ok. scenario: several gender-neutral employees - terry m., chris a., taylor g., etc... these employees are working on a project. they are not shown in a picture, otherwise they would be listed in order of appearance L-R in the picture. how should their names be placed in the article?
1 - alphabetical by last name
2 - chronological by tenure
3 - highest ranking first
any one of those is acceptable, correct? well, what if all three were true about the group? what if the highest-ranking person was also the one with the longest tenure, chris a? what if the second-longest-tenured person was the same rank as the the third, and their last names happened to also fall in the tenure and alphabetical pattern? does that automatically mean that chris is the boss of the project? it does not say so in the article. no one is named as "in charge" in the article.
you would list them in the article as sergeant chris a., private taylor g., and private terry m., correct?
of all the childish, panty-twisting, acid-reflux things to be mad about.... and on that note, I AM NOT THE ONE WHO CHANGED THAT. try talking to me instead of making assumptions that i think i am the "boss" of the whole thing. i have never said any such thing and i have
never
taken credit for your work... i make sure everyone knows how hard you have worked. it would be nice to see you return the favor instead of being a douchecanoe. if i wanted the silent treatment i would talk to my mother, ya dick.
(...she posts on the internet instead of talking to him directly... ahh, the irony. too pissed to have a conversation tho.)
