bigalo93

The stem cells are mobilized from the patient's marrow using a mobilizing agent such as cyclophosphamide, which allows the cells to be collected from the patient's blood.

The adult bone marrow has stem cells at various stages of maturation that are involved with producing the cells of the blood.

I am not all that familiar with error messages, but it seems all of the traffic has overwhelmed the Hike Guy's website.

The Hike Guy's journals were highly influential in my original motivation for starting a journal. For some reason I had thought of this blog post the other day, and felt that it would be good to share with other Hackers. I am glad to hear that these journals inspired you as they once inspired me.

It appears many here are against having a legal discussion, yet you insist upon it. "And that annoys me to no end[.]"

Discussion over

I must ask you a question. Do you not understand that this is not an argument? I am not trying to refute what you are saying in earnest. I simply am trying to express my opinion. You believe I am inexperienced, but I must ask another question. What do you do?

If you like fallacies look up argumentum verbosium.

I will not review the legal literature because nowhere in my original comment was their mention of the law. I simply stated that this company did the right thing. I attempted to explain to you what I meant by this, but for some reason you insist upon throwing legal documentation and precedents at me. In my second comment I attempted to describe to you the law as I have observed it, but as I said my knowledge of specific laws and precedents is limited. Just because you use these in an argument does not make you right. The simple fact that I do not have time to research and make this my life is the problem here. I am certain that I could find a dozen cases in support of this company's actions. The law is never applied consistently, thus there must be at least one legal precedent in support of my view. I do admit that I will not waste my time to find it. I am both a student and employed. Additionally, you probably live in a large city that follows these rules. The place where I live is not quite as pretty and perfect. People here get fired for looking at there boss incorrectly. I'm not sure my boss's view of reality is even influenced by the EEOC compliance manual.

I do also acknowledge that I have not answered your questions. This is simply, as stated before, because I did not make this a legal statement and do not intend for it to be interpreted as such.

I am not sure why you feel that you need laws to tell you what is right and wrong. Personally, I have internalized my beliefs on morality. What this woman did, even if it wasn't legal justification for termination of employment, was not morally correct. If the laws told me I had to support bullying and public humiliation, I would not be a law abiding citizen.

Edited -To apply final statement.

I think our views of reality are too different to discuss this matter. I have never observed a situation in which a company is made to keep an employee that doesn't perform to their standards. Public discussion of sexual discrimination is not what this woman did and therefore should not be protected. Unless you think that these men were sexually discriminating against Adria when they were talking about the male speakers dongle. This has nothing to do with sexual discrimination or harassment.

I think you misunderstood my comment. From my understanding of the law, which is limited I might add, this company has every right to fire her if she no longer fulfills her job requirements to the company's standards. She was at this conference representing her company. She is expected by her company to act with a certain level of professionalism. The public humiliation I spoke of took place during a time in which she was on the clock so to speak. This is where she went wrong. She represented her company in a very negative way by humiliating these men, quite tactlessly, in public. In this sense she was being quite hypocritical. She was acting just as unprofessional if not worse than the men making the jokes. I do believe that this is proper justification for firing an employee (as was observed when the man who made the joke was fired by his company.) The public humiliation I spoke of was not legal justification for her termination. It was the fact that she represented her company in an unprofessional manner that led to her being fired.

If she would have been mature and confronted these men, as grown ups should, this all could have been avoided. The only reason I say she was the aggressor is the simple fact that these men didn't even know they were offending her. They were in the wrong, most definitely, but that does not make it right for her to act unprofessionally as well.

As far as I can tell, this company's choice was legal and in their best interest.

Documenting a problem is completely different from public humiliation. This company did the right thing. You say Adria received abuse, but out of all I have read, including her own blog post, she was not abused. She was the aggressor. These men didn't even know she was offended. If she would have asked them to be more polite, I am confident they would have done the right thing. You, I must say, are causing an issue with a company in the right. So maybe they are better off without you, Heh?