EMPLOYER OF THE MONTH SO FAR
(Thanks to Marilyn)
« Previous | Main | Next »
January 21, 2008
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Download your 'Fins iPhone application
What? No apparel pics? Sheesh.
(off to get my cheap thrills somewhere else...)
Posted by: Laurie | January 21, 2008 at 04:50 PM
Lately I've been using "slunt" as my derogatory word of choice. Feel free to use it, if you wish.
Posted by: Punkin | January 21, 2008 at 05:00 PM
"the eccentric Charney, 39..."
Yeah, real freaking eccentric.
Is eccentric a synonym for "loser psychopath?" Yes/No?
Posted by: Cheesewiz | January 21, 2008 at 05:26 PM
Cheesewiz - You mean, like, Jeffrey Dalmer was "eccentric"?
Posted by: Punkin | January 21, 2008 at 05:31 PM
He sounds like a pansy to me.
Posted by: Fearless Leader | January 21, 2008 at 05:35 PM
She went to work for him in 2003 and is just now getting around to consulting an attorney? Yep, the guy dounds like a jerk, but it took her five years to figure it out? And she didn't get around to seeing a lawyer until after she was fired?
Sorry, I ain't buying this.
Posted by: casey | January 21, 2008 at 05:48 PM
I'm wearing a sock, but no outlandish preppy outfits.
Posted by: CJrun | January 21, 2008 at 05:53 PM
*wonders how he kept the sock UP*
Posted by: Siouxie | January 21, 2008 at 05:57 PM
"There is no evidence to say that you can't walk around in your underwear all day anywhere in the United States of America," he testified.
I suppose you can't argue with that. I wonder if he'd flash the Jumbotron...
Posted by: Merri Lee | January 21, 2008 at 06:02 PM
Wow. This would be a good guy to work for, if only for the lawsuit/settlement money. Sounds better than a 401K!
Posted by: Suzy Q | January 21, 2008 at 06:11 PM
"If I had known this sort of thing was frowned upon...."
Posted by: Punkin | January 21, 2008 at 06:15 PM
To repeat: "There is no evidence to say that you can't walk around in your underwear all day anywhere in the United States of America," he testified.
Hey dude, at least put a skirt on!
Posted by: Jeff Meyerson | January 21, 2008 at 06:26 PM
Hmmmm, they must make the girls a bit differently in the big city. Here we would have darned him two socks shy of a set. Starting with the big shiny sharp scissors.
Posted by: Cheryl Howard | January 21, 2008 at 07:57 PM
What a silly bunt. Slut: a sloppy housekeeper. Woman who works in insane asylum and takes years to notice: inmate.
Posted by: JEC666 | January 21, 2008 at 08:54 PM
"The only time he was in his undergarments was for strictly professional reasons"...WTF??? Why has no one questioned what "professional reasons" he might have had? Does he model underwear for the customers or what??
Posted by: Steve Haller | January 21, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Steve Haller: he claims he's a fit model for his own clothes so he's modellin them. But he also masturbated in front of a reporter during an interview at one point and admits to this. I have no idea how that passed muster.
And casey: I heard about this case early last year. Suit was filed for a while though I don't know the exact time line. For me the proof would be in the dates: date of firing vs. date of lawyer consultation. That should be easy enough to prove if the lawyer keeps good notes. That is the best bit of truth in this he said/she said debacle.
Enough with the serious. Booger. That is all.
Posted by: KOW | January 22, 2008 at 07:02 AM
Reminds me of the Psychopath article I read last night.
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=936
I recommend some here take the psychopath test.
Posted by: Fred | January 22, 2008 at 10:56 AM