Jump to content

Recommended Posts

But back to the topic in question, low cut tops are one of the few things at work that make those hideously dull meetings bearable. They aren't just allowable, they are essential. But if you aren't into bursting out jubblies, and there are no buns in sight, you could try a round of bullsh*t bingo instead?
What can you do if you've got big la las? The best shape of top to wear is a V top. If you you try and cover them up you end up with that 1950s sweater girl look. You really can't disguise big la las so you've got to dress in a way you're comfortable with and everyone else can go take a running jump. So there.

Next meeting I have I?m going to unbutton the top three buttons of my shirt as an experiment to see if it gives me a psychological advantage over whomsoever of the other meetingeees choose to stare.


I got a chest hair a few months back so I?m pretty confident I can pull it off.

brum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> How do you play bullsh*t bingo? It's just I'm on

> way to a meeting right now and don't expect to be

> anywhere near low cut tops and the only buns I'm

> interested in are iced ones.


Pre meeting, write out a bingo style grid of management speak phrases that you think might be used in the meeting. "Thinking outside the box" "I'll put that on my management dashboard" "let's just run this one up the flag pole" and other phrases that make my ears bleed, for example.


Then cross them off as they get said out loud at the meeting. When the last one gets crossed off, stand up and yell "BULLSHITBINGO!" at the top of your voice.


You may well get fired, but it is very funny!

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Next meeting I have I?m going to unbutton the top

> three buttons of my shirt as an experiment to see

> if it gives me a psychological advantage over

> whomsoever of the other meetingeees choose to

> stare.

>

> I got a chest hair a few months back so I?m pretty

> confident I can pull it off.


It'll certainly attract some guys to you ...but don't worry, your secret is safe with us! ;-)

Ladymuck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just thinking out of the box here, Brendan, but

> perhaps you could consider tweezing that singular

> hair?


Can we just touch base on that LM? I'm not sure that tweezers are really the latest in bleeding-edge technologies in the field of top down user-lead inter-personal solutions. We may just have to unpack that envelope a little more.

At base I agree Brendan but do we have the bandwidth to deal right now? Let's give the divisions a heads up on this one so they can drill down and maybe get some leverage going forwards. We may find this product is geared towards the hairfree vertical but I don't want to go out on a limb on that just to find there's been a paradigm shift. Maybe we should tic-tac next week?

Odyssey has raised a quite a pertinent point.

It's descended into a bit of a joking matter admittedly.

But the point has merit.

This is currently an 'issue' at my workplace with several males and females noting (independently, so it's not a witch hunt) a particular individual's prediliction for coming to work with her tits out.

Just not cool in an office envt.

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Odyssey has raised a quite a pertinent point.

> It's descended into a bit of a joking matter

> admittedly.

> But the point has merit.

> This is currently an 'issue' at my workplace with

> several males and females noting (independently,

> so it's not a witch hunt) a particular

> individual's prediliction for coming to work with

> her tits out.

> Just not cool in an office envt.


And their problem is? (Genuine question, I'm interested to know what it is that bothers them about what they have observed)

I find it totally hypocritical that in a world where women often only get attention if they are good looking and/or sexy and are used to sell everything, that the moment some women empower themselves (usually only to feel good about themselves and not to seduce anybody), it's frowned upon. Men only have themselves to blame if they can't handle a bit of female flesh showing, because after all that IS all that is showing. Get a grip guys.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Sorry. Link wasn't working on my phone, but it is now, and I couldn't delete the post.
    • I think there's a fair number of "participating" sub offices that do passports or, at least, play the "check and send" game (£16 for glancing at your form), so some degree of cherry-picking seems to be permitted. Though it does look as if Post Offices "Indentity Services" are where it things the future lies, and "Right to Rent" (though it's more an eligibility check) looks a bit of an earner, along with DBS checks and the Age Verification services that, if the government gets its way, we'll all need to subscribe to before we're allowed on mumsnet. Those services, incidentally, seem mostly outsourced to an outfit called "Yoti", a privately-owned, loss-making "identity platform" with debts of £150m, a tardy approach to filings, and a finger in a bunch of questionable pies ("Passive Facial Liveness Recognition" sounds gloriously sinister) so what the Post Office gets out of the arrangement isn't clear, but I'm sure they think it worthwhile. That said, they once thought the same of funeral plans which, for some peculiar reason, failed to set fire to the shuffling queues, even metaphorically. For most, it seems, Post Office work is mostly a dead loss, and even the parcel-juggling is more nuisance than blessing. As a nonchalant retailer of other people's services the organisation can only survive now on the back of subsidies, and we're not even sure what they are. The taxpayer-funded subsidies from government (a £136m hand-out to keep Horizon going, £1bn for its compensation scheme, around £50m for the network, and perhaps a loan or two) are clearish, but the cross-subsidies provided by other retail activities in branches are murkier. As are the "phantom shortfalls" created by the Horizon system, which secretly lined Post Office's coffers as postmasters balanced the books with contributions from their own pockets. Those never showed up in the accounts though - because Horizon *was* the accounting system - so we can't tell how much of a subsidy that was. We might get an idea of the scale, however, from Post Office's belated Horizon Shortfall Scheme, which is handing £75k to every branch that's complained, though it's anyone's guess if that's fair or not. Still, that's all supposed to be behind us now, and Post Office's CEO-of-the-week recently promised an "extra" £250m a year for the branches (roughly enough to cover a minimum wage worker in each), which might make it worth the candle for some. Though he didn't expect that would happen before 2030 (we can only wonder when his pension will mature) and then it'd be "subject to government funding", so it might have to be a very short candle as it doesn't look like a promise that he can make. Still, I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from applying for a franchise, and it's possible that, this time, Post Office will be telling the truth. And, you never know, we might all be back in the Post Office soon, and eagerly buying stamps, if only for existence permits, rather than for our letters.
    • The situation outside Oru is far worse with their large tables immediately adjacent to badly parked bikes using the bike racks there. And the lamppost also blocking the pavement.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...