Rod Speed wrote:
==============
>
> > How do you know I wouldn't be able to prove the negative claims
> > about the employer.
>
> It is never possible to prove that, fuckwit.
>

** Certainly, it would be extremely difficult in most cases.

Employers that unfairly sack staffers always lie about it to authorities.
Other staff are intimidated into silence by seeing it happen.
Same goes for toxic work places, like most family businesses.

....... Phil

On 9/09/2022 4:41 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>> Max wrote
>>>>> Pete wrote
>
>>>>>> Anything that you say to anyone that harms the reputation of an
>>>>>> identifiable third person could be defamation.
>
>>>>>  If I think a former employer was incompetent or not good in some
>>>>> way, surely I can provide an honest opinion of this in a job
>>>>> interview?
>
>>>> Even opinions have to have some proper basis if they're not to
>>>> create a liability for defamation.
>
>>>> On a wider note, slagging off a former employer is rarely, if ever,
>>>> going to be a good look during a job interview, no matter how
>>>> justified.
>
>>> That's overstated if you need to provide a reason why
>>> you left or why they may give you are bad reference.
>
>> In my case I was being critical of an employer that was 10 year prior,
>> and I was never going to use them as a referee, since I could use
>> employers.
>
> Irrelevant to whether the interviewer could check with
> that previous employer, if it actually existed, Pinocchio.
>
>> I was just being honest about what I thought of that employer, because
>> they were totally incompetent and one of their main clients, who I had
>> to deal with, were highly critical of them to me.
>
> SURE they were, Pinocchio.
>

There's no point calling me Pinocchio.

I haven't lied about anything except for living in a tent in a park.

That was obviously a joke, since no one can do that without getting in
trouble from the council and being asked to move on.

You said I was lying about a person in my building running a cord from a
common power point into their unit.

How would I have been able to take this photo if I was lying?

https://imgur.com/a/mqexsbV

>>>> After all, a prospective employer might reasonably wonderwhat you'll
>>>> be  saying about them at some future time.
>
>>>  True, but it is more complicated than that.

On 9/09/2022 4:38 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Pete wrote
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Anything that you say to anyone that harms the reputation
>>>>>>>>>>> of an identifiable third person could be defamation.
>
>>>>>>>>>> If I think a former employer was incompetent or not good in
>>>>>>>>>> some way, surely I can provide an honest opinion of this in a
>>>>>>>>>> job interview?
>
>>>>>>>>>  But it is defamation if that opinion is not substantiatable.
>
>>>>>>>>>  And may still be even if the opinion is valid.
>
>>>>>>>> If that were the case, how would anyone give a bad reference
>>>>>>>> about  someone who was their employee or colleague?
>
>>>>>>>  I said MAY BE, not would be, fuckwit.
>
>>>>>>>  Truth isnt a complete defence against a defamation claim.
>
>>>>>> "In Victoria, truth (technically, ‘justification’) has always been
>>>>>> a complete defence to a defamation action."
>
>>>>>  We aren't talking about Victoria, fuckwit child.
>
>>>> There are now 'uniform' defamation laws across the country,
>
>>>  Wrong, as always.
>
>>  From that page above:
>
>> "Uniform defamation law now applies in Australia."
>
> Just because some fuckwit legal parasite claims something...
>
>>>> so Victoria  is the same as the rest of the country.
>
>>>  Wrong, as always.
>
>> See above.
>
> Just because some fuckwit legal parasite claims something...
>
>>>>> And even in Victoria, the defamer must PROVE that the
>>>>> claim is the truth and you wouldn't be able to do that
>>>>> with your pathetic excuse for a troll situation, fuckwit.
>
>>>> How do you know?
>
>>>  That shit you cited says that, fuckwit.
>
>> How do you know I wouldn't be able to provethat the negative claims
>> about the employer.
>
> It is never possible to prove that, fuckwit.
>
>>>> Maybe I could show that they know FA about their field
>
>>>  No chance.
>
>> Not hard given the company went into administration twice and then
>> finally liquidation.
>
> SURE it did, Pinocchio.
>
>>>> and have no qualifications in the area.
>
>>>  Don't need any, fuckwit.
>
>> Qualifications may not have been legally required in the field,
>
> Corse they werent with the EMPLOYER, fuckwit.
>
>> but I  can say thay are needed, since the vast majority of companies
>> and government organisations require such qualifications.
>
> Not of the EMPLOYER, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>

The people who owned the company were playing roles in the company which
in other places would be done by people with those qualifications.

In a company that is in a certain field, you would expect at least one
of the directors of that company to have a working knowledge of how to
do work in that field.

The company in question did not have the expertise in management to do
the work in the field.

Therefore I can make a fair criticism in that respect, and the
sustantiation would simply be to go through the CVs and qualifications
of those people.

>>>>>> https://fls.org.au/law-handbook/rights-activism-and-fair-treatment-at-work/defamation-and-your-rights/defences-to-defamation/
>>>>>>

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Max wrote
>>>>>> Pete wrote

>>>>>>> Anything that you say to anyone that harms the reputation of an
>>>>>>> identifiable third person could be defamation.

>>>>>> If I think a former employer was incompetent or not good in some
>>>>>> way, surely I can provide an honest opinion of this in a job
>>>>>> interview?

>>>>> Even opinions have to have some proper basis if they're not to
>>>>> create a liability for defamation.

>>>>> On a wider note, slagging off a former employer is rarely, if ever,
>>>>> going to be a good look during a job interview, no matter how
>>>>> justified.

>>>> That's overstated if you need to provide a reason why
>>>> you left or why they may give you are bad reference.

>>> In my case I was being critical of an employer that was 10 year prior,
>>> and I was never going to use them as a referee, since I could use
>>> employers.

>> Irrelevant to whether the interviewer could check with
>> that previous employer, if it actually existed, Pinocchio.

>>> I was just being honest about what I thought of that employer, because
>>> they were totally incompetent and one of their main clients, who I had
>>> to deal with, were highly critical of them to me.

>> SURE they were, Pinocchio.

> There's no point calling me Pinocchio.

I call a spade a spade and a pathological liar, Pinocchio.

> I haven't lied about anything except for living in a tent in a park.

Obvious lie, Pinocchio.

> That was obviously a joke, since no one can do that without getting in
> trouble from the council and being asked to move on.

> You said I was lying about a person in my building running a cord from a
> common power point into their unit.

Because you were, Pinocchio.

> How would I have been able to take this photo if I was lying?

You ran the extension cord to your own cess pit, Pinocchio.

> https://imgur.com/a/mqexsbV

>>>>> After all, a prospective employer might reasonably wonderwhat you'll
>>>>> be saying about them at some future time.

>>>> True, but it is more complicated than that.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Pete wrote
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything that you say to anyone that harms the reputation
>>>>>>>>>>>> of an identifiable third person could be defamation.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If I think a former employer was incompetent or not good in
>>>>>>>>>>> some way, surely I can provide an honest opinion of this in a
>>>>>>>>>>> job interview?
>>
>>>>>>>>>> But it is defamation if that opinion is not substantiatable.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> And may still be even if the opinion is valid.
>>
>>>>>>>>> If that were the case, how would anyone give a bad reference
>>>>>>>>> about someone who was their employee or colleague?
>>
>>>>>>>> I said MAY BE, not would be, fuckwit.
>>
>>>>>>>> Truth isnt a complete defence against a defamation claim.
>>
>>>>>>> "In Victoria, truth (technically, ‘justification’) has always been
>>>>>>> a complete defence to a defamation action."
>>
>>>>>> We aren't talking about Victoria, fuckwit child.
>>
>>>>> There are now 'uniform' defamation laws across the country,
>>
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>>> From that page above:
>>
>>> "Uniform defamation law now applies in Australia."
>> Just because some fuckwit legal parasite claims something...
>>
>>>>> so Victoria is the same as the rest of the country.
>>
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>>> See above.
>> Just because some fuckwit legal parasite claims something...
>>
>>>>>> And even in Victoria, the defamer must PROVE that the
>>>>>> claim is the truth and you wouldn't be able to do that
>>>>>> with your pathetic excuse for a troll situation, fuckwit.
>>
>>>>> How do you know?
>>
>>>> That shit you cited says that, fuckwit.
>>
>>> How do you know I wouldn't be able to provethat the negative claims
>>> about the employer.
>> It is never possible to prove that, fuckwit.
>>
>>>>> Maybe I could show that they know FA about their field
>>
>>>> No chance.
>>
>>> Not hard given the company went into administration twice and then
>>> finally liquidation.
>> SURE it did, Pinocchio.
>>
>>>>> and have no qualifications in the area.
>>
>>>> Don't need any, fuckwit.
>>
>>> Qualifications may not have been legally required in the field,
>> Corse they werent with the EMPLOYER, fuckwit.
>>
>>> but I can say thay are needed, since the vast majority of companies
>>> and government organisations require such qualifications.

>> Not of the EMPLOYER, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist..

> The people who owned the company were playing roles in the company which
> in other places would be done by people with those qualifications.

SURE they were, Pinocchio.

> In a company that is in a certain field, you would expect at least one
> of the directors of that company to have a working knowledge of how to
> do work in that field.

> The company in question did not have the expertise in management to do
> the work in the field.

SURE it did, Pinocchio.

> Therefore I can make a fair criticism in that respect, and the
> sustantiation would simply be to go through the CVs and qualifications
> of those people.

Wrong, as always, Pinocchio.

>>>>>>> https://fls.org.au/law-handbook/rights-activism-and-fair-treatment-at-work/defamation-and-your-rights/defences-to-defamation/

On 9/09/2022 7:07 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> Max wrote
>>>>>>> Pete wrote
>
>>>>>>>> Anything that you say to anyone that harms the reputation of an
>>>>>>>> identifiable third person could be defamation.
>
>>>>>>>  If I think a former employer was incompetent or not good in some
>>>>>>> way, surely I can provide an honest opinion of this in a job
>>>>>>> interview?
>
>>>>>> Even opinions have to have some proper basis if they're not to
>>>>>> create a liability for defamation.
>
>>>>>> On a wider note, slagging off a former employer is rarely, if
>>>>>> ever, going to be a good look during a job interview, no matter
>>>>>> how justified.
>
>>>>> That's overstated if you need to provide a reason why
>>>>> you left or why they may give you are bad reference.
>
>>>> In my case I was being critical of an employer that was 10 year
>>>> prior, and I was never going to use them as a referee, since I could
>>>> use employers.
>
>>> Irrelevant to whether the interviewer could check with
>>> that previous employer, if it actually existed, Pinocchio.
>
>>>> I was just being honest about what I thought of that employer,
>>>> because they were totally incompetent and one of their main clients,
>>>> who I had to deal with, were highly critical of them to me.
>
>>> SURE they were, Pinocchio.
>
>> There's no point calling me Pinocchio.
>
> I call a spade a spade and a pathological liar, Pinocchio.
>
>> I haven't lied about anything except for living in a tent in a park.
>
> Obvious lie, Pinocchio.
>
>> That was obviously a joke, since no one can do that without getting in
>> trouble from the council and being asked to move on.
>
>> You said I was lying about a person in my building running a cord from
>> a common power point into their unit.
>
> Because you were, Pinocchio.
>
>> How would I have been able to take this photo if I was lying?
>
> You ran the extension cord to your own cess pit, Pinocchio.
>

The only thing that is a cess pit is that company that I worked for.

And why would I need to run the extension cord to my unit?

>> https://imgur.com/a/mqexsbV
>
>>>>>> After all, a prospective employer might reasonably wonderwhat
>>>>>> you'll be  saying about them at some future time.
>
>>>>>  True, but it is more complicated than that.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> Max wrote
>>>>>>>> Pete wrote
>>
>>>>>>>>> Anything that you say to anyone that harms the reputation of an
>>>>>>>>> identifiable third person could be defamation.
>>
>>>>>>>> If I think a former employer was incompetent or not good in some
>>>>>>>> way, surely I can provide an honest opinion of this in a job
>>>>>>>> interview?
>>
>>>>>>> Even opinions have to have some proper basis if they're not to
>>>>>>> create a liability for defamation.
>>
>>>>>>> On a wider note, slagging off a former employer is rarely, if
>>>>>>> ever, going to be a good look during a job interview, no matter
>>>>>>> how justified.
>>
>>>>>> That's overstated if you need to provide a reason why
>>>>>> you left or why they may give you are bad reference.
>>
>>>>> In my case I was being critical of an employer that was 10 year
>>>>> prior, and I was never going to use them as a referee, since I could
>>>>> use employers.
>>
>>>> Irrelevant to whether the interviewer could check with
>>>> that previous employer, if it actually existed, Pinocchio.
>>
>>>>> I was just being honest about what I thought of that employer,
>>>>> because they were totally incompetent and one of their main clients,
>>>>> who I had to deal with, were highly critical of them to me.
>>
>>>> SURE they were, Pinocchio.
>>
>>> There's no point calling me Pinocchio.
>> I call a spade a spade and a pathological liar, Pinocchio.
>>
>>> I haven't lied about anything except for living in a tent in a park.
>> Obvious lie, Pinocchio.
>>
>>> That was obviously a joke, since no one can do that without getting in
>>> trouble from the council and being asked to move on.
>>
>>> You said I was lying about a person in my building running a cord from
>>> a common power point into their unit.
>> Because you were, Pinocchio.
>>
>>> How would I have been able to take this photo if I was lying?

>> You ran the extension cord to your own cess pit, Pinocchio.

> The only thing that is a cess pit is that company that I worked for.

You are the cess in your personal cess pit, stinking out the place.

> And why would I need to run the extension cord to my unit?

So you can troll here, fuckwit.

>>> https://imgur.com/a/mqexsbV

>>>>>>> After all, a prospective employer might reasonably wonderwhat
>>>>>>> you'll be saying about them at some future time.

>>>>>> True, but it is more complicated than that.

On 09-Sept-22 3:53 pm, Max wrote:
> On 9/09/2022 12:53 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 07-Sept-22 5:10 pm, Max wrote:
>>> On 7/09/2022 4:09 pm, Pete wrote:
>>>> Anything that you say to anyone that harms the reputation of an
>>>> identifiable third person could be defamation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If I think a former employer was incompetent or not good in some way,
>>> surely I can provide an honest opinion of this in a job interview?
>>
>> Even opinions have to have some proper basis if they're not to create
>> a liability for defamation.
>>
>> On a wider note, slagging off a former employer is rarely, if ever,
>> going to be a good look during a job interview, no matter how justified.
>>
>
> I think there has to be a reason why you left the job.
>
> If you were fired, then it may seem like sour grapes to slag off the
> employer, and then it wouldn't be a good look to do that.
>
> But if you resigned, as I did, then I thought it was OK to give fair
> criticism of the employer.
>
> In the interview in question, which happened 5-10 years ago, I
> criticised the former employer, but then I got the job in question, so
> it didn't work out too badly for me.
>

More likely you got the job despite what you said about your former
employer. Or you were fortunate enough that your new employer knew your
former one well enough to know that what you were saying was true.

You got away with it. Doesn't make it a good idea.

Sylvia.

On 10/09/2022 1:00 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>> Max wrote
>>>>>>>>> Pete wrote
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anything that you say to anyone that harms the reputation of
>>>>>>>>>> an identifiable third person could be defamation.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>  If I think a former employer was incompetent or not good in
>>>>>>>>> some way, surely I can provide an honest opinion of this in a
>>>>>>>>> job  interview?
>>>
>>>>>>>> Even opinions have to have some proper basis if they're not to
>>>>>>>> create a liability for defamation.
>>>
>>>>>>>> On a wider note, slagging off a former employer is rarely, if
>>>>>>>> ever, going to be a good look during a job interview, no matter
>>>>>>>> how justified.
>>>
>>>>>>> That's overstated if you need to provide a reason why
>>>>>>> you left or why they may give you are bad reference.
>>>
>>>>>> In my case I was being critical of an employer that was 10 year
>>>>>> prior, and I was never going to use them as a referee, since I
>>>>>> could use employers.
>>>
>>>>> Irrelevant to whether the interviewer could check with
>>>>> that previous employer, if it actually existed, Pinocchio.
>>>
>>>>>> I was just being honest about what I thought of that employer,
>>>>>> because they were totally incompetent and one of their main
>>>>>> clients, who I had to deal with, were highly critical of them to me.
>>>
>>>>> SURE they were, Pinocchio.
>>>
>>>> There's no point calling me Pinocchio.
>>>  I call a spade a spade and a pathological liar, Pinocchio.
>>>
>>>> I haven't lied about anything except for living in a tent in a park.
>>>  Obvious lie, Pinocchio.
>>>
>>>> That was obviously a joke, since no one can do that without getting
>>>> in trouble from the council and being asked to move on.
>>>
>>>> You said I was lying about a person in my building running a cord
>>>> from a common power point into their unit.
>>>  Because you were, Pinocchio.
>>>
>>>> How would I have been able to take this photo if I was lying?
>
>>>  You ran the extension cord to your own cess pit, Pinocchio.
>
>> The only thing that is a cess pit is that company that I worked for.
>
> You are the cess in your personal cess pit, stinking out the place.
>
>> And why would I need to run the extension cord to my unit?
>
> So you can troll here, fuckwit.
>

I am posting here now, and the date of that photo is early June.

So it's not possible that the strata would have allowed me to run the
cord into my unit for that long.

Therefore, it is not possible that I am running the cord in order to
post here. I must be getting electricity without doing that.

>>>> https://imgur.com/a/mqexsbV
>
>>>>>>>> After all, a prospective employer might reasonably wonderwhat
>>>>>>>> you'll be  saying about them at some future time.
>
>>>>>>>  True, but it is more complicated than that.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Max wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Pete wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Anything that you say to anyone that harms the reputation of
>>>>>>>>>>> an identifiable third person could be defamation.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If I think a former employer was incompetent or not good in
>>>>>>>>>> some way, surely I can provide an honest opinion of this in a
>>>>>>>>>> job interview?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even opinions have to have some proper basis if they're not to
>>>>>>>>> create a liability for defamation.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On a wider note, slagging off a former employer is rarely, if
>>>>>>>>> ever, going to be a good look during a job interview, no matter
>>>>>>>>> how justified.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's overstated if you need to provide a reason why
>>>>>>>> you left or why they may give you are bad reference.
>>>>
>>>>>>> In my case I was being critical of an employer that was 10 year
>>>>>>> prior, and I was never going to use them as a referee, since I
>>>>>>> could use employers.
>>>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant to whether the interviewer could check with
>>>>>> that previous employer, if it actually existed, Pinocchio.
>>>>
>>>>>>> I was just being honest about what I thought of that employer,
>>>>>>> because they were totally incompetent and one of their main
>>>>>>> clients, who I had to deal with, were highly critical of them to
>>>>>>> me.
>>>>
>>>>>> SURE they were, Pinocchio.
>>>>
>>>>> There's no point calling me Pinocchio.
>>>> I call a spade a spade and a pathological liar, Pinocchio.
>>>>
>>>>> I haven't lied about anything except for living in a tent in a park.
>>>> Obvious lie, Pinocchio.
>>>>
>>>>> That was obviously a joke, since no one can do that without getting
>>>>> in trouble from the council and being asked to move on.
>>>>
>>>>> You said I was lying about a person in my building running a cord
>>>>> from a common power point into their unit.
>>>> Because you were, Pinocchio.
>>>>
>>>>> How would I have been able to take this photo if I was lying?
>>
>>>> You ran the extension cord to your own cess pit, Pinocchio.
>>
>>> The only thing that is a cess pit is that company that I worked for.
>> You are the cess in your personal cess pit, stinking out the place.
>>
>>> And why would I need to run the extension cord to my unit?

>> So you can troll here, fuckwit.

> I am posting here now, and the date of that photo is early June.

Easy to change the date, fuckwit.

> So it's not possible that the strata would have allowedme to run the
> cord into my unit for that long.

Wrong, as always, particularly if it isnt drawing any power.

> Therefore, it is not possible that I am running the cord in order to
> post here.

No one ever said you were getting the power to post it
using that cord, fuckwit. You just had a photo to troll with.

> I must be getting electricity without doing that.

You quite sure you aren't one of those rocket scientist drunken
drug crazed pathetic excuses for a lying troll, Pinocchio ?

>>>>> https://imgur.com/a/mqexsbV
>>
>>>>>>>>> After all, a prospective employer might reasonably wonderwhat
>>>>>>>>> you'll be saying about them at some future time.
>>
>>>>>>>> True, but it is more complicated than that.

On 14/09/2022 12:57 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Max wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Pete wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything that you say to anyone that harms the reputation of
>>>>>>>>>>>> an identifiable third person could be defamation.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  If I think a former employer was incompetent or not good in
>>>>>>>>>>> some way, surely I can provide an honest opinion of this in a
>>>>>>>>>>> job  interview?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even opinions have to have some proper basis if they're not to
>>>>>>>>>> create a liability for defamation.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On a wider note, slagging off a former employer is rarely, if
>>>>>>>>>> ever, going to be a good look during a job interview, no
>>>>>>>>>> matter how justified.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's overstated if you need to provide a reason why
>>>>>>>>> you left or why they may give you are bad reference.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In my case I was being critical of an employer that was 10 year
>>>>>>>> prior, and I was never going to use them as a referee, since I
>>>>>>>> could use employers.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Irrelevant to whether the interviewer could check with
>>>>>>> that previous employer, if it actually existed, Pinocchio.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was just being honest about what I thought of that employer,
>>>>>>>> because they were totally incompetent and one of their main
>>>>>>>> clients, who I had to deal with, were highly critical of them to
>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> SURE they were, Pinocchio.
>>>>>
>>>>>> There's no point calling me Pinocchio.
>>>>>  I call a spade a spade and a pathological liar, Pinocchio.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't lied about anything except for living in a tent in a park.
>>>>>  Obvious lie, Pinocchio.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That was obviously a joke, since no one can do that without
>>>>>> getting in trouble from the council and being asked to move on.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You said I was lying about a person in my building running a cord
>>>>>> from a common power point into their unit.
>>>>>  Because you were, Pinocchio.
>>>>>
>>>>>> How would I have been able to take this photo if I was lying?
>>>
>>>>>  You ran the extension cord to your own cess pit, Pinocchio.
>>>
>>>> The only thing that is a cess pit is that company that I worked for.
>>>  You are the cess in your personal cess pit, stinking out the place.
>>>
>>>> And why would I need to run the extension cord to my unit?
>
>>>  So you can troll here, fuckwit.
>
>> I am posting here now, and the date of that photo is early June.
>
> Easy to change the date, fuckwit.
>

It's not possible to change the date of a file in Windows, which is
where the file is.

>> So it's not possible that the strata would have allowedme to run the
>> cord into my unit for that long.
>
> Wrong, as always, particularly if it isnt drawing any power.
>

The strata would not be happy with a cord being plugged in if it weren't
for official strata operations such as cleaning.

>> Therefore, it is not possible that I am running the cord in order to
>> post here.
>
> No one ever said you were getting the power to post it
> using that cord, fuckwit. You just had a photo to troll with.
>

You are suggesting I set up the scene of the cord plugged in and running
into my unit, just so that I could post it here?

>> I must be getting electricity without doing that.
>
> You quite sure you aren't one of those rocket scientist drunken
> drug crazed pathetic excuses for a lying troll, Pinocchio ?
>
>>>>>> https://imgur.com/a/mqexsbV
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After all, a prospective employer might reasonably wonderwhat
>>>>>>>>>> you'll be  saying about them at some future time.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>  True, but it is more complicated than that.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Max wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pete wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything that you say to anyone that harms the reputation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an identifiable third person could be defamation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If I think a former employer was incompetent or not good in
>>>>>>>>>>>> some way, surely I can provide an honest opinion of this in a
>>>>>>>>>>>> job interview?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Even opinions have to have some proper basis if they're not to
>>>>>>>>>>> create a liability for defamation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On a wider note, slagging off a former employer is rarely, if
>>>>>>>>>>> ever, going to be a good look during a job interview, no
>>>>>>>>>>> matter how justified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's overstated if you need to provide a reason why
>>>>>>>>>> you left or why they may give you are bad reference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In my case I was being critical of an employer that was 10 year
>>>>>>>>> prior, and I was never going to use them as a referee, since I
>>>>>>>>> could use employers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to whether the interviewer could check with
>>>>>>>> that previous employer, if it actually existed, Pinocchio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was just being honest about what I thought of that employer,
>>>>>>>>> because they were totally incompetent and one of their main
>>>>>>>>> clients, who I had to deal with, were highly critical of them to
>>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SURE they were, Pinocchio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's no point calling me Pinocchio.
>>>>>> I call a spade a spade and a pathological liar, Pinocchio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I haven't lied about anything except for living in a tent in a
>>>>>>> park.
>>>>>> Obvious lie, Pinocchio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That was obviously a joke, since no one can do that without
>>>>>>> getting in trouble from the council and being asked to move on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You said I was lying about a person in my building running a cord
>>>>>>> from a common power point into their unit.
>>>>>> Because you were, Pinocchio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How would I have been able to take this photo if I was lying?
>>>>
>>>>>> You ran the extension cord to your own cess pit, Pinocchio.
>>>>
>>>>> The only thing that is a cess pit is that company that I worked for.
>>>> You are the cess in your personal cess pit, stinking out the place.
>>>>
>>>>> And why would I need to run the extension cord to my unit?
>>
>>>> So you can troll here, fuckwit.
>>
>>> I am posting here now, and the date of that photo is early June.

>> Easy to change the date, fuckwit.

> It's not possible to change the date of a file in Windows,

Wrong, as always.

> which is where the file is.

Obvious lie with the original, Pinocchio.

>>> So it's not possible that the strata would have allowedme to run the
>>> cord into my unit for that long.

>> Wrong, as always, particularly if it isnt drawing any power.

> The strata would not be happy with a cord being plugged in if it weren't
> for official strata operations such as cleaning.

Trivial to ensure that its only there for the photo take, fuckwit.

>>> Therefore, it is not possible that I am running the cord in order to
>>> post here.

>> No one ever said you were getting the power to post it
>> using that cord, fuckwit. You just had a photo to troll with.

> You are suggesting I set up the scene of the cord plugged in and running
> into my unit, just so that I could post it here?

Yep, that's the troll, Pinocchio.

>>> I must be getting electricity without doing that.
>> You quite sure you aren't one of those rocket scientist drunken
>> drug crazed pathetic excuses for a lying troll, Pinocchio ?
>>
>>>>>>> https://imgur.com/a/mqexsbV
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> After all, a prospective employer might reasonably wonderwhat
>>>>>>>>>>> you'll be saying about them at some future time.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> True, but it is more complicated than that.

On 14/09/2022 2:09 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Max wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pete wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything that you say to anyone that harms the reputation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an identifiable third person could be defamation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  If I think a former employer was incompetent or not good
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in some way, surely I can provide an honest opinion of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a job  interview?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Even opinions have to have some proper basis if they're not
>>>>>>>>>>>> to create a liability for defamation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On a wider note, slagging off a former employer is rarely,
>>>>>>>>>>>> if ever, going to be a good look during a job interview, no
>>>>>>>>>>>> matter how justified.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's overstated if you need to provide a reason why
>>>>>>>>>>> you left or why they may give you are bad reference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In my case I was being critical of an employer that was 10
>>>>>>>>>> year prior, and I was never going to use them as a referee,
>>>>>>>>>> since I could use employers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to whether the interviewer could check with
>>>>>>>>> that previous employer, if it actually existed, Pinocchio.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was just being honest about what I thought of that employer,
>>>>>>>>>> because they were totally incompetent and one of their main
>>>>>>>>>> clients, who I had to deal with, were highly critical of them
>>>>>>>>>> to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SURE they were, Pinocchio.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's no point calling me Pinocchio.
>>>>>>>  I call a spade a spade and a pathological liar, Pinocchio.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I haven't lied about anything except for living in a tent in a
>>>>>>>> park.
>>>>>>>  Obvious lie, Pinocchio.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That was obviously a joke, since no one can do that without
>>>>>>>> getting in trouble from the council and being asked to move on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You said I was lying about a person in my building running a
>>>>>>>> cord from a common power point into their unit.
>>>>>>>  Because you were, Pinocchio.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How would I have been able to take this photo if I was lying?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  You ran the extension cord to your own cess pit, Pinocchio.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only thing that is a cess pit is that company that I worked for.
>>>>>  You are the cess in your personal cess pit, stinking out the place.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And why would I need to run the extension cord to my unit?
>>>
>>>>>  So you can troll here, fuckwit.
>>>
>>>> I am posting here now, and the date of that photo is early June.
>
>>>  Easy to change the date, fuckwit.
>
>> It's not possible to change the date of a file in Windows,
>
> Wrong, as always.
>

You cannot do it in the standard Windows interface.

>> which is  where the file is.
>
> Obvious lie with the original, Pinocchio.
>

The original on my phone would be even earlier, dumbo.

>>>> So it's not possible that the strata would have allowedme to run
>>>> the  cord into my unit for that long.
>
>>>  Wrong, as always, particularly if it isnt drawing any power.
>
>> The strata would not be happy with a cord being plugged in if it
>> weren't for official strata operations such as cleaning.
>
> Trivial to ensure that its only there for the photo take, fuckwit.
>
>>>> Therefore, it is not possible that I am running the cord in order to
>>>> post here.
>
>>>  No one ever said you were getting the power to post it
>>> using that cord, fuckwit. You just had a photo to troll with.
>
>> You are suggesting I set up the scene of the cord plugged in and
>> running into my unit, just so that I could post it here?
>
> Yep, that's the troll, Pinocchio.
>
>>>> I must be getting electricity without doing that.
>>>  You quite sure you aren't one of those rocket scientist drunken
>>> drug crazed pathetic excuses for a lying troll, Pinocchio ?
>>>
>>>>>>>> https://imgur.com/a/mqexsbV
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, a prospective employer might reasonably
>>>>>>>>>>>> wonderwhat you'll be  saying about them at some future time.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  True, but it is more complicated than that.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Max wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pete wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything that you say to anyone that harms the reputation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an identifiable third person could be defamation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I think a former employer was incompetent or not good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in some way, surely I can provide an honest opinion of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a job interview?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even opinions have to have some proper basis if they're not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to create a liability for defamation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On a wider note, slagging off a former employer is rarely,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if ever, going to be a good look during a job interview, no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter how justified.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's overstated if you need to provide a reason why
>>>>>>>>>>>> you left or why they may give you are bad reference.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In my case I was being critical of an employer that was 10
>>>>>>>>>>> year prior, and I was never going to use them as a referee,
>>>>>>>>>>> since I could use employers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to whether the interviewer could check with
>>>>>>>>>> that previous employer, if it actually existed, Pinocchio.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I was just being honest about what I thought of that employer,
>>>>>>>>>>> because they were totally incompetent and one of their main
>>>>>>>>>>> clients, who I had to deal with, were highly critical of them
>>>>>>>>>>> to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SURE they were, Pinocchio.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's no point calling me Pinocchio.
>>>>>>>> I call a spade a spade and a pathological liar, Pinocchio.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I haven't lied about anything except for living in a tent in a
>>>>>>>>> park.
>>>>>>>> Obvious lie, Pinocchio.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That was obviously a joke, since no one can do that without
>>>>>>>>> getting in trouble from the council and being asked to move on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You said I was lying about a person in my building running a
>>>>>>>>> cord from a common power point into their unit.
>>>>>>>> Because you were, Pinocchio.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How would I have been able to take this photo if I was lying?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You ran the extension cord to your own cess pit, Pinocchio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only thing that is a cess pit is that company that I worked
>>>>>>> for.
>>>>>> You are the cess in your personal cess pit, stinking out the place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And why would I need to run the extension cord to my unit?
>>>>
>>>>>> So you can troll here, fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>>> I am posting here now, and the date of that photo is early June.
>>
>>>> Easy to change the date, fuckwit.
>>
>>> It's not possible to change the date of a file in Windows,

>> Wrong, as always.

> You cannot do it in the standard Windows interface.

Wrong, as always.

>>> which is where the file is.

>> Obvious lie with the original, Pinocchio.

> The original on my phone would be even earlier

Nope, dope.

>>>>> So it's not possible that the strata would have allowedme to run
>>>>> the cord into my unit for that long.
>>
>>>> Wrong, as always, particularly if it isnt drawing any power.
>>
>>> The strata would not be happy with a cord being plugged in if it
>>> weren't for official strata operations such as cleaning.
>> Trivial to ensure that its only there for the photo take, fuckwit.
>>
>>>>> Therefore, it is not possible that I am running the cord in order to
>>>>> post here.
>>
>>>> No one ever said you were getting the power to post it
>>>> using that cord, fuckwit. You just had a photo to troll with.
>>
>>> You are suggesting I set up the scene of the cord plugged in and
>>> running into my unit, just so that I could post it here?
>> Yep, that's the troll, Pinocchio.
>>
>>>>> I must be getting electricity without doing that.
>>>> You quite sure you aren't one of those rocket scientist drunken
>>>> drug crazed pathetic excuses for a lying troll, Pinocchio ?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://imgur.com/a/mqexsbV
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, a prospective employer might reasonably
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wonderwhat you'll be saying about them at some future time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True, but it is more complicated than that.