The Daily WTF: Curious Perversions in Information Technology
Welcome to TDWTF Forums Sign in | Join | Help
in Search

My company is so cheap ...

Last post 03-19-2012 3:28 PM by tweek. 93 replies.
Page 2 of 2 (94 items) < Previous 1 2
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 03-13-2012 2:34 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    DeLos:
    AndyCanfield:

    Every month the office manager would issue every employee two rolls of toilet paper. That's all you got. Store it in your desk, take it with you when you go in, bring it with you when you go out. Crap a lot and you had to go buy your own.

    This seems illegal to me. Or at least very easily sueable. First the embarrassment of people knowing where you were headed and for what. And what about if you had a stomach bug and needed the facilities more often than usual? It's just not right.
    I would agree that it's a dumb thing to do, but now I want to punch you in the throat for suggesting a lawsuit is a reasonable remedy.
    I denounce myself for this post
  • 03-13-2012 2:38 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    DeLos:
    AndyCanfield:

    Every month the office manager would issue every employee two rolls of toilet paper. That's all you got. Store it in your desk, take it with you when you go in, bring it with you when you go out. Crap a lot and you had to go buy your own.

    This seems illegal to me. Or at least very easily sueable. First the embarrassment of people knowing where you were headed and for what. And what about if you had a stomach bug and needed the facilities more often than usual? It's just not right.
    What's not right is that those of us who work from home have to buy our own toilet paper. It's not like I can run to the office every time I have to drop a deuce.

    Let the healing begin!

  • I may not agree with everything Morbs just said, but he expresses himself in a way that is dignified, respectful, polite and non-threatening!
  • 03-13-2012 2:56 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    morbiuswilters:
    You know, they probably have a cream for that...

  • 03-13-2012 3:18 PM In reply to

    • serguey123
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on 09-30-2010
    • Candyland (formely known as Corruptsylvania)
    • Posts 1,824

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    morbiuswilters:
    It's not like I can run to the office every time I have to drop a deuce.

    You sound jealous

    #100085 +(531)- [X]

    <jome> I suppose there are bad coders, there are really bad coders, there are fucking retards, and there's coders writing lines like this: $resultscode = $resultscode - 0;


  • 03-13-2012 4:21 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    jetcitywoman:

    I've long wondered why companies can provide toilet paper to employees as a basic need, but rarely provide feminine products in the women's bathrooms for the very same reason. Some make us bring our own, most will provide them but only in insert-a-quarter dispensing machines...  That are usually broken or empty; they'll happily steal your quarters but not dispense the product.  I tell you they're the cheapest possible mechanical devices that don't even have the programming of your average vending machine.  

    I guess I won't get much sympathy from the all-male contingent here, but I had to add my rant to this.

    You've been watching '2 Broke Girls' again, haven't you?  I watched an episode with the wife this year and most of what you say here was on it.

  • 03-13-2012 10:40 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    pitchingchris:
    jetcitywoman:

    I've long wondered why companies can provide toilet paper to employees as a basic need, but rarely provide feminine products in the women's bathrooms for the very same reason. Some make us bring our own, most will provide them but only in insert-a-quarter dispensing machines...  That are usually broken or empty; they'll happily steal your quarters but not dispense the product.  I tell you they're the cheapest possible mechanical devices that don't even have the programming of your average vending machine.  

    I guess I won't get much sympathy from the all-male contingent here, but I had to add my rant to this.

    You've been watching writing '2 Broke Girls' again, haven't you?  I watched an episode with the wife this year and most of what you say here was on it.

     

    FTFY

     

    Certified Internet Engineer (CIE)

  • 03-14-2012 12:53 AM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    RTapeLoadingError:

    pitchingchris:
    jetcitywoman:

    I've long wondered why companies can provide toilet paper to employees as a basic need, but rarely provide feminine products in the women's bathrooms for the very same reason. Some make us bring our own, most will provide them but only in insert-a-quarter dispensing machines...  That are usually broken or empty; they'll happily steal your quarters but not dispense the product.  I tell you they're the cheapest possible mechanical devices that don't even have the programming of your average vending machine.  

    I guess I won't get much sympathy from the all-male contingent here, but I had to add my rant to this.

    You've been watching writing watching '2 Broke Girls, 1 cup' again, haven't you?  I watched an episode with the wife this year and most of what you say here was on it.

     

    FTFY

     

    FTFY.

    Let the healing begin!

  • I may not agree with everything Morbs just said, but he expresses himself in a way that is dignified, respectful, polite and non-threatening!
  • 03-14-2012 5:05 AM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

     2 girls, 1 broken cup.


    In complex analysis, a meromorphic function on an open subset D of the complex plane is a function that is holomorphic on all D except a set of isolated points

  • 03-14-2012 10:08 AM In reply to

    • PJH
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 02-14-2007
    • Newcastle, UK
    • Posts 3,913

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    Government Gridlock Leads To Toilet Paper Shortage In Trenton
    Trenton’s Health Department could shut down some city buildings if a toilet paper shortage isn’t resolved soon.

    [...]

    The toilet paper and paper towel supply for at least 11 buildings, including City Hall, are dangerously low.

    “We have one box with about 15 rolls of toilet paper and that’s it,” acting Public Works Director Harold Hall said.

    Hall says a City Council resolution to order more paper supplies, including paper cups, was voted down. [...]

    "Because you watched 'The Very Hungry Caterpillar,' we recommend 'The Human Centipede.'"
    --
    UED - Countryside: To kill Piers Morgan
  • Parp!
  • 03-14-2012 12:42 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    blakeyrat:
    "old windows are thicker at the bottom because glass slowly melts".
    Well to be more specific, it never was a solid in the first place.  It's a highly viscous liquid, and thus sags, but it takes many years.  My house is 100 years old with (what I think are) original windows, and I never noticed them being thicker at the bottom than the top.  Maybe if you go to colonial Williamsburg and they have some original windows stil.
    blakeyrat:
    the misconceptions are flying around like crazy this week
    Like Mac and Cheese being dinner.

    SpectateSwamp exposing aliens. Obviously the World needs SSDS


    [10:07] <fatdog> so from now on.. be sure to wear nice clean underwear
    [10:07] <mps> fatdog: That is simply not going to happen
  • 03-14-2012 12:45 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    belgariontheking:
    blakeyrat:
    "old windows are thicker at the bottom because glass slowly melts".
    Well to be more specific, it never was a solid in the first place.  It's a highly viscous liquid, and thus sags, but it takes many years.  My house is 100 years old with (what I think are) original windows, and I never noticed them being thicker at the bottom than the top.  Maybe if you go to colonial Williamsburg and they have some original windows stil
    ...

    ...

    I just...

    *sigh*

  • 03-14-2012 1:05 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    belgariontheking:

    blakeyrat:
    "old windows are thicker at the bottom because glass slowly melts".
    Well to be more specific, it never was a solid in the first place.  It's a highly viscous liquid, and thus sags, but it takes many years.  My house is 100 years old with (what I think are) original windows, and I never noticed them being thicker at the bottom than the top.  Maybe if you go to colonial Williamsburg and they have some original windows stil.

     

     

    NO. STOP IT.


    In complex analysis, a meromorphic function on an open subset D of the complex plane is a function that is holomorphic on all D except a set of isolated points

  • 03-14-2012 1:36 PM In reply to

    • serguey123
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on 09-30-2010
    • Candyland (formely known as Corruptsylvania)
    • Posts 1,824

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    belgariontheking:

    blakeyrat:
    "old windows are thicker at the bottom because glass slowly melts".
    Well to be more specific, it never was a solid in the first place.  It's a highly viscous liquid, and thus sags, but it takes many years.  My house is 100 years old with (what I think are) original windows, and I never noticed them being thicker at the bottom than the top.  Maybe if you go to colonial Williamsburg and they have some original windows stil.

    Awesome!
    This site is a fountain of factual knowlodge!

    Have you decided on a wiki article about this?  The world must know!

    #100085 +(531)- [X]

    <jome> I suppose there are bad coders, there are really bad coders, there are fucking retards, and there's coders writing lines like this: $resultscode = $resultscode - 0;


  • 03-14-2012 1:43 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    dhromed:
    NO. STOP IT.
    Well I wasn't planning on going to colonial Williamsburg, but I suppose I can halt my plans.

    The things I do for ... wait, you're dhromed?  avatar changes are confusing!

    Fuckit, I'm going to Williamsburg.

    SpectateSwamp exposing aliens. Obviously the World needs SSDS


    [10:07] <fatdog> so from now on.. be sure to wear nice clean underwear
    [10:07] <mps> fatdog: That is simply not going to happen
  • 03-14-2012 2:38 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    the first damn paragraph wiki
  • 03-14-2012 3:12 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    dhromed:
    NO. STOP IT.
     

    You can't stop IT.  It'll keep going, and going, and going . . . new technologies will be developed to make our lives easier, then we'll have to have people to maintain those things that make our lives easier, then we'll find that the things that made our lives easier are actually more complicated and we don't need them, but we're used to them so we'll keep making things that are more complicated and need more people to maintain these technologies that make our lives easier . . . really, all the problems really started with that damn Coke bottle.

     

  • 03-14-2012 3:48 PM In reply to

    • Anketam
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 10-12-2011
    • Nar Shaddaa
    • Posts 484

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    swayde:
    the first damn paragraph wiki

    Thank you for causing me to lose an hour of my life.  I will have to complain about one of the misconceptions:

    Contrary to a widespread perception, the real number 0.999...—where the decimal point is followed by an infinite sequence of nines—is exactly equal to 1.[283] They are two different ways of writing the same real number.[284] A 2009 study by Weller et al.[285] states that "Tall and Schwarzenberger (1978) asked first year university mathematics students whether 0.999... is equal to 1. The majority of the students thought that 0.999... is less than 1." Weller et al. go on to describe their own controlled experiment, performed "during the 2005 fall semester at a major research university in the southern United States. Pre-service elementary and middle school teachers from all five sections of a sophomore-level mathematics content course on number and operation participated in the study. [...] On the question of whether .999...=1, 72% of the control group and 83% of the experimental group expressed their view that .999... is not equal to 1." To help understand that it is the case, consider that 1/3 (or .333...) + 1/3 (.333...) + 1/3 (.333...) equals 1 as well as .999 (repeating).
    The problem with the 1/3 argument is that base-10 is a horrible base to be using to representing 1/3 and thus is inherrently flawed when encountering repeating numbers.  If they used base-12 it would be 0.4.  The better argument would be to use the 1/infinity = 0.  So if you have an infinite number of 9s after the decimal you would be approaching 1 just like how 1/infinity approaches 0.

    Project Manager: I don't know. I'm not allowed to talk directly to the customer. Apparently my grip on reality is too tight.
    - Weng
  • 03-14-2012 4:25 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    Anketam:
    I will have to complain about one of the misconceptions:
    Hey how about instead of saying that here, you go to Wiki's discussion page and start up a nice little brawl with that ball of pedantic dickweedery? ... then come back here and post the results, which will probably be hilarious.
      <-  I couldn't make my shit work, so here's a Godzilla head.
  • 03-14-2012 4:45 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    Anketam:
    The problem with the 1/3 argument is that base-10 is a horrible base to be using to representing 1/3 and thus is inherrently flawed when encountering repeating numbers.  If they used base-12 it would be 0.4.  The better argument would be to use the 1/infinity = 0.  So if you have an infinite number of 9s after the decimal you would be approaching 1 just like how 1/infinity approaches 0.

    So, you start by saying "the problem with..." but then you never mention an actual problem. The example was explicitly meant to demonstrate a problem with decimal representations that most people are already familiar with. Your infinity argument is wrong. With an " infinite number of 9s after the decimal" you do not approach one at all, except inasmuch as you have the number one. Now, if you consider the sequence of numbers, 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ..., then that sequence approaches the number one. But your argument is still wrong the way you said it.

    The proof, as I first encountered it, went something like this:

    1) x = 0.999_
    2) 10x = 9.999_
    3) 9x = 9.999_ - x
    4) 9x = 9.999_ - 0.999_
    5) 9x = 9
    6) x = 1
    

    Whenever infinity shows up, you generally should ignore your intuition about how things work, because they generally work differently when infinity shows up.

    I denounce myself for this post
  • 03-14-2012 5:54 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    boomzilla is right.  So is the wiki page.

  • 03-14-2012 9:06 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    boomzilla:
    Anketam:
    The problem with the 1/3 argument is that base-10 is a horrible base to be using to representing 1/3 and thus is inherrently flawed when encountering repeating numbers.  If they used base-12 it would be 0.4.  The better argument would be to use the 1/infinity = 0.  So if you have an infinite number of 9s after the decimal you would be approaching 1 just like how 1/infinity approaches 0.

    So, you start by saying "the problem with..." but then you never mention an actual problem. The example was explicitly meant to demonstrate a problem with decimal representations that most people are already familiar with. Your infinity argument is wrong. With an " infinite number of 9s after the decimal" you do not approach one at all, except inasmuch as you have the number one. Now, if you consider the sequence of numbers, 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ..., then that sequence approaches the number one. But your argument is still wrong the way you said it.

     

    Please stop it.

    Now.

    Before someone decides to tell us why zero is neither even nor odd.

     

  • 03-14-2012 9:17 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    da Doctah:

    Please stop it.

    Now.

    Before someone decides to tell us why zero is neither even nor odd.

    Actually, I was afraid someone would notice that right under the 0.999_ misconception was....The Monty Hall problem! That never fails to amuse with probabilistic beclownment.
    I denounce myself for this post
  • 03-15-2012 2:52 AM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    boomzilla:
    I was afraid someone would notice that right under the 0.999_ misconception was....The Monty Hall problem!
     

    You're the kind of guy who goes around saying "Voldemort" right out loud in public, aren't you?

  • 03-15-2012 8:52 AM In reply to

    • Anketam
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 10-12-2011
    • Nar Shaddaa
    • Posts 484

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    boomzilla:
    Anketam:
    The problem with the 1/3 argument is that base-10 is a horrible base to be using to representing 1/3 and thus is inherrently flawed when encountering repeating numbers.  If they used base-12 it would be 0.4.  The better argument would be to use the 1/infinity = 0.  So if you have an infinite number of 9s after the decimal you would be approaching 1 just like how 1/infinity approaches 0.

    So, you start by saying "the problem with..." but then you never mention an actual problem. The example was explicitly meant to demonstrate a problem with decimal representations that most people are already familiar with. Your infinity argument is wrong. With an " infinite number of 9s after the decimal" you do not approach one at all, except inasmuch as you have the number one. Now, if you consider the sequence of numbers, 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ..., then that sequence approaches the number one. But your argument is still wrong the way you said it.

    The proof, as I first encountered it, went something like this:

    1) x = 0.999_
    2) 10x = 9.999_
    3) 9x = 9.999_ - x
    4) 9x = 9.999_ - 0.999_
    5) 9x = 9
    6) x = 1
    

    Whenever infinity shows up, you generally should ignore your intuition about how things work, because they generally work differently when infinity shows up.

    My issue was not with the misconception, but how they went about proving it.  They used 1/3 being 0.3333... and are relying on its repeating number nature to prove their point.  But if you change it to a different counting base like base-12 then it loses that property and the argument is left hanging.  I was suggesting a better way to argue the point and boomzilla you should update the page with your mathmatical proof since that is a far better argument for it.  Latly, I wanted to share my personal pain over this with the rest of you because I care, and I desire for you all to suffer as much as I do.
    Project Manager: I don't know. I'm not allowed to talk directly to the customer. Apparently my grip on reality is too tight.
    - Weng
  • 03-15-2012 9:17 AM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    Anketam:
    My issue was not with the misconception, but how they went about proving it.  They used 1/3 being 0.3333... and are relying on its repeating number nature to prove their point.  But if you change it to a different counting base like base-12 then it loses that property and the argument is left hanging.  I was suggesting a better way to argue the point and boomzilla you should update the page with your mathmatical proof since that is a far better argument for it.

    Yes, and I'm still saying that you're wrong. That's a good way to explain it to someone, because it uses an example that they probably already know about. They have an intuitive sense about the 1/3 argument in a way that a formal proof does not.

    Your insistence on using another radix is just completely stupid. Most people have only the vaguest notion that such things even exist, and probably only know about binary. Bringing this up again just makes you look like you don't know how to communicate, and also that you missed the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT.

    I denounce myself for this post
  • 03-15-2012 10:47 AM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THIS!

    If you have a problem with Wikipedia's page, take it up on Wikipedia. Cripes. This is SO BORING. EVERYBODY IS ASLEEP.

      <-  I couldn't make my shit work, so here's a Godzilla head.
  • 03-15-2012 11:12 AM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    blakeyrat:
    WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THIS!

    This is SO BORING. EVERYBODY IS ASLEEP.

    I think you meant to post this in the discussion about episodic video games.

    HTH. HAND.

    I denounce myself for this post
  • 03-15-2012 11:35 AM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    Hey bitches, here's how it goes down.

    QNTM 1

    And for fun: QNTM 2



    In complex analysis, a meromorphic function on an open subset D of the complex plane is a function that is holomorphic on all D except a set of isolated points

  • 03-15-2012 2:02 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    Anketam:
    My issue was not with the misconception, but how they went about proving it.  They used 1/3 being 0.3333... and are relying on its repeating number nature to prove their point.  But if you change it to a different counting base like base-12 then it loses that property and the argument is left hanging.  I was suggesting a better way to argue the point and boomzilla you should update the page with your mathmatical proof since that is a far better argument for it.  Latly, I wanted to share my personal pain over this with the rest of you because I care, and I desire for you all to suffer as much as I do.

     

    0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B

    1)  x= 0.BBB...

    2)  10X = B.BBB...

    3)  Bx = B.BBB... - x

    4)  Bx = B.BBB... - 0.BBB...

    5)  Bx = B

    6)  B = 1

     

    Works just as well in any base...

  • 03-15-2012 5:26 PM In reply to

    • kc0a
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on 01-20-2009
    • Posts 11

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

     "antipodean infrastructure?"  Australian infrastructure is only antipodean when from Britain.  Perhaps you mean "antediluvian?"  

  • 03-15-2012 5:58 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    kc0a:

     "antipodean infrastructure?"  Australian infrastructure is only antipodean when from Britain.  Perhaps you mean "antediluvian?"  

    You know as well as I that "Antipodean" is often also used to mean "Australia and New Zealand".

    Let the healing begin!

  • I may not agree with everything Morbs just said, but he expresses himself in a way that is dignified, respectful, polite and non-threatening!
  • 03-15-2012 7:31 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    morbiuswilters:
    kc0a:

     "antipodean infrastructure?"  Australian infrastructure is only antipodean when from Britain.  Perhaps you mean "antediluvian?"  

    You know as well as I that "Antipodean" is often also used to mean "Australia and New Zealand".

    That reminds me of this xkcd!



    [Links to xkcd will now be replaced with photos of Rosie O'Donnell. -TheShadowMod]

    [Photos of Rosie O'Donnel will now be replaced with photos of Roseanne.  -btk]

  • 03-15-2012 7:44 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    Sutherlands:
    [Links to xkcd will now be replaced with photos of Rosie O'Donnell. -TheShadowMod]
    Well, it's an improvement...

    Let the healing begin!

  • I may not agree with everything Morbs just said, but he expresses himself in a way that is dignified, respectful, polite and non-threatening!
  • 03-15-2012 11:20 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    Sutherlands:
    Works just as well in any base...
    ... except that you put "B = 1" in the last line instead of "x = 1".
  • 03-16-2012 10:07 AM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    morbiuswilters:
    Sutherlands:
    [Links to xkcd will now be replaced with photos of Rosie O'Donnell. -TheShadowMod]
    Well, it's an improvement...
     

    He seems like a cool guy.


    In complex analysis, a meromorphic function on an open subset D of the complex plane is a function that is holomorphic on all D except a set of isolated points

  • 03-16-2012 10:11 AM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    dhromed:

    morbiuswilters:
    Sutherlands:
    [Links to xkcd will now be replaced with photos of Rosie O'Donnell. -TheShadowMod]
    Well, it's an improvement...
     

    He seems like a cool guy.

    My thoughts exactly...  A real man's man if you will.
  • 03-16-2012 10:29 AM In reply to

    • PJH
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 02-14-2007
    • Newcastle, UK
    • Posts 3,913

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    C-Octothorpe:

    dhromed:

    morbiuswilters:
    Sutherlands:
    [Links to xkcd will now be replaced with photos of Rosie O'Donnell. -TheShadowMod]
    Well, it's an improvement...
     

    He seems like a cool guy.

    My thoughts exactly...  A real man's man if you will.
    Looks a bit rough to me:
    "Because you watched 'The Very Hungry Caterpillar,' we recommend 'The Human Centipede.'"
    --
    UED - Countryside: To kill Piers Morgan
  • Parp!
  • 03-16-2012 10:53 AM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    PJH:
    C-Octothorpe:

    dhromed:

    morbiuswilters:
    Sutherlands:
    [Links to xkcd will now be replaced with photos of Rosie O'Donnell. -TheShadowMod]
    Well, it's an improvement...
     

    He seems like a cool guy.

    My thoughts exactly...  A real man's man if you will.
    Looks a bit rough to me: <snipped horrible, HORRIBLE picture>
    I am now going to have to find you and stab you in the forehead with a rusty fork...  Thanks to you, I see that image every time I close my eyes.  [weeps silently]
  • 03-16-2012 4:31 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    TheShadowMod:
    [Links to xkcd will now be replaced with photos of Rosie O'Donnell.]
     

    The only problem with this is that we can no longer tell which pictures of Ms O'Donnell were posted in their own right and which are placeholders for XKCD comics.

    Certified Internet Engineer (CIE)

  • 03-16-2012 6:07 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    RTapeLoadingError:

    TheShadowMod:
    [Links to xkcd will now be replaced with photos of Rosie O'Donnell.]
     

    The only problem with this is that we can no longer tell which pictures of Ms O'Donnell were posted in their own right and which are placeholders for XKCD comics.

    Haha, that reminds me of this one:



    [Replaced photo of Rosie O'Donnell with a random xkcd strip, per TDWTF Forums Bylaw 285, § Q, Subsection Δ. -TheShadowMod]
  • 03-16-2012 6:29 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    RTapeLoadingError:

    TheShadowMod:
    [Links to xkcd will now be replaced with photos of Rosie O'Donnell.]
     

    The only problem with this is that we can no longer tell which pictures of Ms O'Donnell were posted in their own right and which are placeholders for XKCD comics.

    The obvious solution: photos of Rosie O'Donnell should be replaced with a random xkcd.

    Let the healing begin!

  • I may not agree with everything Morbs just said, but he expresses himself in a way that is dignified, respectful, polite and non-threatening!
  • 03-16-2012 6:29 PM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    Sutherlands:

    RTapeLoadingError:

    TheShadowMod:
    [Links to xkcd will now be replaced with photos of Rosie O'Donnell.]
     

    The only problem with this is that we can no longer tell which pictures of Ms O'Donnell were posted in their own right and which are placeholders for XKCD comics.

    Haha, that reminds me of this one:

    D:

    Let the healing begin!

  • I may not agree with everything Morbs just said, but he expresses himself in a way that is dignified, respectful, polite and non-threatening!
  • 03-17-2012 4:25 AM In reply to

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    Younger Rosie?


  • 03-19-2012 3:28 PM In reply to

    • tweek
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on 08-22-2011
    • Posts 71

    Re: My company is so cheap ...

    nonpartisan:

    dhromed:
    NO. STOP IT.
     

    You can't stop IT.

    Hullo, this is IT, have you tried turning it off and on again?

    The elders of the internet have allowed you to use this for your speech.
Page 2 of 2 (94 items) < Previous 1 2
Powered by Community Server (Non-Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems