Future Contract Issues
Also, no scanner here in NRT!
07-31-2007 | 05:44 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
Likes: 1
And that, friends, is the difference between requirements spelled out specifically and vague words implying we wanted to fly with hot chicks!
It was the company's INTENT to provide us with hot chicks, but per the contract, when Richard Simmons was determined less expensive--well--you know what we'll get.
It was the company's INTENT to provide us with hot chicks, but per the contract, when Richard Simmons was determined less expensive--well--you know what we'll get.
07-31-2007 | 06:21 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
From: B757 Capt
LMFAO.....
Albie, your talent is wasted here. You need bigger fish to fry and should be working for one of the current Presidential candidate campaigns. They could all use an injection of your humor, wit and ability to define the issue in simple terms. Richard Simmons...priceless.
Albie, your talent is wasted here. You need bigger fish to fry and should be working for one of the current Presidential candidate campaigns. They could all use an injection of your humor, wit and ability to define the issue in simple terms. Richard Simmons...priceless.
07-31-2007 | 09:44 AM
#44
...Whatever It Is!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
Likes: 0
And that, friends, is the difference between requirements spelled out specifically and vague words implying we wanted to fly with hot chicks!
It was the company's INTENT to provide us with hot chicks, but per the contract, when Richard Simmons was determined less expensive--well--you know what we'll get.
It was the company's INTENT to provide us with hot chicks, but per the contract, when Richard Simmons was determined less expensive--well--you know what we'll get.
Hehe, I must have read your post a million times trying to close the "loophole"!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
