Webmaster Feels Dr. Laura's Wrath
EBD
An ongoing problem I had was getting paid. I would send in my
invoices, but I would sometimes wait a month to six weeks before
receiving a paycheck." -- Joyce Haggard
______________________________________________________
Radio Digest
8/10/99
Webmaster Feels Dr. Laura's Wrath
By Tomm Looney
Joyce Haggard is a hard-working single mother who knows the
wrath of Dr. Laura Schlessinger all too well.
Haggard was hired by Dr. Laura to work for Her Kid's Mom's
Internet site in January 1996.
"When I was offered to work for Dr. Laura, I was told that Laura
specifically wanted a single mom to get the work so that she would
be supporting a stay-at-home mom," Haggard explained to
RadioDigest.com exclusively. "That way I could stay at home with
my daughter but still make a living. Laura explicitly asked for a
single mother to be hired to type transcripts of her shows and log
them into a database."
"Before I was hired, I met with Laura at her studio in L.A. a couple
of times," Haggard recalls. "I didn't have too much interaction with
her until later, when I became the webmaster of Dr. Laura's
Internet site. Laura and I then had much more interaction. The
webmaster duties could also be done at home, but I interacted with
Laura via phone and fax on a regular basis. Most of our interaction
was because she began posting questions on her Web site for her
book research. Laura would have me fax all of the responses to her,
and she would call me whenever she wanted a new question
posted.
"Laura and I always got along very well," Haggard explains, adding,
"I'm sure that's because I did whatever she wanted immediately and
because I wasn't in the office with her."
After approximately one month, the honeymoon phase of working
with the famous Dr. Laura was over.
"A person sent her a fax complaining about something that was
posted on her Web site, and she called very upset with me for it,"
says Haggard. "And, just like in her radio show, I found that she
wouldn't listen to what I was saying. I just had to let her rant and
rave with no defense."
Ironically, even though Dr. Laura makes her living as a talk-show
host, Haggard found out that faxing Dr. Laura was the preferred
method of communication rather than calling her on the phone.
"I learned that if I wanted to get something through
to her, I would put it on the fax cover sheet when I
sent her faxes," says Haggard. "I found that she
would read those and respond diplomatically. If I
talked to her on the phone, she would formulate
opinions before hearing the entire story. Suffice it
to say, I just tried to do what I was told and stay in
the background as much as possible."
Haggard said that as far as Schlessinger was
concerned, the webmaster was out of sight, out of
mind. Haggard didn't get invited to Laura's holiday parties and
didn't get a bonus when everyone else on the Dr. Laura staff
received one.
"It made me feel bad when I'd find out that everybody got a bonus
but me," Haggard lamented. "Although I was an independent
contractor, I was still working more than full time for her."
And "full time" doesn't begin to describe Haggard's 18-hour days.
"My duties ended up including typing the transcripts of the show,
maintaining the Web site, and maintaining two separate databases,"
explains Haggard. "Site maintenance became a huge job because the
Web site contained a forum, which was like a chat room but it was
moderated. All of the messages submitted went into a holding area,
where each one had to be read and approved or deleted. I was
reading 200 or so e-mails a day. I finally had to recruit help, so I
had a friend helping me transcribe the tapes and my brother helped
screen forum messages."
"One database I maintained was the
transcripts that I copied into the
database and filled out all the search
fields," says Haggard. "I also maintained
a database that was downloaded from
the Web site of all the people who
signed the guest book on the site. Every
now and then I was asked to do a
search, usually by zip code range, of the
guest book for a particular radio
affiliate. I also updated information on
other areas of her site, like updating her
appearance schedule, putting in new
letters and faxes that had been read on
the air, and such."
But there was even more to Haggard's
schedule.
"I was the contact for everyone needing anything on her Web site,
so I received calls every day from her affiliates, advertisers,
and all different people with the Premiere organization,"
recalls Haggard. "Screening forum messages was the biggest
part of the Web site job. Between my brother and I, we updated
the messages every single day, weekends and holidays included.
Even Christmas Day, I was at the computer screening messages so
that they could be posted in a timely manner."
"I took my job very seriously, and I felt a responsibility to Laura's
fans, which benefited the company because the quicker messages
were posted, the more people participated, which kept the number
of hits up on the Web site," says Haggard. "That results in more
potential advertising revenue, since it's based on number of hits."
Haggard was run haggard by all this work. "I never complained
about the workload though," Haggard said. "The people I had
working under me never complained about it either."
The work wasn't easy, and collecting
paychecks from Dr. Laura apparently
wasn't an easy task for Haggard either.
"An ongoing problem I had was getting
paid," Haggard moaned. "I would send
in my invoices, but I would sometimes
wait a month to six weeks before
receiving a paycheck. Sometimes there
were two or three unpaid invoices at a
time they were sitting on. This became a
major hardship for me, since I'm the
only source of income for my
household. I was paying my bills late
and incurring late charges and black marks on my credit because
Dr. Laura wouldn't pay me on time. But I kept doing my work, day
in and day out."
Haggard thought it would be a good idea to update the Web site,
especially outdated areas that needed to be redone.
"After her show was purchased by Premiere, they started holding
meetings about the Web site there, which I was actually invited to,"
Haggard recalls. "I did a lot of research on what exactly needed to
be upgraded. I even posted a webmaster message on the site forum
asking for feedback from the users on what they would like to see.
This really helped form a bond between the fans and me because I
valued their opinions. Besides, by then Laura had mentioned my
name on the air a few times so people knew the webmaster was
named Joyce."
Haggard says she then began posting webmaster messages letting
people know that improvements were forthcoming.
"By then I had a great rapport with the fans as they knew that I was
trying to take care of their needs," mentions Haggard. "People
would request items read over the air to be posted, and I would
contact Laura's office and try to track down the items. As soon as I
received them, I would put them on the Web site. So people
learned that I tried my best to please them, which I thought
reflected the best on Laura for being so diligent with her Web site."
Haggard claimed that for all the research
she did for site improvements, she never
received as much as a thank you or any
recognition. Haggard also noted that it
seemed as though Dr. Laura hadn't been
to the site and was under the impression
that Schlessinger didn't even have
Internet access.
"Dr. Laura didn't really see the need for
the Web site," says Haggard. "She's
pretty much computer illiterate, and in
one meeting I attended she even asked
why we needed to keep the site! She felt
it was more hassle than it was worth."
Haggard and visitors to the site felt
slighted one day when Dr. Laura said on
the air she hadn't been to the Web site. What's worse, Schlessinger
then made disparaging remarks about those who surfed the web!
"She said on the air one time that the people who visit her Web site
were losers who needed to get a life because she thinks that people
who spend time on the Internet should be spending time with their
families instead," Haggard lamented. "That started a lot of
controversy on her site! People were really angry that Laura
referred to them as losers. I forget if she used the exact term
'losers,' but her comment had the same connotation."
"She's her own worst enemy as far as Web site PR goes," added
Haggard.
In February 1998, when a haggard Haggard went with her family to
Colorado for some overdue rest and relaxation, she took her work
with her.
"Taking my work as seriously as I did, I told Laura that I would
take my laptop computer and continue to update her site while I
was on vacation," Haggard recalled. "The one thing I asked Laura
was if I could not fax her any book research responses during those
two weeks. Updating the forum was easy because it was all done
online, but I wouldn't have easy access to a printer or a fax
machine. Laura was agreeable to not receiving any faxes during my
vacation."
But all of the sudden, Haggard received word that some research
and faxing would have to be done during her two weeks on
vacation.
"It was decided that they absolutely had to have some research
done for an upcoming speech Laura was giving, so it was urgent to
post some questions on the Web site and have me send the
responses to the office daily," recalled an aggravated Haggard. "She
didn't care what we had already arranged. It was decided that this
particular research had to be done during my vacation time. So
instead of faxing, I was forced to take on the task of sending
lengthy e-mails every day to Laura's secretary Lisa, containing
all of the responses to the online questions while I was
on vacation. This was in addition to screening all of the
forum messages."
While relaxing, sort of, in Colorado, Haggard again was forced to
work the phones to find out what was up with her paycheck, which
still seemed to be having trouble finding its way to her mailbox.
"While on vacation, I was supposed to receive a paycheck. I had
left my bills made out with my mother, and she was going to mail
them in when my check arrived," remembers Haggard. "Once
again, I didn't receive my check. This was an ongoing problem
month after month. So there I was in Colorado, expecting a
paycheck that hadn't been sent."
"I asked my mother to call out to Dr.
Laura's office at Premiere Radio
Networks, Dr. Laura's syndicator, to
ask about the paycheck," continues
Haggard. "They were totally rude to my
mother. They told my mother I would
have to wait two more weeks until the
next one. When my mother said that
wouldn't do, the person in Dr. Laura's
office said, 'Why is it such a big deal? Is
Joyce's house in foreclosure?'"
Haggard noted that the entire time she
worked for Dr. Laura, she never had a formal contract.
"I just did the work, invoiced them, and got paid on an hourly
basis," Haggard recollected. "At some point, Dr. Laura's assistant
phoned and wanted me to give them a proposal for a flat rate for
my services. I told her I could do that, but it was difficult because
the workload varied month to month. But she said they really
needed to have a flat rate, so we began the process of creating a
flat-rate contract. I knew all she wanted was to get something that
she could bid against to get rid of me. I put great detail into the
contract about how much work I did, and how I updated the forum
seven days a week, 365 days a year."
Haggard says while they were going back and forth trying to reach
an agreeable number of hours and pay rate, Premiere started putting
advertising on the Web site. Prior to the improvements, there was
no advertising, but management had decided to start displaying ads
to pay for the maintenance of the site.
"The ads were not done well and
displayed as large banners on the screen,
leaving the Web site area much smaller.
Many complaints started coming in on
the forum about the advertising, and I
started forwarding the complaints to the
staff at Premiere," Haggard told
RadioDigest.com. "The fans knew I
was doing what I could."
At some point, Haggard posted a
webmaster message that resulted in her
termination. The content of the
message? She let visitors know that she
was forwarding all of their complaints to
the production company.
"That Monday afternoon, Dr. Laura's office called and left a
message on my recorder that the contract we had been working on
had been signed and was being sent to me," Haggard remembers.
"The contract also contained a clause that I had to be given 30 days
notice upon termination."
It was seemingly a bluff. Haggard never received the signed
contract.
"Instead, the following Wednesday morning, I got up to find a nasty
fax sitting in my fax machine, letting me know that effective
immediately I was being terminated," Haggard recalls. "Attached to
it was my webmaster message from a couple nights prior. The fax
was very terse, and it said that I had been terminated and that
'everyone' was in agreement with this decision. It said that it was
obvious from my webmaster message that I no longer considered
myself part of Dr. Laura's 'team.'"
I guess that siding with Laura's fans made me an enemy to the
production company," concludes Haggard. "And since I never
received the contract, they didn't have to pay me for that 30-day
notice period. I was paid through the prior day, and that was it. No
severance pay, no nothing. Effective that day, the only single
parent, stay-at-home mom to work for Dr. Laura was without an
income."
"I was really upset to say the least,"
Haggard bemoans. "All I could think
of was how was I going to pay the
bills and support my daughter and
myself. Being an independent
contractor, I couldn't even apply for
unemployment. Of course, I checked
the Web site right away and they had
already changed the password and
locked me out."
When complaints came into Dr.
Laura's Web site, Schlessinger's Moral
House plumbers seemingly started a
dirty tricks campaign.
"At one point, somebody in Dr.
Laura's office contacted a former
employer of mine and told them I was
behind a hate mail campaign,"
Haggard charged. "That really irritated
me that her office was trying to
badmouth me to a prior employer, especially since I was looking for
work. I happen to know it's illegal to do that since it's undermining
my possible job options, but Dr. Laura obviously doesn't care about
that. She just wanted to smear my name all she could within the
industry."
"After a couple of weeks, I wrote Dr. Laura a long letter letting her
know my side of the story," remembers Haggard. "Laura called me
after receiving my fax and said she was really disturbed by some of
the things I wrote about and she wanted me to come immediately to
the office and talk to one of the vice presidents. She said we needed
to talk about some of these things, so I assumed she would be
there. I dropped everything and drove up to Sherman Oaks to meet
with Kraig Kitchin, CEO of Premiere Radio Networks. He was a
vice president at the time.
"Laura wasn't there, so it was just Mr. Kitchin and me," says
Haggard. "He gave me 45 minutes of lip service, I'm sure to
appease Laura, but nothing ever came of it. At the end of the
conversation, he said he had to do some talking to other people
involved, and he would get back to me within 48 hours. That was
the end of June 1998, and I've never heard any more from him. I
was really disappointed that he didn't even bother calling when he
said he would, even to say there was nothing they could do."
"During our conversation, Kitchin acted like he knew nothing about
my situation," Haggard scoffed. "But then he would slip up and say
something that told me he knew exactly what had happened. He
said that Laura valued me and wanted me back in some capacity. I
told him I couldn't consider coming back in any capacity. I said she
had made my life miserable, and if I came back I would always be
wondering how long it would be before I wouldn't have my job
again. Maybe I shouldn't have been so stubborn, but I really
couldn't see working for her again."
"Since my termination from Dr. Laura's group, I've been doing
temp work wherever I can," Haggard grumbled. "I've really been
strapped financially by the turn of events."
http://www.radiodigest.com/news/1999/nat_081099_laura_web1.htm
Jakthehmmr
Of course, it's only one side of the story.........But that don't bother Looney
the Moron............
<snip the one-sided fairy tale>
MrModok
1. Contracted without any written contract.
2. Continued to provide service for Laura despite repeated 4-6 week late
paychecks.
></PRE></HTML>
-Citrus Lad's pal, Jon Trouten
Andres64
Very interesting. As usual, Laura the bitch is a major hypocrite only
interested in herself.
--
Sincerely,
Andres
You always have a choice.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Brianna Morgan
again while she's down, why don'cha?
This is so pathetic I almost can't believe it. A single, Stay-at-Home
MOM -- working like a slave (365 days a year, for god's sake)! Not paid
on time, no bonus, apparently zero consideration, canned with no notice.
Mzzzzzzzzzz Bishop, you are beneath contempt.
MrModok <mrm...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:19990810211427...@ng-fw1.aol.com...
MrModok
would not work as long as she did under such conditions. I certainly would not
have worked 365 days a week. I definately would not have offered ANY of my
vacation time to Ms. Schlessinger (or any other employer). And I would enter
into ANY job situation with a clear written job description before starting any
job duties. I would have also started looking for another job long before she
got sacked with no notice.
>From: "Brianna Morgan" <bria...@home.com>
>
>THAT's the only comment you can make?! Wow, what great feedback. Hit her
>again while she's down, why don'cha?
>
>This is so pathetic I almost can't believe it. A single, Stay-at-Home
>MOM -- working like a slave (365 days a year, for god's sake)! Not paid
>on time, no bonus, apparently zero consideration, canned with no notice.
>Mzzzzzzzzzz Bishop, you are beneath contempt.
>
>MrModok <mrm...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>news:19990810211427...@ng-fw1.aol.com...
>| Mistakes made by Ms. Haggard:
>|
>| 1. Contracted without any written contract.
>|
>| 2. Continued to provide service for Laura despite repeated 4-6 week
>late
>| paychecks.
-Citrus Lad's pal, Jon Trouten
Brianna Morgan
been 100% patsy/martyr. All the more despicable for Mzzzzzzz. Bishop to
have taken advantage of that martyr complex, and for so long! But,
MrModok, I apologize for coming out slamming against you. Not very nice
of me. Thank you for your mild reply.
MrModok <mrm...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:19990810222339...@ng-fw1.aol.com...
Jakthehmmr
>THAT's the only comment you can make?! Wow, what great feedback. Hit her
>again while she's down, why don'cha?
No one owes anyone a living, kid..........
>This is so pathetic I almost can't believe it. A single, Stay-at-Home
>MOM -- working like a slave (365 days a year, for god's sake)! Not paid
>on time, no bonus, apparently zero consideration, canned with no notice.
>Mzzzzzzzzzz Bishop, you are beneath contempt.
You've only heard ONE side of the story........That's a pretty big stretch to
make............
>MrModok <mrm...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>news:19990810211427...@ng-fw1.aol.com...
>| Mistakes made by Ms. Haggard:
>|
>| 1. Contracted without any written contract.
>|
>| 2. Continued to provide service for Laura despite repeated 4-6 week
>late
>| paychecks.
>|
Hotcpl123
>Subject: Webmaster Feels Dr. Laura's Wrath
>From: "EBD" zarieNO...@email.msn.com
>Date: Tue, 10 August 1999 07:50 PM EDT
>Message-id: <ecX96s44#GA.447@cpmsnbbsa02>
>
>The
>webmaster duties could also be done at home, but I interacted with
>Laura via phone and fax on a regular basis. Most of our interaction
>was because she began posting questions on her Web site for her
>book research. Laura would have me fax all of the responses to her,
>and she would call me whenever she wanted a new question
>posted.
This part is really funny. I love how Laura's idea of "research" is responses
to questions posted on her website, yet she constantly faults the methodology
of sudies she disagrees with; even if the has not read them.
Kris
CJ
news:ecX96s44#GA.447@cpmsnbbsa02...
>
> Haggard and visitors to the site felt
> slighted one day when Dr. Laura said on
> the air she hadn't been to the Web site. What's worse, Schlessinger
> then made disparaging remarks about those who surfed the web!
>
> "She said on the air one time that the people who visit her Web site
> were losers who needed to get a life because she thinks that people
> who spend time on the Internet should be spending time with their
> families instead,"
Two reasons she says this: 1) people can learn the truth about Laura on the
net. You don't really hear it in the so-called "liberal" press(and if the
press is really liberal you would have heard them slam her left and right
wouldn't you have?)
and 2) people can get on the net and see with their own eyes what a whore
she is.
And as far as spending time with their families instead of being on the
net??...I guess she'll be quitting karate to spend more time with Lew won't
she....phffft...of course not. She just contradicted herself and didn't
even know it.
Haggard lamented. "That started a lot of
> controversy on her site! People were really angry that Laura
> referred to them as losers. I forget if she used the exact term
> 'losers,' but her comment had the same connotation."
>
> "She's her own worst enemy as far as Web site PR goes," added
> Haggard.
She sure is. Just ask the people in Dallas.
> In February 1998, when a haggard Haggard went with her family to
> Colorado for some overdue rest and relaxation, she took her work
> with her.
>
> "Taking my work as seriously as I did, I told Laura that I would
> take my laptop computer and continue to update her site while I
> was on vacation," Haggard recalled. "The one thing I asked Laura
> was if I could not fax her any book research responses during those
> two weeks. Updating the forum was easy because it was all done
> online, but I wouldn't have easy access to a printer or a fax
> machine. Laura was agreeable to not receiving any faxes during my
> vacation."
>
> But all of the sudden, Haggard received word that some research
> and faxing would have to be done during her two weeks on
> vacation.
>
> "It was decided that they absolutely had to have some research
> done for an upcoming speech Laura was giving, so it was urgent to
> post some questions on the Web site and have me send the
> responses to the office daily,"
Ah...so all those "revelations" she comes up with are not her own. Someone
else does the thinking, she just passes it off as her own work and thoughts.
I knew she was stupid.
If she is so hard-working and smart, she'd do her own damn research. But
she doesn't, because she is a lazy imbecile.
>
> While relaxing, sort of, in Colorado, Haggard again was forced to
> work the phones to find out what was up with her paycheck, which
> still seemed to be having trouble finding its way to her mailbox.
Laura is a backstabbing crook.
> "While on vacation, I was supposed to receive a paycheck. I had
> left my bills made out with my mother, and she was going to mail
> them in when my check arrived," remembers Haggard. "Once
> again, I didn't receive my check. This was an ongoing problem
> month after month. So there I was in Colorado, expecting a
> paycheck that hadn't been sent."
>
> "I asked my mother to call out to Dr.
> Laura's office at Premiere Radio
> Networks, Dr. Laura's syndicator, to
> ask about the paycheck," continues
> Haggard. "They were totally rude to my
> mother. They told my mother I would
> have to wait two more weeks until the
> next one. When my mother said that
> wouldn't do, the person in Dr. Laura's
> office said, 'Why is it such a big deal? Is
> Joyce's house in foreclosure?'"
I expect nothing less from bitch Laura or anyone who works for her. So I
hope Haggard learned a lesson and maintains her dignity by no longer doing
business with a crook and bitter old hag like Laura Bishop.
CJ
news:19990810205233...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
I tell you what...the next time you hear Laura show an interest in "both"
sides of the story from her callers, then you can defend her.
We'll be waiting a long time.
CJ
news:19990810211427...@ng-fw1.aol.com...
>
> 1. Contracted without any written contract.
>
> 2. Continued to provide service for Laura despite repeated 4-6 week late
> paychecks.
Hmmm..I guess that mitigates the importance of Laura's backstabbing.
CJ
someone needs to call CPS on Laura.
EBD <zarieNO...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:ecX96s44#GA.447@cpmsnbbsa02...
CJ
> "Brianna Morgan" bria...@home.com wrote:
>
>
> >THAT's the only comment you can make?! Wow, what great feedback. Hit her
> >again while she's down, why don'cha?
>
> No one owes anyone a living, kid..........
They do if they have earned it until such employment is terminated, idiot.
Laura owes her for services rendered.
Jakthehmmr
That's why employment is terminated, Dipshit..........
>Laura owes her for services rendered.
I didn't see that anywhere in the article.........She's all paid up............
MrModok
No. But it certainly made it easier for the crap that supposedly happened in
this situation to happen.
Qrm2000
>would not work as long as she did under such conditions. I certainly would
>not
>have worked 365 days a week. I definately would not have offered ANY of my
>vacation time to Ms. Schlessinger (or any other employer).
Are you speaking as an Independent Contractor, yourself?
MrModok
No, I'm not. Is it common when contracting independently to do work without
anything in writing holding either party responsible for anything? I mean, as
a county social worker, I contract with other agencies and individuals all of
the time. When, for example, arranging daycare payments, I make sure that
everyone knows what's going on and how much they will get paid before anything
starts. Makes sense and saves future trouble, right?
Qrm2000
>>>vacation time to Ms. Schlessinger (or any other employer).
Since you are not an independent contractor, I'll fill you in on the story.
You DO perform a lot of work at times regular employees would not consider.
You are there to get a certain task or task(s) completed, and unfortunately
that takes priority over your personal life on many occasions.
Ind. Contracting and/or self-employment is not for everyone. In fact, I
suppose folks willing to do this are in the minority. It has its rewards, but
it's also pretty scary. The faint of heart (and those who are not self
starters) need not apply.
QRM
Beck2Smith
>Date: 12 Aug 1999 19:49:04 GMT
>Message-ID: <19990812154904...@ng-fe1.aol.com>
I have been an independent contractor for almost 15 years. I agree with your
comment that it is not for everyone. When I go on vacation, I *always* have
some files to take with me and phone calls to make. It is the end result that
interests me-not the in-between details of how or when I got it done. When you
have been independent as long as I have, you realize it would be very hard to
go back to a 9-5. For me, the benefits far outweigh the costs.
B. Smith
MrModok
Beck2Smith
>Date: 12 Aug 1999 22:34:22 GMT
>References:
>Message-ID: <19990812183422...@ng-xc1.aol.com>
wrote:
>>I have been an independent contractor for almost 15 years. I agree with
>your
>>comment that it is not for everyone. When I go on vacation, I *always* have
>>some files to take with me and phone calls to make. It is the end result
>that
>>interests me-not the in-between details of how or when I got it done. When
>>you
>>have been independent as long as I have, you realize it would be very hard
>to
>>go back to a 9-5. For me, the benefits far outweigh the costs.
>
>Then should we feel bad for Ms. Haggard at all? I guess not.
>
>-Citrus Lad's pal, Jon Trouten
Neither one of them should have entered such an arrangement without a contract.
Ms. Haggard got the boot with no warning, and Laura gets bad press. Maybe
they both learned something.
B. Smith
axel heyst
beck2...@aol.com (Beck2Smith) wrote:
>Neither one of them should have entered such an arrangement without a contract.
> Ms. Haggard got the boot with no warning, and Laura gets bad press. Maybe
>they both learned something.
Oh I don't know. I'm feeling egalitarian today so I agree with everything
that everyone has written about this subject. The woman seems to have acted
naively, and paid for it, there's no doubt.
But the other thing I've been thinking is that just because someone drops
the soap doen't mean that they deserve to get boned up the ass, you know?
Someone once said that integrity is doing the ethical thing when no one's
looking, and it seems that time and time again we find that the good Doctor
wouldn't know integrity or ethics if they came up to her and gave her a
free nose job.
BA
Beck2Smith
>ax...@SPAMXverinet.com (axel heyst)
wrote:
It was Laura that said that, and this is just one more nail in the her coffin.
If she wanted to "go do the right thing" she should have tried to come up with
a mutually agreeable contract. It almost sounds like she did when the story
diverted to the business about coming up with a flat rate... In any event, I
believe Laura had the advantage of experience at business and upper hand in the
relationship, and ultimately took advantage of poor Ms. Haggard. Imagine that.
Now go do the right thing.
B. Smith
axel heyst
beck2...@aol.com (Beck2Smith) wrote:
>In any event, I
>believe Laura had the advantage of experience at business and upper hand in the
>relationship, and ultimately took advantage of poor Ms. Haggard. Imagine that.
> Now go do the right thing.
That's exactly what I think, and you put it well. A pure businessperson
could spin it as a "standard operating procedure" type of thing, but when
you hold yourself out as a moral beacon, the standard is raised. That's it.
For some stupid reason I've been thinking about Richard Simmons, maybe
because of his new show* and all, but anyhow I can't for the life of me
imagine him doing something like this to a person in his employ, and if it
happened without him knowing about it, I can't imagine him not correcting
the situation and probably even talking about it publicly once he did find
out about it.
That's the classy thing to do, and I really believe he would do that. I'd
like to think that I would do that. I hope I would anyway.
I know that it's hardly an original thought, but it always strikes me that
the more people talk about doing good deeds, the less likely they are to
actually do them.
BA
*I read alt.gossip.celebrities from time to time. If I didn't love women
so much I woulda/shoulda been gay, there is no doubt.
Jakthehmmr
<snip>
> Someone once said that integrity is doing the ethical thing when no one's
>looking, and it seems that time and time again we find that the good Doctor
>wouldn't know integrity or ethics if they came up to her and gave her a
>free nose job.
>
> BA
>
Someone from this Toilet talks about "integrity or ethics"??.............
MrModok
>so much I woulda/shoulda been gay, there is no doubt.
>
>
'Cuz you know that's what us fags do all the time is sit around and gossip...
Beck2Smith
>ax...@SPAMXverinet.com (axel heyst)
wrote:
>A pure businessperson
>could spin it as a "standard operating procedure" type of thing, but when
>you hold yourself out as a moral beacon, the standard is raised. That's it.
>
> For some stupid reason I've been thinking about Richard Simmons, maybe
>because of his new show* and all, but anyhow I can't for the life of me
>imagine him doing something like this to a person in his employ, and if it
>happened without him knowing about it, I can't imagine him not correcting
>the situation and probably even talking about it publicly once he did find
>out about it.
>
> That's the classy thing to do, and I really believe he would do that. I'd
>like to think that I would do that. I hope I would anyway.
>
> I know that it's hardly an original thought, but it always strikes me that
>the more people talk about doing good deeds, the less likely they are to
>actually do them.
>
> BA
>
> *I read alt.gossip.celebrities from time to time. If I didn't love women
>so much I woulda/shoulda been gay, there is no doubt.
At the risk of generating snide, unrelated comments from some, I am reminded of
Kathie Lee and the sweatshop event. She went right into damage control and,
presumably, fixed the situation.
B. Smith
Neutrodyne
>From: beck2...@aol.com (Beck2Smith)
>Date: Thu, 12 August 1999 07:31 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19990812193103...@ng-bk1.aol.com>
>
>In article ><B3D8B3329...@192.168.1.2
>
>>ax...@SPAMXverinet.com (axel heyst)
>
>wrote:
>
>>>Neither one of them should have entered such an arrangement without a
>>contract.
>>> Ms. Haggard got the boot with no warning, and Laura gets bad press. Maybe
>>>they both learned something.
>>
>> Oh I don't know. I'm feeling egalitarian today so I agree with everything
>>that everyone has written about this subject. The woman seems to have acted
>>naively, and paid for it, there's no doubt.
>>
>> But the other thing I've been thinking is that just because someone drops
>>the soap doen't mean that they deserve to get boned up the ass, you know?
>>
>>looking, and it seems that time and time again we find that the good Doctor
>>wouldn't know integrity or ethics if they came up to her and gave her a
>>free nose job.
>>
>> BA
>
>coffin.
>If she wanted to "go do the right thing" she should have tried to come up
>with
>a mutually agreeable contract. It almost sounds like she did when the story
>believe Laura had the advantage of experience at business and upper hand in
>the
>relationship, and ultimately took advantage of poor Ms. Haggard. Imagine
>that.
> Now go do the right thing.
>
>
I always thought this "independent contractor" bit was just a dodge by
employers who want to break labor laws (I feel the same way about "salaried
positions").
I would think in a case where the contractor shows they aren't even savvy
enough to demand a written contract, the employer is obviously out to take
advantage, Prima facie (or however that term goes). Epecially when it is work
that can be done at the employers place of business, it seems to me workers
should be protected under sweatshop laws or something.It's illegal to con
someone aout of maney, why should an employer be able to effectively con an
"independent contractor" out of valuable labor?
It's one thing when the contractor and employer are peers (or nearly so),
liike a one man construction company who hires a day laborer or two for a job
at a flat rate.
Same sort of thing for a "salaried position" that is billed as a 40 hour
job (office is open 37.5 to 40 hours, accepts phone calls only during that
time, has staff on hourly wages that they send home after 40 hours, etc.). An
employer who requires significant overtime on a regular basis from salaried
people is defrauding them if the consistent overtime isn't in the contract. A
"work as needed" clause is weasely if it is over used.
Certainly people should have these things spelled in a contarct, but often
promotions and/or changes in the business don't give the workers much choice
but to keep accepting concessions.
Here I go sounding like Eugene Debs, I'm gonna lose my conservative's
license pretty soon.
Neutrodyne
Closet Libertarian
gregory...@webtv.net
read this:
Richard Simmons
<http://www.bitterwaitress.com/CELEBRITY/Richard_Simmons.html>
Greg
gossipy fag
Eric da Red
Neutrodyne <neutr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>I always thought this "independent contractor" bit was just a dodge by
>employers who want to break labor laws (I feel the same way about "salaried
>positions").
In my recent experiences, the generous use of 'independent contractors' by
managers is done to avoid spending time and money training in-house
employees, to attempt to alleviate horribly bad project planning, and to
enrich people whom current management used to work with.
> I would think in a case where the contractor shows they aren't even savvy
>enough to demand a written contract, the employer is obviously out to take
>advantage, Prima facie (or however that term goes).
This is probably true in the general case. During my career as an
independent contractor, payment failed to appear only twice - and one of
these was the only time that I worked from a written contract. My
prefered tactic was to work on a pay-as-you-go basis, letting the client
know in no uncertain terms that I'd walk away from any job at any time
if payment was not forthcoming.
A REALLY smart contractor factors in some amount of uncollected
receivables into his budgeting.
>Epecially when it is work
>that can be done at the employers place of business, it seems to me workers
>should be protected under sweatshop laws or something.It's illegal to con
>someone aout of maney, why should an employer be able to effectively con an
>"independent contractor" out of valuable labor?
The Microsoft / contractor issue was a recent example of this abuse.
The courts apparently felt that a key individual who had worked at a place
for ten years deserved some of the Microsoft benefits.
> It's one thing when the contractor and employer are peers (or nearly so),
>liike a one man construction company who hires a day laborer or two for a job
>at a flat rate.
> Same sort of thing for a "salaried position" that is billed as a 40 hour
>job (office is open 37.5 to 40 hours, accepts phone calls only during that
>time, has staff on hourly wages that they send home after 40 hours, etc.). An
>employer who requires significant overtime on a regular basis from salaried
>people is defrauding them if the consistent overtime isn't in the contract. A
>"work as needed" clause is weasely if it is over used.
I could tell you stories ...
> Certainly people should have these things spelled in a contarct, but often
>promotions and/or changes in the business don't give the workers much choice
>but to keep accepting concessions.
> Here I go sounding like Eugene Debs, I'm gonna lose my conservative's
>license pretty soon.
Hee hee hee, we're about to get another recruit into the Conspiracy To
Destroy The American Family.
>Neutrodyne
>Closet Libertarian
Within US conservatism there are some people who, while still maintaining
a preference for Small Government, are not blind to malfeasance of
corporate America or to the shenanigans of acknowledged conservative
leaders. Kevin Philips immediately comes to mind. This can be a tenuous
path for a conservative to begin, however, because one might end up
bitching about the Zionist Occupation Government.
--
Quote Of The Week:
"I wanted to do something until I found the man I wanted to marry."
-- Nancy Reagan
axel heyst
mrm...@aol.comNOSPAM (MrModok) wrote:
>>*I read alt.gossip.celebrities from time to time. If I didn't love women
>>so much I woulda/shoulda been gay, there is no doubt.
>>
>>
>
>'Cuz you know that's what us fags do all the time is sit around and gossip...
Lots of 'em do. No shame to it. There's also the thing Seinfeld said,
about being a thirty-something single guy, neat and thin...
BA
Also has a large still of Audrey Hepburn from "Breakfast of Tiffany's" on
the wall above the teevee
axel heyst
neutr...@aol.com (Neutrodyne) wrote:
>I always thought this "independent contractor" bit was just a dodge by
>employers who want to break labor laws (I feel the same way about "salaried
>positions").
It is that, exactly.
BA
Notes that "Manpower" is the number one employer in the country
axel heyst
tzomp...@mindless.com (Dr. Charlie) wrote:
>In article <B3DA07919...@192.168.1.2>
>ax...@SPAMXverinet.com (axel heyst) writes:
>>In article <19990813075647...@ng-fw1.aol.com>,
>>mrm...@aol.comNOSPAM (MrModok) wrote:
>
>>>>*I read alt.gossip.celebrities from time to time. If I didn't love women
>>>>so much I woulda/shoulda been gay, there is no doubt.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>'Cuz you know that's what us fags do all the time is sit around and gossip...
>
>> Lots of 'em do. No shame to it.
>
>Wait a minute, I think my hero Jamie reads that newsgroup, and she's no fag.
>No doubt she enjoys reading it because she enjoys doing things that DL would
>not approve of. That is a Good Thing <TM> in my book.
I know Charlie's kidding, but before this does a typical Usenet-snowball,
a few words-
Firstly, there are a lot of unabashedly gay guys posting on agc. For the
most part they are hysterical and their gossip is first-rate. There also
seem to be quite a few fag hags hanging out there too, and that's all the
better, too.
(Gays call THEMSELVES "Friends of Dorothy" for chrissake, and if that's
not at least partly a tacit admission of celeb worship amongst the gay
community than I don't know what is.)
Secondly, much like my stance on abortion, I am PRO-GAY. I don't just
mealy-mouthedly "tolerate" it, I PROMOTE IT. More gays is better for Mr.
Axel in multiple ways, mainly:
1) Less reproduction taking place on our beleaguered planet
2) Reduced competition for women (ignoring the lesbian issue for the nonce)
Therefor, if the current ratio of male homosexuals to male heterosexuals
is, oh let's say 1:10, I support raising that ratio to somewhere in the
neighborhood of 9.9:10, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, up to and including
listening to Cher/Bette Midler albums whilst still in utero, federally
funded gladiator movies, making football even less subtly queer than it is
now, WHATEVER.
If you listen closely, you can hear the faint rumblings of an "Elect Axel"
grass roots campaign starting up, the money simply pouring in.
And they haven't even heard my "being molested doesn't have to be the end
of the world" speech yet.
BA
Aspiring world leader
Jamie
>
> In article <B3DA07919...@192.168.1.2>
> ax...@SPAMXverinet.com (axel heyst) writes:
> >In article <19990813075647...@ng-fw1.aol.com>,
> >mrm...@aol.comNOSPAM (MrModok) wrote:
>
> >>>*I read alt.gossip.celebrities from time to time. If I didn't love women
> >>>so much I woulda/shoulda been gay, there is no doubt.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>'Cuz you know that's what us fags do all the time is sit around and gossip...
>
> > Lots of 'em do. No shame to it.
>
> Wait a minute, I think my hero Jamie reads that newsgroup, and she's no fag.
> No doubt she enjoys reading it because she enjoys doing things that DL would
> not approve of. That is a Good Thing <TM> in my book.
Damn, Charlie! Now I know you read by Deja profile. But yes, I do indeed
read and post to a.g.s. And I am definitely not a fag, by which I assume
you mean a cigarette. I am also not a homosexual. I am just a showbiz
junkie.
~Jamie the Jackyl (& Dr. Charlie's hero)
axel heyst
>Speech! Speech
Okay, here goes. A few weeks ago, maybe a few months by now, there was an
incident in Denver where a six year-old boy was apparently fondled or
something (news reports were conspicuously vague) in a department store
men's room. The kid wasn't injured in any way. I think the guy was caught
but I'm not sure.
Anyhow, I heard the story and I started thinking that maybe, just maybe,
that if adults didn't act on the assumption that an incident like this was
bound to scar the kid for life then maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't. Maybe
if we didn't act like it was such a big deal than maybe the child would
forget about it.
I'm not saying that it's not wrong or whatever, and I am most definitely
not talking about children who are serially molested or raped by family
members and so on. I'm thinking specifically of these kind of one-off
incidents.
So, I was talking to a female friend of mine about my little theory, and
my other little theory that incest among consenting adults was probably
nobody's business, and she was like, "Oh Axel, you're really bad." And
she's used to me, so I figured that my "thoughts" weren't quite ready for
prime-time, but lo and behold the very next day (or so, tempus fugit) what
do I hear but a release of a controversial study whose conclusions exactly
matched mine.
It's a small study, but it has big implications. Basically these
researchers interviewed a group of college students and found a much higher
rate of childhood molestation incidents than was previously thought to
exist, and most of those interviewed had suffered little or no negative
effects from the encounters. The researchers postulated that perhaps the
common presumption of "childhood sex = worse thing imaginable" was
overblown.
There's more work to be done in this area, and since it clearly is very
sensitive area there's going to be a reluctance on society's part to fund,
and then cogitate, the results, whatever they be, but I say it's worth it.
So far on the "Elect Axel" campaign platform we have:
1) Abortion is good
2) Being gay is good
3) Being molested ain't that bad
I'm a shoe-in, obviously, so some of the better-heeled artd-lers might
want to send me the SERIOUS bucks toot sweet if they still want to get in
on this influence-peddling-o-rama chance of a lifetime ground floor
oppurtunity.
>Unam Sanctam. Temporal authority must submit to spiritual authority.
My being elected world leader would almost certainly not be good for
religious stuff
BA
Call me "Dear Leader" and get on with it, the time is ripe
Dr. Charlie
ax...@SPAMXverinet.com (axel heyst) writes:
>In article <19990813075647...@ng-fw1.aol.com>,
>mrm...@aol.comNOSPAM (MrModok) wrote:
>>>*I read alt.gossip.celebrities from time to time. If I didn't love women
>>>so much I woulda/shoulda been gay, there is no doubt.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>'Cuz you know that's what us fags do all the time is sit around and gossip...
> Lots of 'em do. No shame to it.
Wait a minute, I think my hero Jamie reads that newsgroup, and she's no fag.
No doubt she enjoys reading it because she enjoys doing things that DL would
not approve of. That is a Good Thing <TM> in my book.
Dr. Charlie
Live to piss DL off!
Dr. Charlie
>Damn, Charlie! Now I know you read by Deja profile. But yes, I do indeed
>read and post to a.g.s.
No I haven't. At least I don't think I ever have. I remember you posted
something here where you mentioned a thread in alt.gossip.celebrities about
the assaults on women at Woodstock '99. I know because I went to a
lot of trouble to subscribe and dig up the thread. I was interested in finding
out what happened.
Dr. Charlie
But I will if you want me to...mine's not very interesting.
Dr. Charlie
ax...@SPAMXverinet.com (axel heyst) writes:
> Secondly, much like my stance on abortion, I am PRO-GAY. I don't just
>mealy-mouthedly "tolerate" it, I PROMOTE IT. More gays is better for Mr.
>Axel in multiple ways, mainly:
>1) Less reproduction taking place on our beleaguered planet
Campaign Slogan: Less civilization, more animals!
>2) Reduced competition for women (ignoring the lesbian issue for the nonce)
And more heroes for me! Oh wait, Jamie may not like that. She's willing to
share me with Saundra, but that may be as far as she goes.
> Therefor, if the current ratio of male homosexuals to male heterosexuals
>is, oh let's say 1:10, I support raising that ratio to somewhere in the
>neighborhood of 9.9:10, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, up to and including
>listening to Cher/Bette Midler albums whilst still in utero, federally
>funded gladiator movies, making football even less subtly queer than it is
>now, WHATEVER.
> If you listen closely, you can hear the faint rumblings of an "Elect Axel"
>grass roots campaign starting up, the money simply pouring in.
Hmmm, I would love to support your campaign, but since, if already having my
allotment of women, I may not be able to further benefit from this
revolutionary demographic shift (well, except for more furry, cuddly animals
like Bengal tigers), I'm undecided. But if beldin is excluded, and Ted is
forced to accept the homosexual lifestyle, you just might have my vote.
>And they haven't even heard my "being molested doesn't have to be the end
>of the world" speech yet.
Speech! Speech!
> BA
> Aspiring world leader
Unam Sanctam. Temporal authority must submit to spiritual authority.
Pope St. Dr. Charlie
Jamie
>
> In article <37B4CF...@ivnet.com> Jamie <ang...@ivnet.com> writes:
>
> >Damn, Charlie! Now I know you read by Deja profile. But yes, I do indeed
> >read and post to a.g.s.
>
> No I haven't. At least I don't think I ever have. I remember you posted
> something here where you mentioned a thread in alt.gossip.celebrities about
> the assaults on women at Woodstock '99. I know because I went to a
> lot of trouble to subscribe and dig up the thread. I was interested in finding
> out what happened.
Ah, yes! I remember now. For a well-known (and differing takes) on
Woodstock '99, I recommend the new Rolling Stone. (I'm a subscriber
but it'll probably hit newsstands next week.)
> But I will if you want me to...mine's not very interesting.
Mine is fairly eclectic. I looked it up recently, and was shocked to
see how many one-off posts in ng's I had. Please ignore that post
to alt.fan.michael-jackson. I don't remember what it was, but I swear
I'm not a Michael Jackson fan!
~Jamie the Jackyl (& Dr. Charlie's new girlfriend)
Dr. Charlie
>In article <tzompantli.2...@mindless.com>,
>tzomp...@mindless.com (Dr. Charlie) wrote:
>>Unam Sanctam. Temporal authority must submit to spiritual authority.
> My being elected world leader would almost certainly not be good for
>religious stuff
You might want to change your mind 'bout that. I don't think you were aware of
the new doctrine on making sacrifices in honor of Tezcatlipoca. I think that
came about while you were away. See my response to Dr. Saundra for
explanation of doctrine.
Pope St. Dr. Charlie
fre...@juno.com
> that can be done at the employers place of business, it seems to me workers
> someone aout of maney, why should an employer be able to effectively con an
> "independent contractor" out of valuable labor?
I think it's mostly abused to con them out of Social Security, Workers Comp,
and other things the employers are supposed to contribute to.
Jakthehmmr
They're NOT "Employees", Fred..........They DON'T have an
"Employer".............
Ted Krueger
axel heyst <ax...@SPAMXverinet.com> wrote:
> So far on the "Elect Axel" campaign platform we have:
> 1) Abortion is good
> 2) Being gay is good
> 3) Being molested ain't that bad
Either you are not funny, or you are disgusting, or both.
--
Ted the Cruel
Officially Over the Hill
Sir Ted For No Particular Reason
A Laurette in Jackal's clothing kru...@neta.com
axel heyst
kru...@trojan.neta.com (Ted Krueger) wrote:
>In article <B3DA58EE...@192.168.1.2>,
>axel heyst <ax...@SPAMXverinet.com> wrote:
>
>> So far on the "Elect Axel" campaign platform we have:
>
>> 1) Abortion is good
>> 2) Being gay is good
>> 3) Being molested ain't that bad
>
>Either you are not funny, or you are disgusting, or both.
So I'm penciling you in as a "no" on my financial contribution worksheet,
righto?
Ted, we've gone through my feelings on abortion before, but for those
new to it, here's a recap:
I am fine with first trimester abortions, no restrictions. After that gets
tricky, I think. Third trimester is probably pushing it. That is my
opinion, and my opinion only, however informed and enlightened and plain
ol' free-spirited it may be.
On gayness, I think it is fine because it is inherently non-reproductive
(I am very concerned with environmental problems, and am convinced
overpopulatiuon is a biggie*) and because it enhances my chances with
women, and I am ever mindful of my as-of-yet imperceptible declining youth
(except a few grey hairs but that's genetic and I was lucky to hang in
there this long, given the family history). Also, and you may want to sit
down for this Ted, because it's none of my business.
On the molestation thing, I was postulating, not asserting, that perhaps
over-dramatizing isolated instances where no physical harm is done is
counter-productive. I was extremely careful in my language, as any
reasonable person could tell, and I do have a study that basically agrees
with me, should the need arise. I specifically said that the matter should
be investigated further, since the indications are suggestive at best. I
was not then, and am not now, saying that it is okay to molest children or
that sexualizing children is okay. If you read that into what I wrote, well
then..., oh nevermind. It wasn't there Ted, and if you can't face
controversial or uncomfortable topics, despite their obvious potential
benefits, then I guess it's a good thing you're a conservative, and hardly
coincidental, I might add.
I do look forward to you bringing up your
misinterpretation-soon-to-be-misrepresentation of what I said - be
disappointed if you didn't, really - so I'm keeping that particular post
for now. I'll hold onto this one too, I think.
I know how you are about research and findings and stuff, but gosh darnit
I guess I am and always will be a nuts 'n' bolts kind of scientific guy,
and that's all I have to say about that.
Br'er Axel
Amazed that Ted didn't drag Clinton into that somewhere, but it was only
one sentence
*India is at or soon will be at one billion people
August XXi
>In article <B3DA58EE...@192.168.1.2>,
>axel heyst <ax...@SPAMXverinet.com> wrote:
>
>> So far on the "Elect Axel" campaign platform we have:
>
>> 1) Abortion is good
>> 2) Being gay is good
>> 3) Being molested ain't that bad
>
>Either you are not funny, or you are disgusting, or both.
But being gay IS good!
Now, Go Put on the Condom!
August
Dr. Charlie
kru...@trojan.neta.com (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <B3DA58EE...@192.168.1.2>,
>axel heyst <ax...@SPAMXverinet.com> wrote:
>> So far on the "Elect Axel" campaign platform we have:
>> 1) Abortion is good
>> 2) Being gay is good
>> 3) Being molested ain't that bad
>Either you are not funny, or you are disgusting, or both.
False dilemma!
Let's try a lttle real logic here:
Dr. Charlie thinks Axel is hilarious
Ted thinks Dr. Charlie is hilarious.
Ergo:
Ted must think that Axel is hilarious!
It's the transitive property, ain't it? And we'll all know from beldin that
logic is really a branch of mathematics!
Maybe Herr Professor Von Axelstein will put it all in equation form and
explain how it works to us, but for now:
QED!*
Dr. Charlie
Middle factor
*That means "shaddap!" Some of you less educated types might not know that.
Dr. Charlie
Maharet
axel heyst <ax...@SPAMXverinet.com> wrote in message
news:B3DE3CF29...@192.168.1.2...
> On gayness, I think it is fine because it is inherently
non-reproductive
> (I am very concerned with environmental problems, and am convinced
> overpopulatiuon is a biggie*)
I agree. I am a firm believer in the idea that the increase in
homosexuality is just Mother Natures way of telling us that we're
overpopulating the planet.
--
Maharet *guilty of adding to the overpopulation problem*
Resident Witch of a.r.t.d-l
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste
good with ketchup" ~Unknown
axel heyst
>Ted thinks Dr. Charlie is hilarious.
Is this true, Ted?
BA
Wants to hear it from the horse's mouth
>Maybe Herr Professor Von Axelstein will put it all in equation form and
>explain how it works to us, but for now:
>QED
Well done, Doctor Charlie, if a tad minimalistic.
Onward to the technical esoterica!
The equation we seek is merely a variation on the Clintonian Constant (a
derivative of Clinton math [it's always "right"]) I've previously
discussed, oddly enough in a post to Ted of a year or so ago. If we recall,
it is sort of a super-irrational that can take on many forms, depending on
the specific formula(e). In this particular instance, and I'm omitting some
recondite but crucial steps, we'd have-
Anything (A) + Clinton (C) + ... = Whatever the hell you want (W),
therefor, where a/x = Axel
a/x + C = W = (NF + D)
where NF and D represent "not funny" and "disgusting", respectively.
!!!
Herr Axelstein, PhD, ESQ, DDS, DNA, H2O, MIC, KEY, MOU, SE
Professor Emerighteous, Clintonian Mathematics Chair, Berlinischnitz
Polyteschnico
Dr. Charlie
ax...@SPAMXverinet.com (axel heyst) writes:
> a/x + C = W = (NF + D)
I just don't understand this new math. Is there a Lew Ain't Got Much to
Do Industries brand "Hooked on Clinton" educate yourself at home with a
handful of overpriced and cheap, flimsy because if you're enough of
schmuck to buy this then you don't deserve the good laminated shit (mulpw)
flashcards that will turn you into a miracle genius in only 15, I said,
FIFTEEN minutes a day course available on the Home Shopping Network for the
low, low price of $89.95?
Dr. Charlie
That sucked didn't it? Oh well...
Beldin the Sorcerer
> good with ketchup" ~Unknown
>
>
don't really like ketchup.
They're much more of a low salt, spicier condiment crowd, really.
Beldin the Sorcerer
> Let's try a lttle real logic here:
>
> Dr. Charlie thinks Axel is hilarious
>
>
> Ted must think that Axel is hilarious!
>
> It's the transitive property, ain't it? And we'll all know from beldin
that
> logic is really a branch of mathematics!
It is, and it is, but "funny" isn't by definition transitive.
Beldin the Sorcerer
Ted Krueger <kru...@trojan.neta.com> wrote in message
news:7pakpn$hmo$1...@trojan.neta.com...
> In article <B3DA58EE...@192.168.1.2>,
> axel heyst <ax...@SPAMXverinet.com> wrote:
>
> > So far on the "Elect Axel" campaign platform we have:
>
> > 1) Abortion is good
> > 2) Being gay is good
> > 3) Being molested ain't that bad
>
> Either you are not funny, or you are disgusting, or both.
>
He restated his positions in deliberately attackable ways.
That's funny.
He doesn't wish harm on anyone.
That's not disgusting.
Beldin
Would vote Axel Dictator.... if he were immortal
axel heyst
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <bel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>I vote neither.
>
>He restated his positions in deliberately attackable ways.
Oh that's just Ted. He seems to have gotten, um, religion about pedophilia
or something and now he's seeing it where it isn't.
To be fair, I'm not getting a whole lotta feedback either way about that
molestation thing. Okay, NO feedback. Perhaps too touchy of a subject;
though I am surprised that it doesn't seem to have come up here or on DL's
show. Did it? I could swear I heard about that study from the mainstream
(liberal) media, and I really did hear it within days of having the
conversation with my friend Fran, maybe two months ago or so.
>That's funny.
I thought so, but then again I never understood why people say that it's
bad to laugh at your own jokes. If you don't think they're funny, why
should you expect anybody else to think so?
>He doesn't wish harm on anyone.
Well....
>That's not disgusting.
Ted's hooked on "disgusting," the word, I think. Even got me doing it.
>Beldin
>Would vote Axel Dictator.... if he were immortal
Perish the thought. Don't worry Beldin, I'm sure we'll get back into it,
the more I get back into it. Ted's into it, I can tell.
BA
Kind of into it
PS Incidentally, that damn cat* is the reason I'm awake. She must have been
chasing a moth or something, making all kinds of racket. She's a sweetie
though, if a bit rambunctious.
*her original name *was* "That Damn Cat." Then I got afraid that that was a
little negative so I changed it to "Katrina," or "Kitty" for short!
axel heyst
Not even a little.
It's apparent that you're having a hard time with the Clinton Constant,
but that's because you are an historian, not a Professor Emerighteous like
Herr Axelstein. The essence of the CC is a bit ephemeral, as readers may
have gathered. In the mathematical journals, which tend to be rather
jargon-y (so excuse the high-falutin' shop talk), it is sometimes referred
to as "der bullcrappen" or more recently, "right-wing hooey."
Hope that helps.
BA
Speaking for Axelstein, who is way smarter than BA, and thus, still
sleeping
TJ
Ted Krueger wrote:
>
> In article <B3DA58EE...@192.168.1.2>,
> axel heyst <ax...@SPAMXverinet.com> wrote:
>
> > So far on the "Elect Axel" campaign platform we have:
>
> > 1) Abortion is good
> > 2) Being gay is good
> > 3) Being molested ain't that bad
>
> Either you are not funny, or you are disgusting, or both.
Or you could be wrong.
--
TJ
Thinks Ted has *some* qualifications in the not funny and disgusting
departments, but mostly in the not funny.
Maddi Hausmann Sojourner
> Okay, here goes. A few weeks ago, maybe a few months by now, there was an
> incident in Denver where a six year-old boy was apparently fondled or
> something (news reports were conspicuously vague) in a department store
> men's room. The kid wasn't injured in any way. I think the guy was caught
> but I'm not sure.
>
> Anyhow, I heard the story and I started thinking that maybe, just maybe,
> that if adults didn't act on the assumption that an incident like this was
> bound to scar the kid for life then maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't. Maybe
> if we didn't act like it was such a big deal than maybe the child would
> forget about it.
>
> I'm not saying that it's not wrong or whatever, and I am most definitely
> not talking about children who are serially molested or raped by family
> members and so on. I'm thinking specifically of these kind of one-off
> incidents.
>
> So, I was talking to a female friend of mine about my little theory, and
> my other little theory that incest among consenting adults was probably
> nobody's business, and she was like, "Oh Axel, you're really bad." And
> she's used to me, so I figured that my "thoughts" weren't quite ready for
> prime-time, but lo and behold the very next day (or so, tempus fugit) what
> do I hear but a release of a controversial study whose conclusions exactly
> matched mine.
And this is the really amazing part. Not one of the artd-l readers jumped on
this to let Axel, who Doesn't Listen to Laura's Show Anymore, that this study
has been a major piece of Laura's batshittedness of late (I know, I try to
avoid profanity, but I'm quoting an earlier post by Axel, so it's a literary
reference, ya know?)
The whole American Psychological Association equals Pedophiles rant that's been
going on for MONTHS has come out of this study. There have been numerous posts
about this on the group.
Hello, Axel! I love it when everything links up!
> It's a small study, but it has big implications. Basically these
> researchers interviewed a group of college students and found a much higher
> rate of childhood molestation incidents than was previously thought to
> exist, and most of those interviewed had suffered little or no negative
> effects from the encounters. The researchers postulated that perhaps the
> common presumption of "childhood sex = worse thing imaginable" was
> overblown.
You REALLY have to check out the Laura website to see what she's done to this
study.
> There's more work to be done in this area, and since it clearly is very
> sensitive area there's going to be a reluctance on society's part to fund,
> and then cogitate, the results, whatever they be, but I say it's worth it.
>
> So far on the "Elect Axel" campaign platform we have:
>
> 1) Abortion is good
> 2) Being gay is good
> 3) Being molested ain't that bad
Hey, if Ted thinks you're either disgusting or not funny, I can say you're
right-on and also very funny. After all, I'm an Expert in What is Funny, and
More Importantly, What is Not, and he, well, he's Ted.
> I'm a shoe-in, obviously, so some of the better-heeled artd-lers might
> want to send me the SERIOUS bucks toot sweet if they still want to get in
> on this influence-peddling-o-rama chance of a lifetime ground floor
> oppurtunity.
I'll not take all your chocolate. How's that? And since you don't eat very
much, that means I won't take very much. Doncha love that flat tax?
> ?Unam Sanctam. Temporal authority must submit to spiritual authority.
>
> My being elected world leader would almost certainly not be good for
> religious stuff
Hear! Hear! Axel for Dictator. Remember, Goddesses always triumph over
earthly goverment.
> BA
> Call me "Dear Leader" and get on with it, the time is ripe
Anything for you.
trdm
Goddess, artd-l
--
Maddi Hausmann Sojourner mad...@alumni.princeton.edu
mad...@netcom.com is going away forever after 7/31/99
Use the Princeton address for all mail to me in the future
Ted Krueger
Dr. Charlie <tzomp...@mindless.com> wrote:
>In article <7pakpn$hmo$1...@trojan.neta.com>
> kru...@trojan.neta.com (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>Either you are not funny, or you are disgusting, or both.
>False dilemma!
>Let's try a lttle real logic here:
>Dr. Charlie thinks Axel is hilarious
>Ted thinks Dr. Charlie is hilarious.
>Ergo:
>Ted must think that Axel is hilarious!
You are just waay too smart for me Charlie.
Pretty soon I'll have to call you Dr. Charlie.