The "whatever's on your mind" thread

[Icedhope]

Originally Posted by Giant Tope

If you're in America, that could go under charge for discrimination against sexual orientation.

That is very true. I would talk to a lawyer about it.

[Giant Tope]

I mean, unless the job wasn't THAT important.

[Johro]

...because nothing makes a job easier and you more liked by your employer than to have them legally forced to hire you after a court case(anybody remember that female firefighter who did that even after failing the physical testing? Her employment life was hell after that).

Sadly, sometimes it's best to let it go....let it go by publicly slandering the company of course, to which they wont do anything because of what would be a litigious stalemate....but still let it go.

[Giant Tope]

The way I see it, perhaps they shouldn't be sued the crap out of, but they should realize that that isn't cool. A simple report should make them realize that while he goes to find other places to work.

[Giant Tope]

Oh god. I am guilty of many of these things.

[JedExodus]

Originally Posted by Zeek

What does it say about a place if they won't hire you because "you aren't gay enough?"

(BTW, this was for a clothing retail store.)

Clothing shops are notorious for this sort of thing, when's the last time you saw an average looking person working in Holister or a beer bellied bloke in a ladies clothes shop.

Thankfully I work behind a desk so only my colleagues can see my pasty visage.

[Secret Fawful]

I love the lead male character in The Unsinkable Molly Brown. Anybody who'll strike a woman is alright with me. Problem?

[coolsome]

Cats do love to play as Snakes.

[Vainamoinen]

Originally Posted by Zeek

What does it say about a place if they won't hire you because "you aren't gay enough?"

(BTW, this was for a clothing retail store.)

Did they say exactly that and, if they did, in what tone?

[Zeek]

Originally Posted by Giant Tope

If you're in America, that could go under charge for discrimination against sexual orientation.

Originally Posted by Icedhope

That is very true. I would talk to a lawyer about it.

Originally Posted by Johro

...because nothing makes a job easier and you more liked by your employer than to have them legally forced to hire you after a court case(anybody remember that female firefighter who did that even after failing the physical testing? Her employment life was hell after that).

Sadly, sometimes it's best to let it go....let it go by publicly slandering the company of course, to which they wont do anything because of what would be a litigious stalemate....but still let it go.

I'm over it, and I did let it go without a fuss. I just found it odd, seeing how the clothing store caters to the valley girl, pop star tween demographic and the jocky, bent-brim baseball cap prep boys. Then again, it wasn't so much an interview so much as a flat out rejection when I asked if they were hiring.

Originally Posted by JedExodus

Clothing shops are notorious for this sort of thing, when's the last time you saw an average looking person working in Holister or a beer bellied bloke in a ladies clothes shop.

The person I talked to was average looking, and her co-worker clearly had a small beer belly forming that he somehow hid underneath a flannel top that matched his bed head. (Though both of them were wearing make-up, IIRC...)

Originally Posted by Vainamoinen

Did they say exactly that and, if they did, in what tone?

Yes, they said those exact words. And by "tone," it was in that same tone I keep hearing when people tell me they aren't hiring and they are really sorry they have to tell me this, because clearly I need the work in a shitty economy.

[Friar]

Bumped into someone whilst working today who looked and sounded just like Benedict Cumberbatch. Only with a beanie. And a child. And no Watson skulking around after him.

[StrongBrush1]

I just updated my blog for the first time in a month and a half. In this post, I review a horrible movie that everybody else seems to like. Check it out.

[Johro]

I didn't think it was that great of a movie, but I disagree with a lot of your article. For one, I think you are confusing an 80's movie with an art film. They mostly weren't great or well written, they didn't go anywhere. They were just popcorn and eye candy. The effects were actually pretty decent for the time. They had a style and were practical effects(which I am very fond of). Beetlejuice wasn't Shawshank Redemption, but it is still a cult classic and should be respected whether it suits one's taste or not.

A review tip, take it or leave it: When you do a negative review of a movie people like or a positive review of a movie people hate, the point of the review becomes either "try to win them over" or "make it entertaining". While you explained your positions quite well, I just didn't feel drawn to your opinion. Show both sides, respect both opinions. What was done right? What do people like about it? Meet the people who liked it on their side and then try to bring them over. What could have been done better? What direction do you think it could have gone? The approach of just trashing a movie is only really effective on a review with the point of "entertainment". Hey, just offering my own opinion here. Like I said, I'm not a huge fan of the movie and I didn't immediately dismiss the review before reading it, but it just came off as ranting to me(which I suppose is how you DO refer to your blog...so...got me there :P).


...ANYWAY.

Working in the morning and then off to watch some american football. oh yeah.

[StrongBrush1]

Originally Posted by Johro

I didn't think it was that great of a movie, but I disagree with a lot of your article. For one, I think you are confusing an 80's movie with an art film. They mostly weren't great or well written, they didn't go anywhere. They were just popcorn and eye candy. The effects were actually pretty decent for the time. They had a style and were practical effects(which I am very fond of). Beetlejuice wasn't Shawshank Redemption, but it is still a cult classic and should be respected whether it suits one's taste or not.

A review tip, take it or leave it: When you do a negative review of a movie people like or a positive review of a movie people hate, the point of the review becomes either "try to win them over" or "make it entertaining". While you explained your positions quite well, I just didn't feel drawn to your opinion. Show both sides, respect both opinions. What was done right? What do people like about it? Meet the people who liked it on their side and then try to bring them over. What could have been done better? What direction do you think it could have gone? The approach of just trashing a movie is only really effective on a review with the point "entertainment". Hey, just offering my own opinion here. Like I said, I'm not a huge fan of the movie and I didn't immediately dismiss the review before reading it, but it just came off as ranting to me.

That's mainly because it WAS ranting, and it was supposed to be for entertainment value. I respect different opinions, but my main goal is to present mine, and entertain the reader in the process. I'll make sure to show different opinions on my next movie review. Frankly though, I don't think much was done right. Sure, the sets were pretty cool to look at, but I always found myself confused by them. Where exactly are they? In a parallel dimension? In Hell? In purgatory? In a series of caverns at the center of the earth? It's never explained. (Speaking of never explained, how exactly does that Afterlife-time displacement thing work anyway? They establish that time is sped up when you step into the afterlife, but at the end Geena comes back almost immediately after she leaves? How the fuck does that happen?)

As for how the movie could have been done better, I think that they probably should have cut Beetle out of the equation, cut the half-assed attempts at comedy, and put the focus specifically on the little girl. If you want to have a subplot about suicidal tendencies, at least treat it seriously. Don't think you can distract somebody from the plot with eye candy, lame jokes and annoying side characters. Give the girl a reason to be depressed and focus the attention on her dealing with her grief. You could send her on a little trip through hell with the Maitlands, a la the Divine Comedy. That would give the story a good plot AND a better reason to incorporate the unique visuals into the story than "they're dead, so they can go to hell."

I hope that satisfies you for the time being. I look forward to arguing with you again. Thank you for your opinion though.

[Johro]

I liked that better. Sitting here "okay... okay... yeah, that's true...mhm" and even the last couple sentences directed at me got a slight chuckle. Honestly, I didn't look it up, but I assume it was a studio decision to change things to make it more family oriented(other than what you mentioned to the contrary, he also grabs his junk and gestures in the movie), because you are very correct about the story. If you sit down, remove Beetlejuice, and write out the essential story, it's pretty damn dark and depressing....yet it wasn't treated as such. Shall we ignore the actor who played Winona's father's personal life troubles?...Yes....let's shall.

Edit: yeah...the movie had 4 writers. No wonder it was a mess.. *ahem* Alien³ anybody?

[RetroVortex]

Man I just read The Shocker: Legit.
And though it was a good read, (I like What if? stories, and its an unusual piece of fan fiction), it was loooooooong!
(And maybe a little bit sloppy writing-wise here and there...)

EDIT: (And if some smart-alek says "oh ooooh! Why don't you write something better" I'm going to be honest and say no, I probably can't. I tried writing a chapter of a book once for an assignment, and I STRUGGLED with it. I got a B grade for it, it was decent, but not anything of particularily good merit. Something introductory chapter about a bounty hunter walking into a sort of kind of guild looking for a job and eyeing up his rivals. There was a large description of the room, the context of the situation, (it was set in a future, where technology became so accessable that it basically became a neo-wild west. Bounty Hunters hunting down crooks, and the hero was essentially an independant), and it ended with the guy approaching the bar and gesturing the bartender, while everyone watches in tension. At least I think that was what it was about since it was a long time ago..)

[DAISHI]

I'm guessing that as nothing to do with the sexual gesture.

[Johro]

Originally Posted by DAISHI

I'm guessing that as nothing to do with the sexual gesture.

gesturing for a job? interesting.

[StrongBrush1]

Originally Posted by Johro

gesturing for a job? interesting.

Last time I tried that, I got escorted out by security.

[RetroVortex]

I did a personality test as part of a module, and it says I am a INFP.

Its interesting because it would indicate that I have changed a bit in the last few years.
I used to be a INTP.

But it definately does make sense.

I have mellowed out a lot since I was younger. Partly as a coping mechanism.
Kind of like Peter Parker, I put on the costume when I go out, and I try to be goofy and fun in social situations.
(Though secretly I am afraid of people. If there is no one around me or if the area is "unsafe" I tend to show a colder, quiter, closed version of me. Polite, co-operative, but kind of hasty (I'm looking for an opportunity to escape))

But again, by doing so, its kind of rubbed of me a little more.
I am generally more warm and open. Especially to those I trust.
(But I am still far away from being "confident")

That being said though. I know that one bad experience could make me switch straight back to INTP mode.
(The fear and mistrust is definately still there)