Are you finish?

I'm glad it made you smile I always aim to try and put a smile on peoples faces pure comedy I'll remember that. And yes I did end up reading the whole article silly me what was I thinking.

Why do you even bother kiwi?

At least stop quoting him so the rest of us don't have to read it.

August the troll does another drive by trolling:yeah:.

I don't see why you even bother, Tribesman. I keep him on ignore for a reason. If the rest of you did the same he'd eventually scuttle back to whatever dark troll cave he came from.

If socialists don't like me I must be doing something right.

I would say you're being a little selective in your support of accusations of trolling.

A little? :DL

Deja vu again? :stare: Where have I heard that before...?

The thread. :doh:

Then allow me to explain.

Those words, except for the paraphrased first sentence, were letter to letter August's own. It's not the first time and I reckon not the last either he has waged his cute little anti-Tribesman crusade, speaking about "the rest of us", wondering why people reply to him and, in the past as demonstrated, also suggesting the "rest of us" should put him on ignore list. It strikes me as extremely arrogant to continuously do so, no matter how much you disagree with someone. Hence the little imitation.

As for Tribesman, I have questioned his style in the past and will continue to do so. Just because I didn't happen to do it in this thread doesn't mean I condone it. I just don't go trumpeting about the people on my ignore list and suggest that everyone else should also ignore him so we would eventually get rid of him. That would be silly. If really pissed off, I'd simply put him on my ignore list and let the world keep revolving.

Edit: funny. Now I'm a socialist too. Do I even want to hear what that is based on?

Trolling aside, tribesman is still wrong. In at will states you cannot challenge a firing anyways, outside of extreme circumstances. The only true recourse you have is to challenge for unemployment. Which that works out to be the same as challenging the firing, since the board decides whether you should have been fired or not, and the emPloyer still has to pay benefits or not.

I did not recall that. I've always considered you to be one of the better posters on here, and I should have trusted that judgement. You have my apologies.

As the old saying goes, "Speak in haste, repent at leisure."

That means a lot coming from you.

Naturally accepted, if there ever was need to apologize in the first place. Part of discourse is explaining when someone demands it, and I'm not stranger to that.

:salute:

I love this thread!

:up:

I'd be quite happy to do that but you fanbois keep quoting his troll posts which bypasses the board filters. So as long as I have to read his tripe anyways i'll keep commenting on it.

If you don't like that then feel free to do what you think is appropriate.

Really?
The "extreme circumstances" I mentioned as being the only grounds for challenging an actual firing:yep:
No, a challenge on the very limited grounds is a seperate issue entirely, challenging for unemployment only covers if the firing was of a type where you can get unemployment or cannot get it, it doesn't challenge the actual firing at all.

No the board decides on if the firing was for one of the reasons that makes you ineligible for welfare payments.

For someone who made a claim that I was wrong you have done a very very bad job on the subject matter:rotfl2:

@Hottentot
Word for word its just yet another one of his very regular trolls, just popping into topics and throwing silly insults while making no comments about the subject matter at all.

Its just August the trolls very partisan politics coming into play, a bit like when Zeewolf calls everyone Jewish.

@the troll
But you don't, you just repeat the same old mindless nonsense again and again.