Who's talking about you?

>>>>

Ding ding!

...and I thought I was the only one who could see those statements like that.

And you say that we shouldn't talk semantics.

To your mind what was the meaning of that message because it is clear as day to anyone not looking to pick it apart what it meant?

What was the whole paragraph trying to imply?

Does he not state that "we" agree the person was incompetent. "We" in this sense can only mean PN because he is an employee of PN, representing PN on PN's own forum in relation to PN's customers issues of a technical nature.

Do you genuinely believe that people reading his post attribute it to his personal beliefs or do you not agree that a statement made by such an individual is seen, correctly, to be one from PN?

It makes no jot of difference whether he was fired or he quit before being fired because the statement on the portal makes explicit that he was incompetent and since this has been established there would be no possibility for the engineer to have survived at PN.

You keep reminding us to read things in context so have a read of it in context and tell me it doesn't mean what has been written by that person. Arguing otherwise is not really going to accomplish anything.

As I said earlier it is all semantics and hence not worth arguing over. For me at least.

2 vs. everyone else. Guess who is right?

Until someone from Plusnet explicitly states the employee was sacked we cannot be 100%.

Put it this way, the employee may not have been sacked, but it may have been suggested that it was better to leave of their own accord - which for future employment purposes is often better, i.e. when asked why did you leave the last company, saying you were sacked is not good.

The way it was worded is such that the original writer wants people to assume the person was sacked, but due to non-use of the word it leaves some debate.

Interesting while the debate is, it is really getting nothing solved for anyone.

Andrew

In reply to:

---

The way it was worded is such that the original writer wants people to assume the person was sacked, but due to non-use of the word it leaves some debate.

---

Why would they want people to believed he was sacked if that was not the case???.

.. because it shows that if it sees a problem then it tries to resolve it i.e. it is now thinking in a proactive way and doesn't want a repeat of the email fiasco?

Maybe they feel that anyone who isn't up to the job should be gotten rid of or put on gardening leave?

Remember that they did get rid of a fair few people recently in the last round of redundancies? Maybe this "experienced engineer" (their words!) was one of the few who were told that their services were no longer required?

In reply to:

---

Maybe they feel that anyone who isn't up to the job should be gotten rid of or put on gardening leave?

---

That can`t be right, top management is still their

It might explain the renaming of the comms team thing.

Redundancy and the renaming of jobs to prevent redundant workers coming back etc.

Really haven't kept up with the specifcs of that either, so again speculation.