Messages From theapprentice



#3152 Sep 24, 2004

Good prediction... the problem is that I did not see any of the

women conspiring to gang up on Stacie J as they were willing to give

her another chance. I thought she behaved this week by not being

disruptive or did I miss something? Or was it that she was surprised

with the total shipment size of the Crest samples? No matter what

she did, her name keeps coming up in the boardroom so I bet that not

all of the women has totally given her a second chance. Since her

name had come up in several instances again this week, the focus of

the boardroom again had turn away from finding the person most

responsible for the failed task to Stacie J.

Another thing, what was the rule that was broken in the boardroom?

Again, NBC threw another so-called twist only to be a disappointment


#3170 Sep 24, 2004


I thought it probably would have something to do with Stacie and it



#3234 Sep 25, 2004

Yeah, what a lame "twist" as if being crazy is breaking a rule??!

Duh. Stupid episode.

I do think that Stacie J. made a big mistake about underestimating

the amount of toothpaste, but the other women (Marie and Eliz) also

had large failings.

I thought it was strange that they all talked about the 8-ball

incident. What was so crazy about that? I don't think I saw that

part. Were they just saying that she believed in the 8-ball? It's

obvioulsy just a toy, but if somebody believes in something, is it

really okay to fire them over a belief? Of course, this is not the

real world. It's Trump's world


#3254 Sep 25, 2004


#3270 Sep 25, 2004

I think the 8 ball incident was less about the ball and more about

the confused hyper state she seemed to be in when she was babbling

about it. As I said elsewhere, we have one in my work place as a joke

so I can't imagine that alone would be enough to scare people

(although they do seem to be a bit of a humorless lot). I think that

this coupled with her misdirections and going off on her own to hire

temps. made her a loose cannon every manager would have had to

babysit. The warehouse business didn't seem that bad, but if that was

her only job in the project, she almost blew it. What use would she

be in other than a sales position? And what if she got all giddy in

front of the public or managers? I do think though that she never

should have been in the game and that if she had defended herself

better she might have lasted given the big mistakes that week of two

other team mates. But I don't think they will make it to the end

either. And I think Raj with his eccentric behavior will also go.



#3279 Sep 25, 2004

The 8-ball comment might have been amusing, I remember a few of the

women were laughing about it and one said "what did you do with

Stacie" so I think some of them exaggerated the level of discomfort

that Stacie created. It was the apparent paranoia that followed that

was most disturbing, when Stacie asked what was going on, why nobody

was paying attention to her. I think I would have been more concerned

she might bolt and go through one of the windows


#3291 Sep 25, 2004

Oh. How exciting....NOT! I don't call that a twist, but if Trump

says so, it must be so, lol.

--- In, "ruthiedonahue"


#3306 Sep 25, 2004

That's very exaggerated. Just because you say to somebody "Stop

ignoring me" does not mean you're going to fly out a window. Talk

about taking a leap.

> she might bolt and go through one of the windows


#3316 Sep 25, 2004

Didn't you see how she was acting when she said it? She seemed to be

paranoid. I would not have been frightened for my own safety, but

concerned for hers. It also happened all of a sudden, or so it

seemed. Who knows, perhaps it wasn't as bad as it appeared to some of

us watching on tv


#3320 Sep 26, 2004

I think this whole "crazy" thing was just blown way out of

proportion. But we all have our own takes. I just think it's

unfair to label a person crazy over maybe just an emotional

outburst. I might have an emotional outburst once in awhile but

that doesn't mean I'm clinically insane. LOL, and really, I'm not.

> us watching on tv


#3342 Sep 26, 2004

--I agree with you, Batty. I didn't think she was CRAZY... just a

little silly. An airhead, maybe, but not dangerous to anyone.

> us watching on tv


#3349 Sep 26, 2004

I would not say she was crazy, but she behaved in a bizarre manner ONE

TIME. It seemed she was going to be given another chance and she

wasn't the one who was responsible for the team's loss. Someone even

said she was working hard on the latest assignment. I think it was

shameful how the others ganged up on her to get her fired instead of

Maria. Was it Jenn C who admitted that the other women were

scapegoating her?


#3357 Sep 26, 2004

Exactly. And if Trump wants his show to be taken a bit seriously,

he should not have fired a person for being "crazy" because this is

straddling the unethical line. He should have just fired her for

not being able to work well with others, which is much more valid

and less legally messy. > us watching on tv


#3361 Sep 26, 2004

He **NEVER** stated he was firing her because she was "crazy". His

words were (I think), that she was a ""loose cannon"". I've

certainly fired people for being a "loose cannon"....and that didn't

mean I thought they were "crazy". It meant they set others off and

I never knew what "fire" they were going to start next


#3363 Sep 26, 2004

Not true. He fired her for being crazy. He fired her because the

other women said they were afraid of her for being nuts. He's

walking a thin line legally. Define "loose cannon". He did not

give her solid reasons for firing her other than she

is "crazy". "Loose cannon" might be his way of calling her nuts.

That does not help his position! He did not find fault with

specific actions she did that failed the task. Maria was over

budget. That is a valid reason. See the difference?

--- In, "ruthiedonahue" > I never knew what "fire" they were going to start next


#3369 Sep 26, 2004

It's a competition and Stacy did nothing to try and fit in on her

team. She deserved to be fired and Trump is within his right to do

so on his show.

Loose cannons who were disruptive never lasted at any job I have

worked either


#3372 Sep 26, 2004

Isn't that what he did? I understood he was firing her for behaving

in a way that made the other women feel uncomfortable, that he could

not have someone who does that running one of his companies


#3374 Sep 26, 2004

He did not fire her for a medical condition, he fired her for her

behavior or actions. Even a crazy person (and we do not know if Stacie

is mentally ill) can be fired for their actions, not for their medical



#3377 Sep 26, 2004

Yes, I see a BIG difference. One person made ONE screw up. It

happens. With Stacey, she screwed up on two tasks so far and her

whole team says part of their failure is "putting out fires" that

Stacie creates. I see that he has MUCH MORE of a reason to fire

Stacie than Maria


#3381 Sep 26, 2004

I can see that some people do not know employment law. That's fine,

I just hope those who do not the law are not surprised victims

someday. It's good to know the law. It might protect you someday


#3382 Sep 26, 2004

--- In, "ruthiedonahue"

True, but nothing Stacie did caused the team to lose the most reason

task, Maria did that by herself. When she said that Elizabeth did not

supervise well enough, what I think she was really saying is that she

needed handholding. Yeah, I can see why Trump would want someone like

that working for him ;)


#3384 Sep 26, 2004

Not working well with others ON THE TASKS, AT WORK. Firing her for

being emotional in the break room or the suite is not a valid

reason. I guess some people like to defend Trump no matter what.

I'm not one of those people. I call 'em like I see 'em.

> not have someone who does that running one of his companies


#3388 Sep 26, 2004

I can't wait to see him fire that catty Maria. She is awful.

--- In, "ruthiedonahue" > Stacie than Maria


#3391 Sep 26, 2004

LOL, I agree. Maria is a twisted sister. The way she lashed out at

Elizabeth was very telling of how "crazy" she is! She is not

only "crazy" but also very vindictive and mean. I'd take Stacie J.

as a friend anyday over that back-stabbing on the rag witch Maria.

> that working for him ;)


#3394 Sep 26, 2004

Oh, at least we can agree on *something* :)


#3397 Sep 26, 2004

Keep in mind....this is a TV SHOW!!!!!! I'm sure employment law

does not apply to the winner of a TV show. Yes, they have set it up

like a "job interview", but we all know it is a show, for

entertainment purposes!!!!!!!!!! I'm sure employment law does not

apply to this GAME!!!!!!!!!


#3398 Sep 26, 2004

Sure, you are definitley right there. If he truly had to fire the

person who screwed up the task the most, Maria would have gone. But

it was **HIS** decision to give her a second chance. His alone. We

can disagree with it, but it's certainly not going to put him in

legal jeopardy. I think the person who is so into "the law" is

making a little bit too much out of this


#3403 Sep 26, 2004

Down with Maria!!! LOL

> Oh, at least we can agree on *something* :)


#3406 Sep 27, 2004

That is irrevlevant to the facts of the law though. That law is

still law. Whether Trump can weasle around it, so be it. The law

needs to be known.

--- In, "ruthiedonahue" > apply to this GAME!!!!!!!!!


#3410 Sep 27, 2004

It's a tv show, it does not exist primarily as an employment agency,

it is for entertainment and the job is a prize. All of them are paid

standard wages for the time they spent on the game show


#3411 Sep 27, 2004

Employers know how to get rid of undesirables within the realm of

the law. It happens all the time


#3418 Sep 27, 2004

He can't get in trouble for firing someone, because

technically...none of them are working for him yet! They're

working for the TV network! And, I'm sure...have a contract with

the network, that says they can be fired, at Mr Trumps discretion!

Ronnie and Boo


#3419 Sep 27, 2004

Youdon't get's a television show...and what goes on in the suite...ISpart of the job! Ronnieand Boo -----OriginalMessage-----

From: battybozo [mailto:hetrouco4p@...]

Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 6:17 PM


Subject: [The_Apprentice] Re: Poll results for The_Apprentice - Good Prediction Notworking well with others ON THE TASKS, AT WORK. Firing her for beingemotional in the break room or the suite is not a valid reason.I guess some people like to defend Trump no matter what. I'mnot one of those people. I call 'em like I see 'em. ---In ,Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

---Links-Are-Forbidden--- /


#3421 Sep 27, 2004

It is not irrelevant at all. You are acting like this is a **REAL**

interview/hiring. In fact, the "law" of this show is laid down by

whatever contracts they signed, and not employment law