The 23rd (Dragon Tipping) Random Discussion for TPBM

Permagrin wrote in post #7677718
LMAO! So true. I think every boy wanted to grow up to be McGyver.

Like Neil...I was going to ask who he was.....I took the quiz and got 1 right.

Jon wrote in post #7678392
I use 'em - not for UV protection, but for FOD protection. Propwash throws a lot of fine abrasives around. Small animals (2 or 4-legged) aren't stopped by lens hoods (and neither are branches in the undergrowth).

Shooting in those circumstances I would opt for one too.

*muffled voice calling from under a pile of un processed pictures*

"help me!"

cfpackerfan wrote in post #7677453
Nikki update from Terri:

No baby yet, but water is broke. Cross all digits please.

They are.

JON enjoying your DC pictures as well.


A Survivor

Woolburr wrote in post #7678359
This has long been an issue with these silly regulations. All it takes is one little personality clash and a valuable employee can be out the door. There really needs to be a review process and a way for innocent people to defend themselves. In this particular instance, we totally reject our basic Constitutional rights and find people guilty with no proof and offer no opportunity to show they are innocent.

Interestingly Leyla had an incident last year. There was a married guy making passes at her, asking her to be his girl friend and such. Leyla can handle herself, told him no thank you. He continued, she told him stop it makes her uncomfortable. He continued, not light hearted play, serious attempts to get her to be with him. She filed a sexual harassment grievance. They are both contractors for the state which means the state's HR, and each persons company's HR were involved. Essentially they said without proof they could not take disciplinary action or fire him. They did move him off site which was all she wanted. It goes to show that it works both ways. Sometimes companies are quick to fire rather than deal with the situation, other times they don't do anything for fear of getting sued for wrongful dismissal.

Jon wrote in post #7678188
I did take a couple of real photos though . . .

Hosted photo: posted by Jon in
./showthread.php?p=767​8188&i=i112379941
forum: The Lounge

Hosted photo: posted by Jon in
./showthread.php?p=767​8188&i=i121848158
forum: The Lounge

How on earth did you get a shot at the Korea Memorial without 67 bazillion little trolls in it?

Harm wrote in post #7678160
Wow, interesting news about photographing in the UK:

LINK

This is down right scary. Seems like month by month the rights of photographers are being eroded.

Woolburr wrote in post #7678359
This has long been an issue with these silly regulations. All it takes is one little personality clash and a valuable employee can be out the door. There really needs to be a review process and a way for innocent people to defend themselves. In this particular instance, we totally reject our basic Constitutional rights and find people guilty with no proof and offer no opportunity to show they are innocent.

In my case the gentleman who got fired did say what was claimed and did write a note so there was no question to the event happening. But my problem stems from there being open ended criteria. It seems as if the only thing that needs to be satisfied is that someone was offended. If that person was offended and complains, the hammer comes down.

short5 wrote in post #7678454
Interestingly Leyla had an incident last year. There was a married guy making passes at her, asking her to be his girl friend and such. Leyla can handle herself, told him no thank you. He continued, she told him stop it makes her uncomfortable. He continued, not light hearted play, serious attempts to get her to be with him. She filed a sexual harassment grievance. They are both contractors for the state which means the state's HR, and each persons company's HR were involved. Essentially they said without proof they could not take disciplinary action or fire him. They did move him off site which was all she wanted. It goes to show that it works both ways. Sometimes companies are quick to fire rather than deal with the situation, other times they don't do anything for fear of getting sued for wrongful dismissal.

That is totally hosed up...one time the system needs to work and it fails...go figure.

Woolburr wrote in post #7678495
How on earth did you get a shot at the Korea Memorial without 67 bazillion little trolls in it?

The guy on point screens a large part of the back walkway. The guy behind him covers a lot of the rest. And there are a couple of people in the distance if you look hard . . . But it involves a lot of waiting . . .

gjl711 wrote in post #7678499
It seems as if the only thing that needs to be satisfied is that someone was offended. If that person was offended and complains, the hammer comes down.

I imagine that stems from the "hostile" work environment suits people file. They don't get along with people, act like butts, complain, and if nothing is done get a slimy lawyer to sue. The court sees the person field a complaint that was not acted on(forget that it may be unfounded) and rules they are owed money. I had a friend, I really like him, but he has attitude and no one better cross him. There have been several incidents like this with him and sadly he has actually moved up the ladder because of it, and the company's fear of getting sued.

gjl711 wrote in post #7678499
This is down right scary. Seems like month by month the rights of photographers are being eroded.

In my case the gentleman who got fired did say what was claimed and did write a note so there was no question to the event happening. But my problem stems from there being open ended criteria. It seems as if the only thing that needs to be satisfied is that someone was offended. If that person was offended and complains, the hammer comes down.

That was always the case in NY....all someone had to do was say they were offended and the "guilty" party was shown the door...no chance to offer a rebuttal...just gone. Of course, you get a case like Leyla's and then the system goes to hell the other way. There has to be some sort of happy medium.

Woolburr wrote in post #7678542
That is totally hosed up...one time the system needs to work and it fails...go figure.

I concur.

Jon wrote in post #7678554
The guy on point screens a large part of the back walkway. The guy behind him covers a lot of the rest. And there are a couple of people in the distance if you look hard . . . But it involves a lot of waiting . . .

In other words....you got lucky!

Red hat lady.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

I love the red hat ladies, when we were in Baltimore and went on a harbor cruise they adopted us and were dancing and having a ball with our clients. A few weeks later I got a note from one of them with photos she had taken thanking us for taking them there and allowing them to enjoy their company. It was very sweet.