Firms and Salary Information - Ohio

[andViolins]

Originally posted by ms. naughty diplomat
come on, mr. violins, if we are going to stay ahead of the texas and dc boards in number of posts you have to do better than this for topics. i mean other than seeing this as more proof that the entire idea of electing judges is idotic, i can't see what sort of discussion can be raised by this. i just don't see this as the type of post that will generate lots of discussion.

:hide:

ms. naughty diplomat

Hey, I'm trying here!?!? OH well. I guess we could always go back to thongs and rats.

aV

[ms. naughty diplomat]

Originally posted by andViolins
Hey, I'm trying here!?!? OH well. I guess we could always go back to thongs and rats.

aV

i know that you are trying, mr. violins, but how do you expect to compete with a discussion on the fashion bored about porn with a news article about the ohio supreme court. :blush:

now if the disclipline hearing involved an ohio supreme court justice wearing his or her judicial robe in a porn video - that would generate page hits

but its hard to say what is a more scarier image. a rat wearing a thong or an ohio supreme court justice in a porn video

:eek2:

but anyway, i know that i was out of line in criticizing your on topic new article, so i am sorry :cry:

ms. naughty diplomat

[andViolins]

new topic:

NCR sues former tax attorney
Woman countersues over job conditions

NCR Corp. has sued a former tax attorney for her signing bonus and half the cost of her relocation when she quit after eight months on the job.

The suit, filed in Miami-Dade County Court, asks for a refund of nearly $7,300 plus court costs.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/busin...y/0718ncr.html

from the article: "Her department had high turnover, she said in court papers, and employees "lived in constant fear of verbal attacks and mental abuse" from a senior manager."

aV

[ms. naughty diplomat]

Originally posted by andViolins

from the article: "Her department had high turnover, she said in court papers, and employees "lived in constant fear of verbal attacks and mental abuse" from a senior manager."

better. it has more of a hint of scandal and dirt. however, i kind of wonder if ncr will have the defense that although hours were terrible, there was high turnover, and there was an abusive supervisor those factors are to be expected at legal employers and thus by taking a job in the "legal department" she had assumed the risk of an abusive atmosphere.

btw, great editorial cartoon here http://www.daytondailynews.com/opini...s/peters1.html

mnd

[andViolins]

Originally posted by ms. naughty diplomat
better. it has more of a hint of scandal and dirt. however, i kind of wonder if ncr will have the defense that although hours were terrible, there was high turnover, and there was an abusive supervisor those factors are to be expected at legal employers and thus by taking a job in the "legal department" she had assumed the risk of an abusive atmosphere.

btw, great editorial cartoon here http://www.daytondailynews.com/opini...s/peters1.html

mnd

well, the other thing is, having an abusive, yelling boss may be bad and may be crappy, but is not necessarily illegal.

aV

[ms. naughty diplomat]

Originally posted by andViolins
well, the other thing is, having an abusive, yelling boss may be bad and may be crappy, but is not necessarily illegal.

aV

right. there is no law against having a jerk for a boss. if there was, several law firm associates would be able to retire with the settlements or judgments that they got against biglaw for abusive partners

but lets look at the more important aspects - first, it seems pretty petty that they are suing her for her signing bonus and half the the relocation costs - especially since it is such a small sum. second, we have unconfirmed allegations that an in house corporate department in ohio is a terrible place to work.

exactly the type of rumours this board exists to spread

:kisscheek

ms. naughty diplomat

[andViolins]

Bridge dwellers get a reprieve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge orders homeless can stay 20 days

People living under Cincinnati bridges can stay at least 20 more days because a federal judge issued a temporary order Monday that prevents the city from moving them.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...2homels22.html

aV

[ms. naughty diplomat]

Originally posted by andViolins
Bridge dwellers get a reprieve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge orders homeless can stay 20 days

People living under Cincinnati bridges can stay at least 20 more days because a federal judge issued a temporary order Monday that prevents the city from moving them.

your link doesn't work, mr. violins.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by ms. naughty diplomat
your link doesn't work, mr. violins.

I think something was wrong with the Enquirer's web site. It should work now.

aV

[ms. naughty diplomat]

Originally posted by andViolins
I think something was wrong with the Enquirer's web site. It should work now.

aV

it is back up now. what exactly is the safety concern here? are they living next to the roadways?

or is it that they just want to outlaw homelessness?

[andViolins]

Originally posted by ms. naughty diplomat
it is back up now. what exactly is the safety concern here? are they living next to the roadways?

or is it that they just want to outlaw homelessness?

Cincinnati is always trying new and wacky stuff. There was a law struck down not long ago that attempted to ban individuals from reentering part of the City if convicted of a crime while in the area (and they did not live there). I know I am not explaining it well, but the goal was to (I believe) try to stop gang members or other groups from congregating together.

As for the homeless, I would think its a backhanded way of trying to clear them out without directly going after them. To claim that it is for THEIR safety [no really, that car was skidding right towards you!] seems awful thin to me. Not that living under a bridge would be my ultimate Barbi dreamhouse.

aV

[ms. naughty diplomat]

Originally posted by andViolins
Cincinnati is always trying new and wacky stuff.

ah, so posting the article was just an excuse for more cincinatti bashing - okay, i'll join in

but in any case, a lot of cities have basically tried to outlaw homelessness. i've never heard of outlawing people who live under bridges before - which after all seems like a better option than most for the homeless - at least if no tornados are present (maybe that is the concern - in the unlikely event that a tornado passes over the bridge, the homeless could be sucked out of there and killed. they would rather sweep the problems under the rug than have visible homeless people begging for spare change than address the real mental health, economic, and educational issues which cause people to get out of streets.

i think its kind of similar to the "broken window" school of sociology that guiliani used in new york city. the homeless bely the representations of the governemtnt that everything is good - so therefore the must be swept out of site. however, because they can no longer forcibly institutionalize people, the only way to sweep the homeless under the rug is to make their lives so intolerable that they leave town - maybe cincinatti is hoping that all of hte homelss will go live under bridges in kentucky.

ms. naughty diplomat

[andViolins]

Obscenity law in Ohio targeted by lawyer

A lawyer who specializes in defending the distribution of sex images, including by Larry Flynt's Hustler magazine, has moved to overturn Ohio's obscenity law on the basis of the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing homosexual sodomy.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...2935-9964r.htm

aV

[ms. naughty diplomat]

Originally posted by andViolins
Obscenity law in Ohio targeted by lawyer

A lawyer who specializes in defending the distribution of sex images, including by Larry Flynt's Hustler magazine, has moved to overturn Ohio's obscenity law on the basis of the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing homosexual sodomy.

what are you doing reading the washington times, mr. violins. you don't strike me as being either the ultraright wing wacko or moonie type (which are the two primary types of readers of the washington times) .

i don't think that the supreme court is going to find a fundamental substantive due process right to sell porn. smart lawyering move though - to avoid the constitutional issue, there is a strong incentive to simply find that there is no violation of community standards and dismiss the indictment.

of course, from reading the fashion bored you have to wonder exactly what type of video actually violates the contemporary community standards anymore. i guess in cincinatti it would be easier to violate contemporary community standards - but out of the entire video store, they are only charging the video store owner for one video??? i'm highly curious but scared to know what is in that video that is so bad that they decided to bring an obscenity charge now

ms. naughty diplomat

[ms. naughty diplomat]

something is obviously wrong when not even porn will generate discussion and get mr. spookyfish on this bored

maybe we need to go back to talking about thongs :butt: