tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20155610.post5641449340466985250..comments2024-03-06T02:46:19.929+00:00Comments on Translation Tribulations: thebogword stands for tradition! Like droit du seigneur.Kevin Lossnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14727800526216764023noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20155610.post-13693629373883383972017-02-27T18:26:22.048+00:002017-02-27T18:26:22.048+00:00A terrible company to work for in so many ways. A terrible company to work for in so many ways. Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02452672541808804567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20155610.post-38849693472853926072017-02-27T18:25:43.271+00:002017-02-27T18:25:43.271+00:00A terrible companyA terrible companyUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02452672541808804567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20155610.post-16806016807748673442014-03-22T16:48:31.048+00:002014-03-22T16:48:31.048+00:00I'm not not sure if this is just another scare...I'm not not sure if this is just another scare tactic or if they have pursed legal advice to make sure that this ridiculous clause is enforceable in their jurisdiction, but even if it is I find it hard to believe that will invest time and resources in prosecuting individuals - especially outside of the UK - for such a breach. By doing so they stand to lose more then they could gain.<br />Still, no self respecting person should ever sign such a clause if only because an organization that found appropriate to include such a clause in their (already abusive) contract actually tells one all that one has to know about the expected quality of that business relationship.<br /><br />This is not only a sign of weakness, but to me also a sign of an alleged panic. Those Pig Turds have initiated and promoted the race to the bottom, partly with their locust-like behavior. Now they should be left to deal with the consequences, one of which is the bad PR this clause miserably attempts to artificially mitigate (and will fail).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01282909295316996770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20155610.post-75436638015769652742014-03-18T20:47:01.194+00:002014-03-18T20:47:01.194+00:00Well, of course one can enter into a contract limi...Well, of course one can enter into a contract limiting speech, Kevin, and it often makes perfect sense to do so. But it's hard to imagine a greater absurdity in this particular sector or such a clear indication of weakness. But it would be quite interesting to test these provisions in a dispute given that asymmetry in the power relationship between contracting parties is in fact significant in some jurisdictions. Organizations like The Turd deserve to land on the scrap heap of business history, and I hope some day you and I can toast their insolvency with some good meat and conversation.Kevin Lossnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14727800526216764023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20155610.post-48751629645642244412014-03-18T20:39:40.245+00:002014-03-18T20:39:40.245+00:00This one is always misunderstood.
The proscriptio...This one is always misunderstood.<br /><br />The proscription on abridging freedom of speech applies to the U.S. government and its constraint on speech. That's why it starts out with the words, "Congress shall make no law..."<br /><br />People, on the other hand, as well as "persons," which includes corporations, enter into contracts limiting speech all the time. That's why all those confidentiality clauses are legal, why out-of-court settlements prohibiting the discussion of terms are legal and why you can agree to never speak of certain subjects ever, for the rest of your natural life (divorce and security clearances). :)<br /><br />Now of course there are matters of contract law that apply, and usually those address issues of due consideration as well as other factors and that's the reason for that no available remedy clause. I'm not familiar with UK law on this topic, but it doesn't (appear) to be outside the boundaries of what's commonly encountered.<br /><br />But I do agree that the degree to which any entity attempts to control discussion about them through contract law is reflective of their inability to control or influence or direct those same unfavorable discussions. It's a sign of weakness. And just like the Streisand effect, the attempt to control bad news actually has the unintended effect of publicizing it -- like it is right here!<br /><br />Kevin Hendzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13134174901029466746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20155610.post-61180794961547966942014-03-17T10:52:00.474+00:002014-03-17T10:52:00.474+00:00Don't they have laws protecting freedom of spe...Don't they have laws protecting freedom of speech in England?<br /><br />Would a contract abridging freedom of speech of one party be enforceable in court?<br /><br />In any case, they are in trouble now. Once thousands of people start laughing at the interesting alternative spellings of their dumb name, which are so incredibly fitting, the laughter will resonate for as long as they keep using the dumb name.<br /><br />The fault is clearly with the person who came up with the name and with the consequent dirty practices of the greedy company.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com