4 ms·

They make 1.04 billion in profit each year and 9 million has him worried? It also seems to be a breech of trust that he outed 2 women and their children in thi

They make 1.04 billion in profit each year and 9 million has him worried? It also seems to be a breech of trust that he outed 2 women and their children in this. I wonder if coworkers will have any backlash against these women. If that does happen it then it could easily become grounds for a lawsuit against AOL. Also they spent $405 million on an acquisition in August (8 months ago): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_AOL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_AOL

vikas5678 13y ago
Yes, I was thinking the same. Clearly in a company, everyone will eventually find out who these women are, so although he didnt break any laws by revealing their names, these women are probably feeling pretty targeted right now.
bilbo0s 13y ago
I have to admit... the baby thing really bothered me. If you want to make a political statement against Obama... fine... I get it. But why drag two innocent families into this? What were these people supposed to do??? NOT try to help their children??? That was a very classless maneuver on AOL's part. Just state that your medical benefit costs were higher than expected this year. Don't be a douche about the whole thing. I apologize for the rant... just rubbed me the wrong way.
- gcb0 13y ago
  So it served it's purpose. Now instead of getting everyone outraged against benefit cuts for political action, you think that is fine but want reparation for the baby comment. forgot the name of this discourse diatribe, but apparently it's effective.
  - bilbo0s 13y ago
    What do you mean? The entire REASON we're outraged is because we REALIZE it was nothing more than political! If that is a technique they teach... all I can say is that it doesn't work very well here on HN. Benefit cuts for political action has lost A LOT of support around the tech industry today.
    - gcb0 13y ago
      because AOL has all of hacker news audience. i cant stand all the threads here everytime aol sites have any downtime... but you are missing the point. your words say you are not even condoning the political move anymore because now you are outraged by the asshole baby comment. so, the baby comment served its purpose.

vikas5678 13y ago

Yes, I was thinking the same. Clearly in a company, everyone will eventually find out who these women are, so although he didnt break any laws by revealing their names, these women are probably feeling pretty targeted right now.

bilbo0s 13y ago

I have to admit... the baby thing really bothered me. If you want to make a political statement against Obama... fine... I get it. But why drag two innocent families into this? What were these people supposed to do??? NOT try to help their children??? That was a very classless maneuver on AOL's part. Just state that your medical benefit costs were higher than expected this year. Don't be a douche about the whole thing. I apologize for the rant... just rubbed me the wrong way.

gcb0 13y ago
So it served it's purpose. Now instead of getting everyone outraged against benefit cuts for political action, you think that is fine but want reparation for the baby comment. forgot the name of this discourse diatribe, but apparently it's effective.
- bilbo0s 13y ago
  What do you mean? The entire REASON we're outraged is because we REALIZE it was nothing more than political! If that is a technique they teach... all I can say is that it doesn't work very well here on HN. Benefit cuts for political action has lost A LOT of support around the tech industry today.
  - gcb0 13y ago
    because AOL has all of hacker news audience. i cant stand all the threads here everytime aol sites have any downtime... but you are missing the point. your words say you are not even condoning the political move anymore because now you are outraged by the asshole baby comment. so, the baby comment served its purpose.