Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The nuts are becoming dominant
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Charles
Sep 7, 2011, 6:57:51 PM9/7/11
to
Poor signal to noise ratio, lately. Sad to see as this usenet group has
(had?) a lot to offer.
(had?) a lot to offer.
Phil Allison
Sep 7, 2011, 10:16:53 PM9/7/11
to
"Charles"
> Poor signalto noise ratio, lately.
** You're an incorrigible fuckwit, Charles
Piss off.
... Phil
Arfa Daily
Sep 8, 2011, 8:20:11 PM9/8/11
to
"Charles" <charles...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:j48stf$trb$1...@dont-email.me...
> Poor signal to noise ratio, lately. Sad to see as this usenet group has
> (had?) a lot to offer.
So filter the nuts out. It ain't rocket science ...
Arfa
Charles
Sep 9, 2011, 1:02:50 AM9/9/11
to
"Phil Allison" wrote in message news:9cqmsv...@mid.individual.net...
"Charles"
Piss off.
... Phil
QED
Jim Yanik
Sep 9, 2011, 10:38:04 AM9/9/11
to
"Arfa Daily" <arfa....@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:2Zcaq.769$v%1....@newsfe04.ams2:
It can get pretty tiresome,though.
FAR too many off-topic posts,and many that go on for too long.
My score and kill files are both pretty large.
Of course,some of that are the same idiots with different nyms/sigs.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
news:2Zcaq.769$v%1....@newsfe04.ams2:
FAR too many off-topic posts,and many that go on for too long.
My score and kill files are both pretty large.
Of course,some of that are the same idiots with different nyms/sigs.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Arfa Daily
Sep 9, 2011, 9:09:08 PM9/9/11
to
"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9F5B6C55317CA...@216.168.3.44...
tend to see them as a bunch of like-minded people having a bit of a rabbit
over a few pints down the local pub. I've never really seen usenet groups as
needing to be 'strict' in that respect. Some can get a bit long though, as
you say ...
Arfa
Jim Yanik
Sep 9, 2011, 11:10:16 PM9/9/11
to
"Arfa Daily" <arfa....@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:VMyaq.1301$xG....@newsfe21.ams2:
the OP or a responder has included in their on-topic posts.
Some of them get way out of hand.
I do agree that it's interesting to know the politics of those who
regularly post in a oft-visited NG.
but there are a lot of trolls who just drop in to seek attention,and
crossposters spamming for "jollies",to piss off a greater pool of people.
No need to keep feeding them and bringing them back for more attention.
Jeff Liebermann
Sep 9, 2011, 11:42:52 PM9/9/11
to
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 22:10:16 -0500, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov>
wrote:
>I have made a few OT posts myself,but usually in response to some comment
>the OP or a responder has included in their on-topic posts.
>Some of them get way out of hand.
I used to worry about such things as off-topic postings. Then, I
noticed that not one thread, or any reasonable length (about 10
followups) has ever stayed completely on topic. In another newsgroup,
I even went on a search for a long thread, that stayed on topic. Even
the moderated groups didn't have any on-topic threads. So, I gave up
and became part of the problem, where I'm probably the worst offender
in the arcane art of topic drifting.
>I do agree that it's interesting to know the politics of those who
>regularly post in a oft-visited NG.
I'm not so sure. I had the greatest respect for some usenet
luminaries, until I met them in person. It's difficult to get a good
picture of even regular posters.
>but there are a lot of trolls who just drop in to seek attention,and
>crossposters spamming for "jollies",to piss off a greater pool of people.
No picnic is complete without the ants, bees, bugs, and slimy things
that crawl into the food. For usenet, I would rather deal with the
pollution, than live with the draconian measures traditionally applied
by usenet policemen.
>No need to keep feeding them and bringing them back for more attention.
Feed the pigeons and what do you get? More pigeons.
Sigh. I guess I'll have to add myself to my kill file.
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com je...@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
wrote:
>I have made a few OT posts myself,but usually in response to some comment
>the OP or a responder has included in their on-topic posts.
>Some of them get way out of hand.
noticed that not one thread, or any reasonable length (about 10
followups) has ever stayed completely on topic. In another newsgroup,
I even went on a search for a long thread, that stayed on topic. Even
the moderated groups didn't have any on-topic threads. So, I gave up
and became part of the problem, where I'm probably the worst offender
in the arcane art of topic drifting.
>I do agree that it's interesting to know the politics of those who
>regularly post in a oft-visited NG.
luminaries, until I met them in person. It's difficult to get a good
picture of even regular posters.
>but there are a lot of trolls who just drop in to seek attention,and
>crossposters spamming for "jollies",to piss off a greater pool of people.
that crawl into the food. For usenet, I would rather deal with the
pollution, than live with the draconian measures traditionally applied
by usenet policemen.
>No need to keep feeding them and bringing them back for more attention.
Sigh. I guess I'll have to add myself to my kill file.
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com je...@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
Arfa Daily
Sep 10, 2011, 5:09:51 AM9/10/11
to
"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9F5BEBDE4A25D...@216.168.3.44...
Agreed all points
Arfa
Jeffrey Angus
Sep 10, 2011, 6:27:33 AM9/10/11
to
On 9/9/2011 10:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> I'm not so sure. I had the greatest respect for some usenet
> luminaries, until I met them in person. It's difficult to get a good
> picture of even regular posters.
> I'm not so sure. I had the greatest respect for some usenet
> luminaries, until I met them in person. It's difficult to get a good
> picture of even regular posters.
I wasn't that bad was I?
Jeff-1.0
--
"Everything from Crackers to Coffins"
spamtrap1888
Sep 10, 2011, 4:17:05 PM9/10/11
to
On Sep 7, 3:57 pm, "Charles" <charlesschu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Poor signal to noise ratio, lately. Sad to see as this usenet group has
> (had?) a lot to offer.
> Poor signal to noise ratio, lately. Sad to see as this usenet group has
> (had?) a lot to offer.
Not so bad, IMHO. Fully 22 of the first 30 articles I see have
something to do with electronics repair -- a pretty good average for
Usenet. True that some of the responders are creepy stalkers and
creepy regulars, but they provide some on-topic material as well.
Jeff Liebermann
Sep 10, 2011, 6:50:28 PM9/10/11
to
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 05:27:33 -0500, Jeffrey Angus <grend...@aim.com>
wrote:
wrote:
>On 9/9/2011 10:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> I'm not so sure. I had the greatest respect for some usenet
>> luminaries, until I met them in person. It's difficult to get a good
>> picture of even regular posters.
>
>I wasn't that bad was I?
>Jeff-1.0
Well, I had the advantage of hearing you talk on the air, so my
initial impression was fairly accurate. People write very differently
than they talk. It's far too easy to misinterpret someones writing.
It's less difficult after you talk with them. Other times, it's
differences in culture. For example, I don't get along too well with
the tatoo and piercing people, even if they are intelligent. My
problem, not theirs.
Perception is everything.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Jim Yanik
Sep 10, 2011, 11:44:36 PM9/10/11
to
Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in
news:m5qn67dj46ri7df0v...@4ax.com:
news:m5qn67dj46ri7df0v...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 05:27:33 -0500, Jeffrey Angus <grend...@aim.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 9/9/2011 10:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> I'm not so sure. I had the greatest respect for some usenet
>>> luminaries, until I met them in person. It's difficult to get a good
>>> picture of even regular posters.
>>
>>I wasn't that bad was I?
>>Jeff-1.0
>
> Well, I had the advantage of hearing you talk on the air, so my
> initial impression was fairly accurate. People write very differently
> than they talk. It's far too easy to misinterpret someones writing.
> It's less difficult after you talk with them. Other times, it's
> differences in culture. For example, I don't get along too well with
> the tatoo and piercing people, even if they are intelligent. My
> problem, not theirs.
>
> Perception is everything.
>
>
>
IMO,tattoos and piercings indicate poor judgement.
also a propensity to waste money.
Jeffrey Angus
Sep 11, 2011, 12:18:01 AM9/11/11
to
On 9/10/2011 10:44 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann<je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>> For example, I don't get along too well with the tatoo and
>> piercing people, even if they are intelligent. My problem,
>> not theirs.
>>
>> Perception is everything.
>>
>
> IMO,tattoos and piercings indicate poor judgement.
> also a propensity to waste money.
> Jeff Liebermann<je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>> For example, I don't get along too well with the tatoo and
>> piercing people, even if they are intelligent. My problem,
>> not theirs.
>>
>> Perception is everything.
>>
>
> IMO,tattoos and piercings indicate poor judgement.
> also a propensity to waste money.
A few years back, my son is showing off (and apparently very
proud of) his tongue piercing. So I ask him, "Did you do that
because you're stupid, or did you do that so you would appear
to be stupid?"
His girlfriend sticks out her tongue, "I have one too, I can
give really good head with this."
So I look back at my son, "And YOUR excuse for this again?"
Blank look.
"You can't fix stupid."
Typically, and unfortunately, an abundance of tattoos and
piercings means, "Do Not Hire Me."
Michael A. Terrell
Sep 11, 2011, 1:18:45 AM9/11/11
to
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
spamtrap1888
Sep 11, 2011, 11:05:49 AM9/11/11
to
On Sep 10, 3:50 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 05:27:33 -0500, Jeffrey Angus <grendel...@aim.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 9/9/2011 10:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >> I'm not so sure. I had the greatest respect for some usenet
> >> luminaries, until I met them in person. It's difficult to get a good
> >> picture of even regular posters.
>
> >I wasn't that bad was I?
> >Jeff-1.0
>
> Well, I had the advantage of hearing you talk on the air, so my
> initial impression was fairly accurate. People write very differently
> than they talk. It's far too easy to misinterpret someones writing.
> It's less difficult after you talk with them. Other times, it's
> differences in culture. For example, I don't get along too well with
> the tatoo and piercing people, even if they are intelligent. My
> problem, not theirs.
>
> Perception is everything.
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 05:27:33 -0500, Jeffrey Angus <grendel...@aim.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 9/9/2011 10:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >> I'm not so sure. I had the greatest respect for some usenet
> >> luminaries, until I met them in person. It's difficult to get a good
> >> picture of even regular posters.
>
> >I wasn't that bad was I?
> >Jeff-1.0
>
> Well, I had the advantage of hearing you talk on the air, so my
> initial impression was fairly accurate. People write very differently
> than they talk. It's far too easy to misinterpret someones writing.
> It's less difficult after you talk with them. Other times, it's
> differences in culture. For example, I don't get along too well with
> the tatoo and piercing people, even if they are intelligent. My
> problem, not theirs.
>
> Perception is everything.
There's a distinction between the tattoo people and the piercing
people, as our niece pointed out: The hardware comes out easily, and
the holes closes or go unnoticed. Tattoos require a lot more work to
eradicate.
Michael A. Terrell
Sep 11, 2011, 1:25:48 PM9/11/11
to
A belt sander with a # 80 grit belt, or a strong acid works. ;-)
Mark Zacharias
Sep 11, 2011, 4:56:46 PM9/11/11
to
"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9F5CF1B0DCA0B...@216.168.3.44...
disdain for them. On the other hand, my (Marine) son has several tats, in
part I think to tweak me...
Mark Z.
Jim Yanik
Sep 11, 2011, 8:42:32 PM9/11/11
to
"Mark Zacharias" <mark_za...@labolgcbs.net> wrote in
news:4e6d2090$0$26392$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com:
it irks and saddens me to see young women with beautiful clear skin,with a
dark,ugly tat marring it.
from any distance all tats look like skin cancers.
I've seen few tats that improve the appearance of any woman,or that I'd
consider attractive.
Your son's tats aren't to tweak you,they are to establish his "difference"
WRT other people. they are for attention,nothing else.
Plus,many tats are gotten because "everyone else is doing it".
(the WORST reason for doing anything...)
the only good thing I can say about tattoos are that they make
identification of dead bodies easier.
news:4e6d2090$0$26392$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com:
dark,ugly tat marring it.
from any distance all tats look like skin cancers.
I've seen few tats that improve the appearance of any woman,or that I'd
consider attractive.
Your son's tats aren't to tweak you,they are to establish his "difference"
WRT other people. they are for attention,nothing else.
Plus,many tats are gotten because "everyone else is doing it".
(the WORST reason for doing anything...)
the only good thing I can say about tattoos are that they make
identification of dead bodies easier.
Arfa Daily
Sep 11, 2011, 9:12:40 PM9/11/11
to
"Jeffrey Angus" <grend...@aim.com> wrote in message
news:j4hcpu$cbo$1...@dont-email.me...
arms, and he holds a well-paid managerial post with a large international
power distribution infrastructure company. He most certainly isn't thick by
any stretch of the imagination. My daughter's fella is ex-army, and also has
many tattoos. He is gainfully employed in the security division of a major
international airport. I actually don't think that they look too bad if well
done, and in moderation. What I don't like to see is the tattoo full
'sleeves', or any work on the hands, face or neck. I especially don't like
to see sleeves on females. I always think that it somehow makes them look
sort of 'dirty' ...
Arfa
Arfa Daily
Sep 11, 2011, 9:15:42 PM9/11/11
to
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:TMSdndiwUZ66cvHT...@earthlink.com...
Arfa
Michael A. Terrell
Sep 11, 2011, 10:11:04 PM9/11/11
to
Arfa Daily wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >
> > spamtrap1888 wrote:
> >>
> >> There's a distinction between the tattoo people and the piercing
> >> people, as our niece pointed out: The hardware comes out easily, and
> >> the holes closes or go unnoticed. Tattoos require a lot more work to
> >> eradicate.
> >
> > A belt sander with a # 80 grit belt, or a strong acid works. ;-)
>
> > spamtrap1888 wrote:
> >>
> >> There's a distinction between the tattoo people and the piercing
> >> people, as our niece pointed out: The hardware comes out easily, and
> >> the holes closes or go unnoticed. Tattoos require a lot more work to
> >> eradicate.
> >
> > A belt sander with a # 80 grit belt, or a strong acid works. ;-)
>
> Or the UK.D-I-Y answer to all problems - "Angle grinder " ! ...
You only have ONE? I have at least three of them that work, with
different types of wheels mounted. Two more are MIA and one has a
broken handle. It snapped off when I was cutting off a six inch well
casing flush with the concrete floor of my well house. :)
You can buy them for about $10 at Harbor Freight, quite often.
Having spare tools makes it a lot easier to finish a job when you don't
have to hobble out to the main shop and try to carry a bunch of tools
around. I used to be able to carry a 150 pound color TV from the truck
& into a house, and up several flights of stairs without breathing
hard. Now, I have trouble holding any power tool that vibrates. My
hands quickly go numb, and I drop them. :(
Jeff Liebermann
Sep 12, 2011, 2:31:32 AM9/12/11
to
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 23:18:01 -0500, Jeffrey Angus <grend...@aim.com>
wrote:
wrote:
>Typically, and unfortunately, an abundance of tattoos and
>piercings means, "Do Not Hire Me."
In 1992, the Peoples Republic of Santa Cruz (City) passed an ordinance
making it illegal to discriminate by hiring on the basis of personal
appearance. It was originally intended to protect overweight and
obese employees, but rapidly expanded into tattoos and such. They
change "personal appearance" to a more vague "physical
characteristics". The standard joke is that the only legal way to
interview a prospective employee is over the telephone.
<http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/html/SantaCruz09/SantaCruz0983.html>
Jeffrey Angus
Sep 12, 2011, 5:44:29 AM9/12/11
to
On 9/12/2011 1:31 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> The standard joke is that the only legal way to
> interview a prospective employee is over the telephone.
How do you interview a guy who stutters then?
> The standard joke is that the only legal way to
> interview a prospective employee is over the telephone.
Jeff
Ron
Sep 12, 2011, 10:24:00 AM9/12/11
to
http://tastelikepizza.com/item/2011/08/tattoo-removal-wtf
Safe but some of site NSFW
Ron
Jim Yanik
Sep 12, 2011, 11:30:48 AM9/12/11
to
Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in
news:0j8r67lrsr4f1crdq...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 23:18:01 -0500, Jeffrey Angus <grend...@aim.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Typically, and unfortunately, an abundance of tattoos and
>>piercings means, "Do Not Hire Me."
>
> In 1992, the Peoples Republic of Santa Cruz (City) passed an ordinance
> making it illegal to discriminate by hiring on the basis of personal
> appearance. It was originally intended to protect overweight and
> obese employees, but rapidly expanded into tattoos and such. They
> change "personal appearance" to a more vague "physical
> characteristics". The standard joke is that the only legal way to
> interview a prospective employee is over the telephone.
>
><http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/html/SantaCruz09/SantaCruz09
>83.html>
>
><http://books.google.com/books?id=ZxMdBvu-noQC&lpg=PA2&ots=OCXroSW-fS&dq
>=santa%20cruz%20gives%20tentative%20ok%20to%20law%20on%20personal%20appe
>arance&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q&f=false>
>
healthcare costs,and take more sick time,it's understandable that employers
would want to avoid hiring them.(Plus,they're rough on the furniture....)
WRT tats/piercings,a person's appearance could turn away customers.
I get creeped out by people with facial piercings.
(nose pearl studs look like boogers.)
Jeff Liebermann
Sep 12, 2011, 12:02:23 PM9/12/11
to
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 04:44:29 -0500, Jeffrey Angus <grend...@aim.com>
wrote:
>On 9/12/2011 1:31 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> The standard joke is that the only legal way to
>> interview a prospective employee is over the telephone.
>How do you interview a guy who stutters then?
>Jeff
Easy. By cell phone or with my VoIP phone (w/o QoS). Either will
make everyone sound like they were gargling ball bearings. The
stutter would never be noticed.
The problem with such ordinances is that they are being interpreted as
the employer is not allowed to discriminate on ANY basis. Also,
"appearance discrimination" is being interpreted as a form of racial
discriminiation". Tattoos are just a minor part of the mess. To the
best of my limited knowledge, there have been no judgements solely
involving tattoos in Santa Cruz, yet.
Drivel: Military Tattoo Policy Summary:
<http://www.atlantictattooremoval.com/military_tattoo_policies.html>
wrote:
>On 9/12/2011 1:31 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> The standard joke is that the only legal way to
>> interview a prospective employee is over the telephone.
>How do you interview a guy who stutters then?
>Jeff
make everyone sound like they were gargling ball bearings. The
stutter would never be noticed.
The problem with such ordinances is that they are being interpreted as
the employer is not allowed to discriminate on ANY basis. Also,
"appearance discrimination" is being interpreted as a form of racial
discriminiation". Tattoos are just a minor part of the mess. To the
best of my limited knowledge, there have been no judgements solely
involving tattoos in Santa Cruz, yet.
Drivel: Military Tattoo Policy Summary:
<http://www.atlantictattooremoval.com/military_tattoo_policies.html>
spamtrap1888
Sep 12, 2011, 1:03:04 PM9/12/11
to
On Sep 12, 9:02 am, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 04:44:29 -0500, Jeffrey Angus <grendel...@aim.com>
prohibits hand tattoos. The Air Force prohibits tats that cover more
than 1/4 of the body part. The Marine Corps prohibits "sleeves" --
unless the wearer was a Marine at the time the policy was adopted.
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 04:44:29 -0500, Jeffrey Angus <grendel...@aim.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 9/12/2011 1:31 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >> The standard joke is that the only legal way to
> >> interview a prospective employee is over the telephone.
> >How do you interview a guy who stutters then?
> >Jeff
>
> Easy. By cell phone or with my VoIP phone (w/o QoS). Either will
> make everyone sound like they were gargling ball bearings. The
> stutter would never be noticed.
>
> The problem with such ordinances is that they are being interpreted as
> the employer is not allowed to discriminate on ANY basis. Also,
> "appearance discrimination" is being interpreted as a form of racial
> discriminiation". Tattoos are just a minor part of the mess. To the
> best of my limited knowledge, there have been no judgements solely
> involving tattoos in Santa Cruz, yet.
>
> Drivel: Military Tattoo Policy Summary:
> <http://www.atlantictattooremoval.com/military_tattoo_policies.html>
Weird that the webpage summary lies in that only the Coast Guard
>
> >On 9/12/2011 1:31 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >> The standard joke is that the only legal way to
> >> interview a prospective employee is over the telephone.
> >How do you interview a guy who stutters then?
> >Jeff
>
> Easy. By cell phone or with my VoIP phone (w/o QoS). Either will
> make everyone sound like they were gargling ball bearings. The
> stutter would never be noticed.
>
> The problem with such ordinances is that they are being interpreted as
> the employer is not allowed to discriminate on ANY basis. Also,
> "appearance discrimination" is being interpreted as a form of racial
> discriminiation". Tattoos are just a minor part of the mess. To the
> best of my limited knowledge, there have been no judgements solely
> involving tattoos in Santa Cruz, yet.
>
> Drivel: Military Tattoo Policy Summary:
> <http://www.atlantictattooremoval.com/military_tattoo_policies.html>
prohibits hand tattoos. The Air Force prohibits tats that cover more
than 1/4 of the body part. The Marine Corps prohibits "sleeves" --
unless the wearer was a Marine at the time the policy was adopted.
Jeff Liebermann
Sep 12, 2011, 2:41:48 PM9/12/11
to
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:03:04 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
<spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Drivel: Military Tattoo Policy Summary:
>> <http://www.atlantictattooremoval.com/military_tattoo_policies.html>
>
>Weird that the webpage summary lies in that only the Coast Guard
>prohibits hand tattoos. The Air Force prohibits tats that cover more
>than 1/4 of the body part. The Marine Corps prohibits "sleeves" --
>unless the wearer was a Marine at the time the policy was adopted.
From the top of the page:
<spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Drivel: Military Tattoo Policy Summary:
>> <http://www.atlantictattooremoval.com/military_tattoo_policies.html>
>
>Weird that the webpage summary lies in that only the Coast Guard
>prohibits hand tattoos. The Air Force prohibits tats that cover more
>than 1/4 of the body part. The Marine Corps prohibits "sleeves" --
>unless the wearer was a Marine at the time the policy was adopted.
Most branches are uniformly using the "no hands, no head,
or neck rule"
One of my neighbors recently left the Army. No tattoos. He mumbled
something like it was NOT acceptable to have tattoos when one enlists,
but once in service, as long as they're not visible, most anything
respectable is acceptable. However, I don't know if I heard it
correctly or if it's true.
Arfa Daily
Sep 12, 2011, 8:29:32 PM9/12/11
to
"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:t79s67htb9okufuij...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 04:44:29 -0500, Jeffrey Angus <grend...@aim.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 9/12/2011 1:31 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> The standard joke is that the only legal way to
>>> interview a prospective employee is over the telephone.
>
>>How do you interview a guy who stutters then?
>>Jeff
>
> Easy. By cell phone or with my VoIP phone (w/o QoS). Either will
> make everyone sound like they were gargling ball bearings. The
> stutter would never be noticed.
>
> The problem with such ordinances is that they are being interpreted as
> the employer is not allowed to discriminate on ANY basis. Also,
> "appearance discrimination" is being interpreted as a form of racial
> discriminiation". Tattoos are just a minor part of the mess. To the
> best of my limited knowledge, there have been no judgements solely
> involving tattoos in Santa Cruz, yet.
>
> Drivel: Military Tattoo Policy Summary:
> <http://www.atlantictattooremoval.com/military_tattoo_policies.html>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann
They're looking at changing the 'rules' regarding visible tattoos on police
> wrote:
>
>>On 9/12/2011 1:31 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> The standard joke is that the only legal way to
>>> interview a prospective employee is over the telephone.
>
>>How do you interview a guy who stutters then?
>>Jeff
>
> Easy. By cell phone or with my VoIP phone (w/o QoS). Either will
> make everyone sound like they were gargling ball bearings. The
> stutter would never be noticed.
>
> The problem with such ordinances is that they are being interpreted as
> the employer is not allowed to discriminate on ANY basis. Also,
> "appearance discrimination" is being interpreted as a form of racial
> discriminiation". Tattoos are just a minor part of the mess. To the
> best of my limited knowledge, there have been no judgements solely
> involving tattoos in Santa Cruz, yet.
>
> Drivel: Military Tattoo Policy Summary:
> <http://www.atlantictattooremoval.com/military_tattoo_policies.html>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann
officers over here at the moment. Some bright spark has suggested that
putting them on view by allowing officers that have them to wear
short-sleeved shirts, will somehow improve their street cred, and allow them
to relate better to the feral little scrotes that they're trying to police
in our out-of-control towns. It's already getting hard to tell the officers
from the offenders, what with the paramilitary 'uniforms', complete with
bovver boots and baseball caps over shaven heads. It'll be impossible if we
have all the tats on display, as well ... :-\
Arfa
Arfa Daily
Sep 12, 2011, 8:40:39 PM9/12/11
to
"Ron" <r...@lunevalleyaudio.com> wrote in message
news:M7ydncYLe4-di_PT...@bt.com...
those doing it, assisting, and filming it, deserve to get dragged to court
for assault, and for publicising such irresponsible behaviour. Jeez but
there's some nutcases about ...
Arfa
Jim Yanik
Sep 13, 2011, 10:13:34 AM9/13/11
to
Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote in
news:t79s67htb9okufuij...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 04:44:29 -0500, Jeffrey Angus <grend...@aim.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 9/12/2011 1:31 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> The standard joke is that the only legal way to
>>> interview a prospective employee is over the telephone.
>
>>How do you interview a guy who stutters then?
>>Jeff
>
> Easy. By cell phone or with my VoIP phone (w/o QoS). Either will
> make everyone sound like they were gargling ball bearings. The
> stutter would never be noticed.
>
> The problem with such ordinances is that they are being interpreted as
> the employer is not allowed to discriminate on ANY basis. Also,
> "appearance discrimination" is being interpreted as a form of racial
> discriminiation". Tattoos are just a minor part of the mess. To the
> best of my limited knowledge, there have been no judgements solely
> involving tattoos in Santa Cruz, yet.
>
> Drivel: Military Tattoo Policy Summary:
><http://www.atlantictattooremoval.com/military_tattoo_policies.html>
>
move back to America.
Jeff Liebermann
Sep 13, 2011, 11:16:04 AM9/13/11
to
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:13:34 -0500, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov>
wrote:
Actually, the functional solution was for me to not have any
employees. While it effectively prevented me from expanding my
business while the economy was still functional, it also avoided many
of the socialist pitfalls that such laws tend to attract. Other than
the local government and ever present homeless bums, I like Santa Cruz
very much.
I had a conversation with a local appellate court judge yesterday. He
indicated that he's heard no cases involving "appearance
discrimination" since the law was enacted. No clue on how many cases
were heard by the lower courts, or settled out of court. Digging
through LexisNexis and LexisWeb, I found that there had been some
cases in other municipalities that have similar ordinances. None
looked particularly frivolous and seemed justified, such as expelling
a nursing school student for being too fat. I couldn't find anything
involving tattoos.
wrote:
employees. While it effectively prevented me from expanding my
business while the economy was still functional, it also avoided many
of the socialist pitfalls that such laws tend to attract. Other than
the local government and ever present homeless bums, I like Santa Cruz
very much.
I had a conversation with a local appellate court judge yesterday. He
indicated that he's heard no cases involving "appearance
discrimination" since the law was enacted. No clue on how many cases
were heard by the lower courts, or settled out of court. Digging
through LexisNexis and LexisWeb, I found that there had been some
cases in other municipalities that have similar ordinances. None
looked particularly frivolous and seemed justified, such as expelling
a nursing school student for being too fat. I couldn't find anything
involving tattoos.
0 new messages