Insurance Terminatted

[Willlyjo]

OP:

Please ignore Willlyjo. He's a forum joke who usually has no idea what he's talking about. These days, he's actually correct once in a while--but only because he's finally starting to learn a thing or two from the posters who have always been qualified to give good advice here. His advice is dicey, at best, and I think the only reason he's still here is because he has a huge chip on his shoulder, and he has some kind of delusion about being a self-appointed hall monitor.

I usually don't even bother arguing with him anymore. The best remedy is to just warn posters of his lack of knowledge and move on.

In summary, take Willlyjo's advice and it's a crap shoot. Take the advise of respected posters, and you should be fine.

Delusional? Again like others who try to make the Ops believe I don't know what I talk about, you are delusional with your attack on me. You ignorants talk about proof...well why don't you point out specifics in my posts that make you think its a "crap shoot:" for an OP to listen to my response? Show proof of my lack of knowledge! Uh, huh...I thought so.

Also, I'm percieved as a forum joke by a bunch of members who are so jealous of my articulate and intelligent posts that they have to accuse me of stealing text from websites and "tweaking" it to sound legit. Such accusations (which are profoundly fabricated) are the best compliment of my abilities.

Trust me, I never learned anything from any Senior Member in this forum! For you to think so, Charlotte, is extremely inaccurate and delusional. Please stop grasping at straws to give yourself and others credit for my intelligence.

"Chip on my Shoulder" eh? Not me. I'm an extremely happy individual. I'm surrounded by love, have enjoyable hobbies and have a young beautiful wife who lets me do what I want (not on a leash like many I know of). What more could a guy like me want?

 

[Willlyjo]

Oh, I'm sure when any poster reads a response from you he or she very quickly makes their own judgment.

I didn't say that--you did! You see where your inaccuracy lies? Like I said, some posts are self-explanatory

 

[Willlyjo]

OP....

Willlyjo has won exactly one case. One.

He believes this makes him an expert in every aspect of the law. Forget that the other posters here have been consulted dozens or hundreds or thousands of times over their career ... that these are the people that actually learned and studied and have their personal compensation tied up in being consistently correct.

Willlyjo will never give you his credentials... because he has none. You can tell when this happens because he falls back upon the "response based on experience and opinion" stuff.

Do you want his opinion or expert advice? OP, you should decide carefully.

Well, well...I was wondering when you'd jump in Cyjeff. Actually, I never won the case, I settled out of court. Anyway, I didn't say I was an expert on any aspect of the law.

I only profess (please remember so you Senior Members don't have to continue to repeat yourselves and look stupid) that I have had experiences in my life which may benefit an occassional Op who has had the same type of experience.

And I give my opinion when I believe I should (like all other members of this forum). As you know, opinions are acceptable in this forum as well as experience based responses appropriate to the Op's thread.

I am not a lawyer (although I'm more intelligent with more common sense than some lawyers) or a CEO of some big company, nor have I held any positions in HR where I consulted on major company policies or insurance issues. I am just a citizen of the United States who has had experiences in life in which the wisdom gained through those experiences can cause enough "food for thought" in response to some OP's posts to be beneficial to him/her. That's all.

It is irrelevant whether other posters in this forum have been consulted with a hundred thousand times over the course of their careers. They can still be ignorant, inaccurate and wrong whereas someone without such vast experience can be on occassion more accurate, less ignorant and right.

Also, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that sometimes experience trumps credentials. For instance, though I'm not a lawyer, I've brought to the attention of one particular lawyer his lack of being aware that a stipulation should have a clause showing settlement amount should be for "Pain and Suffering" and therefore, not taxable.

This lawyer, with all his credentials and years of experience would have caused a tax liability on the settlement amount if I (with my lack of credentials) wouldn't have made him aware of it. This is one of quite a few examples through my experiences.

Agreed Cyjeff, I don't have credentials and never said I did have them. Do I have common sense? Yes. Does it show? Yes. Do some statements or posts speak for themselves without need of case citings or proof? Yes, otherwise they wouldn't show on its face the point conveyed.

Does the OP want my opinion or advice (never said I was an expert)? It is up to the Op to carefully decide, not for you Senior Members to try and look intelligent by degrading my posts.

This all goes without saying. But face it, I'm going to keep doing what I do despite the delusional, condensending and irrational objections (they really don't make sense) until I decide not to.

As you know (and let this guide you), if I'm out of line, the moderators will delete and/or bann me like they did before. The fact I'm still here posting is an indication I am within the boundaries set forth in the guidelines of this forum which is that I can give opinions, responses based on appropriate experiences and not get offensive with anyone.

Any time I'm attacked with verbal barrage like I have been, I will respond like I have. Sometimes, my responses get deleted like a few of you other members. But all in all I'd say I'm fair in what I post and say, unlike others that is plain to see because it really does speak for itself-it really is self-explanatory!!

 

[quincy]

Willlyjo, while on the whole I think the above post by you (post #33) is probably one of the best you have written (although it would have benefitted from spell-check and the elimination of your last two exclamation points ), I did want to make a correction to a statement you made in your Post #31.

You said that some forum members here "are so jealous of [your] articulate and intelligent posts that they have to accuse [you] of stealing text from websites..." The fact of the matter is that what you wrote in the BossIsEvil thread could easily be seen as plagiarism (which can also put you at risk of a copyright infringement suit).

The evidence?

You wrote: "Retirement programs like 401(k) can help create an implied contract of employment because they help imply the employee will be around long enough to participate and get the benefit of such a program."

From Carney Shegarian: "Retirement programs, 401k programs, and the like can help to create implied employment contracts, because they help imply that the employee is expected to be around long enough to participate in them or get their benefit." (shegarianlaw.com/practice-areas/implied-and-oral-contracts)

You wrote: "Finally, the smart employer (and there are many at this stage) will make sure their new employees sign a document acknowledging at-will status."

From Tom Reilly, employment attorney: "As a result, diligent employers made sure their employees signed written at-will employment agreements..." (sbonline.com/Local/Article/9940/77/75/Dore_v_Arnold_Worldwide_Inc.aspx)

You wrote: "An agreement that the employer will not terminate an employee except for "just cause" is a key description of any contract whether written, oral or implied."

From Carney Shegarian: "An agreement that the employer won't fire the employee without "good cause" is the basic term of any contract whether written, oral or implied." (shegarianlaw.com/practice-areas/implied-and-oral-contracts)

You wrote: "An implied contract can be established by a combination of the following factors: length of service, progressive discipline policy and employment benefit programs."

From David H. Greenburg: "How the Implied Contract is Created. 1. Length of Service.... 2. Progressive Discipline Policy.... 3. Employment Benefit Programs...." (discriminationattorney.com/lawyer-attorney-1288127.html)

I might have missed some.

In other words, the forum members here are not "jealous" of your "abilities" (the attorneys from whom you pilfered, however, seem articulate and intelligent). The forum members were merely pointing out the sources of your information. Attributing these sources yourself would have been wise.

My suggestion is for you to stop offering LEGAL advice of any kind until you acquire a legal education or workplace credentials or the skills to research the law and attribute your research to credible sources.

I can appreciate it when you offer your opinions, when your opinions are stated as such and when your opinions are based on your (limited) experience with the legal system in California (ie. your wrongful termination settlement, your disputes with the Labor Board), and when your opinions and experience have some legitimate relationship to the issues and concerns of the poster who is posting (ie. his specific state, the specifically stated facts of his situation).

Willlyjo, you are almost a senior citizen in real life, so your comments about seniors in general will look odd to you in another year, and your comments about senior members on this forum will also look odd when (or if) your post count makes you a senior member (in fact, you would probably be a senior member now if so many of your posts had not been deleted for content and if you did not get banned from this site so often ).

At any rate, if you stop posting nonsense, the forum members will stop monitoring your posts and correcting the misinformation you post.

And all will be right with the world.

 

[cbg]

I heart quincy.

 

[Proserpina]

I heart quincy.

Me three! (I would have said "me too", but Puppy also hearts quincy and of course she has to be mentioned first!)

 

[Willlyjo]

Willlyjo, while on the whole I think the above post by you (post #33) is probably one of the best you have written (although it would have benefitted from spell-check and the elimination of your last two exclamation points ), I did want to make a correction to a statement you made in your Post #31.

You said that some forum members here "are so jealous of [your] articulate and intelligent posts that they have to accuse [you] of stealing text from websites..." The fact of the matter is that what you wrote in the BossIsEvil thread could easily be seen as plagiarism (which can also put you at risk of a copyright infringement suit).

The evidence?

You wrote: "Retirement programs like 401(k) can help create an implied contract of employment because they help imply the employee will be around long enough to participate and get the benefit of such a program."

From Carney Shegarian, Esquire: "Retirement programs, 401k programs, and the like can help to create implied employment contracts, because they help imply that the employee is expected to be around long enough to participate in them or get their benefit."

You wrote: "Finally, the smart employer (and there are many at this stage) will make sure their new employees sign a document acknowledging at-will status."

From Tom Reilly, an employment attorney: "As a result, diligent employers made sure their employees signed written at-will employment agreements..."

You wrote: "An agreement that the employer will not terminate an employee except for "just cause" is a key description of any contract whether written, oral or implied."

From Carney Shegarian, Esquire: "An agreement that the employer won't fire the employee without "good cause" is the basic term of any contract whether written, oral or implied."

You wrote: "An implied contract can be established by a combination of the following factors: length of service, progressive discipline policy and employment benefit programs."

From Michael T. Chulak and Associates: "How the Implied Contract is Created. 1. Length of Service.... 2. Progressive Discipline Policy.... 3. Employment Benefit Programs...."

I might have missed some.

In other words, the forum members here are not "jealous" of your "abilities" (the attorneys from whom you pilfered, however, seem articulate and intelligent). The forum members were merely pointing out the sources of your information. Attributing these sources yourself would have been wise.

My suggestion is for you to stop offering LEGAL advice of any kind until you acquire a legal education or workplace credentials or the skills to research the law and attribute your research to credible sources.

I can appreciate it when you offer your opinions, when your opinions are stated as such and when your opinions are based on your (limited) experience with the legal system in California (ie. your wrongful termination settlement, your disputes with the Labor Board), and when your opinions and experience have some legitimate relationship to the issues and concerns of the poster who is posting (ie. his specific state, the specifically stated facts of his situation).

Willlyjo, you are almost a senior citizen in real life, so your comments about seniors in general will look odd to you in another year, and your comments about senior members on this forum will also look odd when (or if) your post count makes you a senior member (in fact, you would probably be a senior member now if so many of your posts had not been deleted for content and if you did not get banned from this site so often ).

At any rate, if you stop posting nonsense, the forum members will stop monitoring your posts and correcting the misinformation you post.

And all will be right with the world.

I'm not writing a book here Quincy, I believe I was clearly understood.

Now, as far as you believing that I pilfered from the attorney from the various sites you mentioned, I don't recall going to 99% of them.

There are only a few ways of correctly defining Wrongful Termination and Implied Contract. Perhaps that is why my text resembles that which you compared it to.

As far as the "BossEGo" thread, how laughable that you believe it to be plagiarism. I didn't create the term Implied Contract or Wrongful Termination, I just listed the ingredients of such Causes of Actions.

Further, I dare someone to sue me for plagiarism like you erroneously believe (a credit to your 'I am perfect and without fault attitude')!

Your "evidence" is silly at best.

I wouldn't need a lawyer to make such a person with such a belief look stupid in court up until the time such complaint would quickly be exstinguished before a Case Management Conference.

You really get sillier the more you respond to anything I post.

 

[>Charlotte<]

This is just ridiculous. I can't believe you're even trying to claim you didn't copy from those sites. My use of the word "delusional" above was mostly (not entirely) hyperbole, but I'm a lot closer now to 100% sure that that's exactly what you are. Fine. Post another response telling me how ignorant it is to accuse you of such, and you can pretend that since you got the last word that proves you're right.

And quincy is entirely correct. For me, it's not even that you're wrong so often--it's your absolute refusal to admit when you're wrong that's the problem.

Ah, well. You will continue to be you, others will continue to correct you, I will continue to warn posters about you, you will eventually get banned again, you will reincarnate yourself with four L's, and the beat goes on.

 

[Proserpina]

This is just ridiculous. I can't believe you're even trying to claim you didn't copy from those sites. My use of the word "delusional" above was mostly (not entirely) hyperbole, but I'm a lot closer now to 100% sure that that's exactly what you are. Fine. Post another response telling me how ignorant it is to accuse you of such, and you can pretend that since you got the last word that proves you're right.

And quincy is entirely correct. For me, it's not even that you're wrong so often--it's your absolute refusal to admit when you're wrong that's the problem.

Ah, well. You will continue to be you, others will continue to correct you, I will continue to warn posters about you, you will eventually get banned again, you will reincarnate yourself with four L's, and the beat goes on.

Quiet and dignified round of applause for you, Charlotte.

 

[cbg]

Times two.

 

[>Charlotte<]

Quiet and dignified round of applause for you, Charlotte.

Times two.

I didn't even know where to start.

Show proof of his lack of knowledge?
Jealous of his articulate and intelligent posts?
He just happened to type almost exactly the same thing that was on those sites?
And the rest of it.

Really? Is he even serious? I gotta say, it makes me wonder if he's playing the part of a buffoon on purpose. The classic forum troll. He can't possibly be that...well, sorry for overusing the word, but "delusional".

But that last part--honestly, Willly, I'm really glad to hear that you have such a great life. I'm absolutely sincere about that. Because the thought of you being both a ridiculous buffoon and some loser with Cheetos-encrusted fingers living in his mom's basement is just too pathetic to bear. So, congratulations on your wonderful life and the personal happiness you've achieved.

 

[Willlyjo]

I didn't even know where to start.

Show proof of his lack of knowledge?
Jealous of his articulate and intelligent posts?
He just happened to type almost exactly the same thing that was on those sites?
And the rest of it.

Really? Is he even serious? I gotta say, it makes me wonder if he's playing the part of a buffoon on purpose. The classic forum troll. He can't possibly be that...well, sorry for overusing the word, but "delusional".

But that last part--honestly, Willly, I'm really glad to hear that you have such a great life. I'm absolutely sincere about that. Because the thought of you being both a ridiculous buffoon and some loser with Cheetos-encrusted fingers living in his mom's basement is just too pathetic to bear. So, congratulations on your wonderful life and the personal happiness you've achieved.

Let me dissect your post here. Okay...please do show proof of my lack of knowledge? Still waiting. Do I think you're jealous? Yes and I also think you love to grandstand.

So you say that I typed ALMOST EXACTLY the same thing that was on those sites. Does almost exactly mean plagiarism? I don't think so. And how can anyone with any sense ask a question such as Does someone almost exactly...?

And before you or someone else starts falsely accusing me of Plagiarism, please study exactly (not almost exactly) what it is. For instance, I listed defintions for what constitutes "Implied Contracts" in a previous post.

Of course if I was accurate with what is in my head about such definition, it will probably be very similar to definitions listed on hundreds of websites. It is logical to even believe that (through coincidence) it may be "almost exactly" (credit to Charlotte for this term) like it was stated on a few of those websites.

Did I coin the terms Wrongful Termination or Implied Contract? No, therefore I'm not stealing anyone's work to make it seem as my own. Did I know the defintions before going to any website that includes such definitions in the last 20 years? Yes, therefore, I didn't steal anyone's work of art to make it seem like my own.

I think accusations (or someone guilty) of Plagiarism were meant in instances where one would steal someone's famous quote, sentences or paragraphs out of a published book or someone's screen play, for example. You and Quincy have taken such accusations to a frivilous level.

oh and lastly, I've been banned 2 times and I have learned my lesson from it. So for you to say (hope) I'll be banned again is kind of presumptuous isn't it?

 

[quincy]

Willlyjo, you apparently do not know what plagiarism is. What you did was plagiarize the copyrighted works of others.

You can educate yourself by clicking on the link below:

http://www.plagiarism.org/

 

[Willlyjo]

Willlyjo, you apparently do not know what plagiarism is. What you did was plagiarize the copyrighted works of others.

You can educate yourself by clicking on the link below:

http://www.plagiarism.org/

Get over it! If you believe I plagiarized the copyrighted works of others, then please go ahead and contact the website of whoever you think I violated and complain to them. Don't be surprised if you don't get any response or if you do it will probably be humiliating.

You're better off researching Implied Contracts and what constitutes them so you can see why your belief that someone without longivity (5 or more years of employment) should have as much as a cause to recover for Wrongful Termination as someone else who can show progressive discipline, retirement benefits and other ingredients including longivity, which is a major ingredient (along with the others) that can dispute employment at-will. I'm otta this thread!

 

[Proserpina]

Get over it! If you believe I plagiarized the copyrighted works of others, then please go ahead and contact the website of whoever you think I violated and complain to them. Don't be surprised if you don't get any response or if you do it will probably be humiliating.

You're better off researching Implied Contracts and what constitutes them so you can see why your belief that someone without longivity (5 or more years of employment) should have as much as a cause to recover for Wrongful Termination as someone else who can show progressive discipline, retirement benefits and other ingredients including longivity, which is a major ingredient (along with the others) that can dispute employment at-will. I'm otta this thread!

Sigh.

Please stop.