|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
06-14-2011, 05:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
It's not like Chapa was a starving journeyman. He was actually moderately successful. It just takes a little research to see that he made a decent living. His drug problem would have to be pretty severe in order to use a buzzer for income. We're talking about a $15,000/month habit. Dude wouldn't be able to stand doing that much yay.
What we're dealing with here is an uninformed blowhard know-it-all pontificating per usual. Just insult the monster. 
|
|
#2
06-14-2011, 06:07 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Just my 2 cent Summary and not piling on. Seems like Riot didn't read the article and just focused on the word Buzz. Instead of admiting the mistake and laughing it off she refused to admit she made a mistake and kept defending her original statement which is way out of context with the article. Dude, when you make a mistake own it otherwise it hurts your thread-cred on your other arguments.
|
|
#3
06-14-2011, 10:37 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I read the article. If you would bother to read my first comment, it was that I wish that drug testing covered reinstatements like this. Dude, you think it's silly, I could give a crap. You're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#4
06-14-2011, 06:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
well, see that's the thing. i don't think private companies should be able to test without probable cause either. as a condition of hiring, or if one was to institute a workmens comp claim-that's justifiable. random drug tests, such as where i work, would serve no purpose. it's a right to privacy issue. or illegal search/seizure. the problem is that many have become lackadaisical about their rights and don't feel free to speak up.
|
Hybrid Mode
