• (cs)

    #3: Did the interviewer's name happen to be Jack Bauer?

    #4: I guess it was sort of a "red flag"-ship.

  • Allan Olesen (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward:
    I have a great opening for someone to design a file system. (Applications from jail welcome.)
    I am currently incarcerated in the Ada County jail, where I was ordered to participate in the work release program until I have brought my payments on a new passenger seat for my Honda current. Before I can enter the program, however, I must first find a job.
  • Allan Olesen (unregistered) in reply to Comrade Wayne
    Comrade Wayne:
    In Soviet Russia, child supports you!
    The right meme in the wrong internet forum?
  • Mike (unregistered) in reply to Uhhh
    Uhhh:
    True... But a 'rm -rf /' on the file server or deleting the RAID on the Exchange server is generally not covered by insurance.

    Your disaster plan would cover it, and the downtime would be regulated by the SLA so how rm -rf could ever be a problem anywhere is beyond me ^^

  • Matt Westwood (unregistered) in reply to imgx64
    imgx64:
    Can someone please type the handwritten letter? I can't read cursive for my life, it looks like gibberish to me.

    It's never good form to brag about the lack of a life skill. Man up.

  • Matt Westwood (unregistered) in reply to Ajtacka
    Ajtacka:
    Comrade Wayne:
    gil:
    Pants:
    The article even mentions that he's in jail because he can't pay child support.
    The article doesn't actually mention that. The article mentions that he *doesn't* pay child support.
    In Soviet Russia, child supports you!

    Seriously, in Russia we take care of this the right way. You can't support your kid, it gets taken away.

    How is that the right way? Sure, take a kid from a poor but loving family, dump them in a childrens' home with neglected, abused or otherwise problem children. Spend much more on 'raising' that child than the average parent spends on their kid. Then, when the kid grows up, spend even more money keeping the now-adult locked up because they never learned how to function properly outside of an institution.

    Or, you know, help the parent find work that pays enough to raise the kid properly, and in the meantime use some of the money that would've gone to the home, and help the parent out a little.

    Oh don't be silly, they don't put them in an anonymous losers' orphanage or dysfunctional childrens' home, they put them straight into a military academy and use them as the backbone of a fanatically-loyal cadre of elite soldiers. Read your Animal Farm.

    Captcha: sagaciter: more sagacious than you.

  • Rhialto (unregistered) in reply to JJ
    JJ:
    Inb4 some European comments with "TRWTF is calling it a résumé instead of a CV!"
    At least you write it with the proper accents on the letters. As it is in the title, it is a verb meaning "to continue" or "to restart".
  • (cs) in reply to JJ
    JJ:
    Inb4 some European comments with "TRWTF is calling it a résumé instead of a CV!"

    Why do we need to use a French or a Latin name? Can't we come up with a good English name for it?

  • bill (unregistered)
    JJ:
    Inb4 some European comments with "TRWTF is calling it a résumé instead of a CV!"

    TRWTF is résumé (pronounce ray-su-may) and not resumé (reh-su-may)

  • cappeca (unregistered) in reply to jasmine2501
    jasmine2501:
    <snip> they would be hearing from a lawyer babble.</snip>

    Unless it is relevant - if you're hiring for a "motherhood training instructor" - it's perfectly ok to make sure she has some kids.

    I would give preference to a candidate with a steady personal relationship if I was hiring for management (regardless of gender or orientation). Single people are prone to jump from job to job in order to "build their carrer". Having a family means - most of the time - you can handle long term compromises and responsibility, and actually need the job.

    The way you guys misunderstand such questions is TRWTF. By the way, I wouldn't hire ANYONE who would feel offend for being asked about family plans. I'd certainly like to know what are your personal plans for the next five years or so if I'm investing good money on you.

  • Jeremy (unregistered) in reply to Dave
    Dave:
    TRWTF is having a child and not supporting that child. Maybe if more men took their responsibilities as fathers and men more seriously, we'd have fewer screwed up kids.

    Man up, men!

  • Jeremy (unregistered) in reply to PHB
    PHB:
    Dazed:
    he's just been put behind bars for possession of cannabis. Are you going to refuse to consider him then?
    Absolutely. Only a fool would hire a person with a history of abusing drugs or alcohol. As a side note, George W Bush is proof that most American voters are idiots.
  • Winnie Mandela (unregistered) in reply to DaveK
    DaveK:
    The Judge:
    People are put in jail because they are unable to live within the rules of society. If someone breaks society's rules (and does it so that it warrants a penalty worse than simple probation or a fine), what makes you think they can exist within a business environment?
    Nelson Mandela called. He says you're being overly simplistic in your theory about just what you can infer of someone's character from the mere fact of their having been incarcerated.

    Well said.

    (Although you might consider inferring stuff about his character from the fact that he was the confessed leader of a terrorist organisation.)

  • Mike Giggler (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward:
    I have a great opening for someone to design a file system. (Applications from jail welcome.)

    My grandad was in jail and my grandma sent him a cake with a file system baked into it.

    (Hey - does that make it an embedded file system?)

  • Matt Westwood (unregistered) in reply to Winnie Mandela
    Winnie Mandela:
    DaveK:
    The Judge:
    People are put in jail because they are unable to live within the rules of society. If someone breaks society's rules (and does it so that it warrants a penalty worse than simple probation or a fine), what makes you think they can exist within a business environment?
    Nelson Mandela called. He says you're being overly simplistic in your theory about just what you can infer of someone's character from the mere fact of their having been incarcerated.

    Well said.

    (Although you might consider inferring stuff about his character from the fact that he was the confessed leader of a terrorist organisation.)

    "Terrorist" is just a pejorative term for "freedom fighter".

  • Amar (unregistered) in reply to Matt Westwood
    Matt Westwood:
    Winnie Mandela:
    DaveK:
    The Judge:
    People are put in jail because they are unable to live within the rules of society. If someone breaks society's rules (and does it so that it warrants a penalty worse than simple probation or a fine), what makes you think they can exist within a business environment?
    Nelson Mandela called. He says you're being overly simplistic in your theory about just what you can infer of someone's character from the mere fact of their having been incarcerated.

    Well said.

    (Although you might consider inferring stuff about his character from the fact that he was the confessed leader of a terrorist organisation.)

    "Terrorist" is just a pejorative term for "freedom fighter".

    Exactly. I'm so glad those freedom fighters dealt with that nasty trade center, that thing was a blight on the skyline and totally ruined my view of the bay. Go freedom!

  • bill (unregistered) in reply to Matt Westwood
    Matt Westwood:
    Winnie Mandela:
    DaveK:
    The Judge:
    People are put in jail because they are unable to live within the rules of society. If someone breaks society's rules (and does it so that it warrants a penalty worse than simple probation or a fine), what makes you think they can exist within a business environment?
    Nelson Mandela called. He says you're being overly simplistic in your theory about just what you can infer of someone's character from the mere fact of their having been incarcerated.

    Well said.

    (Although you might consider inferring stuff about his character from the fact that he was the confessed leader of a terrorist organisation.)

    "Terrorist" is just a pejorative term for "freedom fighter".

    "Freedom fighter" is a euphemism for "terrorist"

  • Amar (unregistered) in reply to bill
    bill:
    Matt Westwood:
    Winnie Mandela:
    DaveK:
    The Judge:
    People are put in jail because they are unable to live within the rules of society. If someone breaks society's rules (and does it so that it warrants a penalty worse than simple probation or a fine), what makes you think they can exist within a business environment?
    Nelson Mandela called. He says you're being overly simplistic in your theory about just what you can infer of someone's character from the mere fact of their having been incarcerated.

    Well said.

    (Although you might consider inferring stuff about his character from the fact that he was the confessed leader of a terrorist organisation.)

    "Terrorist" is just a pejorative term for "freedom fighter".

    "Freedom fighter" is a euphemism for "terrorist"

    Either way, I'm glad I've got a sweet view of the bay now.

  • (cs)

    The real WTF is people thinking that someone who really is guilty of fraud would actually be honest on their CV / application form and tell them.

    Dependent on their "connections" they can easily "cover" time inside as a period working for one of their mob's companies and get a reference to such too.

    Also in the early days of computing, short jobs were very common, depending on the task in hand. If the job involved installing systems rather than actually building them, it is quite possible that they would have jobs lasting 2-3 months before moving on. The WTF I found when I started contracting was that after doing a "great" job for someone and getting lots of plaudits for them, subsequent employers never bothered to seem to want to get the follow-up. At least now we have LinkedIn recommendations, if you can trust those...

    In 2002-3, anyone who had been a contractor had a very hard time getting a job in the UK. There was a huge bias and locked door on contractors, regardless of ability to do a good job.

  • Bushea (unregistered) in reply to DaveK
    DaveK:
    The Judge:
    People are put in jail because they are unable to live within the rules of society. If someone breaks society's rules (and does it so that it warrants a penalty worse than simple probation or a fine), what makes you think they can exist within a business environment?
    Nelson Mandela called. He says you're being overly simplistic in your theory about just what you can infer of someone's character from the mere fact of their having been incarcerated.
    Well, being an expat (and an ex.. something else), you don't want to be using that example. Lets just say that if it was for political reasons, why weren't the other 80% of the ANC put behind bars too - there were ample cells...

    Regardless. I agree with the sentiment, most especially since I know several fathers paying maintenance well outside their means - more than a health amount of who got divorced because their wives were having affairs.

  • A Man (unregistered) in reply to Bushea
    Bushea:
    DaveK:
    The Judge:
    People are put in jail because they are unable to live within the rules of society. If someone breaks society's rules (and does it so that it warrants a penalty worse than simple probation or a fine), what makes you think they can exist within a business environment?
    Nelson Mandela called. He says you're being overly simplistic in your theory about just what you can infer of someone's character from the mere fact of their having been incarcerated.
    Well, being an expat (and an ex.. something else), you don't want to be using that example. Lets just say that if it was for political reasons, why weren't the other 80% of the ANC put behind bars too - there were ample cells...

    Regardless. I agree with the sentiment, most especially since I know several fathers paying maintenance well outside their means - more than a health amount of who got divorced because their wives were having affairs.

    Women are TRWTF, amirite?

  • (cs) in reply to anarchist
    anarchist:
    DWalker59:
    "Family-Friendly" shouldn't mean that you are REQUIRED to have a family! How weird. Does he want to get together and compare notes on childbirth, sex techniques, etc.?

    Quote: "I don't think that word means what you think it means". (The word, of course, is "Inconceivable")

    What he means is "Are you gay", without explicitly saying it, which I presume is illegal. Although knowing how the USA works, probably not.

    He should have smashed that homophobic cunt's face into a bloody pulp.

    Oh, it's legal in most states. You do not have to hire a queen. No matter how fabulous she is.

  • Welfare Never Works (unregistered) in reply to Ajtacka
    Ajtacka:
    Comrade Wayne:
    gil:
    Pants:
    The article even mentions that he's in jail because he can't pay child support.
    The article doesn't actually mention that. The article mentions that he *doesn't* pay child support.
    In Soviet Russia, child supports you!

    Seriously, in Russia we take care of this the right way. You can't support your kid, it gets taken away.

    How is that the right way? Sure, take a kid from a poor but loving family, dump them in a childrens' home with neglected, abused or otherwise problem children. Spend much more on 'raising' that child than the average parent spends on their kid. Then, when the kid grows up, spend even more money keeping the now-adult locked up because they never learned how to function properly outside of an institution.

    Or, you know, hope the parent finds work that pays enough to raise the kid properly meanwhile offering them no incentive to do so, and in the meantime use some of the money that would've gone to the home, and help the parent out a little.

    FTFY

  • Parker Bros. (unregistered) in reply to boog
    boog:
    Parker Bros.:
    PMS much?
    No, I'm fine, but you go ahead:
    Parker Bros.:
    Just because you're registered doesn't give you a monopoly on commonly-used handles. We all know the difference, as it is indicated by "(unregistered)" next to their names.
    Lighten up there, scooter. If you'd actually read the discussion to which you're replying, nobody is claiming any rights on commonly-used handles. I made mention of my impostor, but if you go back and read my full comment, you'd see it was nothing more than a harmless joke.
    I don't comment much, but I like to read them. That said, the "imposter" claim bugs the tar out of me. What you said was funny, but frits was clearly miffed for whatever reason. And yes, I did go through the effort of tracking the conversation even frits deleted it.
  • Henry (unregistered) in reply to Prevention
    Prevention:
    BabbyFormer:
    gilhad:
    Larry:
    TRWTF is he went ahead and asked about kids after the guy already said he wasn't married.
    I live with my GF and we are not married. We talked about having childs, but we decided not to. But having child is possible even without being married.
    You is now how is babby formed?

    You know what condoms are?? Or birth control pills? Vasectomy? There are many ways to prevent having children, and I hope you are employing at least 2 of them.

    I tried taking birth control pills to prevent unwanted pregancy. It didn't work for that, nor for preventing my STDs.

  • Prison Guards FTW (unregistered) in reply to chrismcb
    chrismcb:
    The point of prison is to rehabilitate people.
    Nice try, but no. If that was the point, then rape, murders, and intimidation would not be the order of the day. Prison serves 2 purposes: a) keep people off the streets, and b) make it so they never want to go back. You can make the claim that this simply produces more hardened criminals (and you may be right), but that's how our prison system operates (in the US).
  • majic# (unregistered)

    Hey, isn't that "The Family-Friendly Company" the exact transcript of the interview scene in "The Firm" by John Grisham?

  • boog (unregistered) in reply to DaveK
    DaveK:
    boog:
    frits:
    boog:
    The Judge:
    Q:
    TRWTF is all you punks hating on anyone who's ever been to jail.

    WTF makes you all think every person who's ever been incarcerated will just up and steal data and wreck businesses, or make welding mistakes. The two aren't related.

    Discriminatory losers.

    TRWTF is people who have a rosy picture of prison.

    People are put in jail because they are unable to live within the rules of society. If someone breaks society's rules (and does it so that it warrants a penalty worse than simple probation or a fine), what makes you think they can exist within a business environment?

    Personally, when I see those guys in orange jumpsuits on the side of the freeway, I try to hit them with whatever beverage I have on-hand. Try it! It's fun, and as long as it's not hot coffee, it's not even against the law!
    Let my son know the next time you visit McDonalds. I've instructed him to urinate in your orange juice.
    I'm on my way to work, while this guy gets to meander around all day in the sunshine. I figure covering him in sticky liquid is a good way to even the score.

    If you think he's having such a great time, why aren't you knocking on the door of your local prison asking to be let in?

    Right. Because you don't really think he's having a great time. You just hate your shitty life and have an unrequited need to feel superior to others.

    The same reason I don't subscribe to welfare: I think it's a shame to be a drain on society.

    I still remember being in college full-time, working 30+ hours a week, and going to the grocery store, barely able to afford beans and rice. I look over to see someone buying 20lbs of meat with food stamps and then paying cash for cigarettes.

  • frits (unregistered) in reply to DaveK
    DaveK:
    The Judge:
    People are put in jail because they are unable to live within the rules of society. If someone breaks society's rules (and does it so that it warrants a penalty worse than simple probation or a fine), what makes you think they can exist within a business environment?
    Nelson Mandela called. He says you're being overly simplistic in your theory about just what you can infer of someone's character from the mere fact of their having been incarcerated.
    Have you ever actually researched Mandela, or were you spoon-fed lies by the media? He was in prison for terrorism, and when he was let out, he drove the country into the ground by encouraging racism whenever possible. That's why it's still one of the worse hellholes in Africa. If not for the donations of the UN, it would likely be a wasteland.
  • frits (unregistered) in reply to Jeremy
    Jeremy:
    PHB:
    Dazed:
    he's just been put behind bars for possession of cannabis. Are you going to refuse to consider him then?
    Absolutely. Only a fool would hire a person with a history of abusing drugs or alcohol. As a side note, George W Bush is proof that most American voters are idiots.
    I guess you missed the point: Obama bragged about doing crack cocaine in his youth and still smokes and drinks heavily. What kind of fool thought he could handle running a country?
  • (cs) in reply to MotherMaker
    MotherMaker:
    frits:
    BabbyFormer:
    gilhad:
    Larry:
    TRWTF is he went ahead and asked about kids after the guy already said he wasn't married.
    I live with my GF and we are not married. We talked about having childs, but we decided not to. But having child is possible even without being married.
    You is now how is babby formed?
    Ask you're parents, lol. </yahoo_answer>
    You'r mom showed me.

    My Mom is dead, you necrophiliac.

  • (cs) in reply to Parker Bros.
    Parker Bros.:
    boog:
    Parker Bros.:
    PMS much?
    No, I'm fine, but you go ahead:
    Parker Bros.:
    Just because you're registered doesn't give you a monopoly on commonly-used handles. We all know the difference, as it is indicated by "(unregistered)" next to their names.
    Lighten up there, scooter. If you'd actually read the discussion to which you're replying, nobody is claiming any rights on commonly-used handles. I made mention of my impostor, but if you go back and read my full comment, you'd see it was nothing more than a harmless joke.
    I don't comment much, but I like to read them. That said, the "imposter" claim bugs the tar out of me. What you said was funny, but frits was clearly miffed for whatever reason. And yes, I did go through the effort of tracking the conversation even frits deleted it.

    I'm not a mod, you narcissistic troll.

  • boog (unregistered)

    Where's my damn article?

  • CLANDRESS (unregistered) in reply to kindall

    Actually, that's not true. Single people are NOT a protected minority. It is illegal to ask questions about pregnancy because that is a protected medical condition but it is not illegal to discriminate based on marital status. See www.eeoc.gov

  • (cs) in reply to Comrade Wayne
    Comrade Wayne:
    gil:
    Pants:
    The article even mentions that he's in jail because he can't pay child support.
    The article doesn't actually mention that. The article mentions that he *doesn't* pay child support.
    In Soviet Russia, child supports you!

    Seriously, in Russia we take care of this the right way. You can't support your kid, it gets taken away.

    Wait, so if a single mother can't make ends meet because the deadbeat father can't be bothered to pay his share, the government takes the child away from the mother? Yeah, that sounds pretty backwards to me.

  • boog (unregistered) in reply to Markp
    Markp:
    Comrade Wayne:
    gil:
    Pants:
    The article even mentions that he's in jail because he can't pay child support.
    The article doesn't actually mention that. The article mentions that he *doesn't* pay child support.
    In Soviet Russia, child supports you!

    Seriously, in Russia we take care of this the right way. You can't support your kid, it gets taken away.

    Wait, so if a single mother can't make ends meet because the deadbeat father can't be bothered to pay his share, the government takes the child away from the mother? Yeah, that sounds pretty backwards to me.

    Obviously. If the mother is not self-sufficient, then why does she have custody? Because the father is worse? Your situation perfectly accentuates the merits of putting kids in an orphanage.

    You will also find that this is historically how children who could not be provided for by their parents were taken care of. I'm talking about before birth control and certainly before welfare. And the orphanages weren't run by the government, but by charity. Having a child is not a right, it is a responsibility.

  • Fair, Balanced and straight (unregistered) in reply to anarchist

    What he means is "Are you gay", without explicitly saying it, which I presume is illegal. Although knowing how the USA works, probably not.

    He should have smashed that homophobic cunt's face into a bloody pulp.

    Hate crime.
  • Bert Glanstron (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    MotherMaker:
    frits:
    BabbyFormer:
    gilhad:
    Larry:
    TRWTF is he went ahead and asked about kids after the guy already said he wasn't married.
    I live with my GF and we are not married. We talked about having childs, but we decided not to. But having child is possible even without being married.
    You is now how is babby formed?
    Ask you're parents, lol. </yahoo_answer>
    You'r mom showed me.

    My Mom is dead, you necrophiliac.

    You are an idiot and should be banned from your mommy and daddy's modem.
  • Disgruntled Former Employee (unregistered)

    I can tell you from experience that this guy has no interest in securing a job. If you can show the judge that you have sent 20 or so letters for job applications and had no acceptance, you can generally get the judge to remit your payments and wipe the slate clean. After that happens, it's much easier to get a job once your out of prison (as long as you can explain away the time between jobs). This guy was probably working at McDonalds and had not qualifications for the job whatsoever.

  • wtf (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    Jeremy:
    PHB:
    Dazed:
    he's just been put behind bars for possession of cannabis. Are you going to refuse to consider him then?
    Absolutely. Only a fool would hire a person with a history of abusing drugs or alcohol. As a side note, George W Bush is proof that most American voters are idiots.
    I guess you missed the point: Obama bragged about doing crack cocaine in his youth and still smokes and drinks heavily. What kind of fool thought he could handle running a country?

    a) I don't know where you get "bragged" from - he did admit in his autobiography that he used drugs in high school. b) I don't know where you get crack from, the drugs he mentioned were pot and cocaine c) he seems to be doing a hell of a lot better job running the country than his predecessor, who had much more serious drug and alcohol issues well into his adult life and never had the stones to admit it. d) VB is still TRWTF

  • (cs) in reply to boog
    boog:
    Markp:
    Comrade Wayne:
    gil:
    Pants:
    The article even mentions that he's in jail because he can't pay child support.
    The article doesn't actually mention that. The article mentions that he *doesn't* pay child support.
    In Soviet Russia, child supports you!

    Seriously, in Russia we take care of this the right way. You can't support your kid, it gets taken away.

    Wait, so if a single mother can't make ends meet because the deadbeat father can't be bothered to pay his share, the government takes the child away from the mother? Yeah, that sounds pretty backwards to me.

    Obviously. If the mother is not self-sufficient, then why does she have custody?
    How about because the law demands that the father help support her! It's pretty unreastic to expect any single mother to be both a good mother and self-sufficient. You can't punish the entire family for the father walking away.

    You will also find that this is historically how children who could not be provided for by their parents were taken care of. I'm talking about before birth control and certainly before welfare. And the orphanages weren't run by the government, but by charity.
    How is it better to take away the child and support it by charity? Why not use the charity to help the mother make ends meet? You act as if institutionalizing the child generally worked out well for those children.
    Having a child is not a right, it is a responsibility.
    I would like you to go to a mother that is working 3 jobs to support her child and tell her she's failing in her responsibility to her child. What an absolutely obtuse thing to say.
  • bill (unregistered) in reply to Prison Guards FTW
    Prison Guards FTW:
    chrismcb:
    The point of prison is to rehabilitate people.
    Nice try, but no. If that was the point, then rape, murders, and intimidation would not be the order of the day. Prison serves 2 purposes: a) keep people off the streets, and b) make it so they never want to go back. You can make the claim that this simply produces more hardened criminals (and you may be right), but that's how our prison system operates (in the US).

    Don't forget it's an incentive to not commit crime in the first place

  • bill (unregistered) in reply to wtf
    wtf:
    frits:
    Jeremy:
    PHB:
    Dazed:
    he's just been put behind bars for possession of cannabis. Are you going to refuse to consider him then?
    Absolutely. Only a fool would hire a person with a history of abusing drugs or alcohol. As a side note, George W Bush is proof that most American voters are idiots.
    I guess you missed the point: Obama bragged about doing crack cocaine in his youth and still smokes and drinks heavily. What kind of fool thought he could handle running a country?

    a) I don't know where you get "bragged" from - he did admit in his autobiography that he used drugs in high school. b) I don't know where you get crack from, the drugs he mentioned were pot and cocaine c) he seems to be doing a hell of a lot better job running the country than his predecessor, who had much more serious drug and alcohol issues well into his adult life and never had the stones to admit it. d) VB is still TRWTF

    Wait, crack and cocaine are two different things now?

  • whiskeyjack (unregistered) in reply to BabbyFarmer
    BabbyFarmer:
    You is know what internet meme is?

    Where DID this meme come from, anyway? Someone actually asked this? I'd love to see the archives of that thread :P

  • Matt Westwood (unregistered) in reply to bill
    bill:
    wtf:
    frits:
    Jeremy:
    PHB:
    Dazed:
    he's just been put behind bars for possession of cannabis. Are you going to refuse to consider him then?
    Absolutely. Only a fool would hire a person with a history of abusing drugs or alcohol. As a side note, George W Bush is proof that most American voters are idiots.
    I guess you missed the point: Obama bragged about doing crack cocaine in his youth and still smokes and drinks heavily. What kind of fool thought he could handle running a country?

    a) I don't know where you get "bragged" from - he did admit in his autobiography that he used drugs in high school. b) I don't know where you get crack from, the drugs he mentioned were pot and cocaine c) he seems to be doing a hell of a lot better job running the country than his predecessor, who had much more serious drug and alcohol issues well into his adult life and never had the stones to admit it. d) VB is still TRWTF

    Wait, crack and cocaine are two different things now?

    <irony> Yes - "crack" is a loaded word which automatically directs the hearer to the opinion that the person taking it is a low-life who deserves to be executed for not doing what he/she is told. "Cocaine" is an attractive fun substance used to keep celebrities creative. Absolutely two completely different drugs. </irony>
  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Bert Glanstron
    Bert Glanstron:
    frits:
    MotherMaker:
    frits:
    BabbyFormer:
    gilhad:
    Larry:
    TRWTF is he went ahead and asked about kids after the guy already said he wasn't married.
    I live with my GF and we are not married. We talked about having childs, but we decided not to. But having child is possible even without being married.
    You is now how is babby formed?
    Ask you're parents, lol. </yahoo_answer>
    You'r mom showed me.

    My Mom is dead, you necrophiliac.

    You are an idiot and should be banned from your daddy's modem.
    FTFY Bert.
  • ???????? (unregistered)

    What, 4 pages of comments and no joke on the Chief Family Officer?

  • (cs) in reply to Remy Martin

    Child support is basically the modern-day debtor's prison. If you're the breadwinner (usually the man is the guy, regardless of income), basically the judge places a summary judgment against you to pay support and restrict your movement, as if you'd committed a crime by getting a divorce. At least in NJ, they don't care why you missed a payment. I know someone who was taken to the hospital for what turned out to be a life-threatening condition and was there a few weeks. In a reasonable civilization, said person would simply be expected to catch up on the payments. In NJ, they send the state police to arrest you as soon as you're released from the hospital. Why this is considered OK, even though it hurts both the person providing support and his family, I don't know. I guess it's just another example of "zero tolerance" being a failed ideology.

    I doubt that this is what happened with our IT convict here, but it's something to think about WRT "deadbeat dads".

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to bill
    bill:
    Wait, crack and cocaine are two different things now?
    Yes they are (and they always have been, no "now" about it). Crack is the freebase form of cocaine which, unlike regular coke, can be smoked. It is the same underlying psychoactive substance but with a markedly different chemical form so it is perfectly reasonable to refer to them as "different things". Trust me, crack is a far more dangerous substance because the potential for addiction is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher than cocaine (speaking from experience).
  • boog (unregistered) in reply to Markp

    Wow. You're so delusional, it's not even funny.

    I would like you to go to a mother that is working 3 jobs to support her child and tell her she's failing in her responsibility to her child.
    a) If she has 3 jobs and still can't pay the bills, something's wrong. Those jobs don't pay enough, don't give enough hours, or she's blowing all that money on something unnecessary. b) Why should she expect to retain the child? Do you get to keep your car/house/anything if you can't afford the payments on it? Heck, if I own the car but can't afford gas, I'm not entitled to drive it or receive a handout for it.
    You can't punish the entire family for the father walking away.
    So you only punish the father? That's a great way to endear a paternal relationship: incite resentment against his wife/kid.
    You act as if institutionalizing the child generally worked out well for those children.
    It does. Numerous research studies have proven it. The number one factor was the age at which they were admitted.

Leave a comment on “The Interesting Resume, The Insecure Resume, and More”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article