
|
 |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
And yet, wasn't the Carlton president quoted as saying that "Murphy or Gibbs" would have been sacked as a result of this incident alone, even though neither of them—as far as I know—have a history of misdemeanours at all? Of course, all very well for him to say that now...
| think positive wrote: | What you keep happily overlooking (you are so good at that, even when someone has an open dig at you you just let it go,I wish I could!) is the fact he was late for training more than once, late for appointments more than once, and 2 preseasons in a row (I believe he was only there 2 years) he showed up too fat to play!
Now do you get the LAST STRAW bit? |
Evidently not, given the fact that I have used that exact expression—or a synonymous one—about three or four times myself in this thread. Evidently a frozen pond is not quite the same as a barn. Might want to see how King Monkey goes with that analogy.
Seriously though, how could you say that I've 'overlooked' this point? Does anyone here actually read my posts? I know I can get a bit boring and repetitive, but still...
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| FrankieGoesToCollingwood wrote: | | He's either got severe delusions about his looks or is a tripod. |
I'm voting for delusions. 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Piethagoras' Theorem
the hypotenuse, is always a cakewalk
Joined: 29 May 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
build is not always a good indicator for appendages, stui. Although he does look as though part of his may not have made the journey south yet 
_________________
Formally frankiboy and FrankieGoesToCollingwood. |
|
|
|
|
King Monkey
Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Location: On a journey to seek the scriptures of enlightenment....
|
| Post subject: | |
|
We are completely putting aside the suggestions this girl is 15 years old for now. It completely changes the discussion............
And also, in isolation, I'm not sure I'm arguing this is an absolute sackable offense, but the accumulation of Bootsma not adhering to the standards asked of him, make it so.
| David wrote: | I just had a listen to Alan Jones's radio "discussion" with Malcolm Turnbull and have to say your post bears more than a passing resemblance. Still, I'll do my best to wade through:
Lol. Just lol. Geez you're full of sh1te David..........
| King Monkey wrote: | I don't necessarily "think" about my employer when engaging in activities I'd prefer them not to know about, but I'm aware of the consequences of not being very discreet.
Sending a snapchat to someone you don't really know all that well is not very discreet is it??
The screenshot function makes snapchat a public forum, whether you like it or not. Yes, and the News of the World's phone hacking makes your phone conversations public too. Unbelievable. 
When a young man is drafted, he is told about the folly of being flippant about what they put out there on the internet, and the potential dramas it could cause for the club, whether it be facebook, twitter, snapchat, whatever....... They are not warned about their phone being tapped by News of the World. DOUBLE EYE ROLL
The AFL and it's clubs rely on dollars from families and sponsors; whether you like it or not.
People with young daughters but not confined to those with young daughters, think Bootsma's behaviour is disgusting; whether you like it or not.
Sponsors like to be seen to be involved with reputable organisations; whether you like it or not.
Carlton need to display an image of good solid values, as do most organisations that rely on people spending money with them to survive. No they don't. These "good solid values"—another term for "moral virtue"—are a throwback to religious obsessions of yesteryear. The reality is that it is only the tabloids keeping the dream alive; most people have left this paradigm behind. But I've written enough on that; if you don't want to listen, that's your prerogative. What tangent have you taken my words on this time?? By "good solid values", I mean being a decent, respectful individual/organisation. Nothing more, nothing less.
Bootsma has smashed these values out of the water. By doing something that had nothing whatsoever to do with his club or his status as an employee of it—i.e. a footballer. You REALLY can't see what his actions, or more specifically, the public nature of his actions, have to do with his employment status?? Really??
Unfortunately, image is a major consideration for a football club in this day and age. That is indisputable, no matter how much you or I wish it wasn't so.
His position is actually untenable when this latest show of disrespect to his employer is added to the others we've been hearing about.
There is no argument that isn't highly comical to suggest otherwise........... How about the fact that we've just established that respect or disrespect to his employer had nothing to do with this? Who established this?? Respect between employer/employee is a vital part of any employment agreement. Engaging in actions your employer has asked you not to (by virtue of the limitless "education programs" these guys are put through), is at the higher end of disrespectful David.
Geez David, a few "moral guardians" are the only people who support him being moved on?? Really?? Get your head out of the sand mate.
This is a guy bringing shame and scorn to his organisation. Grounds for instant dismissal in most industries. In a way that punching someone in the head doesn't? See below. If exchanging nude photographs is the very worst thing you can think of, you need to get out more. Again, it's not a first offense for this guy, and exchanging nude photos was not the full extent of it.
These guys get warned, and educated, and told, and reminded, and cuddled, and re-educated, and explained, and shown, and educated again, and reminded, that what they do can potentially affect the club in ways that they, and obviously you, don't understand. And they wield control over their employees' lives to an extent that they don't understand; at least, not the personal and social ramifications of it. To an extent, I actually agree with you here. Ideally, everyone would just be free to make their own mistakes and learn from them hopefully like the rest of us. But it's the clowns like Bootsma that ruin it for everyone else and make the micro-managing a necessary evil in the football industry.
You'd be happy for this guy to carry on with this kind of behaviour, if he represented your business?? Absolutely none of my business, literally.
(And if you say it's not any of your concern what he does in his spare time regardless of whether it's in the public eye or not, then please never open a business where you have to have employees...... for your own financial sake!!) I've had employees work under me in a business I took a large degree of responsibility for. Never once did I worry that they might not lead good Christian lives or that they might cheat on their partner or write something politically incorrect on the internet. I understood that how good they were at their jobs and how they treated customers was infinitely more important. I suppose I'm just not that much of a control freak. Again, it's not about "leading a good Christian life" or posting something on the internet, or being a control freak.
If one of them had have posted a vile racist rant for example (seeing you love hypotheticals so much) with the company logo all over their page, you still wouldn't feel the need for a word?? That would make you a poor manager if that case.
And nice edit there....................
You are absolutely joking with the Marley Williams thing right??
Almost as absurd as the gay club analogy.
Please tell me you're not that daft. No, and your moralistic hand-wringing in this post has only made that clearer: you actually think exchanging nude pictures is much worse than breaking someone else's jaw. You also have absolutely no ability to handle the most basic analogies. That's pretty daft if you ask me. Lateral thinking is a basic skill, and your rejection of it makes pretty much any discussion ten times harder.
And you're clearly missing the point of Bootsma representing "Carlton" aren't you?? On purpose I'd suspect.
Please tell me you're not that daft......... I meant what I wrote: the concept of "Carlton", as a brand and as a football club, is much, much bigger than a single player. That's the truth, whether you like it or not, and it's why Carlton won't lose a single fan over this and why they didn't lose a single fan over Fevola or Scotland's antics. And, yes, I have the "no true Scotsman" fallacy on hand in case I need it... Putting words into my mouth, as you tend to do.........
Your analogies are straight from the twilight zone David. None of the things you mention have anything to do with each other. Each case is different, with different personalities involved, different circumstances surrounding them, different levels of previous form, different histories.
Stop mentioning Marley Williams in this case. Irrelevant.
And I think you might find, that Carlton openly regrets not dealing with Fevola's behaviour earlier than it did. Setting a set of standards/disciplines for the playing list to follow to help optimise on-field performance is something to think about. The "no dickheads policy" seems to work for the Swans up there. Losing fans isn't the only consideration, although it seems to be the point you're focusing on, and I agree that they are unlikely to lose any fans over this. But they certainly had the potential to lose fans if they had've handled the situation differently. Remember the mum with 2 young daughters?? Forget about the 25 old socialist for a minute.
EDIT: spelling of affect. |
Also, I'd just like to say that I find the media's treatment of this young guy even more despicable than his club's. What purpose did interviewing that woman serve? Pure sexual shaming at work here—really nasty stuff.  |
We can agree on that. The media has much to answer for. But at the same time, Bootsma can hardly feel hard done by, he's brought all this on himself via his own actions. Not one act, actions.........
Makes me laugh.
Moralistic "hand-wringing". 
You forgot to use the "straw-man" thing on this topic ! LMAO!!!
_________________
"I am a great sage, equal of heaven.
Grow stick, grow.
Fly cloud, fly.
Oh you are a dee-mon, I love to fiiight." |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
All fair responses, and even though I obviously disagree with a lot of them, I don't want to go around in circles. I will respond to this, though:
| King Monkey wrote: | Again, it's not about "leading a good Christian life" or posting something on the internet, or being a control freak.
If one of them had have posted a vile racist rant for example (seeing you love hypotheticals so much) with the company logo all over their page, you still wouldn't feel the need for a word?? That would make you a poor manager if that case. |
The bolded part is key here. If it was on the company social media account, yes, that would be a serious problem. If it was their own personal account—not affiliated with the business in any way—then I wouldn't bat an eyelid. For me, employees are only employees so long as they are on the job or actively representing the company. I do not consider actions someone does off the job (or in "civilian clothes"), private or public, to be representative of the company. That wouldn't make me a bad manager, it would make me one who sees the clear limitations of my power as an employer and the clear division between an employee and a citizen.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
King Monkey
Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Location: On a journey to seek the scriptures of enlightenment....
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | All fair responses, and even though I obviously disagree with a lot of them, I don't want to go around in circles. I will respond to this, though:
| King Monkey wrote: | Again, it's not about "leading a good Christian life" or posting something on the internet, or being a control freak.
If one of them had have posted a vile racist rant for example (seeing you love hypotheticals so much) with the company logo all over their page, you still wouldn't feel the need for a word?? That would make you a poor manager if that case. |
The bolded part is key here. If it was on the company social media account, yes, that would be a serious problem. If it was their own personal account—not affiliated with the business in any way—then I wouldn't bat an eyelid. For me, employees are only employees so long as they are on the job or actively representing the company. I do not consider actions someone does off the job (or in "civilian clothes"), private or public, to be representative of the company. That wouldn't make me a bad manager, it would make me one who sees the clear limitations of my power as an employer and the clear division between an employee and a citizen. |
Ok, great. We're getting somewhere. 
With the above being said, a person who's employment has them in the public eye, needs to consider that their personal page may as well double as a pseudo company page for all intents and purposes.
I'm with you in the sense that I don't necessarily like this point, but the fact is, that's the reality.
_________________
"I am a great sage, equal of heaven.
Grow stick, grow.
Fly cloud, fly.
Oh you are a dee-mon, I love to fiiight." |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I know I'm asking for trouble here, but I'm interested in this concept of "privacy" that somehow only effects the employer and no-one else.
Lets start with the fact that nothing you put on the internet is private. Nothing. Whatever you do, someone is able to track it. While there is a difference between publishing stuff on facebook or a blog and sending a pic on snapchat or a PM on Nicks, if someone releases that into the public domain then the argument that it's somehow "private" doesn't work, does it?
Let's test.
If you disclose illegal activity in this "private" communication, the Police don't care about it being "Private".
I'm pretty sure Bootsma's pregnant girlfriend won't buy the "It's private" argument.
The 15 year old girls mum obviously didn't buy the "It's Private" argument when she took the pics to the footy club.
The Media don't seem to be bothered either.
So, once a "private" activity becomes publicly known, everyone is then able to make a judgement and form an opinion about whether they want to continue to associate with you, but the argument is that for some reason the employer is not allowed to? Is this like the equivalent of calling out "Barley" during a game of tiggy?
Each of us is just one person. You may wear different masks in different roles but you're still one person. How can your personal life be totally separate from your employment relationship with your employer if a conflict between your values and your employers surfaces?
(I know there's holes in this line of reasoning but the argument is still valid)
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| FrankieGoesToCollingwood wrote: | | build is not always a good indicator for appendages, stui. Although he does look as though part of his may not have made the journey south yet |
So are you suggesting that although you're somewhat short and stocky you're actually Frank the Peg? 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | So are you suggesting that although you're somewhat short and stocky you're actually Frank the Peg? |
 |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Ugh, both The porn star and Bootsma would need a bloody big paper bag to make them marginally attractive. At least Bootsma might half half a six pack, in light porky above.
Yuk yuk yuk
Had to be the AFL jumper, or blind chicks
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 1061 wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | So are you suggesting that although you're somewhat short and stocky you're actually Frank the Peg? |
|
You may have just explained how Frankie got airborne for a pack mark during one famous Nicks games.
i thought he displayed a remarkable leap, I didn't realise he actually pole vaulted.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Brenny
Joined: 05 Apr 2011
Location: Westpac Centre
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: |
Lets start with the fact that nothing you put on the internet is private. Nothing. Whatever you do, someone is able to track it. While there is a difference between publishing stuff on facebook or a blog and sending a pic on snapchat or a PM on Nicks, if someone releases that into the public domain then the argument that it's somehow "private" doesn't work, does it?
|
First off, let me be the first to say Happy Birthday, Stui!
It's funny you mention the above.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/your-incriminating-selfies-on-snapchat-werent-deleted/#!VmVEQ |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Cheers mate, unfortunately you aint the first my birthday was 2 weeks ago, but nice get with the article there. 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Brenny
Joined: 05 Apr 2011
Location: Westpac Centre
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ Yeah I know, I saw the thread a bit late
The article popped up on my news feed a few weeks ago. I'm a bit of a geek and love all that kind of stuff, so I thought it was a decent read.
_________________
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeey, we want some Bayley! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
