16 Sep 15
The post that was quoted here has been removedI shopped around to the most popular dictionary in the US, one that has been published for almost 200 years. I have a hard cover one and the smaller college version in my bookcase. As stated in Slate: "Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, $25.95 Since this has long been considered the gold standard of desk dictionaries and is the only" real" Webster's (descended from Noah's 1828 original), " http://www.slate.com/articles/life/shopping/2003/12/word_up.2.html
So this is another example of your carelessness and ignorance in desperately trying to input some sinister motive to another poster when they are simply using the best source available. "Dishonest and abusive"? That would be you.
No, I am not claiming my statements weren't "strong enough" to count as "denouncing Ms. Proudman". I specifically explained why what I said isn't denouncing her i.e. it is not calling her personally blameworthy or evil as the standard dictionary definition requires. Why you are stating such an obvious and blatant lie I guess you'll have to explain. Where you claim I used epithets to refer directly to Ms. Proudman the truth is I used those words to describe her statements. Here is an example from p. 2:
I think Ms. Proudman should have left it at:
"Alex, I find your message offensive. I am on linked-in for business purposes
not to be approached about my physical appearance."
The rest is self-righteous, unnecessarily hostile and a bit disingenuous given that it was she who made available her physical appearance on linkedin in the first place.
Naturally, since you personalize virtually every discussion on this board, you have a difficult time grasping the concept that someone can disagree with the actions of someone without personally attacking them. But just because you can't, doesn't mean reasonable people can't.
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by no1marauder"Perhaps you don't understand the "private" part of a "private message" but lawyers are
Since there was no "harassment" (see the EEOC definition already provided), your points are inapplicable.
Perhaps you don't understand the "private" part of a "private message" but lawyers are supposed to. The fact that a private message is sent on the internet does not make it any less private.
Have you actually read what was said to her? You make ...[text shortened]... 's or by a man about hers? If not, what was the purpose of including the phrase "half your age"?
supposed to."
the "private" part means it is not visible to others on the forum unless one of the participants decides to make it public. it is not a contract of confidentiality. it is barely an etiquette rule. and it is definitely not applicable when one of the parties involved didn't even ask for the conversation in the first place.
"The fact that a private message is sent on the internet does not make it any less private."
"You make it sound like it was the most terrible example of sexism ever presented"
no i don't. i never commented on the content of that message. in fact i think it is unfortunate that this very mild creep was the unfortunate one to receive her "i had enough" tirade. there are many others much worse (incredibly worse) than him. if this guy hadn't messaged her, she probably would have lashed out at the next perv.
i know what the guy messaged her, but since you brought it up, let's discuss it then.
"Charlotte, delighted to connect, I appreciate that this is probably horrendously politically incorrect but that is a stunning picture!!!"
translation: mmm, grrrl, you look mighty fine. i needed to say this because it is highly relevant to the reason you are here
"You definitely win the prize for the best Linked in picture I have ever seen."
translation: "i frequently look at linked in pictures and rank those persons according to them. did i mentioned i don't bother looking at the rest of the profile?"
"Always interest to understand people's skills and how we might work together."
translation: "i suddenly remembered that this is a business site after all, meant to find employees/jobs not dates, so let's meet somewhere. Disregard that i opened with the fact that i find you attractive and trust that i do have some professionalism even though i displayed none so far.
"Oh, the horror"
can you understand that people might react differently to something than what your world view dictates? that what you view as overreaction might be an "underreaction" for people in their situation?
"Do you think this comment was "ageist"?"
yes, after receiving a rather creepy message, she was very inappropriate to suggest that maybe 50 year olds should know enough to make sure compliments are welcomed before giving them.
"what was the purpose of including the phrase "half your age"?"
so that you have an excuse to try to shift some blame from the misogynist and redistribute it? ms proudman is very considerate.
16 Sep 15
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganI'm not in the least bit "uncomfortable with the exposure of systematic sexism in their profession" and that these two people happen to be lawyers makes not the slightest difference to me.
Correct me if I am wrong but from memory I am sure both sh76 and No1Marauder are lawyers or work in law. As such, I suggest they are either uncomfortable with the exposure of systematic sexism in their profession or otherwise they are so immersed in that culture they cannot see it in the way women lawyers do. Either way, the fact is that women in the legal ...[text shortened]... ate and reduce the pressure - until anyone picks out or Googles randomly the evidence otherwise.
On the other hand, I don't appreciate professional victims who like to make mountains out of molehills to get attention. I don't know Ms. Proudman from Eve and I have no idea what were her motives behind making such an enormous deal over such a small issue, but I wouldn't want to deal with anyone, lawyer, plumber or floor sweeper, who is angry enough to try to savagely publicly humiliate a stranger who was just trying to be friendly in a private forum, even if he did so in an inappropriate manner.
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou do realize that Ms. Proudman messaged him first?
"Perhaps you don't understand the "private" part of a "private message" but lawyers are
supposed to."
the "private" part means it is not visible to others on the forum unless one of the participants decides to make it public. it is not a contract of confidentiality. it is barely an etiquette rule. and it is definitely not applicable when one of the parti ...[text shortened]... ry to shift some blame from the misogynist and redistribute it? ms proudman is very considerate.
I'm impressed with your mind reading skills; not as impressed by your failure to grasp what "private" means. No, it doesn't simply mean it's private until one side decides to make it public. It means according to Merriam-Webster:
intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class
That means you should not make it public without the consent of the other party except in rare circumstances. Repeating it as part of a complaint with the proper disciplinary authorities would be a valid exception; throwing it out on Twitter would not be.
16 Sep 15
Originally posted by no1marauderNaturally, since you personalize virtually every discussion on this board, you have a difficult time grasping the concept that someone can disagree with the actions of someone without personally attacking them. But just because you can't, doesn't mean reasonable people can't.
I shopped around to the most popular dictionary in the US, one that has been published for almost 200 years. I have a hard cover one and the smaller college version in my bookcase. As stated in Slate: "Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, $25.95 Since this has long been considered the gold standard of desk dictionaries and is the only" real" Webster ...[text shortened]... out personally attacking them. But just because you can't, doesn't mean reasonable people can't.
I do hope you remember posting this.
17 Sep 15
Originally posted by no1marauder"You do realize that Ms. Proudman messaged him first?"
You do realize that Ms. Proudman messaged him first?
I'm impressed with your mind reading skills; not as impressed by your failure to grasp what "private" means. No, it doesn't simply mean it's private until one side decides to make it public. It means according to Merriam-Webster:
intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group ...[text shortened]... er disciplinary authorities would be a valid exception; throwing it out on Twitter would not be.
and? did she implied she might be wanting a job? or a date?
i see you have no idea what private messaging means on the internet.
"Repeating it as part of a complaint with the proper disciplinary authorities would be a valid exception; throwing it out on Twitter would not be"
or what? the twitter police will get you? what exactly are you saying? that it should be good manners to not make public a private conversation on a networking site? because it sure as hell is not illegal.
17 Sep 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe fact is relevant to this statement of yours:
"You do realize that Ms. Proudman messaged him first?"
and? did she implied she might be wanting a job? or a date?
i see you have no idea what private messaging means on the internet.
"Repeating it as part of a complaint with the proper disciplinary authorities would be a valid exception; throwing it out on Twitter would not be"
or what? the twitt ...[text shortened]... make public a private conversation on a networking site? because it sure as hell is not illegal.
Z: it is definitely not applicable when one of the parties involved didn't even ask for the conversation in the first place.
Actually Ms. Proudman did ask for the conversation in the first place. And Mr. Silk did not ask her for a date, either.
Good manners, sure. A violation of ethical norms between attorneys, very possibly. Illegal? No, but neither is saying someone's LinkedIn's photo is "stunning".
17 Sep 15
Originally posted by no1marauderi was unaware she initiated the conversation
The fact is relevant to this statement of yours:
Z: it is definitely not applicable when one of the parties involved didn't even ask for the conversation in the first place.
Actually Ms. Proudman did ask for the conversation in the first place. And Mr. Silk did not ask her for a date, either.
Good manners, sure. A violation of ethical norms bet ...[text shortened]... eys, very possibly. Illegal? No, but neither is saying someone's LinkedIn's photo is "stunning".
so i ask again. did she started flirting with the guy? did she implied she is out for compliments? or did she ask for a job?
"A violation of ethical norms between attorneys, very possibly."
one didn't treat the other like an attorney, he treated her like a piece of decor. not that it would make a difference. unless someone specifically said the conversation should be kept secret, neither are obligated morally to keep it so.
"No, but neither is saying someone's LinkedIn's photo is "stunning""
nobody implied it is. but neither is her posting his comments and unprofessional (creepy) attitude.
17 Sep 15
2 edits
The post that was quoted here has been removedIs it your assertion that only females in their 20s should be allowed to comment on this case? Or are people in other age groups allowed to comment IF and ONLY IF they agree with everything you say?
I don't particularly "empathize" with either of them. Silk wrote an inappropriate comment, Proudman grossly overreacted to it. And on Page 1 of the thread, you, of all people, took the same position:
Duchess: Yet, personally, I would have been less confrontational toward Alexander Carter-Silk:
AND:
Duchess: Personally, I would not have escalated this dispute as much as Charlotte Proudman did.
And you said you concurred with much of what Judith Woods said in an article you cited to when Ms. Woods specifically stated that Ms. Proudman overreacted!
Amazing.
17 Sep 15
The post that was quoted here has been removedThis post is bizarre to say the least. It declares " these men tend to assume sexual connotations that never entered the women's minds" and then approvingly quotes a woman poster on another forum supposing that Silk was masturbating while looking at Ms. Proudman's photo!
That's about as funny as a post of yours has ever been.