Re: Re: moral dilemma

At the risk of extending this issue far longer than it deserves I feel compelled to answer.

A. I do not work for Wal-Mart and never have.

B. I am not an attorney.

C. I don't even shop at Wal-Mart.

D. Attorneys who specialize in workers comp work for the injured client but, in the end, are paid by Workers Comp. Their interests, and reputations, rely on their success for the injured.

E. The doctors who accept workers comp patients work for the injured but, in the end, are paid by Workers Comp.

F. My response to you is the same I would have made to a man. In fact, I didn't even consider your sex when writing my response. You need to lighten up on this gender issue.

G. Do you think the woman telling this story has an agenda and is an objective narrator? While there are some sad stories of people who slip thru the cracks, that is not the case in the vast majority of cases.

My main objection is the demonetization of Wal-Mart.

This is a company which lowers the cost of living for huge numbers of lower income people. (It is expensive to be poor)

It provides jobs for thousands of people who might not otherwise be employed.

When Wal-Mart moves into an new area it requires existing small businesses to become customer centric, freshen up their stores and stock and provide better service and goods. Business owners unwilling to adapt fail. Others prosper under the challenge.

My last and final word.

George

>
> From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
> Date: 2004/01/28 Wed AM 06:11:41 GMT
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: Re: moral dilemma
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 res1dvao@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > Sounds like an "Urban Myth". Attys are paid by Workers Comp not
> > claimant. They don't use ladders, they use lifts. Many other problems
> > with this story. Do some serious fact checking.
>
> George, I don't need to do serious fact checking -- I spoke to two
> principals in the case, contact from Photowarehouse, and the woman
> herself. Was she inventing an "urban myth"? You wish..
>
> I think what you have to "seriously check" is your proclivity for denial.
> If you don't like it, it isn't true. If it's something ugly in the status
> quo, it's "urban myth."
>
> Captain Denial: Shazamm -- it's gone !
>
> As I recall, last week you were objecting to this "off topic" message.
> Since the attempt at censorship failed, you come back to EXTEND the topic,
> which I was in fact finished with. Now you want to *dismiss* the story
> ... again proving that "the eye sees what it came to see." But you
> fill in a point I'd forgotten.
>
> Assuming you're correct that "the lawyers are paid by workmen's comp" --
> that explains her dilemma better than my memory of an account (albeit a
> memorable one) several years ago. The lawyers were WORKING for workmen's
> comp, as were the doctors. Exactly her problem.
>
> The lawyer she needed was to fight them. They were denying the extent of
> her injury. Is that so very hard to grasp? As for the actual mechanism of
> her accident -- please, this story was told to me several years ago,
> possibly 3 sentences in a 2-hour conversation. She explained it, but
> those details, whatever they were, and whatever the arrangement in that
> particular warehouse, weren't the point of our conversation...
>
> My memory is that she did mention a ladder, but so what? I was not talking
> to a phantom. And the man from Photo Warehouse who suggested she call me,
> had no idea of the back story... Which of these folks was the urban myth ?
> (Tho of course I'm urban myth... Uppity Woman, hear me roar !)
>
> Meanwhile, you seem to know a good deal about the warehouse at Wal-Mart.
> Verrry interesting. (Do you work for them ? Are you a lawyer? ) What I
> also find... well, I'll use the word interesting again -- is your
> patronizing attitude. You say I need to do some serious fact checking.
> Actually, I don't.... But you need a serious attitude check.
>
> I haven't noticed you on this list before, so I don't know your style
> (except in the present case). But I'm trying to imagine you using that
> patronizing tone, and just those words, to a man....
>
> And failing.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
Received on Wed Jan 28 10:52:17 2004