From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #654 Dead-Flames Digest #654, Volume #48 Sun, 23 Oct 05 22:00:01 PDT Contents: Re: Bonus disc question ("Dave Kelly") Re: Bonus disc question ("frndthdevl") Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) ("grtflmark") Re: Bonus disc question ("frndthdevl") Re: Bonus disc question ("Tony & Beth") Re: The best stoner movie (NDC) (mrose101) Re: What is a good "B" rated movie? (mrose101) Re: Bonus disc question (band beyond description) Re: What is a good "B" rated movie? (Kelly Humphries) Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) (Ben) Re: The best stoner movie (NDC) ("Olompali4") Condi v Hillary 2008? (Walter Karmazyn) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Dave Kelly" Subject: Re: Bonus disc question Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 01:28:48 GMT I'm firmly in the camp of NOT trading officially released product from Grateful Dead Productions. Now if you will EXCUSE me, the Bat phone is ringing. Cheef Sweet-Pants ------------------------------ From: "frndthdevl" Subject: Re: Bonus disc question Date: 23 Oct 2005 19:05:51 -0700 Rogues Island's finest wrote: > Steve Terry wrote: > > What's the consensus? > > The Colts have a tit schedule. > > Mark Don't quite understand how the colts have such a cushy schedule,I thought better finishing teams had tougher schedules? Manning love again. ; ) The Chargers schedule was slightly unreal, playing 4 teams off byes, KC lucks into an extra bye esentially,making 5. Ouch! Andy reid 10 and ) coming off Byes. Here is your cue Andrew...... Marty sucks! outcoached again. He is a great mediocre coach though. 4 lossses by a total of 12 points? lol At least ShEli beat the broncos today. mmmm Larry David is coming on now. peace jeff You say you don't get discouraged All it takes is time and courage Lay long enough on the track and the train will come Hunter ------------------------------ From: "grtflmark" Subject: Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) Date: 23 Oct 2005 19:10:56 -0700 >That's short of it being required by law, which if I'm not mistaken >is what you claimed was the case in many states. .......not really - and, you're right, I did say that. Industries and other business which are subject to drug testing guidance delineated in The Code of Federal Regulation or, in some cases state or local governmental agencies, are subject to the recommendations as delineated by these agencies (in this example, the State of NY). Now, while these "recommedations" have the rather misleading title of "recommendations" - they actually end up having the "Force of Law". What that means is that these "agencies" have "inspectors" or people who "license" your buisiness - including these programs. If you DEPART from these so-called "recommendations" - you get to spend a whole lot of time explaining to a beaurocrat who has no understanding whatsoever of the medical or technical issues why you program is not word-for-word verbatim the same as the one described in the "recommendations". These people are not smart enough to understand anything, but they are just quick enough to do a "two-fingered review" of your program against the "recommendations" and notice that the Agency used "happy" where your program said "glad". They can tie you up for months and months and screw up the actual process of making money by asking questions and requiring affirmation ad infinitum why this difference is okay. The bottom line: people make sure they follow the "recommendations" to the letter - its easier. >Also, it explicitly states that urine testing is not used for >alcohol ?I say that if you NEED a breathalyzer test to figure out it >someone is drinking on the job, there is a huge problem. >There shouldn't be any problem with firing them for >incompetence. .....well, you keep saying this - but it's not true. I was personally involved in an emergency response in my industry - which required that you meed "fitness for duty" requirements to be a part of. This is a deal where people were "on call" - but expected to meet "fitness for duty" requirements when "Called-In". That's whole 'nother "pissing" contest (so to speak). At any rate - one of the Managers I worked with this night who was called "self-identified". In other words, he told security folks that he had been drinking earlier that evening. This work took place at 3:00 am on a normal work night. He did not smell of alcohol, he did not engage in any "aberrant" behavior. They gave him a breath test, and he had a BAC "above zero" so, they did a blood test and let him work with "shadow supervision". This was not noticed by anyone at the time. Bottom line: the calculations showed that his BAC 5 hours before being called in (on of the "rules") was very near or above 0.08%. Therefore - by definition - his judgement was impaired. He was given time off because he did not maintain "fitness for duty" during his "on call" week. NONE of his situation meets the simplistic vision of your statement about how obvious it should be. I have other stories like this. There is also the fact that alcoholics bodies process alcohol differently than "normal" people - and that's a whole 'nother can of worms. >- and that the breath testing is the MOST common test >administered for this. >But most employers are looking for ILLEGAL drugs, and it is >generally understood that is what is meant when workplace >drug testing is discussed. .....again, you're flat wrong. MOST employers are looking for ANY impairment of their employees that can lead to more mistakes, a higher accident frequency, or chronic medical problems - ANYTHING which can COST THEM MORE MONEY or Increase their INSURANCE COSTS - which also costs them more money. You miss the main point of capitalism: employers want to make it as cheaply as possible and not have any "blowback" lawsuits due to employee mistakes or have spend more on their medical benefits program - or spend more in any way to make their "product" whatever it is. THIS is the primary motivation for drug testing programs - not just "looking for illegal drug use". >>What kind of industry are you in? ......It really doesn't matter - but it is one that is tied back to the Code of Federal Regulations. You can look on the internet to see the chapters in The Code and figure that anyone who does work in: Hazardous Waste Transportation The Airline Industry ....... and whole lot of other ones have some sort of "fitness for duty" requirement in their regulations - for instance, the Exxon Valdez promulgated a WHOLE bunch of increased "fitness for duty" requirements not only in the sea-transportation industries but, railroad, trucking and just about any industry that is involved in hazardous waste transport. >Urine Test: The most common form of drug testing is to analyze >a sample of urine for traces of drugs. A postive test result only >indicates that a drug was used sometime in the recent past; it >does not tell whether or not the person was under the influence >when giving the sample. >>Gee - isn't that the problem that I (and others) have brought >>up? No - all this says is that a "positive result" - in and of itself - only tells the analyst the person being testing has used drugs at some point - INCLUDING that day - but that you cannot tell from the "positive result" alone exactly when the drug was imbibed. This is more a legal thing than anything else. They're just saying that you cannot use the fact that someone has "a positive result" alone in a court of law to try an prove that someone was loaded in some way at the time they were "working". This is for lawyers. Howver - various drugs have various effective biological half-lives and Medical Review Officers (MROs) CAN do further analysis on a sample to draw some conclusions about how recent various drugs were imbibed USING chemistry and information about a drug's biological half-life, However, the point remains - drug testing DOES catch people who have used "recently" AS WELL AS people who came to work or are working "under the influence" its not true that these programs are designed to "mostly" catch people for "past use". How many people "caught" in this testing that used yesterday versus just before or during work is a whole 'nother issue. Folks I know say that (surprisingly or not surprisingly depending upon your point of view) most people that get "caught" have used within the last 24 hours based on "half-life" information. At some point in those last 24 hours - they were at work and there is a reasonable probablity that they used either just prior to or during work - and a very reasonable probability that they were "under the influence", based on the definition of "impairment", at work. ------------------------------ From: "frndthdevl" Subject: Re: Bonus disc question Date: 23 Oct 2005 19:15:03 -0700 frndthdevl wrote: > mmmm Larry David is coming on now. shit,rerun ,ok, go Astros! > peace > jeff > > You say you don't get discouraged > All it takes is time and courage > Lay long enough on the track > and the train will come > > Hunter ------------------------------ From: "Tony & Beth" Subject: Re: Bonus disc question Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 02:36:28 GMT If it's the actual release, I never trade it; bonus disc or whatever...preorder or not. But, I have no problem trading a circulated recording of show that was released. It's a shame when bonus material takes an entire show off the archive, for example 11/02/77. We're lucky, though, to have the access we have to most shows. Right? Hmmm.... NFA, Tony "Steve Terry" wrote in message news:djhbre$pv5$1@news.iquest.net... > Is it okay to freely trade or share the bonus discs that come with GD > official releases? They say "not for resale" on them but these are > essentially limited edition cd's that aren't commercially available once > the preorder date has passed. What's the consensus? > ------------------------------ From: mrose101 Subject: Re: The best stoner movie (NDC) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 02:41:21 GMT Ego Rancher wrote: >Monty Python's Holy Grail . . . when on a natural high only of course > > > obviously------YELLOW SUBMARINE ------------------------------ From: mrose101 Subject: Re: What is a good "B" rated movie? Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 02:42:31 GMT A movie from the 60's called Pretty Poison...starring Anthony Perkins and Tuesday Weld..... scarletbgonias@hotmail.com wrote: >And Tremors is on right now on AMC. Came on at 4. The kid is watching >it while I cook dinner: roasted taragon chicken and a black angus top >round roast, with onions and carrots. The potatoes are cooking on the >stove and will be smashed in about 45 minutes. Man is it starting to >smell real good in the kitchen. It's also warming up the house; I'll be >damned if I turn the furnace on yet. > >I'm hungry... > >Theresa > > > ------------------------------ From: band beyond description <123@456.com> Subject: Re: Bonus disc question Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:15:10 +0900 On 2005-10-24 11:15:03 +0900, "frndthdevl" said: > > frndthdevl wrote: > > >> mmmm Larry David is coming on now. > > > shit,rerun ,ok, go Astros! you misspelled WHITE SOX!!!!! -- Peace, Steve ------------------------------ From: Kelly Humphries Subject: Re: What is a good "B" rated movie? Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 20:39:52 -0700 Also sprach Ben : > "The Iron Muffin" wrote: > > >"From Dusk Till Dawn" is pretty good. > > > >Uhm, I mean pretty bad. > > > >Whatever. > > I would have mentioned that, but I don't consider it a B movie - I've > got the DVD. It's one of the few "horror" movies that doesn't give > you a clue that it's a horror movie until the last half of it. Some > of the commentary actually discusses that. > > Anything with Harvey Keitel in it can't be that bad. Even "Saturn 3"? ------------------------------ From: Ben Subject: Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 20:41:28 -0700 On 23 Oct 2005 19:10:56 -0700, "grtflmark" wrote: >>But most employers are looking for ILLEGAL drugs, and it is >generally understood that is what is meant when workplace >drug testing is discussed. > >....again, you're flat wrong. MOST employers are looking for ANY >impairment of their employees that can lead to more mistakes, a higher >accident frequency, or chronic medical problems - ANYTHING which can >COST THEM MORE MONEY or Increase their INSURANCE COSTS - which also >costs them more money. I don't think so. I've known people who have undergone pre-employment test before and I have done so twice in my lifetime. In all instances that I have personal knowledge of, either through doing it myself or having known the people who told me what their experiences were (technically 2nd hand, yes, but better than what I read on the internet), they have all been piss tests only. One of those people is an RN who administers drugs as part of her job and she certainly could harm someone if she were to make a mistake. One of the jobs I was tested for had recently instituted a testing policy after breaking up a fairly costly employee theft ring which involved cocaine and expensive chips. The other was because the company ran a mail-order pharmacy, even though it was a completely separate division and I didn't even have access to that facility. Another company that extended a job offer to me (that I didn't accept), actually told me that they would exempt me from the pre-employment test (I didn't give them any reason to even think I might use marijuana, unless perhaps they heard the Grateful Dead coming out of my car stereo when I arrived for an interview - and frankly, I doubt that). I imagine, they didn't want a stupid thing like that discourage me from accepting the job - I had 3 offers at the time. I knew a Deadhead chemist who told me he thought his employer was afraid to test him. Yet another person I knew took a part-time seasonal job at Circuit City - I guess they thought drug users would somehow harm customers or possibly walk off with merchandise? In my position with this company, I would neither have access to anything that could easily be stolen aside from the company laptop I will be provided - and how many of those could I steal before they decided that I myself wasn't the victim of theft? Nor does my job have any direct effect on safety of others, nor myself. What? I might trip walking up the steps to the office in the morning or something? Drug testing costs money and there are very FEW people who are even in a position where they might test positive. The alcoholic is much more likely to give himself away by showing up late or hung over and simply not doing a good job. And what happens when a good employee tests positive for marijuana? Does company policy dictate that he be fired? Or do they simply retest him later, at more expense to the company, while there's a good chance he'll look for a new job anyway? Or do they force him into rehab at greater expense to the insurance company providing health benefits? Obviously, there are SOME jobs - those in the airline industry, paramedics and firemen, et al. who could expose their employer to severe liability if a drug using employee causes an accident or who directly or indirectly work for the gov't, which forces them to. I just don't think that most companies are going to bother with a breath-test for employees, especially those who work in offices or even retail jobs like Circuit City. In fact, I'd bet a retailer could care less if a salesperson or cashier showed up drunk as long as no one could tell and they performed their jobs adequately. I don't know about NY, but the states I've worked in, allow employment "at will", meaning they don't have to have a reason to fire you or lay you off (They just can't do it for the wrong reasons, e.g. the color of you skin). Incompetence on the job would certainly be a valid reason - not they even need one, remember. ------------------------------ From: "Olompali4" Subject: Re: The best stoner movie (NDC) Date: 23 Oct 2005 20:56:38 -0700 > obviously------YELLOW SUBMARINE Ding ding ding We have a WINNAH! ------------------------------ From: Walter Karmazyn Subject: Condi v Hillary 2008? Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:28:53 -0700 I'll of course be voting third party again in this case... the rest of ya? W Rice hones campaign skills but denies running By Saul Hudson Sun Oct 23, 3:24 PM ET BIRMINGHAM, Alabama (Reuters) - Does U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice want to be president? Even a young girl at a photo opportunity with Rice in her former elementary school wanted the United States' most prominent black Republican to answer the question. Rice, whose wide smile had been fixed on her face as the 10- and 11-year-olds asked her about growing up in the segregated South and playing the piano, furrowed her brow and narrowed her eyes for an uncomfortable moment. Sitting on a knee-high chair in front of shelves of books and teddy bears -- and next to the Stars-and-Stripes flag brought in for the occasion by her staff -- she shot a nervous look at the media invited to observe a three-day tour of her home state. Rice recovered her composure, laughed and turned on the charm fit for a campaign trail, telling the pony-tailed, black girls from Brunetta C. Hill school in Birmingham that they could be president in a nation that has had neither a woman nor a black commander-in-chief. "I don't want to run for office. I like what I'm doing," the highest-ranking black woman in U.S. government history said. The reply was a variation of a denial -- that she was not testing the waters for a 2008 presidential bid -- which Rice was obliged to make repeatedly on a trip saturated in public relations and politics that ended on Sunday. Former secretaries of state made no such extensive domestic tours and Rice usually travels outside Washington only to deliver policy speeches in one-day outings. Rice's aides said the weekend trip with Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as her guest helped explain to Americans how diplomacy works. But voters in Republican Alabama were not buying it: a foreign policy chief with tasks such as stopping Iraq from imploding in civil war did not take time out for a hometown tour unless she was building political capital, they said. At a University of Alabama football game, where Rice waved and smiled like a rock star in the center of the field to more than 80,000 screaming fans, supporters in the home team's crimson colors debated when, not whether, she would run. "She's just here driving up votes for office," Evelyn Casey said, noting how the Bush administration needed to improve its reputation in the South after criticism of its response to Hurricane Katrina. Bobby Cole interrupted his fellow fan as they shared beers and burgers before the game to echo what some political analysts say could be Rice's more realistic ambition in 2008 -- to be vice president. "She isn't ready for president yet," he said. Straw was along simply to "help one of his buddies with her political campaign," Bob Thomas added. DRAFT CONDI As Rice's motorcade of black SUVs with tinted windows sped past, admirers shouted "2008" and "Tell her to run for president." That reflected sentiment found not just in Alabama but on the Internet too, where there is a "Draft Condi" campaign offering bumper stickers, T-shirts and baseball caps to "make it happen" in 2008. Several white men are favorites to win the Republican nomination for 2008. But Rice often refers to her color and could be a better contender against Sen. Hillary Clinton, who is many Democrats' choice to win back the White House, because of her popularity among blacks and women. "It's Hillary's candidacy that makes Condi's necessary and, therefore, likely," Dick Morris a political consultant in the Clinton administration said in excerpts of his new book "Condi vs. Hillary." In Birmingham, speakers at a ceremony to remember the racist killing of four schoolgirls at a segregated church, hailed Alabama's favorite daughter as the girl who out-slugged the boys in street softball and grew up to be the most powerful woman in the world. Rice ended the day surprisingly ambiguous about her political ambitions. In an interview with the city's newspaper, The Birmingham News, Rice was again asked about running and she playfully left the door open: "Now there's a novel idea," she said. ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service addresses, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, are as follows: Internet: dead-flames-request@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames-request%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames-request You can send mail to the entire list (and rec.music.gdead) via one of these addresses: Internet: dead-flames@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames End of Dead-Flames Digest ****************************** .