Piers Morgan Is A ........

[PosImpos]

Also, re: your resignation question, I'm not quite sure what the point of it is, though I as I've just explained I think it's probably irrelevant.  In your example, technically I would have gotten fired but in practical terms yes, I basically resigned, since I wasn't willing to keep working for the wage offered, and that's why I was let go.  

Employees are certainly not required to continue working at a job if they don't want to, or don't feel they're getting paid enough, but if the offered salary is the going rate in the industry -- even if it's been lowered due to the economy or whatever -- it seems to me they can't really claim that their employer wasn't giving them the opportunity to work.

I was just drawing an analogy to the situation. The rest of your justification is gobblygook, its not a practical resignation you're being fired for refusing a pay cut pure and simple.

You're attempting to tautology resignation and firing into the same fact because both refer to cessation of employment. They are still different things.

Well, in any case, I don't really see the point of your analogy and the question connected to it with the NBA lockout or the primary topic of the discussion at hand.

Suffice to say this is all land that's been walked over many times by myself and others on this forum.  Opinions on the lockout came down to who, if anyone, was acting reasonably; I am of the opinion that the players were acting unreasonably; not everyone agrees with me.  Whatever terminology we choose to use doesn't change much and isn't going to sway anybody's opinion on that central issue.

[Fafnir]

Also, re: your resignation question, I'm not quite sure what the point of it is, though I as I've just explained I think it's probably irrelevant.  In your example, technically I would have gotten fired but in practical terms yes, I basically resigned, since I wasn't willing to keep working for the wage offered, and that's why I was let go.  

Employees are certainly not required to continue working at a job if they don't want to, or don't feel they're getting paid enough, but if the offered salary is the going rate in the industry -- even if it's been lowered due to the economy or whatever -- it seems to me they can't really claim that their employer wasn't giving them the opportunity to work.

I was just drawing an analogy to the situation. The rest of your justification is gobblygook, its not a practical resignation you're being fired for refusing a pay cut pure and simple.

You're attempting to tautology resignation and firing into the same fact because both refer to cessation of employment. They are still different things.

Well, in any case, I don't really see the point of your analogy and the question connected to it with the NBA lockout or the primary topic of the discussion at hand.

Suffice to say this is all land that's been walked over many times by myself and others on this forum.  Opinions on the lockout came down to who, if anyone, was acting reasonably; I am of the opinion that the players were acting unreasonably; not everyone agrees with me.  Whatever terminology we choose to use doesn't change much and isn't going to sway anybody's opinion on that central issue.

It was relevant when you initially tried to justify the use of the word strike as being valid, but whatever its dead issue. I just hate to see such tortured logic all because the need to be right.

The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club has always been favorite of mine.

[PosImpos]

Also, re: your resignation question, I'm not quite sure what the point of it is, though I as I've just explained I think it's probably irrelevant.  In your example, technically I would have gotten fired but in practical terms yes, I basically resigned, since I wasn't willing to keep working for the wage offered, and that's why I was let go. 

Employees are certainly not required to continue working at a job if they don't want to, or don't feel they're getting paid enough, but if the offered salary is the going rate in the industry -- even if it's been lowered due to the economy or whatever -- it seems to me they can't really claim that their employer wasn't giving them the opportunity to work.

I was just drawing an analogy to the situation. The rest of your justification is gobblygook, its not a practical resignation you're being fired for refusing a pay cut pure and simple.

You're attempting to tautology resignation and firing into the same fact because both refer to cessation of employment. They are still different things.

Well, in any case, I don't really see the point of your analogy and the question connected to it with the NBA lockout or the primary topic of the discussion at hand.

Suffice to say this is all land that's been walked over many times by myself and others on this forum.  Opinions on the lockout came down to who, if anyone, was acting reasonably; I am of the opinion that the players were acting unreasonably; not everyone agrees with me.  Whatever terminology we choose to use doesn't change much and isn't going to sway anybody's opinion on that central issue.

It was relevant when you initially tried to justify the use of the word strike as being valid, but whatever its dead issue. I just hate to see such tortured logic all because the need to be right.

The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club has always been favorite of mine.

Using a term that is technically wrong (and clearly so, to anybody who is educated on the topic) is a valid way of setting up an argument, as it creates controversy.  It forces you to explain yourself.  That's all I'm saying Piers was doing.

As it pertains to the lockout, the point is that while technically it was a lockout and not a strike, a person arguing against the players' position / actions could frame it as a strike (the players refusing to accept an arguably reasonable offer to work).


I like that tautology club line.

[Fafnir]

Also, re: your resignation question, I'm not quite sure what the point of it is, though I as I've just explained I think it's probably irrelevant.  In your example, technically I would have gotten fired but in practical terms yes, I basically resigned, since I wasn't willing to keep working for the wage offered, and that's why I was let go.  

Employees are certainly not required to continue working at a job if they don't want to, or don't feel they're getting paid enough, but if the offered salary is the going rate in the industry -- even if it's been lowered due to the economy or whatever -- it seems to me they can't really claim that their employer wasn't giving them the opportunity to work.

I was just drawing an analogy to the situation. The rest of your justification is gobblygook, its not a practical resignation you're being fired for refusing a pay cut pure and simple.

You're attempting to tautology resignation and firing into the same fact because both refer to cessation of employment. They are still different things.

Well, in any case, I don't really see the point of your analogy and the question connected to it with the NBA lockout or the primary topic of the discussion at hand.

Suffice to say this is all land that's been walked over many times by myself and others on this forum.  Opinions on the lockout came down to who, if anyone, was acting reasonably; I am of the opinion that the players were acting unreasonably; not everyone agrees with me.  Whatever terminology we choose to use doesn't change much and isn't going to sway anybody's opinion on that central issue.

It was relevant when you initially tried to justify the use of the word strike as being valid, but whatever its dead issue. I just hate to see such tortured logic all because the need to be right.

The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club has always been favorite of mine.

Using a term that is technically wrong (and clearly so, to anybody who is educated on the topic) is a valid way of setting up an argument, as it creates controversy.  It forces you to explain yourself.  That's all I'm saying Piers was doing.

As it pertains to the lockout, the point is that while technically it was a lockout and not a strike, a person arguing against the players' position / actions could frame it as a strike (the players refusing to accept an arguably reasonable offer to work).

I'm just glad we're going to get basketball finally.

[Moranis]

I can see why somebody would want to view the lockout as a strike.   The owners made a reasonable offer to the players that the players refused.  The players didnt take a proactive role in the negotiations, especially publicly.  Very understandable that to the public at large it would seem that the players were just refusing to play.

Setting aside the highly subjective nature of "reasonable offer", that still isn't a strike.  

It smacks of partisan-style "attach a scare word to the thing I don't like, screw the actual definition" argument tactics.  There's enough of that in politics, it doesn't have to filter into entertainment too.

I'm aware that technically it was not a strike, and I'm sure Piers was, too.  My point is that from the perspective of the public it definitely could have seemed like a strike, and I think that's what Piers was choosing to stick on.

Especially when you have a cable new pundit flat out lying about what the work stoppage was.

It was a lockout not a strike, there isn't any wiggle room around that. The owners made a "reasonable" offer in your view, but that isn't releveant to what the situation was. It was a lockout. You can have both sides making reasonable offers during a strike or a lockout, that doesn't change what the work stoppage is rightfully called based on who stopped production. (workers = strike, owners/capital = lockout)

If your boss made a reasonable offer to cut your salary in an industry that's losing money, and when you refused you were fired could that be rightfully considered a resignation?

I can't see how anyone can say the owners made a reasonable offer when the final deal is much closer to the players original offer then that of the owners.  Sure at some point the owners became reasonable, but they certainly didn't start that way and they were the ones locking out the players.

[Eja117]

Boycott Piers Morgan? Well why didn't you say so? I can do that.

[PosImpos]

I'm just glad we're going to get basketball finally.

Now that's something we can both agree on wholeheartedly.

I can't see how anyone can say the owners made a reasonable offer when the final deal is much closer to the players original offer then that of the owners.

Was the final deal really closer to the player's original offer?  I was under the impression that the deal they ended up accepting was most like the proposal the players turned down before decertifying the union, with some concessions by the owners.

[guava_wrench]

If he had no idea what a lockout is and is a little dim-witted, I can understand the mistake.

If he is so ideologically driven that he tries to frame discussions in ways that make reasonable discussion impossible, than he is a tool. He might fit in congress with the other absolutist tools who don't know how to compromise.

I prefer discussions to propagandist obfuscation.

[Neurotic Guy]

I've watched a fair amount of Piers Morgan since LKs departure and I have no idea what his political leanings are or whether he has any political agenda. I would guess his agenda is to gain ratings through multiple strategies -- one of which is by being provocative with his guests. 

My guess is that Morgan's incorrect terminology, while wrong, probably doesn't change anyone's view of the conflict -- which is most simply described as 2 wealthy parties being unable/unwilling to agree on how to divide millions of dollars.  Simplistic, but I think that's how most people view it.   

I watch Piers, Nancy Grace, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, etc. with the expectation that they will grab any opportunity to provoke an emotional response from their guests and their audience.  I think I'd be foolish to expect otherwise.   

[PosImpos]

I watch Piers, Nancy Grace, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, etc. with the expectation that they will grab any opportunity to provoke an emotional response from their guests and their audience.  I think I'd be foolish to expect otherwise.   

Bingo.