ok, this was a decent WTF.  It packs more drama than in waggy's dissertation
tale.

why don't you apply for a position of writer for magazines or blogs or
something?  You can show them your long curriculum here in p.o-t.

oh, wait...

anyway, good luck.

Post a reply to this message

On 03/08/2012 2:08 PM, Invisible wrote:
> OK, so I'm probably not supposed to tell you this, but I'm going to tell
> you anyway...

It is not necessarily the end of the world. Quite a few years ago I was 
made redundant from a job that I had had for twelve years, It was a 
great shock.  But I was forced to change and I did. I even went to the 
other side of the world to improve my employability (is that even a 
word?). It is time to expand your horizons. And it could work out for 
you, if you take your chances.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 03/08/2012 09:05 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 03/08/2012 2:08 PM, Invisible wrote:
>> OK, so I'm probably not supposed to tell you this, but I'm going to tell
>> you anyway...
>
> It is not necessarily the end of the world.

Oh, sure. I didn't say the end of the /world/, just the end of a 
particular era. I don't know what's coming next, but it won't be the same.

> It is time to expand your horizons. And it could work out for
> you, if you take your chances.

Well damn, I've wanted to leave this job for years. I guess now's my 
chance...

Post a reply to this message

On 03/08/2012 07:05 PM, nemesis wrote:
> ok, this was a decent WTF.  It packs more drama than in waggy's dissertation
> tale.

It's been one hell of a rollercoaster ride. Every time you think nothing 
else can possibly happen... something else happens. I tried to bring 
that out, but one short page of text can't really convey 5 months of ups 
and downs.

> why don't you apply for a position of writer for magazines or blogs or
> something?  You can show them your long curriculum here in p.o-t.
>
> oh, wait...

Bukkake.

[The Wikipedia article has pictures now.]

Or perhaps that should be "anime"...

> anyway, good luck.

Yeah. I'll need it...

Post a reply to this message

On 03/08/2012 02:08 PM, Invisible wrote:
> Around about April, a bunch of big wigs from the USA come over and call
> an "all hands meeting".

> "We may have to close the UK site. We are currently entering into a
> consultation period. This is your opportunity to give us ideas for how
> we can keep the site open."

> ...and they're closing us NOW?? Just as we've turned a corner? Just as
> the equipment you just bought for us has started delivering multiple
> major new contracts?
>
> Are you mental??

Heh. I left out the best part...



First, this meeting happened. And then, THE VERY NEXT DAY, I was 
checking an email and I noticed that I had a message from Google. You 
know, the famous Internet giant? THAT Google. It's a message from a 
recruiter wanting to set up a telephone interview with me.

So, one day I'm told I don't have a job any more, and THE NEXT DAY I'm 
told that Google want to interview me.

Can you say "fate"??



...well, that was April. As you can probably tell by the fact that I'm 
not dancing around the place in manic euphoria, I didn't get the job.

The interview seemed to be going great. And then the guy starts asking 
me questions like "how many entries does an I-node hold?" and "what is 
the name of the kernel function which returns most of the main 
information about a directory entry?"

Uh, yeah, I have absolutely no idea, man. I've used Linux once or twice, 
but I have NO FREAKING IDEA about really low-level details like 
filesystem data structures or kernel APIs or anything. (Apparently the 
answer to the second question is lstat(). I thought it might be fstat(), 
but that's for files, not directories...)

So... yeah. Apparently the specific job I applied for has really 
low-level knowledge of Linux as a /hard requirement/, not negotiable. So 
that was pretty much the end of the interview process. Within minutes 
the guy was off the phone.

Maybe it was fate. Fate trying to tell me that I'm aiming way, way too 
high. :-/

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
> Maybe it was fate. Fate trying to tell me that I'm aiming way, way too
> high. :-/

Or more precise, too low(-level) :-P.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

On 04/08/2012 9:48 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Oh, sure. I didn't say the end of the /world/, just the end of a
> particular era. I don't know what's coming next, but it won't be the same.

That is always the case life moves on. Just when you are getting 
comfortable something will change.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 04/08/2012 04:06 PM, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>> Maybe it was fate. Fate trying to tell me that I'm aiming way, way too
>> high. :-/
>
> Or more precise, too low(-level) :-P.

*facepalm*

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-08-03 09:08, Invisible a écrit :
>
> The CEO is dumbstruck. He simply has no reply. He had absolutely NO IDEA
> we had just secured new work. He didn't know the half of what it would
> cost. When we asked questions, he simply could not answer. He was unable
> to provide any justification.
>

On the company's website, you should be able to find last year's 
financial report.  By law they have to list anyone who holds more than 
5% of the company's stock.  e-Mail your little story to each of those 
and see your CEO quickly share the same fate as you.

If your version of the facts holds up, this man has no business running 
a company.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 04/08/2012 08:43 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:

> If your version of the facts holds up, this man has no business running
> a company.

Oh, apparently he quit three weeks ago.

Presumably so that there's enough money to pay for /his/ severance 
package, even if there isn't enough left to pay ours...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 04/08/2012 08:43 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>
> > If your version of the facts holds up, this man has no business running
> > a company.
>
> Oh, apparently he quit three weeks ago.
>
> Presumably so that there's enough money to pay for /his/ severance
> package, even if there isn't enough left to pay ours...

Now this raises your story to level of Epic WTF.

:)

Post a reply to this message

On 04/08/2012 09:19 PM, waggy wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> On 04/08/2012 08:43 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>
>>> If your version of the facts holds up, this man has no business running
>>> a company.
>>
>> Oh, apparently he quit three weeks ago.
>>
>> Presumably so that there's enough money to pay for /his/ severance
>> package, even if there isn't enough left to pay ours...
>
> Now this raises your story to level of Epic WTF.

Guy takes over company. Screws it into a cocked hat. Walks off with a 
huge bonus and a giant pension. I'm sure it happens every day...

Post a reply to this message

Am 04.08.2012 22:36, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> On 04/08/2012 09:19 PM, waggy wrote:
>> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>> On 04/08/2012 08:43 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>>
>>>> If your version of the facts holds up, this man has no business running
>>>> a company.
>>>
>>> Oh, apparently he quit three weeks ago.
>>>
>>> Presumably so that there's enough money to pay for /his/ severance
>>> package, even if there isn't enough left to pay ours...
>>
>> Now this raises your story to level of Epic WTF.
>
> Guy takes over company. Screws it into a cocked hat. Walks off with a
> huge bonus and a giant pension. I'm sure it happens every day...

Yup. And as he has made the shareholders happy for the moment, the next 
company to hire him for his excellent restructuring skills is just 
around the corner.

And isn't his management skill plain as hell? Company's figures are 
doing bad -> He rushes to the aid -> Company's figures recover while 
he's there -> He leaves to tackle other challenges -> Company's figures 
plummet again. Too bad they hadn't been able to keep him as a CEO!


F*ck shareholder value.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 21:36:09 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> Guy takes over company. Screws it into a cocked hat. Walks off with a
> huge bonus and a giant pension. I'm sure it happens every day...

Bain Capital.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Guy takes over company. Screws it into a cocked hat. Walks off with a
>> huge bonus and a giant pension. I'm sure it happens every day...
>
> Yup. And as he has made the shareholders happy for the moment, the next
> company to hire him for his excellent restructuring skills is just
> around the corner.
>
> And isn't his management skill plain as hell? Company's figures are
> doing bad -> He rushes to the aid -> Company's figures recover while
> he's there -> He leaves to tackle other challenges -> Company's figures
> plummet again. Too bad they hadn't been able to keep him as a CEO!
>
>
> F*ck shareholder value.

This.

A hundred times this.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 23:35:45 +0200, clipka wrote:

> F*ck shareholder value.

+1 billion.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> In other words, this isn't thirty days to decide IF the site can be
> saved. The decision has already been made. It's just that the USA has
> employER protection laws, while the UK has employEE protection laws. And
> those pesky laws mean you can't just destroy people's lives on a whim.
> You have to consider other options.

You know how it is in the USA.  We /have/ to protect the "job creators."  Fuck
the workers.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:35:50 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:

> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> In other words, this isn't thirty days to decide IF the site can be
>> saved. The decision has already been made. It's just that the USA has
>> employER protection laws, while the UK has employEE protection laws.
>> And those pesky laws mean you can't just destroy people's lives on a
>> whim. You have to consider other options.
> 
> You know how it is in the USA.  We /have/ to protect the "job creators."
>  Fuck the workers.

Indeed.  Pity that so many of the jobs created by the so-called "job 
creators" are offshore or of a pay standard such that there are employed 
people who live below the poverty line, and who have too few hours to 
qualify for employer-provided benefits (Wallmart, I'm looking pointedly 
at you).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> You know how it is in the USA.  We /have/ to protect the "job creators."
>>   Fuck the workers.
>
> Indeed.  Pity that so many of the jobs created by the so-called "job
> creators" are offshore or of a pay standard such that there are employed
> people who live below the poverty line, and who have too few hours to
> qualify for employer-provided benefits (Wallmart, I'm looking pointedly
> at you).

Sometimes I think my country is messed up.

And then I remember that some people live in the USA. :-D

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 21:18:47 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> You know how it is in the USA.  We /have/ to protect the "job
>>> creators."
>>>   Fuck the workers.
>>
>> Indeed.  Pity that so many of the jobs created by the so-called "job
>> creators" are offshore or of a pay standard such that there are
>> employed people who live below the poverty line, and who have too few
>> hours to qualify for employer-provided benefits (Wallmart, I'm looking
>> pointedly at you).
> 
> Sometimes I think my country is messed up.

In some ways, it is.  The UK's immigration policy, for example, is such a 
moving target that people who want to immigrate have tons of problems 
doing so.  Even after getting into the system and jumping through all the 
hoops, there's nothing that prevents the home office from changing the 
rules a month before someone's able to get permanent leave to remain and 
they have to start all over.

My wife knows people who have had that happen.

> And then I remember that some people live in the USA. :-D

Indeed.  There's a lot of good here (and in the UK) as well, but there is 
a lot that is completely whacked out here as well.  I'm waiting for the 
day when our government is sponsored by Exxon or BP.  (Oh, wait, we might 
already be there).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Sometimes I think my country is messed up.

Two words: libel tourism.

Also, what's up with the House of Lords Spiritual?  You get to make laws for the
Kingdom just because you're an Anglican bishop?  OTOH, I can't figure out why
the USA looks more like a theocracy than the UK.  I'm glad your bishops don't
think like Pat Robertson or Ali Khamenei.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 21:18:47 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> > And then I remember that some people live in the USA. :-D
>
> Indeed.  There's a lot of good here (and in the UK) as well, but there is
> a lot that is completely whacked out here as well.  I'm waiting for the
> day when our government is sponsored by Exxon or BP.  (Oh, wait, we might
> already be there).

If you doubt this, recall how they're all screaming up and down for domestic
drilling, because we need to be energy independent, yet when an amendment was
introduced to keep the domestic oil in the USA, it was voted down--by the
Republicans.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:08:28 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:

>  OTOH, I can't
> figure out why the USA looks more like a theocracy than the UK.

Because while it would be illegal to have a religious "test" to hold 
public office, candidates who don't espouse their love for Jesus (or in 
rare cases, just God is enough - for the Jewish and Muslim elected 
officials), 79% of the people in the US are Christians who think that 
there's something wrong with those who don't believe in a supernatural 
deity, angels, or other superstitious nonsense that's commonly held 
(don't let them hold some "weird" superstitious nonsense like 
Scientology, though - because their brand of superstition is always 
"superior" to that of the crazy people), and they won't vote for someone 
who they think is "wrong in the head" when it comes to which sky fairy 
they believe in.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:17:05 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:

> If you doubt this, recall how they're all screaming up and down for
> domestic drilling, because we need to be energy independent, yet when an
> amendment was introduced to keep the domestic oil in the USA, it was
> voted down--by the Republicans.

That doesn't surprise me one bit.  The Republican agenda is simple:  Vote 
for whatever Obama is against, and vote against whatever Obama is for.  
Then blame him for failing to move things forward.

IOW, blame Obama for not being a Republican or not holding to Republican 
values.  If only he would believe what they believe, then there'd be no 
problem.  Other than we'd have Republican values dictating policy.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 09/08/2012 05:28 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:08:28 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>
>>   OTOH, I can't
>> figure out why the USA looks more like a theocracy than the UK.
>
> Because while it would be illegal to have a religious "test" to hold
> public office, candidates who don't espouse their love for Jesus (or in
> rare cases, just God is enough - for the Jewish and Muslim elected
> officials), 79% of the people in the US are Christians who think that
> there's something wrong with those who don't believe in a supernatural
> deity, angels, or other superstitious nonsense that's commonly held
> (don't let them hold some "weird" superstitious nonsense like
> Scientology, though - because their brand of superstition is always
> "superior" to that of the crazy people), and they won't vote for someone
> who they think is "wrong in the head" when it comes to which sky fairy
> they believe in.

Man, I thought that was just a myth... The USA is seriously that messed up?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>   The Republican agenda is simple:  Vote
> for whatever Obama is against, and vote against whatever Obama is for.
> Then blame him for failing to move things forward.

Obamneycare comes to mind.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:48:49 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>   The Republican agenda is simple:  Vote
>> for whatever Obama is against, and vote against whatever Obama is for.
>> Then blame him for failing to move things forward.
> 
> Obamneycare comes to mind.

Yep.

It's amazing to me to watch Republicans who gave Kerry so much shit over 
being a "flip flopper" not have a problem at all with Romney's 
inconsistent and frequently opposing views on different topics.  I find 
it quite fascinating (and somewhat baffling) to watch.

Myself, I'm OK with people changing their views on things when they get 
more information - that's called "learning" and it's important.  Of 
course, there needs to be some validity to the change in view based on 
the new information - in Romney's case, it seems like so much of his new 
"learnings" have to do with convenience for the audience he's talking to 
at the moment.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 17:47:31 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> Man, I thought that was just a myth... The USA is seriously that messed
> up?

Go read about Michelle Bachmann for a prime example of the attitudes some 
people have - and she's one who actually got *voted in*.  Ironically, she 
also chairs the house intelligence committee - though she would appear to 
have very little intelligence herself.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 09/08/2012 05:28 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> > Because while it would be illegal to have a religious "test" to hold
> > public office, candidates who don't espouse their love for Jesus (or in
> > rare cases, just God is enough - for the Jewish and Muslim elected
> > officials), 79% of the people in the US are Christians who think that
> > there's something wrong with those who don't believe in a supernatural
> > deity, angels, or other superstitious nonsense that's commonly held
> > (don't let them hold some "weird" superstitious nonsense like
> > Scientology, though - because their brand of superstition is always
> > "superior" to that of the crazy people), and they won't vote for someone
> > who they think is "wrong in the head" when it comes to which sky fairy
> > they believe in.
>
> Man, I thought that was just a myth... The USA is seriously that messed up?

It's no myth.

A couple of the lies leveled at President Obama are that he is a Muslim or that
he is an atheist.  The fact that these lies are even worth telling indicate the
kind of atmosphere here.  (Another lie about President Obama is that he is a
progressive.  I only wish that one were true.)

Michele Bachmann (who was a serious contender for the Republican nomination for
president) recently spun a great tale about how our government has been
infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood.  (The Muslim Brotherhood claims to be
unaware of this development, but maybe that's just part of the ruse.)  Many
Republicans, including former presidential candidate John McCain and the speaker
of the House told Bachmann that she was out of line, but just when you thought
sanity might break through in that party, fellow former candidates Rick Perry
and Rick Santorum came out and defended her.  And make no mistake, Bachmann has
the solid backing of the voters in her district.

It has been trendy for politicians, including presidential candidates, to state
that our problems are too great for man to solve, and that we must hand them
over to the Almighty.  In other words:

   "I cannot solve your problems, therefore, you should vote for me!"

And this is actually a selling point.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:08:56 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:

> A couple of the lies leveled at President Obama are that he is a Muslim
> or that he is an atheist.  The fact that these lies are even worth
> telling indicate the kind of atmosphere here.  (Another lie about
> President Obama is that he is a progressive.  I only wish that one were
> true.)

Actually, I think there's probably a very good chance that Obama is 
culturally Christian but religiously atheist.  Of course, he could never 
admit that because it would be political suicide.

> It has been trendy for politicians, including presidential candidates,
> to state that our problems are too great for man to solve, and that we
> must hand them over to the Almighty.  In other words:
> 
>    "I cannot solve your problems, therefore, you should vote for me!"
> 
> And this is actually a selling point.

The other selling point (used mostly by Republicans, though never 
explicitly stated) is "Government is inefficient; let us prove it.  Vote 
for us!"

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 09/08/2012 5:08 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Also, what's up with the House of Lords Spiritual?

Is that the House of Lords, Spiritual?

Anyway it is historical. Back in the day Archbishops were just a tad 
more powerful than they are now. And they had their own armies. So they 
had to be listened to.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 8/9/2012 9:17, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> introduced to keep the domestic oil in the USA,

To be fair, this makes no sense. Oil is a commodity.


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 8/9/2012 9:17, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> > introduced to keep the domestic oil in the USA,
>
> To be fair, this makes no sense. Oil is a commodity.

And that is exactly what the politicians, and possibly the oil companies, don't
want you to know during an election year.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/9/2012 9:30 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:17:05 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>
>> If you doubt this, recall how they're all screaming up and down for
>> domestic drilling, because we need to be energy independent, yet when an
>> amendment was introduced to keep the domestic oil in the USA, it was
>> voted down--by the Republicans.
>
> That doesn't surprise me one bit.  The Republican agenda is simple:  Vote
> for whatever Obama is against, and vote against whatever Obama is for.
> Then blame him for failing to move things forward.
>
> IOW, blame Obama for not being a Republican or not holding to Republican
> values.  If only he would believe what they believe, then there'd be no
> problem.  Other than we'd have Republican values dictating policy.
>
> Jim
>
Actually, someone joked a while back that the surest way to get anything 
progressive done in Washington was to put in two bills, one that was 
100% Republican, and endorsed by Obama, and one that claimed to be 
Republican, but was 100% progressive, but which he declared he would 
veto. It might only work once, but if you packed enough into the, "I 
don't want this passing", bill... lol

Post a reply to this message

On 8/9/2012 7:39 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> On 8/9/2012 9:17, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>> introduced to keep the domestic oil in the USA,
>>
>> To be fair, this makes no sense. Oil is a commodity.
>
> And that is exactly what the politicians, and possibly the oil companies, don't
> want you to know during an election year.
>
>
They also probably don't want people to know that the only reason the 
oil subsidies probably where apposed by oil special interests, even 
while the oil execs said they didn't need them, is that, if we took 
global warming seriously, and took steps to curtail it, one of the 
things we would have to do is bury long term investments in thousands of 
new oil wells they have existing permissions to build, for the next 
50-100 years, effectively killing their whole entire investment strategy 
(which amounts to Palin's "Drill baby, drill!", and the rest's, "Then 
sell it to China!").

Post a reply to this message

On 8/9/2012 11:39 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:08:56 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>
>> A couple of the lies leveled at President Obama are that he is a Muslim
>> or that he is an atheist.  The fact that these lies are even worth
>> telling indicate the kind of atmosphere here.  (Another lie about
>> President Obama is that he is a progressive.  I only wish that one were
>> true.)
>
> Actually, I think there's probably a very good chance that Obama is
> culturally Christian but religiously atheist.  Of course, he could never
> admit that because it would be political suicide.
>
There was a post a while back on a blog which stated, in essence, that, 
among Jews there are Orthodox, moderates, and atheists, while, 
basically, among Christians there are Evangelicals, moderates, and uh... 
really moderate? Not even the ones that are atheist would be caught dead 
admitting it, unless they are priests, in which case there have been a 
recent rash of them, and a whole special organization, which involves 
them all helping and supporting each other, to either get out, or keep 
shepherding the flock, even while they realize that the "sheep" have 
actually been lemmings, all along.

Post a reply to this message

On 09/08/2012 05:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

> That doesn't surprise me one bit.  The Republican agenda is simple:  Vote
> for whatever Obama is against, and vote against whatever Obama is for.
> Then blame him for failing to move things forward.

Isn't that what the opposition party does in /every/ nation?

Seriously, I have yet to hear a single idea come out of the UK 
government without whichever parties are in opposition condemning it as 
a stupid idea that will never work and will cost British taxpayers millions.

Post a reply to this message

On 09/08/2012 08:34 PM, Stephen wrote:

> Anyway it is historical. Back in the day Archbishops were just a tad
> more powerful than they are now. And they had their own armies. So they
> had to be listened to.

IT'S THE BISHOP!

<que music...>

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:52:48 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> On 09/08/2012 05:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> That doesn't surprise me one bit.  The Republican agenda is simple: 
>> Vote for whatever Obama is against, and vote against whatever Obama is
>> for. Then blame him for failing to move things forward.
> 
> Isn't that what the opposition party does in /every/ nation?

Not to the extent that happens here in the US.

In most rational, civilized countries, the two (or more) parties figure 
out how to compromise on things.

But here in the US, the Republican idea of compromise is "do it the way 
we want, or we'll block everything you want to do".

The Democratic idea of compromise is closer to actual compromise, but 
when compromising, you expect something from the other side.  It seems 
that most Democratic legislators are naive enough to believe the 
Republicans when they say "give us something here and we'll give you 
something on something else" - which they rarely, if ever do.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10/08/2012 8:55 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 09/08/2012 08:34 PM, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Anyway it is historical. Back in the day Archbishops were just a tad
>> more powerful than they are now. And they had their own armies. So they
>> had to be listened to.
>
> IT'S THE BISHOP!
>
> <que music...>

No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.

<Que axe…>


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> IT'S THE BISHOP!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDnE-5lD7w8

> No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-08-10 03:55, Invisible a écrit :
> On 09/08/2012 08:34 PM, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Anyway it is historical. Back in the day Archbishops were just a tad
>> more powerful than they are now. And they had their own armies. So they
>> had to be listened to.
>
> IT'S THE BISHOP!
>
> <que music...>

cue, as in give the cue to the sound guy to start the music.

"que" means "that" in French (pronounced "kuh") or Spanish (pronounced 
"kay")

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 10/08/2012 7:21 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> IT'S THE BISHOP!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDnE-5lD7w8
>
>> No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o

Do remember that it was considered innovative at the time. :-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 8/10/2012 8:35 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:52:48 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> On 09/08/2012 05:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> That doesn't surprise me one bit.  The Republican agenda is simple:
>>> Vote for whatever Obama is against, and vote against whatever Obama is
>>> for. Then blame him for failing to move things forward.
>>
>> Isn't that what the opposition party does in /every/ nation?
>
> Not to the extent that happens here in the US.
>
> In most rational, civilized countries, the two (or more) parties figure
> out how to compromise on things.
>
> But here in the US, the Republican idea of compromise is "do it the way
> we want, or we'll block everything you want to do".
>
> The Democratic idea of compromise is closer to actual compromise, but
> when compromising, you expect something from the other side.  It seems
> that most Democratic legislators are naive enough to believe the
> Republicans when they say "give us something here and we'll give you
> something on something else" - which they rarely, if ever do.
>
> Jim
>
This has been described, fairly accurately, as, "Republicans move more 
right, so the Democrats move right to compromise with them, only to have 
the Republicans move more right again." At best, the Dems have become 
centrist, most would call them center-right, and "liberal" is some place 
on a different planet from them. When Obama got elected this trend 
became, "Democrats try to reclaim some vague semblance of progressive 
ideals, Republicans move so far right that **they** are now on a 
completely different planet as well, and they left the subspace radio at 
home." Its like watching some old black and white slapstick act, where 
one idiot is on the end of a balance beam, holding on by their fingers, 
and the other idiot is trying to creep out towards the end of it, as it 
tilts farther and farther towards dropping them both, in an attempt to 
help rescue them. Only.. there is no "comedic" element in this act, at 
all. Just a 500 foot drop, with no last minute "save".

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:18:22 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> This has been described, fairly accurately, as, "Republicans move more
> right, so the Democrats move right to compromise with them, only to have
> the Republicans move more right again." At best, the Dems have become
> centrist, most would call them center-right, and "liberal" is some place
> on a different planet from them. When Obama got elected this trend
> became, "Democrats try to reclaim some vague semblance of progressive
> ideals, Republicans move so far right that **they** are now on a
> completely different planet as well, and they left the subspace radio at
> home." Its like watching some old black and white slapstick act, where
> one idiot is on the end of a balance beam, holding on by their fingers,
> and the other idiot is trying to creep out towards the end of it, as it
> tilts farther and farther towards dropping them both, in an attempt to
> help rescue them. Only.. there is no "comedic" element in this act, at
> all. Just a 500 foot drop, with no last minute "save".

I've heard it said that the Democrats need a left-wing version of the Tea 
Party so they can say "we'd love to do x, but we have these loons way out 
on the left who won't vote for us if we don't" the way the tea party does 
on the right.

There's not a strong enough progressive wing in the Democratic party to 
pull things back to the left.  It's kinda like a tug-o-war.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/11/2012 11:27 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:18:22 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> This has been described, fairly accurately, as, "Republicans move more
>> right, so the Democrats move right to compromise with them, only to have
>> the Republicans move more right again." At best, the Dems have become
>> centrist, most would call them center-right, and "liberal" is some place
>> on a different planet from them. When Obama got elected this trend
>> became, "Democrats try to reclaim some vague semblance of progressive
>> ideals, Republicans move so far right that **they** are now on a
>> completely different planet as well, and they left the subspace radio at
>> home." Its like watching some old black and white slapstick act, where
>> one idiot is on the end of a balance beam, holding on by their fingers,
>> and the other idiot is trying to creep out towards the end of it, as it
>> tilts farther and farther towards dropping them both, in an attempt to
>> help rescue them. Only.. there is no "comedic" element in this act, at
>> all. Just a 500 foot drop, with no last minute "save".
>
> I've heard it said that the Democrats need a left-wing version of the Tea
> Party so they can say "we'd love to do x, but we have these loons way out
> on the left who won't vote for us if we don't" the way the tea party does
> on the right.
>
> There's not a strong enough progressive wing in the Democratic party to
> pull things back to the left.  It's kinda like a tug-o-war.
>
> Jim
>
Yeah, we are in the mud pit between, and the other referee went to 
lunch, so the other side just keeps pulling.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:25:25 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Yeah, we are in the mud pit between, and the other referee went to
> lunch,
> so the other side just keeps pulling.

We have a referee?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/11/2012 9:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:25:25 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Yeah, we are in the mud pit between, and the other referee went to
>> lunch,
>> so the other side just keeps pulling.
>
> We have a referee?
>
> Jim
>
Yeah, they wear these shirts that say, "undecided", on them. lol

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:28:06 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 8/11/2012 9:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:25:25 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, we are in the mud pit between, and the other referee went to
>>> lunch,
>>> so the other side just keeps pulling.
>>
>> We have a referee?
>>
>> Jim
>>
> Yeah, they wear these shirts that say, "undecided", on them. lol

Good one. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/4/2012 3:04 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 04/08/2012 08:43 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>
>> If your version of the facts holds up, this man has no business running
>> a company.
>
> Oh, apparently he quit three weeks ago.

Hump and Dump?

> Presumably so that there's enough money to pay for /his/ severance
> package, even if there isn't enough left to pay ours...

Mmm... Golden Parachute. The American Dream. X(

---
~Mike

-- 
---
~Mike

Post a reply to this message