Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

He's either got severe delusions about his looks or is a tripod.

FrankieGoesToCollingwood wrote:He's either got severe delusions about his looks or is a tripod.

I'm voting for delusions.

build is not always a good indicator for appendages, stui. Although he does look as though part of his may not have made the journey south yet

I know I'm asking for trouble here, but I'm interested in this concept of "privacy" that somehow only effects the employer and no-one else.

Lets start with the fact that nothing you put on the internet is private. Nothing. Whatever you do, someone is able to track it. While there is a difference between publishing stuff on facebook or a blog and sending a pic on snapchat or a PM on Nicks, if someone releases that into the public domain then the argument that it's somehow "private" doesn't work, does it?

Let's test.

If you disclose illegal activity in this "private" communication, the Police don't care about it being "Private".

I'm pretty sure Bootsma's pregnant girlfriend won't buy the "It's private" argument.

The 15 year old girls mum obviously didn't buy the "It's Private" argument when she took the pics to the footy club.

The Media don't seem to be bothered either.

So, once a "private" activity becomes publicly known, everyone is then able to make a judgement and form an opinion about whether they want to continue to associate with you, but the argument is that for some reason the employer is not allowed to? Is this like the equivalent of calling out "Barley" during a game of tiggy?

Each of us is just one person. You may wear different masks in different roles but you're still one person. How can your personal life be totally separate from your employment relationship with your employer if a conflict between your values and your employers surfaces?

(I know there's holes in this line of reasoning but the argument is still valid)

FrankieGoesToCollingwood wrote:build is not always a good indicator for appendages, stui. Although he does look as though part of his may not have made the journey south yet

So are you suggesting that although you're somewhat short and stocky you're actually Frank the Peg?

stui magpie wrote:So are you suggesting that although you're somewhat short and stocky you're actually Frank the Peg?

Ugh, both The porn star and Bootsma would need a bloody big paper bag to make them marginally attractive. At least Bootsma might half half a six pack, in light porky above.

Yuk yuk yuk

Had to be the AFL jumper, or blind chicks

1061 wrote:

stui magpie wrote:So are you suggesting that although you're somewhat short and stocky you're actually Frank the Peg?

You may have just explained how Frankie got airborne for a pack mark during one famous Nicks games.

i thought he displayed a remarkable leap, I didn't realise he actually pole vaulted.

stui magpie wrote: Lets start with the fact that nothing you put on the internet is private. Nothing. Whatever you do, someone is able to track it. While there is a difference between publishing stuff on facebook or a blog and sending a pic on snapchat or a PM on Nicks, if someone releases that into the public domain then the argument that it's somehow "private" doesn't work, does it?

First off, let me be the first to say Happy Birthday, Stui!

It's funny you mention the above.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/you ... ed/#!VmVEQ

Cheers mate, unfortunately you aint the first my birthday was 2 weeks ago, but nice get with the article there.

^ Yeah I know, I saw the thread a bit late

The article popped up on my news feed a few weeks ago. I'm a bit of a geek and love all that kind of stuff, so I thought it was a decent read.