TOTALLY GEEKED!

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

If ESPN does not fire her, they are condoning her behavior, IMHO.

She is such a biotch.

---

Why then shouldn't the tow company employee get fired? Why is she not a "biotch" for doing essentially the SAME THING? 

---

 It's a crappily run tow company...nowhere near as important as ESPN.

flan

---

So what?  You are saying bad behavior is justified in one case but not another?  That's BS.   

If you ARE ugly you are somehow allowed to BE ugly?

Only pretty people with good jobs should be nice?

just Czech wrote:

---

Did I miss a newer tape of that incident? Because what I saw was the ESPN person being a biotch.

---

The tow truck company admitted that the tape was highly edited and that their employee gave as good as she got.   

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

Did I miss a newer tape of that incident? Because what I saw was the ESPN person being a biotch.

---

The tow truck company admitted that the tape was highly edited and that their employee gave as good as she got.   

---

 Once the employee TOLD Miss Thang that she was being filmed, she could have SHUT HER MOUTH.

flan

---

????

So could have the employee.

Why the double standard? 

It think it's more incumbent on the business employee to keep their cool than it is on the customer.   

just Czech wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

Did I miss a newer tape of that incident? Because what I saw was the ESPN person being a biotch.

---

The tow truck company admitted that the tape was highly edited and that their employee gave as good as she got.   

---

 Once the employee TOLD Miss Thang that she was being filmed, she could have SHUT HER MOUTH.

flan

---

 Yeah, she chose to continue to engage. Still a biotch, IMHO.

---

So did the employee--she is must as much of a "biotch" as the reporter.   

flan327 wrote:

---

husker, I'm at work and forgot to watch the clip yesterday. What did the tow truck employee say?

flan

---

They didn't release that.  They said that the employee provoked the incident, that the tape was highly edited and showed only one side of the story, and that the employee basically gave as good as she got. 

just Czech wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

husker, I'm at work and forgot to watch the clip yesterday. What did the tow truck employee say?

flan

---

They didn't release that.  They said that the employee provoked the incident, that the tape was highly edited and showed only one side of the story, and that the employee basically gave as good as she got. 

---

The question is: Who started the biotch fest? And why did Brit continue to engage? She could have chosen to NOT engage, but she didn't. She has no more of an excuse then the tow company worker. IMHO, they are both biotchs, only one is a public figure, the other is not. 

I would really like to see the unedited version of the video.

---

 And THAT makes all the difference.

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

husker, I'm at work and forgot to watch the clip yesterday. What did the tow truck employee say?

flan

---

They didn't release that.  They said that the employee provoked the incident, that the tape was highly edited and showed only one side of the story, and that the employee basically gave as good as she got. 

---

The question is: Who started the biotch fest? And why did Brit continue to engage? She could have chosen to NOT engage, but she didn't. She has no more of an excuse then the tow company worker. IMHO, they are both biotchs, only one is a public figure, the other is not. 

I would really like to see the unedited version of the video.

---

 And THAT makes all the difference.

flan

 

---

So, if you aren't in the public eye that gives you license to be an assh0le all the time.  Ok.

That's a BS double standard. 

I'm not defending what the reporter said--but there are two sides to this.  You seem to think that what the employee did was perfectly ok.  That's BS. It's no more "ok" than what the reporter did.  

---

I am not 100% sure of what the employee did, apparently you are.

They are both wrong, IMHO, BUT, the public figure did NOT need to add fuel to the fire. Since she is so damn educated you know. 

---

 This.  And until the towing company releases the WHOLE tape we can only go on what we have now.  I'd like to see the whole tape.  No one has shown it yet.  And like Czech says, if this woman is so much better than the towing company employee she sure didn't show it.

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

---

---

I am not 100% sure of what the employee did, apparently you are.

They are both wrong, IMHO, BUT, the public figure did NOT need to add fuel to the fire. Since she is so damn educated you know. 

---

 This.  And until the towing company releases the WHOLE tape we can only go on what we have now.  I'd like to see the whole tape.  No one has shown it yet.  And like Czech says, if this woman is so much better than the towing company employee she sure didn't show it.

---

No. No one has shown it--so you are only getting one side, yet you are perfectly willing to pass judgment with only 1/2 of the information, or less.   

huskerbb wrote:

---

Apparently, the standard on here for most posters is that if you are pretty, have a good job, and have an education--you have to be nice all the time.

If you are ugly, have a crappy job, and don't have an education--then it's fine to be a jerk all the time.

---

Hmm... are you relating to one of those concepts?  

just Czech wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Apparently, the standard on here for most posters is that if you are pretty, have a good job, and have an education--you have to be nice all the time.

If you are ugly, have a crappy job, and don't have an education--then it's fine to be a jerk all the time.

---

Hmm... are you relating to one of those concepts?  

---

I don't see how. 

I don't fit either profile. 

I'm not pretty, but I have a good job and and education.  But I'm nice all the time.   

huskerbb wrote:

---

Here's how a tow company works:

Fletcher: You scratched my car!

Motorpool Guy: Where?

Fletcher: [indicating with his hands] Right there!

Motorpool Guy: OH... That was already there.

Fletcher: You - -LIAR! You know what I am going to do about this?

Motorpool Guy: what?

Fletcher: Nothing! Because if I take it to small claims court, it will just drain 8 hours out of my life and you probably won't show up and even if I got the judgment you'd just stiff me anyway; so what I am going to do is piss and moan like an impotent jerk, and then bend over and take it up the tailpipe!

Motorpool Guy: [tossing the keys to Fletcher] You've been here before haven't ya?

---

That's actually funny!  

just Czech wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

One person spewing garbage does not entitle the other person to do the same, IMHO.

---

Of course not--but it works BOTH ways.  

---

My question is; who should have been the bigger person?  

---

I don't see how either of them would have a larger responsibility in that arena.  If I had to pick, I'd say the employee had the greater responsibility to be the bigger person since that is their job to deal with the "customers"--and most customers at a tow company aren't going to be in a good mood. 

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

---

I didn't say that. In your mind you must think she should have. How about one or both keeping their traps shut in the first place. 

---

 I agree.  They both should have kept their mouths shut.  And yes, I'm perfectly fine judging on the information I have provided.  If someone else can provide more information then I will revisit my decision.  Until then my opinion stands.  We do this all the time anyway, btw.  We judge people constantly by the information we have.  Look at all the Prudie letters we talk about.  We have only one side and we judge.

Personally, I live by the view that I can't control other people.  I can only control myself and how I respond or react to them.  I can choose to take the high road or I can choose to lower myself to their standards.  Either way I am not in control of their behavior. 

I will repeat.  I don't care what the employee said.  IF she said things that were just as bad, AND they can prove it, it only means that both women acted like poor white trash.  It doesn't excuse the reporters behavior. 

Let's assume that both women acted like idiots.  We're ASSUMING now.  If it were me, and it's not, I would fire the tow truck employee.  IF her behavior was that bad she doesn't need to work there.  And the reporter  needs to be fired too.  Yes, she does.  Just because you deal with a difficult person doesn't give you the right to act like a total azzhole back.  But their behavior needs to be dealt with independently.  This isn't a case where they are equals.  They need to be treated accordingly.

---

 But why wouldn't that mantra also apply to the tow company employee?  Why do you direct it at only ONE of them here?  Does the tow company employee have no mandate to control their actions?

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

---

I didn't say that. In your mind you must think she should have. How about one or both keeping their traps shut in the first place. 

---

 I agree.  They both should have kept their mouths shut.  And yes, I'm perfectly fine judging on the information I have provided.  If someone else can provide more information then I will revisit my decision.  Until then my opinion stands.  We do this all the time anyway, btw.  We judge people constantly by the information we have.  Look at all the Prudie letters we talk about.  We have only one side and we judge.

Personally, I live by the view that I can't control other people.  I can only control myself and how I respond or react to them.  I can choose to take the high road or I can choose to lower myself to their standards.  Either way I am not in control of their behavior. 

I will repeat.  I don't care what the employee said.  IF she said things that were just as bad, AND they can prove it, it only means that both women acted like poor white trash.  It doesn't excuse the reporters behavior. 

Let's assume that both women acted like idiots.  We're ASSUMING now.  If it were me, and it's not, I would fire the tow truck employee.  IF her behavior was that bad she doesn't need to work there.  And the reporter  needs to be fired too.  Yes, she does.  Just because you deal with a difficult person doesn't give you the right to act like a total azzhole back.  But their behavior needs to be dealt with independently.  This isn't a case where they are equals.  They need to be treated accordingly.

---

 Show me where I said it was directed at ONE of the two.  What the reporter said has been proven.  Show me a video of the tow employee being an azz and I'll say the same thing about HER.  I said that I, meaning ME PERSONALLY, am not responsible nor can I control other people's behavior.  I choose to take the high road.

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

---

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

---

I didn't say that. In your mind you must think she should have. How about one or both keeping their traps shut in the first place. 

---

 I agree.  They both should have kept their mouths shut.  And yes, I'm perfectly fine judging on the information I have provided.  If someone else can provide more information then I will revisit my decision.  Until then my opinion stands.  We do this all the time anyway, btw.  We judge people constantly by the information we have.  Look at all the Prudie letters we talk about.  We have only one side and we judge.

Personally, I live by the view that I can't control other people.  I can only control myself and how I respond or react to them.  I can choose to take the high road or I can choose to lower myself to their standards.  Either way I am not in control of their behavior. 

I will repeat.  I don't care what the employee said.  IF she said things that were just as bad, AND they can prove it, it only means that both women acted like poor white trash.  It doesn't excuse the reporters behavior. 

Let's assume that both women acted like idiots.  We're ASSUMING now.  If it were me, and it's not, I would fire the tow truck employee.  IF her behavior was that bad she doesn't need to work there.  And the reporter  needs to be fired too.  Yes, she does.  Just because you deal with a difficult person doesn't give you the right to act like a total azzhole back.  But their behavior needs to be dealt with independently.  This isn't a case where they are equals.  They need to be treated accordingly.

---

 Show me where I said it was directed at ONE of the two.  What the reporter said has been proven.  Show me a video of the tow employee being an azz and I'll say the same thing about HER.  I said that I, meaning ME PERSONALLY, am not responsible nor can I control other people's behavior.  I choose to take the high road.

---

The tow company has not released the entire video--but that doesn't mean they are lying when they say the employee gave as good as she got.  They are trying to protect themselves from a lawsuit.   

We HAVE that information--you just choose to ignore it because it isn't in the format you like. 

NAOW wrote:

---

I also think the tow company deserves some type of blow back for putting out the tape to begin with, but even more so for editing it in the way that they did.

---

 IF they edited it.  And it's their tape.  They can release it to anyone.  Just like recording someone on your phone. 

I say release the whole tape.

NAOW wrote:

---

I also think the tow company deserves some type of blow back for putting out the tape to begin with, but even more so for editing it in the way that they did.

---

The employee did the initial video release, not the company.  She shopped it around to several places.  

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

---

NAOW wrote:

---

I also think the tow company deserves some type of blow back for putting out the tape to begin with, but even more so for editing it in the way that they did.

---

 IF they edited it.  And it's their tape.  They can release it to anyone.  Just like recording someone on your phone. 

I say release the whole tape.

---

 I guess that is true, but if they were going to release it, it was really dishonest to edit it to show only one side. 

NAOW wrote:

---

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

---

NAOW wrote:

---

I also think the tow company deserves some type of blow back for putting out the tape to begin with, but even more so for editing it in the way that they did.

---

 IF they edited it.  And it's their tape.  They can release it to anyone.  Just like recording someone on your phone. 

I say release the whole tape.

---

 I guess that is true, but if they were going to release it, it was really dishonest to edit it to show only one side. 

---

 The company didn't do the initial release.  It was the employee.  They shopped it around to several places in order to get some cash for the video.

NAOW wrote:

---

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

---

NAOW wrote:

---

I also think the tow company deserves some type of blow back for putting out the tape to begin with, but even more so for editing it in the way that they did.

---

 IF they edited it.  And it's their tape.  They can release it to anyone.  Just like recording someone on your phone. 

I say release the whole tape.

---

 I guess that is true, but if they were going to release it, it was really dishonest to edit it to show only one side. 

---

 IF they edited it.  We only have people running around saying they edited it.  No proof.  And why would they edit it?  I'm not even sure what it would do for them.  JUST to discredit a reporter?  Were they going to blackmail her?  I mean what is the point of only showing part of it?  They got nothing out of it other than sympathy.  And they had to have known that all things come to light eventually.  If the employee really did talk the same way to the journalist why isn't the journalist coming out and saying something?