Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: totally inappropriate... (Damn right)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

-----Original Message-----
From:	T. Eric Gillham [SMTP:gk2(--nospam--at)]
Sent:	Friday, January 30, 1998 1:28 AM
To:	seaoc list
Subject:	Fw: totally inappropriate... (Damn right)
So I guess that means that once a person steps out of line, in almost any
way, they should be relieved?  
[john]  If you'll check my post I never made any statement about impeachment or removal.  I was asked the question that if an employee had affair should they be fired?  I stated that if the affair was with a subordinate then yes.  The question was posed more as a hypothetical relating to the business world than to Clinton.  In the business setting you have two choices:  fire the person or do nothing and face a possible lawsuit relating to sexual harassment in the work place.  To impeach a President because of an affair would, obviously, be unprecedented.  Do I think he should be impeached because he had an affair, no.  Assuming that the allegations are true do I consider him to be of suspect character, yes.

It has been said on this thread that Clinton "lied" to his closest family
and is therefore a cad.  
I don't recall anyone saying that.

here is part of a previous discussion.

[dennis]  Would you consider that if he
cheated on his wife and children that he would do lie and cheat on the job?
Are you saying that someone who lies and cheats on their closest family members is less likely to lie to clients/colleagues?

Note that Dennis used the word IF.  

My question is, how do we know that Hillary was
"lied" to?  Or does it matter to the "morally upright"?  Perhaps having an
open marriage would be just as wrong to them as having an affair (if he
did, that is).  Furthermore, I would be very interested in hearing from
anyone who can state that they have never lied to a family member, or that
they do not have even one dirty little secret that they are unwilling to
tell anyone.

[john]  I never said he lied, though I think that he probably did.

Dragging Churchill back into this, I guess using the "wrong is wrong"
litmus test, his anti semetism would have immediately disqualified him from
his job of helping to bring about the allied victory, since one of the
consquences of the victory was the end of the "Final Solution".  Perhaps if
he were dismissed for his bigotry, another more morally and ethically
qualified person would have taken his place and done as good or better a
job than he did.  But the fact is, he wasn't dismissed, and he did a good

  I guess morals don't always impede one's performance in a position,
even if the morals (or lack of) relate pretty directly to the goals of the
office or project.
[john]  I never said that they did impede performance, check my responses to Dennis' questions.