Unless it is a status email or email where the party I'm emailing knows the info has to go to the boss (as he may want say) I don't CC, but frankly over the years, I've done this when, frankly I _DON'T_ trust the person!
I've had more than one situation over the gasp 40 YEARS I've been working where you'd tell coworker X, and they would deny you did, and you'd have to jump through hoops to make your manager (and sometimes their manager) believe you
The problem is often solved by "CC:Their Manager, Your Manager"
Gee, you mean it makes the person say "CharlieG doesn't trust me" - well DUH.
I won't do it until the first time I'm under the bus because of you, but after that, I'm trying to not only cover MY ass, but also send the message "No, I DON'T trust you" - not only to you, but to my manager and YOUR manager that I no longer trust you.
BTW, there was also probably an email to my manager (in my case, my 'manager' is the CEO), and your manager about why they were being CC'd (aka how you threw me/the project under the bus) that YOU were not CC'd. When you get to the level I'm at, this is usually about a person who reports to a fellow manager, and the CC/BCC might even be going to the CEO/HR as part of a documentation trail
As historian W. Jelani Cobb notes, "The freedom to offend the powerful is not equivalent to the freedom to bully the relatively disempowered. The enlightenment principles that undergird free speech also prescribed that the natural limits of one's liberty lie at the precise point at which it begins to impose upon the liberty of another." There is no doubt that the speakers in question impose on the liberty of students, staff, and faculty at Wellesley. We are especially concerned with the impact of speakers' presentations on Wellesley students, who often feel the injury most acutely and invest time and energy in rebutting the speakers' arguments. Students object in order to affirm their humanity. This work is not optional; students feel they would be unable to carry out their responsibilities as students without standing up for themselves. Furthermore, we object to the notion that onlookers who are part of the faculty or administration are qualified to adjudicate the harm described by students, especially when so many students have come forward. When dozens of students tell us they are in distress as a result of a speaker's words, we must take these complaints at face value.
What is especially disturbing about this pattern of harm is that in many cases, the damage could have been avoided. The speakers who appeared on campus presented ideas that they had published, and those who hosted the speakers could certainly anticipate that these ideas would be painful to significant portions of the Wellesley community. Laura Kipnis's recent visit to Wellesley prompted students to respond to Kipnis's presentation with a video post on Facebook. Kipnis posted the video on her page, and professor Tom Cushman left a comment that publicly disparaged the students who produced the video.
Had a friend who had a pet, then upgraded to a CBM-8032. Sigh, which I could have afforded them, the best I could do was the Vic-20. I did spring the what, $300 or so for the 300 baud Commodore modem, and I forgot the name of the terminal software that used graphics to give you 64 columns. Allowed me to NOT use the keypunch machines in college, but to log in - they gave me a 'terminal account' because I had my own terminal - my account was locked that I could not use an on campus terminal
Commodore Vic-20, with the 5 K ram cart, and a modem - you do NOT want to know what this cost in 1980. I upgraded to the C64 when it came out. By then had two 1541 disk drives
"We're not campaigning any more. The election is over."
-- Barack Hussein Obama
"You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts"
-- Barack Hussein Obama
"Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won."
-- Barack Hussein Obama, three days after being inaugurated
Obama brought so much hope back to America that America voted for a Republican outsider to undo everything he did.
Goreans are, all too often, nutters who have taken the works of a science fiction author way too seriously. The term "Gorean" comes from the Chronicles of Gor series of novels by John Norman, set mostly (where else?) on the planet Gor. The society in the novels is a patriarchy in which women are enslaved and bought and sold as property (there are some male slaves as well, though they're rare). In fact, on the planet Gor, gravity itself seems to be sexist. Tarl Cabot, the Earth-born hero of the series, is described as having much greater strength on Gor, as his muscles developed to function under Earth's higher gravity. However, Earth women have no such experience and find themselves physically helpless before Gorean men.
Many Goreans simply use Norman's setting for the purposes of BDSM role-playing. However, vocal proponents of Gorean "philosophy" actually think the series is a good blueprint for society, which has led to the creation of Gorean sex cults. The Goreans justify the subjugation of women using a mixture of recycled eugenics (or dysgenics, to be more technically accurate) and Social Darwinism. In short, back when men were men and women were women, skull-cracking cavemen roamed the Earth who were better adapted for survival because of their superior combat skills and penchant for kidnapping women. This kept the riff-raff from reproducing until the advent of modernity, industrialization, and feminism.
A splinter group from the Goreans called the Kaotians, founded by Lee Thompson, was raided in May 2006. In 2008, Thompson was sentenced to three years in prison for forcing his girlfriend to have sex with a number of other men.
It is recognized that men, on the whole, tend to be the naturally more dominant, logical, larger and physically stronger of the human species and that women generally tend to be more submissive, nurturing, emotional, smaller and physically weaker. With that in mind, gender roles within the Gorean construct are that of men as the leaders and women as the followers, for the most part.
The majority of those who seem to fall outside the natural norms actually do not, but rather, have subscribed too long to societal teachings that encourage the stifling of natural behaviors and thinking in favor of simulated equality and have developed habits and views that suppress and circumvent our true natures.
Just have a look at the Wikipedia page for Goreanism to see the photo of the woman there. No wonder this philosophy is so repellent. Social Darwinism and eugenics are both totally discredited and deserve no platform, anywhere.
So, what you're saying is that Trump isn't Hitler any more? How'd this happen? Were you even around during the travel ban? What about right after the election, when ecstatic Trump supporters beat up Muslims and spraypainted swastikas everywhere? "Make America White Again", they said.
Just look at these images - come on, moving up from Hitler to easily replaced by an AI is a gargantuan upgrade. What's next, "I don't agree with him but he's not that bad"?
The most historical figure most commonly referred to as an analogue to Donald Trump is Adolf Hitler. Instead of dismissing the parallels, isn't it time that we confront them, and consider them seriously?
I did the same thing a few years ago. Mint was the best of both worlds: It had all the parts of Ubuntu that Just Worked, but it kept GNOME, and even let you choose between GNOME 2 (Mate) and GNOME 3 (Cinnamon). Gets the job done, and on my HTPC, the kids can't tell the difference.
Sometimes it goes the opposite direction: We'll offer you X if you resign, but that offer is only open for Y days, after which you may be lad off with no severance.
So then you have to decide whether the severance for resigning is a better deal than unemployment, which you'll only be eligible for if you are laid off.
Work is the crab grass in the lawn of life. -- Schulz