RoR: Forum

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gerald, that is one of the best commercials I have ever seen!!! Thank you for a splendid belly laugh.

Jennifer

Post 41

Thursday, February 3, 2005 - 10:58pm

Matt - I believe I have met some solipsistic, premature-and-gratuitous-umbrage-taking dilettantes with MBAs, only I can't remember where I buried their bodies.

That commercial won't come up for me - I just get a message about misconfigurations. Anyone care to tell me the punchline?

Today I received a prize example of two other Linz Sinz, hypocrisy & cowardice, rolled into one. Recently I told Tibor he was talking "crap" in saying governments don't have the right to exercise retaliatory force pre-emptively. He responded by saying my language belonged in a "white trash bar." Someone who shall remain nameless sent me a private note as follows:

"Let me just say from first hand experience that, the vulgar, profanity laced, inebriated musings of the average patron of a ‘white trash bar’ tends to display more intellectual honesty and common sense than in the thousands of ‘separated from reality’ ivory towers of most of America's academics. Linz, please promise you will stay in the white trash bar."

This person is not prepared to say that publicly, but is quite happy for *me* to say it & be told I'm rude, etc., which of course I would do, & did do, anyway. I have huge contempt for those whose supreme & only value in life is prim propriety while freedom burns, & would rather die than join them. But I'll never even understand cowardice & hypocrisy. I just don't see how any human being could succumb to them.

Linz

Post 42

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 7:53am

Linz: "Let me just say from first hand experience that, the vulgar, profanity laced, inebriated musings of the average patron of a ‘white trash bar’ tends to display more intellectual honesty and common sense than in the thousands of ‘separated from reality’ ivory towers of most of America's academics. Linz, please promise you will stay in the white trash bar."

I SAID IT!

ME, GEORGE W. CORDERO

Linz: This person is not prepared to say that publicly,....

I did say it publicly, when I posted this thread:
http://www.solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0353.shtml#0

No reasonable person could possibly miss exactly what I was alluding to in that thread. I thought that it was an even better method of slapping the Saddamite faction than the paragraph you quoted.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 2/04, 8:31am)

Post 43

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 1:40pm

George - thanks & compliments for stepping up. This *does* constitute saying it publicly. I doubt anyone had a clue from the other thread. I hereby withdraw the charges of hypocrisy & cowardice!

Linz

Post 44

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 4:42pm

The current topic reminds me of Rand's take on Frank Lloyd Wright's opinion that "the real women are to be found in the tearooms" or something to that effect. She (of course!) disagreed with him...

I think the issue here is the perception of the type of forum that is Solo. Is it a more casual, "barroom" forum, or is it a proffesional, business like forum? I can see the value of a more professional demeanor when discussing important issues here...I sympathize with Rand in THE ART OF FICTION when she discusses using vulgarities only when no other word will do (i.e. "bastart".) She didn't rely on swearing to get her point across. But yet, she did find reason to use "bastard" often (my favorite is AYN RAND'S MARGINALIA: "the abysmal bastard!).

My take is that SOLO defies the dichotomy (when does it embrace a dichotomy?) of formal and casual. Personally, I am so used to customer service where I am expected to be "diplomatic" with customers (and coworkers) that I can see the value of "proper" behavior (you don't keep customers with rude behavior for long.) But at the same time, I realize that when a difficult customer leaves, I am behind the scenes looking for new swear words because the old ones don't express my contempt enough!

Everything in context, I suppose.

Post 45

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 5:53pm

Too bad you can't get the video. If you Google, Fedex video mba, it should lead you to the video on the FedEx site. Until then the transcript below should suffice.

The FedEx television advertisement features a young man on his first day of work.
His boss says to him "I know its your first day, but we could really use your help.
"You've got it," he replies.
She takes him to the shipping/receiving area of the company and says,"We're in a bit of a jam. All this has to get out today."
"Yeah, ah ... I don't do shipping," he replies.
"Oh no, no, it's very easy," she answers. "We use Fedex.com. Anybody can do it."
"You don't understand, I have an MBA."
"Oh, you have an MBA?"
"Yeah ..."
"In that case, I'll have to show you how to do it."
The voice over then says: "Fedex.com makes shipping so fast and easy ... even an MBA can do it."

The above transcript is modified from an article found at
http://businessmajors.about.com/b/a/110058.htm

Gerald

Post 46

Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 6:23am

Yes - love that one - very funny.........

Post 47

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 7:10am

In relation to MBAs, I came across this interesting article on the internet. It asks, "are business schools responsible for the moral failures in business?". It takes a critical view towards the current value on an MBA because of how some MBAs are taught.

I decided this article is not important to share with the entire SOLO audience, but I thought those participating in this thread would be interested.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3667863

Post 48

Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 1:50pm

Linz,

before opening the article I guessed "Saddamism"* would top the list - imagine my surprise! Great list.

Personally I'm guilty of a bit of dilletantism and perhaps a smattering of cowardice. To some extent I'm still in the "observing quietly from the edge" stage around here, but I'm certainly thinking and will add my thoughts as and when they may add value (in my assessment of course).

One item I may have added (perhaps to the minor list) is Conformism. One lesson I've learnt is that one should be careful not to go unwittingly with the tide. You should regularly test things against your principles. Even here.

Thanks

* still haven't ferreted the exact definition

Post 49

Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 10:00pm

Wayne—Saddamy is arguably subsumed by cowardice. And remember, I did say these were just enough Linz Sinz to be going on with. Probably about time I added some. I've certainly seen enough on certain threads over the last few days to elongate the litany! :-)

Post 50

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 12:10am

Linz - This is the first article of yours that I have ever read in life. I was setting aside some time to delve into the archives a bit, but the title of this kept nagging at the corner of my eye in the new postings at the bottom of the main page. I kept thinking, why the 7 Deadly Sins? Is there some kind of Objectivist tie-in?

So I opened it up. Saw it was by you. Thought, "Why the hell not?" Read it.

What a relief that it was not the Catholic 7. And, belive it or not, I find myself to be in complete agreement with you. On all points. That's almost a first with me for anybody. You have practically written a recipe for sincerity.

I noticed that your article was an older one that was prompting new posts, so I read them all. As one who has recently "come out of the closet" Objectivism-wise, I was extremely touched by the effort of Stephen Knoll in overcoming his timidity and making his first public post. His story and first steps touched me.

He came a long way, but he sure had help this time around. You have a very special talent for drawing out people in a manner that they stay true to themselves. That is a quality of a first-rate public communicator, which I am delightfully discovering daily that you are.

I hope that my clowning in that "other thread" (albeit with a certain dose of rat poison) did not fall under Sin No. 5, but hell, I was prompted. Also, I was born that way. (That's no excuse for an Objectivist, but there it is.) Back to sucking up...

Joking aside, your spirit, which is clearly exhibited in many of your posts that I have read in the different threads, is one of the main reasons that I am feeling more and more at home at SOLO. Your "special talent" got (and is getting) to me too.

Michael

Post 51

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 12:29am

Michael—you wrote:

"You have practically written a recipe for sincerity."

I couldn't hope for a better expression of appreciation or understanding.

Read the Credo.

Read everything I'm writing on this board at the moment, especially against the clever-dick smart-ass poseurs, hair-splitters & pomo wankers who take advantage of an honest site that allows them to vomit here.

Yes sir. Sincerity is what it's about.

Real old-fashioned stuff, isn't it?

Sincerity & sense of honour.

Lost treasures.

Drowned in headbanging caterwauling & every other variant of nihilism.

SOLO is helping to bring them back.

Linz

Post 52

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 4:23am

Huh, Am I a Saddamite? I don't think that the war against Iraq was good, nor that it was just or made anything better in the US? So, I am a Saddamite?

Perhaps I also misinterpreted the meaning of "Saddamite" (= one who sleeps with Saddam?).

Post 53

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 6:52am

I must say that the 'Saddimite' label is a ridiculous insult. I'm know it makes the people who throw it around giggle with delight at how clever they, but it has no place in an argument among rational people.

1) It's ad hominem on the face of it.

2) The person using it often uses it as a catch all to shut down arguments - oh, the person is Saddimite - nothing more needs to be said.

3) Nobody being called a Saddamite supports Saddam Huessin - nobody. Opposing the US war on Iraq doesn't equate to supporting Huessin.

4) The play on words is homophobic.

Insults aren't a replacement for arguments.

Post 54

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 7:07am

Lee,
A few comments

1) I don't love the term, or use it with glee. Some people have been called Saddamites that I think are not. I've noted that at the time in other threads. The term , unfortunatly is accurate for quite a few people.

Nobody being called a Saddamite supports Saddam Huessin - nobody.

2) You have a very interesting way of looking at things. Lindsay has defined this situation well. Those who choose to ignore the situation of Saddam's threats/attacks on the U.S., not to mention his own citizens support Saddam. You can evade the situation all you like, but that doesn't make it any less true. Oh, and please don't come up with your "U.S. supported Saddam, Saudi Arabia, etc etc too" crap. I've had a belly-full of this type of evasion from you in the other thread. It hasn't been denied and it isn't an excuse for continued succoring of Saddam.

3) Homophobic? Lindsay coined it, and given his homosexuality, I don't think it likely to have that meaning. In any case, political correctness isn't an argument against a proper term of definition.

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 3/04, 7:08am)

Post 55

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 8:55am

The term is inaccurate unless the person actually support Huessin, which I'm quite sure nobody here does.

It's not a rational arguement - it's an inaccurate insult that intentionally distorts the position of people. That makes it lying, and lying is bad.

I'll repeat what I said in another thread - I expect better from Objectivists. If you truly respect reason, than don't entrech irrational, inaccurate arguements in your thinking. I felt the same way in college, where I was called a 'facist' for supporting capitalism. It's NOT AN ARGUMENT to insult someone. It's a way of letting yourself FEEL like you're proving some point, when in fact you're acting like a 3 year old. And I'm sick of this BS about other people telling people what their statements 'imply'. That's calling jumping to conclusions, and it's also piss poor arguing.

When I see people continue to argue through distortion, insults, and jumping to conclusions I can't help but think their position is weak.

Post 56

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 12:10pm

ahhh, I think I did an error by focusing on that damn word.
I just think that either the definition of Saddamite is too close or too wide :)

Either it is just those people really supporting their regime, or it takes in all those people who think that there are more dangerous problems than a lose tyrant and that it was not in the interest of all Americans to attack Iraq.
Or perhaps even everybody, who tolerated that Saddam existed all the time (which would include all people on earth)...

So, I think this term needs definition, or shouldn't be used in any way (because it polarizes in bad way).

Post 57

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 12:27pm

Max, you need to get past the European media's bashing of the Iraq war and look at the positive results. It may take a fair amount of work, but it took time to get rid of the Nazis in Germany, too, and now no one even dreams Germany would be a threat to the world again. The same thing will be true of Iraq, and what you are not getting is that with 9/11, we had a wake up call regarding the real threats to the world now that Communism has dies, and it is these "lesser includeds" like Iraq and others that need to be brought back into the civilized world. That is the only possible way to stop the actors who will otherwise be free to cause pain and suffering that not only their own people, but ours will feel as well. So the answer is YES it is in USA and Europe and even China's best interest to see peace in that region, and peace is not possible with someone like Hussein in the mix.

Post 58

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 1:20pm

Is it being a "Saddamite" to think that the Saddam Hussein regime was a threat but not as significant a threat as Korea, Iran, or Bin Ladin (among others) and that deploying the majority of American forces in Iraq was a gross misjudgement of where our priorities should be? The resources of the United States are finite, which implies thinking carefully about where and when we deploy our forces.

For example, in my estimation, if North Korea decides to invade South Korea, South Korea is screwed. If China invades Taiwan, Taiwan is screwed. The United States Armed Forces has had a difficult enough time occupying Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Bosnia at the same time . . . and with far too little resources in Afghanistan as it is. I have many friends here who are deploying to Iraq again for a third time in two years. I can tell you the most of them will not be re-enlisting. If another conflict or crisis erupted elsewhere that involved American interests, I cannot imagine how the United States will cope.

I was all for invading Iraq when we had every reason to believe there were weapons of mass destruction there. Now we know that our intelligence community fucked up royally. It is great that the Iraqi people got to vote in a democratic election, but I don't think that was worth one American life. Now that we're there, we have to finish the job we started or it will really be for nothing. I'm probably going back there again this year. Not bitching, because that's what I signed up to do. I only hope that nothing else happens in the world.

(Edited by Byron Garcia on 3/04, 1:23pm)

Post 59

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 3:11pm