Shop Wal Mart ? Poll Closed . 51% do 49% do not

[eight6]

[quote][i]Originally posted by shovelbum[/i]

*steps off soap-box*

[/quote]


...and falls flat on face.

Sorry, I just thought your comments were a bit simplistic, and smacked of band wagon jumping.

Stick to digging holes as a profession, your psychoanalytical skills leave a lot to be desired. I'll pretend to agree with you in future to spare you from exposing [i]your[/i] insecurities.

And to your point: what separates Wal-mart from just about any other business enterprise in the U.S. these days? Yes, they are bigger, yes they make more enemies by virtue of their size, but they operate in the same fashion as thousands of other corporations not only in the U.S. but worldwide. To call them out says the others doing exactly the same aren't as bad...Wal-mart is just better at it than the rest.

I guess I just see things differently than you...but then, I'm not hip deep in a hole.

Hope I got the requisite number of smartass remarks in to live up to my rep.

[zill]

Quick! Run down to Walmart and pick up an umbrella! There's a storm coming!

[eight6]

[quote][i]Originally posted by zill[/i]
<br>Quick! Run down to Walmart and pick up an umbrella! There's a storm coming!
[/quote]


Big to-do about tender feelings that's all. If you can't ask a simple question of a person, what does that say about one's ability to engage in any kind of debate?

[zill]

eight 6,

Can we get a breakdown of your 5,000 posts by:

Simple questions [?]
Witty comebacks [:D]
Quips [:o)]
Psycho analysis [|)]
Evil baiting [}:)]
Troll bashing [:(!]
Newbie education [B)]
Gratuitous use of smileys [:I]
Discussions of new wave [:)]
Georgie Rockwood...lol...lol...

zill

[eight6]

[quote][i]Originally posted by zill[/i]
<br>eight 6,

Can we get a breakdown of your 5,000 posts by:

Simple questions [?]
Witty comebacks [:D]
Quips [:o)]
Psycho analysis [|)]
Evil baiting [}:)]
Troll bashing [:(!]
Newbie education [B)]
Gratuitous use of smileys [:I]
Discussions of new wave [:)]
Georgie Rockwood...lol...lol...

zill
[/quote]

Let's just go with:

unsubstantiated responses by an asshole: 5000

music related: 2

[Spit]

This thing is all tied up. 50% shop at Wal Mart 50% do not. I guess this should end soon . I'll lock it up on Friday September 21 at 6:00 P.M. . Will the majority of members say they shop at Wal Mart or not ? It's up to YOU. Cast your vote NOW , before it's too late! [:p][:o)]

[glokstadt]

It was rigged!!! [;)][:D]



<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l237/vespa_boy_2006/Smallerglokstadt.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

[birdmadgirl]

I'll admit it--the Mr. was in management for WM for a long time. He was paid very well. The hourly associates started out anywhere from a bit above minimum wage up to $15-16 an hour. (High-paying hourly jobs were mainly cashiers who had been with the company for many years. And the cake decorators in the bakery/deli. Seriously.)

I don't think think WM's stuff is that poorly made, and since he worked there, we bought a lot. We got some cheap stuff there for our kids when they were little and so rough on things, and it all held up fine. Any name-brand things we bought (TVs, for example) have held up, too.

Yes, they do chant in the morning. A friend of ours works for them and he says he feels like he's joined a cult every morning.

They do tend to overlook women for management positions on purpose, which burns my butt, but I'll save my bra-burning for another day.

I'm glad the Mr. no longer works there. He was required to work a minimum of 50 hours a week, and it was a rare week when he only worked 50 hours. There were weeks when he put in 18+ hours a day for weeks at a time, mainly around major holidays and inventory time. He also had to work overnights for 6 months at a time. It never failed that he would do his six months, then get bounced to another store and immediately go on overnights again. At one point, he had been on overnights for almost 3 years straight. He was never off on major holidays.

It sucked, and after a while, we decided we'd rather lose the $$$ than him continue to work there (he had wanted to quit for a long time, but when you are living in a little, dried-up town, you do the work that is available. He worked there for a a while after we moved to Las Vegas, but quickly learned that it REALLY sucks to work at WM in a city. There are so many more jobs here, so as soon as we got on our feet, he was out of there).

He's been a much nicer, less-stressed out person since he escaped the cult. [:D]

[Bitter Almonds]

<p align="justify">I can count the number of times I've shopped there with one hand and still have fingers left over. The reason is that Target is closer[8D] I used to shop at a Super K back in the late 90s. Aliso Viejo was in the process of building all kinds of commercial shit and Super K was one of the first businesses to jump in. The coolest thing was that Super K was a 24-hour joint. If any of yous live in south OC, then you'll know nothing stays open past 11pm. They had an arcade and I used to go there to play some Tekken and Magical Drop while I pondered how I'd ever get the fuck out of community college. Then, K-Mart lost big in the stock market and they did a buncha closures all over the country... one of the places was Super K[V] Nothing has been 24 hours ever since.

[shovelbum]

Well, spiralvisions, based on that train of thought I guess I can't take your argument seriously because you're too burdened by hormones and emotions to think clearly.

How sad for you that the androcentrism and patriarchy of our society has so thoroughly brain-washed you to the point where you don't trust your own biology.

Has it never occurred to you that men have hormones and emotions, too?

"I'm subversive as hell!" ~Theodor Geisel

[Bitter Almonds]

<p align="justify">Hell, I'm ovulatin' right now as we speak, so don't fuck with me[}:)]

[shovelbum]

Well I would be suspicious that this is eight6 trying to hoax me, but he is much more sophisticated and intelligent than your last post reflects.

I have to go edumicate myself now, so I promise I will be back later this afternoon to offer you an intellectual and scholarly rebuttal (with no female fussiness included- unless, of course, the very act of my wanting to refute your opinion makes me guilty of this "crime" of which you speak). I hope your "double-minded" judgment can repect my opinion without getting too emotionally involved.[;)]

"I'm subversive as hell!" ~Theodor Geisel

[birdmadgirl]

[quote][i]Originally posted by spiralvisions[/i]
But I'm not going to say anything else on this topic because alot of times when someone disagrees with someone else on this forum I noticed they get immature and start going into schoolyard "I'm rubber you're glue"-type bullshits that don't make sense, they choose sides merely by majority or wether they can pull a "witty" comment out of their ass, regardless of their REAL opinion.[/quote]

No, it's usually the dumbasses who are asking for it who get reamed on here. You probably are very wise in sticking to other parts of the NWO.

[shovelbum]

[quote][i]Originally posted by spiralvisions[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by shovelbum[/i]
<br>Well, spiralvisions, based on that train of thought I guess I can't take your argument seriously because you're too burdened by hormones and emotions to think clearly.

How sad for you that the androcentrism and patriarchy of our society has so thoroughly brain-washed you to the point where you don't trust your own biology.

Has it never occurred to you that men have hormones and emotions, too?

"I'm subversive as hell!" ~Theodor Geisel
[/quote]

<font color="black">It isn't the make believe "patriachy" of our society. It is the fact that women cannot take opinions and logic as such but get offended simply because they have an emotional attatchment or feelings about whatever topic is brought up. Even most of the more intelligent women in this world are emotionally reacting to facts and get defensive when it hits too close to home and not because they truly disagree. I obviously don't have the same problem or I'd be blindly defending my gender too. I laugh everytime someone blames my disgust at women on the fact that our society is "dominated by men". bullshit. All I see is painted shallow harlots running things, because they know they can yell "sexist" and have any decent, intelligent, man pushed away by society simply because he knows she is full of crap. Men have hormones yes, and emotions..but they are capable of using the logical side of their brain seperately from the emotional side and can therefore make more informed decisions. Women use both sides of their brain at once and hence have clouded "double-minded" judgement. But I'm not going to say anything else on this topic because alot of times when someone disagrees with someone else on this forum I noticed they get immature and start going into schoolyard "I'm rubber you're glue"-type bullshits that don't make sense, they choose sides merely by majority or wether they can pull a "witty" comment out of their ass, regardless of their REAL opinion. I don't care, I'm going to just stick with the obscure/rarities and music sections of the forum. I don't mind people having difference of opinion, in fact I think it is what kept the world evolving as long as it [i]did[/i], but no one can ever just sit and discuss differences instead of trying to turn it around, point fingers about ridiculous nonrelated crap, etc. </font>

________________________
[b]<font color="green"> "Someone will inevitably find something wrong in almost everything. So do what it is that you do best, and remember to have enough tolerance for two."</font>[/b]
[/quote]

I'm trying to figure out how this is "non-related crap". We were posting about Walmart... I commented that one reason I don't shop there is because I believe they practice inequality in gender relations... you responded by saying you didn't believe that and that women deserve it anyway because they are too emotional and hormonal... I responded by saying that I believed your argument was weak and that your cultural lens is blurred by the patriarchy of our society... you responded by saying that patriarchy is "make believe" (have you read a bible lately?) and that you know better than other women because you are a rare exception and that we are too infantile for you so you don't have to play with us anymore...

Okay, are we caught up on how it is all related now?

First of all, you stated that you are an exception to most women. Unless you had a hysterectomy and aren't on hormone therapy I find that odd. How conveeeenient for you. [;)]

Secondly, you accuse us of schoolyard games, and yet all we've done so far is hold a debate. If you're feeling bullied don't blame it on me. After all, no one can MAKE you feel anything you don't want to! (Oh, eight6 is gonna be annoyed that I said this... Oh, wait, he's always annoyed with me anyway. Oh well![;)])

Thirdly, and most importantly, "Carol Gilligan's research has shown that what has historically been interpreted as 'emotion" in women is actually a much higher level of moral reasoning; a type of moral reasoning that Gilligan has called an 'ethic of care." Women (generally speaking) base decisions (when applicable) on an objective that looks towards the preservation of human relationship, which actually requires a much more complex consideration of circumstances. Lawrence Kohlberg's research (which was done only on men and boys) noted that men base decisions on objective principles (which actually may or may not be ethical at all). Ultimately, neither method is superior to the other. The intellectual prowess enters in when deciding which situation requires the ethic of care or the ethic of principle. Historically, men sacrifice people to their principles, but occasionally, women sacrifice objective principles for the sake of people. In the context of a species which must live in society where human beings are dependent upon each other for survival, which of these two approaches would ultimately be considered the more rational?" (Doire)

It should also be noted that Gilligan did not locate the difference in biology but in socialization.

As for women managing their work with an authoritative attitude, um.... if they are the manager doesn't that mean they ARE the authority? Furthermore, if a woman is displaying this behavior then it is more than likely that she is doing so because of her EGO than because of her biology. Men do this too. Then again, maybe the female authority figures you've witnessed who were asserting their power were merely trying to keep in check an employee who thought they were the exception to the rules. (Sorry, eight6. I can't seem to resist!)

I hope you've enjoyed this little session. I know you don't want to play anymore (as you stated in your last post) so I guess we're done.

To learn more about Carol Gilligan, click this link:
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gilligan.html

"The truth will set you free-
but first it will piss you off!"
~Gloria Steinem

[KYYX4ever]

[i]Eh[/i]...
I've had women bosses my whole life and experienced all kinds of leadership styles. Some of these female bosses were awesome and the gender issue meant nothing. I've had a couple on the other end of the scale who were indeed hormonally-ridden and quite emotional. The same could be said of male bosses, I suppose.
To my mind, it doesn't matter one bit if The Boss is female or male. Effective leadership comes from being an effective leader, one who can inspire loyalty and a good work ethic, among other things. However, the tendency inherent in many women to NOT "rule with an iron fist", to instead rule with a softer, more collaborative, and more maternal style, can often be at odds with a cutthroat leadership style. Margaret "Iron Lady" Thatcher excepted.