Metafilter's first live firing? May 19, 2004 1:16 PM Subscribe
Metafilter's first live firing?
Sure. Why not?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 1:21 PM on May 19, 2004
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 1:21 PM on May 19, 2004
Don't know if she was the first, but Beth had a near live MeFi firing awhile ago.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:23 PM on May 19, 2004
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:23 PM on May 19, 2004
we need a blacklist of companies that fire people that look at metafilter, period.
posted by th3ph17 at 1:24 PM on May 19, 2004
posted by th3ph17 at 1:24 PM on May 19, 2004
it's too bad that the author of Ghostzilla had moral problems with people quietly browsing the internet at work
posted by reverendX at 1:32 PM on May 19, 2004
posted by reverendX at 1:32 PM on May 19, 2004
"Should every post include NSFW even if the link title makes the page very questionable already?"
Since even linking to Goatse man has the #1 stamp of approval, I don't click on any links from the blue any more, I just base my opinion off everyone else's comments.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:33 PM on May 19, 2004
Since even linking to Goatse man has the #1 stamp of approval, I don't click on any links from the blue any more, I just base my opinion off everyone else's comments.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:33 PM on May 19, 2004
That link doesn't need NSFW on it, it's pretty clearly about sex. When you click on the link, the top message is:
On top of all that, it's a research document featuring images from 50-70 years ago, if that's what gets someone fired these days, then that's a pretty dumb company with brain-dead managers working there.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:33 PM on May 19, 2004
Warning! These historical wartime images are sexually explicit. This is a military reference site for adults only.And there are no sexual images in the first few screens of content. If someone was at work, reading metafilter (strike 1), clicking on a link about sex and psyops (strike 2), then ignores the warning on the page itself (strike 3), I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone getting reprimanded for it.
On top of all that, it's a research document featuring images from 50-70 years ago, if that's what gets someone fired these days, then that's a pretty dumb company with brain-dead managers working there.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:33 PM on May 19, 2004
I agree with callmejay
posted by crazy finger at 1:40 PM on May 19, 2004
posted by crazy finger at 1:40 PM on May 19, 2004
It's awfully nice of dfowler's "former" employer to allow him to keep reading and posting to Metafilter after firing him.
In other words, what callmejay and crazy finger said.
posted by turaho at 1:47 PM on May 19, 2004
In other words, what callmejay and crazy finger said.
posted by turaho at 1:47 PM on May 19, 2004
that's a pretty dumb company with brain-dead managers working there
Like that's so unusual.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 1:49 PM on May 19, 2004
Like that's so unusual.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 1:49 PM on May 19, 2004
Isn't reading Mefi at work more of a foul tip?
As I understand it, some people can get in trouble just by having explicit images in their temporary internet files. There's nothing in the description of the link that clearly states NSFW pictures, or just how much is censored (for instance, "slightly censored" could mean all of the pictures are censored but the article itself isn't.) The warning at the top of the page doesn't do much good, because on a fast connection the images down the page would load in about the time it would take someone to read the warning so they'd still be screwed.
When in doubt, a reader should err on the side of caution, of course, but is putting NSFW just as a courtesy asking all that much? It's four dern letters.
posted by Cyrano at 1:49 PM on May 19, 2004
As I understand it, some people can get in trouble just by having explicit images in their temporary internet files. There's nothing in the description of the link that clearly states NSFW pictures, or just how much is censored (for instance, "slightly censored" could mean all of the pictures are censored but the article itself isn't.) The warning at the top of the page doesn't do much good, because on a fast connection the images down the page would load in about the time it would take someone to read the warning so they'd still be screwed.
When in doubt, a reader should err on the side of caution, of course, but is putting NSFW just as a courtesy asking all that much? It's four dern letters.
posted by Cyrano at 1:49 PM on May 19, 2004
is he still posting from the same computer or IP or whatever it is?
And th3ph17 has a good point, re: blacklist.
And we should try to remember to put NSFW in.
posted by amberglow at 1:51 PM on May 19, 2004
And th3ph17 has a good point, re: blacklist.
And we should try to remember to put NSFW in.
posted by amberglow at 1:51 PM on May 19, 2004
Metafilter's first
No, there have been other members too.
Can you be fired for your first time offense clinking one link? Sure no job is secure but most companies have a process to all this; verbal warning, written up, then firing.
Also, discussing the posting "NSFW' brings my memory back to the Meta-talk thread, "Unless you're in high school and you deserve to get preached to because you're still a teenager.".
posted by thomcatspike at 1:54 PM on May 19, 2004
No, there have been other members too.
Can you be fired for your first time offense clinking one link? Sure no job is secure but most companies have a process to all this; verbal warning, written up, then firing.
Also, discussing the posting "NSFW' brings my memory back to the Meta-talk thread, "Unless you're in high school and you deserve to get preached to because you're still a teenager.".
posted by thomcatspike at 1:54 PM on May 19, 2004
Original post: 11:53 AM PST
dfowler's post: 12:08 AM PST
So he had enough time to get caught by his boss, have an unpleasant conversation, get de-hired, come back to his desk, surf Metafilter again (!) and announce it all to the world?
Don't lie to me like I'm Montel Williams.
posted by dhoyt at 1:58 PM on May 19, 2004
dfowler's post: 12:08 AM PST
So he had enough time to get caught by his boss, have an unpleasant conversation, get de-hired, come back to his desk, surf Metafilter again (!) and announce it all to the world?
Don't lie to me like I'm Montel Williams.
posted by dhoyt at 1:58 PM on May 19, 2004
I can't believe that not only did the guy succeed in derailing a thread with his flippant off-the-cuff remark, but now there's a whole MetaTalk thread rehashing this issue as if it actually happened. He'll never get fired from his real job... trolling.
posted by soyjoy at 2:01 PM on May 19, 2004
posted by soyjoy at 2:01 PM on May 19, 2004
There's nothing in the description of the link that clearly states NSFW pictures
Yeah, except for the title of the link and description, no one would ever expect to see drawings of naked bodies, right?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:05 PM on May 19, 2004
Yeah, except for the title of the link and description, no one would ever expect to see drawings of naked bodies, right?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:05 PM on May 19, 2004
The netkkkops at dfowlers workplace were pretty damn fast. Fifteen minutes between clicking and being fired, damn, hard to believe they were that quick on the draw. I know a guy who pissed in the shake machine at Burger King and it took them at least an hour to can him.
Or, maybe, he's just full of shit and desperate for the attention we just gave him?
posted by cedar at 2:13 PM on May 19, 2004
Or, maybe, he's just full of shit and desperate for the attention we just gave him?
posted by cedar at 2:13 PM on May 19, 2004
I've clicked on any number of links 'round these parts over the years where I would have expected to see a picture or two but instead just got a long text article (this also happens all the time on news sites.) It's not a given that there would be NSFW images, even though in this case it was admittedly likely.
(All that being said, I'm not really buying the firing claim either.)
posted by Cyrano at 2:15 PM on May 19, 2004
(All that being said, I'm not really buying the firing claim either.)
posted by Cyrano at 2:15 PM on May 19, 2004
Rather than pick on dfowler, maybe we should point at those *ahem* who felt the need to post a whole MeTa thread on the basis of such an off-the-cuff remark.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:23 PM on May 19, 2004
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:23 PM on May 19, 2004
Why would anyone assume that sexual propaganda would be safe for work? Even if it was just an article for that matter?The Reader should err on the side of caution, I would say.
posted by chunking express at 2:30 PM on May 19, 2004
posted by chunking express at 2:30 PM on May 19, 2004
BTW: does anyone remember on the morning of Sept 11th when the first MeFi thread was posted about planes hitting and the first post was something about how America deserved it and 20 posts down was someone else saying, "Fuck you, my father died in the blast!" I believe it's been pruned from the thread in question, but man was that ever surreal (and, of course, a complete lie).
posted by dhoyt at 2:31 PM on May 19, 2004
posted by dhoyt at 2:31 PM on May 19, 2004
dhoyt, that was ttrendel and it was in the 'quiet' thread.
posted by contessa at 2:57 PM on May 19, 2004
posted by contessa at 2:57 PM on May 19, 2004
I still say (as one who does read MeFi at both work and home) that it is highly irresponsible to post NSFW links without clearly labelling them with those magic 4 letters.
posted by salmacis at 3:21 PM on May 19, 2004
posted by salmacis at 3:21 PM on May 19, 2004
sal: if you read MeFi at work, then the whole site should be labelled NSFW.
posted by mischief at 4:02 PM on May 19, 2004
posted by mischief at 4:02 PM on May 19, 2004
If you are not supposed to be surfing the web at work, then everything is technically NSFW anyway. As with anything else on the Internet, you should assume that your boss can find out what you have been visiting and act accordingly. From my point of view, the links that are really NSFW are those with unexpected sound like this one, that blared Britney Spears from my computer at high volume. A warning about possible "problem" content is a nice courtesy, but really not required. If you are surfing when you should be working, you take the chance of getting caught and have no recourse on the poster if you get in trouble for it.
posted by dg at 4:30 PM on May 19, 2004
posted by dg at 4:30 PM on May 19, 2004
This was a well done troll. Good job, or whatever, dfowler.
posted by crunchburger at 4:31 PM on May 19, 2004
posted by crunchburger at 4:31 PM on May 19, 2004
Having seen the joke before on other sites (may have used it myself at that unnamable site), I chalked it up as a snarky remark and moved along.
Baba-booey.
posted by briank at 6:03 PM on May 19, 2004
Baba-booey.
posted by briank at 6:03 PM on May 19, 2004
Also, I'm sure almost anyone can judge if a picture if NSFW within half a second of seeing it, in which case you smash Alt+F4 immediately or scroll back up very quickly before anyone can register what they saw over your shoulder.
posted by wackybrit at 6:20 PM on May 19, 2004
posted by wackybrit at 6:20 PM on May 19, 2004
Also, I'm sure almost anyone can judge if a picture if NSFW within half a second of seeing it, in which case you smash Alt+F4 immediately or scroll back up very quickly before anyone can register what they saw over your shoulder.
Alas, the Lord has provided the man upstairs with a caching proxy server.
posted by Jimbob at 6:30 PM on May 19, 2004
Alas, the Lord has provided the man upstairs with a caching proxy server.
posted by Jimbob at 6:30 PM on May 19, 2004
Wait, but some of those images were intentionally blurred so as not to offend. Didn't that count for anything?
posted by dgaicun at 7:44 PM on May 19, 2004
posted by dgaicun at 7:44 PM on May 19, 2004
If you are not supposed to be surfing the web at work, then everything is technically NSFW anyway
There are lots of places where a bit of personal browsing is OK, but pr0n images of any kind are a big no-no. And it's not enough to say you can close the page quickly, or there was a lot of preceeding text when almost any workplace will use a caching proxy server, as Jimbob said.
I saw the link at home, and probably wouldn't have clicked it at work, just in case. But it's quite possible to have a discussion about pr0n without necessarily being NSFW. So you can't blame anyone who clicked on that link and got more than they expected.
(On preview... interesting... They've just implemented a web filter here, and it seems to not like the p-word, hence my mis-spelling.)
posted by salmacis at 12:39 AM on May 20, 2004
There are lots of places where a bit of personal browsing is OK, but pr0n images of any kind are a big no-no. And it's not enough to say you can close the page quickly, or there was a lot of preceeding text when almost any workplace will use a caching proxy server, as Jimbob said.
I saw the link at home, and probably wouldn't have clicked it at work, just in case. But it's quite possible to have a discussion about pr0n without necessarily being NSFW. So you can't blame anyone who clicked on that link and got more than they expected.
(On preview... interesting... They've just implemented a web filter here, and it seems to not like the p-word, hence my mis-spelling.)
posted by salmacis at 12:39 AM on May 20, 2004
If you didn't already have one hand up your ass at work, the blured jpgs of semi-racy drawings, glanced over-the-shoulder by your co-workers, wouldn't look so damning.
posted by scarabic at 1:52 AM on May 20, 2004
posted by scarabic at 1:52 AM on May 20, 2004
"NSFW" is not too much to ask. I'm surprised so many think it is.
An interesting post about sex and psyops need not have explicit images in it. Especially with the word "censored" floating around in it.
I'm surprised at how many of you blame the baby for crying. Pitch the fucking thing out the window, right? Rot. In Hell.
posted by dfowler at 8:20 AM on May 20, 2004
An interesting post about sex and psyops need not have explicit images in it. Especially with the word "censored" floating around in it.
I'm surprised at how many of you blame the baby for crying. Pitch the fucking thing out the window, right? Rot. In Hell.
posted by dfowler at 8:20 AM on May 20, 2004
NSFW tags are like parental advisory stickers, for Tipper Gore lemmings.
posted by roboto at 8:26 AM on May 20, 2004
posted by roboto at 8:26 AM on May 20, 2004
not to derail too heavily, but
"Don't lie to me like I'm Montel Williams."
Brilliant.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 8:32 AM on May 20, 2004
"Don't lie to me like I'm Montel Williams."
Brilliant.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 8:32 AM on May 20, 2004
In retrospect, the "In Hell" bit was heavy-handed. I get my back up when I'm personally insulted in the course of a thread (If you didn't already have one hand up your ass...).
Sorry, folks, to any passersby my spit hit.
But to scarabic, who sees fit to return snark with vitriol, the "In Hell" bit goes double. In Hell, with Satan's hand up your ass, for eternity.
MetaRhetoric. MetaSink. MetaEmployment, anyway.
So long.
posted by dfowler at 9:55 AM on May 20, 2004
Sorry, folks, to any passersby my spit hit.
But to scarabic, who sees fit to return snark with vitriol, the "In Hell" bit goes double. In Hell, with Satan's hand up your ass, for eternity.
MetaRhetoric. MetaSink. MetaEmployment, anyway.
So long.
posted by dfowler at 9:55 AM on May 20, 2004
confused. employment or not?
posted by andrew cooke at 10:46 AM on May 20, 2004
posted by andrew cooke at 10:46 AM on May 20, 2004
If you really were fired, dfowler, I of course owe you an apology for calling this trolling.
posted by crunchburger at 11:18 AM on May 20, 2004
posted by crunchburger at 11:18 AM on May 20, 2004
Um.... haha? funny joke? knock-knock anyone home?
Sure I believe in conscientious, even over-careful "NSFW" labelling. Absolutely. Now, to the point, because it has been asked repeatedly with only vague responses from you:
WERE YOU ACTUALLY FIRED FROM YOUR JOB, DFOWLER, OR WAS THAT ALL A FIGURE OF SPEECH?
In the former case, my sympathies, and in the latter case, your point is well-taken anyway.
posted by scarabic at 11:52 AM on May 20, 2004
Sure I believe in conscientious, even over-careful "NSFW" labelling. Absolutely. Now, to the point, because it has been asked repeatedly with only vague responses from you:
WERE YOU ACTUALLY FIRED FROM YOUR JOB, DFOWLER, OR WAS THAT ALL A FIGURE OF SPEECH?
In the former case, my sympathies, and in the latter case, your point is well-taken anyway.
posted by scarabic at 11:52 AM on May 20, 2004
I call for a moratorium on whiny crybabies who try to shift responsibility for their decision to surf at work. You are an adult (presumably): make the judgement call and accept the consequences. We are not here to hold your hand and treat you like a child who is incapable of making his own choices.
I, for one, will never put "NSFW" on any of my posts, because I really couldn't care less what your puritanical boss thinks about my post.
posted by rushmc at 12:30 PM on May 20, 2004
I, for one, will never put "NSFW" on any of my posts, because I really couldn't care less what your puritanical boss thinks about my post.
posted by rushmc at 12:30 PM on May 20, 2004
Dude, he wasn't fired. He was being funny/snarky. Sheesh.
posted by Samsonov14 at 12:34 PM on May 20, 2004
posted by Samsonov14 at 12:34 PM on May 20, 2004
Presumably he wasn't, but if he wasn't, I think it's time to stop playing it for effect. If he really was, then, as this post suggests, it's a fairly big deal. There's certainly some heavy bitterness in his tone, more than an ettiquette faux-pas should inspire. It seems to have been left unclear.
Aw, fuck it. I don't care this much.
posted by scarabic at 3:00 PM on May 20, 2004
Aw, fuck it. I don't care this much.
posted by scarabic at 3:00 PM on May 20, 2004
Metafilter: Aw, fuck it. I don't care this much.
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:14 PM on May 20, 2004
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:14 PM on May 20, 2004
I call for a moratorium on whiny crybabies who try to shift responsibility for their decision to surf at work.
Hear hear. As one of the guilty parties, I accept the responsibility for any consequences of my knowingly using my employer's time for personal use and would expect anyone else to do the same. If dfowler really was sacked for surfing at work, it is his own fault. Still, it would be a nice courtesy for people to give a little warning.
posted by dg at 3:30 PM on May 20, 2004
Hear hear. As one of the guilty parties, I accept the responsibility for any consequences of my knowingly using my employer's time for personal use and would expect anyone else to do the same. If dfowler really was sacked for surfing at work, it is his own fault. Still, it would be a nice courtesy for people to give a little warning.
posted by dg at 3:30 PM on May 20, 2004
I, for one, will never put "NSFW" on any of my posts, because I really couldn't care less what your puritanical boss thinks about my post.
NSFW, as dg alludes to, is a courtesy among web-surfers. That's all. Aren't you the one that's constantly berating people for being uncivil and uncourteous to one another on MeFi?
It's like showing up to an intersection at the same time as another driver and waving them to go first. You don't HAVE to do that; in fact, you can floor it and speed right through, leaving the other guy in the dust. Or you can wave him to go ahead, creating a much safer environment for both drivers.
posted by BlueTrain at 4:27 PM on May 20, 2004
NSFW, as dg alludes to, is a courtesy among web-surfers. That's all. Aren't you the one that's constantly berating people for being uncivil and uncourteous to one another on MeFi?
It's like showing up to an intersection at the same time as another driver and waving them to go first. You don't HAVE to do that; in fact, you can floor it and speed right through, leaving the other guy in the dust. Or you can wave him to go ahead, creating a much safer environment for both drivers.
posted by BlueTrain at 4:27 PM on May 20, 2004
What's that word which begins with an e and ends with mpathy. For Fucks sake Rush. If you'd gone through the same, I'm not sure you'd be passing wholesale remarks about your puritanical Boss. Maybe you're not going to change your posting policy, but is this really the time.?
And that goes for the rest of you (and me) as well.
numpties.
posted by seanyboy at 4:28 PM on May 20, 2004
And that goes for the rest of you (and me) as well.
numpties.
posted by seanyboy at 4:28 PM on May 20, 2004
numpties??
Some northern delicacy right, like mushy peas?
posted by dash_slot- at 5:12 PM on May 20, 2004
Some northern delicacy right, like mushy peas?
posted by dash_slot- at 5:12 PM on May 20, 2004
What is so hard hard to understand here? We're not talking about being sacked for surfing at work. We're talking about surfing the wrong sort of stuff at work. Rushmc, if that really is your attitude, then you are a complete pillock who simply doesn't understand the issue at all here.
posted by salmacis at 3:06 AM on May 21, 2004
posted by salmacis at 3:06 AM on May 21, 2004
"Don't lie to me like I'm Montel Williams."
I am so stealing that line dhoyt.
I am NOT Montel Williams!
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:56 AM on May 21, 2004
I am so stealing that line dhoyt.
I am NOT Montel Williams!
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:56 AM on May 21, 2004
and here's a thought.
i can surf at work cause i have to look shit up and make purchase and et cetera.
but i work for a religion, and they get their backs up if i have naked people on my computer. a lot. like, i'd be fired pretty quickly.
well, slowly, actually...but the decision to do it would be quick.
so, please put NSFW, if you could. i have to avoid them like the plague, because not all places of employement have the same surfing rules, and while it's probably a good idea to stay away from even potentially NSFW posts, sometimes you're browsing on autopilot and click on the links without reading...an NSFW callout really helps.
posted by taumeson at 8:16 AM on May 21, 2004
i can surf at work cause i have to look shit up and make purchase and et cetera.
but i work for a religion, and they get their backs up if i have naked people on my computer. a lot. like, i'd be fired pretty quickly.
well, slowly, actually...but the decision to do it would be quick.
so, please put NSFW, if you could. i have to avoid them like the plague, because not all places of employement have the same surfing rules, and while it's probably a good idea to stay away from even potentially NSFW posts, sometimes you're browsing on autopilot and click on the links without reading...an NSFW callout really helps.
posted by taumeson at 8:16 AM on May 21, 2004
One tiny little point - what the hell does "NSFW" actually mean? There are degrees of nudity, there are sites which could be racist, hateful, discriminatory, degrading or rude. They could all be safe for work.
If you really have that little skill at judging the content of a site, don't argue for the 'NSFW' code, demand a proper coding for posts to warn you what you are going to visit.
And before anyone argues that 'nudity is nudity' compare analsexwithinflatablegoats.com to a collection of degas painting. Both are nudity so both should be enough to get you fired if you boss wants to get rid of you.
posted by twine42 at 8:40 AM on May 21, 2004
If you really have that little skill at judging the content of a site, don't argue for the 'NSFW' code, demand a proper coding for posts to warn you what you are going to visit.
And before anyone argues that 'nudity is nudity' compare analsexwithinflatablegoats.com to a collection of degas painting. Both are nudity so both should be enough to get you fired if you boss wants to get rid of you.
posted by twine42 at 8:40 AM on May 21, 2004
How about a big animated GIF or a Flash movie with a flag waving and a siren blaring to make the NSFWness of any (in)appropriate thread more obvious. If you can't comprehend the fact that a post describe with terms like "sexual propaganda" and "uncensored" may not be appropriate for your workplace, you are a retard who has long been gypping your Nazi employers by spending their money reading MetaFilter instead of working, fuckwit.
</quonsar>
posted by Danelope at 9:31 AM on May 21, 2004
</quonsar>
posted by Danelope at 9:31 AM on May 21, 2004
Yeah, and the animated GIF itself could be NSFW, just to get the point across. But then we'd have to mark the linking page NSFW with another animated GIF on its referring page. Et cetera.
Eventually, the whole web would be NSFW, thus solving the problem.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 9:39 AM on May 21, 2004
Eventually, the whole web would be NSFW, thus solving the problem.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 9:39 AM on May 21, 2004
We could also get Matt to record himself clearly saying the phrase "THIS POST IS NOT SAFE FOR WORK" and he could then create a NSFW flag within the MetaFilter database, which users themselves could set. The audio would play automatically, and repeat several times, upon entering a thusly-flagged thread for the first time.
Of course, it would have to play at a rather high volume to ensure that hard-of-hearing members of the MeFi community would receive the same warning (and be afforded the same protection) as others.
Matt? Please take care of this at once.
posted by Danelope at 9:56 AM on May 21, 2004
Of course, it would have to play at a rather high volume to ensure that hard-of-hearing members of the MeFi community would receive the same warning (and be afforded the same protection) as others.
Matt? Please take care of this at once.
posted by Danelope at 9:56 AM on May 21, 2004
Won't that conflict with the site's theme music?
(Also, I love love love stumbling across old friends)
posted by gleuschk at 10:11 AM on May 21, 2004
(Also, I love love love stumbling across old friends)
posted by gleuschk at 10:11 AM on May 21, 2004
i can surf at work cause i have to look shit up and make purchase and et cetera.
Those activities do not require that you read Metafilter, nor do they give you permission to read Metafilter. Unless you have explicit permission from your employer to read the site, you are violating at the very least the spirit of your agreement with your employer about how you will spend your time during the hours you are working for them. If you DO have explicit permission to read Metafilter, then they presumably understand the nature of the site, including the fact that it might at times lead you to sites of questionable content.
In either case, if you adhere to your agreement with your employer, you will not have a problem. It is only in the case of wilfully choosing to violate said agreement that you might find yourself in a problematic situation. And since only you can choose to violate the agreement, only you are to blame for any consequences.
posted by rushmc at 12:15 PM on May 21, 2004
Those activities do not require that you read Metafilter, nor do they give you permission to read Metafilter. Unless you have explicit permission from your employer to read the site, you are violating at the very least the spirit of your agreement with your employer about how you will spend your time during the hours you are working for them. If you DO have explicit permission to read Metafilter, then they presumably understand the nature of the site, including the fact that it might at times lead you to sites of questionable content.
In either case, if you adhere to your agreement with your employer, you will not have a problem. It is only in the case of wilfully choosing to violate said agreement that you might find yourself in a problematic situation. And since only you can choose to violate the agreement, only you are to blame for any consequences.
posted by rushmc at 12:15 PM on May 21, 2004
who the *hell* do you think you are to determine everybody's surf-at-work policy?
Sheer arrogance.
posted by salmacis at 5:28 PM on May 21, 2004
Sheer arrogance.
posted by salmacis at 5:28 PM on May 21, 2004
« Older Please get rid of graphical google ads | User's single-track history invokes callout Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by reverendX at 1:18 PM on May 19, 2004