If all I say is "he didn't fit into our company's corporate culture" the employee would somehow have to argue that there were other people who didn't fit in either who were not discharged. Since there's no possible way he could ever hope to prove such an allegation, how would he proceed?

I'd place my bets on someday being advanced enough to leave this planet. To suggest otherwise is to say it would never happen, and considering the amount of time that we will have to accomplish it, I consider that alternative to be less realistic than any so-called "sci-fi fantasy".

Your "known fact" is missing citations.

Civilizations have collapsed before, who are you to say that the humans in a hundred years will have the same level of technology and cheap energy we have now?

And who are you to say with any certainty that they won't be any better than they are now? I only suggest that it's at least as probable as not because in the timescales that are involved to make it genuinely unlikely, progress can still continue to happen.

Also, I'm not disputing that evolution is still happening, but I'd dare suggest that whatever kind of species that replaces us will still refer to themselves as human, and will refer to *US* as being some simpler life form.

No, you didn't... nor did you get it right the second time... and for that matter, I can't imagine you adding anything to what you've said above that would indicate you are ever liable to "get it"

I only suggest it because to suggest otherwise, which is that humanity will stay here until we are destroyed, is to project that certain extinction-level events will definitely strike our species before we can ever try. I'm only making the assumption that humanity will continue to make progress in the coming decades and centuries... which is less a statement of enthusiasm and more of an inevitability, barring something else happening here which hasn't been foreseen wiping us all out first. The latter is certainly possible, but there's also no reason to conclude that it's particularly likely... except over a very prolonged period, during which time human civilization can continue to advance technologically. So the notion of thinking that we'll get off of this rock before we're wiped out should be seen as at least as probable.

Yes... I noted lava-created caves as well in my followup comment, above. But the moon doesn't have volcanic activity, nor is there evidence that it ever did.

The next manned lunar landing will not be so much for scientific exploration there as much as to start laying the foundations for stepping further into space.

Darn... hit submit too soon. The instant I clicked it I realized I had neglected to mention caves formed by volcanic activity. I don't think the moon ever had that either, however.

I was unaware that there was any verification that caves even exist on the moon.

And considering the processes that form practically all natural caves here on earth (that I am aware of) involve moving water, or at least glacial movement, I'm not sure how anything like that would ever form on the moon.

Actually, they wouldn't have prove anything about the dismissal; they would have to prove your statement was not true and you should have known it was false.

Which, if I own a company and I say that I fired the employee because they didn't fit into my company's corporate culture, is not possible for anyone to do, since *I* would be the person that defines what my company's corporate culture is. In other words, they would have to allege that I had actually fired them for some other, completely different reason which I am not actually saying.

Take "not fitting in with corporate culture." While they may hold that viewpoint saying that about an employee is making a statement, purported to be factual, about the employee; a statement whose accuracy could be reasonably questioned.

Actually, it's making a statement about the compatibility of that employee with that company... nothing more, and nothing less. Maybe the employer is crappy, maybe the employee was.. the point being made is that whatever the root cause of the problem, they *WERE* ultimately incompatible with eachother. If they really were compatible then there wouldn't have been any reason to have fired the employee in the first place. If it went to court, it seems to me that the employee would therefore have to allege that there was actually some other reason which was *NOT* being stated as the actual reason for dismissal, which, as you pointed out, can't be successfully used as a basis for arguing defamation.

I'm saying that the entire concept of "verifying employment" is a whole lot of bullshit, however.... a patently obvious attempt to avoid being accused of saying something subjective that could end up turning against you in a lawsuit if what you said led to them not getting hired.... and of course, answering with dates of employment *IS* still saying something, so you could still end up a day in court.... you won't lose, but the risks on that end are the same with absolutely anything that you might tell them, and there can be plenty of things which can be said that are no less objective about an employee who was fired for being repeatedly late, for instance. such as the number of times they were late for work in a 4 week period, the number of times the employee had been spoken to about it (the notion that tardiness is unacceptable in the first place is usually implied, but will generally also be explicitly described in the employment contract that the employee signed in terms of what the employee's expected hours of work will be, and which could be produced in court, if matters came to that) and even how much time the employee was given to correct the behavior after the first warning before you decided to discharge them.

Further, just verifying dates of employment tells people absolutely nothing that the employee themselves could not have communicated to the employer on their resume or in an interview, and if a person doubts what the employee has communicated to such an extent that they should ever feel any need whatsoever to actually confirm it those dates, then they probably shouldn't be hiring that employee in the first place.

Finally, of course, there is about the single most subjective thing the employer can truthfully say, "the employee did not fit into our company's corporate culture". It's one heck of a lot more informative than just giving data that the employee themselves could have regurgitated, and I've actually heard this exact line from employers, by the way... I can see how it might lead to a defamation suit, but as I said... since the employee won't know beforehand exactly what was said, absolutely anything you might say could lead to such a suit, so how could saying that lead to losing a defamation lawsuit, exactly? The concept of "corporate culture" is invariably be a highly subjective thing, but if it is the company itself that is talking about its own corporate culture, then how is not entitled to be subjective about that ideal? It's something that actually *belongs* to the company, after all... No jurisdiction to my knowledge can ever tell a company that they aren't allowed to fire somebody for being late, for instance. p And then, of course, when using such language they aren't really saying anything subjective at all about the employee themselves... they are saying something that is objectively true about something that they are lawfully entitled to hold subjective views about, which is how much they liked what the person was doing. It answers the question, and best of all doesn't leave the impression that the former employer is afraid of legal recrimination when they haven't actually done anything that was wrong. And honestly, in such a case, the company's biggest mistake in that case was probably ever hiring the employee in the first place... and if the company is genuinely afraid of some sort of lawsuit, then saying *THAT* is probably the most honest thing they could probably say... because of course, if it actually led to any kind of lawsuit, then it would show that their fears or concerns were entirely justified, and they would have had every legitimate right to be regretful of ever having hired the person in the first place, no matter how arguably subjective such a concern may be.

My point is not that the employee would win; but that what you say and think is a fact may not be taken that way and thus references can be a real minefield and therefore many company's policy is to simply verify employment.

And my point is that simply verifying employment when asked a completely different question is going to open up exactly the same risks anyways... because the employee can argue that being asked about performance and responding only with dates of employment creates the stong implication that there may be something wrong with the employee, and that implication is certainly no less subjective than any other allegedly subjective claim.

So... you might as well just answer the question being asked, or at the very least, be explicit about *why* you won't answer the question... which again, can be entirely factual and objectively verifiable.

Did you read the attack vector? The problem isn't the technology, it's idiot admins that allow random users to install and execute code which can affect anyone else.