Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fitump56
It's not working, the more you distort ridiculously my position, the worse you look. Beats trying to defend your macho, discrimanatory Old Guard BS so I ceratianly understand why you choose to move the goal posts rather than defend your 19th century bigotry toward women in the work place.
|
As usual, you misconstrue what someone here says. Unlike you, who automatically
***umed some kind of discrimination, which is just illogical and stupid--but I digress--I simply said if she believes she was the victim of illegal discrimination, let her gather the facts first then take it to the proper venue. A trip to the EEO might suffice. I never said she shouldn't umpire because she's a woman, or that females ought not to be professional umpires. You inferred that in order to remain on your ridiculous soapbox, one that you love to use all too often around here, unfortunately.
Quote:
As I said before, sure bet you Mother, Aunts, sisters, female cousins and grandmother are button popping proud of you. 
|
As a matter of fact, they are, and many of them are rather liberal, too. In fact, it was my mother who, when she found out about Ria, said to me, "Women shouldn't be umpiring anyway." And this from a rather feminist woman, too.
And BTW, regarding "discovery," I know very well what it means in terms of legal definitions. I've been involved in it on both ends of the table. It does
NOT mean go to court and sue based on no facts or evidence, conduct discovery to find out information, then hopefully win/settle. It means to hopefully find out information that can add to or confirm what is already known. Sure, there are attorneys who will encourage filing a lawsuit with not an ounce of evidence, but these are the ones who do so solely because they wish to rack up fees from their clients. A good attorney will tell someone not to sue unless you've got some solid evidence of a wrongdoing. Discovery enables one to bolster such evidence in order to be likelier to win.