• (cs) in reply to ideo
    ideo:
    Oh, Mark! You bowtyzed it! AGAIN!!!

    ಠ_ಠ

    Though to be fair, he did name the article "Meet Rod".

    I believe that earns him some points for humor (whether intentional or not).

  • boog (unregistered)
    The Article:
    During busy times, she was willing and able to get her hands dirty... ...Katie noticed that the scroll wheel stuck and noticed it to be clogged with vicious, oily substance

    So, why exactly did she quit?

  • Larry (unregistered)

    TRWTF is storing it on your hard drive for later.

  • Mr Etymology Pedant (unregistered) in reply to Jacqueline
    Jacqueline:
    Maurits:
    > Jane of all trades

    ITYM "Jill of all trades". The correspondence of generic first names is John <=> Jane, Jack <=> Jill.

    Maybe of you learnt from fairy tales. Jaqueline is the feminine version of Jack and Joan is the feminine version of John. Jack and Jill was a nursery rhyme, not a primary source.

    Jane is also a derivation of John via English to French back to English Jean -> Jeanne -> Jane or possibly Jean -> Jeanne -> Jeannette -> Janet -> Jane. Since the 16th Century it has been the more popular English feminine form.

  • (cs) in reply to DaveK
    DaveK:
    OP:
    Moreover, now that she finally had a chance to get an up close and personal view of Rod, noticed something peculiar about his tan.
    That reads awfully even if you do re-insert the missing "she".

    Not at all. The submitter's full name is Katie Jane Moreover.

  • LANMind (unregistered) in reply to Shoruke
    Shoruke:
    you guys should say the cake is a lie.

    +1

  • Michael (unregistered)

    trwtf is that he got semen in his scroll wheel.

  • frits (unregistered) in reply to Michael
    Michael:
    trwtf is that he got semen in his scroll wheel.
    Who hasn't done something like this?
  • persto (unregistered) in reply to Michael
    Michael:
    trwtf is that he got semen in his scroll wheel.
    You should have viewed the source:
    Mark Bowytz:
    <!-- Spoiler Alert: vasaline. Ew. -->
  • publiclurker (unregistered) in reply to Sam

    You know what they say, Spare the Rod...

  • illum (unregistered) in reply to boog
    boog:
    ideo:
    Oh, Mark! You bowtyzed it! AGAIN!!!

    ಠ_ಠ

    Though to be fair, he did name the article "Meet Rod".

    I believe that earns him some points for humor (whether intentional or not).

    TRWTF is that the article is titled "Meet Rod" instead of "Meat Rod" Am I right?

  • Rod (unregistered)

    The missing ending is that after Katie was fired, she met up with Jennifer and they started filming lesbian porn together.

  • Rob (unregistered)

    Eh - I really don't see why the files arranged by likeness to employees is a big deal?

    Assuming the guy is over 18 and people in the images are over 18; I don't see a problem with it.

    Katie was supposed to be fixing the computer. Snooping around in a private directory isn't part of that. Run the appropriate scanners, check the register, whatever. You aren't supposed to look for 'interesting' stuff like a 'Taxes.xls' or 'My Spring Break 2007' folder. The files she found was clearly in a sub-folder indicating it was private.

    \Employees\Rod <-- Rod's stuff goes in there. Why are you looking at Rod's personal files?

    The xxx content was even labeled xxx. There is nothing wrong with an adult having xxx content. If you dig through a machine searching for xxx content and then open it; isn't that your fault?

    I have personal stuff on my work PC. Nothing xxx, but certainly personal things that are, by definition, personal. Non-work related. Certainly some of my personal things will offend at least one of my co-workers.

    The mature, responsible thing to do here is perform the task you are supposed to (fix the PC). Stay out of clearly marked, personal files.

  • nasch (unregistered) in reply to Rob
    Rob:
    Eh - I really don't see why the files arranged by likeness to employees is a big deal?

    I've no doubt any HR policy in the land would consider that sexual harassment if it became known.

    Rob:
    There is nothing wrong with an adult having xxx content.

    Again, any corporate policy anywhere would prohibit employees from having such at work.

    Rob:
    If you dig through a machine searching for xxx content and then open it; isn't that your fault?

    Is it your fault if you open his desk drawer and find a gun, or is it a violation of the company's weapons policy (assume with me for the sake of argument that weapons are prohibited at the workplace) on his part?

    Rob:
    I have personal stuff on my work PC.

    Your work PC, that's owned by your employer. And so your employer or their agents (another employee) can do whatever they want with it, including look at your personal files. So if you have anything on there that violates company rules, you shouldn't be surprised or indignant if it gets you disciplined.

    Rob:
    The mature, responsible thing to do here is perform the task you are supposed to (fix the PC). Stay out of clearly marked, personal files.

    If she were fixing his personal PC as a personal favor, sure. In this scenario, I don't see anything immature or irresponsible about her actions.

  • Herby (unregistered) in reply to Doozerboy
    Doozerboy:
    Maybe Rod's hanging out with Darren in Mexico.
    No, Rod is Darren's supplier. Rod is the one who sends out the porn.

    Of course, when Rod walked off with the loot, we went to Cuidad Juarez to meet up with his buddy.

  • (cs) in reply to nasch
    nasch:
    Your work PC, that's owned by your employer. And so your employer or their agents (another employee) can do whatever they want with it, including look at your personal files. So if you have anything on there that violates company rules, you shouldn't be surprised or indignant if it gets you disciplined.

    So Rod is supposed to discipline himself?

    Rod owned the company. Or at least that is what we were told at the beginning of the store.

    As their some sexual harassment going on? Not really. he made some off color remarks, but Katie was used to it, or didn't mind. Perhaps Rod knew she wouldn't mind. Did he say or do other harrassing things? Perhaps but we don't know.

    Was it sexual harassment that he kept some porn on his computer, that he kept hidden? I would say no, but I'm not a lawyer. Katie didn't feel harrassed until she went snooping.

    Why was Rod ejected from the company? I don't know, but if the investors showed up, its probably embezzlement or something, not because Katie found some porn on the computer.

    Back to the story, what is the WTF? What is the curious perversion of IT?

  • wtf (unregistered) in reply to chrismcb
    chrismcb:

    So Rod is supposed to discipline himself?

    Rod owned the company. Or at least that is what we were told at the beginning of the store.

    As their some sexual harassment going on? Not really. he made some off color remarks, but Katie was used to it, or didn't mind. Perhaps Rod knew she wouldn't mind. Did he say or do other harrassing things? Perhaps but we don't know.

    Was it sexual harassment that he kept some porn on his computer, that he kept hidden? I would say no, but I'm not a lawyer. Katie didn't feel harrassed until she went snooping.

    Why was Rod ejected from the company? I don't know, but if the investors showed up, its probably embezzlement or something, not because Katie found some porn on the computer.

    Back to the story, what is the WTF? What is the curious perversion of IT?

    Okay, this really ought to be cleared up, if only to save you a lot of trouble in the future. Who knows, you might be in a position of authority at some point.

    • Rod was the "owner" of the company the way most Americans "own" their houses: yeah, he gets to run the thing, as long as the real owners are getting their money back. He works for them.

    • If you're working on a machine that's provided for you as a work machine, it always comes with conditions. You usually sign some piece of paper or click some "I agree" sometime in the hiring process, and forget about it, because it's pretty much all stuff that you know: don't embarrass us and don't endanger our internal systems is most of it, and also, please do some work now and then. Rod violated the first two for sure, and seems to have not been very good about the last. Doesn't help him much to be the titular owner, if the stockholders start worrying about whether they're getting their money back.

    • So, Rod is supposed to exercise some self-discipline. Yes, he's supposed to discipline himself. That's what you do when you're a grownup.

    • "Katie didn't mind". Uh, where do you get that? And what does it matter if she did? If this is a company big enough to have investors, it's big enough that someone's figured out about sexual harrassment policies, which generally prohibit much tamer language than the one example we got.

    • Why was Rod ejected? Well, let's see: he's in a position which on the face of it demands someone who can exercise good judgement and work with other people. Okay, you don't need anything more than what we have in the story to know that he's not suited to his position. Maybe he was embezzling too, but what you have here should be enough for anyone.

    (Hm. Looking your post over, it's almost too good - maybe it's some sort of subtle troll. Oh, well, you're an idiot either way. Maybe some answers will help, maybe they won't.)

  • (cs) in reply to wtf
    wtf:

    Okay, this really ought to be cleared up, if only to save you a lot of trouble in the future. Who knows, you might be in a position of authority at some point.

    • Rod was the "owner" of the company the way most Americans "own" their houses: yeah, he gets to run the thing, as long as the real owners are getting their money back. He works for them.

    • If you're working on a machine that's provided for you as a work machine, it always comes with conditions. You usually sign some piece of paper or click some "I agree" sometime in the hiring process, and forget about it, because it's pretty much all stuff that you know: don't embarrass us and don't endanger our internal systems is most of it, and also, please do some work now and then. Rod violated the first two for sure, and seems to have not been very good about the last. Doesn't help him much to be the titular owner, if the stockholders start worrying about whether they're getting their money back.

    • So, Rod is supposed to exercise some self-discipline. Yes, he's supposed to discipline himself. That's what you do when you're a grownup.

    • "Katie didn't mind". Uh, where do you get that? And what does it matter if she did? If this is a company big enough to have investors, it's big enough that someone's figured out about sexual harrassment policies, which generally prohibit much tamer language than the one example we got.

    • Why was Rod ejected? Well, let's see: he's in a position which on the face of it demands someone who can exercise good judgement and work with other people. Okay, you don't need anything more than what we have in the story to know that he's not suited to his position. Maybe he was embezzling too, but what you have here should be enough for anyone.

    (Hm. Looking your post over, it's almost too good - maybe it's some sort of subtle troll. Oh, well, you're an idiot either way. Maybe some answers will help, maybe they won't.)

    I'm an idiot?

    Lets review the story. "the owner of Ace Software Solutions" A LOT of small companies have owners. Sure we may have a bank loan, but like the fact that the bank owns my house, the bank doesn't really have a lot of say in what I do in my house. We do learn at the end of the story that the company had some investors. But we don't know how much they invested, how much control over the company they had. Perhaps they were 49% investors. So Rod invested some self discipline. Sure he had some porn on his work computer. But it was HIS company, so he owned the computer. Perhaps he only viewed the porn after work. He didn't show anyone, he didn't leave it out in the open.

    You are right perhaps Katie did mind Rod's off color hardwood comment, but she was used to it. This is the ONLY thing in the story that is questionable. Rod own's the company, he should show a little restraint. Is that what this story is about, that Rod sometimes makes some comments that aren't work worthy?

    Why was Rod ejected? We still don't know. It is HIS company, it has to be pretty bad to get ejected. Some soft ribald comments won't do it. Having some porn on the computer of the company he owns won't do it (besides we have 0 evidence that anyone but Katie knows) In fact we don't know why. It could be anything. It could be that we had a DUI hit and run over the weekend, who knows.

    The point is... I don't get the WTF.

    And apparently not understanding why this story is a WTF makes me an idiot.

  • Duke of New York (unregistered)

    What a rip-off! First you expect us to believe that the head of a small software dev company is a sex-starved creep who objectifies women. Then you go all-out and suggest that his habit of jerking off on the job is somehow relevant whether he can manage the company for a return?

    GET REAL!

  • Markus (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    Markus:
    boog:
    This guy sounds like a walking talking WTF.

    ...which would be a WTWTF or even shorter a (WT)²F...

    FTFY

    THX ;)

  • UserK (unregistered)

    Bleargh. I suppose I'll have to buy a few latex gloves for the next future. Just in case...

  • (cs) in reply to Doozerboy
    Doozerboy:
    Maybe Rod's hanging out with Darren in Mexico.

    Please feature this!

  • N. Tufnel (unregistered) in reply to Some PC Guy
    Some PC Guy:
    Some Tech Guy:
    Great anonymisation there, making the lead tech a girl is straight out of leftfield but I know you need to protect the guilty parties so fair enough.

    I've seen sexist comments approved before but this one takes the cake.

    What's wrong with being sexy?

  • N. Tufnel (unregistered) in reply to Some PC Guy
    Some PC Guy:
    Some Tech Guy:
    Great anonymisation there, making the lead tech a girl is straight out of leftfield but I know you need to protect the guilty parties so fair enough.

    I've seen sexist comments approved before but this one takes the cake.

    What's wrong with being sexy?

  • POUZZLER (unregistered)

    Once more, how does that have to do with 'Curious Perversions in Information Technology'? What next? Mock the lady working support desk for her overcalorific diet, and... portly figure?

    I've come to expect better, on-topic fun from this website - and this is just demeaning for the submitter and editorial team.

    Maybe rename the site to "THE DAILY WTF - Mocking Gross Guys Just Cause We Have That Mean Streak".

    Best regards

  • Ned E. Netty (unregistered)

    Are those Maxcedrin any good?

    Because I picked up a giant bottle of Maxcebo at Mall*Mart? 1000 tablets for $2.29?

    And now my teeth hurt worse than ever.

  • Raw (unregistered)

    I am not surprised, I made pretty much the same discovery on one computer at an earlier employment at a small company, where I, in addition to being a developer, also was the sysadmin. No fake tan, though.

  • (cs)

    Rod reminds me of someone...

    Oh, I know! Douglas Reynholm!

    But he's a caricature, or so I thought... Perhaps the writers of The IT Crowd (where Douglas is the owner of the company the show takes place in, from season two, episode two and up anyway. This show is superb btw) knew Rod and wrote him in.

  • Matt Westwood (unregistered) in reply to Rob
    Rob:
    Eh - I really don't see why the files arranged by likeness to employees is a big deal?

    Assuming the guy is over 18 and people in the images are over 18; I don't see a problem with it.

    Katie was supposed to be fixing the computer. Snooping around in a private directory isn't part of that. Run the appropriate scanners, check the register, whatever. You aren't supposed to look for 'interesting' stuff like a 'Taxes.xls' or 'My Spring Break 2007' folder. The files she found was clearly in a sub-folder indicating it was private.

    \Employees\Rod <-- Rod's stuff goes in there. Why are you looking at Rod's personal files?

    The xxx content was even labeled xxx. There is nothing wrong with an adult having xxx content. If you dig through a machine searching for xxx content and then open it; isn't that your fault?

    I have personal stuff on my work PC. Nothing xxx, but certainly personal things that are, by definition, personal. Non-work related. Certainly some of my personal things will offend at least one of my co-workers.

    The mature, responsible thing to do here is perform the task you are supposed to (fix the PC). Stay out of clearly marked, personal files.

    Depends on the company policy. Where I work, the personal content of one's computer is strictly limited - and monitored.

  • eb (unregistered) in reply to Frecklefoot
    Frecklefoot:
    In regards to the "dangling plot line", it seems evident that Rod possessed some kiddie porn along with his other porn. That's the only reason I can think of why "the authorities" would want to speak to him. I think that's what we're supposed to extrapolate from the lack of further details.

    Keep your sexuality to yourself. It's obvious they wanted him for copyright violation. Porn makers have rights too. P2P porn is not cool, people.

  • Nido Media (unregistered) in reply to chrismcb
    chrismcb:
    wtf:
    ...
    • Rod was the "owner" of the company the way most Americans "own" their houses: yeah, he gets to run the thing, as long as the real owners are getting their money back. He works for them.

    ...

    Lets review the story. "the owner of Ace Software Solutions" A LOT of small companies have owners. Sure we may have a bank loan, but like the fact that the bank owns my house, the bank doesn't really have a lot of say in what I do in my house. We do learn at the end of the story that the company had some investors. (...)

    ...

    True; the bank doesn't have much to say about what you do in 'your' house. However; they do have the ability to kick you out under certain conditions defined by the bank itself. The same thing counts for the 'owner of ASS' with respect to investors.

    Whatever the reason was is obviously considered irrelevant to the story; otherwise it would have been included.

  • Matt Westwood (unregistered) in reply to N. Tufnel
    N. Tufnel:
    Some PC Guy:
    Some Tech Guy:
    Great anonymisation there, making the lead tech a girl is straight out of leftfield but I know you need to protect the guilty parties so fair enough.

    I've seen sexist comments approved before but this one takes the cake.

    What's wrong with being sexy?

    .. and our sexist comments to up to 11.

  • Tubs (unregistered) in reply to POUZZLER
    POUZZLER:
    Once more, how does that have to do with 'Curious Perversions in Information Technology'? What next? Mock the lady working support desk for her overcalorific diet, and... portly figure?
    Totally, that fat bitch has been using way more than her share of oxygen for too damn long... stop breathing tubby, we need air too!
  • (cs) in reply to boog
    boog:
    I suppose we could have just had another typical post with some VB code so everyone could argue over whether C# is better than VB again. Those discussions are always so productive.
    Obviously, Java is better. C# doesn't even have checked exceptions.
  • TRWTFIVB (unregistered) in reply to Severity One
    Severity One:
    boog:
    I suppose we could have just had another typical post with some VB code so everyone could argue over whether C# is better than VB again. Those discussions are always so productive.
    Obviously, Java is better. C# doesn't even have checked exceptions.
    Ah, the famous Java crutch. Checked exceptions don't improve exception handling, they simply make it easier for novices to implement. Once you understand proper exception handling in any language there is really no advantage to checked exceptions - unless you're a rank amateur.
  • Wade (unregistered) in reply to Matt

    "More WTF" would be the comma explosion that is the article text. I didn't know they made shotgun shells loaded with commas.

  • TimG (unregistered) in reply to UserK
    UserK:
    Bleargh. I suppose I'll have to buy a few latex gloves for the next future. Just in case...
    I've been tempted to have them handy. There are a few users in my office (plus my boss) who are smokers, and their keyboards and mice are disgusting from all the tar on their fingers. I feel like I have to wash my hands after using the console in our server room because of my boss.

    The worst offender is a single guy who lives alone and (I am told) spends many weekends here in the office by himself "checking on his investments". His keyboard is the stickiest, to the point where I just won't even touch it anymore. Now I wonder if it's all from tar...

  • Ewwww (unregistered) in reply to TimG
    TimG:
    UserK:
    Bleargh. I suppose I'll have to buy a few latex gloves for the next future. Just in case...
    I've been tempted to have them handy. There are a few users in my office (plus my boss) who are smokers, and their keyboards and mice are disgusting from all the tar on their fingers. I feel like I have to wash my hands after using the console in our server room because of my boss.

    The worst offender is a single guy who lives alone and (I am told) spends many weekends here in the office by himself "checking on his investments". His keyboard is the stickiest, to the point where I just won't even touch it anymore. Now I wonder if it's all from tar...

    When you have the buying power of a decent size organisation you'll only be paying a few pence per unit for mice and keyboards. Which is why I'm more than happy to just chuck dirty peripherals in the bin. Who cares if they still work perfectly, it's actually cheaper to bin them than to spend time cleaning them.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to anon
    anon:
    Uh, why exactly was he fired? And why were the authorities looking for him?

    Killed a hooker, obviously

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to chrismcb
    chrismcb:
    You are right perhaps Katie did mind Rod's off color hardwood comment, but she was used to it.

    What a sickening attitude. I hope your HR department doesn't read that.

    And, since the investors "removed" Rod, it's quite clear that Rod isn't the whole owner of the enterprise.

  • Jim Reaper (unregistered) in reply to Raw
    Raw:
    I am not surprised, I made pretty much the same discovery on one computer at an earlier employment at a small company, where I, in addition to being a developer, also was the sysadmin. No fake tan, though.

    Arbitrary text to prove this isn't spam

    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitle0t9r68ih?from=Main.Dontexplainthejoke

    it's not spam, I tells ya

  • Someone Awful (unregistered) in reply to N. Tufnel
    N. Tufnel:
    What's wrong with being sexy?
    You should have seen the cover *they* wanted. That wasn't a *glove* the shoved in her face.
  • Jim Reaper (unregistered) in reply to Ewwww
    Ewwww:
    When you have the buying power of a decent size organisation you'll only be paying a few pence per unit for mice and keyboards. Which is why I'm more than happy to just chuck dirty peripherals in the bin. Who cares if they still work perfectly, it's actually cheaper to bin them than to spend time cleaning them.

    Would that the cost of supplying you with new peripherals ended at the cost of the peripheral itself. Ultra-large organisations can go in the opposite direction to ridiculous amounts. Eg, the UK NHS. Price of a new mouse? £3. Total cost of getting a new mouse to a users desk, taking into account the paperwork involved in raising and approving the PO, getting someone organised to collect said mouse, then installing it? Circa £125.

  • Ewwww (unregistered) in reply to Jim Reaper
    Jim Reaper:
    Ewwww:
    When you have the buying power of a decent size organisation you'll only be paying a few pence per unit for mice and keyboards. Which is why I'm more than happy to just chuck dirty peripherals in the bin. Who cares if they still work perfectly, it's actually cheaper to bin them than to spend time cleaning them.

    Would that the cost of supplying you with new peripherals ended at the cost of the peripheral itself. Ultra-large organisations can go in the opposite direction to ridiculous amounts. Eg, the UK NHS. Price of a new mouse? £3. Total cost of getting a new mouse to a users desk, taking into account the paperwork involved in raising and approving the PO, getting someone organised to collect said mouse, then installing it? Circa £125.

    That may be true, but if we ran our company like the NHS we would have gone bankrupt years ago. Given the nature of the NHS (vast, publicly funded) it doesn't really feel like a fair comparison. But I do appreciate your point.

  • Mordred (unregistered)

    I think we have all worked for Rod at some point.

  • (cs) in reply to Rob
    Rob:
    Eh - I really don't see why the files arranged by likeness to employees is a big deal?
    ...

    Because it's really, really creepy.

    Creepy because it's his organized by likeness to his co-workers. Really creepy, considering that it's his work computer in his office at work. Really, really creepy considering the state of his mouse scroll wheel (that's not tanning cream!).

  • nasch (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    chrismcb:
    You are right perhaps Katie did mind Rod's off color hardwood comment, but she was used to it.

    What a sickening attitude. I hope your HR department doesn't read that.

    And, since the investors "removed" Rod, it's quite clear that Rod isn't the whole owner of the enterprise.

    Yes, thankfully the disgusting rationalization "she was used to it" won't get anyone out of a sexual harassment charge. And in some cases the behavior could be not just against company policy but illegal:

    "In 1980 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued regulations defining sexual harassment and stating it was a form of sex discrimination prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the 1986 case of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the Supreme Court first recognized "sexual harassment" as a violation of Title VII, established the standards for analyzing whether the conduct was welcome and levels of employer liability, and that speech or conduct in itself can create a "hostile environment". The Civil Rights Act of 1991 added provisions to Title VII protections including expanding the rights of women to sue and collect compensatory and punitive damages for sexual discrimination or harassment, and the case of Ellison v. Brady resulted in rejecting the reasonable person standard in favor of the "reasonable woman standard" which allowed for cases to be analyzed from the perspective of the complainant and not the defendant. "

    From WP

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    anon:
    Uh, why exactly was he fired? And why were the authorities looking for him?

    Killed a hooker, obviously

    ...and stuffed her into a mattress to be found on New Years Eve by two kids and a slightly effeminate porter.

  • (cs) in reply to POUZZLER
    POUZZLER:
    Once more, how does that have to do with 'Curious Perversions in Information Technology'? What next? Mock the lady working support desk for her overcalorific diet, and... portly figure?
    If she tries to eat her keyboard and mouse, then absolutely.
    POUZZLER:
    I've come to expect better, on-topic fun from this website - and this is just demeaning for the submitter and editorial team.

    Maybe rename the site to "THE DAILY WTF - Mocking Gross Guys Just Cause We Have That Mean Streak".

    So you think that we should treat the sociopath, who was kicked out of the company by the investors and apparently is running from the authorities for unknown-but-probably-related reasons, with more respect?

    Interesting...

  • Rob (unregistered) in reply to boog
    boog:
    Rob:
    Eh - I really don't see why the files arranged by likeness to employees is a big deal?
    ...

    Because it's really, really creepy.

    Creepy because it's his organized by likeness to his co-workers. Really creepy, considering that it's his work computer in his office at work. Really, really creepy considering the state of his mouse scroll wheel (that's not tanning cream!).

    I've had to listen to co-workers talk about 'trying' for a baby.....it's no more or less inappropriate than a folder name.

    And a folder name is all she would have seen had she not intentionally poked around in what was clearly personal files.

Leave a comment on “Meet Rod”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article