• NJ bank wouldn't notarize American Atheist documents for ‘personal reasons’
    162 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Explosions;44387842]Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any more ridiculous.[/QUOTE]I'm just trying to simultaneously tell everyone that I hate billboards and that she may have a hidden motive. You know, like the government and chemtrails.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;44387685]I trust AA more than I trust some banks damage control. Any advantages AA could gain from this are purely hypothetical wheresas the bank has tangible losses that could be incurred if it turns out their notaries don't feel like doing their job because the documents they have to sign are brought forth by an atheist group, or a Muslim group, or a vegetarian group, or a gun rights group. Also check the first source, they updated their article. [/quote] If the bank was really trying to cover stuff up why didn't they just fire her and say "we don't tolerate this." Also the article really just added what was posted with the second article. [quote]lmao because "I don't know how to do my job, let me find someone who does" isn't personal? [/quote] How is it not a personal reason? personal - of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private: a personal opinion. This was according to the bank, an issue relating to the knowledge of a specific person. Sounds like the proper use of personal to me. [quote]Holy shit you have done some mental gymnastics in this thread but this takes the cake.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Explosions;44387503]You're really jumping through hoops to make American Atheists look bad.[/QUOTE] How so? I'm just stating the logical conclusions one could come to if the situation is looked at in an unbiased manner. Anyways, I don't see the point of your ad hominem here.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44388523]How so? I'm just stating the logical conclusions one could come to if the situation is looked at in an unbiased manner. Anyways, I don't see the point of your ad hominem here.[/QUOTE] You're not being unbiased at all. As soon as you discovered the bank's version of the story you have taken it as Bible and disregarded any alternative.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44388601]You're not being unbiased at all. As soon as you discovered the bank's version of the story you have taken it as Bible and disregarded any alternative.[/QUOTE] I never said I was 100% true. I just said it is possible and you shouldn't jump to conclusions and start bashing the notary without knowing the full story. At least the second article didn't read out like an opinion piece. Seriously, the first article told a blatant lie in the title. [quote=Article Title]NJ bank won’t notarize American Atheist documents for ‘personal reasons’[/quote] That is a blatant lie. The bank notarized it as soon as the coworker came over. Along with that, it seems like all the articles the site is advertizing have to do with religious figures and people committing crimes and Bill Maher. It is a really untrustworthy source.
Honestly, when you say [QUOTE]Knowing how condescending some atheists could be[/QUOTE] it pretty much proves you aren't unbiased.
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;44365609]Well hold on a second, was she outright refused service or did they indeed find another teller who did it in place of the original teller? I read the article and it sounded like that's exactly what happened, there's nothing that says she was refused service, just that the teller didn't want to do it. If she was outright refused service, then she's completely right and I agree entirely that this is discrimination and needs to be prevented. If not, which is how it sounds to me, then this woman is blowing this entirely out of proportion; yes, the woman works for the bank and it's part of the job, but if anti-atheism is part of her religious beliefs and the problem was resolved via another teller, then this is ridiculous and, IMO, makes the rest of the atheist community look bad.[/QUOTE] Yes the notary went to find another notary. Not exactly polite, but she wasn't refused service and is being sensationalist. This could've been a reasonable article that comments on the small resentments towards atheists that can sour their day, it could've given some understanding, instead it's just over reactionary diarrhea that isn't helping anyone.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44389147]Honestly, when you say it pretty much proves you aren't unbiased.[/QUOTE] It may sound like a stereotype, but I think this topic has proved it true to some extend. The most vocal members of a group are often the most condescending. I know plenty of atheists in real life who honestly don't give a fuck about it. And at least my actual arguments aren't too biased unlike the tens of posts I've had to respond to repeating the same questions each time.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44388659]I never said I was 100% true. I just said it is possible and you shouldn't jump to conclusions and start bashing the notary without knowing the full story. At least the second article didn't read out like an opinion piece. Seriously, the first article told a blatant lie in the title. That is a blatant lie. The bank notarized it as soon as the coworker came over. Along with that, it seems like all the articles the site is advertizing have to do with religious figures and people committing crimes and Bill Maher. It is a really untrustworthy source.[/QUOTE] Have I not repeated several times when I posted this thread that was the only source reporting on it and that was the title? What's the point now? Yes; now I wished I had waited a day or two to post so you wouldn't have started going on and on about the particularity of the source I used. It probably would have changed the course of this thread.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44391143]It may sound like a stereotype, but I think this topic has proved it true to some extend. The most vocal members of a group are often the most condescending. I know plenty of atheists in real life who honestly don't give a fuck about it. And at least my actual arguments aren't too biased unlike the tens of posts I've had to respond to repeating the same questions each time.[/QUOTE] You're acting like Atheists aren't one of the most hated groups in the entirety of the US. I'm pretty sure when you've got an entire country breathing down your neck waiting for you to fuck up so they can point and say "LOOK! ATHEISTS AREN'T PEOPLE!" you're entitled to a bit of snark and condescension here and there. Legit, "I don't have the skill/ authority/ mental capacity to do this task" is not a personal reason, it's a professional one. It pertains to your role in the profession, not to you or your beliefs. "I don't like Jews" is a personal reason. This is not a hard difference to comprehend. As for the bank not just firing her ass due to a lack of tolerance, why would they? Atheists are seen as liars, cheats and scum by most of the US, the bank won't give a fuck if they get a tiny bit of backlash for keeping her on when most of the States will see this as someone standing up against the "atheist plague". You're really not unbiased, stopped trying to even pretend you are.
[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;44391196]Have I not repeated several times when I posted this thread that was the only source reporting on it and that was the title?[/quote] Just because it is the only source doesn't mean you're allowed to take it as the truth. When people post the Daily Mail, Fox News, or RT here that doesn't happen. What's the point now? Yes; now I wished I had waited a day or two to post so you wouldn't have started going on and on about the particularity of the source I used. It probably would have changed the course of this thread.[/QUOTE] It probably would've because people wouldn't have started calling her a "bitch" and a "bigot" on the first page without knowing the full story. [QUOTE=hexpunK;44392065]You're acting like Atheists are one of the most hated groups in the entirety of the US.[/quote] I'm definitely not. I actually have been saying quite the opposite to those who are claiming atheists are extremely persecuted and hated. Please link me to me post where I said atheists are the most persecuted group in the US. [quote]I'm pretty sure when you've got an entire country breathing down your neck waiting for you to fuck up so they can point and say "LOOK! ATHEISTS AREN'T PEOPLE!" you're entitled to a bit of snark and condescension here and there.[/quote] Nobody does that. I have no clue how you're jumping to this conclusion. [quote]Legit, "I don't have the skill/ authority/ mental capacity to do this task" is not a personal reason, it's a professional one. It pertains to your role in the profession, not to you or your beliefs. "I don't like Jews" is a personal reason. This is not a hard difference to comprehend.[/quote] It can be both personal and professional. [quote]As for the bank not just firing her ass due to a lack of tolerance, why would they? Atheists are seen as liars, cheats and scum by most of the US, the bank won't give a fuck if they get a tiny bit of backlash for keeping her on when most of the States will see this as someone standing up against the "atheist plague".[/quote] You claimed earlier in the post that atheists weren't the most persecuted group in the US, but now you are? I'm confused. [quote]You're really not unbiased, stopped trying to even pretend you are.[/QUOTE] I'm not unbiased, but you are?
[QUOTE=matt000024;44392335]You claimed earlier in the post that atheists weren't the most persecuted group in the US, but now you are? I'm confused.[/QUOTE] Managed to miss a couple of letters in the first instance, not too sure how but whatever :v: And I never claimed I was unbiased, it's pretty hard to be unbiased when you're going to fall on to either side of the things in discussion, if you're Atheist (like myself) and are aware of the problems faced by Atheists in a largely religious society, you're going to back the Atheist, and vice-versa. And no, "I don't know how to do this" is a professional reason, not a personal reason, you cannot spin it any other way. Not knowing how to do your job properly is a professional issue, not a personal issue in the slightest.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44392410]Managed to miss a couple of letters in the first instance, not too sure how but whatever :v: And I never claimed I was unbiased, it's pretty hard to be unbiased when you're going to fall on to either side of the things in discussion, if you're Atheist (like myself) and are aware of the problems faced by Atheists in a largely religious society, you're going to back the Atheist, and vice-versa.[/quote] Then why are you complaining about me being bias? [quote]And no, "I don't know how to do this" is a professional reason, not a personal reason, you cannot spin it any other way. Not knowing how to do your job properly is a professional issue, not a personal issue in the slightest.[/QUOTE] Please explain how it doesn't fit the definition of person. It has to do with the ability and knowledge of the person herself. Honestly, it doesn't even really matter how she worded it. What matters is her intention. This all seems to be a misunderstanding in language that AA is using to promote their agenda.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44392441]Then why are you complaining about me being bias? Please explain how it doesn't fit the definition of person. It has to do with the ability and knowledge of the person herself. Honestly, it doesn't even really matter how she worded it. What matters is her intention. This all seems to be a misunderstanding in language that AA is using to promote their agenda.[/QUOTE] "Personal Issue" now, in your world refers to any problem affecting a person. This is a proffesional issue. Why? Because it deals with her inability or ability to perform her job. If that's a personal issue, than literally any and all issues faced by a person in any context are "personal".
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44392504]"Personal Issue" now, in your world refers to any problem affecting a person. This is a proffesional issue. Why? Because it deals with her inability or ability to perform her job. If that's a personal issue, than literally any and all issues faced by a person in any context are "personal".[/QUOTE] That is true. "Personal" is a really vague word.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44392441]Then why are you complaining about me being bias?[/QUOTE] Because you seem to be acting like you've got some weird insight into the situation and that you aren't taking sides at all? [QUOTE=matt000024;44392441]Please explain how it doesn't fit the definition of person. It has to do with the ability and knowledge of the person herself. Honestly, it doesn't even really matter how she worded it. What matters is her intention. This all seems to be a misunderstanding in language that AA is using to promote their agenda.[/QUOTE] You used a dictionary definition of personal. Well done I suppose? That definition doesn't necessarily relate to your ability in a professional situation, if you cannot see how "I can't actually do my job because I don't know how to do said job" is not a personal reason, when you are actually working at said job, then I don't know what to say really. Being untrained or lacking the skill to do a job is a professional problem, not a personal one. Personal reasons such as illness, disability, etc. could lead to the professional problem, sure, but I really fucking doubt that's the case here.
So jumping through hoops to justify it as personal is, what? correct? In this case, in professional settings, a personal issue is something related to the persons own beliefs, well being, health, and interaction with others. There is no way possible to wrap up "I don't know my job" as a personal reason. Your employer would likely fire you for calling that a personal reason. Yes everybody has to start somewhere, but calling your professional ineptitude "personal" is too far. [editline]29th March 2014[/editline] And yeah, atheists are one of the most distrusted, hated, disliked groups in America. [url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-atheists-we-distrust/[/url] [editline]29th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=matt000024;44391143]It may sound like a stereotype, but I think this topic has proved it true to some extend. The most vocal members of a group are often the most condescending. I know plenty of atheists in real life who honestly don't give a fuck about it. And at least my actual arguments aren't too biased unlike the tens of posts I've had to respond to repeating the same questions each time.[/QUOTE] For how vocal you are on the issue, for how strongly your taking your stance, it's amazing you haven't realized you're part of the problem too. You even go to great lengths to make atheists in general known as "condescending" regardless of how big a generalization that is. I haven't seen an atheist in here say "all christians are shitty people", but I've read it about atheists.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44392525]Because you seem to be acting like you've got some weird insight into the situation and that you aren't taking sides at all?[/quote] I'm not. I'm just saying that we can't know stuff for sure and there is no point of starting a shitstorm over this because we know so little. Both sides must be considered and we can't assume the worst. [quote]You used a dictionary definition of personal. Well done I suppose? That definition doesn't necessarily relate to your ability in a professional situation, if you cannot see how "I can't actually do my job because I don't know how to do said job" is not a personal reason, when you are actually working at said job, then I don't know what to say really. Being untrained or lacking the skill to do a job is a professional problem, not a personal one. Personal reasons such as illness, disability, etc. could lead to the professional problem, sure, but I really fucking doubt that's the case here.[/QUOTE] I don't agree at all. An issue can be both personal and professional. Her lack of knowledge in a specific area seems pretty personal and professional to me. Since when could an issue not be both. 1. "I [b]personally[/b] am unsure how to handle this, but my coworker can." 2. "I [b]professionally[/b] am unsure how to handle this, but my coworker can." 2 is more specific, but 1 flows much better in the English language. As I said, wording doesn't even matter much. Intent is much more important. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44392540]So jumping through hoops to justify it as personal is, what? correct?[/quote] How is reasoning jumping through hoops. Why is everyone accusing me of that. You know when people often are accused of jumping through hoops? "Priests never molested anyone! Stop jumping through hoops to discredit the Church!" 'Jumping through hoops' is just a buzzword for not wanting to actually argue a point. [quote]And yeah, atheists are one of the most distrusted, hated, disliked groups in America. [url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-atheists-we-distrust/[/url][/QUOTE] I'm confused. Half of you are arguing for this and half against. Anyways, just because atheists are persecuted doesn't mean it necessarily the reason behind this specific incident. "The LAPD arrested me for drunk driving when I was drunk? It is obviously due to them being racists!" [editline]29th March 2014[/editline] [quote] I haven't seen an atheist in here say "all christians are shitty people", but I've read it about atheists.[/QUOTE] Just because you've never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;44387685]I trust AA more than I trust some banks damage control. Any advantages AA could gain from this are purely hypothetical wheresas the bank has tangible losses that could be incurred if it turns out their notaries don't feel like doing their job because the documents they have to sign are brought forth by an atheist group, or a Muslim group, or a vegetarian group, or a gun rights group. Also check the first source, they updated their article. [/QUOTE] [quote]But American Atheists responded by saying that the employee who refused to serve Knief and Silverman, whom they identified as Rute Gandarez, was an [B]assistant manager[/B] at the branch. “If there was some kind of miscommunication, it would seem to be somewhere internally, between her explaining what happened to the public relations department of this bank,” American Atheists spokesperson Dave Muscato told The Raw Story Thursday evening. “That’s not what happened to this bank.”[/quote] Et tu, bank? And here I [I]trusted[/I] you. On one hand, I would imagine that an assistant manager would know more than the average worker, but on the other hand, I can see them also not knowing as much about specific stuff if they started recently and are too busy helping out other areas. Someone who just notarizes would know more about that than someone who helps out with everything. Then again, an assistant manager is supposed to help with everything. But this, but that, but this, but that... I'm not sure what to make of this.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44392628]I don't agree at all. An issue can be both personal and professional. Her lack of knowledge in a specific area seems pretty personal and professional to me. Since when could an issue not be both. 1. "I [b]personally[/b] am unsure how to handle this, but my coworker can." 2. "I [b]professionally[/b] am unsure how to handle this, but my coworker can." 2 is more specific, but 1 flows much better in the English language. As I said, wording doesn't even matter much. Intent is much more important.[/QUOTE] Seriously? You can slap "I personally" on to the start of something and that doesn't make it a personal issue, you still don't know how to do your job. You're just stating that you yourself, personally, do not have the professional knowledge to perform said task. You aren't saying "I don't know how to do this for personal reasons". The positioning of "personal" in the sentence changes it's meaning drastically. Being unable to do your job due to a lack of skill in said job is [B]always[/B] a professional issue, that may have underlying personal causes in some cases, but this is not one of those moments. Unless she has learning difficulties or something that prevented her from learning that skill (she wouldn't be a notary if she did, so that's not happening). [editline]29th March 2014[/editline] Hey, let's play a game of spot the angry theist! Starlight 456! Come forward and collect your prize! A calling out! Stop rating people and make a point you jackass. Fuck I miss when we disabled ratings fully.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44392628] 1. "I [b]personally[/b] am unsure how to handle this, but my coworker can." 2. "I [b]professionally[/b] am unsure how to handle this, but my coworker can."[/QUOTE] I'll explain why this is bullshit below. [QUOTE]How is reasoning jumping through hoops. Why is everyone accusing me of that. You know when people often are accused of jumping through hoops? "Priests never molested anyone! Stop jumping through hoops to discredit the Church!" 'Jumping through hoops' is just a buzzword for not wanting to actually argue a point.[/QUOTE] Here's how your reasoning is jumping through hoops in a very clear and understandable manner I hope. The first one is not correct in a work place environment, it doesn't make sense in relation to how a person does their job. It doesn't make sense to me that "not knowing your job" is personal. Your job is your proffession. Not knowing your job very well is a proffesional issue. Would you care to elaborate how it's exactly a personal issue in this case? I'm arguing the point, you're repeating yourself and telling us we're all wrong and trying to discredit the church? No, i'm literally just trying to figure out how a personal issue can be called professional and vice versa without some reasoning(which you have not given). [QUOTE]I'm confused. Half of you are arguing for this and half against. Anyways, just because atheists are persecuted doesn't mean it necessarily the reason behind this specific incident. "The LAPD arrested me for drunk driving when I was drunk? It is obviously due to them being racists!"[/QUOTE] Maybe you didn't read hexpunks reply to you very well, I'm getting the feeling you didn't or else you'd realize when he said [QUOTE]You're acting like Atheists are one of the most hated groups in the entirety of the US[/QUOTE] and when he clarified he missed the "n't" on "aren't". We are in fact one of the most disliked and distrusted groups. Would you care to read our arguments or just pretend to again? [editline]29th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=matt000024;44392628] Just because you've never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.[/QUOTE] How do you not get that you said something that generalized all atheists, whilst acting persecuted from absolutely fucking no one and then took the high road? and now you've changed your tone about why they were dismissed? Even though earlier, you chalked it up to atheists by nature being condescending?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44392669]Seriously? You can slap "I personally" on to the start of something and that doesn't make it a personal issue, you still don't know how to do your job. You're just stating that you yourself, personally, do not have the professional knowledge to perform said task. You aren't saying "I don't know how to do this for personal reasons". The positioning of "personal" in the sentence changes it's meaning drastically.[/quote] Yes, because everyone speaks correctly 100% of the time meaning exactly what they say. Personally may not be the best word to use, but it is the most common one to use. [quote]Being unable to do your job due to a lack of skill in said job is [B]always[/B] a professional issue, that may have underlying personal causes in some cases, but this is not one of those moments. Unless she has learning difficulties or something that prevented her from learning that skill (she wouldn't be a notary if she did, so that's not happening).[/quote] You still haven't mentioned how you know her wording was the exact same as her intent. [quote]Hey, let's play a game of spot the angry theist! Starlight 456! Come forward and collect your prize! A calling out! Stop rating people and make a point you jackass. Fuck I miss when we disabled ratings fully.[/QUOTE] Someone disagrees with you so they must be angry and a theist? I'm confused.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44392729]Yes, because everyone speaks correctly 100% of the time meaning exactly what they say. Personally may not be the best word to use, but it is the most common one to use. You still haven't mentioned how you know her wording was the exact same as her intent. Someone disagrees with you so they must be angry and a theist? I'm confused.[/QUOTE] It may be common, that doesn't make it correct in this situation. It isn't correct to use that term here. he's agreeing with all your points and dumbing everyone else who disagrees with you it's not hard to see rating spammers opinions. they're on their god damn sleeves.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44392748]It may be common, that doesn't make it correct in this situation. It isn't correct to use that term here.[/quote] It doesn't matter if it is correct. What matters what she meant by it. Do you disagree with this? Have you never said something in a slightly slang way that was taken out of context? [quote]he's agreeing with all your points and dumbing everyone else who disagrees with you it's not hard to see rating spammers opinions. they're on their god damn sleeves.[/QUOTE] Yet all the people rating me dumb and not responding aren't rating spammers? Maybe he feels my posts are covering the points he wants to say. If you're honestly getting upset over ratings this may not be the best site for you.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44392793]It doesn't matter if it is correct. What matters what she meant by it. Do you disagree with this? Have you never said something in a slightly slang way that was taken out of context? Yet all the people rating me dumb and not responding aren't rating spammers? Maybe he feels my posts are covering the points he wants to say. If you're honestly getting upset over ratings this may not be the best site for you.[/QUOTE] wait, i'm upset about ratings because i mentioned them? get a grip it does matter if it's correct or not as a proffesional reason as to why you won't perform your job, yeah, it kind of does matter. I would get fired from MY job if I gave a bullshit "personal" reason rather than a valid professional one. Yes, people miss speak all the time, I don't mind that, but we're talking about your defense of her actions. You're justifying it with bad reasoning. It's not a personal reason. It's literally a professional one. Would you care to specify HOW it's a personal reason in a valid professional situation?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44392824]wait, i'm upset about ratings because i mentioned them? get a grip [/quote] You seem very upset about it. [quote]it does matter if it's correct or not as a proffesional reason as to why you won't perform your job, yeah, it kind of does matter.[/quote] This sentence is not understandable. Are you trying to say you know her intentions and you sre sure she didn't word it wrong? I'm not saying her wording was the best, but it was understandable. [quote]I would get fired from MY job if I gave a bullshit "personal" reason rather than a valid professional one.[/quote] Her boss seems to be fine with it. [quote]Yes, people miss speak all the time, I don't mind that, but we're talking about your defense of her actions. You're justifying it with bad reasoning. It's not a personal reason. It's literally a professional one. Would you care to specify HOW it's a personal reason in a valid professional situation?[/QUOTE] Your reasoning is in no logical manner. How does misspeaking equal bad reasoning? Just because you may not think it is a personal reason does not mean she didn't think of it as one. As I keep saying, it is her intention that matters, not her wording. Can you please explain to me how intention is less important than wording?
[QUOTE=matt000024;44392864]You seem very upset about it.[/QUOTE] well good thing you know me well enough to know that, right? i'm not by the way, but mentioning it in a discussion proves I'm so, so mad. thanks. [QUOTE]This sentence is not understandable. Are you trying to say you know her intentions and you sre sure she didn't word it wrong? I'm not saying her wording was the best, but it was understandable.[/QUOTE] Not knowing your job is a profesional reason. I'm going to leave it at that and you can try(not that you have yet) to explain how it's personal [QUOTE]Her boss seems to be fine with it. [/QUOTE] Cool, mine wouldn't be. [QUOTE]Your reasoning is in no logical manner. How does misspeaking equal bad reasoning? Just because you may not think it is a personal reason does not mean she didn't think of it as one. As I keep saying, it is her intention that matters, not her wording. Can you please explain to me how intention is less important than wording?[/QUOTE] Maybe you aren't getting what I mean, that much is clear. You're saying "This is a personal reason". I'm saying I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. I'm saying, I don't agree it is a personal reason, I don't agree calling it personal is valid, or excuses her from her actions or the bank from theirs. Because how do you know someones intention best? By knowing that person, we don't know this person. I don't know this person. You don't know this person. The only thing we have to go on is her wording, the banks wording, the stories we've read and the statements from the participants in the situation. Her wording, in my opinion was wrong and doesn't fit the situation.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44392729]Yes, because everyone speaks correctly 100% of the time meaning exactly what they say. Personally may not be the best word to use, but it is the most common one to use.[/QUOTE] Mis-speaking or not, saying "I can't do this for personal reasons" does not imply they can't do it from a lack of skill, it implies they are unwilling to do their job because of belief, illness, moral stance, etc. Language is pretty damn fluid, and you seem to be taking "personal" for face value rather than taking context, and other factors that modify the meaning of the word into account. Not doing a job you are clearly trained to do because you are working in that position, then saying "I can't do it, personal reasons lmao" heavily implies some form of motive to not wanting to do said job. Not a lack of skill. If she really lacked the knowledge of how to process this particular form, she'd have said that rather than fucking up to such a degree to think saying "personal reasons" was a good idea. The fact she only said it [B]after[/B] the AA member had completely explained what AA do is a massive fucking give away, she'd clearly looked at the form beforehand to want information on AA.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44392910]well good thing you know me well enough to know that, right? i'm not by the way, but mentioning it in a discussion proves I'm so, so mad. thanks. [/quote] I don't, just usually when people bring things up and start complaining it is because it upsets them. [quote]Not knowing your job is a profesional reason. I'm going to leave it at that and you can try(not that you have yet) to explain how it's personal[/quote] I gave the definition of personal and explained it in context already. [quote] Cool, mine wouldn't be. [/quote] How is your boss relevant to this? [quote]Maybe you aren't getting what I mean, that much is clear. You're saying "This is a personal reason". I'm saying I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. I'm saying, I don't agree it is a personal reason, I don't agree calling it personal is valid, or excuses her from her actions...[/quote] You still haven't explained how it absolutely can't by any definition be personal. [quote]or the bank from theirs.[/quote] What did they do? Not firing an employee over accusations? Innocent until proven guilty. There's a reason why TD Bank has been consider one of Canada's best employers. ([url=http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/18/global-2000-10_The-Global-2000_Rank.html]source[/url]) They seem to actually respect their workers somewhat and not fire over BS reasons. [quote]Because how do you know someones intention best? By knowing that person, we don't know this person. I don't know this person. You don't know this person. The only thing we have to go on is her wording, the banks wording, the stories we've read and the statements from the participants in the situation. Her wording, in my opinion was wrong and doesn't fit the situation.[/QUOTE] So you assume everything someone says to be true? If I said I was a wizard would you take my words as truth because I worded it so? Just because her wording may have been wrong doesn't mean we can assume the worst. [editline]29th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;44392919] If she really lacked the knowledge of how to process this particular form, she'd have said that rather than fucking up to such a degree to think saying "personal reasons" was a good idea. The fact she only said it [B]after[/B] the AA member had completely explained what AA do is a massive fucking give away, she'd clearly looked at the form beforehand to want information on AA.[/QUOTE] If I had just heard of AA I would've thought they were a meeting place like a Church, I wouldn't have expected a lobby group.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44392997]If I had just heard of AA I would've thought they were a meeting place like a Church, I wouldn't have expected a lobby group.[/QUOTE] Most people probably wouldn't tbh. But either way, her job is to notarise, not pick and choose. When customers come to her place of work to get shit notarised, she should do it, it's not her call whether or not that gets done because she is representing her company, not herself in this situation. If the bank actually has guidelines on "who do you green stamp" then yeah, turning people away or passing them to other departments makes sense. But saying "oh I can't do it, let me get someone else from my department" like this is not on. This implies she is doing it due to some form of prejudiced, after all, she should know how to do these forms, she's employed there after all.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44392997]I don't, just usually when people bring things up and start complaining it is because it upsets them.[/QUOTE] So how much does this topic upset you? Or are you immune to the observations you make of others? [QUOTE]I gave the definition of personal and explained it in context already.[/QUOTE] Wait, that was your actual argument? [QUOTE]You still haven't explained how it absolutely can't by any definition be personal.[/QUOTE] Because it's too vague, doesn't define the actual situation or context? [QUOTE]So you assume everything someone says to be true? If I said I was a wizard would you take my words as truth because I worded it so? Just because her wording may have been wrong doesn't mean we can assume the worst.[/QUOTE] It seems you're intentionally obtuse. No, I would consider that bullshit, and start wondering what the real reasons are rather than taking it at face value. Though, that would be speculation, at least there's some greater thought going on than taking something at face value.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.