Jump to content

Screaming Irony

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Candy neclaces, mallow cups and wax lips! Yea baby! Penny candy and 2 cent bottle deposits. Here's one that many will not get. The guys from Michigan probably will. Which way did he go, which way did he go? He went for Faygo! Rock N' Rye is still great,when we can find it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunting wolf, Welcome!! :)


Unfortuantely, discussing ex-wifes would be taking this thread in a new direction and, though you are cordially invited to start such a thread, our tiny brains prefer to stay on one topic at a time . . . ;)


Quisp and Quake


Unless you're traveling, then you just need the 4 major food groups: beef jerky, mountain dew, moon pies and either (choose only one!) chocolate or red licorice!




Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to slow down the party, buut BobWhite's, shall we say "narrow" view of the facts probably should be corrected.


At the time that Smith took retirement no charge was made, no charge was known. On what grounds as an employer could you fire an employees who was not under arrest, had not been charged, and was eligible to retire?


As was reported when the case broke, the authorities first contacted BSA and seized Smith's computer at work. Smith didn't "retire" and months later be revealed for distributing child pornography.


It's disengenous to suggest BSA had no idea Smith was implicated in this or that he had already "retired".


IMO, Smith did the right thing by retiring (he did it only after the story was in the news, and should have even sooner, but it did show some personal accountability, and when combined with the fact that he pleaded guilty nearly immediately, shows he likely had some desire to shield BSA from his personal foibles).


But to equivocate a distributor of child pornography who had been in charge of BSA's youth protection policies with a gay employee who was "discovered" to be associating with gay friends is just absurd and insulting.


Most importantly, FunDip and the packet of shredded bubble gum you cram into you cheeks until you nearly choke, then heading out to play Little League, has to be the near perfect memory of candy.



Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time that Smith's computer was confiscated there was no charge of a criminal activity, and there would be none until the investigation was completed.


The BSA had no legal grounds to fire Smith yet. Prior to the charges being released Smith took retirement. An employer cannot deny benefits because the employee is being investigated for an unknown reason and without at least charges being filed.


I await a response from jhnky. It would nice to see him calm down and answer a specific question directly related to the topic of his rants.


Tell us, if you were the employer, and as far as you know your employee had not committed a crime, WHAT exactly would have have fired him for?




Link to post
Share on other sites

The BSA had no legal grounds to fire Smith yet. Tell us, if you were the employer, and as far as you know your employee had not committed a crime, WHAT exactly would have have fired him for?


Nothing. At least that's how I would have handled St. Jean, since BSA had no legal grounds to fire him, he was not implicated in any sort of criminal activity, and was not about to splash onto the national news in way that would embarrass the "company". Unfortunately, BSA did do something, and probably will end up right back in court defending yet more indefensible decisions. They terminated "for cause" where the "cause" is likely illegal discrimination.


As for Smith, knowing exactly what he was "suspected" of doing (with agents actually seizing equipment), and aware of how especially inappropriate that would be for the man in charge of my youth protection policy, I would have demanded his immediate resignation, and if I did not receive that resignation, I would have fired him. Employment with BSA is an "at will" relationship, and there is at least an implied (if not probably literal) morals clause associated with the leaders employed by the organization. Mere implication in this criminal activity, especially when uncontested by Smith, would be enough "legal grounds" to terminate an employee. Is that the way the scenario unfolded with BSA? Probably, and unless there was something to the contrary in his employment contract, I would assume it's legally justified for him to have his retirement benefits.


Not speaking for jkhny (he seems to have plenty of words for himself), but I think the point was the "screaming irony" that Smith fired St. Jean and that Smith ran youth protection. I think the other point is that St. Jean should never have been fired. Based on the information that's public (which may not be everything, but sure seems to be), I'd say any rational person would have to agree with both the irony and the inappropriateness of firing St. Jean.


Seriously though, no props for FunDip? Come on, the sweet hard candy stick you lick and dip into fluorescent colored sugar? That had to be about the closest thing to drug I abused when I was 11.

Link to post
Share on other sites


St.Jean is totally different situation and worthy of its own thread. Please feel free to start a new thread to discuss it.


But in between the coffectioners convention we are waiting for jhnky's answer to a single, simply, question.


Jhenky wanted Smith fired, but he seems to be having quite a bit of difficulty telling us what he was to be fired over since A) prior to his retirement he was not charged with any crime. B) After his retirement he was no longer an employee and couldn't be fired.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...