Ethical Dilemmas

[Socky the Sock.]

I'm not even going to grace that with a response... you are not worth it.

[Socky the Sock.]

Could you clean out the off topic stuff in this one too please Annie or Pasta

No way. Go and read back up there ^^^^^. You derailed the Thread, and now you cry poor.

Nah.

If you haven't noticed... it was Monk who derailed the thread with his claim that I was talking about bank loyalty... even after telling him repeatedly that I was not... he provided no quote to my doing this because he couldn't... I never once mentioned or alluded to bank loyalty... but that Monk loves to shit stir and was looking to settle into a game of 'yes you were'/'no I wasn't'. All I did was nip it in the bud before he got settled because believe it or not Aussie... I DID NOT SET UP THIS THREAD SO THAT THE LIKES OF MONK COULD SHIT IN IT!

Don’t move the goal posts.

Banks, employers more generally, are very selfserving when it comes to their employees with the top execs now taking home 100x the average salary at a company rather than 10x as used to be the case before neocon fuckery became established.

This is about stealing money from private citizens with dormant bank accounts. It has nothing to do with self serving employers.

That was strike one...

You were talking about loyalty to a bank.

No, I am talking about money held by private citizens in banks being stolen.

That was strike two...

But you were also talking about loyalty to the bank.

No I wasn't talking about loyalty to the bank and the fact that you keep on saying it without linking to the evidence which supports your claim proves it.

I know what you are doing Monk... you are trying to get rid of me by baiting me... just as you got rid of mantra by baiting her. And didn't you have fun with that...

Let's check for evidence shall we?

Having great fun baiting that disgusting bitch Mantra on the other board.

You are as evil as Deepshit... and your baiting has worked... the thread is fucked now and I've given up trying to create things to talk about. You are an asshole.

Strike three and we have a definite shit stirring habit formed. No point continuing on with Ele whilst Spam the Man is hell bent on fucking it up for us.

Now... who derailed the thread? Not me! I was as fair. I clearly gave him the benefit of the doubt until it his dishonourable intent became obvious.

Looks to me like you are trying to find excuses for the favouritism you and your mods show Lisa. If this was Lisa's thread it would have been cleaned up ages ago.

Now back to what I was saying...

[Jovial Monk]

You weren’t saying much of anything.

[Jovial Monk]

As originally posited the ethical dilemma was making sure the thief put the money back as promised.

Then the bank’s security mechanisms were brought into the ED, moving the goal posts. Now it had to do with not getting found out, of not being able to do the checking.

Furthermore, it brought the bank into focus, because the thief had actually stolen from the bank: if the customer came to withdraw from, deposit into, get a statement on etc the now no longer dormant account and the embezzlement was brought to light the bank would have to make up the difference to the customer so as I said the theft was from teh bank more than it was from the owner of the dormant account.

Thereby the ED became one that involved loyalty, duty of care etc to the bank.

[Socky the Sock.]

Then the bank’s security mechanisms were brought into the ED, moving the goal posts. Now it had to do with not getting found out, of not being able to do the checking.

Furthermore, it brought the bank into focus, because the thief had actually stolen from the bank: if the customer came to withdraw from, deposit into, get a statement on etc the now no longer dormant account and the embezzlement was brought to light the bank would have to make up the difference to the customer so as I said the theft was from teh bank more than it was from the owner of the dormant account.

Thereby the ED became one that involved loyalty, duty of care etc to the bank.

I REFUSE TO BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE THIS ^^^^ STUPID. THEREFORE YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FUCKING WITH ME. IT MAKES MORE SENSE FOR YOU TO BE FUCKING AROUND WITH ME... THAT'S WHAT YOU DO. YOU DID IT TO MANTRA, TO DEEPSHIT AND OTHERS... IT'S WHAT YOU ARE DOING WITH AUSSIE RIGHT NOW... SO NO SURPRISES THAT YOU'VE ADDED ME INTO THE MIX. NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE AROUND TO CHOOSE FROM.

[Jovial Monk]

Seems clear enough to me. That you can’t see it, won’t try and see it is your problem not mine.

I berated Mantra when she told lies about Annie, not otherwise. Go and check, I am telling the truth.

If you want to see a lie from Mantra, this I got from the Sheep Pen:

Aussie doesn't want to know the truth - he is totally unreceptive to it. I think Monk's running that place - seriously. He's managed to legally - somehow or other - wrench it out of FD's hands, but FD doesn't know it yet. I gather FD's got some technical control, but whether he still "owns" it is another story.

Dear god, where did the idiot get this shit from? You have a look and you see Deepshit spinning his lies and innuendos and Mantra obviously uncritically laps it up and add her own unique brand of 2 + 2 = 5.

Now the lunatic Mellie is in the Sheep Pen further befuddling Mantra.

AiA the lying C u n t is now saying “he saw something” and won’t retract his gross lie. Maybe he saw his face in the shaving mirror and in that two faced way concocted the lie. Hey throw in a lot of “they shared Maxie they shared Maxine. . .” and the uncritical pick it up and run with it.

And Aussie just leaves that lie, that interboard troll sit there and can only think of using that to entrench himsef—even now!

[donniedarko]

This thread is about ethical dilemmas, discussing what you would do in the various circumstances to be presented and why you would do that.

Here's the first dilemma

Your supervisor enters your office and asks you for a check for $150.00 for
expenses he tells you he incurred entertaining a client last night. He submits
receipts from a restaurant and lounge. At lunch your supervisor’s girlfriend stops
by to pick him up for lunch and you overhear her telling the receptionist what a
great time she had at dinner and dancing with your supervisor the night before.
What do you do?

Lol easy - public servants ain't allowed to do this....report the fucker to your friendly ethical standards unit

[Socky the Sock.]

Seems clear enough to me. That you can’t see it, won’t try and see it is your problem not mine.

Monk, you make disgusting references to sexual perversions, constantly use the 'c' word with creative licence on spaces, periods and spelling, berate the members and administration incessantly because, if your forum is anything to go by... it is fun to be nasty... so I have nothing to say to you... you are not worth the effort.

[Socky the Sock.]

Here's the first dilemma

Your supervisor enters your office and asks you for a check for $150.00 for
expenses he tells you he incurred entertaining a client last night. He submits
receipts from a restaurant and lounge. At lunch your supervisor’s girlfriend stops
by to pick him up for lunch and you overhear her telling the receptionist what a
great time she had at dinner and dancing with your supervisor the night before.
What do you do?

Lol easy - public servants ain't allowed to do this....report the fucker to your friendly ethical standards unit [/quote]

Lol - there is no reference to public servants in the thought experiment.

[Aussie]

Yeah. He did stick his jaw out on that issue. Very careless, Darko!

Hehe.