WOHM's who say they have to work
Find a Conversation
WOHM's who say they have to work
| 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.


Pages
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
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...
<>
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.
<>
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.
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.
Pages