Posted by colonels19 on 8/23/2015 11:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/23/2015 10:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by colonels19 on 8/23/2015 10:54:00 AM (view original):
Because the "quotes" are getting ridiculously large...shawnfoolish said...

"If there's not enough work, then most times that means someone isn't doing their job somewhere.

If I ever have nothing to do, it always means it's because I was very productive, because there is a lot to do.

If you have no work to do and you ask for more work to do and none can be provided, you aren't stealing anything. You've done what you can to be productive."

Your first sentence doesn't make sense.  You have a really bad habit of not making sense.  You're a pompous *** and comments like these continually prove it.  I highly doubt you've ever asked for more work to do, IJS.

Please do not resort to changing my username to something else in a ridiculous attempt to insult me. It only serves to show your insecurity.

What part of my sentence do you not understand? I ask because there is nothing wrong with the statement - it makes perfect sense.

None of my comments lead to any logical conclusion I'm being pompous. You are making that up because you disagree with me but have no substance behind said disagreement. You are aware you have nothing to support your disagreement so you attack me personally instead of just leaving it alone. So please, just stop.

Don't be foolish, Shawn...you know that first sentence doesn't make sense.  How does you not having enough work mean that someone else is messing up?  I mean, ltm...don't be foolish.......

Again, the first sentence makes perfect sense.

If  you don't have enough work to do, it often means someone else isn't doing their job. Yes, there are often other factors involved, but it's a simple concept at its core, example f the sales staff isn't selling well enough, the people who produce the product aren't going to have as much to produce.

Is that really so difficult to understand? Or are you being deliberately obtuse because you disagree with me but have no real argument?

Posted by possumfiend on 8/24/2015 1:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/23/2015 10:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by possumfiend on 8/23/2015 12:20:00 PM (view original):
shawnfucious, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here in this thread? I can come up with a whole slew of reasons on my own but my reasons are all conjecture. Seriously, what is your endgame? What do you hope will come from all of this?

I'm simply responding to the topic at hand and then to the comments that are made.

Yes, but why?

Why does anyone post or respond to anyone? Why do we communicate with one another?

Are you really going metaphysical on the idea of why people post on message boards and respond to one another?

Posted by fd343ny on 8/24/2015 9:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/21/2015 9:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 8/21/2015 9:52:00 AM (view original):
is it wrong - morally - for WIS to provide the alternative site?

for those who regard it as stealing when one handles personnel matters while at work, is WIS enabling or assisting that theft?  

And are those who patronize WIS supporting an enabler of theft?  follow the money, does the bright line of wrongdoing reach WIS and WIS patrons?

It is WIS job to ensure you have the best access to their site so you will remain a loyal customer.

I'm not sure who said they regard personal matters as stealing. I didn't notice anyone post that particular line of reasoning.

However, if your employer has not given you permission to use their equipment/connection to play games and you do so anyway, then you are stealing. While WIS is providing the access, it is your choice to use it in a manner which is stealing from your employer.

The same reasoning can be applied to other situations. Budweiser is not responsible for every drunk driver who consumed their beer to get drunk. McDonald's is not responsible for obesity and heart attacks because people who ate there are fat or die of cardiac arrest.

Those people are responsible for their own choices - and so the people stealing from their employer are responsible for theirs as well.

not a compelling answer here

shawn continues - I assume - to patronize WIS despite his view that the mirror site is a method that enables stealing by others.  Does it have another purpose - in shawn world view?  Enabling and supporting stealing must be at least as wrong as stealing.  Is it any different from someone who comes into shawn's workplace and provides a way for people to loaf undetected?

By the way, personal matters would be covered by a host of shawn posts that insist that workers should devote 100 percent of their attention to work.  Is there a moral difference between not working while playing WIS or not working while knitting on the job?  Surely the mere use of the device isnt the moral difference.

But that is detail

I wonder whether anyone other than shawn plays WIS at his workplace?

WIS is not responsible for how you use the mirror sites or whether that is something your company/boss/other authority is okay with.

Neither is anyone who uses WIS responsible for your choices/behaviors.

These are simple concepts that usually only need taught to young children.

Posted by Benis on 8/24/2015 6:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by the0nlyis on 8/23/2015 11:08:00 PM (view original):
there is absolutely 0 people in the world giving 100% effort into their job, it is impossible to give 100% at your job at any point in time.  Shawn I gaurentee you do not give 100% every single second you are on the job.

I assume you take at least 1 if not 2 or 3 bathroom breaks, sorry you don't give 100% when you go to the bathroom you can hold it in until you go on break or go home.  Sorry you went on break?  I bet we could find someone willing to do your job with no breaks.  Oh you yawned this morning, probably 2 seconds wasted at work, you shouldnt waste time yawning.

You views are delusional and unpopular, its honestly just amazing and hilariously funny to ready every new post you submit.

I think this sums up why everyone is arguing with Shawn. No one believes it's possible to give 100% every single day of your life.

@Shawn don't you have brief, casual conversations sometimes at work? Or does that simply not happen with you? Here's an example of how I imagine it-

Employee- "Hello Boss. How was your weekend? You went to the lake with the wife and kids right? How'd the weather hold up for you?"
Shawn- "Go away! I have work to do!" *slams door*

Casual conversations that have nothing to do with work are for break time, before work, or after work. If an employee were asking me those odd and hypothetical questions, it would be during one of those times.

Perhaps this is why so many American businesses feel it necessary to cut back on employee perks other countries don't mind using - too many workers are wasting time with casual conversation during work times. If they stopped doing that, the company might be productive enough that they could get four or more weeks of vacation instead of just two.

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/24/2015 7:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/24/2015 6:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by the0nlyis on 8/23/2015 11:08:00 PM (view original):
there is absolutely 0 people in the world giving 100% effort into their job, it is impossible to give 100% at your job at any point in time.  Shawn I gaurentee you do not give 100% every single second you are on the job.

I assume you take at least 1 if not 2 or 3 bathroom breaks, sorry you don't give 100% when you go to the bathroom you can hold it in until you go on break or go home.  Sorry you went on break?  I bet we could find someone willing to do your job with no breaks.  Oh you yawned this morning, probably 2 seconds wasted at work, you shouldnt waste time yawning.

You views are delusional and unpopular, its honestly just amazing and hilariously funny to ready every new post you submit.

I think this sums up why everyone is arguing with Shawn. No one believes it's possible to give 100% every single day of your life.

@Shawn don't you have brief, casual conversations sometimes at work? Or does that simply not happen with you? Here's an example of how I imagine it-

Employee- "Hello Boss. How was your weekend? You went to the lake with the wife and kids right? How'd the weather hold up for you?"
Shawn- "Go away! I have work to do!" *slams door*

i think its actually because hes condescending to everyone, saying its ridiculous anyone is checking HD at work, when he knows nothing of anyone else's situation.

Except I've never been condescending to anyone.

You are adding that in on your own and taking it that way because you disagree but have no reason to back it up, so you feel as if you must somehow be offended at the thought someone disagrees with you.

I don't need to know every single person situation to know how I feel about the idea in general, and to think I do is absurd.

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/24/2015 7:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/23/2015 10:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/23/2015 5:28:00 PM (view original):
the guy already admitted he was wrong, let's just move on

Who admitted they were wrong? Please quote or link this, as I haven't seen anyone do so yet.

you didn't explicitly admit you were wrong, but all the pieces are there. you initially took a position, and agreed with future statements in direct conflict. you didn't explicitly admit fault but you walked back on the original statement nonetheless which is really enough for me. my point is made, your is in tatters. 

to clarify -
paraphrasing, your initial position was nobody should be playing games at work, that it was improper and somewhat mind boggling that anyone would do that, and more, that those doing it were at fault.

later, you agreed if it was allowable at work to play on break, there was absolutely nothing wrong with it, and also, that you really didn't know anything about if anyone else was in that situation or not. these two stand in direct conflict. there's really nothing more to say, you oversimplified, generalized, and were wrong. you admitted there was more to it, if you won't admit that proves you wrong, well there's really nothing else to say. i won't convince you, and you won't convince me or anyone else that you weren't wrong and that you haven't implicitly admitted it. but trust that its abundantly clear to the rest of us that you are in direct conflict with yourself with that combination of statements.

bottom line - you know nothing of anyone's situation, as you agreed. there are normal (read: in the normal range - i never suggested one normal situation precluded other normal situations, as you incorrectly presumed - i merely was saying its in the normal range, as in, you can't rule out that scenario as a theoretical possibility with fringe real world application. but its not really surprising you did so, given your failure here is trying to impose a black and white paradigm on the complexity that exists in real issues in the real world)  - anyway, there are normal situations in which folks could, without doing wrong, use HD at work. you agreed with this, while nitpicking the use of the word normal in a ridiculous and logically flawed manner. regardless - the combination of the two make it blatantly flawed to suggest that everyone who plays at work is at fault, or at the least, to wonder incredulously how anyone could possibly see fit to log into HD at work. 

its really no more complicated than that.

I never said I was wrong, and no one has made any real argument in that remote direction, let alone a successful one.

There was no initial position and later position - they were always the same. There is no contradiction because nothing changed. You just misunderstood.

You believe I'm wrong, clearly, but other than your insistence - which you've just stated is based upon your own misunderstanding - there is nothing showing I'm wrong.

I stand by my statements, including this one: Those who do not have explicit permission to play games (including HD) by using work equipment/connections are wrong to do so.

If you want it to be simple and not complicated, here it is: You think I'm wrong, but have no argument to show it other than your own insistence based upon your misunderstandings.

Folks, there's an easy solution and it's right under his user name. "Block this user" will definitely be the most productive thing anyone could do at this point.

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/25/2015 8:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 8/24/2015 6:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by the0nlyis on 8/23/2015 11:08:00 PM (view original):
there is absolutely 0 people in the world giving 100% effort into their job, it is impossible to give 100% at your job at any point in time.  Shawn I gaurentee you do not give 100% every single second you are on the job.

I assume you take at least 1 if not 2 or 3 bathroom breaks, sorry you don't give 100% when you go to the bathroom you can hold it in until you go on break or go home.  Sorry you went on break?  I bet we could find someone willing to do your job with no breaks.  Oh you yawned this morning, probably 2 seconds wasted at work, you shouldnt waste time yawning.

You views are delusional and unpopular, its honestly just amazing and hilariously funny to ready every new post you submit.

I think this sums up why everyone is arguing with Shawn. No one believes it's possible to give 100% every single day of your life.

@Shawn don't you have brief, casual conversations sometimes at work? Or does that simply not happen with you? Here's an example of how I imagine it-

Employee- "Hello Boss. How was your weekend? You went to the lake with the wife and kids right? How'd the weather hold up for you?"
Shawn- "Go away! I have work to do!" *slams door*

Casual conversations that have nothing to do with work are for break time, before work, or after work. If an employee were asking me those odd and hypothetical questions, it would be during one of those times.

Perhaps this is why so many American businesses feel it necessary to cut back on employee perks other countries don't mind using - too many workers are wasting time with casual conversation during work times. If they stopped doing that, the company might be productive enough that they could get four or more weeks of vacation instead of just two.

Why is it odd to ask someone how their weekend was? That's perfectly normal. It's called relationship building. A LOT of managers lack this skill.

I work with people that are located in other countries, including my boss. When we talk on the phone my boss and I will often spend a few minutes chatting about how things are going, how the family is, etc. Maybe share a story about some hobby or event. Maybe talk about a sporting event like the World Cup since it's obviously hugely popular in Europe. ?Ya know, actual normal human interaction. ?

Just to reiterate, these people are not from the US. And their behavior is exactly like the ones we're describing as normal and what you're saying is wrong with America. Perhaps you should change this to saying, "this is what's wrong with the entire world". If that is indeed your position.
 

But okay fine, you clearly don't see this and never will. So have fun with your office full of robots.

WIS, please close this thread.

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/25/2015 9:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/24/2015 7:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/23/2015 10:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/23/2015 5:28:00 PM (view original):
the guy already admitted he was wrong, let's just move on

Who admitted they were wrong? Please quote or link this, as I haven't seen anyone do so yet.

you didn't explicitly admit you were wrong, but all the pieces are there. you initially took a position, and agreed with future statements in direct conflict. you didn't explicitly admit fault but you walked back on the original statement nonetheless which is really enough for me. my point is made, your is in tatters. 

to clarify -
paraphrasing, your initial position was nobody should be playing games at work, that it was improper and somewhat mind boggling that anyone would do that, and more, that those doing it were at fault.

later, you agreed if it was allowable at work to play on break, there was absolutely nothing wrong with it, and also, that you really didn't know anything about if anyone else was in that situation or not. these two stand in direct conflict. there's really nothing more to say, you oversimplified, generalized, and were wrong. you admitted there was more to it, if you won't admit that proves you wrong, well there's really nothing else to say. i won't convince you, and you won't convince me or anyone else that you weren't wrong and that you haven't implicitly admitted it. but trust that its abundantly clear to the rest of us that you are in direct conflict with yourself with that combination of statements.

bottom line - you know nothing of anyone's situation, as you agreed. there are normal (read: in the normal range - i never suggested one normal situation precluded other normal situations, as you incorrectly presumed - i merely was saying its in the normal range, as in, you can't rule out that scenario as a theoretical possibility with fringe real world application. but its not really surprising you did so, given your failure here is trying to impose a black and white paradigm on the complexity that exists in real issues in the real world)  - anyway, there are normal situations in which folks could, without doing wrong, use HD at work. you agreed with this, while nitpicking the use of the word normal in a ridiculous and logically flawed manner. regardless - the combination of the two make it blatantly flawed to suggest that everyone who plays at work is at fault, or at the least, to wonder incredulously how anyone could possibly see fit to log into HD at work. 

its really no more complicated than that.

I never said I was wrong, and no one has made any real argument in that remote direction, let alone a successful one.

There was no initial position and later position - they were always the same. There is no contradiction because nothing changed. You just misunderstood.

You believe I'm wrong, clearly, but other than your insistence - which you've just stated is based upon your own misunderstanding - there is nothing showing I'm wrong.

I stand by my statements, including this one: Those who do not have explicit permission to play games (including HD) by using work equipment/connections are wrong to do so.

If you want it to be simple and not complicated, here it is: You think I'm wrong, but have no argument to show it other than your own insistence based upon your misunderstandings.

I suppose the opposing view could be this though Shawn:  You think you're right, but have no argument to show it other than your own insistence based upon your own opinions and feelings of the matter in question and the policies of YOUR own place of employment.

Posted by backboy13 on 8/25/2015 12:50:00 PM (view original):
WIS, please close this thread.

lulz, nobody is making you click on it this thread and read it.

Posted by nachopuzzle on 8/25/2015 3:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by backboy13 on 8/25/2015 12:50:00 PM (view original):
WIS, please close this thread.

lulz, nobody is making you click on it this thread and read it.

Agreed.  I'm curious to see if this takes another twist or turn.  It's actually been one of the more interesting "debates" on the boards in quite some time.

Really, the thought that someone can give 100% effort for every second of every work day is beyond ludicrous.  Nobody, nobody is that robotic.

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/25/2015 8:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 8/24/2015 9:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/21/2015 9:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 8/21/2015 9:52:00 AM (view original):
is it wrong - morally - for WIS to provide the alternative site?

for those who regard it as stealing when one handles personnel matters while at work, is WIS enabling or assisting that theft?  

And are those who patronize WIS supporting an enabler of theft?  follow the money, does the bright line of wrongdoing reach WIS and WIS patrons?

It is WIS job to ensure you have the best access to their site so you will remain a loyal customer.

I'm not sure who said they regard personal matters as stealing. I didn't notice anyone post that particular line of reasoning.

However, if your employer has not given you permission to use their equipment/connection to play games and you do so anyway, then you are stealing. While WIS is providing the access, it is your choice to use it in a manner which is stealing from your employer.

The same reasoning can be applied to other situations. Budweiser is not responsible for every drunk driver who consumed their beer to get drunk. McDonald's is not responsible for obesity and heart attacks because people who ate there are fat or die of cardiac arrest.

Those people are responsible for their own choices - and so the people stealing from their employer are responsible for theirs as well.

not a compelling answer here

shawn continues - I assume - to patronize WIS despite his view that the mirror site is a method that enables stealing by others.  Does it have another purpose - in shawn world view?  Enabling and supporting stealing must be at least as wrong as stealing.  Is it any different from someone who comes into shawn's workplace and provides a way for people to loaf undetected?

By the way, personal matters would be covered by a host of shawn posts that insist that workers should devote 100 percent of their attention to work.  Is there a moral difference between not working while playing WIS or not working while knitting on the job?  Surely the mere use of the device isnt the moral difference.

But that is detail

I wonder whether anyone other than shawn plays WIS at his workplace?

WIS is not responsible for how you use the mirror sites or whether that is something your company/boss/other authority is okay with.

Neither is anyone who uses WIS responsible for your choices/behaviors.

These are simple concepts that usually only need taught to young children.

now the "young children" remark is condescending 

and as a moral matter I dont think your reasoning holds water

consider this thought experiement - if someone created a web site that permitted shawn's workers to evade the safeguards that keep them from personal use of office equipment and require them to work every minute except during authorized breaks - and IF that web site had no purpose other than to assist such evasion - that would be moral in the shawn view of the world - because the maker of such a web site has no responsibility for how it is used?  thats really your view?

Communication 101: the sender puts out a message and the receiver is the one that gets to interpret and put meaning to that message. It is up to the sender to clarify the position when it goes widely misunderstood. As the sender you did a very poor job communicating your point.

I'm not going to spend the time to go back through this thread but at one point you said it was okay to take a quick personal phone call. Not just the emergency one but the quick, yet seldom call. By your own definition you have not given 100% 100% of the time.