MigL Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 Come on, guys. You are making his argument. Unless you think calling someone obtuse, or accusing someone of making invalid points in his 'various' threads ( he has one other ), not supporting his assertions, and calling him out as a troll, is civil behavior. His OPINIONS of behavior are valid to him; making excuses with semantics does not render them invalid. You guys are doing a splendid job of supporting his assertions; he doesn't need to. And since when is calling someone out as a troll evidence of civil behavior ? We have in the past, had this conversation numerous times, and the consensus has always been 'Offence is in the eye of the beholder' He may well feel offended by our behavior, yet we are telling him that we are NOT being offensive. There is a certain double standard at play here, by some of the very people ( whom I respect and consider friends ) who made the strongest case for the above consensus.
LaurieAG Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 11 hours ago, iNow said: You'd be surprised just how extremely familiar I am with the vocation and org type you describe (though, not usually at companies as small as the one you mention here with only 3.5K ee's), but I'm not terribly clear how the post you made ties to the discussion taking place. Perhaps you can clarify? If I try reading between the lines, it seems like you're suggesting climate scientists fudge their data thus rendering it untrustworthy and their conclusions false. Am I reading you right?: iNow, bureaucrats of any type, especially those who are of a technical nature, can have problems with the bureaucratic aspects of their position which then interferes with their competent stewarding of all aspects of their position. Also there is the issue of public vs private stakeholders. Here's an example that I discussed with my father yesterday morning. He was the RGC/AMC Safety/Developments Officer before he started working as BHP Minerals International's Manager Learning Systems where he introduced 'Competency Based Learning' systems into all their international operations. by 2017 BHP ranked as the world's largest mining company, based on market capitalisation, and as Melbourne's third-largest company by revenue, which "almost tripled between 2004 and 2012." He was asked to go to a sand mining project for an inspection with BHP's Western Australian manager as he already knew about the site from his previous position. The person in charge of the project was not an experienced mining engineer by trade, and although he was technically competent in his own narrow field (like an academic), the operation continually failed despite the technology. After doing the site inspection my father asked the state manager if he could have a look at the production records for a couple of hours so he could give him an informed opinion. When he came back he said 'Did you notice anything about the site when we inspected it?' Spoiler The State Manager said the site was 'very clean really' and my father replied "then how come the plant wastage is around 30%? These figures cannot be correct". Corollary to the Peter Principle: Once you have promoted all of your competents to their highest level of incompetence you must change your management philosophy from top down to bottom up, because the non corrupt people at the bottom are the only competent ones in your entire organisation.
zapatos Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 Are not my opinions of his behavior as valid as his opinion of my behavior? Has he supplied the examples of our bad behavior that we've requested? Frankly I cannot understand your support of this poster He has compared "us" or accused us of: - A standard attitude of “STFU, you stupid, ignorant denier" - That we "routinely sling ad homs, insults , and tell others to STFU" - "insults flying" - "boorish behavior" - That we "tell people to STFU and calling them liars, trolls , and ignorant" - That " anyone not agreeing with the mass is either a troll, is stupid, or is just a liar" - "snakiness and snideness" - "a general attitude than anyone who doesn't agree might possibly be a liar" And these "insults" to us have been repeated multiple times in this thread with no substantiation. Frankly I'm growing tired of his boorish, insulting behavior and wish he would just STFU. 2
MigL Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) So he is offended by you saying STFU; as is his right, because 'offence' is perceived. And you are offended by him telling you this, and you want to tell him STFU; as is your right, for the exact same reason. Thereby proving him right ? edit: I hope I'm not offending you by pointing this out . Edited January 25, 2020 by MigL
zapatos Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 3 minutes ago, MigL said: And you are offended by him telling you this, and you want to tell him STFU; Up until that post I never told him to STFU. Do you have any comment on the dozen other things I listed that he said about me/us in this thread? Do you agree with him that we come across as " anyone not agreeing with the mass is either a troll, is stupid, or is just a liar"? If he says that to us don't you think he should back up his assertions? If not, why not? Frankly I'm tired of him slinging shit at us throughout this thread, with his main complaint being that WE sling a lot of shit.
Phi for All Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 8 hours ago, zapatos said: Frankly I'm tired of him slinging shit at us throughout this thread, with his main complaint being that WE sling a lot of shit. Whether intentional or not, the effect is the same. We've seen these tactics before, and we know how they work. The "skeptic" gets to ignore evidence, question established science with only incredulity, and then weep big tears when told they're soapboxing or using logical fallacies. It's an attempt to establish the rule of "heads I win, tails you lose". It's a shame if there's really no bad intent, but we can't know that, so treating this as manipulation seems a pretty safe bet. It's like when we get a poster showing Dunning-Kruger confidence in their poor scientific knowledge. It doesn't matter in the end that they truly believe what they've made up, it still comes off as trolling or preaching.
MigL Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) You are, of course, your own person Zap. I will not be telling you what to do or say. My opinion of you will not change, I still respect and seek out your opinion on various subjects, and you guys are as close as friends I've never met, can be. Having a differing point of view, will not affect my opinion of people ( I still miss Ten oz ). I'm simply offering my opinion. it does seem some of us are too quick to be offended by wallflash's accusations, and even ready to prejudge his motives. Maybe ( just maybe ) the accusations he made are a little too close for comfort. Edited January 25, 2020 by MigL
iNow Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 I promise you, I’m not as emotional invested in this topic as is being suggested. I find it kinda funny, TBH
MigL Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 As wallflash said he wasn't either, and offered several times to 'drop it', maybe it is time we all moved on.
dimreepr Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 17 minutes ago, MigL said: As wallflash said he wasn't either, and offered several times to 'drop it', kind of a false dawn since he didn't. 33 minutes ago, MigL said: maybe it is time we all moved on. Yep, but maybe (just maybe ) the accusations he made are a little too...
MigL Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 1 minute ago, dimreepr said: kind of a false dawn since he didn't. This forum is like the mob, Dim . "Everytime you try to get out, they keep pulling you back in." ( the only good part of Godfather III )
Recommended Posts