Communication by dreamtrove

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Best I not get into this, it's a pet peeve and I would rant and rave forever. I cringe at many things I hear and read... However

Quote:
A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers

is valid, BUT: "....if one is willing to take the necessary trouble" is the crux of it; people aren't.

My mom was a French immigrant. Came with her mother and grandmother. Grandmother didn't want to come, refused to learn English. Her mother was very proud to come, got her citizenship and refused to ever speak French again. They made my mother translate between them...stupid people! Nonetheless, mom grew up with a strong sense of the language and instilled the same in me. I love both languages, and language in general, and try not to fall into the bad stuff I see around me every day.

Tho' I use words like "tho'" and sometimes talk or write colloquially. I admit.

But the fact is, language evolves. For better or worse, people will pick up on what they hear around them, and only a tiny fraction will give a shit whether they're using it is correctly or not. I wholeheartedly agree with Orwell in principle; in practice, I see no change forthcoming.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 3:43 AM

His point was not that the language would decay 'though' to 'tho,' but more like this:

At the end of the day we have to consider the not insubstantial evidence that has begun to emerge which would tend to indicate that the initiation of a transfer of linguistics from an attenuated traditional form that we well know and have come to hold in high esteem as a mark of education and indeed civilization itself and would have thought to be entirely immutable, if not sacred, to that which is all together, through the use of the medium in an irresponsible manner, for want of a better term, a degenerative populist form of shorthand, which is to say that such a substitution of the non-word for the unacceptable phoenetic fragment would perhaps be inevitable while not being entirely desirable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 4:57 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

At the end of the day we have to consider the not insubstantial evidence that has begun to emerge which would tend to indicate that the initiation of a transfer of linguistics from an attenuated traditional form that we well know and have come to hold in high esteem as a mark of education and indeed civilization itself and would have thought to be entirely immutable, if not sacred, to that which is all together, through the use of the medium in an irresponsible manner, for want of a better term, a degenerative populist form of shorthand, which is to say that such a substitution of the non-word for the unacceptable phoenetic fragment would perhaps be inevitable while not being entirely desirable.

That's just bloody poor communicating, innit?

First, isn't "not insubstantial" a kind of double negative? Why not just say, "substantial?"

Why hedge with "tend to indicate?" If you're making a statement, make a statement, "indicates."

Is it: "degenerative populist" or "degenerative, populist?"

I think he's most worried about a melding of classes.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 6:10 AM

Meh, frankly, I ain't worried about it - outside of the lawyers and politicians who use language to obfuscate, most folk who use it are TRYIN to communicate, and will adapt as needful.

And believe you me, if I mean to communicate a point to someone, I *will* communicate it, even if it does eventually involve a cricket bat.

There's more than one way to get a point across, don't ya know.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 6:54 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I understood the concept and what he was talking about, DT, I was merely making my own little caveat because I know there are times I write "lazy" deliberately. Ironically, I also know I often write in much the same verbose manner as the paragraph you cited...my love of "words" makes me just have fun using them...

Piz, there are so many "doubles" in that paragraph it's pathetic: “not insubstantial”, as you mentioned, also ‘begun to emerge’, ‘tend to indicate', and so many other things wrong it makes me shudder to read it...even tho' I do it myself!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 7:49 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

It *does* seem a rather haughty, arrogant way of viewing communication and language. Yes, George Will, William Buckley, and William Safire had expansive vocabularies and an eloquence and elegance in their use of the English language. But none of that helps them communicate with the average dockworker.

I like learning new words, but I have my limits. If I've had to run to the thesaurus (even in a virtual form of "running" by looking it up online) or dictionary seven times in one sentence, I lose interest in what you're trying to say, and wish you'd just freaking SAY IT.

And it would seem that our Mr. Orwell never read or even heard of Strunk & White. ;)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 8:38 AM

Um, No one has heard of satire?

My above paragraph was *intended* to be terrible. And, sure, humorous, by extension.

Orwell is making his point pretty well I think. He's directly talking about obfuscation and arrogance in political communication.

No, posting this was not a comment on anyone here. I thought it was an interesting analysis of the way politicians use words and phrases to say nothing, and get agreement to the nothing which they have just said. Obviously all sides are guilty of this.

My lampoon above was an attempt to say "though" is being replaced with "tho" as poorly as it could possibly be said, using Orwellian obfuscation, (as defined in the article in the above link,) which is not to say doublespeak.

I thought that as we spend a lot of time discussing politics, politicians, and in general communicating ideas already in some form of mass communication, that a debate on that communication might be interesting.

I just started a book called "Non Zero" by Robert Wright which is perhaps "beyond dreadful" but does put forth the globalist argument point blank, without the cover of a war on drugs, terrorism or any other bogus "issue" that might cloak the agenda,

Oh, and at the time Strunk and White was published, Orwell had been dead for nearly a decade. (Important to note that Strunk's own book was printed for internal university use, and can now be found only in reprint, which is not very useful, since White leaves Strunk alone, and just acts as an addendum.) Still, Orwell was probably familiar with Strunk, but the bad writing here is intentional, to illustrate the point(s.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 8:46 AM

KWICKO

Quote:

Oh, and at the time Strunk and White was published, Orwell had been dead for nearly a decade. (Important to note that Strunk's own book was printed for internal university use, and can now be found only in reprint, which is not very useful, since White leaves Strunk alone, and just acts as an addendum.) Still, Orwell was probably familiar with Strunk, but the bad writing here is intentional, to illustrate the point(s.)

Once again, the written language fails us. It seems I was unsuccessful in imbuing my post with the requisite proportion of sarcasm, because it wasn't grasped. :)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 9:56 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

DT, honest, I got that the paragraph was an example of truly bad writing and satire as such, I was just commenting on HOW bad some of it was (and giggling along with you). I for one didn't take it as a comment on anyone here, just a general statement about language and how its devolution is exactly what you and Orwell said.

I added myself because I recognize some of the same attributes in me as those in the paragraph--i.e., the overuse of wording, the lack of succinctness.

I didn't think he was talking about communication purely in a political vein tho', I thought the paragraph illustrated "arrogance" and a desire to impress by use of language, although CERTAINLY language's use by politicians is particularly absurd and disgusting!

Mike: Well written

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 10:29 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Um, No one has heard of satire?

I have heard of satire and I rather like it.

But I missed it in your post - jolly well done!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 10:43 AM

Thanks guys

Mike,

Just making sure that you got my second paragraph was a satirical rendition of my first, you do bring up an interesting point that is sstill on topic for the thread, if not on Orwell:

Communicating online, and the difficulty of portraying sarcasm and other forms of non-literal prose.

Suspect the solution lies in a new communicative talent, rather than a special emoticon, etc. Maybe we should experiment a little, as this has been a frequent source of misunderstanding on the forum before.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 10:55 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Communicating online, and the difficulty of portraying sarcasm and other forms of non-literal prose.

Oh, dear, that's a whole world of discussion!!!

As to emoticons, I love them; they can express in one simple "picture" a whole sentence, or more. They certainly have their limitations, and sometimes they're just addenda to something already written. Comparing them to actual words isn't really fair, to me, in some ways. They can be used as an imaginative way to replace words for things like "I'm kidding", etc., and have value in that way, for me, as well.

But the difficulty of communicating without facial expression, body movement, tone of voice, all that...that's a biggie. I don't think it can ever be solved; verbal communication is way too easy to be misinterpreted, much less written! How things are taken in, given (

) the complexity of the human mind, subconscious, etc., is as subjective as how they're said! There's an example; I could have written "here I'm joshin' 'ya, referring back to another topic we've been discussing"--an emoticon works just as well, since you know what I'm saying and the wink makes it clear I'm teasing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 11:26 AM

BYTEMITE

Modern English:

Wings skim over meanings of nothing, airy pretentions of past glories and broken promises. A swan is a song mute except in death, living tragedies so long as there is breath in oxygen. Final performance of dying culture in decline since before it started, the rage of a lone man in rags fallen from riches in a storm. They repeat themselves and speak of nonsense. All they know is in the sound of their voice, all they will ever learn is explained in the silence.

Modern Modern English:

Lol funny. I can haz bad speek? Lol!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 1:28 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

On the money.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 2:37 PM

But that sounds nice and poetic.

As for written sarcasm, the written word doesn't usually come with emoticons. I mean, I know Mark Twain was big on them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 2:43 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Cute. Yes, I see your point. Nonetheless, when it comes to the sort of thing we do here, it's not an artistic form, for me, it's merely "coffee klatching", as it were, and in this medium and with that intent, emoticons work, are fun and sometimes make readers smile.

Sarcasm will get you nowhere.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 2:44 PM

BYTEMITE

Every generation there ever was sneered about the vulgarities of the common tongue. For some, vulgarity is language with no imagery or craft, for others, it's emoticons and lolspeak.

I actually speak ]337 from time to time when the mood strikes me. I've elevated impossible symbol translation to an art form.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 2:57 PM

CHRISISALL

Bah, Orwell was an elitist snob; I communicate like a finely tuned Mustang running at full gallop through the misty waters of the Mediterranean on a snowy day, with miles to go before I sleep.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 3:08 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Chris, I luv it!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 5:59 PM

I find it ironic that the thread has gotten this long without invoking the unquiet spectre of William F. Buckley, Jr.

He was a master of burying someone under "language" with no real point behind it other than trying to make them shut up.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 7:47 PM

Thank you, Frem.

The propaganda minister understood the piece on propaganda ;)

But Mike did mention Buckley

The point, Mike, is not that politicians fail to communicate by error, but by design.

I'd hazard that Obama is also a master of saying nothing, while convincing everyone.

If you didn't, take a look at the piece, it's not long, and very pertinent. I feel as if everyone 'cept Frem and Mike missed the point, which is no offense to anyone: (and Frem, I've noticed that you do occasionally use some of these tricks, weighted words, etc., but then, having Propaganda Minister next to your name...)

I find it more odd that people play off of responses to one another rather than their response to the text.

There are a lot of comments here to the effect that Orwell is referring to the decay of formality. This is simply inaccurate.

Orwell is talking about the misuse of high rhetoric and cliche for obfuscation and self aggrandizement. Far from the statements of an elitist snob, Orwell is decidedly thriving to be lower class, holding his own native class in disdain. (A characteristic he shared with fellow Indian colonial author Rudyard Kipling.)

But I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't think it was highly relevant to present day politics, which are heavily loaded with exactly the type of linguistic tricks he exposes here.

The use of *high* language not *low*, creates a pedestal of self importance from which the writer can create volumes of vaguery and deception, and then carefully paint his lofty empty prose with carefully weighted words to create a feeling, negative or positive, towards the subject, without ever making an argument for or against it.

In such an artistic and meaningless manner, authors of labyrinthine speeches and essays can praise or denigrate any idea or topic without support or substance, and taken to its extremes, can be used to justify anything to a call to arms against an evanescent foe, or one which is entirely illusory.

This piece is about the decay of language into propaganda, due to the lack of the reader and listener to demand clarity from the speaker, or pay him no head. It is not about the debasement of an upper class tongue into a vulgar simplicity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 10:18 PM

Occasionally ?

Hell, I can take six key trigger words, and just fill the blanks between em with vulgarity and attitude, post it - and sure as day follows dawn, sit back and watch Authoritarian types go absolutely *batshit* in response...

What, it never occurred to you that was on purpose ?
Even when I flat out told em right to their faces I was doin it, even HOW, and their built-in blindness wouldn't even let em *acknowledge* the fact that winding em up is that damned easy ?

Language is also programming, almost like a programming language, when you're dealing with lever pulling drones who've sold their soul to a party or faction agenda, and once you know the codex, you too can input commands into the little black box between their ears.

And if you're good at it, you can put in a *virus*, good ole self-replicating opposition to the drivel used to drive out coherent thought, putting them in a position where their trust in that agenda fractures and they themselves begin to question it...

It ain't all about breakin things, once you get inside someone elses head that way, and I got more experience than I ever wanted patching other peoples code that way, but yes, there are two edges to Setsuninto--Katsujinken.

Language can be a weapon.

-Frem
Setsuninto--Katsujinken
http://www.koryu.com/library/eamdur3.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 6:41 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Bah, Orwell was an elitist snob; I communicate like a finely tuned Mustang running at full gallop through the misty waters of the Mediterranean on a snowy day, with miles to go before I sleep.

The laughing Chrisisall

Jeez, you sound like a certain KingE, only poetical...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 6:56 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not."

I used to be accused of using $20 words. They were the words I learned at home from highly literate parents for whom English was a second, or fifth, language. I now try to use simpler, more direct words. I still use convoluted sentence structure (more like German) when a simpler structure would do fine. I DO try to keep my postings short, at least.

The point is that I am aware of the use, poor use, and abuse of language.

But most problems on the receiving end can be solved by asking - what is this person trying to say ? If it can be boiled down to one or two clear logical ideas then the communication has been successful. (Whether you agree with those ideas or not is another issue.) If you can't get a clear idea, then the person is either ignorant, confused or misleading. IMHO

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 7:12 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

But then, the opposite is also true. Reagan's speechwriters used arresting words and images to convey nothing.

If you have a brilliant idea, it best serves your purpose to convey it in equally brilliant language.

OTOH, brilliant language can be used simply to manipulate. Clear language doesn't necessarily reflect (or create) clarity of thought. Clear language is a manipulator. One must look at the thought and purpose behind the lanaguage.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 7:18 AM

Or the concept is inexplicable to someone without certain background...

I run into that on occasion with Perry's folk - just cause I happen to be bright doesn't mean I spent the last ten years with my nose in a neurobiology textbook, so I am constantly having to hand out a verbal thumpin followed by "you need to explain that in a way that makes sense TO ME!"
Of course, that Perry himself is good at that, is a big part of why he is so successful at what he does, he CAN explain it, get it across, to you.

On the other hand, the ex-fremgirl has never, EVER been able to effectively explain supply-chain management, procurement and logistics from a midlevel corporate point of view to me, I just stand there like a dumbstruck ox nodding to indicate I am listening till she gives up in frustration, cause I got utterly NO related frame of reference to fit the concepts she's expressing into - she knows this, but bitchin to me insures there's no second guessing on "helpful advice" since she's only doin it to vent anyhows.

But yes, you CAN fail to communicate if one side or the other doesn't have the necessary background or frame of reference, which is why I tend to oversimplify things which might have that problem in getting across...

And then go and forget other folk don't remember stuff verbatim for years and screw it up anyways, lol.

-Frem
PS. But not near as funny as forgetting other folk can't see in the dark as well, which got me so kicked in the shins last night.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 7:26 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

But then, the opposite is also true. Reagan's speechwriters used arresting words and images to convey nothing.

If you have a brilliant idea, it best serves your purpose to convey it in equally brilliant language.

OTOH, brilliant language can be used simply to manipulate. Clear language doesn't necessarily reflect (or create) clarity of thought. ETA: Language is a tool. Clear language is a better tool than muddy language.

But muddy or not, one must look at the thought and purpose behind the language.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 7:36 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Any specialized field, even mathematics, has its own langauge. The words of that langauge are shorthand for specific things or concepts. And learning them is exactly like learning a foreign language. (I would go so far as to say that 90% of any specialized learning is simply learning the terms.)

But the 'words' of that language do stand for something. An 'alcohol' is a carbon chain with an oxygen/ hydrogen combo attached to one carbon. 'A = B' means two things are the same. The 'quadriceps' muscle is the big one on the front of your thigh.

Each of these terms can be explained in ordinary language. I find I have no difficulty accurately explaining specialized concepts to people I know using ordinary language. It's just a matter of translation.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 9:22 AM

Ironic - translation indeed, cause sometimes it's actually easier to borrow a foreign word which embodies a concept than try to explain it in english.

Schadenfreude, for example, or Makuto (sp?), things that take way more explanation in english, but if you can loanword the concept, that works too.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 9:43 AM

Frem,

Quote:

Language is also programming, almost like a programming language, when you're dealing with lever pulling drones who've sold their soul to a party or faction agenda, and once you know the codex, you too can input commands into the little black box between their ears.

Yes, very much so. Some of these techniques are general obfuscation and elevation, but some can be specifically targeted. When you do, sure, you can manipulate from the other side (use the bible to pull levers with a xtian against pre-existing xtian propaganga, etc.) ... but is it posssible to deprogram?

Quote:
And if you're good at it, you can put in a *virus*, good ole self-replicating opposition to the drivel used to drive out coherent thought, putting them in a position where their trust in that agenda fractures and they themselves begin to question it...

Just curious if I got you right on this one, cite a couple of examples, is this the sort of thing you mean:

"Right to Die" within the left wing politcal scheme
"Intelligent Design" with the right wing

These strike me as computer virus like rhetorical sabotage that can lead nowhere good for their apparent proponents. Or do you mean something else?

Quote:

It ain't all about breakin things, once you get inside someone elses head that way, and I got more experience than I ever wanted patching other peoples code that way, but yes, there are two edges to Setsuninto--Katsujinken.

Okay, you lost me here. I have some reading to do, clearly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 2:05 PM

Dream,

In reference to that, I mean something kinda like what I would do to my "history" teacher - I would refine and trim down to a single question or statement, something that would not only render his entire half-hour lecture a waste, but also cause folk to question both what they'd just been told as well as his intentions of telling it to them.

Stuff like "wasn't marching one states militia into another unconstitutional, if not an act of war ?" or... "You DO know the confederacy didn't accept Lincolns authority at that point, which was why they were in conflict to begin with ?" or even... "What kind of a merciful loving 'god' sends bears to murder forty children for calling his prophet a dickhead ?"

That one question that just sticks in their head, and won't go AWAY, echoing round and round and making it harder if not impossible for them to continue to accept the propaganda unquestioningly.

In Firestarter Stephen King describes this phenomenae as a Ricochet, so my own term for it is a "Ricochet Question".

And yes, you can deliberately use it in a damaging way by putting two of someones own contrary tenets back to back and removing the doublespeak that allows them to ignore this.

As for the latter part, putting back together a broken pysche, especially one that's gone hypervigilant and defensive, which is common with primary or secondary PTSD, involves sideslipping the minds natural defenses against exactly that kind of manipulation - conventional psychology uses some of the same tricks, but given that a lot of the broken kids I've dealt with, those conventional psychologists were perpetrators of if not participants in, that abuse, they build specific defenses against those, requiring unconventional approaches - it really is a lot like trying to creep through a minefield (mindfield?) in the dark, and you learn a damn lot about how people work between the ears that way even if it wasn't your original intention.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 3:13 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

DT: Well said (both responses to Frem), and thank you; I'd devolved past the purpose of the thread, too.

I worked for a guy who was in love with the word "paradigm". He used it in every speech/article, and used it in some very strange ways, counting on the fact that most audiences/readers didn't understand it and it made him sound erudite. It was the first time I ran across such a thing, and sometimes it almost made me giggle when I transcribed.

This guy was totally self-involved. He thought he was so much smarter than everyone around him that it was only RIGHT they do the dirty work. He had his assistant attend the driving classes mandated to him by the courts, just for one example. He had people doing errands for him (which had no relation to their jobs), etc., because he was the "important" one and shouldn't be bothered with minor things.

One time, after working my ass off all weekend with early hours, late hours, etc., cleaning up his English (which he very much used to obfuscate), when we were finished he sat back and said with self-satisfaction how good he was. I responded "Yes, but it's on the backs of those who work for you". He fired me.

The lesson I learned: Never tell the truth to one who uses language to obfuscate and convince others of his intelligence/importance.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 3:29 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I am so, SOOoooooo sorry for what I'm about to do --- has that become your new paradigm ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 3:41 PM