Which John Kerry is right?

Those statements were issues 6 months apart and the nature of the warzone and reconstruction efforts has changed somewhat in those six months. A fair examination of the differences should take that into account.

Personally, I think he is wrong in BOTH positions based on the facts. Each is wrong. I believe that this is so because I conclude that he has no core beliefs upon which to base his opinions. He is not pro-anything; he is anti-Bush. His conflicting opinions are his attempts to articulate an anti-Bush message in light of changing circumstances and the prevailing perceptions of those changing circumstances.

His position in June was based upon his attempts to exploit public perception that the insurgency was not under control and that it was building not waning, as statistics show to be false. He was simply finding an anti-Bush position that fit with the flawed perceptions presented by the media at that time. Remember, this was the time of the dramatic countup to 2,000 deaths in Iraq.

He is at this time trying to get ahead of projected public opinion that fewer troops will be necessary after the election in Iraq. If Bush does indeed draw down the number of troops post election, Kerry will attempt to rewrite history by claiming "victory", his previous positions conveniently ignored by the media.

This time he is wrong because those troops may very well be needed to watch the Iranian border as the world community begins to come to the conclusion that Iran's nuclear pursuits must be dealt with now, rather than later. He's once again basing his position on the etherial.

I feel sorry for the guy, really. He has long relied on the flexibility that opposition has to offer that he cannot demonstrate any kind of core belief system that people can rely on and will vote for. At least anything resembling a majority vote anyway....

He will not be judged kindly by history. I suspect he will be barely remembered at all, let alone judged. He is an opportunist, not a man of vision, but a man of words. Only men of vision and action are remembered by history.

Bush will one day take his place in the pantheon of American heroes along side of Reagan, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Washington.

Kerry will be a footnote and maybe a Trivial Pursuit question.....

People who are intelligent do, from time to time, change their minds! Now I know this might be a shock to you, but the situation in Iraq is different now then it was a year ago. It is perfectly acceptable to change your views based on a change in situation-in fact, it is unacceptable NOT to be willing to change your views even in the face of a changed situation.

It is left as an exercise to the reader to figure out who it is that always wants to "stay the course". That's not always the right thing to do.

Not having heard those words myself, I cannot reflect on the meaning or intent by Kerry.

Based on past commments that were ridiculously taken out of context before, I'd have to see other sides, transcripts.

"John Kerry flip flopped regrding his view on the Iraqi invasion."
No he didn't, not at all. He said he was FOR the use of force to enforce inspections, if all others measures were exhausted, again though, the USE OF FORCE... not a full scale invasion. When Bush decided to invade on fa;\lse pretenses, Kerry was opposed, which in turn had people calling him a flip-flopper.

So I guess, pretty much ANYTHING the ciased press tells us is pure horse sh*t and muct be taken with a grain of salt.

I am not 'for' Kerry any more that I am against him, but the obvious bias spun against him was simply incredulous.

.
You said, "Please try harder to refute this." If you can manage to post something of substance, perhaps I will. Otherwise, you're just being stupid.

You should get mental help regarding your phobia of "management-types". If not, you'll continue to wallow in mediocrity.

.
It's very interesting that you posted such a message, even though you've never replied to one of my messages before, nor have I replied to yours, at least not that I recall. However, I've exchanged hundreds, probably thousands of messages with Oz Media, and he knows exactly what I mean by my message.

He and I have a long and deep history conversing back and forth, while you and I have none. But you felt compelled to interject such a silly and meaningless message nonetheless.

Go away, little boy. You're way out of your league.

There are good managers, and there are crappy ones, just as there are good front-line employees and there are crappy ones. The best managers are a great asset to those who work with them, and the worst are a hindrance-pretty much like anyone you work with.

(And no, I am not and have never been a manager, I just prefer to observe things accurately.)

While I disagree strongly with maxwell edison on most of what I've seen him say (especially that King George will someday be judged an "American Hero" in the vein of a LINCOLN?), the flaming and personal attacks are really unnecessary.

maxwell, on the other side of the coin, applies to you too. If you disagree with Oz's post, just post a refutation. If it's really that bad, you should have a very easy time of it.

This may be news to you, but there are people out there, like me, that are doing the job they do because they love what they do. Those people are almost invariably the best ones to work with--the ones who have the best skills, the most positive attitude, and the greatest integrity. The bigger paycheck that is your only shallow measure of success doesn't make up for the backstabbing and ass-kissing your way up the corporate ladder required. And just how much bigger a paycheck do I need? I have a nice house and an acre-and-a-half to walk the dog on, two nice cars, a woman who loves me, and a job that makes a difference in people's lives. No raise could buy more than what I've already got. I've got something that you'll never have as long as you think a bigger paycheck makes you a better person: true happiness. That's why I've turned down repeated offers for management positions. Yes, that's right: I have been offered managerial positions and turned them down because I love the work I do.

Well, Duddy, if you thought the part about being in the majors had anything to do with anything except the intellectual caliber of maxwell, you're even dumber than I could give you credit for. And, to use your callow AOL-caliber language, omg yr2 funny lol lol!

You get to be manager when you've either licked enough boots or so horribly screwed up your job that your manager wants to shift you somewhere else, not because you can handle diverse groups of people. That's a compliment managerial types like to pay themselves: "I don't know anything about doing the job, but boy am I good with people."

I enjoy my job and I make people's lives better by doing it. At the end of the day, I can sit back and be happy knowing that I've made a difference. Can you? I doubt it, but I also doubt that paper-thin people like you care. As long as you keep getting those fat paychecks, who cares whether you wasted oxygen all day?

White House, Interview of the President by TVP, Poland (May 29, 2003), President Bush was quoted saying in this Q&A session:

[i]?Q But, still, those countries who didn't support the Iraqi Freedom operation use the same argument, weapons of mass destruction haven't been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war?

THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them. ?[/i]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html

Then in a July 2004 speech from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, President Bush said:

[i]"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq. We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take." [/i]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040712-5.html

So which is it? Did they find them? Did they not? Did they go in to get the non-existent WMDs? Or did they go in to just remove Saddam?

Bush has been no more accurate.

In recent times, I've found most managers not to be people who "...handle diverse groups of people and have sufficient skills to comprehend these people."

In fact, I find most managers in recent times to be quite distant from their departmental operation and only stick to answering email, attending meetings, making sure they fall within their budget...and smiling like a grease-haired used car salesman.

BTW...when I worked at Florida's 2nd largest power utility, there was only 1 person who was pushed into leaving (she was coerced into early retirement via departmental restructuring) in the 2-plus years I was there. That was the systems support manager.

Trust me...in corporate America, the manager is as disposable as the support jock...if not moreso.

It's harder to find someone who can configure or fix a computer (especially servers and mainframes), than it is to find someone who knows political correctness, basic math (managing a budget), business models and fire people when he/she is told to do so by the executives.

I've had 2 more-than-competent managers (out of 6 total) who understood in a broad sense their department's function as a technical unit in my 12 years out of college who really understand their people.

The rest were "yes" people...smiling jacks who'd backstab you for brownie points with their boss...and the guy I call "The Anti-Christ" who was a former project manager for Microsoft and had about as much people skills as a pissed-off Taliban in a Jewish temple.

Hence...there might be good managers in the world, but I think they are the exception rather than the standard.

love it, jd...been to a major electronics store, have ya? :^O

Go in sometime to their computer department and talk to em about WPA-PSK and WEP.

Most of em don't know what it is.

You really expect to find knowledgeable sales staff in those kind of places. You must also believe in the fat guy in the red suit. Most of these people are nothing but warm bodies filling a space.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

There are some...like, there was a kid named Brian in the Best Buy in St. Pete, FL. He actually knew what "rastor" was and how graphics adapters worked and the difference between models of various ATI cards.

Knowledgable sales staff are like quality managers...they're not the standard in their occupation...they're the exception to that standard.

I am talking about Corporate Sales Reps. The vendor that will sell you a product that will do everything your asking, and then goes back to the tech and tells them to make it work while he goes and spends his fat check he got from the sales commission.

I REFUSE to talke to a sales rep that doesn't bring THE tech that will actually be doing the job and then steps back and lets me talk with the tech.

These sales reps are the worst of the worst. Bottom feeders that know NOTHING about tech accept for a few buzz words that they think make them sound informed. Take them out when you shoot all the lawyers! :D

You thought that was an attack? Please re-read it.

I simply stated that you are justifying someones actions based soley on your opinion that someone else is worse.

I don't believe in that, and think everyone should have to stand up on their own for what they say and do.

He made one statement on one day, and a different statement on another. You can go OZ's typical route EVERYTIME this come up about Kerry that he is either taken out of context or just missunderstood, you can stand behind what he is saying and state why, or you can say he is wrong and state why.

Like I said, this has nothing to do with Bush or what he as said or done. To do that is making EXCUSES.
[b]
No excuses. What is YOUR opinion of Kerry and what he said after reading Kerrys quotes?

how me, quoting word-for-word, what Bush said verbatim...makes me the stupid one?

The guy said "weapon" over and over...not just Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I don't know how I can be the stupid one. I took his statements to mean exactly what the words say.

Common sense says...the man stated "...we found them." in description of the products to make the weapons and the weapons themselves.

They were his own words...not mine.

Time for you get a reality check.

Merry Christmas

"...backstabbing and ass-kissing your way up the corporate ladder required."
This is your vision of what it takes to enter management? Give your head a shake! If you want to take me to task on that one I will prove you wrong over and over again, from personal experience.

I don't think certifications and degrees count though, don't get me wrong. It takes a LOT more than some a$$ kissing to work you rway up the corporate ladder, I love to pass those guys on my way up, they are the easiest to prove incapable.

The people such as yourself that have an issue with 'suits' are also no competition. YOu seem to be confusing competition with sucking up, when an employee is faced with peers such as yourself, it's a piece of cake to become their managers, drive and ability outshine corporate bitterness anyday.

In the same sense, I suppose you would say anyone that own their own company or succeeds in their own business would then also be considered an incapable dummy, some of us manage our own careers without the need for the corporate ladder.

Your post is just weak, no substance, no proof, no validity, no nothing, just a bunch of bitter resentment all linked into sentences.

SUCCESS is the progressive realization of a worthwhile dream, if that dream to you is simply doing what you do, then you are successful. But to suggest someone who aspires for more is incapable or sucking their way up the corporate ladder is just pathetic resentment.

WHO are you to deem your view of success more superior than someone else's?

You are just wrong, made a ridiculous comment and figured it would find support, Max and I do disagree a lot of the time, if not most, but that's just a sad potshot where you won't find any backers here.

Everyone that isn't making the money that the sales reps earn anyway. I've seen that from both sides of the fence, as well as management.

It's typical, everyone thinks they run the company, it doesn't matter what position you hold, yours will always be the most important that the company simply couldn't live without. Whether in the warehouse, sales, administration, IT etc.

Fact of the matter is, anyone is disposable, anyone in ANY position can be a bottom feeder and everyone in the company has been hired to fill a certain void.

To have a pi$$ing contest of who is most important in a company is simply retarded, grow up.

NO TEXT

I was a developer for many years. I am now in management. My feeble little management mind may not be up to it's old tasks, however, I do understand this very clearly. 30% increase in pay.

.
....that you have such people rushing to your rescue?

I suppose they think you can't handle yourself. That's a laugh!

It's amazing how people jump-in like that, blast away, and all without knowing the first thing about the history of the posters. You'd think this was my first reply to you instead of the thousandth. (I'll bet it has been that many!)

.
....can walk all over people like Nighthawk. It's people like him that makes being successful so easy. He just doesn't get it, does he?

(How in the heck did we side-track to this from John Kerry?)

The boys new cat has decided it is a toy. So far he has shattered two ornaments because he bats them around and they slam into a wall and "poof"!

He has also decided that the garland looks much better across the room than on the tree, as well as the tree skirt.

I have had to re-decorate the tree five times already, in the 6 days it has been up. (wasn't decorated the first day, so the branches had a chance to drop).

I am off to read your 20 minute post to see what Bush did wrong now! ;)

you know that most Sales reps in tech are useless and know nothing about what they are selling?

It is very different to have someone go from tech INTO sales. You know the difference between a phone cable and an ethernet cable!

For the most part, I agree, however, we do have a rep that knows what he's talking about, and when he doesn't he has no problem referring our questions to someone who can answer them. I don't believe he has a technical background, he's just learned a lot along the way.

Seems people don't like it when we differ in our opinions, man do they have a lot to learn! LOL

Sure we argue and bicker all the time, but them again, we've had healthy and unhealthy arguments and bickering for what...4 or 5 years now?

Oh well, some people's kids. I can see why you fear the radical US left, talk about softies!

"The worst posters has "SALES" in their profile. EVERYONE knows that the sales rep is the lowest life form!"

THis is not what you said in your last post. The original comment, above, was directed at a much broader target than people who are in technical sales.

To be clear, I was not in IT before sales. I don't SELL IT either though. I am a sales rep., period. This has seen me in sales, management, training, marketing, advertising etc. It's always sales skills that see me through though. Just like how I am always bashing people for complaining about not finding work, it takes a good salesman to seel yourself, and I think we've all agreed on that before, certs are squat unless you can market your skills too.

I will agree, th elevel of knowledge most sales CLERKS have these days is ridiculous, 90% of a saleman's success derives from product knowledge and that's just not found at Future Shop or Best Buy these days, these aren't really sales reps though they are just store clerks.

WHen it comes to software vendors I also blame the hiring managers. IT minded individuals, that create software and build a business around it, RARELY have any idea how ot hire a salesman to begin with, so it's not so much th eunqualified sales rep as it is the unqualified tech that hired him.

There are GOOD salespeople EVERYWHERE, you will never have the benefit of finding one though, they are all employed and will find YOU when they need you.

For the most part, good sales reps aren't hired or 'recruited' they are always working and choose who THEY want to work for instead. Got crappy sales staff? Look inward.

In the case of the retail morons, these kids don't usually sell in th esame department twice in a row. They are rotated to wherever they re needed and simply have no interest in product knowledge, it's just a stepping stone.

To wrap up, I mustn't forget one of the worst salespeople of all, the tech/propeller head who thinks he can sell too. I have seen many and work with a few now that think they can sell 'it's easy!', actually it's pretty funny.

Sure...

Considering I hit 10,000 posts several months ago, at least, and the majority of them are either you and I or Dawg and I (that thread was funny!) having a go at it, I would say you probably chalked up more than 1000 posts with me.

I better stop now, I am starting to get all steamy. :)

I've dropped right off the peer meter! I hadn't even noticed, I don't even rank a number at all anymore.

Maybe people think I'm a newbie that is getting picked on or something, there's one for a good giggle! I guess people don't know the old Oz when I had 8-10 hours a day logged on TR giving everyone a hard time.

Ahhhh, sweet innocence...does it suit me or what? ]:)

.
My whole point can be summed up in this way

I believe I can state President Bush's position on this issue as follows:

Radical Islam has been waging war against the west, in general, and the USA, in particular, for the past forty years. We will no longer stand for it; we're fighting back. We will continue to fight terrorism until it is defeated. Unconditional surrender or total defeat is the only acceptable outcome. We will go wherever it takes us; we will endure whatever hardships are necessary; we will spend any amount of money; we will dedicate the entire might of our military; and we will prevail. Failure is not an option. This is a war that will span administrations. And the conclusion will be seen with an administration yet to be determined, at some time in the future. This is a monumental effort, and it will truly transform the dynamics of the entire world.

Of course, those are my words, not the President's. But if he read this, I believe he would say, "right on".

Contrast that to Senator Kerry's position.

Senator Kerry might say ......

Damn, I don't know what Senator Kerry would say, because he's been so inconsistent.

Would YOU like to try? Would ANYONE like to try?

I don't think anyone could state Senator Kerry's position like I stated President Bush's.

LONG TERM goals, not instant gratification, is what's called for in this case. The former is what President Bush is seeking, and the latter is what plagues Senator Kerry and his merry band of supporters. And you and I both know that when one seeks instant gratification at the expense of long term goals, failure is bound to be the result.

And that, Oz, is my point.

So go ahead, put Senator Kerry "in context", and articulate his TRUE position. Good friggin' luck.

.
....butt in, not only where they weren't wanted, but where they weren't needed.

That's why I stopped after one (okay, I did a double) post. I thought you might rip them a new one.

And this one if for Mae:

Oz, get you friggin' head out of you arse and see this for what it really is!

Well after doing a little reading it is clear that the two statements have little or no relation to each other at all, and again a simple comment from Keery has been taken verbatim to APPEAR as a contradiction.

In the first instance, Kerry is saying that the insurgency is fuelled by the number of troops fighting in Iraq, and that there are too many tropps fighting the insurgence. This I don't think I wholly agree with on its own.

In the second statement, Kerry is clearly referring to border security, there is little control of the people moving in and out of Iraq and therefore he feels that such patrols be stepped up. Two completely diffrerent issues, that when taken out of context seem to contradict each other.

They are two individual comments based on a completely different issue that are being compared as a contradiction. Too typical, and just as I assumed earlier, the argument that this is a contradiction by Kerry must be closely scutinized. It's black and white when you look at it, but easily compared when you simply conclude based on the similarities.

.
....I've ever heard.

.
"W.W.II strategy was changed constantly."

Of course it did. But the desired goal -- unconditional surrender -- never changed.

My initial question was merely wondering exactly what Senator Kerry's goal really is ..... or was ..... or will be. He's constantly "changing strategy", as you suggested, but not to achieve any particular goal. Or would you care to guess what that is?

(That was a rebuttal.)

You are absolutely wrong about Sen. Kerry, or his supporters, lacking vision, and while of course I cannot speak for the Senator (or anyone but myself), I would put it as follows.

I believe that what makes America the great nation that it is, is our commitment to a free society. I do not believe in usurping those freedoms, for the moment we do so, we have given in to terror-just as the terrorists would have it.

I believe that terrorism must be fought intelligently. Terrorists are not armies and navies, and military might cannot always oppose them. The terrorists are flexible, adaptable, and clever, and we must adapt the same flexibility, adaptability, and cleverness when defending ourselves against them.

I believe that terrorism is an international issue, and will be solved best by cooperating with our allies, not by ignoring and alienating them.

There's your vision, Maxwell, there's your mission statement. Just because you disagree with it does not mean it does not exist.

While it all sounded nice and political, you never really said anything, and never answered what KERRY'S position is either.

You said what NOT to do, but not what TO do.

Saying [i]"cooperating with our allies"[/i], in what way? What clear action can be cooperated with that we are not doing now that would counter terrorists?
[i]
I believe that terrorism must be fought intelligently. Terrorists are not armies and navies, and military might cannot always oppose them. The terrorists are flexible, adaptable, and clever, and we must adapt the same flexibility, adaptability, and cleverness when defending ourselves against them."[/i]

Please give an example. In what way are we being UNintellegent in the fight against them now, and how should this change, and to what?

I could not argue your points, as I can't see what they are to know if they are good ideas or not. Care to expand your view? Thanks.

I can't believe the Dawg didn't byte? :O

Here I was making popcorn and getting a front row seat!

.
Therefore what?

Contrast that with President Bush, who might say.

We're in Iraq.....

..... to eliminate one more leader who supported, sponsored, and provided a safe-haven for terrorists. Yes, there are others. But now there's one less.

..... to take the battle to the terrorist.

..... to establish a democratic free society in the middle east to remove one of the breeding grounds for terrorists.

..... because the United Nations has been unwilling or unable, for the past several decades, to deal with terrorism.

..... because the United Nations was actually violating terms of its own resolutions, and was an accomplice in the oil for food scandal.

..... because much of the "international community" has been either complacent or, in some way, an accomplice.

I could go on.

Agree or disagree, those are some clear goals, a clear vision, and a proactive approach.

Sorry, your fluff is a bird that just won't fly. You said nothing of substance. Throughout the last election, John Kerry kept saying that he "had a plan". What's the friggin plan?

Of course it sounds political, just as yours from Bush sounded political. You asked for it that way, because you wanted it as, well, the people we're discussing might say it-and we're discussing politicians here.

However, if more detail is in order, let's go point-by-point here.

-Saying "cooperating with our allies", in what way? What clear action can be cooperated with that we are not doing now that would counter terrorists?-

Not going to war unilaterally might be a nice start. Having had weapons inspectors do their job first (as they requested) would've been great too, as the inspectors would've -found- no evidence of WMD. But there's an order things are done in, and "shoot first, ask questions later", no matter how satisfying it might feel after we've just been attacked, isn't it.

-Please give an example. In what way are we being UNintellegent in the fight against them now, and how should this change, and to what?-

Most of our troop strength is now tied up in Iraq, allowing North Korea and Iran (real terrorist states, who either currently have WMD's or are within arm's reach of them) to take brazen action with no fear of retaliation. Our alienation of our allies also means that they are less inclined to help us with it. Intelligently, is working with those nations allied with us, not against them.

It is also in recognizing that RARELY will there be a case such as Afghanistan, where terrorism called for the invasion of an entire nation. Terrorism is more similar to organized crime then an opposing nation, and as with any international crime syndicate, is better brought to justice by cooperating with our allies and gaining better intelligence on our enemies. If we gain conclusive evidence that terrorists are operating in a given area in a certain nation, that they have or plan to attack the US, and the host nation refuses to arrest or extradite them, we'd likely be possible in performing a Special Ops raid or missile strike. NOT a full-scale invasion. Not unless we can show that the host government is actively and knowingly aiding an attack against the US.

Now, Maxwell, to yours.

-Radical Islam has been waging war against the west, in general, and the USA, in particular, for the past forty years. We will no longer stand for it; we're fighting back. We will continue to fight terrorism until it is defeated. Unconditional surrender or total defeat is the only acceptable outcome. We will go wherever it takes us; we will endure whatever hardships are necessary; we will spend any amount of money; we will dedicate the entire might of our military; and we will prevail. Failure is not an option. This is a war that will span administrations. And the conclusion will be seen with an administration yet to be determined, at some time in the future. This is a monumental effort, and it will truly transform the dynamics of the entire world.-

And what do you believe Sen. Kerry's position is? That terrorism SHOULD NOT be eliminated? Somehow, I doubt he would have lasted this long without being thrown out of the Senate.

This position is ABSOLUTELY AGREED! But if it were necessary...and it will be...would you be willing to (anything it takes, remember), deter to and respect our allies?

However, terrorism is not a Confederate Army, it is not a Third Reich, and it is not a Japanese Navy. It is a crime syndicate. Invading other nations to fight a crime syndicate is like trying to swat a mosquito with a submachine gun-you might get it, but you'll be a danger to yourself and those around you, you'll wreck the place where the mosquito is, and people will see you as a dangerous lunatic. Get a flyswatter.

Or an intelligence agency.

Iraq should've showed us that the CIA is dangerously out of touch and subject to political pressure. They should've stuck to their guns when saying that it was unlikely WMD's existed in Iraq. Instead, they changed their views due to political pressure-when they would've been remembered as the ones who were right all along. They're our flyswatter. Let's revamp them, and let them do their job-finding needles in haystacks. The Army's not very good at that, nor should we expect them to be or fault them for that-that's not what they're trained to do. We have our brave Army guys over there, fighting and dying against an enemy they're not prepared for, when we've got CIA operatives trained to deal with exactly this problem, who'd be able to do a better job AND come home alive.

That's fighting terrorism intelligently. Don't scare them off-honeypot them. Agents provocateur are perfectly legal overseas.

Once again, maxwell, the fact that you so disagree with the vision that you're incapable of even seeing it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

But I think Dawg is way above this guy and simply hasn't bothered to stoop to such a level where no possible sense will ever come out of it.

Hey, it's Christmas!

but sometimes when you get a slow pitch like that, you just can't resist smacking the beotch out of the ball park!

oh well.

Maxwell, I could get more productive output by creating a cron job to stream /dev/null to stdout at 8:00 each morning. I'm really disappointed in you. My request was for you to refute my point, not reinforce it.

You say I butted in where I wasn't wanted, but you started this entire discussion! Pick one: either you have a private chat with Oz, or you start a discussion and expect other people to join. You can't have it both ways. Don't be surprised when you post something idiotic to a public forum and someone calls you an idiot.

If you think I was rough on you, try spouting your lunacy on Usenet. I'd suggest at least two pair of asbestos underwear first. We're pretty civil here by comparison.

I notice you _still_ haven't had anything to say about my Bush/Kerry comparison that was post number five. Instead, you follow the Rush Limbaugh Debate Handbook: when someone says anything that makes Republicans look bad, ignore that and begin an ad hominem attack against that person. Eventually they'll be so busy countering ridiculous assertions that the original point will be forgotten and can then be neatly swept under the rug.

You said I could take you to task if I wanted, but here's your chance to do that to me.

In the business world, competition is one of many buzzwords that are used euphemistically. The ass-kissing, backstabbing, and other things that wouldn't be acceptable from an eight-year-old--but are de rigeur in the business world--are whitewashed with the word "competition".

I'm glad you approve of clawing your way up the corporate ladder, rising from the rabble of the productive into the rarefied air of the managers. Those who can, do; those who can't, manage.

You ask me who I am to judge what a measure of success is, as if all measures of success are equally vaild. Well, I'm here to tell you that they're not. A constant striving for more--power, money, ego, etc.--is no more than a shallow attempt to cope with the fact that that individual has no real skills to contribute and/or confuses money with worth. No one remembers Einstein's boss at the patent office. He was justly relegated to the dustbin of history. The cold question you've got to confront at the end of your life: is the world better off because I was on it for a short while? If you're one of the doctors, the scientists, the inventors, the teachers, the ones who changed how we think or do things or worked to cure some disease, then the answer is probably yes. If all you did was strive for a bigger office, a car that guzzles more gas, a tie that exudes more power, then the answer is probably no. The closest shallow individuals like this get to making a real contribution is converting oxygen to carbon dioxide so a tree can have something to breathe.

You also seem to have completely missed my point about those who don't move up because they don't want to be taken away from doing what they love. You are so proud that it's easy to move ahead of them and become their manager. What I say to people like that: good riddance. I don't want them in my lab cluttering it up. There's work to be done, and if they don't have the skills or intellect to do it, they're just in the way. Moving "up" gets them just as far out of my way as moving them to a different company.

You also confused condescension with resentment. I look down upon people who think that just because they got promoted then they must be better, I don't resent them. Again I say, "Good riddance", not "I wish that was me".

That does not mean I look down on all management, however. There are people who are excellent managers, people who want to take the disparate parts of a project and tie them together into a gestalt that is more valuable than the sum of its parts. Unfortunately, these are the exception, not the rule. There are many more of the kind of people who just want a bigger paycheck and a more impressive-sounding title.

I don't know why you thought I posted because I was hoping to get support. If you can't tell by now, I'm an intrinsically-motivated person who couldn't care less about what some anxiety-ridden, striving yuppie airhead thinks about me. (Please note, I'm not calling you this, Oz--you seem like a decent person.) I guess that means I lack "soft skills", another trendy, euphemistic managerial self-deluding attempt to make themselves sound important. Soft skills didn't send men to the moon, invent the Internet, or sequence the human genome.

.
You said, "Maxwell ..... I'm really disappointed in you."

My answer: I don't care. I don't do anything for your benefit or to please you.

You said, "My request was for you to refute my point, not reinforce it."

My answer: Make your "point" again, and I might comment on it. But it seems to me that your point was to criticize "management types", to which my rebuttal was posted.

You said, "You say I butted in where I wasn't wanted...."

My answer: You did "butt in" by defending Oz and/or commenting on something I said to HIM, not to you. And as you can see by Oz's own message, he can handle me just fine without your "butting in".

You said, "....but you started this entire discussion! Pick one: either you have a private chat with Oz, or you start a discussion and expect other people to join. You can't have it both ways."

My answer: Who said I wanted it both ways? If you want to "butt in", and comment on something I say to another person, knock yourself out. But be advised, I'll say whatever I damn well please about it.

You said, "Don't be surprised when you post something idiotic to a public forum and someone calls you an idiot."

My answer: Well, I see you as the idiot. The same sentiment applies, and don't be surprised when you post something idiotic to a public forum and someone calls you an idiot.

You said, "If you think I was rough on you ....."

My answer: You've got to be kidding? Rough on me? Like I said, you're WAY out of your league.

You said, "I notice you _still_ haven't had anything to say about my Bush/Kerry comparison that was post number five."

My answer: Was that the one about routers and packets, and the one in reply to a Road-Dog message? Okay, my reply. I'll let Road Dog speak for himself. And your router-packet analogy was stupid. But if you want to directly ask me something concerning Bush-Kerry, ask away.

You said, "Instead, you follow the Rush Limbaugh Debate Handbook: when someone says anything that makes Republicans look bad, ignore that and begin an ad hominem (sic) attack against that person. Eventually they'll be so busy countering ridiculous assertions that the original point will be forgotten and can then be neatly swept under the rug."

My answer: You're an idiot; you make idiotic assumptions and characterizations; you make idiotic generalizations; and if you want me to answer something you say, try to directly ask me a question. From what I see, the very first comment you made to me was that stupid management comment.

Your FIRST comment to me was: "The dumbest posts are almost always made by individuals with the word management in their titles......."

Try again, dude. Try again. But this time, try to do it without looking like a total imbecile.

.
https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=186401&messageID=1910264

The silence is deafening from you on my response as well. Weren't expecting someone to actually respond to your challenge, were you?

I've been posting messages to people like you for years. Everything I've said, I've probably said a hundred times. If you want to flatter yourself by thinking I've met my match, or I'm not up to the challenge, or any other stupid assertion, knock yourself out. I have more things to do in my life than post messages to the likes of egotistical idiots like you. And if you think that I jump to your prodding, think again. Moreover, I've learned it's not much more than a colossal waste of time conversing with people like you.

But as of now, I had my say, you had your say, and if you are waiting with baited breath for my reply, have fun. Try holding your breath until I reply instead. Maybe when I find a bit more time, we'll pick up where we left off. However, your constant badgering and snide remarks make it less likely.

If you need some time to think up a response, please just say so. It's a perfectly reasonable request. However...as I've seen you say so many times..."I note here that you neglected to respond to a single point I made."

The assertion that you have better things to do then post replies to an egotistical idiot, in a reply to that egotistical idiot, does seem a bit silly. As does your complaint about snide remarks in a post full of snide remarks and really no other content.

I don't consider it a waste of time to respond to you-I'm well aware I won't change your mind, but a lot more people read this then you.

So either feel free to post a rebuttal or concede the point. I won't be holding my breath, but I will check back every so often to look.

the people who are wondering why [b]I[/b] have not slapped you down yet like the fraudulent little phoney that you most definitely are. Believe me I've seen them come and I've seen them go and your type are the ones that go first. But before I tear you a new one I had best give a brief synopsis of where I am and where I came from so you may understand my qualifications to talk as I do. I am not going to "start at the beginning" rather I'll start at a point more or less in mid career. Also try to keep this in mind;[b]it isn't bragging if you've done it and are still doing it!!![/b]

1: Went through my 1st divorce Oct/78 at a point where the economy was down and locally a political event had caused 80% of major companies to move a lot of their operations if not all, out of the area. I was self employed and had been for over ten years but with the majoity of my clientel departing the region, I accepted a job with a hi-tech company in the aerospace field. My original intention was to be there for 2-3 years, long enough for my finances to recover. I ended up staying 10 years. In that time I played corporate hardball and climbed the ladder. I became a department manager 3 months after I started. When my company finally made me and my section of the company redundant, I was earning well into six figures. You look down on money??? Well aside from your opinion being assinine, tell me how do you judge your performance in the eyes of your company??? When they pay you more, you can be damn sure it is because you are performing. If you have to beg and crawl for every increase you may or may not be adequate but one thing for sure you are not considered to be worth any great expenditure beyond scale for your job. Get it through your thick ambitionless skull; money is how you keep score. It is the measure of what your company considers you're worth. If you lack the ambition to drive for it; meaning to be too lazy to grow in your skills and abilities, then what the hell good are you??? To yourself??? To your company??? You will note I haven't said one word about your worth to any manager(s). Another question you might ask yourself; how much money is enough??? I don't care what your answer is; it will never be enough. Ask Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell and others like them how much is enough and [b]they[/b] will not be able to answer you. Gates once said he "had enough for now but I have to worry about inflation." Yeah, right!

2: March 4th, 1988 myself and four friends put in our last day of employment for our company. Our section was closed we were redundant. That afternoon sitting in a bar, we were pondering our futures. I had been a senior manager and the others were all managers of their departments. We had all been paid salaries well above normal but like most people we had lived up to them and perhaps a bit beyond. We were discussing mortgage and car payments and how long it would take us to relocate and would we ever be paid as well. The idea popped into my head, lets start our own company. We each had unique skills and abilities and combined there was a niche to be filled in the aerospace field, if we could hang together and pool our resources. Since I had the most in the bank I became the senior partner.

3:April 1st, 1989, April Fools Day we had done well enough that not only were we making a living but it was more than enough to justify incorporating. I got 52% of the voting shares the rest was evenly divided between the other four. We also had twenty employees. Trust me, with your attitude, you could never have been one of them. BTW 19 of that 20 are still with our company. The 1 who isn't died in 2002 of cancer.

4:Nov 2nd 1992 we took control of a company in Boston that had a symbiotic fit with our operations and more than doubled the size of our company. We had 60+ employees in Montreal but in Boston we were acquiring 225+ new employees.

5: Sept 15th 1997 Completed acquisition of a similar but smaller company situated in Boulder, Colorado. They were similar to us and had been competing with us. One way to beat the competition is to buy it out plus the fact we needed to expand towards the west made it a good fit. We acquired 150+ jobs.

6: Oct 10th, 2005 Broke ground for our newest expansion in Reno Nevada. Hoping to bring it online by July 15th 2006. Expect starting staff to be about 250+.

Partial client list. Hughes; TRW; United Technologies; NASA; Morton-Thiokol; DellaFamina and Assoc.; J. Walter Thompson; National Geographic; Warner; Boeing and others.

Total number of employees in excess of 750.

So those are my qualifications Sparky. What have you got going for you??? A university degree of some sort??? Some trade school certs or certs from some on line "technical school" or maybe something from Phoenix University on line. Who cares??? I sure as hell don't. If you were working for my company the first thing I want to see is ambition, even if your only the janitor. Not only do I want to see ambition but I want to see a desire to learn, because I have to decide who I'm going to send on courses to keep your skills up to date. You work in IT; there's a sell by date on your skills. Unless you are planning to put in for retirement from the help desk, you better start demonstrating some drive and ambition. If you don't we'll stick a fork in you; you're done. Hasta la vista, baby. Been nice knowing you; don't let the knob hit you in the a$$ on the way out.

One thing for certain you will never have to be afraid of failing and becoming a has-been. You've got never-was, written all over you. I can respect failure but I'll never respect anyone who doesn't have the guts to at least try. Regardless of all the condescending, patronizing, pompous bullsh:t you tried to float here; that's what it comes down to in the end: [b]Do you have the balls to compete??? Do you have the balls to be a man??? Do you have the balls to risk everything and perhaps fail??? Well do you??? Do you???[/b]

Well I guess we already know the answer to that, don't we??? By the way don't read too much into my use of the words balls and man; they are used figuratively not literally. A lot of women have all the necessary qualities. BTW my company is small by most standards and I get a chance to go over all the performance reviews. Any time I find individuals lacking in drive and ambition, I won't waste money and time on trying to help them grow, I ear mark them for disposal at the first convenient oportunity. In my company we pay above scale, we have profit sharing and we also provide medical and dental and that not through an HMO. After 3 years you get 3 weeks vacation. After 5yrs you get 4 wks and after 10 you get 5 wks. We haven't worked anything out beyond that because the only people that have been around to qualify for more than that, are the owners. Most jobs are on flex time and the company is also closed between Christmas and New Years. We also pick up some of the costs of education on courses that are of benefit to us. I hate firing people because in a sense it is an admition of failure. It would mean that you had gotten past our screening and that we could not motivate you sufficiently to acquire the necessary drive and ambition to compete. So long Chickenhawk; stay the hell away from any company of mine because if I ever found you or anyone like you, your a$$ would be on the other side of the street, wondering how it got there. In the mean time Merry Christmas.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

First off, you're right-not all people are cut out for management. Not everyone even COULD be in management-if everyone's the boss, who's going to do the work?

There are good bosses, there are bad ones. Maybe you're a good one. But the job of even the good ones is to remove obstacles from their production people-and the biggest sin of the bad ones is to put obstacles in their way.

Money as a scorecard? You can think that if you'd like. Personally, I'd rather see a smile on one of my kids' faces then have any amount of money in the world. Your "scorecard" doesn't matter to me-long as I've got enough for my family to live comfortably, I don't want or need more.

Now...I'm sure your "score", if we're counting bank balances, is higher then mine. If that's what you want, that's great. But it is arrogant and presumptuous of you to think everyone is paid what they're worth-they're paid as little as they can be to be kept. And make no mistake-price fixing may be illegal, but "wage fixing" isn't.

Now, in terms of another "score"? Well, you're at divorces-at least 1...my score there is 0. And I'll always be happy to be at the bottom of that scorecard.

Been having some sensible discussions with Max while you've been away. He's much more reasonable when you are not unloading on him.
LOL
Welcome back anyway. My rating has gone down as well, while I couldn't play 'pinkie in the middle' between you and Max.

the one you agree with !

That was a a generalised 'royal' type you by the way.

Yuletide greetings and a heartfelt desire for everyone's 2006 and to be a lot better than their 2005, which isn't too much to ask for really.

My guess is late twenties to early thirties. Your still on wife #1, you have one kid around 4 and another about 1 1/2. You drive a 3-4 year old Honda or Toyota or Kia or Hyundai or a car in that class. Your wife drives a 4-5 year old mini-van or SUV. If you own your own home, it's probably your first but your considering moving to something with a bit more space and a tad more upscale. I have no idea of what your company does but you work in IT and are enjoying it. The problems are challenging and the work interesting. You are happy with your lot and alls right in your little universe. Right??? How am I doing with my guesses??? Are you manager of your little department yet??? Maybe you're a supervisor??? The one and only thing I know is the difference between us, aside from our ages, is that you are content to drift wherever lifes currents and tides will take you. You are happy with your status quo. Everything is peachy-keen and rosy in your little garden plot All I can say is you are in for one hell of a rude awakening!!!

You have no or minimal ambition as regards yourself and maybe that's all fine and dandy for you and for now but get ready for the kick in the head;[b]it may not be so for your wife and kids. Maybe they are going to want more??? Could that be a possibility??? Isn't it possible you're going to want to make the best of everything available or possible for them. But stop!!! You won't be able to do that.[/b] Why not??? Because you can't afford it. Your kids aren't going to Harvard or Stanford.
Your kids will never darken the halls of MIT or CalTech. Your kids may not even make it into your state university. It may have to be community college for them and they'll have to get jobs to help pay some of the costs. Now why should this be so??? Hmmmmm???? Maybe it's because their father lacked the drive and ambition to succeed and didn't care enough about them to exert himself to try putting himself in a position to provide the best he possibly could for them. Congratulations!!! Fifteen years from now you can be secure in the knowledge that you have never lowered yourself to be bothered competing. You took the high road and stayed above it all. You've seen the smiles on the faces of your wife and children but what you haven't realized or seen, is that for some time those smiles are not as bright as they were and they are just a bit sick and ashamed now. Why sick and ashamed you might ask??? Because, while they'll never tell you to your face, they know you're a failure and that the only reason you are is because you never tried. The fact you never tried says, to them, you didn't care enough. Oh, and your friends and peers are moving ahead and don't kid yourself that your family won't see that and feel they are being left behind. Congratulations Pop!!! You've succeeded in becoming a failure!!! They could accept you being a failure if you had tried and they would loved you for having tried but how will they really feel knowing you never took the chance and exerted yourself. Manager is not a dirty word and money isn't dirty. Think of this, the day is 24 hours long. You spend 8hrs or 1/3rd of it asleep, you spend another 8hrs working and you have the last 8hrs for your wife and kids. Ask yourself why you bother to spend 8hrs/day working??? Isn't it, supposedly, to improve the quality of the other 16hrs??? See, that's what money is good for, for improving the quality of your life, not just adding or piling up possessions. It can pay for extra tutoring if your kids are having problems or are learning disabled. It can pay for pastimes that you can share with your family but wouldn't be able to afford if you didn't have the money. It can pay for specialized treatments that your medical insurance doesn't cover adequately. It can pay to send your kids to better schools and yes if there's any left over it might pay for a sailboat or a vacation cottage that you can share with your family. And if there's anything left after that, the you might just want to spring for a snazzy car for yourself. The next time you hear someone say the best things in life are free, take a close look at him, because he'll be one of two things. He'll be broke and alone with no responsibilities or he'll be richer than Midas and money is not now or ever has been a problem. People ask me why I work and what do I want from it. My answer is and has always been, [b]more[/b]. More to enjoy and experience all the joys, pleasures and opportunities that are available in life. I want it for me and I want it for my kids.

Yup you're right about one thing. I've blown two marriages but it wasn't because of my work. I made some big mistakes in choosing my first wife but I'm still friends with my second. We were working together and too often work problems came home and home problems went to work. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing. My kids are grown up and are successful in their own right. For kids that were ignored and abandoned, as you seem to imply, why am I the preferred parent, especially when I've made them work their butts off and never handed them anything on a silver platter. I don't miss my ex wives and I certainly am not missing my kids. My kids call me two or three times a week and try to spend every holiday with me but then my kids don't consider me a failure. How are your kids going to look at you twenty years from now??? Hmmmm???

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

Nice long, mostly-wrong guesses about me (though a couple were close), and excellent ducking of my points.

Not everyone can or should be a manager. I doubt if I'd make a very good one-I deal with computers very well, people, eh, alright some of the time, but it's not my forte. I work where my strengths lie, you work where yours lie.

Once again-if they made everybody the boss, who gets the job done? Put the guy who is good with supervision in charge, let him run interference for the rest, and then the rest do their jobs. Easy enough, everyone's happy-the tech guys do their job in peace, the boss has a smoothly-running department, the company has a finished project, everybody wins.

I do realize that you are trying to do the best you can for your family-and me too. If my daughters grew up thinking that money and prestige are the most important thing in the world, then at that point, you bet ya, I would consider myself a failure. If, on the other hand, they learn that it is important to be a contributing member of society, not just a leech driving the biggest car and damn the consequences, or an "I've got mine and let the rest starve in the streets" attitude common among conservatives and the wealthy.

I don't want a flashy car, actually. Mine's older then you predicted, by quite a few years and quite a few miles. Why don't I care? It's been cared for well, it runs great, gets excellent gas mileage, and got paid off. We got a lot more use out of a slightly larger station wagon that my wife uses to haul the kids (and no, still not an SUV, what do those get, 9 miles to the gallon? Or is it 9 gallons to the mile?). It's big enough to comfortably haul the kids and some groceries etc., and my old Corolla still works great to get me to work and back. Why do I need something else? To consume for the sake of consumption? No thank you.

Now, since you did seem to be expressing some pretty serious concerns, I had my wife read over your post. She laughed (and yep, it's that same laugh, the one that lights up her face, same smile I fell in love with), and told me no amount of money would be worth me spending more time away from her and the kids, no flashy car or even college education can replace Dad.

I don't live above my means, in fact, slightly below them. That allows me to put money away-seemingly a lost art when everyone's got to have the newest, the greatest, the shiniest. When it comes time for my daughters to go to college? There'll be something there for them. Yes, they might have to find work while in college. A lot of people do. I don't know of one of them that it's killed, so far. If all three of them go? Well, that's easy enough-at that point it's just my wife and I, we'll sell the house and rent a smaller place. Easy enough, less trouble anyway. We'll have a good bit of equity in it by then, and there's your college money.

But for right now? No amount of money could pay me enough to miss out on the "snowflakes" my daughter made for me, currently pinned to the wall above me, or watching her make her other "art", or seeing their brilliant minds in development-and teaching them how to use those minds to leave the world a little better place then they found it.

Who made me manager??? I did. In fact I not only made myself manager I made the whole damn company. One reason you'll never be a manager is you don't or can't read properly or else you would have picked up on that. I mention money as the way to measure your value or worth to your company and you give me some some pseudo touchy-feely bullsh1t philosophy about smiles and stuff on the face of your wife and kids. See how many smiles are floating around when your wife has breast cancer and/or you've got a kid with leukemia. I quite specifically said it wasn't about fancy houses and cars. I said very specifically it was providing the very best available to my family in regards to education and medical care beyond the run of the mill norm. Keep telling yourself how much you care about your family, I'm sure you'll feel real good if some emergency pops up and you can not afford to provide the extras that might ensure a cure. You should forget about keeping score at all because you aren't even in the game and never will be. You missed the whole point. It isn't the money, it's the security that money provides for your family. You're only kidding and lying to yourself when you say you care about them, otherwise you'd want the very best for them and you quite obviously don't. If something ever goes wrong I guess you'll throw yourself on the public services and hope that's going to be sufficient. You see I don't and won't rely on public services because I know for a fact that in most case they are barely adequate. I opted to be self reliant and took care of my family. I went out and got the very best I could afford. Guess what??? That turned out to be the very best available.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

And the point is this.

If my wife or children develop a curable disease, we will take any means necessary to get it cured. I believe you missed the part about savings-that's what they're there for, is an emergency.

On the other hand, what if they're hit by a runaway semi on the road tomorrow, killed instantly? No amount of money can undo death. But I will most certainly be glad that I took my opportunity to spend time with them when I had it!

Of course, I certainly hope that all of them outlive me by many years. But even that will matter little if I'm around so very little that my wife leaves (and no mistake about it, in our current court system, dads don't get custody unless the mother is somehow horribly unfit). In that case, I'd miss the most important part of my life-being there to see my children grow up. Starting a company takes time. I do not begrudge you your success, and I think the thought of that may be the reason for your extreme hostility. But not everyone has your priorities.

How much money would I take, to see my children only on weekends and holidays-maybe even less often? You could never offer me enough.

on the short attention span boobs that would vote for him than the snake-oil salesman himself, doesn't it?

in a yorkshire mining village, me mam was the ninth of eleven children. Us and our children and their children sort of require a football stadium to be hired for parties. I've two children and two grandchildren of my own and I'm much less fecund than my relatives.

Hate and fear and weapons in all politicians lockers. Must be otherwise you wouldn't be worried about nasty unpatriotic pinkos like me encouraging your kids to be homosexuals, increasing your taxes and forcing you to hug trees on a daily basis instead of going to war for GWB and TB.

Tee Hee

pink fits you! :p

Sorry, I burn trees, not hug them! Nothing beats a nice fire! Better go give a few extra trees a hug today before they end up in my firepit! I will make a point to say goodbye for you though! :D