Edited for Clarity .... - PilcheskyDeceit True Freedom of Speech

LusOnlyVoice

Site Administrator

Status: Offline

Posts: 5099

Date: Sat Dec 1 6:26 AM, 2007

Edited for Clarity ....

Permalink

Ok ... so I'm trying to figure out what could have been in this one that needed clarifying ...

pragmat
Posts: 269
Date: Nov 30 3:08 PM, 2007
Views: 498

Quote | Reply

This just in - Doherty loses another court case

Just received a call from a friend. Doherty lost another court case to the fire union. I'll get details and post them.

(topic edited for clarity)

-- Edited by Administrator at 16:21, 2007-11-30

__________________
Better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.

God bless the administrator ... he has a hell of a job trying to figure out what all of his posters mean ... giving all of DD clarity ... funny how he never did that for Granma ... God knows she needed help being clear ...

__________________

I want everyone to stop and think about one thing ... Joe Pilchesky is not a lawyer ... he's just a guy playing a lawyer on the internet. Please don't trust your legal needs to this man.

Paul

Fvck you, clown. Sue me.

Status: Offline

Posts: 1694

Date: Sat Dec 1 9:38 AM, 2007

Edited for Clarity ....	Permalink

The original topic title was "This just in." "Doherty loses was added later. You know how the retards over there just HATE clicking on a topic without knowing anything about it. __________________

Art Gordon

Topless Robot

Status: Offline

Posts: 1134

Date: Sat Dec 1 9:53 AM, 2007

Edited for Clarity ....	Permalink

Perhaps this is what it said before it was edited for clarity: Just received a letter from an anonymous tipster claiming that a city union will eventually win a case against the city. I have nothing more to tell you than that. Joe changed it to be more clear: Just received a call from a friend. Doherty lost another court case to the fire union. I'll get details and post them. __________________ Make Jack pack!

5150allover

Member

Status: Offline

Posts: 110

Date: Sun Dec 2 1:16 AM, 2007

RE: Edited for Clarity ....

Permalink

heres johnny

Posts: 24
Date: Dec 1 10:11 PM, 2007
Views: 64

Quote | Reply

RE: This just in - Doherty loses another court case

basically what this is when an alarm came in from example say north scranton on first alarm, 2 engines,the rescue truck and a ladder truck along with the chief responded to it bringing 13 firemen to the scene. our $13,000 raise fire chief decided it was too many and accidents could occur with injuries so he cut a engine off the response which would only bring 10 firemen to the scene and the union said that is an unsafe number and dangerousand not enoughmen on scene, no studies done just implimented because the fire chief said so, by the way whenthe $13,000 man was a fireman he responded to the same call on first alarm with 16 firemen on the call with 3 engines,the rescue truck,a ladder truck along with the chief. sounds like do as i say not as i did.

This post could use a little clarification.

__________________

Paul

Fvck you, clown. Sue me.

Status: Offline

Posts: 1694

Date: Sun Dec 2 7:21 AM, 2007

Edited for Clarity ....	Permalink

SOunds an awful lot like a veteran firefighter making a decision based on years of personal and on the job experience. Too bad it doesn't jive with some lunatic administrator of a third rate gossip site, but the fact that the old man is pissed about it pretty much locks it as a sound judgement. Studies? Over the policies laid down by a vertan firefighter who knows way better than you what is proper and necessary? You really need to get that dementia checked, junkie. __________________

Agamemnon

DD: Where logic & proportion have fallen sloppy dead.

Status: Offline

Posts: 3768

Date: Sun Dec 2 10:47 AM, 2007

RE: Edited for Clarity ....	Permalink

Clarification? I'll be damned if I can figure out what that poster was saying, and I've read it three times already. __________________ Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.

LusOnlyVoice

Site Administrator

Status: Offline

Posts: 5099

Date: Sun Dec 2 2:36 PM, 2007

Edited for Clarity ....	Permalink

Yep that one could use a lot of clarification. Come on Joe where are your editing skills when they are truly needed! __________________ I want everyone to stop and think about one thing ... Joe Pilchesky is not a lawyer ... he's just a guy playing a lawyer on the internet. Please don't trust your legal needs to this man.

Agamemnon

DD: Where logic & proportion have fallen sloppy dead.

Status: Offline

Posts: 3768

Date: Sun Dec 2 7:42 PM, 2007

RE: Edited for Clarity ....	Permalink

I'm sure he can't get to it all...afterall, it takes a lot of time and effort to be an internet gossip monger, assaulter of drunks, suer of Little Leages and doormat to Janet Evans. There are only 24 hours in a day, and at Joe's age, the need for sleep is all the more important (and then there are those 25 trips to the bathroom at night, old man). -- Edited by Agamemnon at 06:55, 2007-12-03 __________________ Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.

LusOnlyVoice

Site Administrator

Status: Offline

Posts: 5099

Date: Mon Dec 3 4:39 AM, 2007

Edited for Clarity ....	Permalink

I forgot how busy he is Ag .... thank you for reminding me. __________________ I want everyone to stop and think about one thing ... Joe Pilchesky is not a lawyer ... he's just a guy playing a lawyer on the internet. Please don't trust your legal needs to this man.