Update XXI: "Scientific Facts Are Not Hard And Fast Rules."

[J-Mann]

Bushie, let me make this clear.

You make pathetic choices.  You are given plenty of advice, yet you ignore all of it.

You come from a very privileged upbringing.  You have loving parents, a college degree, a car, and plenty of financial support.  You get plenty of advice from us for how to improve yourself, yet it is all for nought.

Everything you do is a fiasco.  You use religion as a shield to cover up your own pathetic life choices.


God would not be happy with the fact that you lie, defraud your parents, and live a life of sin (gluttony).  The Bible says that NO CHRISTIAN WILL LIVE IN SIN (1 John 3:9).

Bushie, by your own religious book, you WILL GO TO HELL IF YOU DIED TODAY. 

Your eating habits are GLUTTONOUS (not to mention all the other frauds you've commited.  I'm not judging you.  YOUR RELIGIOUS TEXT IS.  Gluttony's a sin, plain as day (probably moreso than homosexuality).  And you continually partake in that sin with no repentance or contrition.  Not to mention your pattern of lying and extortion (mooching off of your parents), and the Bible says that liars will have no place in the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9)

I am not an Evangelical Bushie, but using its interpretation of the Bible it is pretty clear you are not saved.

EDIT:  This may seem harsh, but I really think you need a major wake-up call.  I detest Evangelical theology, but since Bushie subscribes to it, he needs a dose of his own medicine.

That doesn't scare me.

It's not about scaring you, Bushie.  I'm trying to point out your hypocrisy in claiming you are saved by your religion when your own text says you are not.

The point is this:  you believe the Bible so much that you would reject basic science (such as the Big Bang Theory and evolution) because the Bible says so.

The Bible also says that no true Christian can live a life of continual sin.  Check out the Bible verses I sent you.  A Christian that is living in sin surely is not saved based on your religious text. 

Explain YOUR interpretations of the verses I cited if they don't mean what they clearly say.

My faith is on solid ground.  On Christ the Solid Rock I stand.  All other ground is sinking sand.  I am secure enough in my faith that I do not believe a word you said.  Your post is just Satan trying to twist Scripture to convince me I am going to hell.  Wrong buster.  I am saved by faith through grace and not based on my works.  You apparently didn't read the passages about grace.  When Jesus died on the cross, his last words were "It is finished."  This means my sin debt, past, present and future is PAID IN FULL.  I can never do a single thing again to lose my salvation.  Once He saved me, I cannot EVER lose my salvation no matter what I do.  That's not my words.  The Southern Baptists believe in Once Saved, Always Saved.  I adhere to that wholeheartedly and I believe that is the correct view.  If I died right now, I have no doubt I would be entering the pearly gates of heaven where I will find Jesus waiting for me with open arms and utter the words "Well done, my good and faithful servant.  You have been faithful over a few things, I will put you in charge over many things in my Kingdom.  Enter thou into the joy of the LORD!".   I have no doubt and nobody can convince me otherwise, so they might as well stop.

You should murder your parents for the life insurance money. I mean, Jesus won't care, right? And one way or the other, you'll be setting yourself up for life!

[J-Mann]

If I'm going to be continued to be ridiculed, mocked, insulted and trashed about my faith then Update is over.  Update is supposed to be a fun thread.  You have taken all the fun out of it and instead have made it into a 'Bushie-bashing thread".  I have done NOTHING deserving of being continually and relentlessly bashed over and over and over and over.

I think labeling another human being as the anti-Christ put you in some pretty dodgy territory, tbh.

Also, accusing someone who challenges you as possessed by a demonic entity that is evil incarnate. Seems worthy of a laugh.

[J-Mann]

If I'm going to be continued to be ridiculed, mocked, insulted and trashed about my faith then Update is over.  Update is supposed to be a fun thread.  You have taken all the fun out of it and instead have made it into a 'Bushie-bashing thread".  I have done NOTHING deserving of being continually and relentlessly bashed over and over and over and over.

I think labeling another human being as the anti-Christ put you in some pretty dodgy territory, tbh.

Also, accusing someone who challenges you as possessed by a demonic entity that is evil incarnate. Seems worthy of a laugh.

Yeah, I realize that was a mistake.

I'm not calling him Satanic or demon possessed, but I know it was Satan just trying to get me off my game.  RF is a nice guy and if he just had a bad day, then I can understand that.  I have bad days and can lash out so I can relate.  I'm not going to respond to his post, but I retract the accusation I made.

You ever think that maybe a little challenge or discussion is good for you? It does anyone good to be able to justify what they say ... in work, relationships, politics, etc. Why not here?

My "faith" is probably stronger than ever because I've allowed it to change and grow over the years. If my only option was "believe in an all-knowing Sky Father who sits on clouds and literally counts the hairs on your head ... or nothing," I'd have been forced to go with nothing, eventually, as the childlike interpretations of a religion just don't hold up to scrutiny.

[J-Mann]

Bushie, let me make this clear.

You make pathetic choices.  You are given plenty of advice, yet you ignore all of it.

You come from a very privileged upbringing.  You have loving parents, a college degree, a car, and plenty of financial support.  You get plenty of advice from us for how to improve yourself, yet it is all for nought.

Everything you do is a fiasco.  You use religion as a shield to cover up your own pathetic life choices.


God would not be happy with the fact that you lie, defraud your parents, and live a life of sin (gluttony).  The Bible says that NO CHRISTIAN WILL LIVE IN SIN (1 John 3:9).

Bushie, by your own religious book, you WILL GO TO HELL IF YOU DIED TODAY. 

Your eating habits are GLUTTONOUS (not to mention all the other frauds you've commited.  I'm not judging you.  YOUR RELIGIOUS TEXT IS.  Gluttony's a sin, plain as day (probably moreso than homosexuality).  And you continually partake in that sin with no repentance or contrition.  Not to mention your pattern of lying and extortion (mooching off of your parents), and the Bible says that liars will have no place in the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9)

I am not an Evangelical Bushie, but using its interpretation of the Bible it is pretty clear you are not saved.

EDIT:  This may seem harsh, but I really think you need a major wake-up call.  I detest Evangelical theology, but since Bushie subscribes to it, he needs a dose of his own medicine.

That doesn't scare me.

It's not about scaring you, Bushie.  I'm trying to point out your hypocrisy in claiming you are saved by your religion when your own text says you are not.

The point is this:  you believe the Bible so much that you would reject basic science (such as the Big Bang Theory and evolution) because the Bible says so.

The Bible also says that no true Christian can live a life of continual sin.  Check out the Bible verses I sent you.  A Christian that is living in sin surely is not saved based on your religious text. 

Explain YOUR interpretations of the verses I cited if they don't mean what they clearly say.

My faith is on solid ground.  On Christ the Solid Rock I stand.  All other ground is sinking sand.  I am secure enough in my faith that I do not believe a word you said.  Your post is just Satan trying to twist Scripture to convince me I am going to hell.  Wrong buster.  I am saved by faith through grace and not based on my works.  You apparently didn't read the passages about grace.  When Jesus died on the cross, his last words were "It is finished."  This means my sin debt, past, present and future is PAID IN FULL.  I can never do a single thing again to lose my salvation.  Once He saved me, I cannot EVER lose my salvation no matter what I do.  That's not my words.  The Southern Baptists believe in Once Saved, Always Saved.  I adhere to that wholeheartedly and I believe that is the correct view.  If I died right now, I have no doubt I would be entering the pearly gates of heaven where I will find Jesus waiting for me with open arms and utter the words "Well done, my good and faithful servant.  You have been faithful over a few things, I will put you in charge over many things in my Kingdom.  Enter thou into the joy of the LORD!".   I have no doubt and nobody can convince me otherwise, so they might as well stop.

Now I'm imaging Bushie being "in charge over many things" in heaven. Good lord indeed!

Do you think Jesus will get a pretty sweet severance package when Bushie bankrupts Heaven? I mean ... God will be OK. That guy has been saving for years. But the angelic hosts? This'll be rough on them.

[J-Mann]

Is this idea that any old soul in Heaven is 'in charge of' helping run the place an Evangelical thing? I mean, I know about patron saints, obviously, but that doesn't seem to be the sort of function that Bushie is anticipating for himself.

I really have no idea how it's going to play out.  The Bible withholds a lot of information on what heaven will be like.  That's by design so as to make it even more enjoyable than what it will be.  I suppose it is an evangelical thing, maybe just a Baptist thing.  It is something I've heard my entire life at church.  I, along with every believer, can dream all we want to about heaven and are encouraged to do so, but we just absolutely won't know for sure until we get there.  There are no words in our vocabulary to describe how awesome it's going to be.  Anything we say here on earth is just speculation, wishful-thinking, and dreaming.  All I know is it will be so much better than anything we can dream up.

So, would you be open to the concept that a Heaven is nothing like you've previously imagined? Like, your consciousness becomes a part of every atom in the universe and you experience everything at once?

[J-Mann]

Jeff, I think you've made a good decision. I know it's not "living the dream," so to speak, but it has the potential to be stable employment that could truly develop into something. I think your dad gave you some sound advice -- do what you can to excel at this job (or simply to keep it) and don't get so distracted by possibilities that have proven futile in the past.

Others have given you good advice, too -- learn about cuts and types of meat, and start exercising a bit more to prepare your body for days on your feet. I'm making an assumption that they'll have a skilled butcher on staff ... honestly, it's a decent skill to have and one that you could always fall back on in life, as long as you learn it and master it. To paraphrase a certain someone: there is NOTHING WRONG with this type of work.

Here's one thing I actually envy about this position -- when you go in each day, you'll have clear tasks to complete, and you'll be able to train, learn and eventually excel at a skill that can stand on its own. You'll be good at the things you're expected to do. I haven't felt that for years ... I wake up every morning to complaint emails or calls from my staff, I get beat on every day from every angle, and I go home knowing that the endless stream of complaints will follow me to bed. Today, I've been working for 14 hours straight, simply to feel caught up. And as soon as I am caught up ... or as soon as I have a victory ... there are a dozen new challenges there to greet me, each one harder than the last. It's like one of those video games that you never win and then repeat on the same level -- you win and repeat and it's harder and harder and harder every time.

Jeff -- I live "the dream:" an office job where I can dress fancy and meet with customers and bring home a respectable amount of bacon. And I actually like it. But it sure as hell ain't for everyone.

Enjoy the opportunity that you have; the opportunity to earn stable employment and to learn a true skill that is useful and usable on its own.

[J-Mann]

I'm having a real hard time understanding the advice for Jeff to go buy a bunch of meat and start cooking it himself. Not only is meat expensive (particularly if you're just going to be experimenting with it -- and Jeff can't afford that), but the guy isn't going to turn into Bobby Flay in the next few weeks ... not does he need to for success at the job he's taking.

Maybe actually cooking different meats is a skill Jeff can gain over time. As far as being necessary for job preparation ... I'm not seeing it.

Jeff, there has been some good advice, however, in terms learning beyond just cuts of meat. If customers happen to ask questions, you can study and simply know the answers to:

• What's the best way to prepare this cut of meat? How about cooking it?
• What sorts of sides go best with this meat?
• What kind of wine pairs well with this meat?

That kind of advice is straightforward to memorize and allows you to engage with the customer, particularly if you can guide their choices depending on the occasion.

This could also be a way to up your game at work a bit ... if you're having a special on, say, lamb, you could recommend that signage also point to sides and wines that pair well with that.

Ignore the above post. A strong red goes well with anything.

Agreed.

[J-Mann]

Does Oklahoma allow the sale of liquor in grocery stores?

[J-Mann]

Does Oklahoma allow the sale of liquor in grocery stores?

Yes, all Walmarts have a beer cooler and liquor aisle.  I know this grocery store does have a beer and wine section.

Good for Oklahoma ... Kansas is such a backwards state in many respects, and still only allows 3.2% beer to be sold in grocery stores. No wine and no liquor. I didn't know if the same was true in Oklahoma.

Best way to prepare a cut of meat is where I was pretty much going with the cooking idea, JMann.

We don't want Bushie saying he can't give any advice on a pot roast because he doesn't have a grill at home.

I understand where everyone's going with it ... it's just not useful or practical. Nor would it be easy on Papa Bushie's wallet. He can learn the responses without being an ace in the kitchen.

[J-Mann]

I definitely need to know how best to prepare a cut of meat.  I can still do occasional cooking on my own, especially on my days off when I have more time.  I can brown hamburger meat, but I'm sure nearly everybody else does as well.  It's not rocket science.  It's those bigger cuts that I need to brush up on.

I'm just recommending to read up on it first before turning your kitchen into Mr. Wizard's World. Not only does it pay off to have great cookware and utensils before you're cooking regularly, it's very frustrating when your own inexperience ruins a $20 cut of meat.

[J-Mann]

Oklahoma seems pretty darned reasonable compared to our liquor laws in Ontario.

Have you checked out the wikipedia link I gave? You can't even buy ordinary beer in Oklahoma groceries. They are only allowed to sell special 3.2% stuff.

I don't look that close and don't know the difference in percentages, but I have seen some Dos Equis, Guinness, Smirnoff, Boston Lager, Heineken, and other beers that are not your run of the mill Bud, Bud Light, Miller, or Miller Lite.

It's not about run-of-the-mill beers ... beer can be manufactured with lower alcohol content, and it looks like Oklahoma (like Kansas) allows the sale of beer or wine coolers with 3.2% or less. But it does not allow wine or liquors like bourbon, vodka, etc.

I forget that your experience with alcohol is so limited that you might think seeing a Dos Equis is hardcore alcohol!

[J-Mann]

Oklahoma seems pretty darned reasonable compared to our liquor laws in Ontario.

Have you checked out the wikipedia link I gave? You can't even buy ordinary beer in Oklahoma groceries. They are only allowed to sell special 3.2% stuff.

I don't look that close and don't know the difference in percentages, but I have seen some Dos Equis, Guinness, Smirnoff, Boston Lager, Heineken, and other beers that are not your run of the mill Bud, Bud Light, Miller, or Miller Lite.

Smirnoff beer? LMAO.

He's referring to Smirnoff Ice, which can be manufactured below 3.2% and is sold in grocery stores in Kansas and Oklahoma.

[J-Mann]

Oklahoma seems pretty darned reasonable compared to our liquor laws in Ontario.

Have you checked out the wikipedia link I gave? You can't even buy ordinary beer in Oklahoma groceries. They are only allowed to sell special 3.2% stuff.

I don't look that close and don't know the difference in percentages, but I have seen some Dos Equis, Guinness, Smirnoff, Boston Lager, Heineken, and other beers that are not your run of the mill Bud, Bud Light, Miller, or Miller Lite.

Smirnoff beer? LMAO.

He's referring to Smirnoff Ice, which can be manufactured below 3.2% and is sold in grocery stores in Kamsas and Oklahoma.

That's not beer either. It's what high school girls drink because they don't like beer.
Also, is Bushie just determined to work far from his home?  Surely there are grocery stores less than 15 miles away from him?

Your point? Oh ... I get it ... yet another thing that Jeff is wrong and ignorant about.

Noted.

BAD BUSHIE. SHAME ON YOU FOR NOT BEING FAMILIAR ENOUGH WITH ALCOHOL TO KNOW WHAT A SMIRNOFF IS. WE WISH THIS WAS RIYAHD SO WE COULD SAW YOUR HANDS OFF FOR DISPLAYING SUCH IGNORANCE!

Seriously, the dude obviously took a step back and evaluated his situation, taking a shot at working for a grocery store. He got the job. It's what we've all been pushing him to do for years. I'm not going to start dumping on him now for being unfamiliar with a freakin' wine cooler and the distance he drives to work. As explained before, some sort of commute is more common in the Midwest and Plains states where things are spread out, and it happened to be where there was a mass hiring and the position was more available.

Sh[inks], I have a 12-mile commute ... yeah, I know, there are probably businesses that have VP of Sales & Marketing jobs that are CLOSER to where I live ... maybe I ought to look into those, too?

[J-Mann]

Look, I think it's great that Bushie got a grocery job after all these years of floundering. However, that doesn't mean he should sit on his Inks and watch a basketball triple header either when he knows nothing at all about food or drink. Getting a job has never been Bushie's biggest problem. It's keeping the job that he has so much trouble with. He doesn't have a clue that employers, unlike church and school, expect a lot more than just showing up.  He needs to think about why that is the case. The distance is a problem with his fear of weather and attendance record. Of course, VP of Inks Waving jobs aren't found on every corner, so one goes where one must to get them, and people who get those jobs are less intimidated by every little obstacle imaginable too. The suggestion that I didn't congratulate a 32 year old man enough (I did, in fact, tell him congrats) for getting hired at a grocery store is insane.

I'm not questioning any congratulations ... I don't care if you do or don't. I just don't see the point of returning to questioning something like driving distance. At this point, it's moot. Would you be happier if he abandoned this job and started looking for something closer? With the forum crew, I think the dude's f***ed if he does and f***ed if he doesn't, at this point.

When Jeff f***s up, I'll ride his ass as hard as anyone (metaphorically, of course -- don't get freaked out, Bushie).

But when he shows a hint of progress, I'd rather ride him on the things he can affect at that point (and, admittedly, it might be important soon to have a passing familiarity with booze).

[J-Mann]

And, for the record, I am not opposed to alcohol.  I'm just opposed to excessive drinking and getting drunk.  I'm also opposed to people burning their family's paycheck on beer instead of food or bills.  I, myself, like to enjoy a glass of wine every now and then.  I haven't had any since July 2013 because I am of the belief that if I have a drink then I cannot drive the rest of the day and since I am often by myself, then I cannot indulge in a drink.  I have no problem with any of my friends having controlled drinks just so long as they don't get drunk and embarrass themselves or their family.  That said, I never condemn anybody if they do get drunk nor do I call them out, because I do things that are just as bad.

Nice!  Bushie is such an artist.

Will you answer my question?  Or here's a less direct one.  If I came through Oklahoma on a road trip would you have Braums with me for lunch or is my speech directly controlled by Satan?

I met you and found this to be factually accurate.

[J-Mann]

Ha, I just voted for 225.  My goal for 364 days from now is obviously lower, but not giving myself the benefit of the doubt, I voted 225.  I seriously doubt, even with a lot of hard work, I will weigh under 200 lbs by then.

I just weighed this morning, and I weigh 274.4, which is actually a decrease of a half pound in the last 48 hours.  I was almost sure I would be 277, at least.  274.4 is by no means a glorious number, but just being 3 pounds under what I thought I would be is okay.  My first goal by June 20, is 260 lbs.

Why do you bring this up?   What is your purpose other than public shaming?

I hoping reading posts like that kicks you into gear. You need to be working at weight loss all the time, or before we know it it will be March 2017 and we will be looking back at this moment as yet another moment you could have started losing weight.

I'm hoping this grocery store job will spark a new lifestyle within me being around healthier, natural foods for 8 hours a day.  I imagine and hope I will be around healthier people as a result.  Perhaps the influence from those two sources and the tips I can glean from them will spur me on to a lower weight.  In the mean time, I am going to start walking again and increase my water intake/decrease my DDP intake.  When I do have a cheat day, I will still try to order something that is not as fattening.

A funny bit of context:

Homer Simpson has long been held up as the typical American fat, even though he is a fictional character. In the show's 26 seasons, he's constantly mocked for his weight. People are so familiar with the series that they can draw comparisons: they don't want to be "Homer Simpson fat."

The show says that Homer is about six feet tall (although one episode says that he's exactly the same height as Mel Gibson, which would be 5'10").

In early seasons, the "fat" Homer weighs 239 pounds. In the latest seasons, his weight has increased (probably to keep pace with American expectations of what "fat" is), and he says the scale told him he was 260. In one episode, he was home-bound at 300 pounds.

You're probably not a Simpsons watcher, Jeff, but you're undoubtedly familiar with Homer Simpson's place in pop culture. Just an interesting comparison -- the animated world's version of morbid obesity is at least two inches taller and 25 pounds lighter than you.

You've got some work to do.

[J-Mann]

Nah, Homer was never monstrously fat. Just sort of "average" fat. Chief Wiggum and Comic Book Guy are both noticably fatter than Homer. Fat inflation is a real thing though. I remember seeing Roseanne back in the 90s and she and John Goodman looked really damn fat. I see those episodes now, and they're still fat, but no longer in a shocking way.

I don't know ... http://youtu.be/RQXzOE12xuM

You're right, John Goodman just looks a little swollen now. Our perceptions have been skewed so much in just 20 years.

In contrast to Homer Simpson, at least this is a health foods farmers market instead of a donut shop...

He works at a nuclear power plant. Are there any near you? They seem to be surprisingly lax with the large amount of work he misses.

[J-Mann]

Is anyone truly shocked by the behavior of these SAE douches? I mean, I understand they're saying some pretty terrible sh[inks], and since it was captured on video, they're essentially representing the University ... but come on.

This is how ALL frat douches act. They may not say the n-word, but guaranteed they're douching it up being exclusionary against SOMEONE. THAT'S WHAT FRATERNITIES ARE ... exclusionary organizations. Certain people don't make it in ... could be money, could be looks, could be race, could be religion. They exclude based on SOMETHING in each and every case. Hell, historically black fraternities don't have a hell of a lot of white people, either. Do they say some sh[inks] behind closed doors that people would be "shocked" by?

Yeah, probably so.

So while these douches are particularly vile because of the sh[inks] they were saying ... which, for the record, I can't defend other than it being technically protected speech ... they are representing every single fraternity's essential, core behavior.

This shouldn't surprise anyone.

[J-Mann]

Hey.

I was in a fraternity, not everyone in them are racist, sexist, homophobic thugs.

Having said that, I know mine was unusual.

And maybe you were a perfect upstanding gentleman the entire time, as were all of your fraternity brothers. However, my guess is that you (and they) at some point did something that was reprehensible enough that you wouldn't want it broadcast on YouTube. It doesn't have to be saying n****r ... it's just the type of behavior that these organizations breed. If you ever talked about how nice the girls' at Kappa Kappa c**nta's tits were, the mainstream media would gasp in shock and call you horribly sexist. If anyone ever told an off-color joke, they'd be violating another one of our overly sensitive society's delicate sensibilities, and the university's president would condemn you and your family for three generations.

You'd want none of it broadcast. But at least you didn't say the n-word!

Again, not defending the assholes from OU's SAE chapter or saying your group did anything nearly that bad. But exclusionary groups spur insular thinking, and groups of young guys together are going to do inappropriate things ... this is the type of behavior that results.

I'm aware my experience is subjective, and not entirely typical at a small school with only three social fraternities, but there's a massive difference between excluding someone for demographic reasons as opposed to excluding someone because an organization has appraised that said person would be a detriment to them. Voting is a discriminatory process, as is hiring. Not everyone will be voted for, not everyone will be hired. As I'm going to guess, you probably would see a vast gap between not hiring someone because they're black and not hiring someone because you don't think they have the qualifications. The fraternities at my school (at least--I'm well aware that my experience is probably atypical, and acknowledge such) are hardly exclusionary on the basis of race, religion, sexuality, or class.

Gotta call bullsh[inks] on you. I don't say this as some sort of homo-touting prude, but I know damn well there wasn't a single frat within 2,000 miles of where I went to school that didn't have a pack of a-holes that got sh[inks]faced drunk every weekend, laughed at fags because it was the popular thing to do in a group of good ol' boys, acted like pretentious pricks around other on-campus groups, represented their universities in the worst way possible at sporting events, and probably committed their fair share of date rape. The surface-level qualifications mean nothing compared to the herd mentality of the clique.

For the record, I was an asshole in college, too.

Broad brush? Yeah, sure. I'll admit that I have a special dislike for fraternities and sororities. And I'll agree with you that there's a big difference between not hiring based on qualifications versus not hiring based on race / religion / orientation / etc. There's also a big difference between the insularity a business encourages versus whatever a fraternity or sorority could possibly encourage (outside of BS mottos and boilerplate values), and more often than not, their exclusionary tendencies boil down to the lowest common denominators.

[J-Mann]

I have just crossed underneath 13 days until my new career.  The time is drawing near.  First, though, I get a mini-Spring Break vacation at my parents this week.  I will head down to my parents this afternoon (Tuesday) and spend the next five nights with them.

So, mini-vacation and no plans to acclimate your body to a more-physical environment?

[J-Mann]

Um... I think you would know better than to tar all with one brush.

I have never done ANY-THING that I (nor anyone else) would call reprehensible - sure I've done stupid things that I wouldn't want on YouTube, but they certainly were self-inflicted acts of stupidity that didn't involve belittling, attacking, assaulting or offending anyone. I'd urge against suggesting, even in passing, that I would or have.

As I said, this was not your standard frat, I was asked by 'those types' to join and refused, for those exact reasons. For the record, there was no binge-drinking, none of the stereotypical parties, no cruising around for women to take advantage of. It was multi-racial, multi-faith, lots of different socio-economic backgrounds, gay and straight etc etc.

Of the number of bids I received, it was the only one that seemed to fit my own sensibilities and views, ie not your typical frat.

As I said, mine was highly unusual, considering I saw a guy get punched out of a window from another house across the park. I didn't live in the house, but I spent my nights there playing poker, playstation and bags and the only drinking was an occasional game of beer-pong. The binge-drinking and total stupidity came from living in graduate apartments with other foreign students.

Yeah, there are tons of things I've done I wouldn't want on Youtube. I'm going to guess that's true for the vast majority of humanity. Congratulations, you've got me there.

In regards to your comments on overall behavior--embarrassing the school at sporting events, acting like pretentious pricks around other campus groups, or whatever--again, I'm speaking from what I believe to be an atypical experience. My chapter has been involved in representing the school through student orientation for as long as I'm aware. My freshman year, our president was the student director of orientation, and another brother will be leading it this year. Four out of five candidates for Student Government Association executive positions were Greek, all three fraternities will likely have some level of power in SGA's senate or leadership next year. In regards to other chapters at my school, there's obviously going to be a range that spans from incredibly atypical characters (like a guy in my chapter who's a junior who has drunk maybe once) to all sorts of degenerates that give members of the leadership (myself) constant headaches. While my chapter's not the best example of "diversity", no Greek organizations are all white. The president of our next door neighbors the semester I rushed is gay and very involved in Greek Life on campus.

Yeah, this is all anecdotal and specific to my school. A larger school with a larger Greek Life is probably going to be a lot more dominated by stereotypes of guys who are "legacies", involved in the Young Republicans, rich to sh#t, very "bro"-ish, and so on. An obvious example is the one cited in this thread. However, off-color jokes and talking about a sorority member's breast size is by no means going to be specific to fraternities. If that were the case, it would be a very civil society that we live in indeed. If your point is that exclusionary groups are going to foster a less-than-ideal mindset in regards to "out" groups, I guess that's not entirely deniable. It's also going to foster a sense of in-group loyalty that I view as, in many ways, constructive--granting people a smaller, more palpable community than their larger university that they can work to actively build and support. While that's not the view of it that everyone takes--I'd be f#cking glad if other members of my organization had a more serious sense of actually contributing to the organization--that's the direct effect it's had for me. And if I say the word "geeds" on occasion, okay, whatever. I was already an asshole before I joined, as opposed to an asshole who's forced to go to community service events and has an incentive to perform competently in leadership roles.

I have no idea if anything I said was coherent, but whatever.

I owe you both an apology for being harsh ... most likely a reaction to the BS I'd heard about this while listening to the radio yesterday and hearing caller after caller say how terrible SAE was and then defend their same organizations as "different" than all the others. That irritates me because it portrays the SAE douches as something out of the ordinary ... and behaviorally, they're not.

My point is, a lot of behaviors that happen in general can be exacerbated inside an exclusive group. And those exacerbated behaviors often have negative tones in fraternities or sororities. There's nothing shocking about the SAE behavior at all.

[J-Mann]

Anyway, I am down to 12 days until my new career begins.  Even if the forum doesn't think it will last, doesn't mean I'm an automatic goner there.  Give me a chance here especially considering it is a completely different industry than what I'm used to.  Maybe change will be a good thing?

I did get some encouraging words from my uncle (Mom's brother) today saying he was proud of me for taking this job and putting an end to the unemployment.  He says just bringing in a paycheck, have more (and hopefully increasing) financial independence and being independent in a different city will be good for my psyche.  My uncle thinks this will be good for me.  I appreciated the words of encouragement.

Now THIS is why this stuff falls down. You're using pretty grandiose language here. It's a job, a relatively well-paid one with prospects if you perform well. Calling it a career would be intellectually dishonest.

Can't I be optimistic about turning this into a career? Or is optimism outlawed?

Jeff, you've been continuously encouraged to do some basic physical activity to attempt to prepare your body for what will be initially demanding on it. You haven't done a thing with this advice.

These people are not blowing smoke up your ass. You stood for two hours in a Sprint store and think you're Charles Atlas all of the sudden. That first day on the job of being on your feet for eight hours or more when you probably haven't managed that feat in literally years (decades?) will do a number on your legs, your back and your energy level. I'm in relatively good shape and am sore after WALKING a lot around a resort in the Dominican Republic for a few days.

You can keep the optimism as long as you're actually readying yourself for this. Don't use "I'm going to be at Mom and Dad's house for five days" as an excuse not to do the bare minimum of physical preparation. Damn, man ... get out and walk with them, one of the dogs, a friend, SOMEONE. Ask someone to hold you accountable.

If you don't, I am seeing sick days for minor aches and pains almost immediately. Optimism aside, you know how weak-willed you are once the discomfort begins. Why not TRY to prepare yourself physically?

[J-Mann]

I know I'll be sore for the first couple of weeks, but after the first month I should get used to it and be just fine.  I have no doubt I can do it.  I need to prepare, yes, but I don't anticipate it affecting my performance or my will power.  Nobody seems to understand that I'm ready to settle down into a career.  Everybody thinks I am going to flippantly let it go.  Nobody knows how well I can do at this job.  Heck, I don't even know how well I can do at this job.  I may very easily surprise myself.  People are allowed to have their own thoughts, but don't call me out for my positive thoughts and don't get angry when I call out negative thoughts.

Jeff, I'm not "calling you out" for any positivity. I'm being real with you. We have literally years' worth of Update to gauge that you do not do well under any physical discomfort. A cold, a "tummy ache," headaches, a sore back ... first you'll complain on here and Facebook about your plight, then end up taking time off because you "need to recover."

This is not negativity. It's realism. Prepare yourself. You have TWO WEEKS' worth of opportunity to at least acclimate your body to activity. Why are you being so stubborn as to ignore that and just think that (once again) your positive thoughts are going to be enough? Jesus, man ... help yourself.

[J-Mann]

All that said, tomorrow is supposed to be sunny with highs in the middle 70's.  I'd be a fool not to get out and walk for a bit.

All what said? That your positivity will be enough? Trust me, man ... it won't be. You will be greatly helping yourself if you take time every day for the next 12 days to exercise a little.

Do yourself a favor tomorrow and don't time yourself. Just get out and walk. Enjoy the weather, maybe pick a park and wander around. Setting a time limit for yourself is accepting a pre-determined limitation. Let your body decide when it's done.

And dude -- stop with the pretentiousness. I'm trying to give you REAL, HONEST, HEARTFELT advice to freakin' help you out. No, I don't know it's going to be the same story. I don't know how well you're going to do. But we have a sh[inks]-ton of history to go by. It's like if your girlfriend cheated on you a dozen times and you kept giving her more chances because, "this time might be different."

Wouldn't you be more cautious and try to manage such a relationship better? I'm recommending the same. Don't just plan ... do. Do and prepare yourself for what's coming.

[J-Mann]

How much (if any) walking have you done this week Bushie?

I think he's given us all the signs that he's not even going to attempt this, regardless of how good of an idea it is or how much it would help him succeed. Positivity and a good attitude about the new job are enough to overcome the unavoidable pain his body will be in after day one.