Stupid Work Annoyances

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:51 pm

Ment to say all women-run companies.

Lydia Love · Post by **Lydia Love** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:52 pm

maybe it's because while apologizing for your wording you also appeared to criticize the common sense and intelligence of the people you were apologizing to... making it appear to be a non-apology, but instead a defensive posture suggesting that you were still actually defending the original over-generalization.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:53 pm

Force wrote:
GuinivereElise wrote:
Force wrote: No, actually, anyone with common sense is going to see that a female majority in the executive level will not equal a bad experience 100% of the time.

Sorry, but I still feel that you're just flaunting your moral superiority by jumping on me for not wording my post exactly politically correctly.

I refuse to allow you to assert that it is OUR fault for misreading you or not using common sense.
And it's unfair for me to expect the reader to not use common sense so as to not jump all over my case why?

Again, what exactly is the problem now that I've explained in excruciating detail what should have been self evident?

And for that matter, I didn't say that men would have a bad experience working for women 100% of the time, I stated that the possibility exists that it will occur.

I don't see how you can refute that, since anyone in the work world knows that to be true, whether their boss be male or female.

then your point for posting was what? if it isn't about gender why did you posit it as a gender based issue?

please see my earlier post regarding coinciding attempts to undermine and support your original statements.

i'm sure if you actually apologise, and seem to mean that you didn't mean what you said, people will let it blow over.

Force · Post by **Force** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:54 pm

stuart wrote:
the bad ones will exhibit these female tendencies whereas the good ones won't

I aint on any horse. We've been here before. I recognize the pattern.

Well, I guess that settles it then. Beer, wine, or big sloppy kiss?

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:55 pm

all three please, in that order

Force · Post by **Force** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:57 pm

geekster wrote:Force, ANY group of any gender or of mixed gender can discriminate, which was the point in that tome I wrote above. I wouldn't say "women" so much as I would say a clique of women friends or something. You may have a million reasons for being bitter due to that particular situation but your choice of words used a fairly large brush to paint all companies in a bad light. That being said, I tend to get a bit nervous when there is any kind of common block of people in charge of the company. They could all be from the same church, all of the same gender, all the same ethnicity, all the same anything ... it causes people that do not share that trait to think they have no chance for advancement and will never really be an "insider" no matter how hard they work.

Well, exactly, I would agree with that, but just because I chose to talk about my particular issue at the moment, instead of including men and every other ethnicity or creed, I got jumped by a bunch of women.

And that's political correctness.

Least that's how I see it, unless you can explain to me why it's not.

Lydia Love · Post by **Lydia Love** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:59 pm

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:01 pm

there have been plenty of quotes which clearly illustrate that you were not only speaking of your situation. you made that crystal clear; i have a hard time imagining that you meant anything else.

it's analagous to me saying 'never trust a jew; they'll all try to kill you' just because some of them have. it's bullshit.

interesting that you 'forgot' that there were men who opposed you, too....

btw, it's not political correctness because it's not about phrasing, it's about categorization and bigotry.

bullD · Post by **bullD** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:02 pm

Lydia Love wrote:

I will second that

Force · Post by **Force** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:03 pm

I wholeheartedly apologize for accidentally making people think I consider ALL women (or men or wallabies, or whatever) vindictive beasts when nothing could be farther from the truth.

If I had only had a FUCKING EDIT BUTTON, we probably all could have had a much more pleasant time.

GuinivereElise · Post by **GuinivereElise** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:05 pm

Force wrote:It also helps that she lacks a penis- there are NO men at the executive level in this company.

Moral; NEVER join a company run by women unless you're prepared to bear the brunt of all the anger and resentment that women have towards men for years of oppression, discrimination and/or not desiring them despite the fact that they may be hundreds of pounds overweight, abrasive, obnoxious, stupid, etc.

There's no amount of money that's worth it.

I want you to take a good, honest look at this statement.

No, really. Look at it.

the word "never", in capitals, up at the top? See that? You're not looking.

Okay, see that?

that assumes a broad spectrum, force. NEVER doesn't mean 'sometimes', it doesn't mean 'once in a while', it doesn't mean 'every so often' or 'once in a blue moon' or 'on average'. It's final. It means never.

see, too, the little word 'all'? It's got a pretty definite meaning too. find a dictionary. look it up.

and see how, before the word 'women' in the phrase 'resentment that women have towards men', there's no qualifier like "SOME" or A FEW" or even "MANY" to tell us WHICH PARTICULAR WOMEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT??

THIS IS WHY I AM JUMPING ON YOU, FORCE. THIS. YOU MADE A GENERALIZED STATEMENT--AN OFFENSIVE ONE--ABOUT WOMEN. I AM JUMPING ON YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE TOLD US THAT IT'S OUR FAULT FOR NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU WANTED US TO READ YOUR MIND ABOUT WHAT YOU REALLY MEANT. I AM JUMPING ON YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE, WHILE ATTEMPTING TO WEASEL YOUR WAY OUT OF THE RESPONSIBILITY THAT SUCH A STATEMENT UNDERTAKES, YOU HAVE ALSO USED DOUBLESPEAK TO ASSERT THAT YOUR ORIGINAL PREMISE IS NOT AT ALL INCORRECT.

does this help to clear up the confusion you were having, force?

Force · Post by **Force** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:09 pm

Rian Jackson wrote:there have been plenty of quotes which clearly illustrate that you were not only speaking of your situation. you made that crystal clear; i have a hard time imagining that you meant anything else.

it's analagous to me saying 'never trust a jew; they'll all try to kill you' just because some of them have. it's bullshit.

interesting that you 'forgot' that there were men who opposed you, too....

btw, it's not political correctness because it's not about phrasing, it's about categorization and bigotry.

Oh, bullcrap.

Moral; NEVER join a company run by women unless you're prepared to bear the brunt of all the anger and resentment that women have towards men for years of oppression, discrimination and/or not desiring them despite the fact that they may be hundreds of pounds overweight, abrasive, obnoxious, stupid, etc.

Wanna show where it says that women WILL discriminate every single time?

Quit throwing gasoline on the fire.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:13 pm

<plonk>

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:13 pm

Maybe you should call this thread (along with some other threads.) the eplaya drama club.

I thought this thread was "Stupid Work Annoyances "

Force · Post by **Force** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:17 pm

In the case of women and monorities, there is an extra potentiality in my opinion, of them reverse discriminating.

Arguing that there isn't is foolish. Who, when wronged, doesn't have at least a small part of them that wants revenge?

It's the asshole who goes the route of discrimination to get that revenge, but as Geekster said, any organization composed of mostly one kind of person should be viewed as suspect.

My complaining about being a part of one is fair since I'm not currently being oppressed by jews or men or whatever.

My problem with those attacking me is that they want perfectly worded statements, and even when I AGREE with them that mine wasn't, they are STILL attacking me because why exactly?

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:19 pm

Take it to Drama Camp

http://dramacamp.tribe.net/

bullD · Post by **bullD** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:20 pm

my work annoyance for today:

the glue doesn't fucking dry fast enough, dammit!

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:27 pm

Jesus H. Christ!!
Back the fuck off, everybody... don't make me come in there and thump you all.... JESUS!!!

Force: face it, your statement was a fuck up. It very clearly aimed a very fierce shot at women, and guess what... the women got pissed off! You managed to get all four of the Four Women of the Apocolypse jumping on your ass and you are still trying to defend your original statement (and doing a piss poor job, I might add). Fuck it, ferget it... if you made a mistake, admit it, exit the field of battle... If you still want to stand by that statement, prepare to be excoriated by everybody who blunders across this thread. BTW, your statement was blatantly sexist, and I don't even know how you are going to explain that away...

Having said that, ladies, to quote Rodney King, "Ow! Ow! OW!!"... no, wait... "Can't we all get alolng?" Give the guy a little room to breathe and think, then wait for a reasoned response. If he continues in this vein... smack him... if not, forgive him.... so that I will have room to make my next faux pas.... sheesh...

GuinivereElise · Post by **GuinivereElise** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:28 pm

Force wrote:I wholeheartedly apologize for accidentally making people think I consider ALL women (or men or wallabies, or whatever) vindictive beasts when nothing could be farther from the truth.

If I had only had a FUCKING EDIT BUTTON, we probably all could have had a much more pleasant time.

you wonder why you're still feeling attacked:

statements like the above are all well and good, but, once again, you're not taking responsibility for your actions. It's the edit button's fault, it's our fault for not interpreting your statment properly.

you didn't MAKE ME THINK anything. You made an offensive statement, and continue to try to skirt responsibilty for it.

i'm entirely GLAD that there is no edit button. It forces you to accept the consequences for your actions.

Force · Post by **Force** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:33 pm

GuinivereElise wrote:I AM JUMPING ON YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE, WHILE ATTEMPTING TO WEASEL YOUR WAY OUT OF THE RESPONSIBILITY THAT SUCH A STATEMENT UNDERTAKES, YOU HAVE ALSO USED DOUBLESPEAK TO ASSERT THAT YOUR ORIGINAL PREMISE IS NOT AT ALL INCORRECT.

does this help to clear up the confusion you were having, force?

No, because we've progressed past the original point, which I incorrectly assumed I had communicated, to a larger one, which is that job-seekers should beware of getting involved in companies where there is a majority of one type of person.

So it should be clear now that I didn't mean that all women discriminate.

Now that we have progressed past the original point, it is wrong for you to continue to try and hold me responsible to have in the past communicated perfectly to you what I am trying to say. That's what I'm perceiving as political correcteness.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:34 pm

geekster wrote:Take it to Drama Camp

http://dramacamp.tribe.net/

Ah!

That felt Gooood.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:37 pm

Force wrote:
GuinivereElise wrote:I AM JUMPING ON YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE, WHILE ATTEMPTING TO WEASEL YOUR WAY OUT OF THE RESPONSIBILITY THAT SUCH A STATEMENT UNDERTAKES, YOU HAVE ALSO USED DOUBLESPEAK TO ASSERT THAT YOUR ORIGINAL PREMISE IS NOT AT ALL INCORRECT.

does this help to clear up the confusion you were having, force?
No, because we've progressed past the original point, which I incorrectly assumed I had communicated, to a larger one, which is that job-seekers should beware of getting involved in companies where there is a majority of one type of person.

I for one am looking for a job in a company where the majority of the employees are unemployed.

And does anybody but me think that the ghost of "political correctness" is often raised as a way of saying "I think those people don't have rights to courtesy, but don't have the balls to say so"?

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:37 pm

Force wrote:
GuinivereElise wrote:I AM JUMPING ON YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE, WHILE ATTEMPTING TO WEASEL YOUR WAY OUT OF THE RESPONSIBILITY THAT SUCH A STATEMENT UNDERTAKES, YOU HAVE ALSO USED DOUBLESPEAK TO ASSERT THAT YOUR ORIGINAL PREMISE IS NOT AT ALL INCORRECT.

does this help to clear up the confusion you were having, force?
No, because we've progressed past the original point, which I incorrectly assumed I had communicated, to a larger one, which is that job-seekers should beware of getting involved in companies where there is a majority of one type of person.

So it should be clear now that I didn't mean that all women discriminate.

Now that we have progressed past the original point, it is wrong for you to continue to try and hold me responsible to have in the past communicated perfectly to you what I am trying to say. That's what I'm perceiving as political correcteness.

Okay, ladies... he's crawfishin' ... kick his ass...

Force · Post by **Force** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:42 pm

Fuck it, ferget it - good advice, considering I've already admitted the wording was wrong, taken responsibility for it, AND apologized for it, and STILL people are on my ass, so I don't know what the fuck they want, unless it's to punish me for not saying what I meant perfectly.

So whatever, flame me, I'm sure that'll result in a great world in the end somehow.

GuinivereElise · Post by **GuinivereElise** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:43 pm

Force wrote:
GuinivereElise wrote:I AM JUMPING ON YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE, WHILE ATTEMPTING TO WEASEL YOUR WAY OUT OF THE RESPONSIBILITY THAT SUCH A STATEMENT UNDERTAKES, YOU HAVE ALSO USED DOUBLESPEAK TO ASSERT THAT YOUR ORIGINAL PREMISE IS NOT AT ALL INCORRECT.

does this help to clear up the confusion you were having, force?
No, because we've progressed past the original point, which I incorrectly assumed I had communicated, to a larger one, which is that job-seekers should beware of getting involved in companies where there is a majority of one type of person.

So it should be clear now that I didn't mean that all women discriminate.

Now that we have progressed past the original point, it is wrong for you to continue to try and hold me responsible to have in the past communicated perfectly to you what I am trying to say. That's what I'm perceiving as political correcteness.

Remeber those glasses that I had to grab for that post a little while ago? Get them again. Put them on. Reread MY section that you just quoted.

Do you see the words "political correctness"?

No??

really???

look again... maybe you're missing them.

Not there?

Oh, that's right. I'M NOT ARGUING ABOUT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

We have not progressed past the original post. I will repeat myself, since it appears you dont hear very well:

You're not taking responsibility for your actions. It's the edit button's fault, it's our fault for not interpreting your statment properly.

You made an offensive statement, and continue to try to skirt responsibilty for it.

Period.

Force · Post by **Force** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:44 pm

samtzu wrote:Okay, ladies... he's crawfishin' ... kick his ass...

crawfishin'? What the hell does that mean in this context?

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:44 pm

Poor Force.

4 Women of the Apocalypse · Post by **4 Women of the Apocalypse** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:46 pm

* yawn *

we are bored now...

but we'll find you later...

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:48 pm

Force wrote:
samtzu wrote:Okay, ladies... he's crawfishin' ... kick his ass...
crawfishin'? What the hell does that mean in this context?

To make like a crawfish, using your ass to propel yourself sideways, backwards, away from the thing that is bearing down on you, trying to consume you...

... have you ever seen a crawfish?...

Force · Post by **Force** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:49 pm

GuinivereElise wrote:You made an offensive statement, and continue to try to skirt responsibilty for it.

Period.

Maybe you were busy sharpening your sword and missed my apology. Kindly explain how apologizing for something is failing to take responsibility for it.