The Drip Drip Drip...

[rubato]

Not at all, old bean. I only object to your characterizing retention policies as being solely for the purpose of avoiding legal consequences. I offered two other reasons, ones that you chose to ignore in preference for the slur against capitalism.

I didn't say that. You are resorting to the wes/LJ tactic of making shit up and pretending others have said it. Again.

Companies destroy records because they perceive it to be in their interests to do so. They are aware that their interests include reducing future liability either civil or legal as well as reducing storage costs.

My thinking is broader and better informed on this subject than yours but my mind is uncluttered by the need to lie about what you have said while your mind is polluted by your own lies.

Hmm - let's see: you asked me, "And you believe that they are unaware of the legal consequences/benefits of destroying records on a regular basis?"

And I replied,"Not at all, old bean."

Which naturally calls forth from you the ever-modest, "My thinking is broader and better informed on this subject than yours but my mind is uncluttered by the need to lie about what you have said"

Thank you for finally admitting the truth (bold and underlined above). There are at least two reasons, other than exposure to future legal demands, to have retention policies with "do not destroy before" restrictions. You finally have discovered one of those after being told about it.

You began with: Most big companies have 'record retention policies' which, with their usual humorous use of language, require records to be destroyed on a regular basis so when they are asked for later they can say it was just their policy

That is a clear statement that there was only one reason - to avoid producing documents for lawsuits. You wrote it. Not me. I didn't make it up. And I'm not pretending that you did but stating outright what you did,.

I was also pointing out what you did NOT write - i.e. the truth instead of restricting yourself to bigotry. Again.

I have never yet heard of an external agent asking for particular records merely to determine if they are taking up space and costing the storer money. Have you?

Just stop before you look like a bigger idiot. I gave one reason but that did not exclude the possibility of others. You are attempting to insert words that were not there. You are a liar.


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

I didn't say that. You are resorting to the wes/LJ tactic of making shit up and pretending others have said it. Again.

I'm sorry, I should have included you in the group shouldn't I? I'm sorry. But really, each of you is an intellectually dishonest asshole in your own special way and deserving of recognition as such.



yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

I have never yet heard of an external agent asking for particular records merely to determine if they are taking up space and costing the storer money. Have you?

Just stop before you look like a bigger idiot. I gave one reason but that did not exclude the possibility of others. You are attempting to insert words that were not there. You are a liar.

yrs,
rubato

Mad as a bicycle! I have never stated anything about external agents determining space and costs... so I've never heard of that either.

You clearly stated that the reason for retention policies was "so when"..... you should have written, "one reason is so when". And there'd be no discussion with you making up things that I have never stated.

You would not know intellectual honesty if it up and smacked you in the mono-brow

[Lord Jim]

It's pretty much impossible to carry on a meaningful dialogue with a person who has reached a Trumpian level of denial about what they have said...

A person, who like Trump, will steadfastly deny that they have said what they said even when iron clad, irrefutable proof of them saying it is presented...

Not really anywhere to go after that...

[rubato]

I have never yet heard of an external agent asking for particular records merely to determine if they are taking up space and costing the storer money. Have you?

Just stop before you look like a bigger idiot. I gave one reason but that did not exclude the possibility of others. You are attempting to insert words that were not there. You are a liar.

yrs,
rubato

Mad as a bicycle! I have never stated anything about external agents determining space and costs... so I've never heard of that either.

You clearly stated that the reason for retention policies was "so when"..... you should have written, "one reason is so when". And there'd be no discussion with you making up things that I have never stated.

You would not know intellectual honesty if it up and smacked you in the mono-brow

I never said that was the only reason and "so when" expresses a particular contingency, not all possible contingencies.

You are fighting a battle you lost at the beginning when you lied. Weak.

I said that companies have record retention policies which require records to be destroyed. That is true even if you and crackpot don't know it. I said that they have self-interested reasons for doing so. Also true. I gave one example of such a self-interested reason. You then began whinging and fulminating attempting to defend crackpots pissy little comment and lied that I said that was the only reason.

Your emotional need to find fault and willingness to invent the fault in that cause is driven by the same kind of mindless hate I see from LJ and GOB all the time. weak and small.

If you were a man you would admit the error.


yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

Most big companies have 'record retention policies' which, with their usual humorous use of language, require records to be destroyed on a regular basis so when they are asked for later they can say it was just their policy. Nothing personal.

I said that companies have record retention policies which require records to be destroyed. That is true even if you and crackpot don't know it. I said that they have self-interested reasons for doing so. Also true. I gave one example of such a self-interested reason.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'm a man. I admit that rubato erred.

[rubato]

You joined this thread purely to take a nasty swipe. It missed on the facts and it missed on logic. You failed.

You invented things I did not say and attributed beliefs I do not have and did not express to try to protect your ego.


You failed.



yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

[MajGenl.Meade]

You joined this thread purely to take a nasty swipe. It missed on the facts and it missed on logic. You failed.
You invented things I did not say and attributed beliefs I do not have and did not express to try to protect your ego.

You failed.

I joined this thread - Sun Jan 17, 2016 12:19 pm which is (er....) before you did.

You have invented my entry time and attributed motives I do not have and did not express in order to make yourself look like a weasel.

You succeeded.

[rubato]

This is your entry into this discussion.

Re: The Drip Drip Drip...

Postby MajGenl.Meade » Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:56 am
rubato is a man of many parts. In his first post there are two parts: that large companies have a record retention policy that specifies how long records must be kept before being chopped up in little bits; and that companies do this for the sole reason of hiding malfeasance.

Big RR confirms that large companies do purge files on a routine basis but that their own regulations specify that pending or actual litigation requires a change in that procedure.

rubato then parts that up into: first, Big RR has just confirmed rubato's assertion that companies purge files for only one reason; to avoid lawsuits. And second, everyone who's worked for a large company knows it's true.

So, yes CP - he pulled it out of his arse

CP made a stupid swipe and you wanted to make one too. You made up things I did not say to do so and you continue to lie about it.

Your need for hate is more important to you than a love of the truth.

I never said that was the sole reason or even that what was concealed was malfeasance. You lied and said that I did. But you admit that the sole reason someone would ask for such records would be in a civil or criminal investigation. odd.

You're a scummy little asshole filled with a need for hatred.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Spot the difference.... (clues may be given)

You joined this thread purely to take a nasty swipe

This is your entry into this discussion

[rubato]

Spot the difference.... (clues may be given)

You joined this thread purely to take a nasty swipe

This is your entry into this discussion

You're as crooked as a dog's hind leg.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Sorry, rubato. That's not the difference between a thread and a discussion. But please try again!

[Joe Guy]

Besides, I'm the one who joined this thread purely to take a nasty swipe.

Wrong again, rubato...

[Bicycle Bill]

Mad as a bicycle!

What's with this "mad as a bicycle!" shit?

Bicycles are nice, friendly little contrivances, wouldn't hurt a fly.
Cars, on the other hand.....


-"BB"-

[MajGenl.Meade]

[Long Run]

And who says you are not good at remembering quotes.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well, if one sees/hears them six or seven times.... particularly in a TV show approximately 147,289 times funnier than The Honeymooners. I can probably recite BC and the Sundance Kid. Might do well on Fargo. Maybe Forest Gump. But there are many films I've seen only once. I might get many lines from Lonesome Dove.

[Lord Jim]

Leave rube alone...

He's got a lot on his mind...

He's very focused on his investigation into who stole the strawberries...