 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-3-2017 9:52, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/11/2017 7:56 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> I am only online a couple of hours each day, so most of the discussion
>> is bypassing me so to speak.
>>
>> Just to resume a few catch words that are dropped here: when speaking
>> about science, terms of 'faith', 'believe', and such are irrelevant.
>> Science is not a faith nor a believe; like a former colleague used to
>> say: "models are to be used, not believed". I am afraid that many people
>> think that 'science' is a kind of 'faith', which it is emphatically not.
>> In short, I tend to avoid that kind of discussions. Other wise, I agree
>> with what Stephen said earlier.
>>
> Science, for some, has become another form of religion. They might not
> understand the details but they have "Faith". It is probably one of the
> reasons that Mr Trump is able to "rubbish" experts. A lot of people are
> loosing their faith. For lots of reasons.
:-/ We are living in sad times...
>
>> About "scientific" polling, I have not the slightest idea what that
>> could be. In my view, polling is the application of statistical models
>> based on assumptions and applied on what humans are thought to think ;-)
>> I have never taken a serious look at any polling results in my life
>>
> If it has any meaning. I think it is modern American usage.
In that case I am at a loss about its meaning.
>
>> Oh I forgot: "Do you eat junk food or charred meat? Watch
>> television within 1/2 hour of bedtime? Drink soda? Buy lottery tickets?"
>>
>> The answers are: no, no, no, no, and no. :-)
>
> But I bet you eat old cheese. ;-)
Aahh... You got me there! Although it is not my favourite anymore I confess.
And I drink tea, coffee, wine, and appreciate a dram of that Scottish
beverage you probably have heard rumours about. That about resumes my
usual liquid intakes I guess. ;-)
[no beer. No sir. I don't /really/ like that.]
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aol com> wrote:
>
> Science, for some, has become another form of religion. They might not
> understand the details but they have "Faith". It is probably one of the
> reasons that Mr Trump is able to "rubbish" experts. A lot of people are
> loosing their faith. For lots of reasons.
Damn right it's become a religion, replete with the kind of insane zealots who
would curse me as a "round-Earth deny-er" for drawing my house in Autocad.
The science-ian won't use "good" or "evil", but he's quick to use "right" and
"wrong" or "smart" and "dumb" or "enlightened" and "primitive" or "progressive"
and "regressive" to mean the same thing.
Sure, he starts with facts (facts like "200 of 200 dogs observed consuming
gasoline were dead within 6 days." But he then, like any other zealot, abandons
proper reason for "reasonability." His true faith is in his own ("reasonable")
intuitions.
Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is following
some type of religion.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/11/2017 2:44 PM, Shay wrote:
> Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is following
> some type of religion.
>
I don't think it's a "religion" to say, "Cell harvesting could produce
beneficial results."
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/11/2017 5:19 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 3/11/2017 2:44 PM, Shay wrote:
>> Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is
>> following
>> some type of religion.
>>
>
> I don't think it's a "religion" to say, "Cell harvesting could produce
> beneficial results."
>
>
> Mike
Or, even that it is "extremely likely" to produce beneficial results.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/11/2017 7:44 PM, Shay wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>>
>> Science, for some, has become another form of religion. They might not
>> understand the details but they have "Faith". It is probably one of the
>> reasons that Mr Trump is able to "rubbish" experts. A lot of people are
>> loosing their faith. For lots of reasons.
>
> Damn right it's become a religion, replete with the kind of insane zealots who
> would curse me as a "round-Earth deny-er" for drawing my house in Autocad.
>
> The science-ian won't use "good" or "evil", but he's quick to use "right" and
> "wrong" or "smart" and "dumb" or "enlightened" and "primitive" or "progressive"
> and "regressive" to mean the same thing.
>
> Sure, he starts with facts (facts like "200 of 200 dogs observed consuming
> gasoline were dead within 6 days." But he then, like any other zealot, abandons
> proper reason for "reasonability." His true faith is in his own ("reasonable")
> intuitions.
>
> Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is following
> some type of religion.
>
Harken to the words of STEPHEN. {Glory be to his Toenails and tremble*
at his utterances.}
It is all power over others. There seems to be an inbuilt desire for
people to believe in something bigger and better than themselves, for
divers reasons. So these people set themselves up as gods or prophets or
priests or vegans and use the gullible to enrich themselves. I don’t
think there is any getting away from it. As it was in the beginning so
it shall be for evermore.
Unfortunately Europe exported a lot of its malcontents to America and
there they prospered.
In my experience, there are so many good and decent people in America
who are drowned out by the vocal fruit loops that the world thinks that
is America.
Now I am stuck for what to say. I don’t really want to rant, maybe just
cry a little.
So keep your pecker up Shay and fight the good fight. It may come out
all right in the end.
* I said tremble not laugh. ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/11/2017 10:21 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 3/11/2017 5:19 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> On 3/11/2017 2:44 PM, Shay wrote:
>>> Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is
>>> following
>>> some type of religion.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think it's a "religion" to say, "Cell harvesting could produce
>> beneficial results."
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
> Or, even that it is "extremely likely" to produce beneficial results.
>
>
I don't think that is what he meant. It is Science Vs Religion and you
take one side or the other. So in a way the belief in Science becomes a
matter of faith.So you denigrate the other side because that is what
people do.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 3/11/2017 5:19 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> > On 3/11/2017 2:44 PM, Shay wrote:
> >> Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is
> >> following
> >> some type of religion.
> >>
> >
> > I don't think it's a "religion" to say, "Cell harvesting could produce
> > beneficial results."
> >
> >
> > Mike
>
> Or, even that it is "extremely likely" to produce beneficial results.
>
>
It's certainly not entirely scientific.
Can you tell me--using capital-R Reason alone--the difference between
"beneficial" and "good" (as in "good vs. evil)?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/11/2017 7:19 PM, Shay wrote:
> It's certainly not entirely scientific.
>
> Can you tell me--using capital-R Reason alone--the difference between
> "beneficial" and "good" (as in "good vs. evil)?
>
>
I think there are some things that could fit into both categories:
1. maximize well-being
2. minimize suffering
3. ???
These are things social animals value, either consciously or by
instinctual behavior. Hard to say whether animals like sharks care about
stuff like this, though. Some sharks rear live young IIRC. It's pretty
common for mammals/birds to feel lonely.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/11/2017 10:26 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 3/11/2017 7:19 PM, Shay wrote:
>> It's certainly not entirely scientific.
>>
>> Can you tell me--using capital-R Reason alone--the difference between
>> "beneficial" and "good" (as in "good vs. evil)?
>>
>>
>
> I think there are some things that could fit into both categories:
>
> 1. maximize well-being
> 2. minimize suffering
> 3. ???
>
> These are things social animals value, either consciously or by
> instinctual behavior. Hard to say whether animals like sharks care about
> stuff like this, though. Some sharks rear live young IIRC. It's pretty
> common for mammals/birds to feel lonely.
>
>
> Mike
OTOH, humans aren't the only animals to experience psychoses.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-3-2017 23:33, Stephen wrote:
> * I said tremble not laugh. ;)
>
Oops. :-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 3/11/2017 7:19 PM, Shay wrote:
> > It's certainly not entirely scientific.
> >
> > Can you tell me--using capital-R Reason alone--the difference between
> > "beneficial" and "good" (as in "good vs. evil)?
> >
> >
>
> I think there are some things that could fit into both categories:
>
> 1. maximize well-being
> 2. minimize suffering
> 3. ???
>
> These are things social animals value, either consciously or by
> instinctual behavior. Hard to say whether animals like sharks care about
> stuff like this, though. Some sharks rear live young IIRC. It's pretty
> common for mammals/birds to feel lonely.
>
>
> Mike
You're just mixing a salad out of mathematical terms and your own moral
intuitions.
This isn't a bad thing. There's a lot to be said for moral intuition. From a
materialist[1], evolutionary perspective, ignoring one's moral intuition is
equivalent to walking around with one's eyes closed.
So, you can make a compelling argument based on moral intuition, but you can't
make absolutist claims based on it. In other words, you can't be a snob about
it.
[1] Materialist as in "believing the brain is the sole source of consciousness
(i.e., no soul)."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 11.03.2017 um 20:44 schrieb Shay:
> Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is following
> some type of religion.
Cell harvesting is not a matter of science vs. religion. It is a matter
of technological progress vs. morality.
Unfortunately, some people don't know the difference.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 11.03.2017 um 23:21 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> On 3/11/2017 5:19 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> On 3/11/2017 2:44 PM, Shay wrote:
>>> Anyone who believes in an objective position on cell harvesting is
>>> following
>>> some type of religion.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think it's a "religion" to say, "Cell harvesting could produce
>> beneficial results."
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
> Or, even that it is "extremely likely" to produce beneficial results.
>
>
> Mike
There is no religion in any such statements /per se/.
But once you try to define "beneficial", you inevitably leave the realm
of science and enter the realm of ideology.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:33:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> * I said tremble not laugh. ;)
I tremble with laughter. ;)
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/16/2017 5:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:33:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> * I said tremble not laugh. ;)
>
> I tremble with laughter. ;)
>
>
>
I'm glad that I've given you something to laugh about. ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/16/2017 7:36 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/16/2017 5:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:33:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> * I said tremble not laugh. ;)
>>
>> I tremble with laughter. ;)
>>
>>
>>
> I'm glad that I've given you something to laugh about. ;)
>
>
BTW How long do you think the big fart will last in office?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:36:37 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/16/2017 5:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:33:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> * I said tremble not laugh. ;)
>>
>> I tremble with laughter. ;)
>>
>>
>>
> I'm glad that I've given you something to laugh about. ;)
Always. :D
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/16/2017 7:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:36:37 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 3/16/2017 5:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:33:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> * I said tremble not laugh. ;)
>>>
>>> I tremble with laughter. ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I'm glad that I've given you something to laugh about. ;)
>
> Always. :D
>
>
>
I'll think about that. ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:43:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/16/2017 7:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:36:37 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/16/2017 5:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:33:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> * I said tremble not laugh. ;)
>>>>
>>>> I tremble with laughter. ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'm glad that I've given you something to laugh about. ;)
>>
>> Always. :D
>>
>>
>>
> I'll think about that. ;)
LOL (see?)
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:49:55 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/16/2017 7:36 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 3/16/2017 5:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:33:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> * I said tremble not laugh. ;)
>>>
>>> I tremble with laughter. ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I'm glad that I've given you something to laugh about. ;)
>>
>>
> BTW How long do you think the big fart will last in office?
I'd be surprised if it were more than 6 months, but I'll give it 1-2
years.
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/16/2017 9:59 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:49:55 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 3/16/2017 7:36 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2017 5:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 22:33:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> * I said tremble not laugh. ;)
>>>>
>>>> I tremble with laughter. ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'm glad that I've given you something to laugh about. ;)
>>>
>>>
>> BTW How long do you think the big fart will last in office?
>
> I'd be surprised if it were more than 6 months, but I'll give it 1-2
> years.
>
>
>
My guess too. I wonder if he will be indicted or it will be a medical
reason.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 2017-03-16 18:47, also sprach Stephen:
> My guess too. I wonder if he will be indicted or it will be a medical
> reason.
>
I don't see him being indicted. The Republicans are such serious liars
to themselves, they think he's golden. Everything they gave Obama shit
for, they think Trump is awesome for the same reason. (Executive orders,
are they evil or awesome? Teleprompters, the sign of an idiot or an
orator's tool? Weekly vacations, does the man work hard or ... oh wait,
nobody else has done that)
So medical. Except Drumpf's narcissism could never allow that. After
all, he does have the largest little brain ever to hold office.
But I definitely see him getting bored with the minutiae of governing.
But I see him staying on for the boost it gives his 3 (5 sir!) kids.
--
dik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 17.03.2017 um 02:20 schrieb dick balaska:
> Am 2017-03-16 18:47, also sprach Stephen:
>
>> My guess too. I wonder if he will be indicted or it will be a medical
>> reason.
>>
>
> I don't see him being indicted. The Republicans are such serious liars
> to themselves, they think he's golden. Everything they gave Obama shit
> for, they think Trump is awesome for the same reason. (Executive orders,
> are they evil or awesome? Teleprompters, the sign of an idiot or an
> orator's tool? Weekly vacations, does the man work hard or ... oh wait,
> nobody else has done that)
>
> So medical. Except Drumpf's narcissism could never allow that. After
> all, he does have the largest little brain ever to hold office.
>
> But I definitely see him getting bored with the minutiae of governing.
> But I see him staying on for the boost it gives his 3 (5 sir!) kids.
If the level of drama attached to his term of office so far is anything
to go by, I'd half expect him to settle for nothing less than a night at
Ford's Theatre.
Of course he'd take center stage.
(Would that count as medical?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2017 1:20 AM, dick balaska wrote:
> Am 2017-03-16 18:47, also sprach Stephen:
>
>> My guess too. I wonder if he will be indicted or it will be a medical
>> reason.
>>
>
> I don't see him being indicted. The Republicans are such serious liars
> to themselves, they think he's golden. Everything they gave Obama shit
> for, they think Trump is awesome for the same reason. (Executive orders,
> are they evil or awesome? Teleprompters, the sign of an idiot or an
> orator's tool? Weekly vacations, does the man work hard or ... oh wait,
> nobody else has done that)
>
I don't know about that. You are only looking at one side of it. He has
been such a dodgy businessman that something in his past may come back
to bite him on the bum. I was only half joking when I said that he was
running for president to get immunity from prosecution.
Then there is his reputation as a sexual predator. So the possibility of
it coming from outside of the legislature is there.
> So medical. Except Drumpf's narcissism could never allow that. After
> all, he does have the largest little brain ever to hold office.
>
There are some things that you cannot hide like a stroke or a near fatal
heart attack.
> But I definitely see him getting bored with the minutiae of governing.
> But I see him staying on for the boost it gives his 3 (5 sir!) kids.
>
Yes, I can see that happening too. Especially if the justice system
keeps thwarting his plans.
And I see Jim has ninja'd me on the Abraham Lincoln solution.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2017 9:18 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 17.03.2017 um 02:20 schrieb dick balaska:
>> Am 2017-03-16 18:47, also sprach Stephen:
>>
>>> My guess too. I wonder if he will be indicted or it will be a medical
>>> reason.
>>>
>>
>> I don't see him being indicted. The Republicans are such serious liars
>> to themselves, they think he's golden. Everything they gave Obama shit
>> for, they think Trump is awesome for the same reason. (Executive orders,
>> are they evil or awesome? Teleprompters, the sign of an idiot or an
>> orator's tool? Weekly vacations, does the man work hard or ... oh wait,
>> nobody else has done that)
>>
>> So medical. Except Drumpf's narcissism could never allow that. After
>> all, he does have the largest little brain ever to hold office.
>>
>> But I definitely see him getting bored with the minutiae of governing.
>> But I see him staying on for the boost it gives his 3 (5 sir!) kids.
>
> If the level of drama attached to his term of office so far is anything
> to go by, I'd half expect him to settle for nothing less than a night at
> Ford's Theatre.
>
> Of course he'd take center stage.
>
Or make the Presidential Box, a six sided one. ;)
> (Would that count as medical?)
>
I wouldn't bet my insurance on it. :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 17.03.2017 um 10:48 schrieb Stephen:
> And I see Jim has ninja'd me on the Abraham Lincoln solution.
That ninja must've ninja'd you pretty good, if you mistook him for Jim ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2017 2:40 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 17.03.2017 um 10:48 schrieb Stephen:
>
>> And I see Jim has ninja'd me on the Abraham Lincoln solution.
>
> That ninja must've ninja'd you pretty good, if you mistook him for Jim ;)
>
Oh! I don't know. Jim Henderson moves silently and swiftly and dresses
in blue.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 22:47:04 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>> I'd be surprised if it were more than 6 months, but I'll give it 1-2
>> years.
>>
> My guess too. I wonder if he will be indicted or it will be a medical
> reason.
I'm leaning slightly more towards medical, though he is losing the right
here as well now, and they have a 'darling' in Pence who will do as he's
told - and who has strong conservative credentials (anti-gay, anti-
legalization, anti-church/state separation). Many on the right love that
shit. It's all about personal freedom so long as it's stuff they like.
Otherwise, let the state crack down on it hard.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 2017-03-17 11:16, also sprach Jim Henderson:
>
> I'm leaning slightly more towards medical, though he is losing the right
> here as well now, and they have a 'darling' in Pence who will do as he's
> told -
I was gonna say, Pence scares me more than Donald. At least the Drumpf's
chaos may prevent total disaster. Pence actually has government
experience and could streamline that.
> and who has strong conservative credentials (anti-gay, anti-
> legalization, anti-church/state separation).
I like popping brain cells in my conservative friends by pointing out
that pro-gay is a conservative PoV. It's individual liberty and it
doesn't affect you at all.
> Many on the right love that
> shit. It's all about personal freedom so long as it's stuff they like.
That cuts both ways. There was a Yale professor who wrote that maybe it
might be ok to wear a Halloween costume that may be considered mildly
offensive, and the snowflakes were not interested in the conversation;
and ran her, and her husband, out of town.
(I blame the parents, who have completely sheltered these kids their
entire lives.)
> Otherwise, let the state crack down on it hard.
And then blame Obama/Clinton/Clinton for making it this way.
>
> Jim
>
--
dik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2017 4:07 PM, dick balaska wrote:
> Am 2017-03-17 11:16, also sprach Jim Henderson:
>
>>
>> I'm leaning slightly more towards medical, though he is losing the right
>> here as well now, and they have a 'darling' in Pence who will do as he's
>> told -
>
> I was gonna say, Pence scares me more than Donald. At least the Drumpf's
> chaos may prevent total disaster. Pence actually has government
> experience and could streamline that.
>
You are right on that so everyone light a candle for him. And I don't
care if it is a Roman Candle. ;)
I see that they are illegal in the US so:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_candle_(firework)
>> and who has strong conservative credentials (anti-gay, anti-
>> legalization, anti-church/state separation).
>
> I like popping brain cells in my conservative friends by pointing out
> that pro-gay is a conservative PoV. It's individual liberty and it
> doesn't affect you at all.
>
Yeah, who cares what other people do if no one is harmed.
>> Many on the right love that
>> shit. It's all about personal freedom so long as it's stuff they like.
>
> That cuts both ways. There was a Yale professor who wrote that maybe it
> might be ok to wear a Halloween costume that may be considered mildly
> offensive, and the snowflakes were not interested in the conversation;
> and ran her, and her husband, out of town.
> (I blame the parents, who have completely sheltered these kids their
> entire lives.)
>
I blame the Americans who turned a cheap children's diversion into a
money making racket.
When I was a kid you got nuts and fruit for performing a party trick.
Not for demanding money with menace.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 2017-03-17 12:48, also sprach Stephen:
> On 3/17/2017 4:07 PM, dick balaska wrote:
>> That cuts both ways. There was a Yale professor who wrote that maybe it
>> might be ok to wear a Halloween costume that may be considered mildly
>> offensive, and the snowflakes were not interested in the conversation;
>> and ran her, and her husband, out of town.
>> (I blame the parents, who have completely sheltered these kids their
>> entire lives.)
>>
>
> I blame the Americans who turned a cheap children's diversion into a
> money making racket.
> When I was a kid you got nuts and fruit for performing a party trick.
>
> Not for demanding money with menace.
Are you referencing Halloween specifically?
I am very disappointed with my generation. As a teen in the 70s, we had
the most freedom of any generation of kids *ever*. And we turned that
into being the worst overprotective helicopter parents.
We totally distrusted government (Nixon!) and now are totally fine with
government surveillance and F-15s buzzing the CT coastline because "they
are keeping us safe". Me: "Wtf?!? Safe from what!?"
--
dik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2017 6:26 PM, dick balaska wrote:
> Am 2017-03-17 12:48, also sprach Stephen:
>>>
>>
>> I blame the Americans who turned a cheap children's diversion into a
>> money making racket.
>> When I was a kid you got nuts and fruit for performing a party trick.
>>
>> Not for demanding money with menace.
>
> Are you referencing Halloween specifically?
>
Yes Halloween specifically. And maybe Christmas and Easter and... ;)
> I am very disappointed with my generation. As a teen in the 70s, we had
> the most freedom of any generation of kids *ever*. And we turned that
> into being the worst overprotective helicopter parents.
Same here. I have a decade on you. In the 70s the world was getting
better and by the 80's the rot set in. At least here in the UK. Greed
was the order of the day. The family silver silver sold of to the
friends of the politicians. Grr! I must take another beta blocker. ;)
>
> We totally distrusted government (Nixon!) and now are totally fine with
> government surveillance and F-15s buzzing the CT coastline because "they
> are keeping us safe". Me: "Wtf?!? Safe from what!?"
>
Thinking about how to things properly?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2017 12:07 PM, dick balaska wrote:
> I was gonna say, Pence scares me more than Donald. At least the Drumpf's
> chaos may prevent total disaster. Pence actually has government
> experience and could streamline that.
>
Pence has experience in almost losing his governorship. If Trump hadn't
chosen him as VP he would have been out of a job.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 2017-03-17 16:50, also sprach Mike Horvath:
> On 3/17/2017 12:07 PM, dick balaska wrote:
>> I was gonna say, Pence scares me more than Donald. At least the Drumpf's
>> chaos may prevent total disaster. Pence actually has government
>> experience and could streamline that.
>>
>
> Pence has experience in almost losing his governorship. If Trump hadn't
> chosen him as VP he would have been out of a job.
And that means as much as does being a pussy grabbing, fantastic lying
narcissist. He is entering the Golden Era of his career. He will get
backing from national leadership for any crazy thing he may come up with.
--
dik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 12:07:22 -0400, dick balaska wrote:
> Am 2017-03-17 11:16, also sprach Jim Henderson:
>
>
>> I'm leaning slightly more towards medical, though he is losing the
>> right here as well now, and they have a 'darling' in Pence who will do
>> as he's told -
>
> I was gonna say, Pence scares me more than Donald. At least the Drumpf's
> chaos may prevent total disaster. Pence actually has government
> experience and could streamline that.
Pence doesn't have temper tantrums on Twitter and the nuclear codes.
While there's a lot about Pence to dislike, at least he doesn't have the
temperament of a 5-year-old and his finger on the button.
Baby Groot with that kind of power is funny. Trump with that power is
anything but.
>> and who has strong conservative credentials (anti-gay, anti-
>> legalization, anti-church/state separation).
>
> I like popping brain cells in my conservative friends by pointing out
> that pro-gay is a conservative PoV. It's individual liberty and it
> doesn't affect you at all.
Indeed. Same thing with legalization of marijuana (and other drugs, for
that matter).
>> Many on the right love that shit. It's all about personal freedom so
>> long as it's stuff they like.
>
> That cuts both ways. There was a Yale professor who wrote that maybe it
> might be ok to wear a Halloween costume that may be considered mildly
> offensive, and the snowflakes were not interested in the conversation;
> and ran her, and her husband, out of town.
> (I blame the parents, who have completely sheltered these kids their
> entire lives.)
I kinda agree. Cultural appropriation is something to be aware of, but
the 'melting pot' that is the US means that we blend stuff together - and
as Bill Maher pointed out a few weeks ago, we need to stop apologizing on
the left for 'stupid shit'. I don't always agree with Maher, and he gets
a lot of things wrong (such as his stance on the first amendment - it's
colored by being pushed off the air with "Politically Incorrect" after
people boycotted advertisers - he doesn't understand that the boycott
*was* a first amendment expression relating to freedom of association.
The first amendment doesn't give him the right to an audience or the
right to a TV show - or the right to social consequences for saying
things people don't like), but I do like that he says what he wants to
say, and doesn't care what people think. Sometimes he's a schmuck when
he does that. A lot of times he's not.
>> Otherwise, let the state crack down on it hard.
>
> And then blame Obama/Clinton/Clinton for making it this way.
Naturally; it's never *their* fault.
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:26:37 -0400, dick balaska wrote:
> I am very disappointed with my generation. As a teen in the 70s, we had
> the most freedom of any generation of kids *ever*. And we turned that
> into being the worst overprotective helicopter parents.
Indeed - I was a teen in the 80s, but I feel the same way. I was talking
to someone at a brewery this evening who it turned out grew up not far
from where I did in Minnesota at about the same time - remembering that
during the non-winter months, we might have ridden our bikes to school,
even though it was *gasp* a couple miles away. Today, parents are
sometimes accused of *child abuse* for allowing their kids that kind of
freedom.
It's fucking stupid.
How do we expect our kids to be sane in today's world if they aren't
allowed to take risks and if they aren't allowed to fail? I fear for an
entire generation of people who are given "achievement awards" that are
really "participation awards" because everyone has to feel like a winner
- and then they get their first job, fuck up *really badly* and get fired
for it. How do you cope with something like that if you never learned as
a kid how to?
Some will go out, get a gun, return to the workplace, and shoot a bunch
of people - probably before shooting themselves.
It's pretty obviously not a good thing for mental health. Everyone needs
to learn how to fail with grace - and that failure is often a great
teacher.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:28:03 -0400, dick balaska wrote:
> fantastic lying narcissist
Well, let's be honest here; Trump sucks at lying. People just don't give
a shit.
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:10:35 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/17/2017 2:40 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 17.03.2017 um 10:48 schrieb Stephen:
>>
>>> And I see Jim has ninja'd me on the Abraham Lincoln solution.
>>
>> That ninja must've ninja'd you pretty good, if you mistook him for Jim
>> ;)
>>
>>
> Oh! I don't know. Jim Henderson moves silently and swiftly and dresses
> in blue.
Actually, mostly in black. It's that ninja thing. The slightly
overweight ninja.
Though arguably, blue is a good colour on me. So I'm told. ;)
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/19/2017 6:02 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:10:35 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 3/17/2017 2:40 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 17.03.2017 um 10:48 schrieb Stephen:
>>>
>>>> And I see Jim has ninja'd me on the Abraham Lincoln solution.
>>>
>>> That ninja must've ninja'd you pretty good, if you mistook him for Jim
>>> ;)
>>>
>>>
>> Oh! I don't know. Jim Henderson moves silently and swiftly and dresses
>> in blue.
>
> Actually, mostly in black. It's that ninja thing. The slightly
> overweight ninja.
>
Hollywood myth. Black is the colour of stagehands in Noh theatre. It is
a convention that you do not see anyone dressed in black.
> Though arguably, blue is a good colour on me. So I'm told. ;)
>
Probably set off by your blue blood. ;
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/19/2017 6:00 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:26:37 -0400, dick balaska wrote:
>
>> I am very disappointed with my generation. As a teen in the 70s, we had
>> the most freedom of any generation of kids *ever*. And we turned that
>> into being the worst overprotective helicopter parents.
>
> Indeed - I was a teen in the 80s, but I feel the same way. I was talking
> to someone at a brewery this evening who it turned out grew up not far
> from where I did in Minnesota at about the same time - remembering that
> during the non-winter months, we might have ridden our bikes to school,
> even though it was *gasp* a couple miles away. Today, parents are
> sometimes accused of *child abuse* for allowing their kids that kind of
> freedom.
>
> It's fucking stupid.
>
It's not just stupid it is unkind. For the reasons you mention.
I used to walk the two miles to school when the weather permitted.
Otherwise I had to take two buses which took as long as walking. The
upside was that I would have saved half a crown, 2/6 or or 12·5p.
> How do we expect our kids to be sane in today's world if they aren't
> allowed to take risks and if they aren't allowed to fail? I fear for an
> entire generation of people who are given "achievement awards" that are
> really "participation awards" because everyone has to feel like a winner
> - and then they get their first job, fuck up *really badly* and get fired
> for it. How do you cope with something like that if you never learned as
> a kid how to?
>
I agree with that too.
Life is no bed of roses.
> Some will go out, get a gun, return to the workplace, and shoot a bunch
> of people - probably before shooting themselves.
>
If only they would do the latter first. O lot of problems would be non
events. It is the same with some fathers who kill their own family
before killing themselves.
> It's pretty obviously not a good thing for mental health. Everyone needs
> to learn how to fail with grace - and that failure is often a great
> teacher.
>
Can you imagine the hoo ha if that were to be introduced into school
syllabuses?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/19/2017 2:02 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:28:03 -0400, dick balaska wrote:
>
>> fantastic lying narcissist
>
> Well, let's be honest here; Trump sucks at lying. People just don't give
> a shit.
>
>
>
More than that. The Republican party is putting a lot of effort in
actively shielding him. He will never face any consequences for his
lying as long as they are protecting him like they are doing.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/19/2017 1:55 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I kinda agree. Cultural appropriation is something to be aware of, but
> the 'melting pot' that is the US means that we blend stuff together - and
> as Bill Maher pointed out a few weeks ago, we need to stop apologizing on
> the left for 'stupid shit'. I don't always agree with Maher, and he gets
> a lot of things wrong (such as his stance on the first amendment - it's
> colored by being pushed off the air with "Politically Incorrect" after
> people boycotted advertisers - he doesn't understand that the boycott
> *was* a first amendment expression relating to freedom of association.
> The first amendment doesn't give him the right to an audience or the
> right to a TV show - or the right to social consequences for saying
> things people don't like), but I do like that he says what he wants to
> say, and doesn't care what people think. Sometimes he's a schmuck when
> he does that. A lot of times he's not.
>
I think you're confusing "right" with "entitlement". He certainly has a
_right_ to an audience, TV show, etc. etc. But he's not _entitled_ to
have one.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 08:10:04 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/19/2017 6:02 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:10:35 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/17/2017 2:40 PM, clipka wrote:
>>>> Am 17.03.2017 um 10:48 schrieb Stephen:
>>>>
>>>>> And I see Jim has ninja'd me on the Abraham Lincoln solution.
>>>>
>>>> That ninja must've ninja'd you pretty good, if you mistook him for
>>>> Jim ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Oh! I don't know. Jim Henderson moves silently and swiftly and dresses
>>> in blue.
>>
>> Actually, mostly in black. It's that ninja thing. The slightly
>> overweight ninja.
>>
>>
> Hollywood myth. Black is the colour of stagehands in Noh theatre. It is
> a convention that you do not see anyone dressed in black.
You're not supposed to tell people that - that's a secret, like it
doesn't *really* rain all the time in Seattle...
Whoops.
>> Though arguably, blue is a good colour on me. So I'm told. ;)
>>
>>
> Probably set off by your blue blood. ;
My eyes, actually. ;)
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 08:29:35 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/19/2017 6:00 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:26:37 -0400, dick balaska wrote:
>>
>>> I am very disappointed with my generation. As a teen in the 70s, we
>>> had the most freedom of any generation of kids *ever*. And we turned
>>> that into being the worst overprotective helicopter parents.
>>
>> Indeed - I was a teen in the 80s, but I feel the same way. I was
>> talking to someone at a brewery this evening who it turned out grew up
>> not far from where I did in Minnesota at about the same time -
>> remembering that during the non-winter months, we might have ridden our
>> bikes to school, even though it was *gasp* a couple miles away. Today,
>> parents are sometimes accused of *child abuse* for allowing their kids
>> that kind of freedom.
>>
>> It's fucking stupid.
>>
>>
> It's not just stupid it is unkind. For the reasons you mention.
Yep. I might have strong opinions about this subject.
> I used to walk the two miles to school when the weather permitted.
> Otherwise I had to take two buses which took as long as walking. The
> upside was that I would have saved half a crown, 2/6 or or 12·5p.
For me in high school, it was about a half mile to get to the bus, which
then took me about 4 miles to the school. I'd occasionally walk it or
bike it (the latter rarely), but in the winter, my dad would drive me to
the bus stop - it got extremely cold where I grew up.
>> How do we expect our kids to be sane in today's world if they aren't
>> allowed to take risks and if they aren't allowed to fail? I fear for
>> an entire generation of people who are given "achievement awards" that
>> are really "participation awards" because everyone has to feel like a
>> winner - and then they get their first job, fuck up *really badly* and
>> get fired for it. How do you cope with something like that if you
>> never learned as a kid how to?
>>
>>
> I agree with that too.
> Life is no bed of roses.
Indeed.
>> Some will go out, get a gun, return to the workplace, and shoot a bunch
>> of people - probably before shooting themselves.
>>
>>
> If only they would do the latter first. O lot of problems would be non
> events. It is the same with some fathers who kill their own family
> before killing themselves.
Part of me agrees, but part of me thinks that it's not their fault they
were never taught how to cope with life. At the same time, I know people
who are the product of that kind of upbringing who recognize how screwed
up it was and have worked hard to overcome it. Everyone copes
differently - it's when harming others comes into it that things get ugly
and messy.
>> It's pretty obviously not a good thing for mental health. Everyone
>> needs to learn how to fail with grace - and that failure is often a
>> great teacher.
>>
> Can you imagine the hoo ha if that were to be introduced into school
> syllabuses?
I can. When I interview people, I ask questions I know they can't answer
(I'll withhold key information, typically) because how you respond to
that kind of situation is really important to being successful.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 11:53:00 -0400, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 3/19/2017 2:02 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:28:03 -0400, dick balaska wrote:
>>
>>> fantastic lying narcissist
>>
>> Well, let's be honest here; Trump sucks at lying. People just don't
>> give a shit.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> More than that. The Republican party is putting a lot of effort in
> actively shielding him. He will never face any consequences for his
> lying as long as they are protecting him like they are doing.
I fear you may be correct about this.
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 12:58:06 -0400, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 3/19/2017 1:55 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I kinda agree. Cultural appropriation is something to be aware of, but
>> the 'melting pot' that is the US means that we blend stuff together -
>> and as Bill Maher pointed out a few weeks ago, we need to stop
>> apologizing on the left for 'stupid shit'. I don't always agree with
>> Maher, and he gets a lot of things wrong (such as his stance on the
>> first amendment - it's colored by being pushed off the air with
>> "Politically Incorrect" after people boycotted advertisers - he doesn't
>> understand that the boycott *was* a first amendment expression relating
>> to freedom of association. The first amendment doesn't give him the
>> right to an audience or the right to a TV show - or the right to social
>> consequences for saying things people don't like), but I do like that
>> he says what he wants to say, and doesn't care what people think.
>> Sometimes he's a schmuck when he does that. A lot of times he's not.
>>
>>
> I think you're confusing "right" with "entitlement". He certainly has a
> _right_ to an audience, TV show, etc. etc. But he's not _entitled_ to
> have one.
I don't think I am confusing those two things, but I do see the
distinction you're making. I might have to give that more thought.
The reason I'm not sure is because the first amendment doesn't take away
people's right to decide if they want to listen to someone. In fact,
quite the opposite, it gives the prospective audience the right to decide
"I don't want to be associated with that speech or that group of people".
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/19/2017 10:07 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Some will go out, get a gun, return to the workplace, and shoot a bunch
>>> >>of people - probably before shooting themselves.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>> >If only they would do the latter first. O lot of problems would be non
>> >events. It is the same with some fathers who kill their own family
>> >before killing themselves.
> Part of me agrees, but part of me thinks that it's not their fault they
> were never taught how to cope with life.
I don't know about teaching. Helping people to cope with life, yes.
I don't see it as a "one size fits all". Everyone is different and react
to different situations, differently.
> At the same time, I know people
> who are the product of that kind of upbringing who recognize how screwed
> up it was and have worked hard to overcome it. Everyone copes
> differently - it's when harming others comes into it that things get ugly
> and messy.
>
Yes, it is the harming others that is the problem. IMO.
>>> >>It's pretty obviously not a good thing for mental health. Everyone
>>> >>needs to learn how to fail with grace - and that failure is often a
>>> >>great teacher.
>>> >>
>> >Can you imagine the hoo ha if that were to be introduced into school
>> >syllabuses?
> I can. When I interview people, I ask questions I know they can't answer
> (I'll withhold key information, typically) because how you respond to
> that kind of situation is really important to being successful.
I'm sure you do it sympathetically. Sometimes the best answer is "I
don't know. I would have to research it and get back to you.
I remember one interview I had where the technical guy asked me where in
the db to put the customer's name and address. I gave him three obvious
and best working practice answers. Each time he said that's not how they
did it. So I mentioned a couple of bespoke solutions then finally
thanked them for their time and said that I had enough information to
decide that I no longer wished to continue the interview.
Sometimes it is not a good idea to take every job that is offered.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 09:03:34 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/19/2017 10:07 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Some will go out, get a gun, return to the workplace, and shoot a
>>>> bunch
>>>> >>of people - probably before shooting themselves.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>> >If only they would do the latter first. O lot of problems would be
>>> >non events. It is the same with some fathers who kill their own
>>> >family before killing themselves.
>> Part of me agrees, but part of me thinks that it's not their fault they
>> were never taught how to cope with life.
>
> I don't know about teaching. Helping people to cope with life, yes.
Well, maybe not so much about teaching, but about learning - and everyone
learns in different ways. Sign of a good teacher is one who understands
that and can adapt.
> I don't see it as a "one size fits all". Everyone is different and react
> to different situations, differently.
True. I don't mean to suggest anything differently than that - but
everyone should learn some baseline coping skills for what to do when you
fail, because failure is a big part of life.
>> At the same time, I know people who are the product of that kind of
>> upbringing who recognize how screwed up it was and have worked hard to
>> overcome it. Everyone copes differently - it's when harming others
>> comes into it that things get ugly and messy.
>>
>>
> Yes, it is the harming others that is the problem. IMO.
Indeed.
>>>> >>It's pretty obviously not a good thing for mental health. Everyone
>>>> >>needs to learn how to fail with grace - and that failure is often a
>>>> >>great teacher.
>>>> >>
>>> >Can you imagine the hoo ha if that were to be introduced into school
>>> >syllabuses?
>> I can. When I interview people, I ask questions I know they can't
>> answer (I'll withhold key information, typically) because how you
>> respond to that kind of situation is really important to being
>> successful.
>
> I'm sure you do it sympathetically. Sometimes the best answer is "I
> don't know. I would have to research it and get back to you.
That's exactly the type of answer I'm looking for - or for the scenario
to lead to a discussion about the types of information they're looking
for (since it's my scenario, I can answer those questions - so it can
become a bit of role-play).
> I remember one interview I had where the technical guy asked me where in
> the db to put the customer's name and address. I gave him three obvious
> and best working practice answers. Each time he said that's not how they
> did it. So I mentioned a couple of bespoke solutions then finally
> thanked them for their time and said that I had enough information to
> decide that I no longer wished to continue the interview.
> Sometimes it is not a good idea to take every job that is offered.
That's certainly true. Over the past couple of months, I've actually had
a few interviews (one was pretty promising, actually - but I withdrew
because of a change at work; I didn't feel it was right to continue to
interview when I took a new position where I currently am - not fair to
anyone for me to leave a few weeks after taking on new responsibilities -
and stuff I'm excited to be doing).
Job interviews are very much a two-way street.
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/20/2017 3:58 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 09:03:34 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't know about teaching. Helping people to cope with life, yes.
>
> Well, maybe not so much about teaching, but about learning - and everyone
> learns in different ways. Sign of a good teacher is one who understands
> that and can adapt.
>
There is such a thing as a good teacher?
Well maybe I did not go to the best sort of school. So have no experience.
>> I don't see it as a "one size fits all". Everyone is different and react
>> to different situations, differently.
>
> True. I don't mean to suggest anything differently than that - but
> everyone should learn some baseline coping skills for what to do when you
> fail, because failure is a big part of life.
>
Failing in a safe environment is a good way to learn. At least for me.
>>
>> I'm sure you do it sympathetically. Sometimes the best answer is "I
>> don't know. I would have to research it and get back to you.
>
> That's exactly the type of answer I'm looking for - or for the scenario
> to lead to a discussion about the types of information they're looking
> for (since it's my scenario, I can answer those questions - so it can
> become a bit of role-play).
>
Honesty is really the best policy.
>> I remember one interview I had where the technical guy asked me where in
>> the db to put the customer's name and address. I gave him three obvious
>> and best working practice answers. Each time he said that's not how they
>> did it. So I mentioned a couple of bespoke solutions then finally
>> thanked them for their time and said that I had enough information to
>> decide that I no longer wished to continue the interview.
>> Sometimes it is not a good idea to take every job that is offered.
>
> That's certainly true. Over the past couple of months, I've actually had
> a few interviews (one was pretty promising, actually - but I withdrew
> because of a change at work; I didn't feel it was right to continue to
> interview when I took a new position where I currently am - not fair to
> anyone for me to leave a few weeks after taking on new responsibilities -
> and stuff I'm excited to be doing).
>
> Job interviews are very much a two-way street.
>
Indeed they should be. But sometimes the pressure makes people waffle.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 16:29:54 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 3/20/2017 3:58 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 09:03:34 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> I don't know about teaching. Helping people to cope with life, yes.
>>
>> Well, maybe not so much about teaching, but about learning - and
>> everyone learns in different ways. Sign of a good teacher is one who
>> understands that and can adapt.
>>
> There is such a thing as a good teacher?
Oh, yes, I had some great teachers - not just on subjects, but in life.
Two of the best about life, actually, were violin teachers I had.
One of them taught me the importance of seeing things from other peoples'
point of view, and how to do that especially when their POV was different
than yours.
> Well maybe I did not go to the best sort of school. So have no
> experience.
Sadly, that happens - but teachers aren't just the people who stand in
front of a class, either. Good role models also teach by modeling good
behaviour.
>>> I don't see it as a "one size fits all". Everyone is different and
>>> react to different situations, differently.
>>
>> True. I don't mean to suggest anything differently than that - but
>> everyone should learn some baseline coping skills for what to do when
>> you fail, because failure is a big part of life.
>>
>>
> Failing in a safe environment is a good way to learn. At least for me.
Yep, absolutely. Experience being what you got when you didn't get what
you wanted - that sort of thing.
>>> I'm sure you do it sympathetically. Sometimes the best answer is "I
>>> don't know. I would have to research it and get back to you.
>>
>> That's exactly the type of answer I'm looking for - or for the scenario
>> to lead to a discussion about the types of information they're looking
>> for (since it's my scenario, I can answer those questions - so it can
>> become a bit of role-play).
>>
>>
> Honesty is really the best policy.
Indeed it is - and that's what I want. It's easy to do interviews like
that when you are the SME - because being a SME makes it much easier to
smell out the bullshit.
> Indeed they should be. But sometimes the pressure makes people waffle.
Yeah. Especially if they think about what's on the line. After I got
laid off, interviewing was much harder because it was about paying the
bills - and I'm picky about who I'll interview with, too. Always have
been.
So when the outplacement service said I should be sending out something
like 50 CVs a week and scheduling 10 interviews a week - that's not
something that I see as sustainable, because you can't fake excitement
about a prospective job. When they ask you "why Microsoft" or "why
Amazon" or "why McDonald's" - the honest answer at that point is "why
not? You're one of 50 people I sent CVs to last week."
But when it's just two companies who are interested (as was the case for
me recently), I could honestly answer "I'm not actually looking - you
guys came to me, but the technology you work on interests me, so I
thought I'd see what you had to offer" - that's a much easier kind of
interview to have. I actually felt bad about withdrawing from one of the
two I recently was talking to - but new responsibilities with a broader
scope than what they offered, and without moving companies (meaning I
still work from home instead of having a 90-minute commute each way at
least 3 days a week) - staying where I am makes sense, even if they
offered more money. At some point, it isn't about the money - and it's
nice to be able to say that.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
