Yes definately, No-one likes a smart-ass, I'd say 'Clear ya desk Nostradamus, your SO out of here'

oooh low blow! ;-)

If they are talking about themselves? I wouldn't fire them, but I would watch them closer. If they were talking about me, I'd fire them if I could. If they were talking about other workers? Depends on who it was about and what the problem is. So, what is the Hurricane Center case? Would a US citizen know about this?

Eh, can't be bothered. Especially since I'd like to think I'm neither stupid not malicious, it just wouldn't get to me. I might make some kind of a retort, though.

MIAMI (AP) — The director of the National Hurricane Center, who has been outspoken in warning about an aging satellite used for hurricane forecasting, was chastised Friday by a superior for his comments. Bill Proenza has been talking about the QuikScat satellite since taking office in January. The satellite was launched in 1999 and designed to last two to three years but is now showing signs of its age. Certain hurricane forecasts could be up to 16% less accurate if it fails, Proenza has said. That could lead to wider areas placed under hurricane watches and warnings. A satellite with technology meant to replace QuikScat would not fly until 2016, seven years later than planned, The Associated Press reported this week. On Friday, Proenza was given a 3-page letter from the acting head of the Weather Service, Mary Glackin. Proenza's recent statements "may have caused some unnecessary confusion about NOAA's ability to accurately predict tropical storms," Glackin wrote. Glackin, who visited Proenza's office at the National Hurricane Center in Miami, said that talking with other weather service managers would have given Proenza "accurate factual data." "I'm not going to do anything different," he said after getting the letter. Proenza shared the letter with his staff, which led to its public release. The letter also included reprimands for two more procedural items, including allegedly improperly authorizing promotions. Glackin was named acting head of the weather service in May after its previous director announced his retirement. She said in a telephone interview that the letter was less about what happened in the past than about her expectations going forward. Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

If they did not complete the job as defined, and it wasn't due to lack of training or proper instruction and they weren't legitimately absent - then I wouldn't care whether it was malice or stupidity. They'd be gone. I think they meant that they didn't screw up on purpose, but if that's the best they can do, who needs em?!?

I'd fire someone for malice or stupidity. Either attribute is useless to pay someone for.