Charles Kroll is the presumed husband of "Melanie," the person who's work email account was used to send PZ Myers a very nasty death threat. This is the death threat:
You have two choices my fucked up friend, first you can quit your job for the good of the children. Or you can get your brains beat in.
The threat was issued via an email account from a florist that you've likely used if you've sent flowers more than a few times.
Well, a person I assume to be Mr. Melanie sent me an email this morning.
In it he takes responsibility for having written the email and explains that it is a shame that Melanie has had to take the rap for this. He does not mention what has happened to her as a result of his indiscretion in any detail, but in a follow up email he indicates that she was fired. While Chuck seems truly remorseful for having sent such a "moronic" email, he is not at all remorseful for Melanie being fired ... he is simply angry at those who sent emails etc. to Flowers. He does not see his own responsibility in this matter at all.
Message to chuck: What would you do if Melanie received an email threatening to beat her head in? Would you not contact the sender? Seriously now. You brought this on your family entirely with your own actions. Own it, man. I personally feel badly that your anger got Melanie fired, and I hope she gets her job back. In fact, I'm sending 1-800-flowers an email saying as much. But Chuck, you need to change.
He provides a garbled explanation for how the email he wrote got sent from this particular account. Basically, I think this is just a case of people being sloppy (as they always are) with their use of email accounts. (Work vs. home, etc). In this case, the person with the work email works out of her home, which of course futher complicates things. In my view, the reaction to that sort of thing should NOT be to suddenly get anal about using email accounts. I do not need this added aggravation and neither do you.
But there is a lesson here: Don't mix up email accounts between individuals! One person committed a federal crime with his wife's email account, and rumors are that she lost her job. He's blaming PZ and all the people who complained to Flowers. I blame him. And I would imagine the missus is rather pissed.
He also noted that PZ Myers is biased towards Islam and would never threaten to be mean to an Islamic artifact. Whatever.
Just thought I'd let you know....
Politics
Comments
Further reading.
Someone named ckroll confesses in the comments of a blog.
Posted by: JanieBelle | July 16, 2008 8:37 AM
Oh, and apparently Melanie is out of a job.
Posted by: JanieBelle | July 16, 2008 8:40 AM
That would be chuck.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 16, 2008 8:40 AM
I wonder how much guidance Melanie's employer gave her on the best ways of ensuring her work e-mail account was not misused by someone else in the house.
I have separate work and personal e-mail accounts and to ensure I never send an e-mail from wrong account I keep them on different PCs.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 16, 2008 8:40 AM
BwaHaHa! What an idiot! Biased towards Islam??!! Please I think that PZ feels exactly the same about the koran as he does about the bible!
Posted by: J-Dog | July 16, 2008 8:42 AM
"ut there is a lesson here: Don't mix up email accounts between individuals!"
Er, or don't send death threats :)
Posted by: Scote | July 16, 2008 8:44 AM
Scote:
Well, yeah, there is that, too.
:)
Posted by: JanieBelle | July 16, 2008 8:50 AM
I am sure that Chuck feels horrible for what has happened here.I think him taking the action he has tells enough. How can anyone assume how the family is feeling? Regardless of the content of the email, mistakes do happen and this clearly was an expensive error. I feel for them and their children. I can't believe that for one the email sent to a personal email was posted for all with email addresses nonetheless knowing that they would be harassed and that everyone posted behaved in the manner they did. I think Melanie should take some action here not and against her husband. I am shocked and have no position on any religiion.
Posted by: The Krolls | July 16, 2008 8:55 AM
Yeah, PZ would never threaten a Koran. Why can't any of these people who are so crazy about that idea use a search engine?
Other lesson to be learned: don't let your asshole husband use the computer when you're VPN'd into work. If the email didn't come from 1800flowers internal network they could easily have claimed it was just a spoofed address.
Posted by: unicow | July 16, 2008 8:59 AM
The third lesson is: If you're married to someone like Chuck, divorce them immediately.
Posted by: PattyP | July 16, 2008 9:11 AM
Yeah, how dare PZ post the emails of people that're sending him death threats?!
Those poor people might be harassed over that!
There's only one person for the woman to be pissed at: Her husband.
Death threats are illegal no matter what medium you issue them in.
Speaking of Muslims and Christians, I wonder what law enforcement would've done if he'd desecrated a Muslim holy symbol and Muslims had been doing the threatening.
Or if it'd been atheists sending the death threats.
Hint: Being fired would've been the least of their concerns.
Shrieks of anti-xian bias amuse me.
Posted by: JThompson | July 16, 2008 9:12 AM
Whether or not it was a mistake that chuck sent the email from her work account, 800-flowers is feeling the blowback in some form. They thinking like a corporation are going to limit their liability (however minor it may be) first. Assuming the IT policy is what most are, it was violated. By accident or not 1-800-Flowers has to show that they are serious about their policies. I mean this was a death threat (whether he was serious or not) and it's been made into a public spectacle so they have to react.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 16, 2008 9:15 AM
patricia:
Sending death threats is not something I, or any reasonable person over the age of 14, would categorize as a "mistake".
I can't believe that for one cracker, people are insane enough to assault a kid and send death threats.
Methinks your view is a bit askew.
Ignoring the smack of concern trolling, I strongly disagree. She should divorce his psychotic ass immediately for her own safety, and press whatever charges she can. Then she should file a civil suit against him and take whatever he has left from the divorce.
Posted by: JanieBelle | July 16, 2008 9:18 AM
If through negligence I'd allowed someone in my household to utilize my work email account to send _anything_ let alone a death threat -- I would be fired immediately. And I know this because I read, understood, and respect our network security policies.
Email accounts : IT departments :: crackers : Catholics.
Posted by: eliza | July 16, 2008 9:34 AM
"I can't come to bed honey, somebody on the internet is RIGHT!" I'm glad there were repercussions for this idiot.
Posted by: Toddahhhh | July 16, 2008 9:54 AM
Scote: What I meant to say was, "If you are going to send a death threat, don't use someone else's email! It is not nice and it causes confustion!"
But seriously, the Christian way would be to make claims about forgiveness but start a hate campaign against 1-800 flowers, and insist that everyone be thrown in jail, etc.. (Following the Donahue approach). The Islamic way would be for most Muslims to say "we are a peaceful people" and a small number of nut jobs to issue a fatwah.
The Atheist way would be to institute a mail in campaign to get Melanie her job back with 1-800-FLowers.
So, has everyone written their letter to 1-800-Flowers? I did th is morning.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 16, 2008 10:13 AM
I think people should stop calling this a death threat. "Getting your brains beat in" is a colloquial expression that means "getting beat up."
That said, "chuck" still shouldn't have threatened PZ in any way.
Posted by: Dave Munger | July 16, 2008 10:16 AM
Todahhh: I feel sorry for his wife who probably didn't feel the same way (at least not to the extent to feel like making a death threat).
Posted by: deathweasel@gmail.com | July 16, 2008 10:17 AM
This all depends on one's opinion of brain death and when to pull the plug.
Posted by: Ruth | July 16, 2008 10:21 AM
eliz: So, YOU are the one who reads the EULAs!
Posted by: ali | July 16, 2008 10:28 AM
Dave Munger - the title of the email was "your short life". It was fairly clearly meant as a death threat, even if the same words can also "only" mean beating someone up.
Posted by: MissPrism | July 16, 2008 10:31 AM
I'd like to see exactly what Melanie has to say before I go to bat for her, Greg, if for no other reason than context.
That said, she made a mistake, one that is probably quite common, and I'll probably write the letter by this afternoon even if I don't.
Posted by: JanieBelle | July 16, 2008 10:34 AM
Greg,
In what way does it make any sense to start a campaign to get Mrs. Kroll her job back?
First off, this is still primarly based on internet postings which may or may not be accurate, and almost certainly are biased and incomplete (like pretty much everything on the internet). Not exactly hard facts to base a campaign on. All we actually know for sure is that she was fired, and that someone posted on a blog somewhere claiming to take responsibility.
Second, Mrs. Kroll was probably fired because she violated a company policy of not using work resources for non-work related matters, giving access of company resources to non-employees, or something of that ilk. All her husband's actions have done is bring that violation to light in a pretty severe way.
Now, if she was fired because people incorrectly assume she was the one making the death threat, then I can see defending her. But there's little point in protesting her being fired for violating a company policy.
Sure, she may (or may not) be an innocent party in the whole death-threat fiasco. But that doesn't make a bit of difference if she was fired for allowing company resources to be misused.
It's like starting a campaign to defend people who got fired for browsing porn at work.
Posted by: unicow | July 16, 2008 10:35 AM
The Atheist way would be to institute a mail in campaign to get Melanie her job back with 1-800-FLowers.
Unfortunately, and I'm not being facetious, the atheist way seems to have been the opposite. It's the atheist write-in campaign that alerted the company to the violation that led to her dismissal.
Personally, I think the company should have a "one bite rule". Do it once, get your wrist slapped. Do it twice, get shown the door.
The lesson should be the one originally intended by PZ Myers: Religious belief seems to foster hypocrisy. Here you have another example, separate from the one about the frackin' cracker, where a clear believer violates his own catholic beliefs because he feels his religion has been insulted. Religions don't exist, other than in the minds of believers, and can't be insulted.
People do.
Posted by: Spanish Inquisitor | July 16, 2008 10:37 AM
I have no sympathy for the Krolls. For one thing, a company firing an employee for misuse of the e-mail system is nothing strange. Even if it isn't something as inflammatory as a death threat. I have worked several telco contracts and I'll tell you, the practice is standard. Confession - I have lost more than one of those contract jobs in this way... It's as much a learning experience for her as it is for him. Also, it doesn't matter how sincere a death threat is when it is made, it is illegal. He should still be prosecuted for what he did. He even admitted to writing it.
Posted by: Duh | July 16, 2008 10:39 AM
I have mixed feelings about getting Melanie her job back:
Around my institution, it would be inexcusable to leave my computer in such a way that an unauthorized person have access to everything I have access to, including my email.
On the other hand, I guess it's not her fault this Chuck guy has a short fuse and low intelligence. Do we know if they're married? It could have been her brother stopping by between strip joints or staying at her place to avoid charging a hotel room.
Posted by: Mister Almost | July 16, 2008 10:41 AM
There is no way to know who actually sent that email.
But I do know that someone with access to a company account did not follow network security protocols, and she would have been canned for that here too.
Threats are not trivial. They have to be taken seriously.
Posted by: bug_girl | July 16, 2008 10:45 AM
unicow,
You say that like it's a bad thing...
;)
(I'm kidding, of course. Don't have a unicow. :) )
Posted by: JanieBelle | July 16, 2008 10:47 AM
I hope Mr. Kroll reads these comments because he really needs to read this:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/desecration_its_a_fun_hobby.php
WEhere did he get this "bias towards Islam" idea? Think maybe he made it up in his own closed little mind?
Posted by: Steve Fisher | July 16, 2008 10:49 AM
I like the one bite rule.
OK, it may be hat Melanie actually wrote the letter, was in cahoots with Chuck, or maybe even IS chuck. However, my suggestion to move on does not presume her innocence. Rather, it presumes that in the future, it will be more useful rhetoric for the anti-atheists to say "and they get people fired" vs. it being useful to say "yes, the same forces that called someone out for a death threat also restored justice of a sort"
Be Olympian.
(OH, and in the future, when Chuck says "But dear, remember, how I got your job back when they fired you at the flower place" and Melanie can say "You asshole, it was the ATHEISTS who got my job back...")
In addition, as lots of you are saying, yes, we don't really know. At some point, 1-800 flowers might have to tell us. This is a way of encouraging that (maybe).
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 16, 2008 10:52 AM
Greg,
I think you should jump on this if the Skepchicks don't.
Posted by: JanieBelle | July 16, 2008 10:59 AM
How do we know if any of this is true?
Has there been a story in the legitimate press?
Posted by: JL | July 16, 2008 11:01 AM
So we're going to start a fund to pay PZ to piss on some crackers?
He would not do that unless it was for charity. Now we just need a charity willing to go along....
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 16, 2008 11:02 AM
Islam, for those how do not know it, is a peaceful religion, and has no relation whatsoever to terrorism act. For those who want to know about Islam, might find these webs of interest to them: www.islam-guide.com or www.islamalways.com . I ask GOD to let all of us, all the world’s inhabitants live in peace and harmony. Thank you.
Posted by: ABRAHAM | July 16, 2008 11:02 AM
The monopoly money idea (by Detroitus) is teh awesome.
Posted by: JanieBelle | July 16, 2008 11:02 AM
Greg,
You say the Atheist way is to start an email campaign for Melanie to get her job back. But, well, what if I'm not convinced that she *should* get her job back? It seems to me that if her job involves working with her computer from home, part of the qualifications for that job would be a minimum competence with computers of the sort that doesn't leave a work computer lying around for anyone to access. So, I mean, yes, it is terrible for this woman to have lost her job, but I'm not convinced that I should go to the trouble of trying to help her get it back.
Obviously, it is terrible that she lost her job. And I feel really sorry for her, especially in the current economy. But you seem to take it as a given that the appropriate response is to try and undo the hardships that she (and he, certainly) brought on themselves. I'm open to the idea, but why is this the best response? I'm not convinced yet.
Posted by: Halcyon | July 16, 2008 11:03 AM
Heh, I hadn't considered the real money for charity idea. I was hung on the monopoly money for Dr. PZ idea.
Posted by: JanieBelle | July 16, 2008 11:05 AM
ABRAHAM,
A noble sentiment, and one which I share (sans the god thing), but I believe that history might not be your friend on this one.
Just sayin'.
Posted by: JanieBelle | July 16, 2008 11:07 AM
An employee who allows her partner to access work resources at all, let alone use them to send death threats, should be fired.
I disagree that Melanie Kroll deserves to get her job back. She no doubt signed an employee agreement and is presented daily with a notice of acceptable use that she violated by allowing her husband to engage in this abusive and illegal action.
There's no way the company would or should be willing to take on the liability risk of allowing her to return to her job after this.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | July 16, 2008 11:10 AM
Translation for the idiot impared:
Waaaah! I was a dick and got my wife fired! Waaaaaah!
Well I can't possibly be at fault! Making death threats it just a joke. Ha ha. See? Funny! Just like Ann Coulter!
It must be the fault of teh libruls! Evil libruls no like crackers!
Posted by: E in MD | July 16, 2008 11:25 AM
Just read Chuck's apology. More of a notpology (in the style of William Dembski), if you ask me. If he had been truly sorry for writing what he did, he would have emailed PZ straight away, and asked for his forgiveness. The fact that he waited until his wife got fired suggests that he's only sorry he got caught.
I'd suggest that she divorce the dangerously agressive looser, but if they are 'good Catholics', She's probably stuck with him.
Finally, I'd love to be a fly-on-the-wall at Chuck's next confession.
Posted by: MH | July 16, 2008 11:28 AM
Greg Laden wrote:
-snip-
Greg -- I emailed the HR department and PR department using email contacts listed on their web site.
I also used on the web site form to send an email to the company's board of directors. You can use this link to contact the board:
http://investor.1800flowers.com/contactBoard.cfm
Thanks,
Steve
Posted by: Steve Caldwell | July 16, 2008 11:39 AM
E-mail send.
Posted by: Kim | July 16, 2008 11:46 AM
A very important point from an IT perspective is that this was not just an email. This was a VPN connection that was left in a state at her home that unauthorized users could access the internal corporate network. To those not familiar with VPN it makes the remote computer be virtually like it is contained within the companies network.
It is quite possible that the VPN connection could give complete access to customer financial and personal records. Even if there were other security layers to prevent access to critical privacy information, it still defeated an important security layer. 1-800Flowers is a publicly traded company so no matter how much they may want to give Melanie a break they probably can't due to regulations.
If her husband had simply web surfed to a site and contracted a virus/trojan/etc. the malware could pass through the open VPN connection and infect the internal network.
If this had been a POP/IMAP/etc. non-VPN connected email access they could give her a break because without the VPN there is far less potential danger to the internal network that contains private data.
I will not ask 1-800Flowers to re-instate Melanie because this is a severe security breach at a public company that could have led to loss of customer information to identity thieves.
Posted by: Paul Hutch | July 16, 2008 11:51 AM
I'll have to side with those who respectfully disagree. Apparently Ms. Kroll was working from home, which suggests a great deal of importance placed on network and network integrity, including proper management of computer login and email accounts. Irresponsibility on that front alone would probably be grounds for dismissal.
That said, I doubt many seasoned net users have never been in flame wars, wherein language can get very savage, and apparent threats tossed around as readily as handshakes at an Amway distributors' convention.
It's certainly worthwhile to pursue apparent threats and follow up with the possibility of law-enforcement intervention, but there's also such a thing as being intemperate with stones in one's own glass house.
In other words, we might want to ease off a little on the general tone of righteous indignation about foolish utterances. Is it really sensible to suggest ending a marriage over something stupid one's spouse sent in an email or posted online? How many of us would, were that advice followed to its entirety, suddenly find ourselves living alone?
Finally, I don't believe it's in anyone's interest to try to tell others what an "atheist" response should be, as atheists in general tend to reject preachers of any denomination. Including no denomination.
My own atheist way, for instance, is to let Mr. and Mrs. Kroll decide for themselves how to handle this disruption in their lives, and hope that they'll accept some responsibility for their actions, and learn from their mistakes, but I wouldn't expect others to fall in line with that point of view.
Posted by: Warren | July 16, 2008 11:53 AM
I am sure that Chuck feels horrible for what has happened here.
From what I have read, it seems that he feels horrible for his role in getting his wife fired. There's no evidence that he regrets sending the death threat, just that he considers it a 'mistake' that he used his wife's work email address to do it. The big mistake was making the threat in the first place.
It's too bad that it blew back on his wife instead of him personally, but hopefully something good will come from this and Melanie will get away from this abusive and evil man. I mean, maybe Chuckie will reconsider his actions and reform himself, but it doesn't appear to be in the cards, given his complete lack or remorse for making the threats in the first place.
Posted by: Mark B. | July 16, 2008 12:00 PM
Yes, there is a way to prove who actually sent that email. It was sent from an exchange server and it had a unique message ID. I have no doubt that,
a) 1-800-flowers has auditing in place and
b) the gorilla who sent the email from his wife's account didn't delete it from her outbox.. which would exists on the exchange server.
This could have been a forged mail header.. except that it had unique traceable information in the header. He might as well sent her public encryption key with it.
Posted by: ffakr | July 16, 2008 12:02 PM
I'm with Warren. While I think she married a twat and that I would ditch him, I'm not her and she's a grown woman. She can do whatever she wants with her life.
HOWEVER! HER account was used to send the death threats. An employee's account is HER responsibility. If she was not responsible enough to put some security on her computer (could be as simple as telling the computer to forget the password to the said account her telling her husband to keeps her hands off.), it is her fault for getting fired.
I feel for her but I'm certainly not gonna go and tell 1800flowers to hire her back. It would be a bad idea to hire her back.
Posted by: Michelle | July 16, 2008 12:09 PM
"..forget the password to the said account her telling her husband to keeps her hands off."
...to the said account OR telling her husband... I'm sorry, bad type day.
Posted by: Michelle | July 16, 2008 12:10 PM
We all do really really idiotic things occasionally. What Chuck did was nuts. It is also sad that he cannot seem to take responsibiltiy for his actions, and instead blames other players, and clearly harbors a lot of anger in his heart. He needs therapy, but probably cannot afford it. For both of them this is a time of choice. I feel sorry for them all (if everything is true, there are three kids too).
I rather doubt anything anyone writes will get Melanie her job back. I do wonder whether she was given proper training in protecting the company computer system. If she was, then she also did something dumb, though not as mind-bogglingly dumb as Chuck. If not then the company should review their training and give her another chance. But companies, like people often don't take responisibility for their failings.
Posted by: sailor | July 16, 2008 12:17 PM
First off, it is amazing at all the speculation out there. Number one, i will not be leaving my husband due to this mistake. Number two he is not a crazy lunatic, but a very passionate man when it comes to his party and his religion. He's a great person, great father and yes feels absolutely horrible about what has happened to me. As his wife, am i worried about any threats.. no i am not as i know it was just a rage via email. Did he directly threaten anyones life, no he did not. In any case, the tone and text of the email was not appropriate and he did send an email apology to PZ. For the record and i do not owe anyone anything.. i was on vacation until 7/14, i was called on friday evening and informed that some work was due and the deadline was monday morning. I was also apologized to for being asked to work during my vacation of which i take far and few between. I came in during my vacation as a courtesy to my flowers team. I use my own personal pc for work and yes I do work from home as a sales and service manager. I am extremely careful with my applications and have been a valued ( thought i was) employee for 7 years. Once i completed what i needed to do, i logged off ALL applications. My email is password protected, my RSA log in is password protected as well as my VPN and NO ONE has my complex passwords. My husband went on to the drudge report site that he reads and clicked on a link and came across that man pz's notice and responded as he always does when he is upset. Was his text extreme yes it was, would he follow through, never. I want to clear the air and tried to with my company. I was not logged into work when this happened and somehow when i logged off my exchange server email i use i set it as my default (must have clicked on yes as it does ask upon sigh in). So when my husband click on the email address to respond to the newsletter it was coming from flowers email. I am not sure how as i was not connected to VPN but that is neither here nor there and something i will take up with them. My personal email(optonline) has always been my default. No excuses here folks, this is what went down. I have nothing to hide and no reason or desire to note these blogs. If i hadn't been the dedicated employee i was i would have said "heck no, im not working on my vacation" but i am not the type and felt it my duty to make sure my annual reviews were in time for my team members to receive their annual raises. As for 1-800-Flowers, they are a wonderful company and have always been good to me and my family. They do offer a great service and i sure hope you utilitze them or continue to do so if you are a current customer. On that note, you have no way of knowing if this is me or not, but i can assure you it is. Everyone has their opinions but the things that have been posted about my company and myself are herrendous and quite frankly is making me physically ill. Please enough with the harsh comments about me, my husband and my former employer.
Posted by: The Krolls | July 16, 2008 12:35 PM
I also disagree with Greg. If the company fired her for violating thier policies on the use of company resources (which seems likely), they have every right to do so.
I regret that it has happened, that she has lost her job over the actions of the petty, despicable and disgusting man that is her husband, and I advise her to divoerce him and never look back, but the company is well within its rights to do what it has done.
It would be hypocritical of me to ask people to respect my rights, and the rights of those who agree with me, and then turn around and ask to rescind the same rights of those who disagree with me.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | July 16, 2008 12:38 PM
It is hard to say what an "atheist approach" would really be because atheists are just as diverse as any other group. But all the atheists I know personally, are not particularly mean spirited. I just want to see the not-mean spirited thing done, when it comes down to it.
Jim, others, no, I totally reject the idea that messing up with your computer is automatically a reason to lose your job. From an employers perspective, firing someone is about the worst thing you can do to someone short of a law suit.
But we don't actually know the situation here in any detail, of course.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 16, 2008 12:38 PM
OH, MK, welcome to the blog, and thanks for commenting! I'm reading your comment now.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 16, 2008 12:40 PM
I can verify that the person who claims to be mk is writing in from New York State on an IP that also sent this comment a few hours ago:
I also think that the clear bad guy here is Microsoft!!! Am I right???
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 16, 2008 12:48 PM
So, either someone is making fake posts under M. Kroll's name, or M. Kroll made both a real post and a sockpuppet post on your blog? Is that what you're saying.
I suppose there's another possibility or two. The sockpuppet post could have been her husband. Sprezzatura!!
Posted by: Mark B. | July 16, 2008 12:56 PM
...which leaves the question hanging -
Who is patricia?
Posted by: JanieBelle | July 16, 2008 12:59 PM
Mark, it could also be something less nefarious.
Perhaps Melanie and Chuck have a daughter named patricia.
Posted by: JanieBelle | July 16, 2008 1:00 PM
IP means little. Everyone at my workplace has the same IP to the outside world. One comment has capitalization and the other doesn't.
Posted by: pough | July 16, 2008 1:01 PM
pough,
Also, a home router would produce the same effect.
Posted by: JanieBelle | July 16, 2008 1:04 PM
Or maybe Melanie showed a friend this blog from her home computer, and the friend posted the comment.
If this is the real Melanie Kroll, I am very sorry for what happened to you.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 16, 2008 1:08 PM
mk wrote:
Well, actually he did:
mk wrote:
By which you mean your husband is supposed to send all his death threats through your **personal** email and not your work email. Ah, well then, that makes everything better.
I especially like the way you blame the routing of your husband's death threat email on your virtuous work ethic, claiming it could only have happened because you selflessly worked on a day off and that's the only way your email accounts could have gotten "switched" (if, indeed, that's the case.) You are as full of excuses as your husband, even as you say you are not.
Posted by: Scote | July 16, 2008 1:25 PM
Melanie, I am very sorry to hear you lost your job due to the crass and juvenile actions of your husband. I honestly hope PZ can intercede to get your job back, as it is self evident he did not want this to happen and has shown remorse about it, unlike the acerbic and criminally stupid Bill Donohue's deliberate witch hunt to get PZ fired for speaking his mind.
Self righteous dangerous imbeciles like Donohue should be confronted every time, and any form of religious intimidation by "offended" Theists should be vigorously challenged . The enlightenment was far too hard won, for us to give away essential freedoms of speech in the name of political correctness and aggressive religious censorship.
Posted by: Vaal | July 16, 2008 1:25 PM
I happen to work in IT for a largisgh organization. I also happen to know, as many of us IT pukes do, many other admins in many other organizations. Policies are fairly uniform across industry - misuses of compmany systems, e-mail included, CAN be ground for dismissal. Not WILL be. Incidents, which have to be fairly egregious to even get noticed, are evaluated on a case by case basis in every organization that I know of. The usual answer is a reprimand with it being made clear that further violations will result in harsher action - and a continued follow-up on the account auditing to make sure the message made it home. So, in most cases, the "one bite" idea is actually how things go.
There are 2 issues here - one is the misuse of e-mail, which typically would not even be noticed, but is indeed a violation of policy. The second, far more serious issue, is the nature of the message sent. It was , in fact, a federal crime. This is almost certainly why the response was harsher. It doesn't really matter if she wrote the message or not. It came form 1-800's server, via a legitimate account - there is liability there.
Now, after having read Melanie's message above... the ONLY way the message could have come from the 1-800 account would be if her VPN was either already active or configured to auto-connect. Either way, a mistake was made and policy was almost certainly violated. I do feel for Melanie having lost her job but I also understand why she did and cannot find fault with the company for terminating her employment.
This does all come down to Mr. Kroll. The message should NEVER have been sent in the first place. Threats of violence, whether they are intended to be followed up on or not, are not acceptable adult behaviour. Never have been. This is why we have laws against them. Mr. Kroll's inclusion of a timetable in the threat (end of the month)only serves to exacerbate the issue since it makes the threat much more credible. Had Mr. Kroll been forced to sit down and write an actual letter, on paper, put a stamp on it and mail it I doubt it would have occured. Good sense would probably (I hope) set in about the time you got to folding the letter into the envelope and cancelled the whole idea. Unfortunatley for Mr. Kroll he seems to have some impulse control issues and e-mail is a very immediate method of communication - often faster than it takes to properly consider your actions so he and his wife find themselves in this unenviable situation - completely due to his own actions.
Mr. Kroll, a bit of advice I hope you take, keep a pad of paper next to the PC. Next time something pisses you off and you feel the need to respond do so on the paper. Then give it 20 minutes. Re-read what you have written and THEN decide if it is appropraite to send. You'll probably save yourself quite a bit of heartburn this way.
Posted by: Stark | July 16, 2008 1:38 PM