WebsterMark wrote on 10/30/18 at 07:24:01:



going to get that tattooed on your butt?? might as well cause at least it'll be in the company of the rest of the sh*t you talk (aka, you're talking out of your butt again) it's been studied, right wingers are actually more violent, lefties might protest more, but you all actually commit WAY more violence, but you don't actually believe in facts do you?

eau de sauvage wrote on 10/30/18 at 17:25:07:

you have not responded

As you ask someone else,
I ask you, why you have not stated,
who you are referring to when you said:
eau de sauvage wrote on Oct 29th, 2018, 1:11am:
Sorry to burst your Rainbow Unicorn Cocaine bubble,

I will ask again:
Who's 'bubble' are you, 'bursting' ?

As you ask someone else,
I ask you, why you have not stated,
who you are referring to when you said:

"Sounds like, ‘anti-gun’, people are making the decisions."

 This is regarding a transcript where more people were in favor of carrying firearms on-property.

 I will ask again:

Why was the pro-gun section left out of the evaluation?

"'why are  ‘anti-gun’, people are making the decisions, when the transcripts say the pro-gun people, are in the Majority ?'"

 Pro-gun people did make the decision.  That is also very clear in the transcript.  Pro-gun when asked Yes or No, said Yes.  That was their decision, and the reason, which was made clear in the very first post, and multiple afterward, are being ignored for some reason.

 Thank you however for finally answering the question.

"Or who gets extra hours and who does not ?
Or who works nights, weekends, and Holidays, and who does not ?
Or who gets a black mark , and who gets a gold star in their file ?

 No.  These are facility administrators, not employees, there is no situation where any of the people present are subordinates of another.

"They did NOT  change their mind, they just voted, Pro)
Why ?"

 The answer has been indicated many, many times over but you refuse to acknowledge it.  Lawsuit mitigation.  Mitigation of lawsuits, that happen regularly.  Legal protection.  That's why.

 You are literally fabricating scenarios in an attempt to not acknowledge that the decision was based exclusively off of lawsuit mitigation.  Not everyone that is pro-gun is willing to bankrupt their company so they can carry a gun to work.  Not every person who chooses to leave a gun at home does so out of fear, coercion, or concern of retaliation, some people just value their career more than their guns at work.

 I don't know why it is so important to create scenarios that never existed, but since I foresaw this I will once again offer you the opportunity to be in contact with each of these people personally to verify.  They can, and are willing to tell you personally, without my involvement, that they were present at that meeting and why they made the decision.