WOHM's who say they have to work

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-22-2004
WOHM's who say they have to work
1607
Sun, 10-29-2006 - 4:17pm

For those of you that WOH and say you have to do it to make ends meet. Do you really do it to make ends meet or do you do it cause you want to keep up a certain lifestyle? Do you know how to live with out debt or without having to keep up with the joneses?


ETA Please excuse all my siggys. Obviously I dont know how to turn them off. I thought I did.



wentowroth siggy

Click to enlarge   

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-15-2006
Sun, 11-05-2006 - 12:07pm
I said "beat" cops. Beat cops don't drive cars; they walk a beat.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-26-2006
Sun, 11-05-2006 - 12:10pm
That would depend on where you live. Beat cops where I live drive a car. Not to mention that it doesn't change the fact that beat cops have internet access. Have a look at police business cards. I have yet to see one without an email address on it. They all have internet access at the PD.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-15-2006
Sun, 11-05-2006 - 12:42pm
Why are you arguing with ME about this? I wasn't the one who originally had the stance that it was unusual or odd or wrong for employees to have internet access; it was egd/m3t that said that. I simply was setting up the premise that I never said everyone did, and gave a few examples where it might be unusual for the employee to do so. Note that I said "probably" in all those cases; not definitely.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-15-2006
Sun, 11-05-2006 - 12:55pm

thank you. my thoughts,exactly!!

the post cdmamdell chose to reply to said don't *allow* internet access which is completely different than saying an employee/employer does or does not *have* an internet access/connection.........my point has been heard and it stands firm,though. it's all about guilt and selective reasoning. it's very hypocritcal to say that this board's premise lies in sah/woh when in all actuality,we cut up posts for grammar,on dictionary meanings of words,too. heck,one poster tried to defend her offensive remarks to another poster because she uses the board to polish her writing skills. how that is related to sah/woh is moot,silly in itself.

makes for fun diversions every so often,that's for sure!! smiles!! :)




Edited 11/5/2006 1:06 pm ET by egd3blessed

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
Sun, 11-05-2006 - 1:04pm

I have internet access and I am online for pretty much the whole time I am working (at least from home, when I travel I'm usually away from the internet). I need to be online more or less constantly in order to do my job, which requires me to tap into my company network to access information, use the web to research and constantly track my email and IM for communication.

I, personally, do not generally use the time while I'm online to read or post to message boards, but that is because I don't have much time during my work hours that I spend waiting for things so that I can get more work done. Most of my time is spent thinking and writing. I know that there can be a lot of waiting time in other types of jobs. For those who need to just wait for a response and can't do much until they get that response, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to use that time to check a message board or write a quick response. It doesn't usually take more than a few minutes, and they are stuck waiting in any case...

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-26-2006
Sun, 11-05-2006 - 1:31pm
Ok...I am not arguing with you. Although this is a debate board. Don't want what you post debated don't post it. Again I am not arguing with you. I am just letting you know that your statement that beat cops have no internet access is incorrect.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-15-2006
Sun, 11-05-2006 - 1:36pm

<>

That's all well and good, except that wasn't my statement.

<>

That wasn't my point. My point was that *I* am not the one you should be debating with on this subject, because it really isn't *MY* stance that people don't commonly have internet access. That was someone else's statement. It seems rather like you're debating ME instead the SUBJECT when you choose my posts to disagree with, when there is at least one other poster who stated the extreme of what I did. Go debate with her.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-26-2006
Sun, 11-05-2006 - 1:41pm

<>

Color me confused. Didn't you say this?

So, I'll beat her to the punch. I can list a bunch of jobs that probably don't have internet access.

Service jobs -- Your average local beat cop, housekeeper, plumber, or construction worker probably doesn't have internet access at work.

I posted something that contridicted what you said. Again it doesn't matter who started it the bottom line is that you posted something that wasn't correct. It was making sure you were aware that beat cops in some areas most certainly do have internet access.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-09-2006
Sun, 11-05-2006 - 1:59pm

My post didn't argue "allow" or "have" either way.

Conveniently, you seem to be forgetting what my post actually addressed. The fact that YOU should support the claim YOU made. Name five corporations that don't ALLOW internet access. By name. With references. Should be easy as pie, since YOU claimed it's common policy to "many".

Still waiting for you to actually support your claim. Good thing I have a thick book to tide me over while I wait.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-15-2006
Sun, 11-05-2006 - 2:26pm
I said "probably" which is a lot more supportable than your "most certainly." I can point to more than a handful of cops in at least two towns that don't have internet access when on their beats. Which disputes your "most certainly."

Pages