Problem at work, need some quick advice....

goonarmy

ValHaller wrote: »

Obviously your understanding of logic and proof is flawed.

Continuous repetition of Southend's statement does not prove that I have not read the original post.

Repetition does not push validity beyond 100%. But bear in mind I repeat it because it is 100% valid, not in order to make it valid.

The argument has already been made, but it seems that you have not read it.

Now, once more

A) unwanted touching is always unacceptable
OPs views on "inferior" people seem to indicate he has a poor attitude towards some coworkers.

Just because may be the case that doesn't mean A) is invalidated.

It does not come clearer than that

You may have perused the op first post but not digested it. This is shown by your lack of understanding of the issue. That being the op and his attitude to co workers.

RichardD1970

goonarmy wrote: »

Poor use of English there. I think you are asking is it ok (should be capitals) for the co-worker (missing space) (not supervisor, READ THE POSTS) to pat the op like a dog. Yes i (capital) do. As it hasnt (poor grammar HASN'T) been made clear that this is unacceptable. And (poor grammar, sentances shouldn't start with And) the coworkers (missing hyphen CO-WORKERS) and op's boss has been seen doing it with a positive response from the op. Therefore it is acceptable until told other wise.
Also the op's opinion on acceptability is skewed. If he said unacceptable cos (no such word in this context, take it you mean because, lazy) he's black this woukd (simple typo but careless) be a different thread entirely. And (poor grammar, sentances shouldn't start with And) yet its (it's or it is) only the breif (spelling) account of the coworker (see above) and his "body language" from the op that we can judge.
So in conclusion; the issue lies with the op. Have you seen the first post?????

Strider590 wrote: »

Long story short, i've moved temporarily to a different dept, one "supervised" by someone who really shouldn't even be in the dept.


He's knows what he's doing

So he knows it is unacceptable but is trying to play mind games.

I suggest YOU read the thread :rotfl:

PS before you pick on peoples use of English I suggest you proof read your own posts first.

ValHaller

goonarmy wrote: »

You may have perused the op first post but not digested it. This is shown by your lack of understanding of the issue. That being the op and his attitude to co workers.

It is not a lack of understanding on my part. It is a refusal to kowtow to your take on it. OP has been told how to deal with his colleague, but the fact that he had not said anything to hs colleague does not make unwanted touching acceptable.

A) unwanted touching is always unacceptable
OPs views on "inferior" people seem to indicate he has a poor attitude towards some coworkers.

Just because may be the case that doesn't mean A) is invalidated.

It does not come clearer than that

goonarmy

RichardD1970 wrote: »

So he knows it is unacceptable but is trying to play mind games.

I suggest YOU read the thread :rotfl:

PS before you pick on peoples use of English I suggest you proof read your own posts first.

But mines already proven to be of a poor standard. I thought that was the done thing. Ps; PS should be written Ps or P.S...:p
He nows what he is doing. Lets look at that. Does he consciously place hands? Possibly but in the replies above we have a poster who describes them selves as tactile who confesses doing it, whilst unaware. So maybe he is doing it on purpose but to what end? Its not a sexual thing. The op does think it some sort of dominace thing but he cannot be relied on given his sate of mind. Also he moving of stuff on a desk. Wierd.maybe its edwina the cleaner. Maybe its the co worker but again, whats the benefit? I dont really see one. But just cos your paranoid and think everyones out to get you, doesnt mean theyre not.....

goonarmy

ValHaller wrote: »

It is not a lack of understanding on my part. It is a refusal to kowtow to your take on it. OP has been told how to deal with his colleague, but the fact that he had not said anything to hs colleague does not make unwanted touching acceptable.

A) unwanted touching is always unacceptable
OPs views on "inferior" people seem to indicate he has a poor attitude towards some coworkers.

Just because may be the case that doesn't mean A) is invalidated.

It does not come clearer than that

Kowtow is something to do with chinese culture according to google...please clarify.
And in repsonse to your post: no. The fault lies with the op. Due to its unclear nature, it certainly can come clearer then that:eek:

RichardD1970

goonarmy wrote: »

Ps; PS should be written Ps or P.S...:p

Wrong again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postscript

Interesting discussion about it here

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2011917

RichardD1970

goonarmy wrote: »

Kowtow is something to do with chinese culture according to google...please clarify.

kow·tow (kou-tou, koutou)
intr.v. kow·towed, kow·tow·ing, kow·tows
1. To kneel and touch the forehead to the ground in expression of deep respect, worship, or submission, as formerly done in China.
2. To show servile deference. See Synonyms at fawn1.
n.
1. The act of kneeling and touching the forehead to the ground.
2. An obsequious act.

ValHaller

goonarmy wrote: »

The fault lies with the op.

Whose fault it is is irrelevant.

A) unwanted touching is always unacceptable
OPs views on "inferior" people seem to indicate he has a poor attitude towards some coworkers.

Just because may be the case that doesn't mean A) is invalidated.

It does not come clearer than that

Southend1

ValHaller wrote: »

Whose fault it is is irrelevant.

A) unwanted touching is always unacceptable
OPs views on "inferior" people seem to indicate he has a poor attitude towards some coworkers.

Just because may be the case that doesn't mean A) is invalidated.

It does not come clearer than that

Val, you should put that as your signature to save copying and pasting each time :rotfl:

Twopints

goonarmy wrote: »

Poor use of English there. I think you are asking is it ok for the co-worker(not supervisor, READ THE POSTS) to pat the op like a dog. Yes i do. As it hasnt been made clear that this is unacceptable. And the coworkers and op's boss has been seen doing it with a positive response from the op. Therefore it is acceptable until told other wise.
Also the op's opinion on acceptability is skewed. If he said unacceptable cos he's black this woukd be a different thread entirely. And yet its only the breif account of the coworker and his "body language" from the op that we can judge.
So in conclusion; the issue lies with the op. Have you seen the first post?????

Just to check my understanding, as it hasn't been made clear that the touching is unacceptable, it is therefore acceptable?

Then, equally, it hasn't been made clear that the touching is acceptable, therefore it is unacceptable until told otherwise.

HTH. :A