Unions ????

[Kip Powick]

Not much going on tonight, the Leafs blew it big time, so was doing a little reading about how/why Unions work. Found this in one of the articles.

A quote that may, or may, not be appropriate to the situation AC finds itself in.....…you be the judge…

Unionism, seldom if ever, uses such powers as it has to ensure better work; almost always it devotes a large part of that power to safeguard bad work.

H.L.Mencken

[Guest neo]

I don't know who Mr. Mencken is or from where he gets his perspective of unions. But his quote is crap.

"Better work"? What is that? And better for who, I ask again? Does "better work" mean more productivity, at reduced wages? Or does it mean better working conditions and a safer working environment?

And "safeguarding bad work"? Again, what is that? Protecting incompetent employees from the consequences of their bad performance? Or refusing to consider improvements to productivity? Or ensuring that unsafe, demeaning and downright nasty jobs remain unchanged? I mean, what the hell is this individual on about? Unions may have their problems, but you cannot reduce the many improvements and benefits they have achieved down to a lame statement like this.

I certainly have my criticisms of my own and other unions, but the issue of labor relations in unionized companies has its roots on both sides of the table. All parties to that relationship bear the responsibility for it's failures, and share the credit for its successes. Likewise, both parties share the responsibility for evolving that relationship as conditions require.

And a brief word of advice for aspiring Quote Writers. If you expect your quote to see anything other than the rubbish bin at Oxford, create one that doesn't have too many "seldom if evers" and "almost always".

neo

[IFG]

Jeez, neo, hope Kip was in his trench for that fusillade :|. I agree with your reaction to the quote itself, but HLM was nothing if not provocative of discussion and debate, and that was probably Kip's intent. I'm surprised you're not familiar with HLM, tho' - in a few ways you seem quite like him (it's a compliment!)

Here's the first google hit of 60000+: http://www.io.com/~gibbonsb/mencken.html

As far as producing quotes goes, Mencken was indeed prolific, and regardless of stylistic shortcomings, most of them avoided the dustbin at Oxford. Here's another for ya:

"Any man who inflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood"

Cheers, IFG (

[IFG]

Jeez, neo, hope Kip was in his trench for that fusillade :|. I agree with your reaction to the quote itself, but Mencken was nothing if not provocative of discussion and debate, and that was probably Kip's intent. I'm surprised you're not familiar with HLM, tho' - in a few ways you seem quite like him (it's a compliment!)

Here's the first google hit of 60000+: http://www.io.com/~gibbonsb/mencken.html

As far as producing quotes goes, Mencken was indeed prolific, and in spite of any stylistic shortcomings, most of them avoided the dustbin at Oxford. Here's another for ya:

"Any man who inflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood"

Cheers, IFG (

[Guest shibui]

Here's one that just MUST be on the wall at the boardroom of FOX TV:

"No one ever went break underestimating the taste of the American public"

and another favorite:

"Puritanism - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy"

[Guest Panama Jack]

Then again employees don't bring in unions nor do unions "establish themselves" on the property. Invariably, it is management's actions that create the perfect environment to "invite" unions.

Keep a messy house and soon you got insect and rodent problems too.

[Guest neo]

Hi IFG,

Well, it was a fusillade, but nothing I said was directed at Kip. Kip tossed out a quote for comment, and I provided one directed specifically at the quote itself and its author. No? Kipster, did you think I was addressing you or annoyed with you for providing the quote?

After lambasting Mr. Mencken, I thought I'd better at least find out who he was and so I did my own Internet search. Mr. Mencken appears to have been one of the great, modern pontificators. A hyper-conservative in one sense, he was conversly never afraid to speak out against any aspect of institutionalism or irrationality. In that latter aspect we do share a similarity.

Mr. Mencken also made his living by blasting all and sundry with reductive, absolutist pronouncements in his newspaper articles. He was far ahead of his time in one sense: he wrote in 'sound bites'. His writing, and manner of thinking did not reflect a balance of consideration; but rather taking an often valid observation to a controversial (and newspaper-selling) extreme.

There certainly were things he wrote that I can agree with, but by and large the agreement is incidental. I try to find the heart of an issue, and stray not too far from it. That's not easy sometimes because there are often powerful arguments inclining you one way or another, and no shortage of people who are willing to vocalize them. But in the end, is not a successful life about maintaining balance, both within oneself and one's view of the world?

There's not a lot of wit in jumping on your horse and riding it as far in one direction as it will go. On the other hand, being balanced and focused on a human truth _while never_ ignoring tugs of competing arguments... now that takes some doing.

And cheers to you too, IFG.

neo

[Guest neo]

Hi IFG,

Well, it was a fusillade, but nothing I said was directed at Kip. Kip tossed out a quote for comment, and I provided one directed specifically at the quote itself and its author. No? Kipster, did you think I was addressing you or annoyed with you for providing the quote?

After lambasting Mr. Mencken, I thought I'd better at least find out who he was and so I did my own Internet search. Mr. Mencken appears to have been one of the great, modern pontificators. A hyper-conservative in one sense, he was conversly never afraid to speak out against any aspect of institutionalism or irrationality. In that latter aspect we do share a similarity.

Mr. Mencken also made his living by blasting all and sundry with reductive, absolutist pronouncements in his newspaper articles. He was far ahead of his time in one sense: he wrote in 'sound bites'. His writing, and manner of thinking did not reflect a balance of consideration; but rather taking an often valid observation to a controversial (and newspaper-selling) extreme.

There certainly were things he wrote that I can agree with, but by and large the agreement is incidental. I try to find the heart of an issue, and stray not too far from it. That's not easy sometimes because there are often powerful arguments inclining you one way or another, and no shortage of people who are willing to vocalize them. But in the end, is not a successful life about maintaining balance, both within oneself and one's view of the world?

There's not a lot of wit in jumping on your horse and riding it as far in one direction as it will go. On the other hand, being balanced and focused on a human truth _while never_ ignoring tugs of competing arguments... now that takes some doing.

And cheers to you too, IFG.

neo

[Kip Powick]

((((Kipster, did you think I was addressing you or annoyed with you for providing the quote? ))))

That'a a big negative....but ...I did think that perhaps last years crop of grapes weren't as good as you thought they were;)

[IFG]

Agreed you weren't really directing anything at Kip, and he don't need the likes of me lumbering around in his defence anyway. I guess it was more that I almost hit the deck while I read it - and I agreed with ya!

I don't know if Mencken was that much ahead of his time; when he was scribbling they called them epigrams or whatever instead of sound bites, and he followed practitioners like Ambrose Bierce, Oscar Wilde, Mark Twain etc.

As you cover, he was no saint, among other things being just about an out-and-out racist, but a lot of his quotes hold up pretty good in isolation. e.g. re - "...riding it as far in one direction as it will go...[vs]... being balanced and focused on a human truth _while never_ ignoring tugs of competing arguments..." -

It is the dull man who is always sure, and the sure man who is always dull.

-[or]-

Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness

to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt

Cheers once more ((B) , IFG

[Guest neo]

As in, "sour grapes"?! Oh, you cut me to the quick!

neo

[Kip Powick]

Uh, no, not "sour grapes". I just thought you were a bit PO'd with Mencken's quote and were venting... after having a bad bottle of your own "giggle juice".

[Guest neo]

Great comments, IFG. Thanks for the info and _bons mots_.

May I ask you something? You said you almost hit the deck when you read my post. I'm assuming you mean you had a strong emotional reaction to what I wrote, possibly dismay or shock. So, why is that exactly? Please understand I do not, in any way, criticize your response whatever it was. But I am curious as to why we, and I do mean all of we, respond in the way we do to some posts.

For example, if I understand you correctly, you largely agree with my opinion on the author of the quote. You also understand that my comments were directed only at the author and the quote itself, not to the person who posted it. Nevertheless, you had a strong, possibly negative reaction to my post itself. I find that fascinating.

The reason why it's fascinating is that we're all participating in a new form of communication. We're only human, so of course we take this new form for granted, even though humans have had it for only the tiniest fraction of their modern existence. I believe that newness imbues every word that's posted, be it ridiculous or sublime, with a remarkable importance.

Even though we all know how to speak and write, I also believe we're still learning how to communicate in this new way. And an integral part of that is learning how to respond to that communication.

Most of us write posts (at one time or another) with some similarity to how we might speak. Yet spoken communication has a huge non-verbal component: body language, tone of voice, that sort of thing. That's a lot to lose when it's easy to misinterpret even simple sentences.

As a reader's aid to alleviate the loss of that important non-verbal information, people use emoticons, etc to provide the reader with some emotional context for the words themselves. But for some time now, I've been wondering just how necessary or desirable that context is. Partly as an experiment, and partly because I suspect that it's the way to go, I've taken to using far fewer prompts to the reader as to how they should emotionally react to what I've written.

My reasoning is that perhaps as we learn how to communicate in this new way, part of that as readers may be to learn how to 'neutralize' our emotional response, absent a good reason to think and feel otherwise. Shouldn't we, as readers, be prepared to wipe the 'feeling slate' clean prior to reading a post? Wouldn't it be advantageous, for ourselves especially, if our emotional response didn't obscure our understanding of the information provided in the words themselves?

Again, please recognize that not one shred of criticism is implied in any of that to how you felt about my post. We all respond emotionally to things that are written here. This was just Saturday musings for your consideration.

Best wishes,

neo

[Guest neo]

Great comments, IFG. Thanks for the info and _bons mots_.

May I ask you something? You said you almost hit the deck when you read my post. I'm assuming you mean you had a strong emotional reaction to what I wrote, possibly dismay or shock. So, why is that exactly? Please understand I do not, in any way, criticize your response whatever it was. But I am curious as to why we, and I do mean all of we, respond in the way we do to some posts.

For example, if I understand you correctly, you largely agree with my opinion on the author of the quote. You also understand that my comments were directed only at the author and the quote itself, not to the person who posted it. Nevertheless, you had a strong, possibly negative reaction to my post itself. I find that fascinating.

The reason why it's fascinating is that we're all participating in a new form of communication. We're only human, so of course we take this new form for granted, even though humans have had it for only the tiniest fraction of their modern existence. I believe that newness imbues every word that's posted, be it ridiculous or sublime, with a remarkable importance.

Even though we all know how to speak and write, I also believe we're still learning how to communicate in this new way. And an integral part of that is learning how to respond to that communication.

Most of us write posts (at one time or another) with some similarity to how we might speak. Yet spoken communication has a huge non-verbal component: body language, tone of voice, that sort of thing. That's a lot to lose when it's easy to misinterpret even simple sentences.

As a reader's aid to alleviate the loss of that important non-verbal information, people use emoticons, etc to provide the reader with some emotional context for the words themselves. But for some time now, I've been wondering just how necessary or desirable that context is. Partly as an experiment, and partly because I suspect that it's the way to go, I've taken to using far fewer prompts to the reader as to how they should emotionally react to what I've written.

My reasoning is that perhaps as we learn how to communicate in this new way, part of that as readers may be to learn how to 'neutralize' our emotional response, absent a good reason to think and feel otherwise. Shouldn't we, as readers, be prepared to wipe the 'feeling slate' clean prior to reading a post? Wouldn't it be advantageous, for ourselves especially, if our emotional response didn't obscure our understanding of the information provided in the words themselves?

Again, please recognize that not one shred of criticism is implied in any of that to how you felt about my post. We all respond emotionally to things that are written here. This was just Saturday musings for your consideration.

Best wishes,

neo

[Guest neo]

Ah yes, ventilating after imbibing. A risky business in some cultures. I'm told the Japanese, despite their fastidious attention to good manners, will say anything to anyone when drunk. An employee, if he's had a snootful, may harangue the boss mercilessly. In the morning it's all forgotten.

That's just what I'm told, mind you. And the Japanese are nothing if not subtle communicators. There's probably a lot more to it than I'm aware of.

neo

[IFG]

Hi, neo - sorry for the delay replying. It is fascinating, what we see in what others write. In this instance, "shock or dismay" overstates my reaction, which was perhaps more along the same line as Kip's. I share your analogy of writing vs speaking. If you recall that AEF-as-Bar piece on JW's forum, to my eye it was as if Kip, pouring himself a glass, threw out a comment with a whadaya-think-about-that, and you seemed to pound the table a bit when you replied. Raised me eyebrows as it were, little more.

Altho' I generally agreed with what you wrote, one minor bit of your response did intrigue me - that you'd never heard of H. L. Mencken. No big deal, but after a few years of reading your stuff, with the restricted view that provides of somebody, I was surprised. That was meant to be the foundation of my post; the bits about trenches or decks were just hyperbolic riffing off the "raised eyebrow" reaction.

On the emoticon thing, I've wondered too, but obviously taken a different route from you - as you've no doubt noticed. In communicating with people you don't know well, or on public fora like this, experience tells me that when you're jes' kidding, it's often best to make that clear. Also, they can be fun just to play with, and some save typing as well, a great virtue for peckers like myself.
^{(... ?)}
Cheers, IFG