So it is fine with you that bullies move on to someone else why may not be as big as you or as thick skinned as you. They will eventually find someone smaller and weaker than them to pick on. Bullies will find a target no matter what.
And no-where did I say you shouldn't stand up to bullies. (But nice strawman) You can't help others until you can help yourself. And bullies can be contained - if you have enough people willing to stick up to them, it stops being fun or cool.
As for fighting back? Difficult when the bullies outweighs you by 50%. The "bullies don't want a fight" is a generalization and not always true. Unless one can put the bully in the hospital some just keep coming back and with friends this time. I had a friend who knew karate. One on one he was unbeatable. The bullies just waited and ganged up on him from ambush. It became a game to see how may times they could beat the crap out of him in one day. Some bullies are cowards others like the challenge.
Thick skin? It is impossible not to react to punches, kicks, etc. When one has been kicked in the leg one will limp and that is all the gratification some bullies need.
It needs to be socially unacceptable to stand around a laugh while someone gets bullied. That is the only way things are going to change.
One, if they're beating you up, that's not bullying, that's assault. Getting apple juice poured on your head or tripped in the halls is bullying.
Two, I'll repeat the advice my father gave me - you are not required to fight fair if you don't want to be in the fight. I was taught (and will teach my kid) to go for the nuts, go for the eyes, go for the ears. You aren't trying to score points, you're trying to protect yourself. A reputation as a dirty fighter is a good thing in the schoolyard.
Three, it's not a question of not reacting (because as you say, there's involuntary reactions). The question is, do you give them the satisfaction of being upset, or do you walk as best you can, straight face, and if someone asks honestly say what happened? I've spent a day covered in apple juice because an older kid decided I was "in his chair". I've been jumped after class. Been, done, learned the lessons the hard way.
Four, which is related - sure there's a stigma against "tattling". But that doesn't mean you lie if you're asked. Someone says "hey, why are you limping?", you say "because Joe and his buddies jumped me between periods".
My parents got a nastygram from Telus a few years back. Nothing official ever came out of it.
Unofficially, from the movie title they found out that their boarder was using the 'Net to torrent All The Movies (as in, his hard drive was full of stuff he never watched and never intended to watch), and was sucking up all the bandwidth to do it. Said boarder was told to knock it off, and everyone's life improved.
Yes I can see the argument that the school would make: a parent could demand the child's creds therefore the school, by acting in loco parentis, can demand such information. And that may very well hold up in court as a defense against the ACLU.
Actually, I'd say a parent can't necessarily demand it. Think of it - you tell Junior you want his Facebook password. He tells you to stuff it (Because he's a teenager and in his rebellious phase).
How much discipline would we be willing to accept for that noncompliance?
And then they get more friend and blindside your kid and put your kid in the hospital or the morgue. Violence only creates more violence and when it is a kid it can be deadly.
I'd disagree. Bullies go after easy meat - they don't want a "fight", they want to push someone around and enjoy the pain. They want to look and feel big and important.
You can fight it two ways - either be mean enough that they find easier prey, or thick-skinned enough that they get bored. I've lived both, and while the latter might be the "better way", it's a hell of a way to live in the meantime.
I have to disagree a bit here. I had similar issues and I was jumped by five boys after school one day. I fought back out of sheer terror and ended up putting two of them in the hospital.
They nor anyone else in the school ever bothered me again.
The only way to deal with bullies is to hurt them badly enough that they're too afraid to come back.
Agreed (although putting two kids in hospital might be a *bit* extreme, my father taught me "if you don't want to fight, walk away. If they make you fight, then drop them as fast as you can - fighting fair is for boxers", so I ain't gonna complain.
What schools can do to help is to extend that selective amnesia to those moments - any teacher worth a damn knows exactly who the bullies and the bullied are. So when you see the kid stand up for themselves, now is the time to take that extra smoke break. (Or, if you must "break it up" for appearances, do why my old vice-principal did when I was the bullied. I got "hauled off", but the talk was "You know fighting is wrong, I know they started it. Have a good day.")
If memory serves, the ACLU usually only asks for lawyers costs (and the prohibition against doing it again). The school board could easily make the suit go away by just doing the right thing now.
Yeah, with a teacher I know, the parents often refuse to believe that their kid is engaging in any bad behavior whatsoever
Which is fair, but that doesn't justify vigilantism. (And some of us parents will happily discipline our kids if the school bothers to tell us what was done.)
But for every snowflake parent, there's a teacher who decides that bullying is just "childhood fun" but the bullied fighting back is "a serious offense". So, forgive me for choosing to discipline my own kid.
It still kind of boggles my mind that we give teachers and administrators (who are largely untrained in such matters) the power to enforce school discipline outside the purview of their schools. But that's the system we have in the city I live in.
One question - is the enforcement because the parents/students sign the SCC, or does the school believe that Because It Is Written So It Must Be?
Just wondering if fault belongs with the board overstepping it's bounds (i.e. just because you say "I'm going to punish you" doesn't mean you have the right), or with the parents not reading the fine print in all the paperwork the school sends home.
Speaking as a Canadian, I don't know of any Canadian (with the possible exception of Harper) that would want to lay claim to that title.
I was just thinking the same - yes, I suppose I'm a "North American" or more generally an "American", but I can't think of any situation where it would be advantageous to call myself that rather than "Canadian".
They have the purse of the state and the sentiments of the people (poor underpaid and overworked teachers) to back them.
Not to mention all the time in the world.
My younger brother got the bajeesus kicked out of him at school when he was eight (as in, full-body bruises from being kicked in the ribs while he was on the ground). The school's first reaction was to blame him (never mind that the other kids don't have a scratch on them). The teacher supervision was apparently out, but no-where near where the kids were actually playing. A couple days later, after that little detail was sorted out, they punished the instigator with one lunch-hour detention and a half-assed "I'm sorry" essay (that we weren't allowed to see - we were supposed to trust that it was done.)
My parents retained a lawyer, and he told us we could spend ten thousand dollars on fees, and in about ten years we would likely get a very heart-felt apology (that would carefully avoid admitting anything) from the school board. Considering he'd be graduated by then, it didn't seem worth it.
The school board has zero incentive to admit wrongdoing, and every reason to stonewall. So that's what they do.
At my son's school they have a student code of conduct regarding technology which both the children and their parents are supposed to sign.
My daughter was sent home one of those for me to sign - I just didn't sign it. What're they going to do about it?
She's in the public system, so I figure if they have the authority to enforce it, they don't need my signature. If they need my permission and I don't give it, it obviously can't be required for educating my daughter.
He can even use coercion, threats, and lies during the interrogation.
Oh, I see. So for normal citizens, that kind of thing usually isn't allowed, but for cops, it's perfectly okay!
You're a 10-year-old in a school. For all intents, that principal *is* the judge, jury, and executioner. Add a cop standing next to them, and that's everyone society puts up as "trusted authority figures" telling her she has to do something.
Yeah, but this isn't even about that. A school isn't a court. If she'd refused to give them any information, what could they do - jail her for Contempt of Principal?
Actually, worse - on school property your kid is pretty much chattel. They can easily suspend her for refusing. Not much more work to expel, if they can make it sound serious enough.
What freaks me out is that while you can (marginally) make a case for this on school grounds during school hours, schools are getting it in their heads that they can enforce their rules off-campus off-hours. I'm waiting for the inevitable case where some teacher finds out that after the last bell rings, they have exactly the same powers as any other normal citizen.
Why would they want to hire someone with "medical issues" that would drive up their insurance cost?
Better question - why is the employer getting their medical coverage from a place that isn't doing group rates? (i.e. assuming that x% of people will have some sort of issue).
On a practical note, the HR training I was given for interviews flatly said "don't ask, ever - not for small talk, not from curiousity, not AT ALL. Once they're hired then you can make small talk and ask. But not before then.".
Actually, I would not refuse, however, as I was logging in I would tell them that if they did not hire me, I would now be in a position to sue them for discrimination based on them essentially asking for information they are not allowed to request (that of course would be if I had a FB account).
Your post is why companies doing this is setting themselves up for discrimination lawsuits.
Of course, the fun part is proving that they did ask.
They are within their rights to require that you not post company information. To that end they can regulate your social media.
No, they're within their rights to sue/fire you if you get caught posting company information. They do not have the right to require any sort of surveillance towards that end. Once I'm off the clock, what I do is none of their business.
Assuming you can calculate exactly where it will hit. These things usually have quite a large margin of error. When the calculations are only good to within a few ten thousand kilometers, you might as well just evacuate an entire hemisphere.
And that's not going to happen, since no-one can muster the needed resources to suddenly move the entire population of one coast to the other. Also, a large margin of error means that it'll be more politically expedient to assume that you're safe.
Me, I'd be going camping somewhere remote (probably the mountains), with a couple week's supplies and a full tank of gas. If the rock lands on me, I'm screwed regardless of where I am. If it's nearby, I'd rather be in a smaller community with enough resources I can sit out the crazy few days and have a few options on which way to go when the times comes.
Believe me or not, but there are people for whom $400 or dragging two laptops in airport in addition to all other travel gear is not a trivial matter. An $10 Ubuntu USB drive is a decent compromise, and any employer who objects has a serious problem. Most will be happy with people strictly separating work and non-work use.
The problem is that Joe Average Employee is very unlikely to successfully understand the "strict" part.
Also worth keeping in mind that since it's the employer's machine, they're under no obligation to compromise at all. They're giving you a machine to use for work purposes. They are in no way required to accommodate your personal usage. Anything they let you do should be viewed as a perk.
Besides, it may be they have very good reasons for a strict "no play" policy - which might be as simple as "a past employee got caught doing something $TERRIBLY_NAUGHTY and we're locked down as a CYA measure to prevent more lawsuits", or as complicated as "our contract with company XYZ requires it".
All this talk of being employed and having integrity, and the OP hadn't even asked his boss or HR department about what's allowed. Wouldn't it be funny if all the people here recommending lugging around 10 pounds of laptop stuff found out that the company had no problem with them browsing the web and such.
Not nearly as funny as if he goes through the skullduggery of buying a spare internal hard drive, cracking the BIOS, and otherwise ducking the system, only to be told as he gets walked out the door "you know, we had no problems with you checking your email; we just can't trust you after voiding the warranty on your ThinkPad"
Even then, you have to judge whether it's better to be busted for "improper use of company equipment" or "deliberately circumventing company policy".
(Look at it from the other side: you've handed employee a computer with access to your Important Company Files, with the instructions "this is for your work use only". You run into him at the coffee shop, and not only is he looking at naughtyusbports.tumbler.com, he's doing it on the company computer, and the desktop looks totally different as well. Oh, and don't forget that booting to Linux isn't unknown as "how to get files off a computer". What's your first reaction going to be?)
Talk to your IT guys first, see what the enforcement/permission level is. I'd actually recommend the local guys over the management in general - they're more likely to be the enforcers, and it reduces the chance you'll get a knee-jerk reaction of "now that you've asked, I'm required to stomp on your head to CYA". If you can't live by the (enforced) restrictions, then perhaps this isn't the company for you.
If technical answer #1 doesn't work for you, here's technical answer #2 for you : remove the work hard drive, install a new hard drive, install your own OS on that and swap out drives for work / pleasure. Downside is limited to the danger of physically borking the work drive while removing it or storing it while it is out of the machine. Explaining how you managed to mangle the SATA connector on a work laptop is a very difficult discussion.
Also, cracking the case on your work-issued machine is likely to make you few/no friends, either in management *or* IT. The IT folks won't like that you're fscking with the hardware unnecessarily. And management will put you in the same category as the folks who dismantle their desk.
If you need access to XYZ for work, go get it approved. If it's for pleasure, get your own gear (or at least get a nod-and-wink approval from IT before you start tinkering with their equipment).
There's a small but existent chance they hate each other and his old boss will use a poor transition as ammunition against the new boss (It wasn't enough to just poach my employee, oh no, Bob also made sure that my new guy got next to no training.").
That happens in internal moves at corps as well. The traditional counter is "I hired him months ago; if you can't be bothered to handle your HR in a timely manner, that's your problem." (or polite variants thereof).
However, once I walk out that door, I'm out - if they didn't plan for enough time to hand over my work, it's their problem.
+1 Obvious
If you are working for free, you are not only devaluing yourself, you're effectively subsidizing the company (because they're not paying someone to do work you're willing to do for free).
Obviously there are cases where you will (you like your coworker/old boss, you owe them a favor, it's so trivial that it's more work to argue rates than to just do it, you're angling to get back in the company), but keep in mind the likeliness of your old company doing *you* a favor in return.
Slashdot Mirror
So it is fine with you that bullies move on to someone else why may not be as big as you or as thick skinned as you. They will eventually find someone smaller and weaker than them to pick on. Bullies will find a target no matter what.
And no-where did I say you shouldn't stand up to bullies. (But nice strawman) You can't help others until you can help yourself. And bullies can be contained - if you have enough people willing to stick up to them, it stops being fun or cool.
As for fighting back? Difficult when the bullies outweighs you by 50%. The "bullies don't want a fight" is a generalization and not always true. Unless one can put the bully in the hospital some just keep coming back and with friends this time. I had a friend who knew karate. One on one he was unbeatable. The bullies just waited and ganged up on him from ambush. It became a game to see how may times they could beat the crap out of him in one day. Some bullies are cowards others like the challenge.
Thick skin? It is impossible not to react to punches, kicks, etc. When one has been kicked in the leg one will limp and that is all the gratification some bullies need.
It needs to be socially unacceptable to stand around a laugh while someone gets bullied. That is the only way things are going to change.
One, if they're beating you up, that's not bullying, that's assault. Getting apple juice poured on your head or tripped in the halls is bullying.
Two, I'll repeat the advice my father gave me - you are not required to fight fair if you don't want to be in the fight. I was taught (and will teach my kid) to go for the nuts, go for the eyes, go for the ears. You aren't trying to score points, you're trying to protect yourself. A reputation as a dirty fighter is a good thing in the schoolyard.
Three, it's not a question of not reacting (because as you say, there's involuntary reactions). The question is, do you give them the satisfaction of being upset, or do you walk as best you can, straight face, and if someone asks honestly say what happened? I've spent a day covered in apple juice because an older kid decided I was "in his chair". I've been jumped after class. Been, done, learned the lessons the hard way.
Four, which is related - sure there's a stigma against "tattling". But that doesn't mean you lie if you're asked. Someone says "hey, why are you limping?", you say "because Joe and his buddies jumped me between periods".
My parents got a nastygram from Telus a few years back. Nothing official ever came out of it.
Unofficially, from the movie title they found out that their boarder was using the 'Net to torrent All The Movies (as in, his hard drive was full of stuff he never watched and never intended to watch), and was sucking up all the bandwidth to do it. Said boarder was told to knock it off, and everyone's life improved.
Yes I can see the argument that the school would make: a parent could demand the child's creds therefore the school, by acting in loco parentis, can demand such information. And that may very well hold up in court as a defense against the ACLU.
Actually, I'd say a parent can't necessarily demand it. Think of it - you tell Junior you want his Facebook password. He tells you to stuff it (Because he's a teenager and in his rebellious phase).
How much discipline would we be willing to accept for that noncompliance?
And then they get more friend and blindside your kid and put your kid in the hospital or the morgue. Violence only creates more violence and when it is a kid it can be deadly.
I'd disagree. Bullies go after easy meat - they don't want a "fight", they want to push someone around and enjoy the pain. They want to look and feel big and important.
You can fight it two ways - either be mean enough that they find easier prey, or thick-skinned enough that they get bored. I've lived both, and while the latter might be the "better way", it's a hell of a way to live in the meantime.
I have to disagree a bit here. I had similar issues and I was jumped by five boys after school one day. I fought back out of sheer terror and ended up putting two of them in the hospital.
They nor anyone else in the school ever bothered me again.
The only way to deal with bullies is to hurt them badly enough that they're too afraid to come back.
Agreed (although putting two kids in hospital might be a *bit* extreme, my father taught me "if you don't want to fight, walk away. If they make you fight, then drop them as fast as you can - fighting fair is for boxers", so I ain't gonna complain.
What schools can do to help is to extend that selective amnesia to those moments - any teacher worth a damn knows exactly who the bullies and the bullied are. So when you see the kid stand up for themselves, now is the time to take that extra smoke break. (Or, if you must "break it up" for appearances, do why my old vice-principal did when I was the bullied. I got "hauled off", but the talk was "You know fighting is wrong, I know they started it. Have a good day.")
If memory serves, the ACLU usually only asks for lawyers costs (and the prohibition against doing it again). The school board could easily make the suit go away by just doing the right thing now.
Yeah, with a teacher I know, the parents often refuse to believe that their kid is engaging in any bad behavior whatsoever
Which is fair, but that doesn't justify vigilantism. (And some of us parents will happily discipline our kids if the school bothers to tell us what was done.)
But for every snowflake parent, there's a teacher who decides that bullying is just "childhood fun" but the bullied fighting back is "a serious offense". So, forgive me for choosing to discipline my own kid.
It still kind of boggles my mind that we give teachers and administrators (who are largely untrained in such matters) the power to enforce school discipline outside the purview of their schools. But that's the system we have in the city I live in.
One question - is the enforcement because the parents/students sign the SCC, or does the school believe that Because It Is Written So It Must Be?
Just wondering if fault belongs with the board overstepping it's bounds (i.e. just because you say "I'm going to punish you" doesn't mean you have the right), or with the parents not reading the fine print in all the paperwork the school sends home.
Speaking as a Canadian, I don't know of any Canadian (with the possible exception of Harper) that would want to lay claim to that title.
I was just thinking the same - yes, I suppose I'm a "North American" or more generally an "American", but I can't think of any situation where it would be advantageous to call myself that rather than "Canadian".
They have the purse of the state and the sentiments of the people (poor underpaid and overworked teachers) to back them.
Not to mention all the time in the world.
My younger brother got the bajeesus kicked out of him at school when he was eight (as in, full-body bruises from being kicked in the ribs while he was on the ground). The school's first reaction was to blame him (never mind that the other kids don't have a scratch on them). The teacher supervision was apparently out, but no-where near where the kids were actually playing. A couple days later, after that little detail was sorted out, they punished the instigator with one lunch-hour detention and a half-assed "I'm sorry" essay (that we weren't allowed to see - we were supposed to trust that it was done.)
My parents retained a lawyer, and he told us we could spend ten thousand dollars on fees, and in about ten years we would likely get a very heart-felt apology (that would carefully avoid admitting anything) from the school board. Considering he'd be graduated by then, it didn't seem worth it.
The school board has zero incentive to admit wrongdoing, and every reason to stonewall. So that's what they do.
At my son's school they have a student code of conduct regarding technology which both the children and their parents are supposed to sign.
My daughter was sent home one of those for me to sign - I just didn't sign it. What're they going to do about it?
She's in the public system, so I figure if they have the authority to enforce it, they don't need my signature. If they need my permission and I don't give it, it obviously can't be required for educating my daughter.
He can even use coercion, threats, and lies during the interrogation.
Oh, I see. So for normal citizens, that kind of thing usually isn't allowed, but for cops, it's perfectly okay!
You're a 10-year-old in a school. For all intents, that principal *is* the judge, jury, and executioner. Add a cop standing next to them, and that's everyone society puts up as "trusted authority figures" telling her she has to do something.
Yeah, but this isn't even about that. A school isn't a court. If she'd refused to give them any information, what could they do - jail her for Contempt of Principal?
Actually, worse - on school property your kid is pretty much chattel. They can easily suspend her for refusing. Not much more work to expel, if they can make it sound serious enough.
What freaks me out is that while you can (marginally) make a case for this on school grounds during school hours, schools are getting it in their heads that they can enforce their rules off-campus off-hours. I'm waiting for the inevitable case where some teacher finds out that after the last bell rings, they have exactly the same powers as any other normal citizen.
Why would they want to hire someone with "medical issues" that would drive up their insurance cost?
Better question - why is the employer getting their medical coverage from a place that isn't doing group rates? (i.e. assuming that x% of people will have some sort of issue).
+1 Citation
On a practical note, the HR training I was given for interviews flatly said "don't ask, ever - not for small talk, not from curiousity, not AT ALL. Once they're hired then you can make small talk and ask. But not before then.".
Actually, I would not refuse, however, as I was logging in I would tell them that if they did not hire me, I would now be in a position to sue them for discrimination based on them essentially asking for information they are not allowed to request (that of course would be if I had a FB account). Your post is why companies doing this is setting themselves up for discrimination lawsuits.
Of course, the fun part is proving that they did ask.
They are within their rights to require that you not post company information. To that end they can regulate your social media.
No, they're within their rights to sue/fire you if you get caught posting company information. They do not have the right to require any sort of surveillance towards that end. Once I'm off the clock, what I do is none of their business.
Assuming you can calculate exactly where it will hit. These things usually have quite a large margin of error. When the calculations are only good to within a few ten thousand kilometers, you might as well just evacuate an entire hemisphere.
And that's not going to happen, since no-one can muster the needed resources to suddenly move the entire population of one coast to the other. Also, a large margin of error means that it'll be more politically expedient to assume that you're safe.
Me, I'd be going camping somewhere remote (probably the mountains), with a couple week's supplies and a full tank of gas. If the rock lands on me, I'm screwed regardless of where I am. If it's nearby, I'd rather be in a smaller community with enough resources I can sit out the crazy few days and have a few options on which way to go when the times comes.
Believe me or not, but there are people for whom $400 or dragging two laptops in airport in addition to all other travel gear is not a trivial matter. An $10 Ubuntu USB drive is a decent compromise, and any employer who objects has a serious problem. Most will be happy with people strictly separating work and non-work use.
The problem is that Joe Average Employee is very unlikely to successfully understand the "strict" part.
Also worth keeping in mind that since it's the employer's machine, they're under no obligation to compromise at all. They're giving you a machine to use for work purposes. They are in no way required to accommodate your personal usage. Anything they let you do should be viewed as a perk.
Besides, it may be they have very good reasons for a strict "no play" policy - which might be as simple as "a past employee got caught doing something $TERRIBLY_NAUGHTY and we're locked down as a CYA measure to prevent more lawsuits", or as complicated as "our contract with company XYZ requires it".
All this talk of being employed and having integrity, and the OP hadn't even asked his boss or HR department about what's allowed. Wouldn't it be funny if all the people here recommending lugging around 10 pounds of laptop stuff found out that the company had no problem with them browsing the web and such.
Not nearly as funny as if he goes through the skullduggery of buying a spare internal hard drive, cracking the BIOS, and otherwise ducking the system, only to be told as he gets walked out the door "you know, we had no problems with you checking your email; we just can't trust you after voiding the warranty on your ThinkPad"
Even then, you have to judge whether it's better to be busted for "improper use of company equipment" or "deliberately circumventing company policy".
(Look at it from the other side: you've handed employee a computer with access to your Important Company Files, with the instructions "this is for your work use only". You run into him at the coffee shop, and not only is he looking at naughtyusbports.tumbler.com, he's doing it on the company computer, and the desktop looks totally different as well. Oh, and don't forget that booting to Linux isn't unknown as "how to get files off a computer". What's your first reaction going to be?)
Talk to your IT guys first, see what the enforcement/permission level is. I'd actually recommend the local guys over the management in general - they're more likely to be the enforcers, and it reduces the chance you'll get a knee-jerk reaction of "now that you've asked, I'm required to stomp on your head to CYA". If you can't live by the (enforced) restrictions, then perhaps this isn't the company for you.
If technical answer #1 doesn't work for you, here's technical answer #2 for you : remove the work hard drive, install a new hard drive, install your own OS on that and swap out drives for work / pleasure. Downside is limited to the danger of physically borking the work drive while removing it or storing it while it is out of the machine. Explaining how you managed to mangle the SATA connector on a work laptop is a very difficult discussion.
Also, cracking the case on your work-issued machine is likely to make you few/no friends, either in management *or* IT. The IT folks won't like that you're fscking with the hardware unnecessarily. And management will put you in the same category as the folks who dismantle their desk.
If you need access to XYZ for work, go get it approved. If it's for pleasure, get your own gear (or at least get a nod-and-wink approval from IT before you start tinkering with their equipment).
There's a small but existent chance they hate each other and his old boss will use a poor transition as ammunition against the new boss (It wasn't enough to just poach my employee, oh no, Bob also made sure that my new guy got next to no training.").
That happens in internal moves at corps as well. The traditional counter is "I hired him months ago; if you can't be bothered to handle your HR in a timely manner, that's your problem." (or polite variants thereof).
However, once I walk out that door, I'm out - if they didn't plan for enough time to hand over my work, it's their problem.
+1 Obvious
If you are working for free, you are not only devaluing yourself, you're effectively subsidizing the company (because they're not paying someone to do work you're willing to do for free).
Obviously there are cases where you will (you like your coworker/old boss, you owe them a favor, it's so trivial that it's more work to argue rates than to just do it, you're angling to get back in the company), but keep in mind the likeliness of your old company doing *you* a favor in return.
At the barest minimum, a bit of comment telling you what the hell each bit of code is supposed to be doing would be nice.
Yes, I am looking at a five-year-old macro that looks like Cthulhu wrote it, with absolutely nothing hinting at what it does - how did you know?