@NauvooSpice You have no idea who I am (except I don't hide my name). What you are doing is shameful. What if those parents and that girl discover who you are and read these posts? Will they feel loved? Will they feel welcome? There is a way to help people and this is not it.
@NauvooSpice You posted about private stuff under a cloak of anonymity berating your fellow saints, I did not. You wanted praise for your enlightened parenting. I did not. I pointed out the irony. My understanding is the church is "family centered, church assisted," but what do I know?
@NauvooSpice Question for you. When you are discussing this with your family, do you say they are harming her? Do you explain how you showed them how to do it right? This post is all about your triumph over these stupid parents who just don't know how to raise kids like you do.
@NauvooSpice My reading comprehension is fine:
1. "I think that parents are the biggest hurdle."
2. "[W]e had to accommodate for her parents..."
3. "They are being robbed of their capacity by well meaning parents."
4. "That's objectively bad parenting..."
@NauvooSpice I never said a parent shouldn't ask for help. Nor did I say that I was perfect. I said it is ironic that a person who is so adamant that the government should not interfere with a parent's rights is so willing to assert she knows better how to parent another parent's child.
@NauvooSpice You're right. Self-righteous well-intentioned people are much better than the government than I am in making decisions about the children I love and care for every day. That makes all the difference.
🧵After some 3 months in Europe, I'm beginning to prepare to go back home. A few thoughts as I reflect on my experience here this summer. First, American democracy is different from what exists in the #EU today, and that shouldn't surprise anyone, but should make us think. 1/10
When your attorney negotiates your severance, your employer hears from a professional, not from you. The personal history disappears. What's left is a business transaction between two parties who understand the process.
Most professionals hear "non-negotiable" and stop. Experienced counsel hears it and sends a specific, professional counteroffer. The outcomes are very different.
A non-compete that only activates upon voluntary resignation is a fundamentally different restriction than one that applies regardless of how the relationship ended. That distinction is worth negotiating.
Severance is a transaction. Your employer is asking you to accept career restrictions in exchange for a payout. If they initiated the separation, the case for broad restrictions is harder to make—and harder to enforce.
Your employer terminated you. Now their severance agreement says you can't work for competitors for a year. Those two facts don't have to coexist. The trigger condition is negotiable.
I am sad. I am only a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I do not pretend to have authority. But I cannot understand the behavior of some of the Saints on this platform. Many seem to ignore this basic teaching-"there shall be no disputations among you."
When your employer presents a revised employment agreement, are you reading it against what you already have? Most professionals aren't. That's where the problem starts.
Before reading your employment renewal, find your original agreement. Put them side by side. What changed between the two documents is exactly where your review should begin.
A non-solicit covering your entire industry with no scope limits may be subject to the same one-year statutory cap that governs non-competes in Utah. The label on the clause doesn't control. The scope does.