Drag Shows!!

[Upchurch]

I have had to pass background checks to work in municipal buildings, school's, and hospitals as a flipping building contractor, just doing repairs and improvements with no contact with staff or others, often when working alone in off hours. I am actually on a handed-around short list of "clean guys" who pass anything, including drug tests.

But that is not always necessary. See my chess competitors example above.

 

[Thermal]

Ya know, this reminds me of a different time when you made up your mind and would respond to any evidence contrary to your conclusion by saying "bag of dildos". Eventually, a year or two later it became too much to pretend that it was a "bag of dildos" and were forced to re-examine your faithfully held conclusion.

Is "boilerplate language" the new "bag of dildos"?

I am sorry to say that I have no idea what you are talking about, except that "bag of dildos" does sound like something I'd say.

 

[Thermal]

But that is not always necessary. See my chess competitors example above.

And see my example of a low-paid contractor falling under a discretionary entertainment budget.

ETA: Darat's question seemed pretty general, so I responded in what was generally done on this side of the pond. My State is not playing around.

 

[plague311]

Is a definition for "boilerplate language" really called for here?

The audience is 5 year olds. They likely wouldn't recognize a man in convincing drag, much less understand it in any meaningful way.

Then what's the problem? Sounds to me like they'd be thinking they are being read a book by someone in a dress or a costume. Spot on, sounds like we can put this to bed then.

 

[Upchurch]

I am sorry to say that I have no idea what you are talking about, except that "bag of dildos" does sound like something I'd say.

Yeah, it's a complete mystery.

Is a definition for "boilerplate language" really called for here?

Yeah, we might. Boilerplate language is most often associated with legal documents and refers to non-specific language that can be used over and over. Even if you apply it in non-legal situations, this language is clearly only applicable to LGBTQ organizations with an education-oriented mission. That is hardly non-specific language that can be used over and over, unless you just happen to have a bunch of LGBTQ education organizations lying around.

Do you actually think that's boilerplate language or are you only interested in asking questions in dramatic fashion rather than getting the answers?

 

[Thermal]

Then what's the problem? Sounds to me like they'd be thinking they are being read a book by someone in a dress or a costume. Spot on, sounds like we can put this to bed then.

That would be so much dumber. "Guys guys guys: let's get a man to dress up as a woman to *jazz hands* fool the children into thinking some lady was reading to them! Huh? Huh? Genius or what? True, it will cost more to get a paid drag queen in here than to just have Marcia the librarian dress up, but come on! We can market it as a Drag Queen Story Hour that the kids won't know features a drag queen!"

 

[Upchurch]

And see my example of a low-paid contractor falling under a discretionary entertainment budget.

ETA: Darat's question seemed pretty general, so I responded in what was generally done on this side of the pond. My State is not playing around.

Mine is much more comparable. Outside people working with kids, under supervision, for a very short period of time and little to no vetting.

 

[plague311]

I have had to pass background checks to work in municipal buildings, school's, and hospitals as a flipping building contractor, just doing repairs and improvements with no contact with staff or others, often when working alone in off hours. I am actually on a handed-around short list of "clean guys" who pass anything, including drug tests.

I am a convicted felon (twice), have multiple misdemeanors, and I passed a background test to work for the city no problem. I work on secured, classified networks for the fire, police, etc. without any issue at all.

I also have a medical marijuana license and couldn't pass a drug test for the life of me.

Guess who pays my paycheck? You nailed it, the taxpayers of my city. Hell, I even got a 3.85% raise so I get even MORE of the taxpayer money.

My point in all of this? What goes on in your world means nothing to the rest of the US and the world. We've had this talk before. I have no idea why you insist that your anecdotal experiences are all that important.

 

[plague311]

That would be so much dumber. "Guys guys guys: let's get a man to dress up as a woman to *jazz hands* fool the children into thinking some lady was reading to them! Huh? Huh? Genius or what? True, it will cost more to get a paid drag queen in here than to just have Marcia the librarian dress up, but come on! We can market it as a Drag Queen Story Hour that the kids won't know features a drag queen!"

So my sarcasm was missed? Good to know.

My point was that there's no reason in complaining if the kids don't know any better. I'd bet the kids do and I was trying to point that out to you, but apparently I wasn't sarcastic enough. I'll work on it for the future.

 

[Thermal]

Yeah, it's a complete mystery.

Your link says I called the J6 didos, um...J6 dildos. Ok. I forgot about that particular usage in that particular exchange. Did you have a point relevant to this topic of was it just some weird personalization?

Yeah, we might. Boilerplate language is most often associated with legal documents and refers to non-specific language that can be used over and over. Even if you apply it in non-legal situations, this language is clearly only applicable to LGBTQ organizations with an education-oriented mission. That is hardly non-specific language that can be used over and over, unless you just happen to have a bunch of LGBTQ education organizations lying around.

Do you actually think that's boilerplate language or are you only interested in asking questions in dramatic fashion rather than getting the answers?

I think it is generic gender-inclusive wording that doesn't really say anything but seems like it does.

This is a story hour. Doesn't sound much like a Q&A session about men who wear women's clothes, does it? What are they going to learn, especially if they have not the foggiest idea what is being presented?

 

[Thermal]

So my sarcasm was missed? Good to know.

My point was that there's no reason in complaining if the kids don't know any better. I'd bet the kids do and I was trying to point that out to you, but apparently I wasn't sarcastic enough. I'll work on it for the future.

You're still not getting it? I give up.

 

[Thermal]

I am a convicted felon (twice), have multiple misdemeanors, and I passed a background test to work for the city no problem. I work on secured, classified networks for the fire, police, etc. without any issue at all.

I also have a medical marijuana license and couldn't pass a drug test for the life of me.

Guess who pays my paycheck? You nailed it, the taxpayers of my city. Hell, I even got a 3.85% raise so I get even MORE of the taxpayer money.

My point in all of this? What goes on in your world means nothing to the rest of the US and the world. We've had this talk before. I have no idea why you insist that your anecdotal experiences are all that important.

Dude, everything is going over your head today.

Darat said such checks are not routinely persued over there. You and I are both checked here. Checked does not mean failed and denied. On this side of the pond, ya word is not enough.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Of course it does. It is explicitly what they are doing and why.

For example:

Yes those are exactly the reasons they are against it.

 

[plague311]

Dude, everything is going over your head today.

Perhaps you suck at explaining yourself?

Darat said such checks are not routinely persued over there. You and I are both checked here. Checked does not mean failed and denied. On this side of the pond, ya word is not enough.

Yes, I got it. My point was those "checks" don't really mean **** do they? What good is the "check" if a twice convicted, drug using criminal can work on classified networks without any issue at all? You seem to be bringing up these "checks" as if they're super important, and my point is they don't do ****.

Even in this case we're talking about a person that was convicted of a crime against minors. He never, EVER should have been allowed around them, but he was, and nothing happened. Would I want him around my kids? Hell no. Do I think the "check" would have made a huge difference? No. His sentence could have been deferred, and it might not have shown up. Mine wasn't deferred and I still got the job.

 

[bruto]

The library admitted they ****** up and they haven't done it since. You're right, it was a mistake and a careless one. The issue is rectified.

...so what now? All DQSH have to be shut down because one time someone slipped through the cracks?

And, of course, the fact that the library took care of the problem proves that we need a law because a policy isn't a policy and a practice is not a practice and a solution is not a solution unless politicians do it. Because we know nothing ever gets past them!

 

[Thermal]

Perhaps you suck at explaining yourself?



Yes, I got it. My point was those "checks" don't really mean **** do they? What good is the "check" if a twice convicted, drug using criminal can work on classified networks without any issue at all? You seem to be bringing up these "checks" as if they're super important, and my point is they don't do ****.

Jesus Christ, man. A check insures that there are no big surprises that you haven't disclosed, like for example, a child rapist who is not permitted to work around children. I mean, God damn, dude.

You have described your convictions before. Irrelevant pissant stuff in terms of being a potential hacker or security threat or whatever.

What a background check would be looking for in your case would be an undisclosed gig like a criminal conviction for IT crimes, not fighting with your wife.

Even in this case we're talking about a person that was convicted of a crime against minors. He never, EVER should have been allowed around them, but he was, and nothing happened. Would I want him around my kids? Hell no. Do I think the "check" would have made a huge difference? No. His sentence could have been deferred, and it might not have shown up. Mine wasn't deferred and I still got the job.

The recent child rapist would not have shown up? I give up man.

 

[Upchurch]

Your link says I called the J6 didos, um...J6 dildos. Ok. I forgot about that particular usage in that particular exchange. Did you have a point relevant to this topic of was it just some weird personalization?

Yeah, just like I've already said, you got an idea into your head and wouldn't change your mind no matter how much evidence said otherwise.

I think it is generic gender-inclusive wording that doesn't really say anything but seems like it does.

Okay, you clearly have no idea what boilerplate language is. Like before, when presented with evidence that literally answers the question you are asking, you reject it because ...well, you don't really give a reason.

This is a story hour. Doesn't sound much like a Q&A session about men who wear women's clothes, does it? What are they going to learn, especially if they have not the foggiest idea what is being presented?

Straw man: No one said it was a Q&A or was supposed to be a Q&A.

As has been explained to you before, the goal is for kids to learn "about gender diversity and difference, and tap into their own creativity."

 

[Thermal]

Yeah, just like I've already said, you got an idea into your head and wouldn't change your mind no matter how much evidence said otherwise.

No, I understood what a "coup" was, and didn't think that what the J6ers did qualified as one. Similar, and highly insurrectionist, but not really a coup/attempt.

No evidence was shown to the contrary, except for people reading minds and playing fast and loose with wordplay.

Okay, you clearly have no idea what boilerplate language is. Like before, when presented with evidence that literally answers the question you are asking, you reject it because ...well, you don't really give a reason.

And like before, you give vague sort of wishy washy kinda sorta language and declare your point proven. Doesn't normally fly.

Straw man: No one said it was a Q&A or was supposed to be a Q&A.

If the kiddies are not supposed to ask questions or get answers about the men in dresses, how are they....
Never mind.

As has been explained to you before, the goal is for kids to learn "about gender diversity and difference, and tap into their own creativity."

Right. I call that meaningless and generic wording. Thanks so much.

 

[TomB]

You're misunderstanding. This is not a careless mistake; the guy was collecting tax funded pay and didn't even pony up a ss#. My inner contractor smells a much wider rat.

Was he?

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that they were volunteers.
My wife used to work security at the local library, and there were a lot of volunteers. They had a used bookstore that was completely run by volunteers.

They didn't have any kind of story hour I'm aware of, so I can't say how that would have been handled.

 

[Thermal]

Was he?

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that they were volunteers.
My wife used to work security at the local library, and there were a lot of volunteers. They had a used bookstore that was completely run by volunteers.

They didn't have any kind of story hour I'm aware of, so I can't say how that would have been handled.

The library said they hired him and he worked for them. Seems like a paying gig. Seems like being some random volunteer would have been a quick "out" for the library, wouldn't it?

ETA: DSH main site says specifically that it's a paying gig, and don't even appear for charity causes without pay (but do offer discounted rates)