Originally Posted by
pagey
1:
2: You were wrong but you're still right? Ok.
3: So you don't have that in writing? And you have "sources".....Right. I'm sure they know exactly what the NC talks about behind both closed doors and a NDA.
4: You can't answer a simple question?
5: I have stated that I voted no. I didn't use it to displace blame. I also have stated that I completely understand why people voted yes.
You have become one of the more hostile Eagle posters and clearly cannot have an adult conversation without calling us names.
1. Very good, you found my quote! That's the first step. Now use your handy dandy dictionary to discover the meaning of the word "hesitant" and the phrase "in part" as used in my quote. Then use your noggin to determine whether or not that word and that phrase in any way imply an absolution as you previously inferred. Whoops, I used some words here which contain more than four letters. Be sure to look those up too.
2. The fact that your company had not violated your flow through *yet* does not debunk the validity of my analogy of your unions' alleged begging at the back door for improvements.
Originally Posted by
JT8D
You PSA'ers are like a hooker who puts out before getting paid and then demands the money while being shoved out the door. Only difference is that you don't have some pimp to back you up.
It's true either way. Your "Sign now, work out the details later" approach is idiotic.
4. You wanted me to answer your question which you could have easily looked up yourself, on this very website? No.
As to calling you names... I call 'em the way I see 'em. You claim to value transparency, so I'm sure you can appreciate my logic here.