Just saw that headline, supposedly from CNN.
Man, they surely can't have picked any of the WalMart women I've ever seen.
I sometimes wonder how much Playboy lays out to tune-up, a la table saw?, the
women they photograph.
Or is it more like that last coat of shellac being rubbed down with steel wool?
Charlie Self
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages
of making a disagreeable person keep his distance." Ambrose Bierce
LOL, besides it would HURT! ;-)
BRuce
Tom Watson wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2003 13:41:37 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
> wrote:
>
>
>>Just saw that headline, supposedly from CNN.
>>
>>Man, they surely can't have picked any of the WalMart women I've ever seen.
>>
>>I sometimes wonder how much Playboy lays out to tune-up, a la table saw?, the
>>women they photograph.
>>
>>Or is it more like that last coat of shellac being rubbed down with steel wool?
>
>
>
> Most of the women I see in WalMart look like they went to Maaco.
>
> When they're running the special it's about a hundred bucks.
>
> If I were doing the work, they'd have to be satisfied with the finish
> the way it came off the gun.
>
> I ain't rubbin' dem down wid nuttin.
>
>
>
> Regards, Tom
> Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
> Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
> http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
LRod <[email protected]> writes:
>On 21 Nov 2003 13:41:37 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
>wrote:
>
>>Just saw that headline, supposedly from CNN.
>
>$100 says that everyone of them that poses gets canned by WalMart.
WalMart has already publicly stated that they will take
no action against the employees.
scott
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:44:35 GMT, "Groggy" <[email protected]>
brought forth from the murky depths:
>"Larry Jaques" <jake@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>> Wow, a human BOLO!
>
>Monitor wipes pleeze
>
>Curse you Larrikin
But can she make the tassels go different directions?
(Oi vay, bad visuals!)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poverty is easy. * http://diversify.com
It's Charity and Chastity that are hard. * Data-based Website Design
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:36:45 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
>WalMart has already publicly stated that they will take
>no action against the employees.
>
>scott
Their legal team probably showed them what it could possibly cost if
they took action. <G>
Barry
Barry Burke responds:
>>WalMart has already publicly stated that they will take
>>no action against the employees.
>>
>>scott
>
>
>Their legal team probably showed them what it could possibly cost if
>they took action. <G>
Yeah, well...in corporate life, where there's a will, there's a way. Bet not
many of them are working there 6 months from now.
Charlie Self
"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself. "
Ronald Reagan
Charlie Self wrote:
> Barry Burke responds:
>
>>> WalMart has already publicly stated that they will take
>>> no action against the employees.
>>>
>>> scott
>>
>>
>> Their legal team probably showed them what it could possibly cost if
>> they took action. <G>
>
> Yeah, well...in corporate life, where there's a will, there's a way.
> Bet not many of them are working there 6 months from now.
But isn't that the case with most WM employees. Seems the turnover rate is
pretty high.
Gary
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of
> itself. " Ronald Reagan
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:43:41 GMT, Mark <[email protected]>
wrote:
>LRod wrote:
>>
>>>Wasn't the condition of return abiding by the no-strike rule?
>>
>> ... That was a 16 year sentence. Murderers get out serving
>> less time than that.
>
>And if aircraft had augured we know who would have painted as the
>murderers.
No doubt about it.
>>
>>>Does the employer have all the obligations, and the employee only
>>>privileges?
>
>That's obtuse.
I agree, and it wasn't my statement.
>>>I can remember some "due regard" days back then.
>>
>>
>> Whatever that means. But I don't think you were there.
>
>
>I wasn't there but I watched it happen.
I was. but there's been another poster in this thread that I was
responding to that I think you're confusing with me.
>Any way you cut it the Reagan Administrations actions were highly
>inappropriate.
>
>The potential result of this action could have been highly fatal. Which
>only proves how inappropriate the action was.
>
>It should be noted there are government employees in unions. Why not the
>ATCs? Less important positions have collective bargaining.
There was. PATCO was the union at the time. And we had collective
bargaining. During the period (post 3 Aug 81) after which PATCO was
decertified (I think that happened around November) until sometime in
1982 or 83, there was no union. Ultimately, a new one was formed,
NATCA, which is still in place.
How ironic that the actions of the government created the necessity of
another controllers union so soon after 3 Aug 81.
They kept trying to recruit me but I told them that although I was
extremely sympathetic to their goals, I couldn't in good conscience
join a labor organization whose members had crossed my picket line.
>In the least the Reagan Administration used union busting tactics. Last
>I knew that wasn't legal.
Apparently it is if you can get away with it. And because of 3 Aug 81,
a lot of companies have resorted to that very thing. Continental
Airlines comes immediately to mind. So does Hormel. It's like the
1880s all over again.
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Charlie Self wrote:
>>But isn't that the case with most WM employees. Seems the turnover rate
>>is pretty high.
>
> Well, hell. Have you ever walked in early in the a.m. when they're holding
> one of their store pep talks? I'd run screaming 90 seconds into the first
> one.
ROTFLMAOPIMP!!!!!!
Gimmie a W!
Gimmie a A!
I never did that, except once. One day I was lucky enough to be selected to
*lead* the damn thing.
I still have flashbacks.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
I am a former employee, and I got into a heated discussion with the store
manager over some of their policies.
- The store sold beer, but we weren't allowed to consume any (even if we
purchased it ourselves) at company functions such as X-mas parties.
-They sold music but dancing wasn't allowed at the functions either.
I was told "Sam Walton" was a very religious man and the company would never
allow these things, to which I replied then maybe they shouldn't be open on
Sundays and religious days, and not sell cigarettes, alcohol, and music..
In article <[email protected]>,
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> I couldn't help noticing down through the years that there is no more
> fertile ground for hypocrisy than a religious man.
Isn't it odd how a man attempting to be a moral example, but who
doesn't meet your idea of what "moral" should be, is a hypocrite? And
how a man who publicly displays the morals of a tomcat is accepted
because he has made no pretense at morality?
"Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue."
- La Rochefoucauld 1613-1680
Kevin
In article <[email protected]>,
stickdoctorq <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've never been employed by WalMart....don't know anyone employed by
> WalMart, and am not a union member.....and I think WalMart is an enormously
> harmful entity.
>
> I buy NOTHING there....since I know every cent of profit goes directly into
> the pockets of the richest family in America...and precious little goes to
> their employees or suppliers.
Obviously enough goes to their employees to keep them working there (or
to attract replacements), and enough goes to their suppliers to keep
them supplying.
What's so "harmful" about free enterprise?
Kevin
I couldn't help noticing down through the years that there is no more
fertile ground for hypocrisy than a religious man.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/21/03
"ToolMiser" wrote in message
> I was told "Sam Walton" was a very religious man and the company would
never
> allow these things, to which I replied then maybe they shouldn't be open
on
> Sundays and religious days, and not sell cigarettes, alcohol, and music..
Unless it's an antireligious one preaching "tolerance."
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I couldn't help noticing down through the years that there is no more
> fertile ground for hypocrisy than a religious man.
Not if you know the definition of "hypocrisy".
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/21/03
"Kevin Craig" wrote in message
> In article
> Swingman wrote:
>
> > I couldn't help noticing down through the years that there is no more
> > fertile ground for hypocrisy than a religious man.
>
> Isn't it odd how a man attempting to be a moral example, but who
> doesn't meet your idea of what "moral" should be, is a hypocrite? And
> how a man who publicly displays the morals of a tomcat is accepted
> because he has made no pretense at morality?
>
> "Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue."
> - La Rochefoucauld 1613-1680
>
> Kevin
Apparently, Charles has an imposter floating around.
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:UlpAb.440157$HS4.3454941@attbi_s01...
> If it came from Charles Self, I would not question it.
>
> "Groggy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Charlie,
> >
> > I hesitate before taking that at face value. Is it truly factual?
> >
> > Greg
> >
> >
>
>
Groggy asks:
>
>Charlie,
>
>I hesitate before taking that at face value. Is it truly factual?
No.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/target.asp
It tends to make me wonder what Forrey's agenda contains since his original
complaint contains some out and out lies.
I apologized elsewhere in this thread.
Charlie Self
"I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who
believe it." George Carlin
Apperently, I spoke to soon. :)
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:5opAb.440166$HS4.3454290@attbi_s01...
> Apparently, Charles has an imposter floating around.
>
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:UlpAb.440157$HS4.3454941@attbi_s01...
> > If it came from Charles Self, I would not question it.
> >
> > "Groggy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Charlie,
> > >
> > > I hesitate before taking that at face value. Is it truly factual?
> > >
> > > Greg
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
If it came from Charles Self, I would not question it.
"Groggy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Charlie,
>
> I hesitate before taking that at face value. Is it truly factual?
>
> Greg
>
>
CW notes:
>
>If it came from Charles Self, I would not question it.
>
>"Groggy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Charlie,
>>
>> I hesitate before taking that at face value. Is it truly factual?
It is NOT factual. I screwed up that time, big time.
Charlie Self
"I have one yardstick by which I test every major problem-and that yardstick
is: Is it good for America?" Dwight D. Eisenhower
Trent© <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> Are you talkin' about we, the consumer, Bob? Or are you talkin' about
> Wal-Mart?
>
> Why is it that only the FORMER employees...and union members...think
> negatively about Wal-Mart? lol
>
>
> Have a nice week...
>
> Trent
>
> Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
>
I've never been employed by WalMart....don't know anyone employed by
WalMart, and am not a union member.....and I think WalMart is an enormously
harmful entity.
I buy NOTHING there....since I know every cent of profit goes directly into
the pockets of the richest family in America...and precious little goes to
their employees or suppliers.
Kevin Craig <[email protected]> wrote in
news:251120031927222223%[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> stickdoctorq <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I've never been employed by WalMart....don't know anyone employed by
>> WalMart, and am not a union member.....and I think WalMart is an
>> enormously harmful entity.
>>
>> I buy NOTHING there....since I know every cent of profit goes
>> directly into the pockets of the richest family in America...and
>> precious little goes to their employees or suppliers.
>
> Obviously enough goes to their employees to keep them working there
> (or to attract replacements), and enough goes to their suppliers to
> keep them supplying.
>
> What's so "harmful" about free enterprise?
>
> Kevin
Unfettered free enterprise creates a few winners, and a vast underclass
of losers.
The problem with WalMart is the "race to the bottom" they are creating.
Everywhere they move, they kill good jobs. Look at California.....tons
of people in the grocery chains there earning good wages you can actually
raise a family on...and they are fighting tooth and nail because they
know if WalMart comes in wages will go to shit.
Just think it through:
You are earning a decent wage...you can support your family, buy a home.
Walmart comes in. Your wage is cut by a third, maybe a half. You can't
make payments on your mortgage, can't afford health insurance. You can't
buy "luxuries"....good food, dental care, furniture, etc.
Multiply this case by thousands and thousands.
Ultimately, WalMart and the consequences of their corporate mentality is
one of the prime movers in the destruction of the middle class in North
America.
The funny thing (not really funny actually) is that Walmart is killing
itself....because they are killing the middle and middle-low class that
is their customer base.
stickdoctorq <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Kevin Craig <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:251120031927222223%[email protected]:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > stickdoctorq <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Ultimately, WalMart and the consequences of their corporate mentality is
> one of the prime movers in the destruction of the middle class in North
> America.
>
> The funny thing (not really funny actually) is that Walmart is killing
> itself....because they are killing the middle and middle-low class that
> is their customer base.
In all the pecking at WalMart, no one has ever mentioned the community
giving. I just got a note from another former Marine on a different
store, one that I don't like generally because they've seldom had what
I was searching for in any department, but one that others seem to
praise over WalMart:
Subject: TARGET
Something to consider as we spend our holiday dollars!
Vietnam Veterans Association
Recently we asked the local TARGET store to be a proud sponsor of the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall during our spring recognition event.
We received the following reply from the local TARGET management:
"Veterans do not meet our area of giving. We only donate to the arts,
social
action groups, gay & lesbian causes, and education."
So I'm thinking, if the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall and veterans in
general do not meet their donation criteria, then something is really
wrong at this TARGET store. We were not asking for thousands of
dollars, not
even hundreds, just a small sponsorship for a memorial remembrance.
As a follow-up, I e-mailed the TARGET U.S. corporate headquarters and
their response was the same. That's their national policy.
Then I looked into the company further. They will not allow the
Marines to
collect for 'Toys for Tots' at any of their stores. And during the
recent
Iraq deployment, they would not allow families of employees who were
called up for active duty to continue their insurance coverage while
they
were on military service. Then as I dig further, TARGET is a
French-owned
corporation.
Now, I'm thinking again. If TARGET can not support American Veterans,
then
why should I and my family support their stores by spending our hard
earned American dollars and to have their profits sent to France.
Without
the American Vets, where would France be today?
Feel free to pass this along to whomever you want.
Sincerely,
Dick Forrey
Veterans helping Veterans
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:32:56 GMT, stickdoctorq
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I've never been employed by WalMart....don't know anyone employed by
>WalMart, and am not a union member.....and I think WalMart is an enormously
>harmful entity.
Thanks for the input.
Your attitude is an example of exactly what I'm talkin' about...
Uninformed...and biased.
I wonder why you...and others...feel this way?
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
In article <[email protected]>,
Groggy <[email protected]> wrote:
>Charlie,
>
>I hesitate before taking that at face value. Is it truly factual?
>
>Greg
>
>
Well, Target, is owned by the same folks that own Marshall Fields.
"Dayton Hudson Corp". H.Q. in Minn., MN.
I don't think that's French.
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:22:53 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Trent© wrote:
>
>> Everybody needs to vent. You'll find this at most companies.
>>
>> But if they REALLY hate it...and they're still there...they're fools.
>
>I'll grant you that they're fools, but they *really* hate it. I was one of
>them for too long myself. I did escape, but look at what I had to do in
>order to accomplish that. Drivers get paid well because it's one of the
>most distasteful jobs in America.
Distasteful?!! Its one of the BEST jobs in America!
See...its all a matter of perspective. If you (plural) don't like
your job...or feel the way you do about it...you should find a
DIFFERENT job...no matter what it is. Life is too short to wake up
miserable every day...and to DREAD waking up.
>Most people just wouldn't do what I do
>for a living.
Millions do, Mike...and I'd bet many LOVE it.
>The ability to get the thing down the road is really only a
>tiny factor.
>
>If I could get a job as a sewage holding tank diver or a turkey masturbator,
>for what I make now, I'd take it in a heartbeat.
You meant 'master baster', of course! lol
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 10:38:35 -0600, "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"ToolMiser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> I am a former employee, and I got into a heated discussion with the store
>> manager over some of their policies.
>>
>> - The store sold beer, but we weren't allowed to consume any (even if we
>> purchased it ourselves) at company functions such as X-mas parties.
>> -They sold music but dancing wasn't allowed at the functions either.
>>
>> I was told "Sam Walton" was a very religious man and the company would
>never
>> allow these things, to which I replied then maybe they shouldn't be open
>on
>> Sundays and religious days, and not sell cigarettes, alcohol, and music..
>
>And not buy a huge percentage of their merchandise from a country (China)
>that they would regard as atheist and communist.
>
>Bob
>
Are you talkin' about we, the consumer, Bob? Or are you talkin' about
Wal-Mart?
Why is it that only the FORMER employees...and union members...think
negatively about Wal-Mart? lol
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
Trent writes:
>Are you talkin' about we, the consumer, Bob? Or are you talkin' about
>Wal-Mart?
>
>Why is it that only the FORMER employees...and union members...think
>negatively about Wal-Mart? lol
Bullshit. I am not a union member, nor am I a former employee. To think
negatively about WalMart, I suggest as the simplest procedure the pruchase of a
men's shirt. Third washing at least one sleeve will nearly fall out. I tried
that 4 times, got tired of driving in to get my money back.
I'd rather pay 3 times the money for LL Bean and get something that lasts...and
doesn't follow current clothing trends.
Charlie Self
"Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the
frog dies of it." E. B. White
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "ToolMiser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I was told "Sam Walton" was a very religious man and the company would
> never
> > allow these things,
>
> And not buy a huge percentage of their merchandise from a country (China)
> that they would regard as atheist and communist.
>
Now, now! Mustn't let morality interfere with profits :-).
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
Trent© wrote:
> Why is it that only the FORMER employees...and union members...think
> negatively about Wal-Mart? lol
That's a crock. I know literally dozens of Wal-Mart employees. They all
hate the company, and hate the job. Especially the ones who have been
around long enough to remember what things were like when "Mr. Sam" was
still alive and at the helm. When the bean counters took over, that
company went to hell.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Trent© wrote:
>
> > Everybody needs to vent. You'll find this at most companies.
> >
> > But if they REALLY hate it...and they're still there...they're fools.
>
> I'll grant you that they're fools, but they *really* hate it. I was one of
> them for too long myself. I did escape, but look at what I had to do in
> order to accomplish that. Drivers get paid well because it's one of the
> most distasteful jobs in America. Most people just wouldn't do what I do
> for a living. The ability to get the thing down the road is really only a
> tiny factor.
>
> If I could get a job as a sewage holding tank diver or a turkey masturbator,
> for what I make now, I'd take it in a heartbeat.
>
>
You might want to reconsider that. TLC has a series on worst jobs,
premise of the show is the host rides along with someone who does a
certain job for a day. One of the jobs was with a septic tank service
"honey wagon" driver. Last job of the day was descending into a tank to
scoop the muck off the walls. His comments, "OK, this is it, this is
the worst." He asked the regular if he was a religious man. He
indicated that once he got out of the tank, he was going to start living
a good life because he didn't want to die and come back to that place.
I really felt for the the camera man.
On 4 Dec 2003 01:10:08 -0800, [email protected] (Charles Self) wrote:
>In all the pecking at WalMart, no one has ever mentioned the community
>giving. I just got a note from another former Marine on a different
>store, one that I don't like generally because they've seldom had what
>I was searching for in any department, but one that others seem to
>praise over WalMart:
>
>Subject: TARGET
[urban legend snipped]
Charlie, I'm surprised at you. I would have thought you might check
things like this out before repeating. Take a look at:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/target.asp
The story is false.
My first rule on the internet is whenever I feel myself getting
agitated at a story someone is posting, go to snopes.com before
replying.
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
LRod states:
>Charlie, I'm surprised at you. I would have thought you might check
>things like this out before repeating. Take a look at:
>
>http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/target.asp
>
>The story is false.
>
>My first rule on the internet is whenever I feel myself getting
>agitated at a story someone is posting, go to snopes.com before
>replying.
Mostly false. I've apologized already. My source is a friend and former Marine
I figured had checked this out.
Wrong. But one mistake in 30 years is not a real problem.
Charlie Self
"I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who
believe it." George Carlin
"ToolMiser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I am a former employee, and I got into a heated discussion with the store
> manager over some of their policies.
>
> - The store sold beer, but we weren't allowed to consume any (even if we
> purchased it ourselves) at company functions such as X-mas parties.
> -They sold music but dancing wasn't allowed at the functions either.
>
> I was told "Sam Walton" was a very religious man and the company would
never
> allow these things, to which I replied then maybe they shouldn't be open
on
> Sundays and religious days, and not sell cigarettes, alcohol, and music..
And not buy a huge percentage of their merchandise from a country (China)
that they would regard as atheist and communist.
Bob
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 15:10:08 GMT, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I couldn't help noticing down through the years that there is no more
>fertile ground for hypocrisy than a religious man.
AMEN!
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 00:01:03 GMT, stickdoctorq
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> What's so "harmful" about free enterprise?
>>
>> Kevin
>
>
>Unfettered free enterprise creates a few winners, and a vast underclass
>of losers.
Wal-Mart, of course, doesn't fall into that classification.
>The problem with WalMart is the "race to the bottom" they are creating.
The 'problem' obviously is not with Wal-Mart.
Wishing you and yours a happy Thanksgiving season...
Trent
Swingman wrote:
> I couldn't help noticing down through the years that there is no more
> fertile ground for hypocrisy than a religious man.
Too often true, I'm afraid. I can name one or two who break that mold, but
it's not typical.
More than that I'd best not say. That's a big can of worms that doesn't
need opening here and now.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
Another Urban Legend. See http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/target.asp
for the full story.
"Charles Self" wrote
>
> In all the pecking at WalMart, no one has ever mentioned the community
> giving. I just got a note from another former Marine on a different
> store, one that I don't like generally because they've seldom had what
> I was searching for in any department, but one that others seem to
> praise over WalMart:
>
> Subject: TARGET
>
> Something to consider as we spend our holiday dollars!
>
> Vietnam Veterans Association
>
> Recently we asked the local TARGET store to be a proud sponsor of the
> Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall during our spring recognition event.
>
> We received the following reply from the local TARGET management:
> "Veterans do not meet our area of giving. We only donate to the arts,
> social
> action groups, gay & lesbian causes, and education."
>
> So I'm thinking, if the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall and veterans in
> general do not meet their donation criteria, then something is really
> wrong at this TARGET store. We were not asking for thousands of
> dollars, not
> even hundreds, just a small sponsorship for a memorial remembrance.
>
> As a follow-up, I e-mailed the TARGET U.S. corporate headquarters and
> their response was the same. That's their national policy.
>
> Then I looked into the company further. They will not allow the
> Marines to
> collect for 'Toys for Tots' at any of their stores. And during the
> recent
> Iraq deployment, they would not allow families of employees who were
> called up for active duty to continue their insurance coverage while
> they
> were on military service. Then as I dig further, TARGET is a
> French-owned
> corporation.
>
> Now, I'm thinking again. If TARGET can not support American Veterans,
> then
> why should I and my family support their stores by spending our hard
> earned American dollars and to have their profits sent to France.
> Without
> the American Vets, where would France be today?
>
> Feel free to pass this along to whomever you want.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Dick Forrey
>
> Veterans helping Veterans
Rick posts:
>
>Another Urban Legend. See http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/target.asp
>for the full story.
>
>"Charles Self" wrote
>>
>> In all the pecking at WalMart, no one has ever mentioned the community
>> giving. I just got a note from another former Marine on a different
>> store, one that I don't like generally because they've seldom had what
>> I was searching for in any department, but one that others seem to
>> praise over WalMart:
I checked out the Snopes site: after that, it seemed to me that Mr. Forrey has
some unstated aims in his letter that are not particularly admirable. Several
of his misstatements strike me as outright falsifications rather than mistakes
in understanding, particularly the part about support of gay and lesbian (I
guess the repetition was so we wouldn't miss the supposed import) and the
company being French owned. Too, I was more upset by the alleged refusal of
support for Toys for Tots (a small group of us in Bedford, VA worked our butts
off for several years to build up one of the most successful small detachment
T4T programs around) than the rest, which also turns out to be untrue.
I've so notified my buddy who passed the letter on to me, and I apologize to
the wreck for any upset this may have caused.
Charlie Self
"I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who
believe it." George Carlin
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> scoop the muck off the walls. His comments, "OK, this is it, this is
> the worst." He asked the regular if he was a religious man. He
> indicated that once he got out of the tank, he was going to start living
> a good life because he didn't want to die and come back to that place.
> I really felt for the the camera man.
Crawling around in human shit can't be any worse than D.C. traffic. :)
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 09:34:02 -0800, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> "ToolMiser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > I was told "Sam Walton" was a very religious man and the company would
>> never
>> > allow these things,
>>
>> And not buy a huge percentage of their merchandise from a country (China)
>> that they would regard as atheist and communist.
>>
>Now, now! Mustn't let morality interfere with profits :-).
Do you happen to own a GM product, Larry?
Do you know how much money they make from selling porn?
Do you have cable?...or Direct TV? Them, too.
But few of us will make any of these changes in our purchases.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 01:25:24 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> brought forth from the murky depths:
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> scoop the muck off the walls. His comments, "OK, this is it, this is
>> the worst." He asked the regular if he was a religious man. He
>> indicated that once he got out of the tank, he was going to start living
>> a good life because he didn't want to die and come back to that place.
>> I really felt for the the camera man.
>
>Crawling around in human shit can't be any worse than D.C. traffic. :)
There's a difference? Oh, sh*t ponds are less humid than D.C.
-
Don't be a possum on the Information Superhighway of life.
----
http://diversify.com Dynamic Database-Driven Websites
Larry Jaques responds:
>>
>>Crawling around in human shit can't be any worse than D.C. traffic. :)
>
>There's a difference? Oh, sh*t ponds are less humid than D.C.
>
Barely. But D.C. is usually windier, making for some interesting days and
nights.
Charlie Self
"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would
promise them missionaries for dinner." H. L. Mencken
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 02:08:27 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Trent© wrote:
>
>> Why is it that only the FORMER employees...and union members...think
>> negatively about Wal-Mart? lol
>
>That's a crock. I know literally dozens of Wal-Mart employees. They all
>hate the company, and hate the job.
Everybody needs to vent. You'll find this at most companies.
But if they REALLY hate it...and they're still there...they're fools.
NO company is perfect...for EVERYONE. That's why people quit or get
fired every day.
I find most Wal-Mart employees to be very friendly and happy people.
>Especially the ones who have been
>around long enough to remember what things were like when "Mr. Sam" was
>still alive and at the helm. When the bean counters took over, that
>company went to hell.
The unions were bitchin' WAY before Sam died! lol Actually, HE was
the reason they were bitchin'! lol
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
stickdoctorq wrote:
> make payments on your mortgage, can't afford health insurance. You can't
> buy "luxuries"....good food, dental care, furniture, etc.
>
> Multiply this case by thousands and thousands.
You're wasting your breath though. Those who would argue the contrary will
just point out that those jobs, and the people in them, have no real value
to society anyway, and they're currently overpaid. These are the same
people who will, likely as not, bitch about the service at Home Depot with
the very next breath.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
Trent© wrote:
> Everybody needs to vent. You'll find this at most companies.
>
> But if they REALLY hate it...and they're still there...they're fools.
I'll grant you that they're fools, but they *really* hate it. I was one of
them for too long myself. I did escape, but look at what I had to do in
order to accomplish that. Drivers get paid well because it's one of the
most distasteful jobs in America. Most people just wouldn't do what I do
for a living. The ability to get the thing down the road is really only a
tiny factor.
If I could get a job as a sewage holding tank diver or a turkey masturbator,
for what I make now, I'd take it in a heartbeat.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
Yep, but I don't think it's that odd. That's why we have no real problem
accept when someone like Jerry Falwell does the same thing he has been
preaching against for years. When you get on a soapbox and tell the rest of
us how we should live our lives and then don't follow your own example, that
is hypocracy.
djd
Kevin Craig <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:231120030836325202%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I couldn't help noticing down through the years that there is no more
> > fertile ground for hypocrisy than a religious man.
>
> Isn't it odd how a man attempting to be a moral example, but who
> doesn't meet your idea of what "moral" should be, is a hypocrite? And
> how a man who publicly displays the morals of a tomcat is accepted
> because he has made no pretense at morality?
>
> "Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue."
> - La Rochefoucauld 1613-1680
>
> Kevin
"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> > scoop the muck off the walls. His comments, "OK, this is it, this is
> > the worst." He asked the regular if he was a religious man. He
> > indicated that once he got out of the tank, he was going to start living
> > a good life because he didn't want to die and come back to that place.
> > I really felt for the the camera man.
>
> Crawling around in human shit can't be any worse than D.C. traffic. :)
>
Just drive up I-295 from the Wilson Bridge and you can have both
experiences. That Blue Plains smell!
Montyhp
> --
> Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
>
Seems amazingly close to the urban legand about this subject.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/t/target-viet.htm
Don
Charles Self <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stickdoctorq <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Kevin Craig <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:251120031927222223%[email protected]:
> >
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > stickdoctorq <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Ultimately, WalMart and the consequences of their corporate mentality is
> > one of the prime movers in the destruction of the middle class in North
> > America.
> >
> > The funny thing (not really funny actually) is that Walmart is killing
> > itself....because they are killing the middle and middle-low class that
> > is their customer base.
>
> In all the pecking at WalMart, no one has ever mentioned the community
> giving. I just got a note from another former Marine on a different
> store, one that I don't like generally because they've seldom had what
> I was searching for in any department, but one that others seem to
> praise over WalMart:
>
> Subject: TARGET
>
> Something to consider as we spend our holiday dollars!
>
> Vietnam Veterans Association
>
> Recently we asked the local TARGET store to be a proud sponsor of the
> Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall during our spring recognition event.
>
> We received the following reply from the local TARGET management:
> "Veterans do not meet our area of giving. We only donate to the arts,
> social
> action groups, gay & lesbian causes, and education."
>
> So I'm thinking, if the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall and veterans in
> general do not meet their donation criteria, then something is really
> wrong at this TARGET store. We were not asking for thousands of
> dollars, not
> even hundreds, just a small sponsorship for a memorial remembrance.
>
> As a follow-up, I e-mailed the TARGET U.S. corporate headquarters and
> their response was the same. That's their national policy.
>
> Then I looked into the company further. They will not allow the
> Marines to
> collect for 'Toys for Tots' at any of their stores. And during the
> recent
> Iraq deployment, they would not allow families of employees who were
> called up for active duty to continue their insurance coverage while
> they
> were on military service. Then as I dig further, TARGET is a
> French-owned
> corporation.
>
> Now, I'm thinking again. If TARGET can not support American Veterans,
> then
> why should I and my family support their stores by spending our hard
> earned American dollars and to have their profits sent to France.
> Without
> the American Vets, where would France be today?
>
> Feel free to pass this along to whomever you want.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Dick Forrey
>
> Veterans helping Veterans
LRod wrote:
>
>>Wasn't the condition of return abiding by the no-strike rule?
>
>
> ... That was a 16 year sentence. Murderers get out serving
> less time than that.
And if aircraft had augured we know who would have painted as the
murderers.
>
>>Does the employer have all the obligations, and the employee only
>>privileges?
That's obtuse.
>>I can remember some "due regard" days back then.
>
>
> Whatever that means. But I don't think you were there.
I wasn't there but I watched it happen.
Any way you cut it the Reagan Administrations actions were highly
inappropriate.
The potential result of this action could have been highly fatal. Which
only proves how inappropriate the action was.
It should be noted there are government employees in unions. Why not the
ATCs? Less important positions have collective bargaining.
In the least the Reagan Administration used union busting tactics. Last
I knew that wasn't legal.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)
GeeDubb responds:
>>
>> Yeah, well...in corporate life, where there's a will, there's a way.
>> Bet not many of them are working there 6 months from now.
>
>But isn't that the case with most WM employees. Seems the turnover rate is
>pretty high.
Well, hell. Have you ever walked in early in the a.m. when they're holding one
of their store pep talks? I'd run screaming 90 seconds into the first one.
But fromw hat a relative told me, they've got more reasons than any store needs
to fire people set right into the employment literature they hand new hires.
Have a beer with lunch and you're history if someone happens to notice.
Charlie Self
"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself. "
Ronald Reagan
On 21 Nov 2003 23:56:57 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>But fromw hat a relative told me, they've got more reasons than any store needs
>to fire people set right into the employment literature they hand new hires.
>Have a beer with lunch and you're history if someone happens to notice.
I was an air traffic controller for the FAA for 30 years. They had the
same policy.
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
LRod writes:
>>But fromw hat a relative told me, they've got more reasons than any store
>needs
>>to fire people set right into the employment literature they hand new hires.
>
>>Have a beer with lunch and you're history if someone happens to notice.
>
>I was an air traffic controller for the FAA for 30 years. They had the
>same policy.
Somehow, I don't think a WalMart employee is apt to send a speeding shopping
cart into the ground, killing dozens of people.
Charlie Self
"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself. "
Ronald Reagan
On 22 Nov 2003 10:23:49 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>LRod writes:
>
>>>But fromw hat a relative told me, they've got more reasons than any store
>>needs
>>>to fire people set right into the employment literature they hand new hires.
>>
>>>Have a beer with lunch and you're history if someone happens to notice.
>>
>>I was an air traffic controller for the FAA for 30 years. They had the
>>same policy.
>
>Somehow, I don't think a WalMart employee is apt to send a speeding shopping
>cart into the ground, killing dozens of people.
Don't you think Wal-Mart has things like fork lifts?...or shipping
docks?...or other dangerous activities?
I think yer still livin' in the dark ages, Charlie. Drinking on the
job...or bringing it TO the job...is ALWAYS dangerous.
I doubt if there are any companies where this is not prohibited.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
Charlie Self wrote:
> Stuff a forklift into a back area full of pillows and you got a mess.
While I don't disagree with the point you're making, I have to chuckle at
this one.
Twice while I worked there we had to evacuate the entire store after a
*manager* crashed the forklift into an overhead gas heater.
*Twice*, mind you.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
Silvan writes:
> Stuff a forklift into a back area full of pillows and you got a mess.
>
>While I don't disagree with the point you're making, I have to chuckle at
>this one.
>
>Twice while I worked there we had to evacuate the entire store after a
>*manager* crashed the forklift into an overhead gas heater.
>
>*Twice*, mind you.
Yeah, well...that's why they're managers.
Charlie Self
"Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the
frog dies of it." E. B. White
Charlie Self wrote:
>>*Twice*, mind you.
>
> Yeah, well...that's why they're managers.
Quite.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
Trent replies:
>>Somehow, I don't think a WalMart employee is apt to send a speeding shopping
>>cart into the ground, killing dozens of people.
>
>Don't you think Wal-Mart has things like fork lifts?...or shipping
>docks?...or other dangerous activities?
>
Ohfercrissakes. What nonsense. I don't drink at all, but I do know that
comparing a forklift driver's level of danger with one beer--which was what I
was writing of--to any kind of air traffic control is bullshit. Stuff a
forklift into a back area full of pillows and you got a mess. Stuff a 747 into
a 737 and you got one helluva lot worse than a mess.
>I think yer still livin' in the dark ages, Charlie. Drinking on the
>job...or bringing it TO the job...is ALWAYS dangerous.
I think that may be one of the silliest statements anyone has ever made about
drinking.
I used to drink. End of day, a beer on the typewriter created a danger to my
manuscripts, I guess, but it sure as hell didn't create a danger to anyone
else, nor did a drink with lunch.
>I doubt if there are any companies where this is not prohibited.
I think you're living in some kind of weird-assed Puritan world.
Charlie Self
"Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the
frog dies of it." E. B. White
In article <csjwb.290053$Tr4.921682@attbi_s03>, CW
<[email protected]> wrote:
> About seven years ago, I was working in a place that would not allow you to
> smoke there but you could drink beer. The fridge in the lunchroom always had
> at least a case in it.The next job I had was the same but they also let you
> smoke.
When I was stationed in Germany with the U.S. Army, we would always
chuckle at the blue-collar, tradesman-type workers (carpenters,
cobblestone layers, plumbers, etc.) They believed in starting the job
early, and usually worked 6:30-2 or so. Around nine o'clock they'd
take their first beer break, and break out one bottle of beer and a
hard roll. Lunch was about 10:30, and consisted of one bottle of beer
and a sandwich.
Like many others here, I've never worked anywhere where it was
acceptable to have even a single drink at lunch. I never understood
why anyone would want to. There are certain meals with which a glass
of beer or wine are the perfect touch, but lunch during the work day
has always been "functional" to me... it's fuel, and you just eat and
then go back to work without worrying about the gourmand aspects.
After the whistle blows, Retreat is sounded, the sun sets... whatever
your standard for "end of the day", then by all means enjoy a libation.
I'm enjoying a beer as I type this at 9:45 a.m., but of course I work
midnight-8, so it's 6:45 p.m. by my clock. :-)
Kevin
Silvan <[email protected]> writes:
>Charlie Self wrote:
>
>> Stuff a forklift into a back area full of pillows and you got a mess.
>
>While I don't disagree with the point you're making, I have to chuckle at
>this one.
>
>Twice while I worked there we had to evacuate the entire store after a
>*manager* crashed the forklift into an overhead gas heater.
We once had to evacuate the south end of town after a Foreman
misjudged the distance when repositioning a couple of bulk
rail cars and snapped the hose we were using to empty a bulk
car of sulfer dioxide.
Whew. Fortunately we had protective gear, as was de rigueur when
working around that nasty stuff, but we still got out of there
fast.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> I'm sure those workman would not only be puzzled at any concern over
> their "drinking" but would also probably snort in derision if offered
> the substitute of a weak ass American beer.
>
Actually, no. Unless things have changed, the only time German beer has
the alcohol content of American beer is during "starkbier" season -
roughly equivalent to bock season. The stuff they drink at work for
lunch is about like the old 1.2 near beer.
I was over there for one of those and the Germans kept warning me to be
careful because the beer was so much stronger than normal. Not to me, bu
it sure did taste a lot better than American beer.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:49:52 GMT, Kevin Craig <[email protected]>
wrote:
>When I was stationed in Germany with the U.S. Army, we would always
>chuckle at the blue-collar, tradesman-type workers (carpenters,
>cobblestone layers, plumbers, etc.) They believed in starting the job
>early, and usually worked 6:30-2 or so. Around nine o'clock they'd
>take their first beer break, and break out one bottle of beer and a
>hard roll. Lunch was about 10:30, and consisted of one bottle of beer
>and a sandwich.
>
>Like many others here, I've never worked anywhere where it was
>acceptable to have even a single drink at lunch. I never understood
>why anyone would want to. There are certain meals with which a glass
>of beer or wine are the perfect touch, but lunch during the work day
>has always been "functional" to me... it's fuel, and you just eat and
>then go back to work without worrying about the gourmand aspects.
Culture. For centuries in Europe beer has been the drink of choice for
meals because of the dangers in drinking unsanitary water. Wine was
also appropriate, but more expensive. It wasn't until perhaps the late
18th or early 19th century that the concepts of sanitation and water
treatment were implemented into municipalities.
I'm sure those workman would not only be puzzled at any concern over
their "drinking" but would also probably snort in derision if offered
the substitute of a weak ass American beer.
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
LRod notes:
>Culture. For centuries in Europe beer has been the drink of choice for
>meals because of the dangers in drinking unsanitary water. Wine was
>also appropriate, but more expensive. It wasn't until perhaps the late
>18th or early 19th century that the concepts of sanitation and water
>treatment were implemented into municipalities.
>
Probably pushing the WWI era, from what I read.
>I'm sure those workman would not only be puzzled at any concern over
>their "drinking" but would also probably snort in derision if offered
>the substitute of a weak ass American beer.
Oh well. Might be good to see what they think of Wild Turkey 101 on the rocks.
Or, since I'm told at least the Brits don't like ice in whiskey, without the
rocks.
Charlie Self
"Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the
frog dies of it." E. B. White
About seven years ago, I was working in a place that would not allow you to
smoke there but you could drink beer. The fridge in the lunchroom always had
at least a case in it.The next job I had was the same but they also let you
smoke.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Trent replies:
>
> >>Somehow, I don't think a WalMart employee is apt to send a speeding
shopping
> >>cart into the ground, killing dozens of people.
> >
> >Don't you think Wal-Mart has things like fork lifts?...or shipping
> >docks?...or other dangerous activities?
> >
>
> Ohfercrissakes. What nonsense. I don't drink at all, but I do know that
> comparing a forklift driver's level of danger with one beer--which was
what I
> was writing of--to any kind of air traffic control is bullshit. Stuff a
> forklift into a back area full of pillows and you got a mess. Stuff a 747
into
> a 737 and you got one helluva lot worse than a mess.
>
> >I think yer still livin' in the dark ages, Charlie. Drinking on the
> >job...or bringing it TO the job...is ALWAYS dangerous.
>
> I think that may be one of the silliest statements anyone has ever made
about
> drinking.
>
> I used to drink. End of day, a beer on the typewriter created a danger to
my
> manuscripts, I guess, but it sure as hell didn't create a danger to anyone
> else, nor did a drink with lunch.
>
> >I doubt if there are any companies where this is not prohibited.
>
> I think you're living in some kind of weird-assed Puritan world.
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and
the
> frog dies of it." E. B. White
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
CW responds:
>
>About seven years ago, I was working in a place that would not allow you to
>smoke there but you could drink beer. The fridge in the lunchroom always had
>at least a case in it.The next job I had was the same but they also let you
>smoke.
Yeah. And not too long ago, some of the beer companies supplied free beer to
employees, to take home and drink with lunch.
Charlie Self
"Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the
frog dies of it." E. B. White
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:28:54 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:
> CW responds:
>
>>
>>About seven years ago, I was working in a place that would not allow you to
>>smoke there but you could drink beer. The fridge in the lunchroom always had
>>at least a case in it.The next job I had was the same but they also let you
>>smoke.
>
> Yeah. And not too long ago, some of the beer companies supplied free beer to
> employees, to take home and drink with lunch.
>
The FIL worked in the Olympia brewery for 37 years. They had beer in the
lunchroom for employees. The rule was "get shit-faced, get shit-canned".
The Oly brewery is long gone as well as the FIL :-(
-Doug
On 24 Nov 2003 10:28:54 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>CW responds:
>
>>
>>About seven years ago, I was working in a place that would not allow you to
>>smoke there but you could drink beer. The fridge in the lunchroom always had
>>at least a case in it.The next job I had was the same but they also let you
>>smoke.
>
>Yeah. And not too long ago, some of the beer companies supplied free beer to
>employees, to take home and drink with lunch.
And not too long ago, you could drink and get behind the wheel of a
car...and nobody much cared.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
On 24 Nov 2003 03:15:43 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Trent replies:
>
>>>Somehow, I don't think a WalMart employee is apt to send a speeding shopping
>>>cart into the ground, killing dozens of people.
>>
>>Don't you think Wal-Mart has things like fork lifts?...or shipping
>>docks?...or other dangerous activities?
>>
>
>Ohfercrissakes. What nonsense. I don't drink at all, but I do know that
>comparing a forklift driver's level of danger with one beer--which was what I
>was writing of--to any kind of air traffic control is bullshit.
Why would their occupation make the danger any more real?...for the
person that's gonna be at risk.
>Stuff a
>forklift into a back area full of pillows and you got a mess. Stuff a 747 into
>a 737 and you got one helluva lot worse than a mess.
Stuff that fork into some guys gut and you've got a pretty good mess,
too.
>>I think yer still livin' in the dark ages, Charlie. Drinking on the
>>job...or bringing it TO the job...is ALWAYS dangerous.
>
>I think that may be one of the silliest statements anyone has ever made about
>drinking.
Trying to belittle the statement still doesn't make you wrong. And
you are!
>I used to drink. End of day, a beer on the typewriter created a danger to my
>manuscripts, I guess, but it sure as hell didn't create a danger to anyone
>else, nor did a drink with lunch.
We were talkin' about an employer-employee situation. When yer by
yourself...as you say above...the risk is self-centered...and fine.
>>I doubt if there are any companies where this is not prohibited.
>
>I think you're living in some kind of weird-assed Puritan world.
There's no doubt that YOU are! lol
The world has changed, Charlie. Pay attention!
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:42:14 +0000, LRod <[email protected]> scribbled
>Culture. For centuries in Europe beer has been the drink of choice for
>meals because of the dangers in drinking unsanitary water. Wine was
>also appropriate, but more expensive.
Not in Southern Europe. I remember in 1964, when I visited my
grandarents, my (OBWW: cabinetmaker) grandfather would buy wine for
220 Lire a litre - that was about 30 cents - including a 50 Lire
deposit for the bottle. I remember because we had a Coke in Venice
that cost 600 Lire, and my mother made a point of saying how expensive
it was.
Wine was almost always watered down with mineral water, a habit I
still have unless it's an exceptionally good bottle.
Luigi
Replace "no" with "yk" for real email address
Wasn't the contract a no-strike contract? Wasn't the condition of return
abiding by the no-strike rule?
Does the employer have all the obligations, and the employee only
privileges?
I can remember some "due regard" days back then.
"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> When Reagan illegally fired federal employees it effectively gutted
> unions/ labors/ working persons power.
>
> The fact that it created an extremely dangerous situation (and it's a
> miracle people didn't die) because the Reagan Administration didn't want
> to deal with ATCs in a manner laid out by law and contract illustrated
> how far an administration can and will go.
>
> The fact that experienced ATCs were forbidden back into the towers thus
> continuing the dangerous situation told me power and control was more
> important than anything else.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mark
>
> N.E. Ohio
>
>
> Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
> A.K.A. Mark Twain)
>
> When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
> suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)
>
"Due regard"allows flight outside ATC coverage. It's a special VFR.
An ARTCC type would have known.
How about MARSA?
"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >I can remember some "due regard" days back then.
>
> Whatever that means. But I don't think you were there.
>
No reference on the shelf any more, hated flying then and now, and memory
won't serve for numbers, but as we departed below ATC coverage, even where
there were oceanic, we filed "due regard" which was for the controllers, the
equivalent of MARSA, to carry out operations. Used it in the strike days
to get them off the hook, too.
Now check your memory bank and discover that labor law provides for the
termination of those ignoring a back-to work order, and replacement of
workers after a rejection of a final management offer. I know that sympathy
for management is nonexistent, but it would not be "bargaining," but
extortion if they were denied such recourse.
I'm sure you'll find comfort in the following
http://www.socialistworker.org/2001/374/374_10_PATCO.shtml
"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:29:49 -0500, "George"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Due regard"allows flight outside ATC coverage. It's a special VFR.
> >
> >An ARTCC type would have known.
>
> This 30 year ARTCC type with some time in a TRACON, too, has never
> heard of it. Please cite an FAA publication with reference to it. I
> don't recall ever seeing it in 7110.65 (formerly 7110.9), the Air
> Traffic Procedures Handbook.
>
> >How about MARSA?
>
> Well, duh. In some facilities there's not a day that goes by that a
> controller isn't involved with flights using it. That was the case in
> Jacksonville when I was there. Without thinking at all, I can recall
> at least 12 military facilites we had in the airspace (NPA, VPS, PAM,
> NIP/NZC/NRB, NEA, NBC, CHS, MYR, SSC, VAD, DHN, SVN). That doesn't
> include the various auxiliary fields associated with some of those
> bases. There were at least three more immediately adjacent (MCO, WRB,
> SEM). And there were another half dozen that we were affected by, as
> well (MCF, COF, GSB, NKT, FBG, MGE/NCQ).
>
> In Chicago we didn't encounter it as much. There was nowhere near the
> military use of airspace in ZAU as there is in other places. A couple
> of ANG bases, a couple of MOAs, and a refueling track or two. Way too
> much air carrier to deal with a lot of military ops.
>
>
> LRod
>
> Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>
> Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>
> http://www.woodbutcher.net
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:29:49 -0500, "George"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Due regard"allows flight outside ATC coverage. It's a special VFR.
>
>An ARTCC type would have known.
This 30 year ARTCC type with some time in a TRACON, too, has never
heard of it. Please cite an FAA publication with reference to it. I
don't recall ever seeing it in 7110.65 (formerly 7110.9), the Air
Traffic Procedures Handbook.
>How about MARSA?
Well, duh. In some facilities there's not a day that goes by that a
controller isn't involved with flights using it. That was the case in
Jacksonville when I was there. Without thinking at all, I can recall
at least 12 military facilites we had in the airspace (NPA, VPS, PAM,
NIP/NZC/NRB, NEA, NBC, CHS, MYR, SSC, VAD, DHN, SVN). That doesn't
include the various auxiliary fields associated with some of those
bases. There were at least three more immediately adjacent (MCO, WRB,
SEM). And there were another half dozen that we were affected by, as
well (MCF, COF, GSB, NKT, FBG, MGE/NCQ).
In Chicago we didn't encounter it as much. There was nowhere near the
military use of airspace in ZAU as there is in other places. A couple
of ANG bases, a couple of MOAs, and a refueling track or two. Way too
much air carrier to deal with a lot of military ops.
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:11:06 GMT, Mark <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>
>LRod wrote:
>
>>>Have a beer with lunch and you're history if someone happens to notice.
>>
>>
>> I was an air traffic controller for the FAA for 30 years. They had the
>> same policy.
>
>
>I guess that makes you a survivor of the Reagan firings.
Only in the sense that I spent 20 months on the street but was fully
restored due to FAA incompetence.
>The day America died.
That's my feeling, too, but I'm not sure whether we're looking at it
the same way.
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Test Tickle wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, it never was illegal -- employers simply never tried it
> because the government would have "frowned" on such an act. But once
> Reagan led the charge, the cat was out of the bag for good.
And we have the same people in the present presidential administration.
Different front 'man', but the same people behind him.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)
LRod wrote:
>
>>The day America died.
>
>
> That's my feeling, too, but I'm not sure whether we're looking at it
> the same way.
Probably not as it wasn't me who lost my job.
When Reagan illegally fired federal employees it effectively gutted
unions/ labors/ working persons power.
The fact that it created an extremely dangerous situation (and it's a
miracle people didn't die) because the Reagan Administration didn't want
to deal with ATCs in a manner laid out by law and contract illustrated
how far an administration can and will go.
The fact that experienced ATCs were forbidden back into the towers thus
continuing the dangerous situation told me power and control was more
important than anything else.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)
LRod wrote:
>>Have a beer with lunch and you're history if someone happens to notice.
>
>
> I was an air traffic controller for the FAA for 30 years. They had the
> same policy.
I guess that makes you a survivor of the Reagan firings.
The day America died.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 12:18:51 +0000, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:43:41 GMT, Mark <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>LRod wrote:
>>>
>>>>Wasn't the condition of return abiding by the no-strike rule?
>>>
>>> ... That was a 16 year sentence. Murderers get out serving
>>> less time than that.
>>
>>And if aircraft had augured we know who would have painted as the
>>murderers.
>
>No doubt about it.
>
>>>
>>>>Does the employer have all the obligations, and the employee only
>>>>privileges?
>>
>>That's obtuse.
>
>I agree, and it wasn't my statement.
>
>>>>I can remember some "due regard" days back then.
>>>
>>>
>>> Whatever that means. But I don't think you were there.
>>
>>
>>I wasn't there but I watched it happen.
>
>I was. but there's been another poster in this thread that I was
>responding to that I think you're confusing with me.
>
>>Any way you cut it the Reagan Administrations actions were highly
>>inappropriate.
>>
>>The potential result of this action could have been highly fatal. Which
>>only proves how inappropriate the action was.
>>
>>It should be noted there are government employees in unions. Why not the
>>ATCs? Less important positions have collective bargaining.
>
>There was. PATCO was the union at the time. And we had collective
>bargaining. During the period (post 3 Aug 81) after which PATCO was
>decertified (I think that happened around November) until sometime in
>1982 or 83, there was no union. Ultimately, a new one was formed,
>NATCA, which is still in place.
>
>How ironic that the actions of the government created the necessity of
>another controllers union so soon after 3 Aug 81.
>
>They kept trying to recruit me but I told them that although I was
>extremely sympathetic to their goals, I couldn't in good conscience
>join a labor organization whose members had crossed my picket line.
>
>>In the least the Reagan Administration used union busting tactics. Last
>>I knew that wasn't legal.
>
>Apparently it is if you can get away with it. And because of 3 Aug 81,
>a lot of companies have resorted to that very thing. Continental
>Airlines comes immediately to mind. So does Hormel. It's like the
>1880s all over again.
>
>
>LRod
>
Unfortunately, it never was illegal -- employers simply never tried it
because the government would have "frowned" on such an act. But once
Reagan led the charge, the cat was out of the bag for good.
tt
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:02:38 -0500, "George"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Wasn't the contract a no-strike contract?
What contract? There was no contract. That's what we were negotiating
and the FAA dug in their heels.
>Wasn't the condition of return abiding by the no-strike rule?
None of the ones who were fired (except those who won appeals on
procedural error, like me) were given the opportunity to go back until
about 1997. That was a 16 year sentence. Murderers get out serving
less time than that.
>Does the employer have all the obligations, and the employee only
>privileges?
What does that mean? Were you there? The employer has the obligation
to negotiate in good faith. They didn't. So does the employee. They
did.
>I can remember some "due regard" days back then.
Whatever that means. But I don't think you were there.
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:11:06 GMT, Mark <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>
>LRod wrote:
>
>>>Have a beer with lunch and you're history if someone happens to notice.
>>
>>
>> I was an air traffic controller for the FAA for 30 years. They had the
>> same policy.
>
>
>I guess that makes you a survivor of the Reagan firings.
>
>
>
>The day America died.
Amen. PATCO, RIP.
tt
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:34:43 GMT, Mark <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>
>LRod wrote:
>>
>>>The day America died.
>>
>> That's my feeling, too, but I'm not sure whether we're looking at it
>> the same way.
>
>Probably not as it wasn't me who lost my job.
>
>When Reagan illegally fired federal employees it effectively gutted
>unions/ labors/ working persons power.
>
>The fact that it created an extremely dangerous situation (and it's a
>miracle people didn't die) because the Reagan Administration didn't want
>to deal with ATCs in a manner laid out by law and contract illustrated
>how far an administration can and will go.
>
>The fact that experienced ATCs were forbidden back into the towers thus
>continuing the dangerous situation told me power and control was more
>important than anything else.
Ah, then we're looking at it exactly the same way. Thanks.
It took one of my friends more than 18 years to get back on the job.
The time away took its toll. He'll never be able to get fully
certified and will just limp along until retirement in a few years.
Although it may seem like a good deal for him, every controller worth
his salt wants to be fully certified. There's no satisfaction in being
a partial. It's a shitty deal for the taxpayer. But then, so was
reagan.
Most never got back. I was very lucky. If it hadn't been for stupid
local management (as opposed to stupid federal management) neither I
nor about 40 others would have gotten back at my facility.
Thanks for your support.
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
On 21 Nov 2003 23:56:57 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>But fromw hat a relative told me, they've got more reasons than any store needs
>to fire people set right into the employment literature they hand new hires.
>Have a beer with lunch and you're history if someone happens to notice.
You find that unusual? lol
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:02:38 -0500, "George"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Wasn't the contract a no-strike contract? Wasn't the condition of return
>abiding by the no-strike rule?
>
>Does the employer have all the obligations, and the employee only
>privileges?
>
>I can remember some "due regard" days back then.
I think what Mark is saying is that some union members were pissed
off! lol
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 14:03:51 -0500, "George"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>No reference on the shelf any more, hated flying then and now, and memory
>won't serve for numbers, but as we departed below ATC coverage, even where
>there were oceanic, we filed "due regard" which was for the controllers, the
>equivalent of MARSA, to carry out operations. Used it in the strike days
>to get them off the hook, too.
I don't know what you mean by "below ATC coverage." You might mean
radar coverage, or you might mean uncontrolled airspace. In the first
case, you either file IFR, VFR, or ask for Special VFR. There's no
other type. Radar isn't required for any of them.
In the case of uncontrolled airspace, there's nothing to file, since
you couldn't get a clearance anyway. ATC clearances are only good in
controlled airspace.
You sound like you might be describing military operations, but even
military controllers use 7110.65. There may be additional military
procedures in effect locally, but they wouldn't relate to basic ATC.
For example, a military approach control (RATCC, for example) adjacent
to a MOA, Warning Area, etc., might have a local procedure to
facilitate operations directly into that area without IFR clearance
(NBC and NKT are a couple of places that come to mind), but there's no
language for that operation other than IFR, VFR, or Special VFR in the
ATP.
In any event, "due regard" is not a standard FAA operation that would
be known to any "ARTCC type."
>I'm sure you'll find comfort in the following
>http://www.socialistworker.org/2001/374/374_10_PATCO.shtml
None whatsoever.
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> GeeDubb responds:
>
> >>
> >> Yeah, well...in corporate life, where there's a will, there's a way.
> >> Bet not many of them are working there 6 months from now.
> >
> >But isn't that the case with most WM employees. Seems the turnover rate
is
> >pretty high.
>
> Well, hell. Have you ever walked in early in the a.m. when they're holding
one
> of their store pep talks? I'd run screaming 90 seconds into the first one.
>
> But fromw hat a relative told me, they've got more reasons than any store
needs
> to fire people set right into the employment literature they hand new
hires.
> Have a beer with lunch and you're history if someone happens to notice.
>
> Charlie Self
>
> "I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of
itself. "
> Ronald Reagan
Hopefully if they follow your business advice, maybe someday they will be a
successful company. I guess if they hand you a list of actions that can
result in your termination, it's pretty easy to either a) don't do any of
those things or b) don't work there. And let's face it...you and I and most
people reading this are too skilled to be happy working at Wal-Mart (in an
unskilled position).
todd
In article <[email protected]>, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>When Reagan illegally fired federal employees it effectively gutted
>unions/ labors/ working persons power.
>
You mean when Reagan *legally* fired workers who participated in an *illegal*
strike. I'm sure this was just an oversight on your part.
>The fact that it created an extremely dangerous situation (and it's a
>miracle people didn't die) because the Reagan Administration didn't want
>to deal with ATCs in a manner laid out by law and contract illustrated
>how far an administration can and will go.
The *law* prohibited the ATCs from going on strike. It was the ATCs who
refused to act in accord with the law.
--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 02:58:46 +0000, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 21 Nov 2003 23:56:57 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
>wrote:
>
>
>>But fromw hat a relative told me, they've got more reasons than any store needs
>>to fire people set right into the employment literature they hand new hires.
>
>>Have a beer with lunch and you're history if someone happens to notice.
>
>I was an air traffic controller for the FAA for 30 years. They had the
>same policy.
I think most...if not all...employers have that policy.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
Trent responds:
>>
>>>But fromw hat a relative told me, they've got more reasons than any store
>needs
>>>to fire people set right into the employment literature they hand new
>hires.
>>
>>>Have a beer with lunch and you're history if someone happens to notice.
>>
>>I was an air traffic controller for the FAA for 30 years. They had the
>>same policy.
>
>I think most...if not all...employers have that policy.
>
You think. You don't know. You can't be bothered to check. But you DO comment.
You only seem to show up when you can needle someone. I think your BS quotient
just went well over my limit. I agree with some of your opinions, but others
are nonsense you post for no reason other than to amuse yourself. As far as I
am concerned, you'll have to play by yourself.
Charlie Self
"Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the
frog dies of it." E. B. White
On 24 Nov 2003 03:18:44 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Trent responds:
>
>>>
>>>>But fromw hat a relative told me, they've got more reasons than any store
>>needs
>>>>to fire people set right into the employment literature they hand new
>>hires.
>>>
>>>>Have a beer with lunch and you're history if someone happens to notice.
>>>
>>>I was an air traffic controller for the FAA for 30 years. They had the
>>>same policy.
>>
>>I think most...if not all...employers have that policy.
>>
>
>You think. You don't know. You can't be bothered to check. But you DO comment.
Can I check EVERY employer in the world? lol No, Charlie...I can't.
Ya got me there! lol
That's why I phrased it like I did.
>You only seem to show up when you can needle someone. I think your BS quotient
>just went well over my limit. I agree with some of your opinions, but others
>are nonsense you post for no reason other than to amuse yourself. As far as I
>am concerned, you'll have to play by yourself.
Funny how you get pissed when someone disagrees with you! lol
BTW...your above rules have ALWAYS been in effect...not just in this
news group either.
If you don't like my posts, you have the option to ignore them.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
LRod wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:43:41 GMT, Mark <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>That's obtuse.
>
>
> I agree, and it wasn't my statement.
>
I guess my formatting wasn't as clean as it could have been.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Barry Burke responds:
>
> >>WalMart has already publicly stated that they will take
> >>no action against the employees.
> >>
> >>scott
> >
> >
> >Their legal team probably showed them what it could possibly cost if
> >they took action. <G>
>
> Yeah, well...in corporate life, where there's a will, there's a way. Bet
not
> many of them are working there 6 months from now.
>
> Charlie Self
Given WalMart's marketing strategy, I wonder how many of them were made in
China.
Perhaps I could have phrased that better, but you get the idea.
Bob
Trent© wrote:
>>SWMBO works at Wal-Mart. She might make a covergirl for Plumpers, or
>>maybe add some fake tattoos and stick her in Easy Rider.
>
> Its interesting that you would talk about her that way.
FINALLY somebody jumped my case on that. It's about time someone stood up
to defend my lady's honor! :)
It's OK. We have lots of mirrors, and neither one of us has any false ideas
about what we look like. I could be on that 7-Up truck driver calendar
myself. :)
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
On 21 Nov 2003 13:41:37 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Just saw that headline, supposedly from CNN.
>
>Man, they surely can't have picked any of the WalMart women I've ever seen.
>
>I sometimes wonder how much Playboy lays out to tune-up, a la table saw?, the
>women they photograph.
>
>Or is it more like that last coat of shellac being rubbed down with steel wool?
Most of the women I see in WalMart look like they went to Maaco.
When they're running the special it's about a hundred bucks.
If I were doing the work, they'd have to be satisfied with the finish
the way it came off the gun.
I ain't rubbin' dem down wid nuttin.
Regards, Tom
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> On 21 Nov 2003 13:41:37 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
> wrote:
>
> >Just saw that headline, supposedly from CNN.
>
> $100 says that everyone of them that poses gets canned by WalMart.
>
>
According to the news story I heard last week, a spokeswoman for
Walmart expressed the companies "disappointment that these employees
chose to pose nude", However, she also indicated that they would not be
fired, nor would there be any repercussions. Guess Walmart also did the
computations and decided that having attractive women as employees was a
*good* thing, and probably figured that firing employees who were
probably paid the equivalent of a year's Walmart wages weren't going to
really be too hurt by being fired.
> LRod
>
> Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>
> Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>
> http://www.woodbutcher.net
>
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> > On 21 Nov 2003 13:41:37 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Just saw that headline, supposedly from CNN.
> >
> > $100 says that everyone of them that poses gets canned by WalMart.
> >
> >
>
> According to the news story I heard last week, a spokeswoman for
> Walmart expressed the companies "disappointment that these employees
> chose to pose nude", However, she also indicated that they would not be
> fired, nor would there be any repercussions. Guess Walmart also did the
> computations and decided that having attractive women as employees was a
> *good* thing, and probably figured that firing employees who were
> probably paid the equivalent of a year's Walmart wages weren't going to
> really be too hurt by being fired.
>
Oh, I forgot to add, you can send the $100 to .... :-)
> > LRod
> >
> > Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
> >
> > Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
> >
> > http://www.woodbutcher.net
> >
>
They probably were paid the equivalent of 6 months or more in salary by
Playboy to do the pictures, so it probably won't matter much to them. But,
hasn't this type of thing been done before and legal precedents been set
such that employers can't fire people simply for posing nude like this?
But, the brimstone-breathing bible-toting Walton family probably won't care,
they have money to throw away as it is.
--
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 21 Nov 2003 13:41:37 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
> wrote:
>
> >Just saw that headline, supposedly from CNN.
>
> $100 says that everyone of them that poses gets canned by WalMart.
>
>
> LRod
>
> Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>
> Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>
> http://www.woodbutcher.net
WalMart - pffttttt
There's some hotties at the local Home Depot that make me want to apply for
a part-time job there......
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just saw that headline, supposedly from CNN.
>
> Man, they surely can't have picked any of the WalMart women I've ever
seen.
>
> I sometimes wonder how much Playboy lays out to tune-up, a la table saw?,
the
> women they photograph.
>
> Or is it more like that last coat of shellac being rubbed down with steel
wool?
>
> Charlie Self
> "Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the
advantages
> of making a disagreeable person keep his distance." Ambrose Bierce
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 04:12:41 GMT, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Oh, I forgot to add, you can send the $100 to .... :-)
Count, chickens, hatch. Don't.
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:19:31 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> brought forth from the murky depths:
>Trent© wrote:
>> A buddy of mine recently sent me an email picture...of an 80 year old
>> woman. Everything has sagged...except those silicone implants. lol
>
>Thanks for sharing.
Wow, a human BOLO!
-
Don't be a possum on the Information Superhighway of life.
----
http://diversify.com Dynamic Database-Driven Websites
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just saw that headline, supposedly from CNN.
>
> Man, they surely can't have picked any of the WalMart women I've ever
seen.
>
> I sometimes wonder how much Playboy lays out to tune-up, a la table saw?,
the
> women they photograph.
>
> Or is it more like that last coat of shellac being rubbed down with steel
wool?
I've heard women describe it as "lacquered up..." ;-)
John
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:25:20 GMT, "Mike in Mystic"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>They probably were paid the equivalent of 6 months or more in salary by
>Playboy to do the pictures, so it probably won't matter much to them. But,
>hasn't this type of thing been done before and legal precedents been set
>such that employers can't fire people simply for posing nude like this?
Exactly.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:53:46 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Charlie Self wrote:
>
>> Just saw that headline, supposedly from CNN.
>>
>> Man, they surely can't have picked any of the WalMart women I've ever
>> seen.
>
>SWMBO works at Wal-Mart. She might make a covergirl for Plumpers, or maybe
>add some fake tattoos and stick her in Easy Rider.
Its interesting that you would talk about her that way.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
Trent babbles:
>>Charlie Self wrote:
>>
>>> Just saw that headline, supposedly from CNN.
>>>
>>> Man, they surely can't have picked any of the WalMart women I've ever
>>> seen.
>>
>>SWMBO works at Wal-Mart. She might make a covergirl for Plumpers, or maybe
>>add some fake tattoos and stick her in Easy Rider.
>
>Its interesting that you would talk about her that way.
What's interesting is that you would add someone else's quote to mine, under my
name alone. My wife doesn't work for WalMart, never has, probably never will.
Charlie Self
"Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the
frog dies of it." E. B. White
In article <[email protected]>, Charlie Self
<[email protected]> wrote:
> What's interesting is that you would add someone else's quote to mine, under
> my
> name alone. My wife doesn't work for WalMart, never has, probably never will.
Trent didn't attribute that part to you. Nested quotes, and all:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:53:46 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Charlie Self wrote:
>
>> Just saw that headline, supposedly from CNN.
>>
>> Man, they surely can't have picked any of the WalMart women I've ever
>> seen.
>
>SWMBO works at Wal-Mart. She might make a covergirl for Plumpers, or
maybe
>add some fake tattoos and stick her in Easy Rider.
Its interesting that you would talk about her that way.
. . .
So, he attributed "SWMBO works at Wal-Mart" to "Silvan". He attributes
"Just saw the headline" to "Charlie Self".
Kevin
On 24 Nov 2003 03:20:22 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Trent babbles:
>
>>>Charlie Self wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just saw that headline, supposedly from CNN.
>>>>
>>>> Man, they surely can't have picked any of the WalMart women I've ever
>>>> seen.
>>>
>>>SWMBO works at Wal-Mart. She might make a covergirl for Plumpers, or maybe
>>>add some fake tattoos and stick her in Easy Rider.
>>
>>Its interesting that you would talk about her that way.
>
>What's interesting is that you would add someone else's quote to mine, under my
>name alone. My wife doesn't work for WalMart, never has, probably never will.
>
>Charlie Self
You need a better news reader, Charlie.
Yer replying and cutting the headers with your replies. Include the
headers...follow the number of arrows...and you'll be able to make
sense of the posts.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
Trent© wrote:
> I sometimes look in the mirror and ask myself how I was stupid enough
> to marry someone that said 'yes' when I asked her. And I'm afraid to
> have her eyes checked!
>
> I deserve better! RIGHT! lol
That's kinda how I feel about it too. I have no idea why anyone would be
dumb enough to marry me, but I gave up trying to figure it out years ago.
> A buddy of mine recently sent me an email picture...of an 80 year old
> woman. Everything has sagged...except those silicone implants. lol
Thanks for sharing.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
On 21 Nov 2003 13:41:37 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Just saw that headline, supposedly from CNN.
$100 says that everyone of them that poses gets canned by WalMart.
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
LRod responds:
>>Just saw that headline, supposedly from CNN.
>
>$100 says that everyone of them that poses gets canned by WalMart.
>
No bet. Any bets on how many of them took the jobs just to be listed as working
for WalMart?
Charlie Self
"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself. "
Ronald Reagan
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 01:56:33 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Trent© wrote:
>
>>>SWMBO works at Wal-Mart. She might make a covergirl for Plumpers, or
>>>maybe add some fake tattoos and stick her in Easy Rider.
>>
>> Its interesting that you would talk about her that way.
>
>FINALLY somebody jumped my case on that. It's about time someone stood up
>to defend my lady's honor! :)
>
>It's OK. We have lots of mirrors, and neither one of us has any false ideas
>about what we look like. I could be on that 7-Up truck driver calendar
>myself. :)
I sometimes look in the mirror and ask myself how I was stupid enough
to marry someone that said 'yes' when I asked her. And I'm afraid to
have her eyes checked!
I deserve better! RIGHT! lol
A buddy of mine recently sent me an email picture...of an 80 year old
woman. Everything has sagged...except those silicone implants. lol
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:57:27 +0000, LRod <[email protected]> wrote:
>$100 says that everyone of them that poses gets canned by WalMart.
Not if WalMart doesn't want to get sued and lose. That would be
illegal.
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 08:44:39 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > work.
>>
>> One of these days I need to go to grad school. If I could ever find a
>field
>> in which there were actually stable jobs.
>
>Chinese imports.
No doubt yer tryin' to be facetious...but that's a very good idea.
Anything in the health care field is also a good idea.
Hey, Mike...you might wanna consider starting up yer own medical
transport company. Might be the best of both worlds...seein' what yer
doin' now. All you'd need is a good van...and probably a conversion
down the road. Contact Social Security or some of the charitable
organizations in yer area if yer interested.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
On 21 Nov 2003 19:47:30 GMT, [email protected] (ToolMiser) wrote:
>Walmart doesn't worry about the laws. I am a former employee (9 years) and I
>would bet they will all get fired. It won't be for posing in Playboy, but wait
>till they show up 5 minutes late for work. Walmart is all about P.R., and it
>ends there.
I figure that, if'n the pictures come out real nice like, they'll all
be promoted to "personal assistant" right quick-like.
Regards, Tom
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:56:28 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:
>ToolMiser wrote:
>
>> Walmart doesn't worry about the laws. I am a former employee (9 years)
>
>SWMBO just survived her 10th year. I can't believe she can still stand to
>work there.
>
>That's a job I won't miss.
What kind of work do you do, Mike?
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
"Silvan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > work.
>
> One of these days I need to go to grad school. If I could ever find a
field
> in which there were actually stable jobs.
Chinese imports.
Tom Watson wrote:
> I figure that, if'n the pictures come out real nice like, they'll all
> be promoted to "personal assistant" right quick-like.
I doubt it. Maybe, but probably not. They're ruthless, heartless bastards,
but they take propriety very seriously. I can recall times when male
managers sent lovely females home for not wearing bras and/or panties.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
Trent© wrote:
>>SWMBO just survived her 10th year. I can't believe she can still stand to
>>work there.
>>
>>That's a job I won't miss.
>
> What kind of work do you do, Mike?
Had to go off to truck driving school to escape Wally World. I'm an
over-the-road truck driver. I lucked into a job that allows me to have
some modicum of a normal life, which is the only reason I can tolerate the
work.
One of these days I need to go to grad school. If I could ever find a field
in which there were actually stable jobs.
Or wait a few more years for my degree in Spanish to become useful here. :)
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
ToolMiser wrote:
> Walmart doesn't worry about the laws. I am a former employee (9 years)
SWMBO just survived her 10th year. I can't believe she can still stand to
work there.
That's a job I won't miss.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
Charlie Self wrote:
> Just saw that headline, supposedly from CNN.
>
> Man, they surely can't have picked any of the WalMart women I've ever
> seen.
SWMBO works at Wal-Mart. She might make a covergirl for Plumpers, or maybe
add some fake tattoos and stick her in Easy Rider.
(I'm *so* glad she doesn't read usenet. :)
When I worked there, there were a few that would get your attention. One of
them works at Lowe's now.
Well, that lead to some interesting thoughts, but I'll spare everyone. At
the end of the day, I never did anything wrong. I just thought about it a
lot.
I suppose life is full of these little trials. I could pontificate on this
subject all night, but I'd better just let it go.
> I sometimes wonder how much Playboy lays out to tune-up, a la table saw?,
> the women they photograph.
>
> Or is it more like that last coat of shellac being rubbed down with steel
> wool?
Hard to say. A pro makeover can do wonders. SWMBO has a friend who is just
about as ugly as a person can be without suffering actual deformities, and
even she looked surprisingly decent in her "glamour shots."
I figure they give them good makeup, do up their hair professionally, and
then airbrush (or these days, diddle the pixels) away all the usual little
pimples, moles, and stray ass hairs that normal humans usually have.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:56:16 -0500, "George" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Gasp! You mean they are risking their $4.65 per hour, no benefit, McJobs?
Depends on what they do.
I know both a store manager, and an IT guy that work for Wal-Mart in
CT, and they do rather well.
Barry
Gasp! You mean they are risking their $4.65 per hour, no benefit, McJobs?
"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 21 Nov 2003 13:41:37 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
> wrote:
>
> >Just saw that headline, supposedly from CNN.
>
> $100 says that everyone of them that poses gets canned by WalMart.
>
>
> LRod
>
> Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>
> Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>
> http://www.woodbutcher.net
George responds:
>
>Gasp! You mean they are risking their $4.65 per hour, no benefit, McJobs?
Actually, it's $5.15 an hour. I think WM does have some benefits, too, but I've
got no idea who pays the major load--at minimum wage, you can't afford much of
a share.
Charlie Self
"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself. "
Ronald Reagan
I bet the women in the WalMarts around Hollywood look better than average.
Probably a good alternative to waitressing.
Montyhp
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 21 Nov 2003 13:41:37 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
> wrote:
>
> >Just saw that headline, supposedly from CNN.
> >
> >Man, they surely can't have picked any of the WalMart women I've ever
seen.
> >
> >I sometimes wonder how much Playboy lays out to tune-up, a la table saw?,
the
> >women they photograph.
> >
> >Or is it more like that last coat of shellac being rubbed down with steel
wool?
>
>
> Most of the women I see in WalMart look like they went to Maaco.
>
> When they're running the special it's about a hundred bucks.
>
> If I were doing the work, they'd have to be satisfied with the finish
> the way it came off the gun.
>
> I ain't rubbin' dem down wid nuttin.
>
>
>
> Regards, Tom
> Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
> Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
> http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson