>>>>No, what I know came to me privately and I think it would be inappropriate for me to discuss the details here. But as I said, if it's the case I think it is, Jay's original description of the situation is misleading at best.
>>>
>>>Really. Misleading? Doesn't change the facts of the assumption.
>>
>>Assumption has no facts. It has assumed conditions.
>>
>>Now let's see what dramatis personae do we have here:
>>
>>the employee, who screwed something up, (seemingly?) unrelated to the job, but had a help from a friend who made the matter related and the employee henceforth unrelated
>>
>>the friend who plays the diplomatic role (qualifies - suck up, tread down) of liaison officer
>>
>>the employer, who seems eager to display indignation under any pretext, and to help the bottom line by firing people as often as possible
>>
>>...um, any positive characters?
>
>Just the narrator...
Narrator is a negative too, for picking a story like this ;).