Failing the probation period

TELLIT01

sangie595 wrote: »

Really? It may be now, but I didn't understand the reference either. Perhaps because I have never seen the show you refer to and it is peripheral to my consciousness. Kind of like, when talking about Big Brother, I mean my sister-in-laws husband. I read it to mean that the OP had a poor attitude towards apprentices. Not everyone has the time or inclination to fill their heads with the junk shows on TV. But it appears there is money to be made in producing shows about irritating people then. Just don't assume everyone watches them or knows that is what you are talking about.

The OP did refer to "Apprentice" with a capital A which does suggest something other than every trainee. Being deliberately obtuse to try and cover your own error isn't helpful. 'Big Brother' is a term which has been used for many decades to describe being watched over by authority. I really can't believe that when you hear the term on TV you think of your actual brother.

Crazy_Jamie

sangie595 wrote: »

Really? It may be now, but I didn't understand the reference either. Perhaps because I have never seen the show you refer to and it is peripheral to my consciousness. Kind of like, when talking about Big Brother, I mean my sister-in-laws husband. I read it to mean that the OP had a poor attitude towards apprentices. Not everyone has the time or inclination to fill their heads with the junk shows on TV. But it appears there is money to be made in producing shows about irritating people then. Just don't assume everyone watches them or knows that is what you are talking about.

It's pop culture. You don't need to watch the show to get the reference. I got the reference immediately, as I imagine most people would. Of course that doesn't mean that everyone will, but responding by tossing out veiled insults towards those who do watch the shows is entirely unnecessary.

sangie595

TELLIT01 wrote: »

The OP did refer to "Apprentice" with a capital A which does suggest something other than every trainee. Being deliberately obtuse to try and cover your own error isn't helpful. 'Big Brother' is a term which has been used for many decades to describe being watched over by authority. I really can't believe that when you hear the term on TV you think of your actual brother.

Because this site is just full of literate people who know how to use capital letters and punctuation?

I am not a liar and I do not appreciate being told that you do not believe me. I DID NOT get the reference and I am NOT lying. Oddly enough people are not all addicted to the TV.

And it also WAS NOT MY ERROR. I did not refer to it in any way until you and others started telling other people, or implying that other people, are stupid because they do not get a "pop reference" that was in no way at all clear.

And I also, for the next poster, have absolutely no problem with people who have the time and inclination to watch junk TV. The fact that they do has absolutely no bearing on whether it is junk TV or not. It is. Actually, the only people throwing around not even remotely veiled insults are the ones who seem to be under the impression that it is a lie that one cannot possibly know about or watch this stuff, and that it is quite ok to call people liars. Since I have never seen the Apprentice (TV show) and have utterly no idea whether people on it are irritating or not, why should I assume that the OP, who seems to have absolutely no problem dishing out their opinions about other people (and suggests that her colleague is arrogant and criticising other people) has any problem consigning apprentices to a similar circle of hell?

daytona0

JReacher1 wrote: »

I think it's pretty obvious that "apprentice" was used to reference the fact the employee is as irritating as the people who appear on the TV show "The Apprentice".

I think its pretty obvious that some people do not watch that tv show....

With respect but what does arguing about this accomplish for us or the Op?

hcb42

not sure the OP has any influence on the probation period anyway. Possibly not his/her decision.

JReacher1

daytona0 wrote: »

I think its pretty obvious that some people do not watch that tv show....

With respect but what does arguing about this accomplish for us or the Op?

It doesn't help the OP at all but as always this thread had disintegrated into irrelevances when posters were arguing over whether the person mentioned was an apprentice or not.

It was quite clear that the OP was referencing the TV show the apprentice and so I brought that up in the hope it would kill the debate and we could get back into the OP's problem.

Of course this turned out to be a forlorn hope where people started posting they had no idea what the apprentice was so I can only assume they don't want the program, the BBC news (which always has it on) or reads a newspaper.

sangie595

JReacher1 wrote: »

I can only assume they don't want the program, the BBC news (which always has it on) or reads a newspaper.

No, I don't want the program - or, to make my earlier point, I also don't want (or watch) the programme. Which I believe has a capital "A" (you didn't use one). The BBC happens not to be the only news (or even the best news) programme in the world. And if it is something regularly featured in the Guardian, I must have skipped reading that bit since I don't watch it and have no interest in it.

And actually, it is not irrelevant. The OP apparently raised this programme, which not all of us watch, to illustrate why they want their colleague sacking. Not everyone thinks that getting a colleague sacked is their call or their business. To suggest that their colleague is dismissed, given the personality traits of the OP demonstrated on this thread - arrogance, criticising others and blabbing management information in public - seems somewhat rich. There is a difference between saying that the skillset of someone doesn't meet the requirements of your work, and advocating sacking someone after a few weeks in post because you simply don't like them. But maybe I have got it all wrong, and the OP is in fact trying out for the Apprentice - given the descriptions here, it sounds like they may make the grade.

Poppie68

And another thread goes down the pan.....:rotfl:

Just thought I would put my 2cents in......It's ridiculous to state the Apprentice comment is obvious it's in ref to the tv program.. Why is it obvious? Some might never of even heard of the blinking rubbish.

JReacher1

Poppie68 wrote: »

And another thread goes down the pan.....:rotfl:

Just thought I would put my 2cents in......It's ridiculous to state the Apprentice comment is obvious it's in ref to the tv program.. Why is it obvious? Some might never of even heard of the blinking rubbish.

Even if you don't watch it I find it very surprising that anyone on an Internet forum has never heard of the TV show " The Apprentice". When it's on to its all over the newspapers, Internet, tv, Twitter, Facebook etc. I accept many people don't watch it but everyone will have heard of it.

The alternative if you had never heard of it was the OP was saying he really hates apprentices. That would be odd.

Some posters just get overly sensitive when their own ignorance is recognised (not you the other poster).

sangie595

JReacher1 wrote: »

Even if you don't watch it I find it very surprising that anyone on an Internet forum has never heard of the TV show " The Apprentice". When it's on to its all over the newspapers, Internet, tv, Twitter, Facebook etc. I accept many people don't watch it but everyone will have heard of it. I do not do Twitter or Facebook; browsing the internet does not require reading anything I don't want to (why would I look up a programme I don't watch?), and I have already pointed out that it is NOT all over the TV I watch or the newspapers I read. I wasn't aware that we now lived in a police state where one is REQUIRED to be just like (it appears) almost everyone else and actually want to watch this or any other show.

The alternative if you had never heard of it was the OP was saying he really hates apprentices. That would be odd. No odder than assuming that everyone knows what a programme they don't watch or have any interest in is; and when they say they don't, insisting that they must. Again - are you calling me a liar? The OP made it clear that really, they wanted this person to be sacked because they didn't like them. So not liking apprentices wasn't a stretch at all. It's as irrational as trying to get someone sacked because you don't like them.

Some posters just get overly sensitive when their own ignorance is recognised (not you the other poster).

Oddly, I do not consider ignorance of a junk TV programme to be the collapse of civilisation as we know it. Again - now you are calling me a liar and ignorant. Because I happen not to watch a TV show you are clearly smitten with, it is so important to you and UK civilisation. So yes, I am sensitive about being called a liar and ignorant. Since you aren't - back at you?

I am supposed to be the bad guy here because I don't watch a TV programme, whilst you are happily slinging insults which are in breach of site rules. Would you like to take the opportunity to apologise for your ignorant behaviour? I doubt it. And you have the sheer audacity to call me? Unbelievable.