Home > Archive > Cobol > July 2006 > OT: Skype and the world Skypes with you...
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
OT: Skype and the world Skypes with you...
|
|
| Pete Dashwood 2006-07-17, 7:55 am |
| Being a bit slow with things technical, it has taken me until a few days ago
to get around to installing Skype.
(The techie avant garde have had it for a couple of years already... The
difference is that a new release has been made, and it is really
spectacular.)
For those of you who are on another planet, Skype was one of the pioneers of
VOIP (voice over internet protocol).
Their slogan is that "the wholeWorld can talk for free", and it can...
It is a 10MB download from: http://www.skype.com/download/
It installs easily and is a very good example of a user friendly interface.
Almost painfully easy to set up and configure and all those problems you
keep expecting to happen simply don't materialise. :-)
What has prompted me to make this post is that I just finished a chat with
Daniel Summers who, as some of you will recall, was a regular poster here
until being required to go to the Middle East on business for Uncle Sam.
Daniel is doing fine and sends his regards to all in CLC. He has had the odd
problem posting using Google Groups but will try it again.
What staggered me was the fact that I am in Auckland and he is in Bahrain,
and yet it sounded as if he was in the next room. The quality of the Skype
connection is unbelievable.
And the call cost absolutely nothing! You can talk to anyone who has Skype
(and happens to be online), anywhere in the world, for free!
But wait... there's more! :-) (I haven't even got to the bit about the steak
knives yet...)
You can place a call to most of the world, to ANY telephone (including
mobiles in the USA and some other countries) for 2c a minute! That's right
folks, $US1.20 per HOUR. Anywhere. (Well, almost...)
Still not impressed...? :-)
Let's recap:
1. If you have Skype installed on your computer, and it is equipped with a
sound card and microphone (either built in (as in my Notebook), or has ports
for a headset so equipped), and you are using it, you can set your Skype
status to "online" and anyone who has you in their Skype contacts sees your
icon turn green and knows you are available to call. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO
CHARGE. (Whether you call them or they call you) And you can talk as long as
you like.
2. If you want to call someone who HASNT got Skype, is not at a computer,
but has a telephone, you can do so for 2c a minute to anywhere on Earth. (It
is a global rate, but see their web site for some very minor exceptions.)
3. The quality (if you receive it at your computer...I haven't tried it by
standard phone) is infinitely better than the normal telephone network. (It
is digital packets, being forwarded over the internet).
Some general observations...
1. Is it catching on? When I spoke to Daniel there were just under
6,000,000 people logged in...
2. Time diferences? Skype shows you what the time is in the place you are
thinking of calling , for each of your contacts. It was midday for Daniel;
9:00pm for me.
3. There are rumours that some ISPs who are also telecomm providers, are so
worried by this that they are deliberately giving VOIP packets a lower
priority on their networks, in the hope of degrading the service to the
point where people won't want to use it. All I can say is that I have seen
no evidence of this in the comparatively short time I have been using Skype.
My ISP is not a telecomm provider, but I have no doubt they must use Telecom
backbones. I've made calls to the UK, USA, Middle East, and Australia, and
on every occasion the quality was beyond reproach.
4. You can open chat windows on Skype if you don't want to talk by voice.
5. You can have conference calls with up to 100 people, and you can
'bookmark' these conferences so you can come and go at will. All for free.
OK, if you still think I'm getting excited over nothing...next w end I'm
buying a video camera to mount on my computer. Skype have a video connection
Beta in operation and I really want to try this out...:-)
Worldwide video connection, for free, sounds like a good deal to me... :-)
If anyone wants to add me to their Skype contacts, my Skype name is
'petedashwood'.
(No, I don't mind publicising it; Skype allows access settings that will
block spam and anything/anyone else I may not want...)
It's good to talk... :-)
Pete.
| |
|
| In article <4i16r7F1l9slU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
[snip]
>OK, if you still think I'm getting excited over nothing...next wend I'm
>buying a video camera to mount on my computer. Skype have a video connection
>Beta in operation and I really want to try this out...:-)
>
>Worldwide video connection, for free, sounds like a good deal to me... :-)
Oh, I *cannot* resist...
.... given a certain circle of contacts, perhaps so... but with the looks
and likes of *you* at the other end?
(... and before anyone can chime in with 'Well, what do you expect for
free?' I'll say 'Not much... but that 'not much' includes 'keeping my
lunch down.')
DD
| |
| Alistair 2006-07-17, 6:55 pm |
|
Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> OK, if you still think I'm getting excited over nothing...next wend I'm
> buying a video camera to mount on my computer. Skype have a video connection
> Beta in operation and I really want to try this out...:-)
Good, I'll be able to hijack your camera and watch your keyboard usage.
Ridiculous? I beleive it was a Spaniard that has been prosecuted for
doing just that.
>
> Worldwide video connection, for free, sounds like a good deal to me... :-)
>
> If anyone wants to add me to their Skype contacts, my Skype name is
> 'petedashwood'.
>
> (No, I don't mind publicising it; Skype allows access settings that will
> block spam and anything/anyone else I may not want...)
>
> It's good to talk... :-)
But as DD says, maybe not so good to view. Are you doing all this so
that you can do some online doggin' ?
>
> Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-07-18, 7:55 am |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e9fsp5$mph$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <4i16r7F1l9slU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Oh, I *cannot* resist...
>
> ... given a certain circle of contacts, perhaps so... but with the looks
> and likes of *you* at the other end?
>
> (... and before anyone can chime in with 'Well, what do you expect for
> free?' I'll say 'Not much... but that 'not much' includes 'keeping my
> lunch down.')
>
> DD
>
Gee Doc, I guess being so gorgeous yourself gives you the right to make such
a statement?
Oddly enough, a number of people are very interested in communicating in
this way with me.
Guess they are folks who eat light lunches...:-)
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-07-18, 7:55 am |
|
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153151809.142928.22050@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Good, I'll be able to hijack your camera and watch your keyboard usage.
> Ridiculous? I beleive it was a Spaniard that has been prosecuted for
> doing just that.
>
Golly, I'll take care to ensure the keyboard isn't in the field of view...
Can't be too careful...
>
>
> But as DD says, maybe not so good to view. Are you doing all this so
> that you can do some online doggin' ?
I have no idea what you are talking about, so I guess the answer's "no"...
Pete.
>
>
| |
| Alistair 2006-07-18, 7:55 am |
|
Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1153151809.142928.22050@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Golly, I'll take care to ensure the keyboard isn't in the field of view...
> Can't be too careful...
I'm serious. Beware of having the keyboard in view of the camera. And
watch what you are wearing.
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about, so I guess the answer's "no"...
>
The practice (often conducted in UK carparks) of watching a couple
making "sweet music" usually with the permission of the observed couple.
| |
|
| In article <4i3vjuF1vviaU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e9fsp5$mph$1@reader2.panix.com...
>Gee Doc, I guess being so gorgeous yourself gives you the right to make such
>a statement?
I thought that posting to the UseNet required only capabilities. How did
something like 'rights' get involved?
>
>Oddly enough, a number of people are very interested in communicating in
>this way with me.
>
>Guess they are folks who eat light lunches...:-)
Perhaps they are just made of Sterner Stuff... I am delicate, I am frail,
I am but a wilting, hot-house flower.
DD
| |
|
| In article <1153223330.234279.17840@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>The practice (often conducted in UK carparks) of watching a couple
>making "sweet music" usually with the permission of the observed couple.
Hmmmmm... this is curious. In the USA it is a given, set by legal
precedent, that a person in a 'public place' does not have a 'reasonable
expectation of privacy' so that since the playing of such tunes as you
mention occur in a 'public place' then permission to observe is assumed.
How do the couple in question, outside of their choice of venue, indicate
that their permission is given... what kind of 'invitation' is issued?
(consider the difference between 'whoops... got a bit 'carried away in the
moment' there, didn't we?' and 'Pat's engine just doesn't turn over well
without an audience')
DD
| |
| Oliver Wong 2006-07-18, 6:55 pm |
|
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153223330.234279.17840@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> I'm serious. Beware of having the keyboard in view of the camera. And
> watch what you are wearing.
I don't know about Skype, but most video chat programs I've used show a
thumbnail image of yourself, so you can see exactly what's visible and what
isn't. That said, some people are unaware that they were being filmed (e.g.
they didn't know the video conference had started already), and did some
embarassing stuff in full view of everyone. I usually have my camera pointed
at a blank wall, and only re-position it when I'm ready to be filmed.
- Oliver
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-07-18, 6:55 pm |
|
"Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote in message
news:jX9vg.52993$B91.31781@edtnps82...
>
> "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1153223330.234279.17840@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> I don't know about Skype, but most video chat programs I've used show a
> thumbnail image of yourself, so you can see exactly what's visible and
> what isn't. That said, some people are unaware that they were being filmed
> (e.g. they didn't know the video conference had started already), and did
> some embarassing stuff in full view of everyone. I usually have my camera
> pointed at a blank wall, and only re-position it when I'm ready to be
> filmed.
>
> - Oliver
Thanks for the very sensible tip, Oliver.
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-07-18, 6:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e9iia6$mch$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <4i3vjuF1vviaU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> I thought that posting to the UseNet required only capabilities. How did
> something like 'rights' get involved?
>
For some of us, a sense of fair play and ethics applies to all our
endeavours, including posting to Usenet. You might call this a moral
'right'. Obviously, it doesn't apply to hot house flowers, except when they
want it to.
Now go and drink your fertilizer like a good little plant...:-)
Pete.
| |
| Roger While 2006-07-18, 6:55 pm |
| Then asnwer on Skype !
Roger
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4i50snF26vqdU1@individual.net...
>
> <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message
news:e9iia6$mch$1@reader2.panix.com...
looks[color=darkred]
did[color=darkred]
>
> For some of us, a sense of fair play and ethics applies to all our
> endeavours, including posting to Usenet. You might call this a moral
> 'right'. Obviously, it doesn't apply to hot house flowers, except when
they
> want it to.
>
> Now go and drink your fertilizer like a good little plant...:-)
>
> Pete.
>
>
>
>
| |
| Roger While 2006-07-18, 6:55 pm |
| Waiting - ..
Roger
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4i50snF26vqdU1@individual.net...
>
> <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message
news:e9iia6$mch$1@reader2.panix.com...
looks[color=darkred]
did[color=darkred]
>
> For some of us, a sense of fair play and ethics applies to all our
> endeavours, including posting to Usenet. You might call this a moral
> 'right'. Obviously, it doesn't apply to hot house flowers, except when
they
> want it to.
>
> Now go and drink your fertilizer like a good little plant...:-)
>
> Pete.
>
>
>
>
| |
|
| In article <4i50snF26vqdU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e9iia6$mch$1@reader2.panix.com...
>
>For some of us, a sense of fair play and ethics applies to all our
>endeavours, including posting to Usenet.
Some of you hide it *so* well, too!
>You might call this a moral
>'right'. Obviously, it doesn't apply to hot house flowers, except when they
>want it to.
Leaving aside the desires flora have for themselves... that I might call
it that, Mr Dashwood, does not describe how it got involved.
>
>Now go and drink your fertilizer like a good little plant...:-)
Mr Dashwood, such improvement you show! You've stepped up from treating
others as fungi and at least allow them a bit of light... but it seems,
once again, it's against the Manager's Creed to consider that a consultant
has sentience.
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-07-19, 3:55 am |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e9jnt8$36v$1@reader2.panix.com...
>
> Mr Dashwood, such improvement you show! You've stepped up from treating
> others as fungi and at least allow them a bit of light... but it seems,
> once again, it's against the Manager's Creed to consider that a consultant
> has sentience.
>
As always...I call 'em like I see 'em...;-)
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-07-19, 3:55 am |
|
"Roger While" <simrw@sim-basis.de> wrote in message
news:e9jlht$e1q$02$1@news.t-online.com...
> Then asnwer on Skype !
>
> Roger
>
Er...what's the question? If you have been trying to contact me on Skype
there is no record of it.
Pete.
<snipped>
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-07-19, 3:55 am |
|
"Roger While" <simrw@sim-basis.de> wrote in message
news:e9jlrg$v8b$00$1@news.t-online.com...
> Waiting - ..
> Roger
>
A whole 5 minutes, going by the message time stamps.
I have no idea what this is about, Roger.
Pete.
| |
|
| In article <4i688mF29ut9U1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e9jnt8$36v$1@reader2.panix.com...
>
>As always...I call 'em like I see 'em...;-)
That seems readily apparent, Mr Dashwood... right up there with the
pornographic Rorshach test.
DD
| |
| Alistair 2006-07-19, 7:55 am |
|
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <1153223330.234279.17840@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Hmmmmm... this is curious. In the USA it is a given, set by legal
> precedent, that a person in a 'public place' does not have a 'reasonable
> expectation of privacy' so that since the playing of such tunes as you
> mention occur in a 'public place' then permission to observe is assumed.
>
> How do the couple in question, outside of their choice of venue, indicate
> that their permission is given... what kind of 'invitation' is issued?
>
DISCLAIMER: I am not, never have been and have no intention of
becoming, a dogger.
Bearing that in mind, permission is indicated by putting the internal
light on in the car permanently or by flashing the light several times.
It doesn't stop observers from watching the wong couples. BTW, there
are web sites covering this practice in some detail and facilitating
advance notice.
> (consider the difference between 'whoops... got a bit 'carried away in the
> moment' there, didn't we?' and 'Pat's engine just doesn't turn over well
> without an audience')
>
> DD
| |
| Alistair 2006-07-19, 7:55 am |
|
Oliver Wong wrote:
> "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1153223330.234279.17840@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> I don't know about Skype, but most video chat programs I've used show a
> thumbnail image of yourself, so you can see exactly what's visible and what
> isn't. That said, some people are unaware that they were being filmed (e.g.
> they didn't know the video conference had started already), and did some
> embarassing stuff in full view of everyone. I usually have my camera pointed
> at a blank wall, and only re-position it when I'm ready to be filmed.
>
> - Oliver
The criminal concerned used a worm to hijack computers with video
cameras installed. Who needs Big Brother?
| |
| Alistair 2006-07-19, 7:55 am |
|
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <4i50snF26vqdU1@individual.net>,
>
> Mr Dashwood, such improvement you show! You've stepped up from treating
> others as fungi and at least allow them a bit of light... but it seems,
> once again, it's against the Manager's Creed to consider that a consultant
> has sentience.
>
> DD
Or feelings.
| |
|
| In article <1153316529.171005.179450@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>Or feelings.
Come now, Mr Maclean, there's no need for 'feelings' to get involved...
can't you see the smiley?
DD
| |
|
| In article <1153316241.579049.289310@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>DISCLAIMER: I am not, never have been and have no intention of
>becoming, a dogger.
>
>Bearing that in mind, permission is indicated by putting the internal
>light on in the car permanently or by flashing the light several times.
Ahhhh... sounds like an indica, most certainly.
DD
| |
| Donald Tees 2006-07-19, 6:55 pm |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <1153316241.579049.289310@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ahhhh... sounds like an indica, most certainly.
>
> DD
>
More like a sativa to me ...
Donald
| |
|
| In article <e9lhkj$lc8$1@nntp.aioe.org>,
Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>More like a sativa to me ...
A sah-TIE-vah? Oh, let's call the whole thing off.
DD
| |
| Donald Tees 2006-07-19, 6:55 pm |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <e9lhkj$lc8$1@nntp.aioe.org>,
> Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
>
> A sah-TIE-vah? Oh, let's call the whole thing off.
>
> DD
>
The damned newsgroup is going to pot anyway ...
Donald
| |
|
| In article <e9ljs7$994$1@nntp.aioe.org>,
Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>The damned newsgroup is going to pot anyway ...
Perhaps a bit eccentric, aye... but nowheres near profoundly potty.
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-07-19, 6:55 pm |
|
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153316529.171005.179450@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> Or feelings.
>
Yep, that's Management all right...
"Treat them as expendable, unintelligent, feelingless, vermin who are out to
rip you off. You won't be disappointed."
Had it drilled into me at Management school and there are a trail of people
who have worked with me all over the planet who can attest to what a bastard
I am... :-)
Pete.
>
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-07-19, 6:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e9lfjn$mkq$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <1153316529.171005.179450@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Come now, Mr Maclean, there's no need for 'feelings' to get involved...
> can't you see the smiley?
>
> DD
>
The thought of telling you to "eat shit" made me smile.
Probably just as much as you stating you'd lose your lunch if you saw me on
video, amused you.
If you can't stand the heat... you're a poopiehead...:-)
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-07-19, 6:55 pm |
| OK, the confusion is resolved now. I've left a message and thanks for the
call.
Pete.
"Roger While" <simrw@sim-basis.de> wrote in message
news:e9jlrg$v8b$00$1@news.t-online.com...
> Waiting - ..
> Roger
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:4i50snF26vqdU1@individual.net...
> news:e9iia6$mch$1@reader2.panix.com...
> looks
> did
> they
>
>
>
| |
|
| In article <4i7l1hF2d2puU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e9lfjn$mkq$1@reader2.panix.com...
>The thought of telling you to "eat shit" made me smile.
Hence my reference to fungi, Mr Dashwood... aren't Managers ofttimes
accused of treating their subordinates as though they were mushrooms,
keeping them in the dark and feeding them manure?
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-07-20, 7:55 am |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e9mlkn$f7$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <4i7l1hF2d2puU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Hence my reference to fungi, Mr Dashwood... aren't Managers ofttimes
> accused of treating their subordinates as though they were mushrooms,
> keeping them in the dark and feeding them manure?
>
> DD
>
Ah, I see now... it was too subtle for me. Sorry.
Pete.
>
| |
|
| In article <4i9a50F2oilfU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e9mlkn$f7$1@reader2.panix.com...
>Ah, I see now... it was too subtle for me. Sorry.
No need to apologise, Mr Dashwood... I've failed to convey my cerebral
short-circuits in a variety of places.
DD
| |
| Donald Tees 2006-07-20, 7:55 am |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> No need to apologise, Mr Dashwood... I've failed to convey my cerebral
> short-circuits in a variety of places.
>
> DD
Must be an indica of something ...
Donald
| |
|
| In article <e9ns46$3gq$1@nntp.aioe.org>,
Donald Tees <donald_tees@donald-tees.ca> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>Must be an indica of something ...
Just the paucity of my pantomiming, perhaps.
DD
| |
| Alistair 2006-07-20, 6:55 pm |
|
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <1153316529.171005.179450@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Come now, Mr Maclean, there's no need for 'feelings' to get involved...
> can't you see the smiley?
>
> DD
With my eyesight I can see smileys where none exist. BTW, I was not
offended merely adding to your comment. PD can not be held responsible
for being insensitive; it is in his management genes to be that way.
| |
|
| In article <1153424594.854983.247350@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>With my eyesight I can see smileys where none exist. BTW, I was not
>offended merely adding to your comment. PD can not be held responsible
>for being insensitive; it is in his management genes to be that way.
It is not only 'his management genes' which can cause such behavior, Mr
Maclean... there's a tactic I've seen become more common, nowadays,
especially in 'secondary political speech' (folks talking about politics
or politicians; politicians, themselves, talking is 'primary') where
someone will say something cruel or thoughtless and upon being confronted
with this will then rear back and yowl 'Oh, it's a *joke*... what's the
matter, can't any of you (others) Take A Joke?'
(this tactic, obviously, adds the flaws of Overseriousness and/or
Oversensitivity to the list of one's opponent's shortcomings)
(such pettiness might, of course, be avoided by having a mechanism which
announces that something particlularly cruel or thoughtless is about to be
said - something like 'Oh, I *cannot* resist...' - but that mechanism
might allow for the originating speaker to accept responsibility for the
occaisonal cruel or thoughtless moment (human beings of many stripes have
been seen to have such) and accepting such things seems to be anathema to
most purveyors of 'secondary political speech' I've seen/heard)
DD
| |
| Alistair 2006-07-21, 6:55 pm |
|
docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <1153424594.854983.247350@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> It is not only 'his management genes' which can cause such behavior, Mr
> Maclean... there's a tactic I've seen become more common, nowadays,
> especially in 'secondary political speech' (folks talking about politics
> or politicians; politicians, themselves, talking is 'primary') where
> someone will say something cruel or thoughtless and upon being confronted
> with this will then rear back and yowl 'Oh, it's a *joke*... what's the
> matter, can't any of you (others) Take A Joke?'
I've seen the same happen with jokes about rape and paedophilia. Once
you start laughing then the joke becomes an accepted norm and then the
severity of the crime is minimised.
>
> (this tactic, obviously, adds the flaws of Overseriousness and/or
> Oversensitivity to the list of one's opponent's shortcomings)
>
> (such pettiness might, of course, be avoided by having a mechanism which
> announces that something particlularly cruel or thoughtless is about to be
> said - something like 'Oh, I *cannot* resist...' - but that mechanism
> might allow for the originating speaker to accept responsibility for the
> occaisonal cruel or thoughtless moment (human beings of many stripes have
> been seen to have such) and accepting such things seems to be anathema to
> most purveyors of 'secondary political speech' I've seen/heard)
>
> DD
BTW, thanks for spelling my name correctly; I appreciate that.
</sensitive Scotsman mode>
| |
|
| In article <1153502753.968405.213260@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>I've seen the same happen with jokes about rape and paedophilia. Once
>you start laughing then the joke becomes an accepted norm and then the
>severity of the crime is minimised.
Ow... I'm not quite sure I can agree with this, Mr Maclean. One of the
two elective courses I took at my Alma Mater was about some of the plays
of Aristophanes; part of the course consisted of discussions which
eventually wound down to the point of 'All right... what makes something
'funny', then?'
(mocking some of the hardcore Platonists I responded with 'Why, partaking
of the Eidos of The Funny, of course.')
'Gallows humor', which 'makes jokes' of conditions of horror, degradation,
misery and death - gallows! - seems to be a rather ancient genre and, to
my mind, in no wise minimises the severity of its cause.
[snip]
>BTW, thanks for spelling my name correctly; I appreciate that.
></sensitive Scotsman mode>
Don't thank me, thank the various UseNet archives out there... it is a
courtesy I try to offer those who choose to attempt conversation with me,
t'ain't nothin' special, really. But it reminds me of... a joke!
(can't recall where I heard it so I cannot cite a source)
Judge: 'Will the witness give his name, please?'
Witness: 'James Boo-ree.'
J: ''Boo-ree'? How do you spell that?'
W: 'B-U-R-Y.'
J: 'And from that you get 'boo-ree'? The Bench knows a bit better than
that, We will call you Mr 'Beh-ree'.
W: (laughs)
J: 'And what do you find amusing, Mr Beh-ree?'
W: 'Those twelve men over there... they think they're sitting on a
joo-ree but The Bench knows better than that.'
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-07-21, 9:55 pm |
|
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153424594.854983.247350@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> With my eyesight I can see smileys where none exist. BTW, I was not
> offended merely adding to your comment. PD can not be held responsible
> for being insensitive; it is in his management genes to be that way.
>
LOL! I do not deliberately behave insensitively, except in self defence. As
I'm getting older I'm starting to realise that sometimes the self-defence
excuse is really not necessary as there was no real attack... :-)
We are complex creatures.
As for my management genes, Alastair, I have to stand on my track record;
the fact is that most people who have worked for me in the past are very
happy to do so again.
I think the thing I find irritating is that, in this forum, the immediate
assumption is that all managers are bad. I know peole have to be guided by
their own experience, and I know there are bad managers (just like most
people, I have encountered them too), but there are also those of us who
really try to value our staff and make coming to work a pleasant experience
for all concerned. There is much criticism of the bad guys, but I see
little encouragement for the alternative camp.
There are corporations with senior management who realise that staff are the
most important investment, and this attitude trickles down. Obviously good
line managers are not going to want to work in companies where their efforts
are suppressed or squashed, and that is probably why places with poor
corporate culture tend to have bad managers.
Finally, you are not going to find me on my best behaviour in a USENET
forum... :-)
Pete.
| |
|
| In article <4idf51F3as56U1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1153424594.854983.247350@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>I think the thing I find irritating is that, in this forum, the immediate
>assumption is that all managers are bad.
I cannot speak for others, Mr Dashwood - I can barely speak for myself -
but my immediate assumption is not 'all managers are bad'. My personal
experiences are in what I would call 'sick' shops where things are not, in
my opinion, being accomplished in the most efficient of frameworks
('efficient' here being used as an antonym of 'sloppy', 'framework' as 'a
set of assumptions, concepts, values and practices')... and the
establishing of a shop's framework is a combined Executive/Management
function.
>I know peole have to be guided by
>their own experience, and I know there are bad managers (just like most
>people, I have encountered them too), but there are also those of us who
>really try to value our staff and make coming to work a pleasant experience
>for all concerned. There is much criticism of the bad guys, but I see
>little encouragement for the alternative camp.
Mr Dashwood, that occaisionally-interesting philosopher, Eddie Murphy,
once said, when speaking of his craft (comedy), 'You joke about what you
know about.'
Likewise here... if a group of people gathered together to discuss a
common work phenomenon (and COBOL was, when this group started, more
common as a work phenomenon than as an off-hours passtime) and their work
experience ('what they know about') is with Managers Who Cannot Do Their
Jobs - 'their jobs' being defined as 'the allocation, co-ordination and
motivation of personnel and resources towards the accomplishment of a
stated Executive goal' - then it may be more reasonable to assume that the
discussion will include more about 'what they know about' than, say,
Sugarcandy Mountain.
>
>There are corporations with senior management who realise that staff are the
>most important investment, and this attitude trickles down.
There are, likewise, companies that make millionaires out of their
employees - Microsoft and Winnebago come to mind - by granting them stock
options and companies which steal from their employees - Drexel, Burham
Lambert and Enron come to mind - by deliberately and fraudulently
manipulating the company's books. Much of the world between seems to be a
place of greys ('grey' in the sense of being a mixture, not of being
achromatic)... and that, quite obviously, is the black-and-white truth.
>Obviously good
>line managers are not going to want to work in companies where their efforts
>are suppressed or squashed, and that is probably why places with poor
>corporate culture tend to have bad managers.
Whether the good managers choose to leave or it is because the bad
managers succeed in supporting and encouraging their own kind of behavior
over another ('the reinforcement of the 'we-group'', as some followers of
Durkheim might call it)... the result seems to be what's been called here
as 'Gresham's Law of Management'.
Not that this bears on the discussion in one direction or another... the
other day my Tech Leader was discussing a new task with me; part of his
doing so is for me to play The Voice of Unyielding Quality in a manner
like:
Him: 'So what we're going to do is set this up with some clones from the
(x) process.'
Me: 'Just a moment... what kind of volume do we expect for the data?'
H: 'I dunno... what does it matter?'
M: 'It matters because the *design* of a *solution* is *predicated* on
*volume*; if you ignore the throughput you'll wind up saying 'why is this
Volkswagen we've built having trouble dealing with truckloads of data?'.'
.... and so on. Anyhow, at one point he used the classic 'but we've always
done it this way'-justification and I responded with Rear Admiral Grace M
Hopper's admonition that 'the most damaging phrase in the language is
'We've always done it this way''... and he murphled and blurphled and
managed to sidestep the issue... and we went on from there and a few
moments later was 'well, this time we gotta do something different'...
.... and he did not realise how he had contradicted himself until I pointed
it out, saying that it seemed he was using 'we've always done it this way'
as a way of denoting 'I am comfortable with it' and 'we gotta do something
different' for 'I am bored with it'.
DD
|
|
|
|
|