OT: bearishgurl should clean up her act or go

User Forum Topic
Submitted by zk on November 24, 2014 - 5:47pm

I was tired of clogging up other threads pointing out bg’s fabrications, so I’ve created a thread just for that purpose.

Is this really what we want on our forum? Somebody who consistently and persistently makes stuff up? Someone who lies?

I’m not advocating immediately banning bg. She can sometimes be a valuable contributor. But I think that she needs to be warned to stop making stuff up, and then be booted if she won’t comply.

The below is just one post’s worth of fabrications. There is so much more out there, and if anybody thinks this isn’t enough, I’ll bring more.

bearishgurl wrote:

YOU already gave me (and whoever else who wants to bite, lol) plenty to ammunition to make fun of your situation (as you describe it here)


Bg, you making fun of what I say isn’t the problem. The problem is you making stuff up that I didn’t say and then making fun of that

bearishgurl wrote:

all the while vociferously berating people simply because they state here that they don't like to be surrounded by untidiness or filth (I'm not a perfect housekeeper but I AM firmly in the FIH/brian camp).

I may have berated someone for judging others for their messiness. But I did not berate anybody because “they don't like to be surrounded by untidiness or filth.” You can’t show me that because I didn’t say it. You made that up.

In fact, I never even mentioned dirt or filth except to say that it’s different from messiness.

bearishgurl wrote:

zk, you actually stated earlier in this thread that you believe it is essentially okay that you are messy, sloppy, whatever, because you don't cheat on your spouse, you aren't a spendthrift and aren't a rapist or pedophile, none of which has anything to do with being clean or "tidy."

That is not what I said. You can’t show me where I said that because I didn’t say that. You made that up.

bearishgurl wrote:

YOU yourself brought up all these attributes to compare with being a "messy person" right here on this thread!


I did not bring those attributes up to compare that with being a messy person. I’ve already explained how you “misread” that. For you to ignore that and to continue to insist that I was comparing a messy person to a person with those attributes shows a willful decision to lie.

You can’t show me where I “brought up all these attributes to compare with being a "messy person" right here on this thread! “ because I didn’t do that. You made that up.

bearishgurl wrote:

Later, above, you've stated here that you won't "tidy up" (pick up after yourself) and, "If somebody will do it for (you), perfect."

That’s not what I said. You made that up.
What I said was

“I will clean if I have to (I won’t tidy up, though, generally). I’m messy, but I’m not dirty. I don’t like cleaning, but I do it because I insist on clean. If somebody will do it for me, perfect.”

The “do it for me” refers to cleaning, not tidying. Which would be obvious, except you left out two contextually-important sentences.

bearishgurl wrote:

Glad you hear that you (hopefully) found a partner who will constantly pick up after you.


My wife doesn’t constantly pick up after me. You can’t show me where I said or implied that, because I didn’t. You made that up.
bearishgurl wrote:

Nevermind you can only invite half a dozen people at a time in your (expensive and expansive) back yard, can't have a small super bowl party without a lot of grief afterwards and don't travel anymore (due to your marital status?)

We travel all the time. And I travel with friends. What I said was,

“Perhaps they insisted on the clean, and the tidy just came along with it. That’s how it was for me. When I travel (I should say travelled, it’s different now that I’m married), I didn’t insist on daily room service. But I preferred it so that I didn’t have to clean. I will clean if I have to (I won’t tidy up, though, generally). I’m messy, but I’m not dirty. I don’t like cleaning, but I do it because I insist on clean. If somebody will do it for me, perfect.”

The “it’s different” refers to insisting on daily room service and the messiness of my hotel room. Not whether I travel or not. Now that I’m married, we insist on daily room service. We travel frequently. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one; I can see how it would’ve been misconstrued.

bearishgurl wrote:

To the reader of your posts, it appears that you are clearly paying the price for having a partner who will constantly pick up after you. Whether you are paying a fair price (or not) for that service is in the eye of the beholder.


No, bg, to you, who I’ve made look stupid on several occasions and who is now vindictive, it appears I’m paying the price. I would guess most everyone else reads the posts and sees that I have a happy marriage. One that involves give and take, like all happy marriages do.
bearishgurl wrote:

Don't come here and talk about yourself ad nauseaum and then later backpedal in numerous paragraphs

You can’t show me where I backtracked, because I didn’t. You made that up.
bearishgurl wrote:

trying to defend yourself and say that someone got the wrong idea about you. Nobody did that, least of all me.


As is clearly evidenced by all the incorrect things you’ve said, (in this post and in others) you clearly did get the wrong idea. Not that you’ll ever admit that.
bearishgurl wrote:

You came here and did it to yourself ... all without being prompted or cajoled. You even admitted here that you gave 97% in your relationship


I said I’m 97% neater than I used to be. And then, in the same post, I said,
“So there are disadvantages. But, hey, to make a marriage work, you have to work together and compromise. I do most of the giving in this particular area, but she more than makes up for it in other areas.”
You can’t show me where I said I give 97% in my relationship because I never said that. You made that up.
bearishgurl wrote:

and then later backpedaled and stated you gave only ~45%.

Since I never said I gave 97%, 45% is not a back pedal.
bearishgurl wrote:

I can read your posts and surmise your situation from them just fine as can everyone else.

No, you can’t, bg. You read my posts, then make a bunch of stuff up, and then surmise based on the stuff you’ve made up.
bearishgurl wrote:

If you're happy, zk, then we're all happy for you.

If you think that you can speak for all of the people on this forum, then you’re delusional. I can’t speak for them either, but it would be my guess that not a single person on this forum agrees with what you’ve surmised.
bearishgurl wrote:

Notice that I haven't tried to insult you here

Bg, I would much rather have you insult me than make stuff up about me. Especially if you can back up your insults, as I can.
bearishgurl wrote:

but you have found it necessary to call me numerous names here, including "stupid,"

Stupid I can back up. As I said, not necessarily stupid in the traditional sense of the word. But I think this post illustrates the kind of stupid I’m talking about.
bearishgurl wrote:

as well as telling me, "fvck you," which I'm assuming is another one of your defense mechanisms.


You got me there. That was lame and I shouldn’t have said it. It wasn’t a defense mechanism, though. It was kind of a quote from an incident where a friend of mine bumped into another guy. A big biker guy outside a biker bar. The big guy said, “aren’t you going to say excuse me?” In a nasty tone of voice. So my friend tells me, “I opened my mouth, and I meant to say ‘excuse me.’ But what came out was “fuck you.” I tried to parallel that, but it didn’t work. My bad. (My friend was subsequently decked). What I said was:
Oh, yippee, I’m validated. Oh, wait, that was prickly bitchiness masquerading as support. Well, in that case what I meant was fuck you.

Yeah, it doesn’t really work even if you know the story.

bearishgurl wrote:

I'm about the least "emotional" one can be on this forum.


Wow. If you really think that, you’re worse off than I thought. Clearly you’re not stupid enough to actually think I said all the stuff that you’ve made up that I’ve pointed out in this post (and that you’ve made up in many other posts). You’ve got an emotional issue with me, and you’re trying to make me look bad. If you’re not aware of that, you really do need help.
Think of it this way, bg. Let’s say scaredy had posted the exact same thing I posted. Well, not the exact same thing; he would’ve worded it in a more amusing and poetic way. But let’s say the facts were exactly the same. Would you have read it the way you read it when I wrote it? Would you have responded the same way?
bearishgurl wrote:

As a matter of fact, the opposite can be said about me. I've tried on numerous occasions to inject a semblance of reality into other posters who became "emotional" (or just over-the-top "concerned") about issues for which they were not considering all the facts and/or did not know all the facts. Two examples which come to mind would be rejecting a perfectly decent house on a perfectly decent street because of the presence of a nearby PC 290 registrant in residence or lambasting Pigg krowe (or her case or "misdeeds") when she has not yet been tried in a court of law and has not yet had her day(s) in an administrative tribunal where her employment status will be adjudicated. There have been many other examples over the years. I'm only concerned about how the "system" actually works and how the the world works, NOT how I think it "should be." I don't care how the MSM has chosen to spin their latest "darling" story so it will "sell" to the (largely ignorant and complacent) public.

There may be occasions where you are rational. That doesn’t mean you’re not emotional, and it certainly doesn’t mean you’re the least emotional one can be on this forum. When you get your knickers in a wad, you’re basically a lunatic.
bearishgurl wrote:

zk, your insults to me on this thread don't bother me but are very telling about you.

If you never can see that you’re wrong, of course it’s not going to bother you if somebody calls you stupid.
bearishgurl wrote:

Why don't you endeavor to just stick to the topic at hand

You’ve made the topic at hand your lies. Stick to the truth, and I’ll stick to the topic at hand.
bearishgurl wrote:

and refrain from hurling insults at people who don't have the same opinions that you do?

I’m not insulting you or anybody else because they have a different opinion from me. I’m insulting you because you make stuff up and try to pass it off as the truth.

bearishgurl wrote:

The examples you gave about yourself here are fine. It's perfectly legal to be "messy" (and have a partner who will pick up after them). We get it.

Who’s we? Speak for yourself. And you don’t get it at all, as I’ve shown in this and other posts.

Submitted by harvey on November 24, 2014 - 5:56pm.

A while back, when I actually attempted to read her almost-plausible data-strewn nonsense, there was something that caught my eye:

She complained once that she got in trouble at work for sleeping on the bathroom floor.

The signs were there all along, but that's when it really hit me.

She posted some made-up stuff about me and my family once. I asked Rich to delete it and he obliged.

Ah, whatever ... I wish her the best.

Submitted by bearishgurl on November 24, 2014 - 8:01pm.

harvey wrote:
A while back, when I actually attempted to read her almost-plausible data-strewn nonsense, there was something that caught my eye:

She complained once that she got in trouble at work for sleeping on the bathroom floor.

The signs were there all along, but that's when it really hit me.

She posted some made-up stuff about me and my family once. I asked Rich to delete it and he obliged.

Ah, whatever ... I wish her the best.

Uhhhhh, harvey . . . I mean . . . pri_dk (former-champion-of-uninformed-trolling-but-improved-somewhat-as-of-late)?? Can you show the Piggs where I posted your (bolded) statement?

I'm waiting with bated breath :=0

zk, I apologize here if you feel I was trying to make you "look bad." Your main concern here seems to be that I was but, honestly, I really don't have the time or desire for those kinds of BS games (especially now) and nothing could be further from the truth. The reality was that I saw an opportunity to "yank your chain" a little because your initial posts on the "tidy" thread clearly stated that you were frustrated with some aspects of living with your "tidy" partner because you were a lifelong "messy person" ("reformed" or not). And there's nothing wrong with that. But before the thread was even noticed by me, you (rather self-righteously) ranted on and on here in-finitum about all the ways you disagree that "tidiness" has anything to do with one's character. (I respectfully disagree in that in some cases, tidyness (or lack thereof) has a lot to do with one's character and we are all entitled to our own opinions.) All of your words here speak for themselves.

I myself have purchased home(s) in the past with particular lots/floor layouts which lent themselves to both indoor and outdoor medium and large-scale entertaining. Upon purchase and a bit of fix-up, I fully expected to use them for that purpose and did just that for many years. I couldn't imagine in my wildest dreams making the numerous (expensive) improvements you say you did on your lot and then later agreeing to be (unreasonably) restricted by a partner/co-owner as to how I could use my lot!

If I was a co-owner of my residence, my expected use of my/our lot would have been an agreement that was crystal clear between me and my co-owner long before purchase, or at the very least, before spending a small fortune improving the backyard for the sole purpose of entertaining. I see this as a huge issue because often offers are made on a particular parcel solely due to its lot configuration, floor layout of the house, etc, lending itself to the (allowed) uses of it in the mind of a prospective buyer. If there are two or more prospective co-buyers/co-remodelers for the same parcel, then they all or both need to be on the same page regarding the scope and cost of future improvements and future uses of such improvements before making them, or better yet, before purchasing the property together.

I don't think anybody in their right mind would make the numerous and costly improvements to their BY as you state you did in the "tidy" thread without the expectation of using it to entertain groups of people in. Everyone knows that you can hardly play bocce ball all by yourself.

Submitted by spdrun on November 24, 2014 - 8:35pm.

Lighten up kids, or get a room, or something.

Submitted by zk on November 24, 2014 - 9:28pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
zk, I apologize here if you feel I was trying to make you "look bad." Your main concern here seems to be that I was

Really? You really think my main concern is you were trying to make me “look bad?”

That is truly ridiculous. My main concern is, obviously, that you made a bunch of stuff up. You lied. About me.

If you want me to accept an apology of yours, apologize for making stuff up.

Apologizing “if [I] feel” a certain way is not an apology for anything you did.

You have yet to even acknowledge the clearly demonstrated fact that you made stuff up. Since you don't seem capable of even understanding that you've made stuff up, I have serious doubts that you can refrain from doing it in the future. And I think that's bad for this forum.

bearishgurl wrote:
but, honestly, I really don't have the time or desire for those kinds of BS games (especially now) and nothing could be further from the truth. The reality was that I saw an opportunity to "yank your chain" a little because your initial posts on the "tidy" thread clearly stated that you were frustrated with some aspects of living with your "tidy" partner because you were a lifelong "messy person" ("reformed" or not).

Yank my chain all you want, but don’t make stuff up in order to do it. It should be clear that what I’m disgusted about is not you yanking my chain or trying to make me look bad. It should be clear that why I think you should be banned is that you’re making stuff up. I don’t know how to put it any more clearly. I can’t even imagine how you can’t see that from my last 4 or 5 posts. And particularly from the original post on this thread. So let me make it perfectly clear:

bg, I don’t care if you yank my chain. I don’t care if you try to make me look bad. If you don't lie, then I either look bad or good on my own merits, and there's not much you can do to change that. All I care about is that you don’t lie about me or about what I said .

There. Even you should be able to understand that. It’s not complicated at all.

bearishgurl wrote:
And there's nothing wrong with that. But before the thread was even noticed by me, you (rather self-righteously) ranted on and on here in-finitum about all the ways you disagree that "tidiness" has anything to do with one's character. (I respectfully disagree in that in some cases, tidyness (or lack thereof) has a lot to do with one's character and we are all entitled to our own opinions.) All of your words here speak for themselves.

I’m perfectly willing to let my words speak for themselves. It’s when you make up words for me that I have a problem.

Submitted by zk on November 24, 2014 - 10:19pm.

bearishgurl wrote:

Uhhhhh, harvey . . . I mean . . . pri_dk ...?? Can you show the Piggs where I posted your (bolded) statement?

Oh, the irony. Sucks, huh?

Submitted by CDMA ENG on November 24, 2014 - 10:20pm.

Spdrun is right...

The sexual tension is palpable...

CE

Submitted by localguy on November 25, 2014 - 1:07pm.

BG's post on 11/7/14 is one of the classics....the one in which Peter's bested DeMaio in the SD mayoral race. Epic.
Localguy

Submitted by bearishgurl on November 25, 2014 - 1:32pm.

localguy wrote:
BG's post on 11/7/14 is one of the classics....the one in which Peter's bested DeMaio in the SD mayoral race. Epic.
Localguy

Localguy, IIRC, don't you reside in Scripps Ranch?

If so, and even if you voted for him, you should be extremely thankful that CDM is not now representing YOU in Washington! He's a disaster in the making and even though I'm not a resident of the 52nd, I'm relieved to hear that Peters won by the seat of his pants, however that happened.

There is a such a thing as a "charismatic idiot." CDM fit the bill to a "T" and obviously had a lot of your brethren voters fooled. Here's a simple layman's discussion for you explaining the concept:

http://www.cyberlearning-world.com/elect...

Submitted by NotCranky on November 25, 2014 - 5:10pm.

CDMA ENG wrote:
Spdrun is right...

The sexual tension is palpable...

CE


No , that was Marion and some others.

http://piggington.com/marion039s_leg

Submitted by harvey on November 25, 2014 - 6:06pm.

bearishgurl wrote:

Uhhhhh, harvey . . . I mean . . . pri_dk (former-champion-of-uninformed-trolling-but-improved-somewhat-as-of-late)?? Can you show the Piggs where I posted your (bolded) statement?

LOL! I have no clue where it is, buried somewhere in one of those many long posts describing in detail how public sector work is borderline enslavement while the private sector plays foozball all day.

I'm not gonna dig up proof, so if you want to deny it you certainly can. I got a LOL WTF movement from it, so I appreciate it either way.

zk wrote:
That is truly ridiculous. My main concern is, obviously, that you made a bunch of stuff up. You lied. About me.

Really, all you can do is brush it off. You can't win in an argument with crazy.

Now if I would just take my own advice...

Submitted by CA renter on November 26, 2014 - 3:12am.

harvey wrote:
A while back, when I actually attempted to read her almost-plausible data-strewn nonsense, there was something that caught my eye:

She complained once that she got in trouble at work for sleeping on the bathroom floor.

The signs were there all along, but that's when it really hit me.

She posted some made-up stuff about me and my family once. I asked Rich to delete it and he obliged.

Ah, whatever ... I wish her the best.

Okay, I hate when anybody lies and makes stuff up about other people in some lame attempt to discredit them.

I've read pretty much all of the threads on this blog since it started (I actually started reading Rich's site about 10 years ago, but didn't sign up right away when he re-instated the ability to comment). I don't ever remember BG saying that she got in trouble for work for sleeping on the bathroom floor.

Since harvey is one of the worst posters (if not THE worst poster) for twisting other people's words and making stuff up, I'm going to second BG's request that you provide proof of this comment you've attributed to her.

Submitted by CA renter on November 26, 2014 - 3:18am.

As for ZK's points, he's absolutely right. EVERYBODY needs to be sure that they are completely honest in their postings and in their representations of other people's words, thoughts, and beliefs. This is the only way to ensure the integrity and quality of the discussions on these threads. If you aren't sure about what they mean, ASK FOR CLARIFICATION, and never "edit" someone's post to make it look like they've said something they had neither written nor implied.

Submitted by zk on November 26, 2014 - 5:40pm.

bearishgurl wrote:

Uhhhhh, harvey . . . I mean . . . pri_dk (former-champion-of-uninformed-trolling-but-improved-somewhat-as-of-late)?? Can you show the Piggs where I posted your (bolded) statement?

Really, lyinggurl, the nerve you have to ask someone to show you where he said something after you just got through lying about me dozens of times and never once accurately answered when I asked you many times to show me where I said something is indeed prodigious. I'm not sure how you don't think you're screwed up in the head. Then again, I suppose many unstable people are not aware of their disconnect.

Submitted by UCGal on November 28, 2014 - 7:18pm.

I will admit - whenever a post gets too long or too boring... I scroll down to the next post.

There are lots of threads here that *seem* super long but can be skimmed over fast via the "virtual ignore" technique. Several regulars get skimmed by me.

I'm sure people do that to my posts too. (I can be pretty long winded.)

Accuracy is good. But sometimes it's not worth the drama to engage in a flame war on the inter-tubes.

Submitted by harvey on December 1, 2014 - 8:42am.

CA renter wrote:
I've read pretty much all of the threads on this blog since it started ...

That's really pathetic.

Quote:
Since harvey is one of the worst posters (if not THE worst poster) for twisting other people's words and making stuff up, I'm going to second BG's request that you provide proof of this comment you've attributed to her.

Oh my, someone has seconded the motion!

Sure, right after you show us the "ad nauseam" list of posts where I say that public employee compensation should be reduced.

Or at least tell us the name of that socialist country in Europe.

Submitted by CA renter on December 1, 2014 - 7:57pm.

I've already shown you evidence of those two things. Can't help it if you have reading comprehension issues.

Submitted by harvey on December 2, 2014 - 8:10am.

CA renter wrote:
I've already shown you evidence of those two things. Can't help it if you have reading comprehension issues.

Actually, what you can't do is provide evidence.

The backpedaling has begun.

Show me where you showed me.

Link or it didn't happen.

Submitted by CA renter on December 4, 2014 - 1:43am.

You know you've been proven wrong regarding these issues, troll.

Submitted by harvey on December 4, 2014 - 2:12pm.

http://piggington.com/more_public_pensio...

Submitted by bearishgurl on May 11, 2012 - 10:27am.

Quote:
3. If you decided to lay down in the restroom or in your vehicle during a 15 min break because you had a headache and came back 15-30 mins late, would you be docked vacation or sick pay for it?

Man, that post was a doozy!

(I'll concede that she did call it a "restroom.")

See how it works, CAR?

Honest people can back up their claims.

This thread needs a slogan: Link or you're a liar!

Submitted by bearishgurl on December 4, 2014 - 3:44pm.

harvey wrote:
http://piggington.com/more_public_pension_loony_tunes_now_providence_ri_is_in_trouble?page=1

Submitted by bearishgurl on May 11, 2012 - 10:27am.

Quote:
3. If you decided to lay down in the restroom or in your vehicle during a 15 min break because you had a headache and came back 15-30 mins late, would you be docked vacation or sick pay for it?

Man, that post was a doozy!

(I'll concede that she did call it a "restroom.")

See how it works, CAR?

Honest people can back up their claims.

This thread needs a slogan: Link or you're a liar!

Ha!! Just saw this and I'm still knee deep in work due to taking a short turnaround (emergency) job (but haven't forgotten about Joe and Jane, CAR).

Uhh, harvey (aka "pri_dk, the troll"), I want you to get in your car and drive to 220 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101 right now! Park at a meter and walk there and be sure to bring a female with you if at all possible. Visit floors 4, 5, 6, and 7 by turning left off the elevator. I don't know about the men's rooms, but ALL the women's restrooms, both public and employee have (or had) "Rest Rooms" inside them, which are separate rooms with a door. They have (or had) vinyl chaise lounges in them for decades for the sole purpose of "resting" prone in the dark on a break or between hearings, etc. It is possible that some of these rooms are "locked off" today but are nevertheless still in there.

Then make your way over to 1600 Pacific Hwy, San Diego and you can pay a small fortune to park there now (since public parking is now scarce). At both the north and south ends of the building on at least one out of the three floors, the same chaise was STILL in the women's restrooms the last time I checked (less than a year ago - try north end first flr first). These "Rest Rooms" are situated just as you enter the door to the restrooms and are separate rooms but do not have separate doors like the ones at 220 West Bdwy do. This bldg was originally constructed in 1938.

These (private) "Rest Rooms" (mostly used by female gubment workers) were a godsend in an era where the worker would lose her job if she did not return to work six weeks after giving birth (or ten weeks after having a C-section) and thus had to "save" whatever leave they had on the books until after delivery if at all possible. These "rest rooms" helped greatly for workers in late pregnancy needing to "rest" on their breaks and lunches. Unlike you people, we didn't have the "FMLA" to fall back on or computers, laptops, ipads and smartphones at our disposal to help us do our jobs while lounging in a private cubicle with flipflops on and our feet up. We had mainframes with CRT terminals (which were frequently down) to use first thing in the morning which would help us locate files but we didn't even HAVE cubicles (our desks were all pushed together). We had to work on our feet at least 7 hrs per day lifting, rolling carts, climbing ladders while lifting 30-50 lbs and generally running our a$$es off floor to floor, dept to dept and bldg to bldg. Some clerks were even regularly exposed to asbestos!

H@ll yeah, you can bet your a$$ that I EARNED EVERY PENNY of my pension and healthcare allowance, harvey! Jealous any?? NOW, after you perform the above two exercises with your female friend, you can re-report here to the Piggs on your "findings."

harvey wrote:
She complained once that she got in trouble at work for sleeping on the bathroom floor.

NOW, back to your quote. In reference to me, where exactly is it here that you stated I posted the above??

And how is "being docked" (which happened to every employee all the time) the same as "getting into trouble?"

Unlike YOU, harvey, we didn't get to "telecommute." If the employee wasn't at work between 8 am and 5 pm (with the exception of lunch hour), then they were on some kind of leave, period .... end of story. Many, many gubment employees were never able to take a vacation because they were docked here and there out of all their vacation hours for being tardy to work, tardy from lunch hour and leaving early from work ... even for very "legitimate" reasons.

LOL, it takes an idiot like "harvey" over two weeks to "substantiate" his "claims" here yet he ca-a-a-a-an't qui-i-i-te get it right. Nice try, though ....

And, for the record, harvey, I never "made up lies" about your family. YOU KNOW why my post was redacted and that is NOT what happened. You would do well to go back through that thread again and read ALL your posts and then after completing that exercise, look in the mirror and ask yourself a few piercing questions. (As I recall, it was yet ANOTHER thread [out of dozens] where you were going OFF about public employee pensions.)

Submitted by bearishgurl on December 4, 2014 - 4:06pm.

mid-century era "Chaise Lounge"
Except the gubment ones were/are brown vinyl and had an end table with an alarm clock and army blankets.

Go check it out, harvey! I'm sure several are still there . . possibly even in the men's room!

Submitted by harvey on December 4, 2014 - 6:20pm.

So to defend your pathologically longwinded post about how working for the government is a virtual hell, you explain that the government-employee restrooms had couches specifically for sleeping on the job?

I will concede that would be a little less gross than sleeping on the floor.

Don't stop now - keep the laughs coming!

Submitted by zk on December 4, 2014 - 6:51pm.

bearishgurl wrote:

LOL, it takes an idiot like "harvey" over two weeks to "substantiate" his "claims" here yet he ca-a-a-a-an't qui-i-i-te get it right. Nice try, though ....

If it takes an idiot like "harvey" over two weeks to "substantiate" his "claims" here yet he ca-a-a-a-an't qui-i-i-te get it right., then what kind of person does it take to never substantiate her claims ever? To just lie and lie and then let those lies lie there? That would be you, lyinggurl. Not sure why you'd LOL at harvey but not yourself.

Prediction: Lyinggurl will ignore this post completely or come back with something that could only make sense in her warped mind. There will be no acknowledgement of her many lies, despite them all being right here in black and white.

Submitted by harvey on December 4, 2014 - 6:59pm.

It's not a couch, it's a Chaise Lounge!

Submitted by bearishgurl on December 4, 2014 - 7:12pm.

Since both of you are now "trolling" again, you would both do well to get moving and visit our illustrious local gubment buildings and check out those "chaise lounges" for yourself (don't forget to visit all the mens rooms, as well). Their entry x-ray machines and security personnel open at 7:30 am so get moving nice and early tomorrow morning! And GOOD LUCK finding a place to park. Welcome to my (former) world! Most of it is still there .... in its original form.

Submitted by harvey on December 4, 2014 - 7:17pm.

Are you still whining about your job?

Submitted by zk on December 4, 2014 - 9:16pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
Since both of you are now "trolling" again, you would both do well to get moving and visit our illustrious local gubment buildings and check out those "chaise lounges" for yourself (don't forget to visit all the mens rooms, as well). Their entry x-ray machines and security personnel open at 7:30 am so get moving nice and early tomorrow morning! And GOOD LUCK finding a place to park. Welcome to my (former) world! Most of it is still there .... in its original form.

Who are "both of you?"

Submitted by mike92104 on December 4, 2014 - 10:38pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
harvey wrote:
http://piggington.com/more_public_pension_loony_tunes_now_providence_ri_is_in_trouble?page=1

Submitted by bearishgurl on May 11, 2012 - 10:27am.

Quote:
3. If you decided to lay down in the restroom or in your vehicle during a 15 min break because you had a headache and came back 15-30 mins late, would you be docked vacation or sick pay for it?

Man, that post was a doozy!

(I'll concede that she did call it a "restroom.")

See how it works, CAR?

Honest people can back up their claims.

This thread needs a slogan: Link or you're a liar!

Ha!! Just saw this and I'm still knee deep in work due to taking a short turnaround (emergency) job (but haven't forgotten about Joe and Jane, CAR).

Uhh, harvey (aka "pri_dk, the troll"), I want you to get in your car and drive to 220 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101 right now! Park at a meter and walk there and be sure to bring a female with you if at all possible. Visit floors 4, 5, 6, and 7 by turning left off the elevator. I don't know about the men's rooms, but ALL the women's restrooms, both public and employee have (or had) "Rest Rooms" inside them, which are separate rooms with a door. They have (or had) vinyl chaise lounges in them for decades for the sole purpose of "resting" prone in the dark on a break or between hearings, etc. It is possible that some of these rooms are "locked off" today but are nevertheless still in there.

Then make your way over to 1600 Pacific Hwy, San Diego and you can pay a small fortune to park there now (since public parking is now scarce). At both the north and south ends of the building on at least one out of the three floors, the same chaise was STILL in the women's restrooms the last time I checked (less than a year ago - try north end first flr first). These "Rest Rooms" are situated just as you enter the door to the restrooms and are separate rooms but do not have separate doors like the ones at 220 West Bdwy do. This bldg was originally constructed in 1938.

These (private) "Rest Rooms" (mostly used by female gubment workers) were a godsend in an era where the worker would lose her job if she did not return to work six weeks after giving birth (or ten weeks after having a C-section) and thus had to "save" whatever leave they had on the books until after delivery if at all possible. These "rest rooms" helped greatly for workers in late pregnancy needing to "rest" on their breaks and lunches. Unlike you people, we didn't have the "FMLA" to fall back on or computers, laptops, ipads and smartphones at our disposal to help us do our jobs while lounging in a private cubicle with flipflops on and our feet up. We had mainframes with CRT terminals (which were frequently down) to use first thing in the morning which would help us locate files but we didn't even HAVE cubicles (our desks were all pushed together). We had to work on our feet at least 7 hrs per day lifting, rolling carts, climbing ladders while lifting 30-50 lbs and generally running our a$$es off floor to floor, dept to dept and bldg to bldg. Some clerks were even regularly exposed to asbestos!

H@ll yeah, you can bet your a$$ that I EARNED EVERY PENNY of my pension and healthcare allowance, harvey! Jealous any?? NOW, after you perform the above two exercises with your female friend, you can re-report here to the Piggs on your "findings."

harvey wrote:
She complained once that she got in trouble at work for sleeping on the bathroom floor.

NOW, back to your quote. In reference to me, where exactly is it here that you stated I posted the above??

And how is "being docked" (which happened to every employee all the time) the same as "getting into trouble?"

Unlike YOU, harvey, we didn't get to "telecommute." If the employee wasn't at work between 8 am and 5 pm (with the exception of lunch hour), then they were on some kind of leave, period .... end of story. Many, many gubment employees were never able to take a vacation because they were docked here and there out of all their vacation hours for being tardy to work, tardy from lunch hour and leaving early from work ... even for very "legitimate" reasons.

LOL, it takes an idiot like "harvey" over two weeks to "substantiate" his "claims" here yet he ca-a-a-a-an't qui-i-i-te get it right. Nice try, though ....

And, for the record, harvey, I never "made up lies" about your family. YOU KNOW why my post was redacted and that is NOT what happened. You would do well to go back through that thread again and read ALL your posts and then after completing that exercise, look in the mirror and ask yourself a few piercing questions. (As I recall, it was yet ANOTHER thread [out of dozens] where you were going OFF about public employee pensions.)

You poor poor baby! How dare those jerk bosses actually expect you to work, and show up on time. I can't believe they didn't even have cubicles or a mainframe that didn't crash! It's flat out barbaric to make someone work on their feet for 7 hrs.

Not only should we allow you to retire at 50, and pay for your salary and healthcare for the rest of your life, but we should also build monuments to recognize your pain and sacrifice.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on December 4, 2014 - 11:10pm.

I believe that chaise longue is the preferred name. It's a long chaise, not really a chaise for lounging around.

Submitted by phaster on August 6, 2016 - 8:08am.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.