silo
Regular Member
The bigger question is: who the hell wants to go to work on their off hours? 
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Told I Can't Carry When Off The Clock
- Thread starter usmcbess
- Start date
Marc
Regular Member
The bigger question is: who the hell wants to go to work on their off hours?
Lol I agree with that. I learned to avoid going to the gas station i worked at cuz then they always wanted help with something
Good point, never really entered my mind.
I was not exercizing my abilities to be reude there at all. If frustration showed through, it is my frustration with the simple fact that he is not right but he SHOULD be.
My car is my personal property, what is inside it, out of view, should be of no concern or impact on my employment what so ever and that is one of the laws that has been worked on for a few years. Unfortunatly it has not been fixed yet and the issue always revolved around the employment at will thing, there is no effective way for the state to tell the employer that they can't regulate something in their own rules at the same time employers have no business telling employees what they can store inside and out of sight in their own personal property.
They will always likely have no changes to this as no one is REQUIRED to drive onto their lot, it is consentual and in consenting you agree to all their rules whether you like them or not and as an employment at will state, you are always free to quit.
Such stupidity exHists when people fail to recognize sarcasm, or proper spelling and grammar when making such accusations.
wrightme
Regular Member
Sarcasm does not show well in the printed word of internet posts. In fact, your comment appears to suggest it as a valid course of action, and may well be interpreted as such. Now if someone DID take that course of action and mentioned your post........ Expect someone to come calling.
When a person writes <sarcasm>xyz bla bla bla <sarcasm> most folks can figure it out.
While not all folks get it, he was speaking to a man whom wanted to call the police on himself as a MWG just to see how they would respond, something that in the vast majority of opinions is a very unwise thing to do.
Your back to talking about things you do not understand again writeme.
I considered that it may be hard to pick up through text when posting it, but did anyone really take that as a serious option??
wrightme
Regular Member
That was added. But you must have not noticed, since that was changed by the admin today.
What IS quite noticeable is that while I was not the only one to point out the ambiguity of the original unaltered post, you only addressed your snark towards me.
I understood perfectly. I also understood that without the sarcasm tags it was easy for others to misunderstand.
What IS quite noticeable is that while I was not the only one to point out the ambiguity of the original unaltered post, you only addressed your snark towards me.
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
It is impossible to tell. Also, the audience of note in this case is not the members of the forum. It is the non-members that would jump at such a comment (sans sarcasm tags) to point out that "those OCers talk about breaking the law."
Point taken. But I like to joke around so we'll see if I change up.
LOL not really. Carnivoire said something like "I hope that kind of stupidity does not exist on this site of like minded people" or something like that. I am not sure I agree with him and while I understood the sarcasam of cash's post, I am not so sure I agree with carnivoire's comment, after all I made it real clear how little intelligence I thought the cal the cops on ones self idea was so I saw little need in commenting.
superlite said something regarding it, but even when he is mad super always remains pretty polite, almost his nature, kind of just a real nice guy all the way around most likely, kind of thinks the best of folks or says little to nothing negative, my perception anyway.
You on the other hand kind of thrive on the controversy, so much that you seek it out in states other than your own. Snarking you, whatever that is, is always a pleasure, it is comical as you indeed have the capacity to put forward a decent argument and you speak up when you do not know the situation a lot so it provides grand entertainment.I would have to agree, it serves no useful purpose, but nether does a guy from a thousand miles away blathering on about things he has no knowledge of as well.
Short version, snarking superlite would serve no purpose and carnivoire's comments held a great deal of irony for me so I had nothing to say. I spoke on your comments regarding cash's comments primarily out of envy of him saying it and me wishing I had thought of it, it is a highly defensible position to hold considering history.
wrightme
Regular Member
Do you realize yet that your comment was well after the change was made, and that your comment was in error?
My sole reference was to the specific that the comment was not clearly sarcasm to everyone reading it. Do you understand that?
My sole reference was to the specific that the comment was not clearly sarcasm to everyone reading it. Do you understand that?
Uh yeah, I realized it when I first read it and envied it. I guess you still struggle with the ability to see it (sarcasm) without someone pointing it out. Not really a surprise, mine was not nearly so witty.
It wasn't supposed to be, that was pointed and specific for the OP. In the real world most folks call those "inside jokes" sorta like how you never understood the age thing. I am not sure which I find more comical, the original comments or your struggle with them.
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
LOL, attempting to falsely claim such does not make it reality.
I clearly stated that I understood it. I also clearly stated that it would be easy to misunderstand by others. Why do you completely ignore that specific?
"Inside jokes" only stay "inside" when they remain private. In this case, it is not private, and it is quite possible for it to cast negative attention onto this website and the person who penned it and to the movement as a whole.LMTD said:
wrightme
Regular Member
You ignore the FACT that those tags were not there. Without those tags, the meaning is easy to misconstrue, and is LIKELY to be misconstrued by anti-gun advocates, and is LIKELY to be pointed out in a negative fashion.
Now you claim I simply didn't understand the sarcasm? That is not true.
I knew exactly what I was talking about when I reported it, and when I responded to it. You on the other hand first attacked me for not seeing tags that were not there, and now change to attacking me for not seeing the obvious sarcasm.LMTD said:
Neither of those is a valid point to argue against me for. When you do argue against me for those, you are arguing a strawman, and you also stubbornly refuse to accept that reality. You are the one who is "talking about things you do not understand." You are 'projecting.'
wrightme
Regular Member
Not a one. I made both of those two this morning specifically to show where you were in error.
/\ /\ /\ HAHAHA
Has anyone seen Zoolander??
Earth to Brint!! Earth to Meekus!!!
I knew it was a joke, I just didn't get it right away.
And here I come to say, "we should be doing more important things, like helping people".
Has anyone seen Zoolander??
Earth to Brint!! Earth to Meekus!!!
I knew it was a joke, I just didn't get it right away.
And here I come to say, "we should be doing more important things, like helping people".
peterarthur
Regular Member
SavageOne
Regular Member
Writeme, you know as well as any that anti's are are going to misconstrue no matter what. An anti is not going to come to this forum looking to have thier minds changed. They come already "knowing" the kind of people we gun lovers are. While there are those who will make the argument that this more reason to watch what we say, I tend to look at it a little different. If whatever I say is going to be viewed in a negative light, regardless, why should I care what that person thinks. I think any regular member was aware of the sarcasm in cash's original post, and if any "on the fence" person read it and allowed that one post to turn them anti, then they were already anti and just looking for some small excuse.