4 ms·

1. If that's what you believe, then you're acknowledging that the officemate's complaint was necessary for the guy to be removed, not just going to management a

1. If that's what you believe, then you're acknowledging that the officemate's complaint was necessary for the guy to be removed, not just going to management about the password. So you're agreeing that going to management about the password couldn't "almost guarantee someone is going to get fired". 2. "maybe we just sent a weird password to HR, and they did the default thing and fired the guy" You just acknowledged in the prior paragraph that an actual complaint was necessary. "years later we remember the justification that he must have deserved it because he's gone. (Details? Sorry, can't!)" To be clear, you have already said you have no basis whatsoever to believe that he made up the details that justified the firing. Just like I could suggest, with no basis, that you actually dumped your ex-girlfriend in a mean and nasty way over her struggles with addiction, and while distraught over the breakup she expressed her displeasure with you in conversations with mutual friends. You weren't actually present at any of these conversations, but you're sure she called you schizophrenic, satanic, and a creep, details you made up because it's easier on your conscience. You were the only person who ever perceived her as "frenzied", her job never did and neither would the cops, but it's easier on your conscience to say the only reason you didn't get a restraining order was to keep her out of jail. All that would be entirely consistent with the facts you've told us, if I wanted to view you in the worst possible light with no basis whatsoever. Just like you're doing to jedberg.

1000units 7y ago
1. You misunderstand. Going to HR with an unsavory password is a complaint that cannot be disproven. 2. I'm willing to divulge the massive amount of evidence that exists in my favor, and there's nothing self-serving about my story. In fact, it's a huge embarrassment. I shared it in the interest of getting things a little more straight in the world, not to feel good or look like a great guy. That's the difference. If anything I've said concerns you and you'd like to know more, my email is in my profile.
- laughinghan 7y ago
  1. I continue not to understand. Which one of these things do you believe to be true? a) The company's reason for firing the guy was the content of the password, not the behavior of harassment, and jedberg was outright lying in claiming otherwise. If so, what basis do you have to believe this? What do you know about the company or the guy that jedberg is talking about other than what jedberg has told us? b) The company's reason for firing was the harassment, but somehow the unsavory password is a complaint of harassment that cannot be disproven. This makes no sense. The content of the password cannot be disproven, of course, because it's in the computer system and so is a plain fact to all observers, but the existence or nonexistence of harassment can of course be disproven, which they checked by asking the officemate (unless you believe jedberg outright lied to us). Hence the officemate's complaint was necessary for the guy to be removed, and going to management about the password couldn't "almost guarantee someone is going to get fired". 2. The only way in which jedberg's story is self-serving is gaining imaginary points on the Internet, unless you have reason to believe jedberg stands to gain money or something else from writing his story the way he did. If your story is not self-serving because it merely helps you gain sympathy and anecdotally substantiate your argument about how the term "creep" can be used, then neither is jedberg's.

1000units 7y ago

1. You misunderstand. Going to HR with an unsavory password is a complaint that cannot be disproven. 2. I'm willing to divulge the massive amount of evidence that exists in my favor, and there's nothing self-serving about my story. In fact, it's a huge embarrassment. I shared it in the interest of getting things a little more straight in the world, not to feel good or look like a great guy. That's the difference. If anything I've said concerns you and you'd like to know more, my email is in my profile.

laughinghan 7y ago
1. I continue not to understand. Which one of these things do you believe to be true? a) The company's reason for firing the guy was the content of the password, not the behavior of harassment, and jedberg was outright lying in claiming otherwise. If so, what basis do you have to believe this? What do you know about the company or the guy that jedberg is talking about other than what jedberg has told us? b) The company's reason for firing was the harassment, but somehow the unsavory password is a complaint of harassment that cannot be disproven. This makes no sense. The content of the password cannot be disproven, of course, because it's in the computer system and so is a plain fact to all observers, but the existence or nonexistence of harassment can of course be disproven, which they checked by asking the officemate (unless you believe jedberg outright lied to us). Hence the officemate's complaint was necessary for the guy to be removed, and going to management about the password couldn't "almost guarantee someone is going to get fired". 2. The only way in which jedberg's story is self-serving is gaining imaginary points on the Internet, unless you have reason to believe jedberg stands to gain money or something else from writing his story the way he did. If your story is not self-serving because it merely helps you gain sympathy and anecdotally substantiate your argument about how the term "creep" can be used, then neither is jedberg's.