naked avatar poll

alafairnadia wrote: [quote=mypasswordwontwork][quote=Idlewild][quote=alafairnadia]there's a pretty major difference, as pitu pointed out, between images and words. a lot of IT departments filter images and randomly look at what users have been looking at because of the potential HR issues w.r.t. sexual harrassment.
how much individuals are surfing the web at work is a management issue. a company can lock down access to specific sites or set up word filters. where I work, we don't employ any sort of word filter or site lockdowns: lawyers are notoriously foul mouthed. a few years ago the junk mail filter was pulling anything with the word "fuck" in it - that got removed maybe 24 hours after installation. also, no one monitors internet activity beyond the image filters and bandwidth usage (spikes in use generally indicate spyware problems) unless that user is already being reviewed by management for doing a lousy job at work. thankfully, I don't need to worry about that - I get all of my work done and do a damn good job of it. I'd probably go completely insane if my internet use were restricted - this past week, for instance, has been so dead at work I can't imagine not having the distraction of the internet. as such, the only thing I really worry about are images, which is why I slected "yes, I could lose my job over this". it probably wouldn't be that dramatic, but still, I'd rather not find out.

With all due respect if you're not supposed to be web surfing at work, and you get caught because your supervisor spots a offensive image, you have no right to be angry at the poster of said image. .

I agree. And with that in mind I am shocked by how some people have continued to complain about the Avatar, even though the darn thing is long gone anyway...

I'm not continuing to complain about the Avatar - I'm clarifying my position.

and Idlewild - did I say I'm not supposed to surf the web from work? you certainly don't have access to the internet and email use agreements I signed when I accepted my job. I have told you that I'm not supposed to be looking at NSFW images at work, and that's the issue. also, I never mentioned my supervisor - I said that IT randomly monitors images because of sexual harrassment issues. the reason my firm, and many other corporations have these policies are not because they care about the avatar - they just don't want to get sued if someone is offended by what pops up on an individual user's screen.

And I have said that the web is pretty much a free for all. I'm not exactly sure how you or your company can stop certain images from popping up if they decide not to employ the filters I have mentioned. Images which can appear on any site, family friendly or not.

Idlewild wrote: With all due respect if you're not supposed to be web surfing at work, and you get caught because your supervisor spots a offensive image, you have no right to be angry at the poster of said image. And posters shouldn't have to watch their step because someone who is browsing on the net might get by their boss or the person's kid might see what is appearing on the screen. The web is a free for all. Their are plenty of filters and nanny watches and everything else available to block this kind of stuff. And let me say this as well. If the owner of this site decided to enforce family friendly rules then I would live with the decision.

Plenty of offices permit non-work-related browsing yet frown upon porn because it creates a "hostile work environment."

Idlewild wrote: They can frown on porn all they want. Avoiding porn sites in itself will not stop pornographic or non-pornographic nude images from appearing on your screen.

'specially when the inconsiderate use them as avatars...

WhyFi wrote: [quote=Idlewild]They can frown on porn all they want. Avoiding porn sites in itself will not stop pornographic or non-pornographic nude images from appearing on your screen.

'specially when the inconsiderate use them as avatars...

Define porn, sweetie.

mypasswordwontwork wrote: [quote=WhyFi][quote=Idlewild]They can frown on porn all they want. Avoiding porn sites in itself will not stop pornographic or non-pornographic nude images from appearing on your screen.

'specially when the inconsiderate use them as avatars...

Define porn, sweetie.
Uh, why? The semantics are neither here nor there in the context of my comment. Didn't Idlewild say, "pornographic or non-pornographic nude images"? Why yes, he did - it's right there, quoted above... :roll: You would think that a Haaarvard Alum would know better... then again, you would think that a Haaarvard Alum wouldn't yearn for a career turnin' tricks.

mypasswordwontwork wrote: Here we go again. Aren't you supposed to be a moderator or something?

Nope. Never have, never will.

WhyFi wrote: [quote=mypasswordwontwork]Here we go again. Aren't you supposed to be a moderator or something?

Nope. Never have, never will.

That's good.

mypasswordwontwork wrote: [quote=pitu]nope, he's just smart

Definitely debatable.
To debate it, you'd have to be familiar with making points and counter-points, something we haven't seen from you, yet...

enough with the personal attacks.

PM me if you have questions.

- mod

WhyFi wrote: [quote=alafairnadia]enough with the personal attacks.

PM me if you have questions.

- mod

It's okay - no harm, no foul. As a matter of fact, it's a point of pride that I sell audio gear and earn more than someone that has degrees from both Oxford and Harvard.

Glad to hear that I have degrees from Oxford and Harvard. That's certainly news to me.

And WhyFi, I'd like to put you over my knee and spank you. Why? Because I think you deserve a good, firm spanking.

doctorj wrote: [quote=WhyFi]
It's okay - no harm, no foul. As a matter of fact, it's a point of pride that I sell audio gear and earn more than someone that has degrees from both Oxford and Harvard.

Tyipcal high-powered academic career path: if I'd been to Harvard, then taken a PhD at Oxford UK, then returned to NY with my 20+ years of education to research with the finest minds in the world in whatever field at NYU or Columbia, I'd be earning around $35K.

That sure isn't my career path. Unless you count kindergarten, junior high etc, it must be quite hard to rack up 20+ years of education, surely?

WhyFi wrote: [quote=mypasswordwontwork]Glad to hear that I have degrees from Oxford and Harvard. That's certainly news to me.

No? I thought that you were Precious?

Precious Williams wrote: Well I have a degree in English literature from Oxford, so.....

mypasswordwontwork wrote: Good points. For me to call myself a "have not" because I am in debt from getting my Bachelor's at Harvard is kind of a slap in the face to true "have nots" who aren't even able to graduate high school.

No. But for some reason several people keep calling me Precious. It is true however that I went to Harvard.

WhyFi wrote: [quote=mypasswordwontwork]No. But for some reason several people keep calling me Precious. It is true however that I went to Harvard.

:-k

mypasswordwontwork wrote: Sara if you still have it, would it be possible for you to message me a template of the firm letter you sent? Obviously removing all of the personal details. Thanks! Precious

http://brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=329078#329078

?

mypasswordwontwork wrote:
That sure isn't my career path. Unless you count kindergarten, junior high etc, it must be quite hard to rack up 20+ years of education, surely?

I do count the equivalent of those. Let me see... I started education at a Montessori school in early 1974, finished highschool in 1988, finished honours at the end of 1992, and finished the doctorate in mid-1999 without taking a year off or failing any grades. Though the last 2-3 years were part time. After that, the first job through 2003 was a type of apprenticeship, and I did take a year's teaching course and 3 nights a week in language school. I'd say it's about the equivalent of 25 years of full-time study all up.

I think my wife studied a bit longer than me because she did a few years of med school as well; started around the same time as me and will graduate in a couple of months from now, though she spent 1 year as an au pair and worked for about 3 years from 1999 while waiting for funding.

My point is: the motivation for taking a lengthy education is not financial. There are much shorter paths to a middle-class salary, if that's your goal.

caaahyoko wrote: [quote=doctorj]
My point is: the motivation for taking a lengthy education is not financial. There are much shorter paths to a middle-class salary, if that's your goal.

Like Pornography!!!

:running away:

By all means. Or escorting. Or sex work. Or modelling. I just wonder what people who figure at age 20 they can do that and rake it in without further education do once they get to their 40s and 50s.