Holte End Posted February 2 Author Share Posted February 2 3 hours ago, cissolt said: I have some sympathy with Rob Callister in this instance, matters were progressed regardless of his sign off. I don't, he disagreed, then agree, then disagreed to agree a decision he disagreed with, but when the Chief Minister agreed, he agreed, then later said he didn't disagreed or agree., but disagreed. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piebaps Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 I'm not sure I agree with that. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 1 hour ago, Sentience said: There were certain words sadly missing from this report, had they been used in the correct context would have made it's conclusion.....more conclusive. What were the words? (and they admittedly are all emotive): Nasty, vindictive, disingenuous and cruel, and there are lots more of the same nature that would have made this inquiry more genuine and historically correct. I've only scanned most of it, but saw from some of his findings that in fact it was Dr Ranson's lawyer who was instantly on the (highly) offensive. Jordan Peterson said something interesting a few years ago that may be relevant, to the effect that men working together can get into someone's face if a disagreement becomes a dispute. Women flatter their rival but then go about the systematic and absolute destruction of their reputation. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 27 minutes ago, Stu Peters said: I've only scanned most of it, but saw from some of his findings that in fact it was Dr Ranson's lawyer who was instantly on the (highly) offensive. Jordan Peterson said something interesting a few years ago that may be relevant, to the effect that men working together can get into someone's face if a disagreement becomes a dispute. Women flatter their rival but then go about the systematic and absolute destruction of their reputation. That is why they are called Bitches 🙂 You are right though, a couple of men getting into strife at work will end up in fisticuffs if one goes too far. The ladies are more subtle but even more destructive if they are that way inclined. I saw it at school with my children, the boys got on with things, the girls were bullied very badly but in a subtle but very nasty way That is not a sexist comment it is based on a life of experience and Jordan Peterson puts it across very well, although I am not a huge fan of his. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 Recent IOM Govt AI connections from the AG office to ChatGpt are already helping identify potential major errors such as those highlighted in the report... On the plus side, AI will mean lawyers (95% of what they do) will be one of the first trades to go. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rachomics Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 (edited) 1 hour ago, Stu Peters said: I've only scanned most of it, but saw from some of his findings that in fact it was Dr Ranson's lawyer who was instantly on the (highly) offensive. Jordan Peterson said something interesting a few years ago that may be relevant, to the effect that men working together can get into someone's face if a disagreement becomes a dispute. Women flatter their rival but then go about the systematic and absolute destruction of their reputation. 37 minutes ago, Blade Runner said: That is why they are called Bitches 🙂 You are right though, a couple of men getting into strife at work will end up in fisticuffs if one goes too far. The ladies are more subtle but even more destructive if they are that way inclined. I saw it at school with my children, the boys got on with things, the girls were bullied very badly but in a subtle but very nasty way That is not a sexist comment it is based on a life of experience and Jordan Peterson puts it across very well, although I am not a huge fan of his. Proof that misogyny still exists in 2024. "It's a personality clash", "it would be different if they were men". Jesus Christ. It's 2024. These views should have been discarded half a century ago. Edited February 2 by rachomics spelling 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 1 hour ago, Stu Peters said: but saw from some of his findings that in fact it was Dr Ranson's lawyer who was instantly on the (highly) offensive. @Stu Peters When lawyers are around, things are likely to get stressful (except for the lawyers). What do you think of the way Ranson was treated in the normal course of her job? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheldon Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 9 minutes ago, rachomics said: Jesus Christ. It's 2024. These views should have been discarded half a century ago. You half-expect this attitude from some posters, sadly, but it's pretty poor optics from an MHK! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheldon Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 11 minutes ago, rachomics said: Proof that mysogeny still exists in 2024. By the way, love, it's "misogyny" 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rachomics Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 I know. I fixed it pretty much immediately because it didn't "look right". Had to google it an everything. Not every day that you have to use that word these days. Says a lot really. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheldon Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 I'm more of a misanthrope myself: basically, I just hate everyone. 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
display name Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 (edited) 15 hours ago, Stu Peters said: I've only scanned most of it, but saw from some of his findings that in fact it was Dr Ranson's lawyer who was instantly on the (highly) offensive. Jordan Peterson said something interesting a few years ago that may be relevant, to the effect that men working together can get into someone's face if a disagreement becomes a dispute. Women flatter their rival but then go about the systematic and absolute destruction of their reputation. 14 hours ago, rachomics said: Proof that misogyny still exists in 2024. Jesus Christ. It's 2024. These views should have been discarded half a century ago. To be fair to Stu,there is nothing in his quote that could be deemed misogynistic. As for Jesus,if he ever existed,his opinions would be extremely out of date Edited February 3 by display name 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 50 minutes ago, rachomics said: Proof that misogyny still exists in 2024. "It's a personality clash", "it would be different if they were men". Jesus Christ. It's 2024. These views should have been discarded half a century ago. But, Rachomics, this is what happens when women are allowed to fill their heads with learning and fancy ideas. They don't understand team sports and the basics of cricket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
display name Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 37 minutes ago, Gladys said: They don't understand team sports and the basics of cricket. Or the gold standard 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc.fixit Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 1 hour ago, Gladys said: But, Rachomics, this is what happens when women are allowed to fill their heads with learning and fancy ideas. They don't understand team sports and the basics of cricket. Neither do I. In fact I don't understand sport at all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.