Fashionistas you have arrived 3-25-03 - 10-3-03 - Page 1769

sebastian_dangerfield · 10-01-2003, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
An elegant defense of the hypocrisy you usually decry. The cut direct is etiquette's acknowledgment that the world is filled with despicable people, but we are not forced to interact with them. If you're in a service industry and need to avoid alienating them for monetary reasons, you've made a choice. But it isn't a reason to say it's a good thing to ignore a person's bad actions in their private life.

I suspect some of this is coming from a reticence to let our own sexual proclivities become a basis to be judged socially. So let's defuse that. Let me ask you: how do you deal with a person who tells racist jokes? Do you smile politely? Purse your lips in mild disapproval? Say, "Hey, man, be cool"?

How would you interact socially with a man who impregnated a seventeen year old girl, but refused to acknowledge parentage? I would not even return the smile of such a person. Would you?

1. Yeh, well, what I wish were true and what actually takes place in everyday life are far apart. I didn't say I LIKED bending principles, I just recognize its necessary.

2. I usually say very little when someone makes a racist joke. Politely not laughing or half laughing with a sort of "Yeh, you're obviously white trash" sort of haughtiness is usually far more insulting.

3. If a man has consensual sex with a 17 year old, that's none of my business. Wagner was a horrendous anti-semitic pedophile. Should I throw out my copy of the Ring?

You learn to compartmentalize here in PA. Racist and ethnic jokes are common. You can't take on every offender you see because you'd create a long enemeies list. Its unfortunate, but even a ranting fool like me who's prone to tirades must shut his mouth to protect his sources of revenue.

S(judge, but not out loud)D

NotFromHere · 10-01-2003, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aloha Mr. Learned Hand
Has this been discussed here?

Apparently, our favorite career suicide practitioner who shall remain nameless (initials = PT), spent some time in a Mexico City jail recently after being arrested for shoplifting socks, of all things... And somehow managed to get in a Village Voice article about it.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0335/guthrie.php

(See about 2/3 of the way down)

So PT is a fugitive from Mexican justice? That looks good on the old resume... The CA bar might be interested as well...

Watch out for those socks, Penske. No good can come from them...

Can we talk about Peter now? I read about this somewhere else, somewhere that censors dirty words, but lets fvck through and allows the moniker sockcucker. Nevertheless, I find it hysterical that he was arrested for stealing socks. Of all things.
4 days in a Mexican jail for socks.

leagleaze · 10-01-2003, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Or, if you still think it's not extreme enough, buy some gloves, smack them in the face and name your second. Remember that the challenged party gets to choose weapons.

This would kind of be fun. I wish somene would get all pissy and slap me with a glove so I could have a duel. Monopoly at dawn!

ltl/fb · 10-01-2003, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
A relative looks like she's getting screwed by her company and I was wondering if they're legitmately doing so. She got a memo that the company is shutting down for the week of Christmas, but she's being asked to use vacation time for every day but Christmas or otherwise it is unpaid time off.

Anyone ever heard of a policy like this one?

I think I have heard of companies putting everyone on unpaid leave for X period of time to save money; I'm not sure if that's considered a layoff, but I think it's legal (though it could conflict with a union contract if she's under one). Which is basically what her company is doing, but it's saying that if she has vacation she can use it during that time and get paid. If the company's vacation policy is use it or lose it, she's better off using it for that time than losing it.

If she's in CA what her company's doing is probably illegal because it seems like all the irritating squirrely things employers do are.* But if she's in CA I don't think her employer can have a use it or lose it vacation policy . . .

*Yes, I realize that the alternative might be that people wouldn't have jobs at all and that if it weren't for those damn socialist DEMS putting in these ridiculous laws CA's economy would be booming and healthy and munchkins would dance in the street and all the statues in the Snow Queen's** castle would come alive. But this isn't the politics board.

**Or whatever the evil castrating bitch in The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe was called.

Edited to make a sentence have a verb and to add asterisked stuff.

Bad_Rich_Chic · 10-01-2003, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
A relative looks like she's getting screwed by her company and I was wondering if they're legitmately doing so. She got a memo that the company is shutting down for the week of Christmas, but she's being asked to use vacation time for every day but Christmas or otherwise it is unpaid time off.

Anyone ever heard of a policy like this one?

I've heard of such policies. They have recently been popular with companies trying to reduce employee costs but avoid layoffs/firings. More usually, I've heard of companies that "request" that all employees choose several days, weeks or months to take unpaid leave. To let everyone take the holiday off seems like it might be unusually thoughtful. But it still sounds like a cost-reduction measure.

Not Bob · 10-01-2003, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
You've had people correct you? So what? Even though I wasn't there, I'm pretty sure they weren't offended. If it was someone you know or were friendly with, take a mental note and don't refer to them that way again. If it's someone you'll never see again, no big deal. It's impossible to please everyone. But it's very possible to keep from offending people. "Black" may not fit everyone's requirements, but I doubt you'll ever offend anyone using it.

Damn straight they were offended -- they gave me the cut direct!

It was not a black person that corrected me, though -- it was a white bureaucratic type.

Quote:

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I sense that many white people are frustrated because they can no longer classify people as easily and may have to put some effort into actually understanding any given person's background.

Sniff. But no one puts any effort into understanding *my* unique background as a member in good standing of the Oppressive Patriarchy.

Quote:

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
And you can make any word sound bad if you're a racist. So, I don't really understand your point regarding your saintly grandfather. The point is, the term is accepted today and has been for a very long time.

It was merely a bit of historical context; a musing on the vagaries of language.

And my point was, in some places it is starting to be Not Accepted, and someone expressing some confusion over which word to use is not secretly attacking the PC language police, or mourning over the Lost Cause, or whatever.

Aloha Mr. Learned Hand · 10-01-2003, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NotFromHere
I read about this somewhere else, somewhere that censors dirty words, but lets fvck through and allows the moniker sockcucker.

I was hesitant to bring this up, because, as ConnectTheDots and I discussed in PM, part of me feels sorry for the guy...

As we also discussed, another part of me wants Dog the Bounty Hunter to stungun him, hogtie him and drag him back across the border to square things with the Mexican authorities after Dog's little adventure down there in the Andrew Luster case...

ltl/fb · 10-01-2003, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I've heard of such policies. They have recently been popular with companies trying to reduce employee costs but avoid layoffs/firings. More usually, I've heard of companies that "request" that all employees choose several days, weeks or months to take unpaid leave. To let everyone take the holiday off seems like it might be unusually thoughtful. But it still sounds like a cost-reduction measure.

Unusually thoughtful my ass. Productivity is so low around then anyway b/c so many people are on vacation. Overhead eats up all the profit that might result from the work of the few that remain behind, so overall it's more profitable to just shut down.

Or, that's what I hear from companies that do this. However the memos they send out to employees usually try to act like they are being thoughtful in the hope that their employees are that naive. Clearly RT's relative is not, as she has picked up on the "getting screwed" aspect.

purse junkie · 10-01-2003, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aloha Mr. Learned Hand
I was hesitant to bring this up, because, as ConnectTheDots and I discussed in PM, part of me feels sorry for the guy...

As we also discussed, another part of me wants Dog the Bounty Hunter to stungun him, hogtie him and drag him back across the border to square things with the Mexican authorities after Dog's little adventure down there in the Andrew Luster case...

Shouldn't be a problem. Didn't the last sentence of that piece note that he jumped bail?

That poor sap. Or perhaps just "sap."

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 10-01-2003, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by evenodds
Yes. Tech companies have done this routinely, including shutting down the site from time to time for forced vacations.

Wouldn't any factory almost have to do this--it's not like you can run a factory with only half the workers (well, you can if they don't have unions . . . ). In other words, plenty of companies have a need to coordinate vacation schedules. One way is to tell everyone to take vacation on a given week. At least the potential for pay exists here. Some companies just "furlough" people -- i.e., tell them not to work and that they won't get paid. Sux, but much of life does.

bilmore · 10-01-2003, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
3. If a man has consensual sex with a 17 year old, that's none of my business.

Horsepoopie. If a man kills his kid, is it "none of your business"? Of course it is. We have social rules that are everyone's business, accepted in order to preserve the society, of which you are part.

Aloha Mr. Learned Hand · 10-01-2003, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by purse junkie
Shouldn't be a problem. Didn't the last sentence of that piece note that he jumped bail?

That poor sap. Or perhaps just "sap."

It said something like he paid $1100 in bail and hightailed it over the border... which seems to imply that he won't be going back.

Not Bob · 10-01-2003, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
... and munchkins would dance in the street and all the statues in the Snow Queen's** castle would come alive. But this isn't the politics board.

**Or whatever the evil castrating bitch in The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe was called.

Apropos of nothing, I always kinda thought she was kinda sexy. Didn't she run amok in London in The Magician's Nephew?

Shape Shifter · 10-01-2003, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NotFromHere
Can we talk about Peter now? I read about this somewhere else, somewhere that censors dirty words, but lets fvck through and allows the moniker sockcucker. Nevertheless, I find it hysterical that he was arrested for stealing socks. Of all things.
4 days in a Mexican jail for socks.

Ms. Keaton broke the story here some time ago.

Maybe PT needed the socks. He's been out of work for some time and he goes through them rather quickly.

purse junkie · 10-01-2003, 05:34 PM

It's a sweet gelatinous confection often made with pistachio nuts mixed in, or covered in chocolate.