Topic: I am calling in tomorrow, forum.
Anonymous A started this discussion 7 years ago #86,552
Fuckem. Almost everyday I worked last week somebody called in, and they want to cut my hours? Seriously, fuck them. I hope I get that forestry job.
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 7 years ago, 9 minutes later[^] [v] #991,594
I should probably specify, they cut my hours, bc they had to send me home early one day. All bc I was tired AF due to insomnia. While people call in left and right, but their hours stay intact. I work harder than the average empolyee, and this is straight up bullshit. I still worked more hours than I was scheduled last week.
(Edited 39 seconds later.)
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 19 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #991,595
COCKSUCKERS
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #991,596
@previous (Sheila LaBoof)
Agreed. I am seething, just thinking about this shit. Really, this day off is a chance for me to calm down.
Agreed. I am seething, just thinking about this shit. Really, this day off is a chance for me to calm down.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 7 years ago, 26 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #991,597
@991,595 (Sheila LaBoof)
Specifically, there is one cocksucker, who called in two times last week. His hours should be cut, not mine.
Specifically, there is one cocksucker, who called in two times last week. His hours should be cut, not mine.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #991,598
is his name pete
FUCKIN PETE
FUCKIN PETE
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #991,599
@previous (Sheila LaBoof)It is Terrel, and he is a nigger. They must think I am stupid, or something. With an IQ of 165(confirmed by MENSA), I beg to differ.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #991,600
@previous (A)Fuck which ever perm hungry(denmark guy) fag added that image. Thanks.
Pic related, it is how denmark guy was born.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #991,601
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #991,602
I don't understand, they are cutting your hours as a form of punishment?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #991,603
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #991,604
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #991,605
@previous (D)
Eavesdropping. They gave somebody who had called in earlier that week warning, before sending him home early. IDK why they didn't give me the same warning.
Eavesdropping. They gave somebody who had called in earlier that week warning, before sending him home early. IDK why they didn't give me the same warning.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #991,606
@991,604 (D)
I seriously do not know, bc all they have been talking about is how hard of a worker I am.
I seriously do not know, bc all they have been talking about is how hard of a worker I am.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #991,607
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,608
@previous (A)
I think there's not enough to go on to think it was some kind of punishment. To me, it sounds like you are associating two completely different incidents. The guy that got a warning? Fuck that guy, you ain't nothing like him.
I think there's not enough to go on to think it was some kind of punishment. To me, it sounds like you are associating two completely different incidents. The guy that got a warning? Fuck that guy, you ain't nothing like him.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,609
@previous (D)
You may be right, may be unrelated. Still pisses me off. I work my ass off, and slip up due to insomnia, which is out of my control. Why do they cut my hours?
You may be right, may be unrelated. Still pisses me off. I work my ass off, and slip up due to insomnia, which is out of my control. Why do they cut my hours?
Ananthanarayanan M R joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 24 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,610
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 49 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,611
Ananthanarayanan M R replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,612
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,613
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,614
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,615
@previous (D)
Idgaf who did it. They are an asshole and deserve to be raped by Cerberus for eternity.
Idgaf who did it. They are an asshole and deserve to be raped by Cerberus for eternity.
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,616
@previous (A)
If you ever find out who it was, wait until they are in the dark and then sneak up on them, give them a scare. Offer them a candy and tell them it's good for shock.
If you ever find out who it was, wait until they are in the dark and then sneak up on them, give them a scare. Offer them a candy and tell them it's good for shock.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,617
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,618
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,619
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,620
@previous (A)
I really can't think about this anymore. I am getting really pissed off.
I really can't think about this anymore. I am getting really pissed off.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,622
Btw. Maybe it was walter set imaging my posts. Whomever it was is a butt baby.
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 31 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,623
@991,620 (A)
Just close the chapter? End it quickly with something like "and that was some serious bullshit" or go mormon style with something like "and it came to pass". Then just start a new chapter.
Just close the chapter? End it quickly with something like "and that was some serious bullshit" or go mormon style with something like "and it came to pass". Then just start a new chapter.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,625
@previous (D)
I am ending it as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, I need the THC out of my system.
I am ending it as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, I need the THC out of my system.
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,626
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,627
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,628
At least my kitty-cat loves me.Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 4 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,634
Ben Johnson joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 2 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,639
@991,599 (A)
> It is Terrel, and he is a nigger. They must think I am stupid, or something. With an IQ of 165(confirmed by MENSA), I beg to differ.
maybe they don't like you because you're an Arrogant Racist
> It is Terrel, and he is a nigger. They must think I am stupid, or something. With an IQ of 165(confirmed by MENSA), I beg to differ.
maybe they don't like you because you're an Arrogant Racist
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,645
Anonymous D replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,646
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,656
everybody dont say nigger pls its rud
Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 15 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,658
@previous (tteh !MemesToDNA)
> everybody dont say nigger pls its rud
Can we make a rule that no child abuse talk is allowed on this site?
> everybody dont say nigger pls its rud
Can we make a rule that no child abuse talk is allowed on this site?
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,659
@previous (Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc)
Yes. Anybody who defends "child pornography" because "it's only kids in swimsuits" (etc.) has already long been banned by myself and our other mods.
Yes. Anybody who defends "child pornography" because "it's only kids in swimsuits" (etc.) has already long been banned by myself and our other mods.
Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,661
@previous (tteh !MemesToDNA)
> Yes. Anybody who defends "child pornography" because "it's only kids in swimsuits" (etc.) has already long been banned by myself and our other mods.
I get that completely. But I think all talk involving a child and including paedophile accusations should be forbidden too, shouldn't it go both ways? I still have had no apology from being called a peado for the first 2 days when I joined. Don't you think that lowers the tone of the site with such talk?
> Yes. Anybody who defends "child pornography" because "it's only kids in swimsuits" (etc.) has already long been banned by myself and our other mods.
I get that completely. But I think all talk involving a child and including paedophile accusations should be forbidden too, shouldn't it go both ways? I still have had no apology from being called a peado for the first 2 days when I joined. Don't you think that lowers the tone of the site with such talk?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 13 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,662
@previous (Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc)
Would that include talk of actual crimes? That seems like a dangerous precedent
Would that include talk of actual crimes? That seems like a dangerous precedent
Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,671
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Would that include talk of actual crimes? That seems like a dangerous precedent
Yes absolutely, because if it went to trial, talking about the crime online with such hostility and abusive nature it would more than likely suspend the case as this would be said persons defence, a judge would drop it due to nobody letting authorities know & letting them deal with it.
Did you not realise this?
It's not even about that.. It's about lowering the standards, of yourself and of the forum talking about vulnerable children which many here find it acceptable to use as a weapon to get to somebody. I find that absolutely sickening.
> Would that include talk of actual crimes? That seems like a dangerous precedent
Yes absolutely, because if it went to trial, talking about the crime online with such hostility and abusive nature it would more than likely suspend the case as this would be said persons defence, a judge would drop it due to nobody letting authorities know & letting them deal with it.
Did you not realise this?
It's not even about that.. It's about lowering the standards, of yourself and of the forum talking about vulnerable children which many here find it acceptable to use as a weapon to get to somebody. I find that absolutely sickening.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 16 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,675
@previous (Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc)
People gossiping about a crime would not stop an investigation or trial. There are whole subreddits dedicated to discussing single crimes, which ended up being successfully prosecuted.
Also as a new user, you have no idea about our standards or if we were lowering them or not.
I don't think that something should be banned because it "gets to you". If you know that you're not a pedophile, than it shouldn't bother you.
People gossiping about a crime would not stop an investigation or trial. There are whole subreddits dedicated to discussing single crimes, which ended up being successfully prosecuted.
Also as a new user, you have no idea about our standards or if we were lowering them or not.
I don't think that something should be banned because it "gets to you". If you know that you're not a pedophile, than it shouldn't bother you.
Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc replied with this 7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,676
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> People gossiping about a crime would not stop an investigation or trial. There are whole subreddits dedicated to discussing single crimes, which ended up being successfully prosecuted.
> Also as a new user, you have no idea about our standards or if we were lowering them or not.
> I don't think that something should be banned because it "gets to you". If you know that you're not a pedophile, than it shouldn't bother you.
A trial would be dismissed if the defence saw any sort of discussion about the person involved in the alleged crime especially if he/she could prove emotional distress from bullying by others.
Well that maybe true. I only go by my standards and ethics, we all have different boundaries. If you wish to speak about things I find repulsive so be it.
> People gossiping about a crime would not stop an investigation or trial. There are whole subreddits dedicated to discussing single crimes, which ended up being successfully prosecuted.
> Also as a new user, you have no idea about our standards or if we were lowering them or not.
> I don't think that something should be banned because it "gets to you". If you know that you're not a pedophile, than it shouldn't bother you.
A trial would be dismissed if the defence saw any sort of discussion about the person involved in the alleged crime especially if he/she could prove emotional distress from bullying by others.
Well that maybe true. I only go by my standards and ethics, we all have different boundaries. If you wish to speak about things I find repulsive so be it.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 13 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,678
@previous (Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc)
When has a trial been dismissed over others gossiping about the crime? Also why then were high profile crimes prosecuted when people gossips about them?
So we agree that things shouldn't necessarily be banned because they bother you or remind you of past misdeeds?
When has a trial been dismissed over others gossiping about the crime? Also why then were high profile crimes prosecuted when people gossips about them?
So we agree that things shouldn't necessarily be banned because they bother you or remind you of past misdeeds?
(Edited 38 seconds later.)
Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc replied with this 7 years ago, 18 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,679
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> When has a trial been dismissed over others gossiping about the crime? Also why then were high profile crimes prosecuted when people gossips about them?
> So we agree that things shouldn't necessarily be banned because they bother you or remind you of past misdeeds?
No, we agree nothing. I just want others to respect themselves and others and not to lower themselves to such a level that they use one of the most vulnerable people in society to get at someone.
Gossiping is a grey area.. It would depend on what was said. Talking about facts and true statements is allowed sure. But what isn't is abuse.. slander and bullying someone (even if they are the criminal) if it were on trial all of that would be brought up and explained as defence, such a person for example could say to judge & jury that he/she got called a paedophile for so long and got bullied that caused emotional distress that all the abuse he/she received made him/her doubt their sanity and made him/her believe they are a paedophile and searched for such material online.
This would be a very strong defence if proven. Especially if the criminal could show evidence of abuse/slander/bullying he/she has received that caused this 'emotional distress/breakdown' leading to them doing an illegal act that was a one off/no previous recorded crimes.
I've no reason to lie to you. I don't care lol.
I just don't think people should be bullied, even if they have done wrong.
> When has a trial been dismissed over others gossiping about the crime? Also why then were high profile crimes prosecuted when people gossips about them?
> So we agree that things shouldn't necessarily be banned because they bother you or remind you of past misdeeds?
No, we agree nothing. I just want others to respect themselves and others and not to lower themselves to such a level that they use one of the most vulnerable people in society to get at someone.
Gossiping is a grey area.. It would depend on what was said. Talking about facts and true statements is allowed sure. But what isn't is abuse.. slander and bullying someone (even if they are the criminal) if it were on trial all of that would be brought up and explained as defence, such a person for example could say to judge & jury that he/she got called a paedophile for so long and got bullied that caused emotional distress that all the abuse he/she received made him/her doubt their sanity and made him/her believe they are a paedophile and searched for such material online.
This would be a very strong defence if proven. Especially if the criminal could show evidence of abuse/slander/bullying he/she has received that caused this 'emotional distress/breakdown' leading to them doing an illegal act that was a one off/no previous recorded crimes.
I've no reason to lie to you. I don't care lol.
I just don't think people should be bullied, even if they have done wrong.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,682
@previous (Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc)
No lawyer has ever defended a pedophile by saying that they were bullied into looking at child porn. You are implying that you have looked at child porn and it is Minichans fault. Don't blame us for your fetishes, you sick man!
No lawyer has ever defended a pedophile by saying that they were bullied into looking at child porn. You are implying that you have looked at child porn and it is Minichans fault. Don't blame us for your fetishes, you sick man!
Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,686
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> No lawyer has ever defended a pedophile by saying that they were bullied into looking at child porn. You are implying that you have looked at child porn and it is Minichans fault. Don't blame us for your fetishes, you sick man!
You obviously know more about law and order than I do. I apologise. And I am not Bert.
I am a sinner for sure. I've turned to God. Have you?
> No lawyer has ever defended a pedophile by saying that they were bullied into looking at child porn. You are implying that you have looked at child porn and it is Minichans fault. Don't blame us for your fetishes, you sick man!
You obviously know more about law and order than I do. I apologise. And I am not Bert.
I am a sinner for sure. I've turned to God. Have you?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,690
@previous (Bliss !g/Q.qpMTNc)
Is God helping you to not look at child porn? If he is, I'm glad that you've found him.
I am not a religious person
Is God helping you to not look at child porn? If he is, I'm glad that you've found him.
I am not a religious person
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,693
@991,639 (Ben Johnson)
I don't call people that word based on skin color, it is based on actions.
@991,645 (Sheila LaBoof)
She's a calico, sir. Of course I pet every part of her, look at how cute she is. I could not resist petting her.
I don't call people that word based on skin color, it is based on actions.
@991,645 (Sheila LaBoof)
She's a calico, sir. Of course I pet every part of her, look at how cute she is. I could not resist petting her.
Ben Johnson replied with this 7 years ago, 18 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #991,713
@previous (A)
I bet you're just upset that your neckbeard ass has to work under a black man ???
I bet you're just upset that your neckbeard ass has to work under a black man ???
(Edited 9 seconds later.)