Quote:
Originally posted by Nachtrafe:
Quote:
Originally posted by Grojlach:
"Insulting"? You're using that word a bit too easily lately, Jim...  And once again you misunderstood my post as well. I never said the security guard's logic was twisted, I was referring to the logic behind banning those t-shirts and making a big deal out of it, and the fact that there are most likely people out there who actually would have enforced the same ridiculous rules if they had owned the mall (granted, my post was a bit vague, but I did say "their logic", not "his logic" ).
|
No Maarten, I dont think that I am using that word a bit too easily. It *was* insulting, both to the guard(even though he'll likely never read this), and to me, someone who was almost in that guy's shoes. I found(and still find) it rather distasteful that you can have such a cavalier attitude about some poor guy losing his livelihood, just because you disagree with the policy of the mall(namely, the banning of certain T-shirts, something that they are perfectly within their rights to do). You, and several others, seem to be missing the central issue. The security guard was just doing his job, enforcing the policy of the mall's owners. That's it. Yet he's been vilified in the press as some sort of fashion nazi.
Also, just for clarification...The rules put in place by the mall were not ridiculous. The local news, when covering this story, noted that the reason for the policy was based on a near riot around Christmas, when a large group of anti-war protesters were staging a rally at the mall(dont ask me why, that part made NO sense to me), and it got out of control. The mall, again in an attempt to cover it's butt, decided to create a policy that they hoped would prevent such issues from arising again. And again....THIS IS THEIR LEGAL RIGHT! Regardless of your, my, or anyone else's opinion on the subject, it is their right to create and enforce whatever sort of dress code they desire.
[/QUOTE]And once again you misunderstood my post. Jim, I'm not sure if you're trying to focus your frustration over this case on just my post now, but I was
not saying the things you seem to be claiming that I'm saying about the guard. My criticism is focused on the
mall and those who would have enforced the same rules if they had owned the mall... Maybe some of the media vilified him as "some sort of fashion nazi", but I most definitely didn't. And I
know it was their legal right to enforce those rules, just like it's my legal right to think that they were silly and laughable, even taking the context into account. And if I read the second part of your post correctly, you seem to hold the same opinion.
But I never commented in any of my posts on the question whether firing him over this is justified or not, yet strangely enough this seems to be your biggest concern with the "cavalier attitude" (?) in my posts. Look, maybe you're just reading too much in my words. All I did was making a prediction on the guard's future and criticise the mall; if you want to argue my opinions, then focus on those two points, not on the "should he have been fired, yes or no?" matter because I simply didn't comment on it. I'm sorry if you misunderstood my purpose with that prediction in my first post, but I was in no way trying to implicate that the mall was right with their decision, because I don't think they were. It was more a response to the cynic way Cerek seemed to be presenting the news (it looked like a slightly bitter reproach with those who criticised the mall to me) than it was a reply to the news itself. Sorry.
[ 03-25-2003, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]