Home > Archive > Cobol > October 2007 > Re: Do you have a Knowledge Officer?
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 |
Re: Do you have a Knowledge Officer?
|
|
| Alistair 2007-10-02, 6:55 pm |
| On 29 Sep, 21:39, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 10:28:24 -0700, Alistair <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Wrong. Every line of code can be traced back through a Detailed Design and High Level
> Design to a Business Requirement. And it can be traced forward through as many levels of
> test results all the way to a User Acceptance Test.
I hope that was said with your tongue in your ch . I can assure you
that many systems that I have worked in did not maintain documentation
after release and, therefore, the only reliable documentation was the
code. And where that says things like 'remove after 1984' (in code
being maintained in 1997) or 'I dont know what this does so I left it
in. If you have got this far then you are a braver man than I am'!
>
>
> THEY wrote the code. Don't they talk to each other?
IT people are world renowned for their inability to communicate in
clear to any but techies.
>
>
> How long does it take to write a PERL script to discard bad transactions?
Pearl? Wazzat? Does it run on Big Iron?
>
> I once naively suggested we should at least save employee numbers from the paychecks we
> were deleting. The scornful answer was "We don't have time for that. Let them complain
> through the chain of command." Whoops, excuuse me.
| |
| Robert 2007-10-02, 9:57 pm |
| On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:52:08 -0700, Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 29 Sep, 21:39, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>
>I hope that was said with your tongue in your ch. I can assure you
>that many systems that I have worked in did not maintain documentation
>after release and, therefore, the only reliable documentation was the
>code.
You want documentation to be a single document, but you have no mechanism to assure its
maintenance. Management sees documentation as a string of change reports. In big (F-100)
companies, they DO have a mechanism to assure it is completed for each change. The goal is
not a reference for future changes, it is a checklist to avoid errors and omissions in the
current change cycle.
> And where that says things like 'remove after 1984' (in code
>being maintained in 1997) or 'I dont know what this does so I left it
>in. If you have got this far then you are a braver man than I am'!
It shouldn't be a comment. It should be an IF statement or, better yet, conditional
compilation.
>
>IT people are world renowned for their inability to communicate in
>clear to any but techies.
That's the stereotype; it doesn't agree with my experience. An estimated 10% of the people
I've worked with were gs. Generally, they're not as good as they see themselves. The
very best programmers seem normal, not gy. The only hint is rapid speech, finishing
your sentences for you, and doing things on the computer ten times faster than normal.
The fastest way to evaluate programmers is to glance at a page of their code. Any code.
>
>Pearl? Wazzat? Does it run on Big Iron?
Sure. When running Linux, it acts like a normal computer. :)
| |
| Robert 2007-10-04, 9:55 pm |
| On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:10:49 -0700, Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 3 Oct, 03:36, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>
>Spot on. Yes. Absolutely. Too true.
There should be at least five documents or, ideally, an outliner that allows hiding and
revealing lower levels. The levels are: business plan, business requirement, high level
design, detailed design and source code. There should also be links to execution logs,
incident reports and usage statistics.
The document you have in mind is detailed design, which is fine for techies but useless to
management.
>
>Perhaps we should have a universal standard throughout all IT
>organisations for documentation standards particularly dealing with
>maintainance/support requests.
There is a de facto standard. It goes by various names such as ISO-9000, CMM and SDLC; in
practice, they're pretty much the same.
>Unfortunately, I have only worked in
>the real world and have only been exposed to documentation that is
>either non-existant, omits by default or merely lies.
It's not the real world where big companies live; it's the world of undisciplined IT
shops.
I recommend you visit a big company and ask to see the documentation framework for a
typical project, start to finish. It's very different from the world where your company
lives.
>
>The goal is for documentation that reflects the status/structure of
>the system ACCURATELY. (with or without two Rs).
Evidence of accuracy is minutes of meetings that examined it line by line, repeated until
all parties agree (typically 3-5 iterations), signed by all involved. At my current
employer, every line of documentation and code is inspected by about ten people. It
doesn't take as long as you'd think. No objections or questions are dismissed or ignored.
We do it electronically, using voice phone and Netmeeting displaying the leader's
desktop. Participants are all over the world.
We have more than a thousand development projects going. Could your company's methodology
handle more than ten?
>
>It does with mine.
>
>
>You have worked with some people who, clearly, are in need of
>psychiatric help.
You've seen celebrities such as Torvalds, Andreessen, Cowlishaw, Montulli, Cutler, etc. Do
they seem psychotics or personality defectives?
>
>That is subjective.
It's much more accurate than talking to them.
I once worked for a company that had 20 world-class programmers. I went around asking
who's the best, expecting each to name himself. Surprisingly, they all pointed to the same
quiet high school student who worked there part time, looked like a Boy Scout and was a
devout Mormon. I said that's impossible. They said look at his code. I did. They were
right. A few seconds of code inspection told me more than months of conversation.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-10-05, 6:55 pm |
| On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:29:07 -0500, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>There should be at least five documents or, ideally, an outliner that allows hiding and
>revealing lower levels. The levels are: business plan, business requirement, high level
>design, detailed design and source code.
The hard part about these is that we want to be able to trust all of
that documentation to be currently accurate.
| |
| tlmfru 2007-10-05, 6:55 pm |
|
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote in message
news:190bg3l4erp8cpqoe80tgjsbhagb2mg674@
4ax.com...
>
> There should be at least five documents or, ideally, an outliner that
allows hiding and
> revealing lower levels. The levels are: business plan, business
requirement, high level
> design, detailed design and source code. There should also be links to
execution logs,
> incident reports and usage statistics.
>
> The document you have in mind is detailed design, which is fine for
techies but useless to
> management.
>
>
So far as the detailed design document is concerned -
I've long been of the opinion that it ought to be possible to design a
universal specifications language - universal in terms of application
programming, anyway - that is completely language and platform agnostic,
that contains basic, common "instructions" and allows for custom code
modules, that will generate code in any source language desired. I know
there have been many approaches to this, from the FARGO report generator on
the IBM 1401 to the most sophisticated tools available today - but I don't
think there is any product that will allow complete code independence and
mandate changes to be implemented by changing the specs, at the same time
being adequate for all applications (a very imprecise requirement, I admit,
but I have to say something!)
I'd be interested in hearing of counter-examples! One man's experience is
never adequate.
I did some development on my own time on such a system and it seemed to
indicate that a very small set of intrinsic functions or operators ("atomic"
in that they couldn't be expressed by combining other functions) - perhaps
30 or so - along with a few higher-level "verbs" such as as table lookup
(again a rather small number) combined with custom code segments that would
be accessed by a "custom verb" - would suffice for any application situation
that I could think of. I make no apology for the "custom code" idea,
because every language has "call-out" facilities, and if you don't have that
you must define verbs peculiar to the language to allow for them - a futile
effort. Given such a tool, a system defined in the spec language could be
generated in any desired target language to experiment with speed or
footprint issues - source code maintenance would no longer be a problem
since it wouldn't be done - or, by changing the underlying generating
dataset, even different techniques in the same langauge could be compared.
Unfortunately I never had the time or resources to get very far with it.
PL
| |
|
| In article <BMuNi.3425$bM6.496@newsfe20.lga>, tlmfru <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
[snip]
>One man's experience is never adequate.
Oh, I *cannot* resist...
.... seems like I've seen different attitudes manifested, say, by Mr
Wagner.
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-10-05, 6:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fe5uol$k5b$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <BMuNi.3425$bM6.496@newsfe20.lga>, tlmfru <lacey@mts.net>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Oh, I *cannot* resist...
>
> ... seems like I've seen different attitudes manifested, say, by Mr
> Wagner.
>
Why pick on Robert? You youself have manifested such an attitude, as,
indeed, have I.
We all relate to our own experience; there's nothing wrong with that.
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| William M. Klein 2007-10-05, 6:55 pm |
|
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:5mntnsFefolrU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fe5uol$k5b$1@reader1.panix.com...
>
> Why pick on Robert? You youself have manifested such an attitude, as, indeed,
> have I.
>
> We all relate to our own experience; there's nothing wrong with that.
>
> Pete.
> --
> "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
>
>
Pete,
It seems to me that you, DD, I, and MOST of us USUALLY qualify our statements
with phrases such as " in my experience" or "from what I have seen". This is in
stark opposition to how RW usually (not always) makes his statements. I believe
that he has even stated that something along the lines of "of course I am
expressing my opinion or my experience" and seems to expect us to "infer" these
qualifications. As I have stated repeatedly, if he would qualify his statements
then (at least I - and I suspect others) would more easily respond to the
content rather than the tone of his posts.
(See for example, the recent notes on US government agencies and mainframes.
Compare his original wording with his later qualification - and then try to
apply his qualifications TO the way the original statement was worded.)
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
| |
| Robert 2007-10-05, 9:55 pm |
| On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:22:45 GMT, "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:5mntnsFefolrU1@mid.individual.net...
>Pete,
> It seems to me that you, DD, I, and MOST of us USUALLY qualify our statements
>with phrases such as " in my experience" or "from what I have seen". This is in
>stark opposition to how RW usually (not always) makes his statements. I believe
>that he has even stated that something along the lines of "of course I am
>expressing my opinion or my experience" and seems to expect us to "infer" these
>qualifications.
It is common for CLC postings to state a conclusion, unsupported by facts/premises and
the canons of logic, much less citations. In those cases, added qualifiers doesn't change
the opinions' essence, they just make the writer sound like a bureaucrat.
I thought it was axiomatic, taken for granted, that everything posted here is the author's
opinion, unless (s) he supports it with verifiable facts and credible logic.
--- Quotations ---
Weasel words are almost always intended to deceive or draw attention from something the
speaker doesn't want emphasized, rather than being the inadvertent result of the speaker's
or writer's poor but honest attempt at description.
Generalization by means of grammatical quantifiers (few, many, people, etc.), as well as
the passive voice ("it has been decided") are also part of weasel wording. Generalization
in this way helps speakers or writers disappear in the crowd and thus disown
responsibility for what they have said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
Weasel-Words Rip My Flesh!Spotting a bogus trend story on Page One of today's New York
Times.
By Jack Shafer
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2005, at 6:38 PM ET
How many "many's" are too many for one news story?
Like its fellow weasel-words—some, few, often, seems, likely, more—many serves writers who
haven't found the data to support their argument. A light splash of weasel-words in a news
story is acceptable if only because journalism is not an exact science and deadlines must
be observed. But when a reporter pours a whole jug of weasel-words into a piece, as Louise
Story does on Page One of today's (Sept. 20) New York Times in "Many Women at Elite
Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood," she needlessly exposes one of the trade's
best-kept secrets for all to see. She deserves a w in the stockades. And her editor
deserves a month.
Story uses the particularly useful weasel-word "many" 12 times—including once in the
headline—to illustrate the emerging trend of Ivy League-class women who attend top schools
but have no intention of assuming the careers they prepared for.
She informs readers that "many of these women" being groomed for the occupational elite
"say that is not what they want." She repeats the weasel-word three more times in the next
two paragraphs and returns to it whenever she needs to express impressive quantity but has
no real numbers. ....None of these many's quantify anything. You could as easily
substitute the word some for every many and not gain or lose any information. Or
substitute the word few and lose only the wind in Story's sails. By fudging the available
facts with weasel-words, Story makes a flaccid concept stand up—as long as nobody examines
it closely.
http://www.slate.com/id/2126636/
Developer Weasel Words
Thursday, June 21, 2007
As a development manager or project manager, you here a lot of weasel words and excuses
from your staff or from external consultants who are trying to hose you into believing
things are better than they are. In many cases, developers use these phrases to even
convince themselves that things are better than they are, resulting in chronic late
delivery and poor quality.
So beware the following phrases from your teams:
* It should work: this usually means that it doesn't. It also means that it was
probably not tested properly as the result is current undetermined. The word "should"
should be taken out every developer's vocabulary - it either does or it doesn't.
* I just need: beware of that word "just". Its a belittling word meant to make things
smaller than they are. Just take the phrase "I just need to write this component" to be "I
need to write this component" and already the magnitude of the work involved grows.
Developers tend to be chronic under-estimators and the use of the word "just" is a sign of
that mentality.
* Almost done: this is also a weasel word. When a developer tells you things are
"almost done" ask for the specific tasks that are left over immediately. In addition, keep
in mind that projects do not progress linearly - the last 10% is always about 40-50% of
the work of the total project. I've seen projects that are chronically late be "almost
done" for 3 months.
* It was tested: this also usually means it that wasn't tested properly. Ask for a
test plan and the specific tests that were done. If the developer cannot produce these
with sufficient evidence that PROVES that it was tested, then it wasn't tested.
* It must be an environment/configuration/deployment problem: this may be actually
true, but it usually points to a larger stability problem. If you cannot build and deploy
reliably then why would you have confidence that the code works?
* If things go smoothly: this I hear a lot, e.g. if we don't hit any snags then we can
be done by Friday. Guess what - you're likelihood of hitting a "snag" by next Friday is
probably high and given the lack of risk based management, the team has probably got no
mitigation or contingency strategy. Then next w, you'll hear the next phrase in our
list, "Yes, it could have been done if it weren't for that Snag we had".
* Yes, but, as in "Yes it can be done, but": this means it cannot be done. Tell your
staff to just come clean and say, "No it cannot be done". Another variant on this is, "Yes
it could have been done, if it weren't for marketing, requirements, technical risk, etc."
This simply shows that your developers work in an idealistic world where things never go
wrong.
* We'll make up the time at the end: if you're already late by the end of
requirements, you're likely going to be even later by the end if you simply keep going on
the same track. In my experience, teams don't dramatically faster as they hit their
stride. Even if there is some efficiency, its nowhere enough to make up for lost time.
* I've got it done, but I need to build a few more components for you to be able to
see it: then its not done! Encourage show and tells, code reviews, unit tests, etc. so
that code is visible as soon as possible. Use slicing models so that you can see pieces of
the application in ws, not months. In addition, code that isn't checked in should never
be counted - that means that someone cannot build it sufficiently to share it. It only
counts if you can verify it. Ideally, its not "done" unless there are sufficient unit
tests, a build script, and a document that someone walking into the code repository could
check out the project run a build and have all the unit tests pass. Then the code is done
- anything less is mythical.
* I've got it done - I just need to integrate it: The word "Integrate" is a big weasel
word. Think of a web service that adds two numbers together. The algorithm is one line of
code. But the integration work is huge. In addition, integration usually means the first
time that disparate teams are bringing code together which is always cause for issues.
Don't under-estimate the integration, especially in today's world of distributing
computing, web services, etc.
* It Worked on my Machine!: programmers use this excuse to downplay a bug. The reality
is actually the opposite - it means that you have an intermittent bug which is by far the
worst kind of bug to have in your application. You want bugs to fail quickly and
consistently - any variant such as "That's Weird", "That didn't happen yesterday", "That
must be a data problem", etc. is admitting you have a bug that cannot be easily
duplicated.
My recommendations to reduce the amount of excuse making from your team:
* Encourage a culture of honesty and team work: You get these excuses when developers
are hiding things, and sometimes this is because you've created a culture that encourages
hiding because you don't want an honest answer.
* Be ruthless with your quality and talent standards: don't excuse poor talent, bad
management or chronic late delivery. If you create a culture where talent isn't rewarded
the bar isn't kept high then you'll be excusing the team to continually strive for
excellence.
* Expect more than just code: measure performance based on estimation, quality,
delivery and team work as well as pure code quality. If you have a developer who produces
great code but cannot deliver on time then that's not a great developer.
* Increase visibility and shrink delivery cycles: if you have to show your work on a
constant basis and deliver on 2 w iteration cycles, your excuses tend to go away. You
either deliver or you get found out pretty quickly. Use show and tells, code reviews and
continuous integration to see what people are doing on a constant basis.
* Don't give half credit for 50% done - its either done or not done: If your tasks
cannot be managed this way, then you should split up your tasks until you can work this
way.
* Establish what "Done" really means: for example, at a minimum "Done" should mean
checked into source code control and able to build into the current branch. If you're
doing Test Driven Development, it should also mean all tests run successfully. If you have
specific performance criteria, then its not "Done" until the performance tests pass.
* Use counting techniques to measure wherever possible: this is a great suggestion
from McConnell's book on estimation. The more you can count in units, the more accurate
you estimation. So if you can count the number of pages, web services, objects, databases,
tables, stored procedures, tasks, etc. that are left to accomplish then you can measure
them more easily than if its a big blob of work. If your requirements aren't well defined
enough to count objects, e.g. you don't know how many web pages you're building in your
web site, then you're really not in a position to estimate your ship date.
* Don't sucker, manipulate or bully your team: If as a project manager, you resort to
traditional management tactics such as playing games, being political, establishing a
blame culture, or bullying your team you'll lose your credibility and simply encourage
lying. A tortured prisoner will tell you anything you want to hear - the same goes with
development teams.
If you have a project that operates in the open, has a culture of honesty and establishes
a high performance bar, you'll find that peer pressure as well as some overall guidance
will get risks, problems and bugs out in the open. If when you discover these problems
people work as a team to fix them instead of blaming each other then every problem solved
becomes a victory and not a blame opportunity. You'll get better answers and improved
morale on the team as you set clearer performance expectations.
http://chriswoodill.blogspot.com/20...asel-words.html
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-10-06, 3:55 am |
|
"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8HzNi.253052$1o1.247940@fe12.news.easynews.com...
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:5mntnsFefolrU1@mid.individual.net...
> Pete,
> It seems to me that you, DD, I, and MOST of us USUALLY qualify our
> statements with phrases such as " in my experience" or "from what I have
> seen". This is in stark opposition to how RW usually (not always) makes
> his statements. I believe that he has even stated that something along
> the lines of "of course I am expressing my opinion or my experience" and
> seems to expect us to "infer" these qualifications. As I have stated
> repeatedly, if he would qualify his statements then (at least I - and I
> suspect others) would more easily respond to the content rather than the
> tone of his posts.
I wish the Doc would stop calling me "Mister", but I don't let it blind me
to his posts. (I understand he needs to do so... diversity.)
>
> (See for example, the recent notes on US government agencies and
> mainframes. Compare his original wording with his later qualification -
> and then try to apply his qualifications TO the way the original statement
> was worded.)
>
He posted, got taken to task, modified what he'd said. What more do you
want?
Robert (and I don't want to talk about him like he isn't here...) is who he
is, just like all of us. Different personalities, different experience, even
different cultures. Diversity is a very good thing in any group.
If we had a Klingon posting here, would you be offended by the agressive
tone of the posts? :-)
I noticed your insistence regarding the 9+ years statement :-) Frankly, it
says more about you than it does about Robert, Bill.
Does anyone really give a rats arse whether he has 9+ or 5 or 7 or 3 years
with Unix? So he exaggerated (maybe... his explanation seemed reasonable to
me) in the heat of the moment. It doesn't matter. That's the kind of guy he
is.
Would you demand an overnight personality change so he can post in CLC
without offending anybody :-)?
Give it time. :-)
The fact is that Robert HAS taken on board some of what has been said here.
(You acknowledge this with your "(not always)" above.) Robert can correct me
if I'm wrong, but I think he has also realised that there are people here
who can actually contribute something worthwhile, even if arguing with him,
and he can learn something by being here. (All of us together are more
useful than any one of us alone...)
Can you honestly say that his contributions here have been TOTALLY
worthless...? (I agree there is chaff with the wheat, but you won't catch
me queuing up to throw stones on that score :-))
If you find that his posts merely irritate you and you get nothing from them
then there are a number of options open to you. That is entirely a matter
for you.
Me, I find all the posts here (even the ones that sometimes itrritate me
intensely :-)) to be at least entertaining, if not always informative.
It's only USENET, Bill, not the United Nations...:-)
A few years back a group of people ganged up on you and tried to discredit
what you said. (I might add in passing here that I have nothing but respect
and regard for you.) I defended you vehemently and publicly then, because
it was completely unfair, and I believed your contributions were very
worthwhile.
I made this post for similar reasons.
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-10-06, 3:55 am |
|
"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
news:srmdg3l92coq5ifp54vg1ei1978fcbilu8@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:22:45 GMT, "William M. Klein"
> <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
> It is common for CLC postings to state a conclusion, unsupported by
> facts/premises and
> the canons of logic, much less citations. In those cases, added qualifiers
> doesn't change
> the opinions' essence, they just make the writer sound like a bureaucrat.
Exactly like the above paragraph, in fact :-)
So, perhaps a few examples of where a post has stated "a conclusion,
unsupported by facts/premises and
the canons of logic, much less citations", might improve the credibility of
the above bombastic statement?
..
>
> I thought it was axiomatic, taken for granted, that everything posted here
> is the author's
> opinion, unless (s) he supports it with verifiable facts and credible
> logic.
I'm sure you are familiar, Robert, with the old adage that "When you assume,
you make an "ass" of "u" and "me"...". Axiomatic means "self evidently
true", not "taken for granted", a slight but important diference.
Everything posted here may well be the author's opinion, but these are
usually "informed opinions"; very few people posting here don't know what
they're talking about, even though their opinion may vary wildly from
others. That's what makes this forum valuable (and fun:-))
We are back to form vs content. Some people think unminced words, spoken
directly without qualification and maybe hyperbolixed for effect, indicate
virile, no nonsense, straightforward thinking; others realize that no matter
what the form of the message, the content is what matters. This particular
form hides woolly and illogical thinking just as well as the weasel forms
you disparage below... the content is the only measure of value, but a
bombastic, overbearing form means people don't bother to look at the
content. (That's why both agression and wheedling are useless against a
trained negotiator; he sees only the content.)
The form of your posts irritates a lot of people here. I'm quite sure the
content of my posts irritates some here (although I don't post to be
irritating). (The point is you can't please all the people all of the time
and neither should you try to...)
What can be done about it?
It depends what you want. If you are sing to persuade, rather than
coerce, you will modify the form of your posts. If you are posting just to
let off steam or voice an opinion, then you won't. :-)
There may be a Middle Path... don't wobble. :-)
>
> --- Quotations ---
> Weasel words are almost always intended to deceive or draw attention from
> something the
> speaker doesn't want emphasized, rather than being the inadvertent result
> of the speaker's
> or writer's poor but honest attempt at description.
Well, the "almost always" in the first sentence is exactly what the writer
is protesting :-)
I'm not going to debate the stuff you quoted because I doubt that minds will
be changed, but I will observe the following:
1. I use qualification in sentences not to deflect attention away from what
I "don't want emphasized", or to be apologistic for my argument, or to
dilute the meaning, or because I am a pussy. I do it because it is logically
more accurate, and if you're going to debate something, you might as well be
accurate about it.
2. I use the passive voice (probably more than I should) for stylistic
reasons and not for dishonesty in argument.
3. There is no place in my philosophy for "weaseling". Neither in speech,
writing, thought nor action. I leave "weaseling" to Insurance Companies and
politicians, where it seems to be alive and well.
>
> http://www.slate.com/id/2126636/
>
> Developer Weasel Words
> Thursday, June 21, 2007
>
> As a development manager or project manager, you here a lot of weasel
> words and excuses
> from your staff or from external consultants who are trying to hose you
> into believing
> things are better than they are. In many cases, developers use these
> phrases to even
> convince themselves that things are better than they are, resulting in
> chronic late
> delivery and poor quality.
>
As you have never experienced late delivery, I'm surprised you took note of
this :-)
> So beware the following phrases from your teams:
>
> * It should work: this usually means that it doesn't. It also means
> that it was
> probably not tested properly as the result is current undetermined. The
> word "should"
> should be taken out every developer's vocabulary - it either does or it
> doesn't.
A very Boolean aproach to Management and a less than useful one, I think.
There are shades of grey. ("it either does or it doesn't...sometimes.) I
also take issue with the stated interpretations of "It should work..." The
two meanings given are far from being the only ones..."It should work..."
because...
1. I spent the night fixing it and the tests were fine, but I have no idea
what Operations will throw at it...
2. It is using some components I haven't personally used before but they
work fine in X system and my initial tests looked good.
3. The guy who fixed it is on holiday but he is usually reliable.
....
> * I just need: beware of that word "just". Its a belittling word meant
> to make things
> smaller than they are. Just take the phrase "I just need to write this
> component" to be "I
> need to write this component" and already the magnitude of the work
> involved grows.
> Developers tend to be chronic under-estimators and the use of the word
> "just" is a sign of
> that mentality.
Sometimes... :-)
> * Almost done: this is also a weasel word. When a developer tells you
> things are
> "almost done" ask for the specific tasks that are left over immediately.
> In addition, keep
> in mind that projects do not progress linearly - the last 10% is always
> about 40-50% of
> the work of the total project. I've seen projects that are chronically
> late be "almost
> done" for 3 months.
Only when they're task, rather than goal, oriented. Evolutionary development
obviates this one; nothing is ever "finished", it is evolving.
> * It was tested: this also usually means it that wasn't tested
> properly. Ask for a
> test plan and the specific tests that were done. If the developer cannot
> produce these
> with sufficient evidence that PROVES that it was tested, then it wasn't
> tested.
Yes, that's fair.
> * It must be an environment/configuration/deployment problem: this may
> be actually
> true, but it usually points to a larger stability problem. If you cannot
> build and deploy
> reliably then why would you have confidence that the code works?
Because the deployment package has nothing to do with the application code?
Duh!
> * If things go smoothly: this I hear a lot, e.g. if we don't hit any
> snags then we can
> be done by Friday. Guess what - you're likelihood of hitting a "snag" by
> next Friday is
> probably high and given the lack of risk based management, the team has
> probably got no
> mitigation or contingency strategy. Then next w, you'll hear the next
> phrase in our
> list, "Yes, it could have been done if it weren't for that Snag we had".
> * Yes, but, as in "Yes it can be done, but": this means it cannot be
> done. Tell your
> staff to just come clean and say, "No it cannot be done". Another variant
> on this is, "Yes
> it could have been done, if it weren't for marketing, requirements,
> technical risk, etc."
> This simply shows that your developers work in an idealistic world where
> things never go
> wrong.
Or it could be that it didn't get done because you were breathing down their
necks demanding test plans, "communication meetings" and "status updates"
every five minutes, and bullying them to show what a macho Boss you are
> * We'll make up the time at the end: if you're already late by the end
> of
> requirements, you're likely going to be even later by the end if you
> simply keep going on
> the same track. In my experience, teams don't dramatically faster as they
> hit their
> stride. Even if there is some efficiency, its nowhere enough to make up
> for lost time.
Not a problem with timeboxed development.
> * I've got it done, but I need to build a few more components for you
> to be able to
> see it: then its not done! Encourage show and tells, code reviews, unit
> tests, etc. so
> that code is visible as soon as possible. Use slicing models so that you
> can see pieces of
> the application in ws, not months. In addition, code that isn't checked
> in should never
> be counted - that means that someone cannot build it sufficiently to share
> it. It only
> counts if you can verify it. Ideally, its not "done" unless there are
> sufficient unit
> tests, a build script, and a document that someone walking into the code
> repository could
> check out the project run a build and have all the unit tests pass. Then
> the code is done
> - anything less is mythical.
The core processing is done.How long will the remainder take?
> * I've got it done - I just need to integrate it: The word "Integrate"
> is a big weasel
> word. Think of a web service that adds two numbers together. The algorithm
> is one line of
> code. But the integration work is huge. In addition, integration usually
> means the first
> time that disparate teams are bringing code together which is always cause
> for issues.
> Don't under-estimate the integration, especially in today's world of
> distributing
> computing, web services, etc.
Yes, integration can be problematic. Nevertheless, it is still a fair
statement if the application is working. Again, "How long will it take to
integrate? What is problematic with the integration? Do you need help,
support, or tools to get it done faster?"
> * It Worked on my Machine!: programmers use this excuse to downplay a
> bug. The reality
> is actually the opposite - it means that you have an intermittent bug
> which is by far the
> worst kind of bug to have in your application. You want bugs to fail
> quickly and
> consistently - any variant such as "That's Weird", "That didn't happen
> yesterday", "That
> must be a data problem", etc. is admitting you have a bug that cannot be
> easily
> duplicated.
Not necessarily at all. It may well have worked on a local machine and there
are simply configuration problems (permissions, authentication, logons, user
profiles, dozens of factors that have nothig to do with a bug in the
application code.) with getting it networked. It isn't necessarily an
excuse for a bug, it is simply a statement of fact. You can't expect
programmers to be network administrators and configurators, if you are
employing them to write code. That's why you have separate areas of
expertise.
>
> My recommendations to reduce the amount of excuse making from your team:
>
Funny thing, I've never heard "excuses" from my team. I've heard about
problem areas and what is being done to fix it, I've had requests for tools
and expert support, but never excuses. Maybe because they know I can have
the truth, (even when it is sometimes terrible...:-)) and because I
cultivate a blame-free culture.
<Snipped good common sense ... we don't want any of that around here... :-)>
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
|
| In article <5mntnsFefolrU1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fe5uol$k5b$1@reader1.panix.com...
>
>Why pick on Robert? You youself have manifested such an attitude, as,
>indeed, have I.
Mr Dashwood, I don't recall saying the example I gave was unique... but my
memory, admittedly porous, has it that Mr Wagner is more prone than either
you or I to be involved here in an exchange similar to:
Mr W: 'Assertion.'
Other: 'How is this known?'
Mr W: 'I worked in two-three shops where it was like that.'
.... and I, for one, try to make it a habit to remind folks while I'm
making the observation that this is the basis of what I've seen or what
I've read or what I heard on the Angry White Man radio station that
morning... why, I use so many qualifiers that some think my views are
over-qualified, maybe that's why they never get the job.
DD
| |
|
| In article <srmdg3l92coq5ifp54vg1ei1978fcbilu8@4ax.com>,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:22:45 GMT, "William M. Klein"
><wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>statements
>This is in
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>It is common for CLC postings to state a conclusion, unsupported by
>facts/premises and
>the canons of logic, much less citations.
Leaving aside any sort of analysis indicating how this attribute of
'common' was determined... this certainly looks like a Brooklyn Bridge
defense. To paraphrase my Sainted Paternal Grandmother - may she sleep
with the angels! - on such things, 'So... it's common for CLC posters to
jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, you will, too?
DD
| |
|
| In article <5moi6gFej77mU1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
[snip]
>Or it could be that it didn't get done because you were breathing down their
>necks demanding test plans, "communication meetings" and "status updates"
>every five minutes, and bullying them to show what a macho Boss you are
Hmmmm... I've been running into a bit of that lately; I'm on a horrid
three-part team consisting of company employees, 'stable' consultants
(folks from a small consulting house looking to expand themselves into the
next Andersen... errrrr, Accenture or the like) and independent
consultants... that is, me.
At 9:30 the other morning I got a list of maybe fifty, sixty Oracle
database column_names and was asked to relate these, by hand, to the
COBOL-like field names in the documentation for the half-dozen input
datasets, eg ANN_SAL_OVRTM_AMT is Dataset P8638Y2, OVERTIME-EARNINGS-YTD,
startpos 866, len 4, PD/COMP-3. I managed my way through this and then
began to construct DFSORT control statements to create temp datasets from
the full ones, merge/SPLICE them together and wind up with something that
could be used to load the database.
So... fifty, sixty fields, half-a-dozen formats, variations in names,
check for multiple occurrences of the same data in different datasets...
the usual scut-work. Two and a half hours later I get an email 'we need
to meet on this'; I assemble my notes, make a few photocopies and into the
conference-room we go.
The woman who called/leads the meeting is from the consulting-stable...
and they seem to be looking to get more work from the client in the Old
Fashioned Way of calling meetings, pointing fingers and generating
paperwork. She asks what I've done; I pass over a copy of my notes and
begin explaining... and she cuts me off with 'this will be helpful, do you
have a copy of it in a word-processing document I can work with?'
I smiled and said 'This is what I have been able to do in the two and
small change hours since I first laid eyes on this; at that time I
expected the work to be my notes and not of a caliber immediately grasped
by any other person at any other time. I can continue coding things up so
that you'll have your load-file by close of business today...
.... or I can stop doing that and turn to prettying up my working-notes so
that they can be included in a lovely presentation to be sent off to the
corner office... in fact, if you give me another *three* hours I can
probably set them to music. What do you want, the file or a Happy Song?'
And now... and now she no longer invites me to meetings, I have to spend
my time writing code. It may even be that she thinks this exclusion is a
punishment to me.
DD
| |
|
| In article <5moe1kFe6m6uU1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:8HzNi.253052$1o1.247940@fe12.news.easynews.com...
[snip]
>He posted, got taken to task, modified what he'd said. What more do you
>want?
I cannot speak for Mr Klein... but it might be nice, for some, to see
something along the lines of 'learning from one's error'.
[snip]
>Would you demand an overnight personality change so he can post in CLC
>without offending anybody :-)?
>
>Give it time. :-)
It *has* been given time, Mr Dashwood... this is not Mr Wagner's first
visit to this cheery realm.
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-10-06, 6:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fe7jg8$s8v$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <5moe1kFe6m6uU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> I cannot speak for Mr Klein... but it might be nice, for some, to see
> something along the lines of 'learning from one's error'.
That is totally unfair and fails to acknowledge what has been achieved.
Robert started out originally with a stated intention to destroy this group.
He (and the group) have come a long way since then. Instead he is actually
contributing and participating.
You don't like his personality or his manner?
I don't like yours, on occasion.:-)
But, having got to know you, I understand how you work and I know your heart
is in the right place.
That didn't happen in few ws, Doc.
It is not the place of an unmoderated forum to teach anyone who posts to it
a lesson. People learn or they don't. Either way, nobody HAS to post here.
And nobody HAS to read posts from persons they consider offensive.
Robert has as much right to be here as any of us, on the basis of experience
and a love of COBOL.
>
> [snip]
>
>
> It *has* been given time, Mr Dashwood... this is not Mr Wagner's first
> visit to this cheery realm.
No, and this time is very different to the last one.
I am one here who has seen a change for the better in Robert's approach. I
don't expect him to be what he isn't, any more than I would expect anyone
else here to meet my expectations :-)
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Robert 2007-10-06, 6:55 pm |
| On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 08:43:39 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>In article <srmdg3l92coq5ifp54vg1ei1978fcbilu8@4ax.com>,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>[snip]
>
>
>Leaving aside any sort of analysis indicating how this attribute of
>'common' was determined... this certainly looks like a Brooklyn Bridge
>defense. To paraphrase my Sainted Paternal Grandmother - may she sleep
>with the angels! - on such things, 'So... it's common for CLC posters to
>jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, you will, too?
It's like pot .. kettle .. black. You didn't criticize your Sainted Grandmother for
failure to qualify the percentage of people jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge nor their
survival rate. I don't fault others for unqualified generalizations. It's a human trait.
The ability to generalize with inductive logic was an evolutionary development that helped
humans advance in a world of incomplete information. For example, 'Don't mess with bees,
they sting.' overlooks stingless bees in the Meliponini tribe.
Trivia: Only female bees have a stinger, whose technical name is ovipositor. Its primary
function is laying eggs, not defense.
| |
| HeyBub 2007-10-06, 6:55 pm |
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> No, and this time is very different to the last one.
Giggle.
| |
| Robert 2007-10-06, 6:55 pm |
| On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 17:45:03 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:
>"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
> news:srmdg3l92coq5ifp54vg1ei1978fcbilu8@
4ax.com...
>
>I'm sure you are familiar, Robert, with the old adage that "When you assume,
>you make an "ass" of "u" and "me"...". Axiomatic means "self evidently
>true", not "taken for granted", a slight but important diference.
"An axiom is a sentence or proposition that is not proved or demonstrated and is
considered as self-evident or as an initial necessary consensus for a theory building or
acceptation. Therefore, it is taken for granted as true, and serves as a starting point
for deducing and inferencing other (theory dependent) truths."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
>Everything posted here may well be the author's opinion, but these are
>usually "informed opinions"; very few people posting here don't know what
>they're talking about, even though their opinion may vary wildly from
>others. That's what makes this forum valuable (and fun:-))
The phrase "don't know what they're talking about" refers to disagreements over fact,
which can be resolved dispassionately. It is MISused when applied to differences of
opinion.
>We are back to form vs content. Some people think unminced words, spoken
>directly without qualification and maybe hyperbolixed for effect, indicate
>virile, no nonsense, straightforward thinking; others realize that no matter
>what the form of the message, the content is what matters. This particular
>form hides woolly and illogical thinking just as well as the weasel forms
>you disparage below... the content is the only measure of value, but a
>bombastic, overbearing form means people don't bother to look at the
>content. (That's why both agression and wheedling are useless against a
>trained negotiator; he sees only the content.)
You explained that very well.
>The form of your posts irritates a lot of people here.
I believe they are irritated by my content. Displacement causes them to criticize form
instead of rebutting content.
"Displacement is a subconscious defense mechanism whereby the mind redirects affects from
an object felt to be dangerous or unacceptable to an object felt to be safe or acceptable.
For instance, some people punch cushions when  at friends; a college student may snap
at his or her roommate when upset about an exam grade.
Displacement operates the mind subconsciously and involves emotions, ideas, or wishes
being transferred from their original object to a more acceptable substitute. It is most
often used to allay anxiety."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displa...28psychology%29
Eric Hoffer explained displacement this way:
"There is perhaps no surer way of infecting ourselves with virulent
hatred toward a person than by doing him a grave injustice. That others
have a just grievance against us is a more potent reason for hating
them than that we have a just grievance against them. We do not make
people humble and m when we show them their guilt and cause them to
be ashamed of themselves. We are more likely to stir their arrogance
and rouse in them a reckless aggressiveness. Self-righteousness is a
loud din raised to drown the voice of guilt within us. There is a
guilty conscience behind every brazen word and act and behind every
manifestation of self-righteousness."
- Eric Hoffer, The True Believer
>I'm quite sure the
>content of my posts irritates some here (although I don't post to be
>irritating).
It should .. more than mine. You get away with it because you attack the Cobol language
whereas I criticize the skill of its practitioners.
>(The point is you can't please all the people all of the time
>and neither should you try to...)
>
>What can be done about it?
>
>It depends what you want. If you are sing to persuade, rather than
>coerce, you will modify the form of your posts. If you are posting just to
>let off steam or voice an opinion, then you won't. :-)
Another option is doing something more interesting .. such as programming.
>
>Well, the "almost always" in the first sentence is exactly what the writer
>is protesting :-)
Very good observation.
>I'm not going to debate the stuff you quoted because I doubt that minds will
>be changed
Then you proceed to debate it. :)
>1. I use qualification in sentences not to deflect attention away from what
>I "don't want emphasized", or to be apologistic for my argument, or to
>dilute the meaning, or because I am a pussy. I do it because it is logically
>more accurate, and if you're going to debate something, you might as well be
>accurate about it.
Sure, it's more accurate, but debates don't turn on the accuracy of facts, they're about
conclusions. It doesn't matter whether all, most, some or a good number of Cobol
programmers are stuck in the 1970s. Defenders don't quibble about the percentage, they're
about the concept of obsolescence.
>2. I use the passive voice (probably more than I should) for stylistic
>reasons and not for dishonesty in argument.
>
>3. There is no place in my philosophy for "weaseling". Neither in speech,
>writing, thought nor action. I leave "weaseling" to Insurance Companies and
>politicians, where it seems to be alive and well.
Weasels should be offended. My pet ferrets are not sneaky or dishonest like a politician,
they are inquisitive and adventurous like a programmer.
>
>As you have never experienced late delivery, I'm surprised you took note of
>this :-)
I'll buy the part about poor quality, but where is all this late delivery going on?
>
>A very Boolean aproach to Management and a less than useful one, I think.
>There are shades of grey. ("it either does or it doesn't...sometimes.) I
>also take issue with the stated interpretations of "It should work..." The
>two meanings given are far from being the only ones...
When support people tell me something should work, I answer "I know it SHOULD work. I
called you because it doesn't."
>
>Only when they're task, rather than goal, oriented. Evolutionary development
>obviates this one; nothing is ever "finished", it is evolving.
You still need checkpoints to assess how far through the tunnel it is. Without them, you
won't know until you reach the end that it's been walled off.
>
>Because the deployment package has nothing to do with the application code?
>Duh!
I can sympathize with that excuse. Too often, our change control infrastructure is
error-prone, has hidden dependencies, especially humans remembering to do things. The
programmer gets blamed for screw-ups outside the development domain.
Management is responsible for deployment, not developers. The problem is, management sees
it as a techie issue, thinks 'let the techies fight it out among themselves.' That's a
real problem.
>
>Or it could be that it didn't get done because you were breathing down their
>necks demanding test plans, "communication meetings" and "status updates"
>every five minutes, and bullying them to show what a macho Boss you are
In small companies, programmers are generalists having control over the whole IT domain.
In large companies, their domain is limited to one application. Errors usually occur where
domains intersect, due to communication failures. Specs say 'The other app is already
doing that. All ya gotta do is call their service.' It's a simple concept but the devil
is in the details.
Again, management is responsible for keeping ducks pointed in the same direction. Workers
are not going to do it themselves unless they're given a structure and incentive.
>
>The core processing is done.How long will the remainder take?
Programmers think their job is done when the core code is written and working. My solution
is to assign low skilled interns and neophytes to the peripheral tasks such as
documentation, test plans, demo drivers, etc.
>
>Yes, integration can be problematic. Nevertheless, it is still a fair
>statement if the application is working. Again, "How long will it take to
>integrate? What is problematic with the integration? Do you need help,
>support, or tools to get it done faster?"
My solution to the integration problem is a pair of stub programs: a test caller and a
call receiver. You can write both in a few minutes. Prototypes attempt to do that but fall
short because they only check number and type of objects passed, not content.
>
>Not necessarily at all. It may well have worked on a local machine and there
>are simply configuration problems (permissions, authentication, logons, user
>profiles, dozens of factors that have nothig to do with a bug in the
>application code.) with getting it networked. It isn't necessarily an
>excuse for a bug, it is simply a statement of fact. You can't expect
>programmers to be network administrators and configurators, if you are
>employing them to write code. That's why you have separate areas of
>expertise.
Exactly. But the defect is first assigned to the application team. The burden is on them
to figure out whose fault it really is.
Many of these problems are caused by fragile environments, which in turn are caused by
Balkanization of responsibility. SOMEone should be responsible for the health of the whole
organization. Someone should fix the root cause of 'incidents' so they don't happen again.
| |
| William M. Klein 2007-10-06, 6:55 pm |
| "Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
news:0mhfg3pdinc9n3o9g8ln2lgq9h724op8ai@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 17:45:03 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> I believe they are irritated by my content. Displacement causes them to
> criticize form
> instead of rebutting content.
>
Just to confirm that in most (not all) cases, it is the "form" of your posts
rarth than the content. Although this is slightly misleading. It is when the
"form" implies (or at least I and many others as I read things - infer) that you
are stating something as fact (via the way your English parses to me) when what
I *hope* you are trying to express is an opinion or a "most of the time"
statement or an "in my experience" statement.
If your "broad statements" are in fact the content that you WANT to convey, then
you are corect, it is the content and not the form.
It is the fact that I (personally - and as far as I can tell others as well)
can't tell when you are TRYING to express a "universal truth" vs a limited
opinion or statement of experience that causes me to state it is a "form" rather
than "content" issue.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
| |
| William M. Klein 2007-10-06, 6:55 pm |
| Definitely MY error in the beginning of my reply below. It (erroneously) starts
out,
"Just to confirm that in most (not all) cases, it is the "form" of your posts
rather than the content."
when what I *meant* to say, was something like,
"Just to confirm that in most (not all) cases FOR ME, it is the "form" of your
posts rather than the content."
I could add that it is my impression that many (possibly MOST) of the very
negative replies that I read to your posts have the same problem that I comment
on below. However, they may well be others who simply disagree with you in
general or on specific issues. I certainly DO disagree with many of those
opinions that you express about <IBM> mainframe COBOL programmers and shops, but
I tend to me most negative when you state something about them as a "universal
truth" rather than what your (now several years out-of-date) experiences was.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:NkSNi.37770$Lx1.13672@fe05.news.easynews.com...
> "Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
> news:0mhfg3pdinc9n3o9g8ln2lgq9h724op8ai@
4ax.com...
> <snip>
>
> Just to confirm that in most (not all) cases, it is the "form" of your posts
> rarth than the content. Although this is slightly misleading. It is when the
> "form" implies (or at least I and many others as I read things - infer) that
> you are stating something as fact (via the way your English parses to me) when
> what I *hope* you are trying to express is an opinion or a "most of the time"
> statement or an "in my experience" statement.
>
> If your "broad statements" are in fact the content that you WANT to convey,
> then you are corect, it is the content and not the form.
>
> It is the fact that I (personally - and as far as I can tell others as well)
> can't tell when you are TRYING to express a "universal truth" vs a limited
> opinion or statement of experience that causes me to state it is a "form"
> rather than "content" issue.
>
> --
> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
>
>
| |
| Robert 2007-10-06, 6:55 pm |
| On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:47:16 GMT, "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>Definitely MY error in the beginning of my reply below. It (erroneously) starts
>out,
>
>"Just to confirm that in most (not all) cases, it is the "form" of your posts
>rather than the content."
>
>when what I *meant* to say, was something like,
>
>"Just to confirm that in most (not all) cases FOR ME, it is the "form" of your
>posts rather than the content."
>
>I could add that it is my impression that many (possibly MOST) of the very
>negative replies that I read to your posts have the same problem that I comment
>on below. However, they may well be others who simply disagree with you in
>general or on specific issues. I certainly DO disagree with many of those
>opinions that you express about <IBM> mainframe COBOL programmers and shops, but
>I tend to be most negative when you state something about them as a "universal
>truth" rather than what your (now several years out-of-date) experiences was.
You object to the generalizations whose *content* you dislike on grounds of form. You
don't object to false generalizations that most Cobol programmers believe true. For
example, "C programs are cryptic and hard to read." or "Java runs slower than Cobol."
If those opinions were posted in forums devoted to the respective languages, replies
would probably call them false generalizations.
I haven't worked on mainframe hardware for seven years (by choice), but I have recent
experience with mainframe Cobol culture and code style. It lives on in shops that went to
Unix because management pulled the plug on the mainframe. They hate and fear change more
than mainframe shops, because they've been cut off from IBM innovations and support. They
remind me of a wagon train surrounded by hostile indians.
Speaking of wagons, "very negative replies" principally come from you and Richard. It's
not much of a bandwagon.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-10-06, 9:55 pm |
|
"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
news:0mhfg3pdinc9n3o9g8ln2lgq9h724op8ai@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 17:45:03 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> "An axiom is a sentence or proposition that is not proved or demonstrated
> and is
> considered as self-evident or as an initial necessary consensus for a
> theory building or
> acceptation. Therefore, it is taken for granted as true, and serves as a
> starting point
> for deducing and inferencing other (theory dependent) truths."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
>
>
> The phrase "don't know what they're talking about" refers to disagreements
> over fact,
> which can be resolved dispassionately.
Says who? A person's opinons can also be reflective of inadequate
information on the subject. It is then fair to say they don't know what
they're talking about.
It is MISused when applied to differences of
> opinion.
Nope. Not in the circumstance described above.
>
>
> You explained that very well.
I have had negotiation training (although I don't always apply it in
everyday life...:-)) If you are ever in a hostage situation, tell them to
send for me.. :-)
>
>
> I believe they are irritated by my content. Displacement causes them to
> criticize form
> instead of rebutting content.
Possibly, to some extent.
>
>
>
> It should .. more than mine. You get away with it because you attack the
> Cobol language
> whereas I criticize the skill of its practitioners.
On the contrary, Robert, I don't attack anything, least of all the COBOL
language.
I have opinions about COBOL and I express them as such. I realise they are
arguable and I argue them with a spirit of fairness and goodwill.
(Having frequented this forum for many years, I know that minds rarely get
changed, but it does no harm to explore ideas with others. In the course of
doing this, understanding of individuals occurs and that is no bad thing.)
And I certainly don't get away with anything here :-)
>
>
> Another option is doing something more interesting .. such as programming.
Then there would be no need to post here. I post here as relief from
programming. (that is not the only reaosn; but it is certainly a major one.
>
>
> Very good observation.
>
>
> Then you proceed to debate it. :)
No I snipped it.
I made comments on the second part.
>
>
> Sure, it's more accurate, but debates don't turn on the accuracy of facts,
> they're about
> conclusions. It doesn't matter whether all, most, some or a good number of
> Cobol
> programmers are stuck in the 1970s. Defenders don't quibble about the
> percentage, they're
> about the concept of obsolescence.
Then I would suggest that people who are about obsolescence simply
debate that... accurately.
>
>
> Weasels should be offended. My pet ferrets are not sneaky or dishonest
> like a politician,
> they are inquisitive and adventurous like a programmer.
Like SOME programmers...:-)
<snip>>>
>
> You still need checkpoints to assess how far through the tunnel it is.
> Without them, you
> won't know until you reach the end that it's been walled off.
>
When code is seen to be working, it can be said to be "finished" in this
context.
The tunnel is NEVER walled off. There are ALWAYs options. Besides, it isn't
like advancing down a tunnel, more like advancing across a field.
>
> I can sympathize with that excuse. Too often, our change control
> infrastructure is
> error-prone, has hidden dependencies, especially humans remembering to do
> things. The
> programmer gets blamed for screw-ups outside the development domain.
>
So, how do you handle being blamed for something that isn't your fault?
(Most of us experience this at some stage, so dealing with it is a useful
skill to acquire. Angry tirades, sulks, and standing on your dignity are not
solutions...)
> Management is responsible for deployment, not developers. The problem is,
> management sees
> it as a techie issue, thinks 'let the techies fight it out among
> themselves.' That's a
> real problem.
Management are no more responsible for deployment than they are for
developing the system, but you don't see them writing code.
>
<snip>>>
>
> In small companies, programmers are generalists having control over the
> whole IT domain.
> In large companies, their domain is limited to one application. Errors
> usually occur where
> domains intersect, due to communication failures. Specs say 'The other app
> is already
> doing that. All ya gotta do is call their service.' It's a simple concept
> but the devil
> is in the details.
Yes, most of us have encountered such problems. Eliminating Specs (in a
context described elsewhere in this thread) is a radical solution to it.
>
> Again, management is responsible for keeping ducks pointed in the same
> direction. Workers
> are not going to do it themselves unless they're given a structure and
> incentive.
>
It is part of the Management responsibility to provide that structure and
incentive. I am very happy to set goals , explain why we are going that way,
agree the direction and goals with the team, then let them get on with it,
providing whatever support they need. They are very capable of pointing
ducks in the right direction :-).
>
>
> Programmers think their job is done when the core code is written and
> working.
Do they?
It depends on the environment they are working in, and the local standards
and culture.
<snip>
>
> Exactly. But the defect is first assigned to the application team. The
> burden is on them
> to figure out whose fault it really is.
Who else could do that, given that Management are generally not technical?
>
> Many of these problems are caused by fragile environments, which in turn
> are caused by
> Balkanization of responsibility. SOMEone should be responsible for the
> health of the whole
> organization.
Ah, that would be the CEO... maybe you should be talking to him/her...
If you're talking about IT then that would be the CIO and you DEFINITELY
should be talking to him/her...
>Someone should fix the root cause of 'incidents' so they don't happen
>again.
>
That is what tech teams endeavour to do.
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-10-06, 9:55 pm |
|
"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13gfhibiilp5j5e@news.supernews.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Giggle.
>
How quickly they forget...
It has been my experience that a major inhibitor to improvement, is lack of
acknowledgement of even small improvement.
Never mind.
Heard any good jokes lately? :-)
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| SkippyPB 2007-10-07, 6:55 pm |
| On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 13:41:06 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:13gfhibiilp5j5e@news.supernews.com...
>How quickly they forget...
>
>It has been my experience that a major inhibitor to improvement, is lack of
>acknowledgement of even small improvement.
>
>Never mind.
>
>Heard any good jokes lately? :-)
>
>Pete.
A man rushed into a doctor's clinic, shouting, "Help me! I think I'm
shrinking!!" The receptionist calmly replied: "The doctor's busy.
Please be a little patient!"
Cheers,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"Leaving sex to the feminists is like
letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist."
--Camille Paglia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| HeyBub 2007-10-07, 6:55 pm |
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> It has been my experience that a major inhibitor to improvement, is
> lack of acknowledgement of even small improvement.
You can't claim success in moving the mountain by depending on erosion.
>
> Never mind.
>
> Heard any good jokes lately? :-)
>
Yes.
"I am one here who has seen a change for the better in Robert's approach. "
| |
| Robert 2007-10-07, 6:55 pm |
| On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 13:37:02 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:
>
>
>"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
> news:0mhfg3pdinc9n3o9g8ln2lgq9h724op8ai@
4ax.com...
>
>So, how do you handle being blamed for something that isn't your fault?
>
>(Most of us experience this at some stage, so dealing with it is a useful
>skill to acquire. Angry tirades, sulks, and standing on your dignity are not
>solutions...)
Women face this predicament in domestic life. Some just take it; we call them doormats.
Some respond with anger or withdrawal. As you say, those are not solutions (for adults;
they work for babies). Women with self-respect move out, then find another partner.
HIgh turnover in a computer shop should be a red flag. So should a hgh percentage of
contractors, especially contractors who have been in the same job for years. Contractors
have zero political power; they're not allowed to criticize.
My solution is to FIX the change control system .. by automating everything, removing
dependence on manual steps, adding verification checks. I love working on infrastructure
automation. In my domestic analogy, it's like employing a household organizer or
relationship mediator.
>
>Management are no more responsible for deployment than they are for
>developing the system, but you don't see them writing code.
IT management has technical people responsible for infrastructure, including deployment.
>
>It is part of the Management responsibility to provide that structure and
>incentive. I am very happy to set goals , explain why we are going that way,
>agree the direction and goals with the team, then let them get on with it,
>providing whatever support they need. They are very capable of pointing
>ducks in the right direction :-).
Managing programmers has been likened to hearding cats.
>
>Who else could do that, given that Management are generally not technical?
If the failure is due to infrastructure, it should be fixed at that level. Application
teams shouldn't have to deal with insufficient disk space, dropped database connections,
etc.
>
>Ah, that would be the CEO... maybe you should be talking to him/her...
>
>If you're talking about IT then that would be the CIO and you DEFINITELY
>should be talking to him/her...
I do, sometimes. Other times their attention is directed upward, at their bosses. They
can't be bothered with technical stuff.
>That is what tech teams endeavour to do.
Right. That's what they're supposed to do. Too often they act as gatekeepers rather than
enablers.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-10-08, 3:55 am |
|
"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
news:q34ig3tj7uun0ug6iclnhdht63rii3adbc@
4ax.com...
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 13:37:02 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
<snip>[color=darkred]
>
> Right. That's what they're supposed to do. Too often they act as
> gatekeepers rather than
> enablers.
>
I take your point.
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-10-08, 3:55 am |
|
"SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3vuhg35i6l2kqvp8qk4ub6g9au3mj8uk5t@
4ax.com...
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 13:41:06 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> A man rushed into a doctor's clinic, shouting, "Help me! I think I'm
> shrinking!!" The receptionist calmly replied: "The doctor's busy.
> Please be a little patient!"
>
>
Lol! Thanks Steve. :-)
Guy rushes into Doctor's surgery making the most outrageous thundering
farts.
Receptionist: "How can we help you, Sir?"
Patient: "I <fart> think I've <fart> got the dreaded <fart> farting
disease..."
Receptionist: "D'you think it's <fart> contagious?"
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-10-08, 3:55 am |
|
"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13gi3hkhk13eme4@news.supernews.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> You can't claim success in moving the mountain by depending on erosion.
Actually, you can. A large portion (400 million tonnes) of our beautiful
country gets washed to the sea in this way, every year. It is caused by
destruction of native bush by introduced pests, bad farming practices, and
natural disaster, and is so serious that the NZ Government spends $200
million a year on measures to address it. (Consider this against a
population of 4.3 million).
>
>
> Yes.
>
> "I am one here who has seen a change for the better in Robert's approach.
> "
>
>
Thanks, Jerry.
Really helpful... :-)
Enjoy yourself at the stoning... :-)
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-10-08, 6:55 pm |
| X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 9
Bytes: 1316
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.cobol:169368
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 12:24:05 -0500, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>Trivia: Only female bees have a stinger, whose technical name is ovipositor. Its primary
>function is laying eggs, not defense.
Almost all bees use their stingers for stinging, only the queens lay
eggs. So how do we determine what their primary purposes are?
Read the requirements?
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-10-08, 6:55 pm |
| On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 11:32:23 -0400, SkippyPB
<swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>A man rushed into a doctor's clinic, shouting, "Help me! I think I'm
>shrinking!!" The receptionist calmly replied: "The doctor's busy.
>Please be a little patient!"
A man says to the Doctor "Help me, sometimes I think I'm a Wigwam,
sometimes I think I'm a Teepee".
"Calm down - you're just too tense".
(Some jokes are better orally).
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-10-08, 6:55 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:21kkg3h9mcremjot7esc5osnaql7gtkoeo@
4ax.com...
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 11:32:23 -0400, SkippyPB
> <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> A man says to the Doctor "Help me, sometimes I think I'm a Wigwam,
> sometimes I think I'm a Teepee".
>
> "Calm down - you're just too tense".
>
> (Some jokes are better orally).
Lol! I liked it, Howard... :-)
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
|
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 11:32:23 -0400, SkippyPB
> <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> A man says to the Doctor "Help me, sometimes I think I'm a Wigwam,
> sometimes I think I'm a Teepee".
>
> "Calm down - you're just too tense".
>
> (Some jokes are better orally).
heh... And I will use this one orally with my Cub Scouts next month.
The theme is "Indian Nations". :) Thanks for the joke!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
| Robert 2007-10-08, 9:55 pm |
| On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:41:50 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 12:24:05 -0500, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>
>Almost all bees use their stingers for stinging, only the queens lay
>eggs. So how do we determine what their primary purposes are?
>
>Read the requirements?
Some common bee species are solitary, not communal. All their females are fertile. They
use their stingers to bore holes for eggs, then lay the egg through the stinger.
The word ovipositor is the giveaway.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-10-09, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:58:38 -0500, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>Some common bee species are solitary, not communal. All their females are fertile. They
>use their stingers to bore holes for eggs, then lay the egg through the stinger.
>
>The word ovipositor is the giveaway.
That word was a result of observation, not of reading the specs. If
you get stung by a bee, chances are that stinger has not laid any
eggs, and for that bee, the stinger was doing its job.
We do have organs that have more than one function. I'd hate to have
to decide which function is primary.
| |
|
| In article <ucefg31jagm5fejoofq3rhgm86h9497j1o@4ax.com>,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 08:43:39 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>news:fe5uol$k5b$1@reader1.panix.com...
><lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>as, indeed,
>
>It's like pot .. kettle .. black. You didn't criticize your Sainted
>Grandmother for
>failure to qualify the percentage of people jumping off the Brooklyn
>Bridge nor their
>survival rate. I don't fault others for unqualified generalizations.
>It's a human trait.
>The ability to generalize with inductive logic was an evolutionary
>development that helped
>humans advance in a world of incomplete information. For example,
>'Don't mess with bees,
>they sting.' overlooks stingless bees in the Meliponini tribe.
>
>Trivia: Only female bees have a stinger, whose technical name is
>ovipositor. Its primary
>function is laying eggs, not defense.
| |
|
| In article <5mph50FefhpqU1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fe7jg8$s8v$1@reader1.panix.com...
>
>That is totally unfair and fails to acknowledge what has been achieved.
>
>Robert started out originally with a stated intention to destroy this group.
Mr Dashwood, Mr Wagner may have started out as many folks, with a sound
whack on the rump administered by a nurse, midwife, physician, etc... but
that did not, to me, seem to be worthy of comment there.
What I commented on was 'the recent notes onUS government agencies etc.',
*not* that-which-went-on-many-moons-ago. My apologies for having a
different set of delimiters here.
DD
| |
| Robert 2007-10-13, 6:55 pm |
| On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 10:52:09 -0700, Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 6 Oct, 18:24, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>
>Trivia part deux:
>
>Bee stings are barbed and, unless the bee takes care removing the
>ovipositor from your flesh, it will usually rip out it's entrails.
>Bees are reluctant to use their stings.
>
>Wasps are also stingers but are not barbed therefore they are much
>more ready to sting.
>
>Hoverflies, which resemble wasps even unto a pointy but stingless
>abdomen, do not sting. Can anyone tell me how I can distinguish
>(safely) between a wasp and a hoverfly?
Hoverflies have two wings; bees and wasps have four.
Hoverflies make darting movements (like hummingbirds) when hovering. Bees and wasps cannot
do that.
| |
| HeyBub 2007-10-13, 6:55 pm |
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Actually, you can. A large portion (400 million tonnes) of our
> beautiful country gets washed to the sea in this way, every year. It
> is caused by destruction of native bush by introduced pests, bad
> farming practices, and natural disaster, and is so serious that the
> NZ Government spends $200 million a year on measures to address it.
> (Consider this against a population of 4.3 million).
>
Yes, but who notices?
"New Zealand women have an average of 20.4 sexual partners, according to a
survey by condom-maker Durex." The world average is 7.3.
Australian men averaged 29 sex partners to take the world's lead (global
average 13.2).
I sense an exchange of populations in the works (like Pakistan and India in
1948).
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4235893a10.html
Aside...
One of my bookstore customers went to the trouble to put all his used,
mass-market books on his website. At the time, he didn't want to fiddle with
foreign sales so he put a blanket price of $6.00 (plus $4USD shipping) per
book and, to him, Canada was a foreign country!
He gets 80-100 orders, per month, for historical romance books (in the
trade, "bodice rippers") from Australia and New Zealand.
In a mild attack of conscience, he worried that he was ripping off these
customers (his cost: $0.05 for the book, $0.30 for the mailer, $0.67
surface-mail postage). He was making about $9USD profit on each sale, almost
$1000/month in found money. But he was getting repeat orders!
Eventually, he discoverd the trick. Australia and New Zealand are on the
nether edge of English language publishing rights!
Consider a Kiwi woman, exhausted from a day of sheep-shearing, and
discovering, via the web, that Joanna Lindsey, or Beatrice Small or Kathleen
Woodiwiss has a new book. She knows it will be six to ten YEARS before the
goddamn book shows up locally. She's more than willing to spend $10 to get
the book in only a month. After reading the book, and experiencing several
episodes of "the vapors," she probably sells the book for $12 to another
member of her sheep-shearing bee.
Then she has sex (evidently).
Everybody's happy. Especially my bookseller customer. Except for the sex
part, he couldn't be happier.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-10-13, 6:55 pm |
|
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1192297929.492009.59560@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On 6 Oct, 18:24, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
>
> Trivia part deux:
>
> Bee stings are barbed and, unless the bee takes care removing the
> ovipositor from your flesh, it will usually rip out it's entrails.
> Bees are reluctant to use their stings.
>
> Wasps are also stingers but are not barbed therefore they are much
> more ready to sting.
>
> Hoverflies, which resemble wasps even unto a pointy but stingless
> abdomen, do not sting. Can anyone tell me how I can distinguish
> (safely) between a wasp and a hoverfly?
Wasps tend to be irritable. Try shouting abuse at it. If it doesn't sting
you, it's a hoverfly...
(Of course, it could be a very rare gentle-natured wasp... but life is
complex.)
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
>
| |
| SkippyPB 2007-10-14, 6:56 pm |
| On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 18:15:44 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
>Yes, but who notices?
>
>"New Zealand women have an average of 20.4 sexual partners, according to a
>survey by condom-maker Durex." The world average is 7.3.
>
>Australian men averaged 29 sex partners to take the world's lead (global
>average 13.2).
>
>I sense an exchange of populations in the works (like Pakistan and India in
>1948).
>
>http://www.stuff.co.nz/4235893a10.html
>
>Aside...
>One of my bookstore customers went to the trouble to put all his used,
>mass-market books on his website. At the time, he didn't want to fiddle with
>foreign sales so he put a blanket price of $6.00 (plus $4USD shipping) per
>book and, to him, Canada was a foreign country!
>
>He gets 80-100 orders, per month, for historical romance books (in the
>trade, "bodice rippers") from Australia and New Zealand.
>
>In a mild attack of conscience, he worried that he was ripping off these
>customers (his cost: $0.05 for the book, $0.30 for the mailer, $0.67
>surface-mail postage). He was making about $9USD profit on each sale, almost
>$1000/month in found money. But he was getting repeat orders!
>
>Eventually, he discoverd the trick. Australia and New Zealand are on the
>nether edge of English language publishing rights!
>
>Consider a Kiwi woman, exhausted from a day of sheep-shearing, and
>discovering, via the web, that Joanna Lindsey, or Beatrice Small or Kathleen
>Woodiwiss has a new book. She knows it will be six to ten YEARS before the
>goddamn book shows up locally. She's more than willing to spend $10 to get
>the book in only a month. After reading the book, and experiencing several
>episodes of "the vapors," she probably sells the book for $12 to another
>member of her sheep-shearing bee.
>
>Then she has sex (evidently).
>
>Everybody's happy. Especially my bookseller customer. Except for the sex
>part, he couldn't be happier.
>
Back in the early 90's I spent 7 ws living and working in
Wellington, NZ. I never had the pleasure of meeting those obviously
sex-starved NZ, sheep shearing, nymphets. Maybe they all live in
Auckland.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk
to spend time with his fools."
-- Ernest Hemingway
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-10-14, 9:55 pm |
|
"SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:bjb4h3hjg0ld4ctan16ah778o9ul6rsfub@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 18:15:44 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Back in the early 90's I spent 7 ws living and working in
> Wellington, NZ. I never had the pleasure of meeting those obviously
> sex-starved NZ, sheep shearing, nymphets. Maybe they all live in
> Auckland.
>
I was born in Wellington and raised there until I was 13, when we moved to
the Bay of Plenty, on my father's death.
Obviously, at that age I was not quite into sexual experience, but I
remember fondly my first girlfriend, a Wellingtonian, with blue eyes,
freckles, and wavy brown hair... :-)
I took the move away from her pretty hard, until I realised that girls
outnumbered boys in the Bay of Plenty and the beach based lifestyle ensured
they all walked around looking tanned, healthy, and wearing next to
nothing... It wasn't long before I was not thinking about Wellington any
more... the resilience (fickleness) of youth... :-)
Despite Jerry's statistics (which didn't surprise me in the least) I don't
think there is any more promiscuity here than anywhere else. It's just that
the girls (and the blokes) are more up front and less reserved. If a Kiwi
girl sleeps with a guy on the first date, neither of them think she is a
slut; rather, she made a choice because she wanted to... (If you woke up the
next morning and found the girl and your wallet gone, THEN she was a
slut...:-))
I have had some limited experience with shearing gangs and I can assure you
neither the girls nor the boys are sex-starved. (And it has nothing to do
with sheep looking happy, either :-))
Auckland girls? I lived there for a number of years in the 60s and into the
70s before I started travelling. It was a good time. the City of Sails is
not the same today as it was then, but that's progress... (sigh). I think
the young Auckland women of today are pretty liberated, and that includes
sexually; no bad thing.
I try and avoid Auckland these days because I find the conversation is all
about real estate and property values and quite frankly, it's boring.
Having sampled the delightsd of many different cultures, I can say that Kiwi
girls are very satisfactory in every way. I married one and was never sorry
I did. (Can't say the same about the Liverpudlian I married :-)).
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
|
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> I took the move away from her pretty hard, until I realised that girls
> outnumbered boys in the Bay of Plenty and the beach based lifestyle ensured
> they all walked around looking tanned, healthy, and wearing next to
> nothing...
I guess that's why they call it the "Bay of Plenty"... ;)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
| SkippyPB 2007-10-15, 6:55 pm |
| On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:17:59 -0700, Alistair
<alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 14 Oct, 16:00, SkippyPB <swieg...@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>They were probably out on the hills tending to their flocks. Book
>ahead, next time.
>
Went there. Only saw sheep and a couple of guys who looked like they
were from Wyoming.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"I think that's how Chicago got started.
A bunch of people in New York said,
'Gee, I'm enjoying the crime and the poverty,
but it just isn't cold enough. Let's go west.'"
-- Richard Jeni
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-10-15, 6:55 pm |
|
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:L_mdnRt11s819o7anZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@co
mcast.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> I guess that's why they call it the "Bay of Plenty"... ;)
>
Lol!
I thought so at the time... :-)
Captain Cook named it that after having skirmished with fierce Maori on the
East Coast of the North Island at a place he called Poverty Bay... Short on
food and water, Endeavour sailed around the East Cape and into the Bay of
Plenty. Here the Maori (a different tribe) were friendly and gave him food
and water in exchange for blankets and trinkets. Oddly enough, because it is
part of the volcanic plateau (there are hot springs 10 minutes from where
I'm writing this), the soil actually is very fertile and the sub-tropical
climate makes it easy to grow things.
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
|
|
|
| |