Carlton sack Josh Bootsma
Moderator: bbmods
- Piethagoras' Theorem
- Posts: 19603
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 1:09 pm
- Has liked: 1 time
- Been liked: 17 times
- stui magpie
- Posts: 54828
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 126 times
- Been liked: 160 times
- Piethagoras' Theorem
- Posts: 19603
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 1:09 pm
- Has liked: 1 time
- Been liked: 17 times
- King Monkey
- Posts: 3192
- Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 5:25 pm
- Location: On a journey to seek the scriptures of enlightenment....
- King Monkey
- Posts: 3192
- Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 5:25 pm
- Location: On a journey to seek the scriptures of enlightenment....
- stui magpie
- Posts: 54828
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 126 times
- Been liked: 160 times
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)
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
- Posts: 54828
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 126 times
- Been liked: 160 times
So are you suggesting that although you're somewhat short and stocky you're actually Frank the Peg?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
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
- think positive
- Posts: 40237
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 337 times
- Been liked: 103 times
- stui magpie
- Posts: 54828
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 126 times
- Been liked: 160 times
You may have just explained how Frankie got airborne for a pack mark during one famous Nicks games.1061 wrote:stui magpie wrote:So are you suggesting that although you're somewhat short and stocky you're actually Frank the Peg?
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
- Posts: 5253
- Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:56 pm
- Location: Westpac Centre
First off, let me be the first to say Happy Birthday, Stui!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?
It's funny you mention the above.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/you ... ed/#!VmVEQ
- stui magpie
- Posts: 54828
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 126 times
- Been liked: 160 times
- Brenny
- Posts: 5253
- Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:56 pm
- Location: Westpac Centre