Wednesday, February 20, 2002
I don't know what worse, that the government is going to do this, or that they are damn fool enough to allow people to know about it!
Happa: Things are slowly and steadily getting better and better for Alicia, thanks for asking! We are just more tickled every day!
Also, to Happa or anyone else on MSN Messanger, I can be found as jcp171@aol.com... On cable modem so I may appear to be online when I am having dinner or off doing something else during a download, so please don't get peeved if I don't respond right away, I'm not snubbing ya! :-)
Also, to Happa or anyone else on MSN Messanger, I can be found as jcp171@aol.com... On cable modem so I may appear to be online when I am having dinner or off doing something else during a download, so please don't get peeved if I don't respond right away, I'm not snubbing ya! :-)
Before reading the following, given recent events, please do not infer that I am trying to insinuate something about any fellow bloggers. This is the result of tangential stream of thought relating to, indirectly, those events. In fact I find the following more relevant to my work environment than anything else. My more direct comments follow however.
The following are a few snippets from "The Power of stupidity" found here:http://www.gandalf.it/stupid/stupid.htm (It's a fairly humorous read by the way)
Carlo M. Cipolla is Professor Emeritus of Economic History at Berkeley
He classifies people into 4 types and I tend to agree with him:
Hapless Someone whose actions tend to generate self-damage, but also to create advantage for someone else.
Intelligent Someone whose actions tend to generate self-advantage, as well as advantage for others.
Bandit Someone whose actions tend to generate self-advantage while causing damage to others.
Stupid A stupid person is someone who causes damage to another person, or a group of people, without any advantage accruing to himself (or herself) -- or even with some resultant self-damage.
Personally I have been all 4 at 1 point or another. I try to keep my percentages skewed however ;-)
As far as recent events though, I do firmly believe that it is a better, grander, nobler and ultimately more rewarding to disseminate knowledge thoughtfully rather than scorn those that lack it.
Personally, I find it not only informs people, but deepens my understanding of the things I share. Also, and this is a biggie, it allows me to learn about things, that aren't my specialty, from others and not be hypocritical. Remember, it is great to be knowledgeable, but not everyone can focus on literature and one day you may need that person you scorned to teach you something you don't know about and maybe didn't forsee as important.
So in sum, be proud of your strengths, but don't allow yourself the arrogance of believing your interests are the ones that decide intelligence, worth, or position.
Rant rant rant, blah blah blah. Or maybe I'm just pissed off that I don't get jokes about Petrarch. Maybe I'd feel better If I ranted and giggled to myself about the inventor of ethernet networking? Oh that Bob Metcalfe, nobody could ever copy what he's done! Come on laugh with me people!!!
As always...
The following are a few snippets from "The Power of stupidity" found here:http://www.gandalf.it/stupid/stupid.htm (It's a fairly humorous read by the way)
Carlo M. Cipolla is Professor Emeritus of Economic History at Berkeley
He classifies people into 4 types and I tend to agree with him:
Hapless Someone whose actions tend to generate self-damage, but also to create advantage for someone else.
Intelligent Someone whose actions tend to generate self-advantage, as well as advantage for others.
Bandit Someone whose actions tend to generate self-advantage while causing damage to others.
Stupid A stupid person is someone who causes damage to another person, or a group of people, without any advantage accruing to himself (or herself) -- or even with some resultant self-damage.
Personally I have been all 4 at 1 point or another. I try to keep my percentages skewed however ;-)
As far as recent events though, I do firmly believe that it is a better, grander, nobler and ultimately more rewarding to disseminate knowledge thoughtfully rather than scorn those that lack it.
Personally, I find it not only informs people, but deepens my understanding of the things I share. Also, and this is a biggie, it allows me to learn about things, that aren't my specialty, from others and not be hypocritical. Remember, it is great to be knowledgeable, but not everyone can focus on literature and one day you may need that person you scorned to teach you something you don't know about and maybe didn't forsee as important.
So in sum, be proud of your strengths, but don't allow yourself the arrogance of believing your interests are the ones that decide intelligence, worth, or position.
Rant rant rant, blah blah blah. Or maybe I'm just pissed off that I don't get jokes about Petrarch. Maybe I'd feel better If I ranted and giggled to myself about the inventor of ethernet networking? Oh that Bob Metcalfe, nobody could ever copy what he's done! Come on laugh with me people!!!
As always...
Tuesday, February 19, 2002
Many days late and several dollars short
Wry's ne're to be read by you know who blog about recent events.
What I agree with: The honest statement that was being made and has been made in the past about many different topics.
What I disagree with: the obvious inflamatory crassness with which it was said.
Come on people I am half convinced that Ghosts crassness is more self-defensive then "Trying to get a reaction" although I do believe that getting a reaction is part of the defense mechanism.
Point one: I don't know him that well so I am no one to judge or have insight into Ghost as a person. Tough shit, I'm gonna do it anyway.
I believe this whole "Stir the pot crap" is a facade generated by Ghost to mask the fact that he has a deficiency understanding generic human emotionality.
THE FACTS:
1. He is nearly brilliantly knowlegeable
2. He is fun and charming in person
3. He has an innocence about him that lets his vulnerablilities shine through
4. He is very logically apt and able
5. I am in no way ass-kissing, this is my proof.
Why? How? What? Huh?
Why would someone so enjoyable in person be so different in his communication regarding sensative subjects?
Why does he shy away from point by point debates over inflamatory things he has said?
Why does he veiw explaination of the obscure as "sad"
Why does he treat his literary knowledge like a secret club for the elite?
Why do I think? The deep sense of inability to safely go to those places himself or feel confident in breaking down and sharing those wonders in a comprehensively understanding way.
Some of the most able people I have known have bristled angrily when forged to teach or explain what they know in simplified terms. The reason for this is because it requires a different kind of knowledge and understanding a more emotional and social kind.
What right do I have to say these things? Damn near none.
Am I saying I dislike him? Not at all.
Am I being judgmental? Shit yea!
What is my point? That you can like a person and not like an aspect of their personality or want like hell for that person to reconognize and embrace those things for what they are.
I think many people would stand beside Ghost rather than fight him, had he chosen to share his thoughts in a way that was respectful and inclusive of the rest of the world rather than in a way that has a safe predictable response that he can get geared up to handle even if that response is harsh. It's safe because you create the situation and are prepared for what you have instigated. This to me is a little bit immature. Not that we are not all immature in one way or another, but this way happens to be broadcast over the internet.
I just wish I could shake the rediculous desire to have him read this, see it as caring and constructively criticizing and respect me for it. I wish that was not so important to me, even as I sling my arrows, but that is my bit of anxiety, my immaturity.
So hear these words or don't and know that they are said because the focus is a person that matters to me, the only valid reason to bother slinging arrows in my opinion.
That's all I got people.
Oh and Ally, Congratulations about the house!
As always...
Wry's ne're to be read by you know who blog about recent events.
What I agree with: The honest statement that was being made and has been made in the past about many different topics.
What I disagree with: the obvious inflamatory crassness with which it was said.
Come on people I am half convinced that Ghosts crassness is more self-defensive then "Trying to get a reaction" although I do believe that getting a reaction is part of the defense mechanism.
Point one: I don't know him that well so I am no one to judge or have insight into Ghost as a person. Tough shit, I'm gonna do it anyway.
I believe this whole "Stir the pot crap" is a facade generated by Ghost to mask the fact that he has a deficiency understanding generic human emotionality.
THE FACTS:
1. He is nearly brilliantly knowlegeable
2. He is fun and charming in person
3. He has an innocence about him that lets his vulnerablilities shine through
4. He is very logically apt and able
5. I am in no way ass-kissing, this is my proof.
Why? How? What? Huh?
Why would someone so enjoyable in person be so different in his communication regarding sensative subjects?
Why does he shy away from point by point debates over inflamatory things he has said?
Why does he veiw explaination of the obscure as "sad"
Why does he treat his literary knowledge like a secret club for the elite?
Why do I think? The deep sense of inability to safely go to those places himself or feel confident in breaking down and sharing those wonders in a comprehensively understanding way.
Some of the most able people I have known have bristled angrily when forged to teach or explain what they know in simplified terms. The reason for this is because it requires a different kind of knowledge and understanding a more emotional and social kind.
What right do I have to say these things? Damn near none.
Am I saying I dislike him? Not at all.
Am I being judgmental? Shit yea!
What is my point? That you can like a person and not like an aspect of their personality or want like hell for that person to reconognize and embrace those things for what they are.
I think many people would stand beside Ghost rather than fight him, had he chosen to share his thoughts in a way that was respectful and inclusive of the rest of the world rather than in a way that has a safe predictable response that he can get geared up to handle even if that response is harsh. It's safe because you create the situation and are prepared for what you have instigated. This to me is a little bit immature. Not that we are not all immature in one way or another, but this way happens to be broadcast over the internet.
I just wish I could shake the rediculous desire to have him read this, see it as caring and constructively criticizing and respect me for it. I wish that was not so important to me, even as I sling my arrows, but that is my bit of anxiety, my immaturity.
So hear these words or don't and know that they are said because the focus is a person that matters to me, the only valid reason to bother slinging arrows in my opinion.
That's all I got people.
Oh and Ally, Congratulations about the house!
As always...
Wednesday, February 06, 2002
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)