This is a great idea...oh wait...no it's not....it's the opposite of great....what's that word...oh yeah. TERRIBLE. Yeah, that's it.
Seriously, though, you really need to establish yourself firmly as the sane, sensible party here. It's unfortunate, but you really do have to go out of your way to insure that you are never percieved as irrational or unreasonable.
that fact that you start by saying he's always been a little nuts makes me suspect any confrontation will blow up.
OK...let me be a little clearer here. I never advocated that the writer challenge the manager's sanity. In fact, personal attacks like this will most certainly only make the situation immeasurably worse.
When I advocated confrontation, I advocated that the writer challenge the manager to substantiate the claims of deceit and conspiracy, or admit that they are groundless. Personally, I believe that the first confrontation should be done in private, and then, if the behavior continues, confront him in front of the clients.
Every time the manager levels these false accusations, he is doing significant damage to the writer's professional reputation. This cannot be allowed to continue.
...while he initially was understanding, he has since starting making accusations of conspiracy, deceit, and has otherwise attempted to make me look bad in front of employees and long-time clients.
There is no excuse for this sort of behavior. Period. Next time he tries to do it, confront him. Remember, at this point, he needs you a lot more than you need him.
I don't like to burn bridges, but I'm pretty sure he's already burned it to the ground, even threatening to withhold my final paycheck if I don't find a replacement before I leave.
You know, strictly speaking, it is his responsibility to find a replacement for your position, not yours. You should remind him of this in no uncertain terms.
Is it worth sticking out the few weeks I already told him I worked or should I just cut my losses and leave early?"
Just remember that giving a company notice before you leave is not a requirement...it is a courtesy you are extending as part of a positive professional relationship. Frankly, I'd ask him for a letter of recommendation up front, and if he refuses, or threatens to give you a less than optimal review, you simply do not owe him the courtesy of notice.
In short, don't devalue yourself, and don't let him devalue you, either.
Tell me that there are people of reasonable IQ who would read that sentence and not know what I was saying.
Spelling and grammar rules exist so that people don't have to guess the meaning of a particular sentence. We have standards for a reason.
Personally, I rather an article has factuality over some anal compliance with grammar.
Personally, I wonder why you feel the two must be mutually exclusive.
You personally may prefer grammatically correct lies over truths that contain a couple of spelling mistaeks [sic].
My my, that's a mighty fine straw man you're building over there...just don't try to hang my name on him. Just for the record, you were the one who introduced the (non)issue of factual accuracy into this conversation. Nowhere have I ever said that grammatical correctness is preferable to factual accuracy, and for you to attempt to insinuate that I did is disingenuous.
.. why are typografikal issues a major concern?
OK...now you're just being childish.
I don't get it.
Yes...you're making that painfully clear.
Aren't there other things in the world for someone like you to be concerned about?
Yes, but unlike you, I apparently have this preternatural ability to be concerned about multiple issues at once.
Let me ask you this, what is it that you do?
I'm a network administrator...not that my current employment is pertinent to this discussion...
I mean, give some credibility as to why people should follow your advice.
Because it's not *my* advice...it's the elementary rules of spelling, punctuation, and grammar. It's not like I'm somehow privy to the mysterious dark secrets of the English language...these rules are available to anyone who cares to pick up a textbook. Any highschool English teacher who read that article would have found the same errors I did.
Who exactly are you "Trip Master Monkey"?
Actually, if you would bother to read my previous posts, you would see that it's 'TripMaster Monkey', but perhaps I'm being *too* picky now... ^_^
And why should we listen to you..
Starting a sentence with a conjunction, question without a question mark, and two periods. I think you just answered your own question.
Call me picky, but if you're doing a professional publication, there are some standards you ought to uphold.
But O'Connor adds that a series of mechanical breaks will activate should there be a sudden loss of pressure, to prevent the capsule falling.
Well. this certainly doesn't sound promising. I would think that in the event of a sudden loss of pressure, the elevator would 'break' quite satisfactorily on its own, without the need for additional mechanical help.
The elevator costs between $20,000 and £22,000.
That's actually quite a large price range, once you figure out the exchange rate.
Clearly someone over at NewScientist.com is asleep at the switch. The sad fact is that this is nothing new....even sadder is the fact that this sort of thing is now acceptable, even in professional publications.
Are you actually postulating that meat is less calorically dense than salad? (Of course not....that would be insane.)
As for meat being harder to digest, if this is true, why is a herbivore gut so much longer and more complex than a carnivore one?
...digesting a piece of meat is quite more demanding than digesting a salad (heck, you can test this yourself!).
Sure it is....for humans. Humans evolved (yes, they did) from primarily herbivorous forbears. Meat in our diet is actually a very recent development, and it's not something the human body is adapted to digest well. Saying salad is universally easier to digest by pointing to one species (us) is a fallacious argument.
In fact, the only remotely correct point in your post would be the bit about the hunting for food as opposed to picking it off the ground, but eating is only one thing an organism does....there's also mating, migration, socialization, play, etc.... activities engaged in equally by predators and prey. And before you go into just how much energy a lion expends while hunting, just remember how much energy the antelopes are expending while escaping the hunters.
For example, I really took it as a compliment when Valve simply threw me into the fray when I began the game.
Just exactly how did Valve 'throw you into the fray'??? You walked around for about 20 minutes (longer if you stopped to view the scenery), during which you were a.) UNARMED, and b.) IN-FUCKING-VULNERABLE. How exactly is this 'throwing you into the fray'???
Wow...someone has issues....and his name rhymes with synonomous.
Quick news flash for you, Braveheart. Technology is not inherently evil. If you don't like the direction this is going, change it. You were the one railing about 'regaining control of your country', and now you're talking about leaving the country? How about some consistency?
By the way, the government is going to need people like us...anytime something like this happens, people like us become more powerful.
Way to cut and paste my original response into something completely new, jackass. If you're going to quote me, have some fucking integrity. You are worse than the ones you pretend to despise.
Actually, this is a great idea. Have a contest in which participants vie for the honor of having the most interesting display seen from space. We could have categories like:
- largest display - lighted displays - crop circles - most original display - (etc.)
No, I'm not interested in trying to figure out how I can benefit by the feds bending me over.
That's too bad. I am interested. I'm intensely interested in this mandate of technology...because the government is going to need people like us (the technologically-inclined) to figure out how to implement it. People like us will troubleshoot it. People like us will find a way to subvert it. People like us will have to find a way to protect it from said subversion. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
I'm interested because anytime something like this happens, people like us become more powerful.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a great idea...oh wait...no it's not....it's the opposite of great....what's that word...oh yeah. TERRIBLE. Yeah, that's it.
Seriously, though, you really need to establish yourself firmly as the sane, sensible party here. It's unfortunate, but you really do have to go out of your way to insure that you are never percieved as irrational or unreasonable.
There's no "stricly speaking" about it. You have no responsibility on this point.
Yes...I know...I was actually being a bit facetious in my original post...thanks for the clarification.
Actually, I find it does (of course, my sister is an attorney).
Just getting a sternly worded letter on letterhead from an attorney's office is usually sufficient to induce people to straighten up and fly right.
that fact that you start by saying he's always been a little nuts makes me suspect any confrontation will blow up.
OK...let me be a little clearer here. I never advocated that the writer challenge the manager's sanity. In fact, personal attacks like this will most certainly only make the situation immeasurably worse.
When I advocated confrontation, I advocated that the writer challenge the manager to substantiate the claims of deceit and conspiracy, or admit that they are groundless. Personally, I believe that the first confrontation should be done in private, and then, if the behavior continues, confront him in front of the clients.
Every time the manager levels these false accusations, he is doing significant damage to the writer's professional reputation. This cannot be allowed to continue.
Um...no. Respectfully, I must disagree.
It is not the writer's responsibility to find a replacement. That resposibility lies squarely with the manager.
If the manager still doesn't like it, tough. He's contractually obligated to pay that final paycheck.
My boss has always been a bit nuts...
Been there...I sympathize.
There is no excuse for this sort of behavior. Period. Next time he tries to do it, confront him. Remember, at this point, he needs you a lot more than you need him.
I don't like to burn bridges, but I'm pretty sure he's already burned it to the ground, even threatening to withhold my final paycheck if I don't find a replacement before I leave.
You know, strictly speaking, it is his responsibility to find a replacement for your position, not yours. You should remind him of this in no uncertain terms.
Is it worth sticking out the few weeks I already told him I worked or should I just cut my losses and leave early?"
Just remember that giving a company notice before you leave is not a requirement...it is a courtesy you are extending as part of a positive professional relationship. Frankly, I'd ask him for a letter of recommendation up front, and if he refuses, or threatens to give you a less than optimal review, you simply do not owe him the courtesy of notice.
In short, don't devalue yourself, and don't let him devalue you, either.
Does it?
Well, yes...we've established that.
Tell me that there are people of reasonable IQ who would read that sentence and not know what I was saying.
Spelling and grammar rules exist so that people don't have to guess the meaning of a particular sentence. We have standards for a reason.
Personally, I rather an article has factuality over some anal compliance with grammar.
Personally, I wonder why you feel the two must be mutually exclusive.
You personally may prefer grammatically correct lies over truths that contain a couple of spelling mistaeks [sic].
My my, that's a mighty fine straw man you're building over there...just don't try to hang my name on him.
Just for the record, you were the one who introduced the (non)issue of factual accuracy into this conversation. Nowhere have I ever said that grammatical correctness is preferable to factual accuracy, and for you to attempt to insinuate that I did is disingenuous.
OK...now you're just being childish.
I don't get it.
Yes...you're making that painfully clear.
Aren't there other things in the world for someone like you to be concerned about?
Yes, but unlike you, I apparently have this preternatural ability to be concerned about multiple issues at once.
Let me ask you this, what is it that you do?
I'm a network administrator...not that my current employment is pertinent to this discussion...
I mean, give some credibility as to why people should follow your advice.
Because it's not *my* advice...it's the elementary rules of spelling, punctuation, and grammar. It's not like I'm somehow privy to the mysterious dark secrets of the English language...these rules are available to anyone who cares to pick up a textbook. Any highschool English teacher who read that article would have found the same errors I did.
Who exactly are you "Trip Master Monkey"?
Actually, if you would bother to read my previous posts, you would see that it's 'TripMaster Monkey', but perhaps I'm being *too* picky now... ^_^
And why should we listen to you..
Starting a sentence with a conjunction, question without a question mark, and two periods. I think you just answered your own question.
"one or typographical errors"? *sigh*
Your post proves my point more eloquently than I ever could. Thank you.
Not as much as I love my bold italic words.
set humor=1
set humor=0
Does NewScientist.com have editors?
Call me picky, but if you're doing a professional publication, there are some standards you ought to uphold.
But O'Connor adds that a series of mechanical breaks will activate should there be a sudden loss of pressure, to prevent the capsule falling.
Well. this certainly doesn't sound promising. I would think that in the event of a sudden loss of pressure, the elevator would 'break' quite satisfactorily on its own, without the need for additional mechanical help.
The elevator costs between $20,000 and £22,000.
That's actually quite a large price range, once you figure out the exchange rate.
Clearly someone over at NewScientist.com is asleep at the switch. The sad fact is that this is nothing new....even sadder is the fact that this sort of thing is now acceptable, even in professional publications.
Are you actually postulating that meat is less calorically dense than salad? (Of course not....that would be insane.)
As for meat being harder to digest, if this is true, why is a herbivore gut so much longer and more complex than a carnivore one?
Sure it is....for humans. Humans evolved (yes, they did ) from primarily herbivorous forbears. Meat in our diet is actually a very recent development, and it's not something the human body is adapted to digest well. Saying salad is universally easier to digest by pointing to one species (us) is a fallacious argument.
In fact, the only remotely correct point in your post would be the bit about the hunting for food as opposed to picking it off the ground, but eating is only one thing an organism does....there's also mating, migration, socialization, play, etc.
Are you actually postulating that meat is less calorically dense than salad?
Why all this concern with "survival of the race"?
Why all this lack of concern with survival of the race?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: when exactly did lack of a survival instinct become hip?
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
<humour>
After all, we have many automatons here where I work....it seems to work out great!
</humour>
Actually, yes, I will.
Thanks for caring, though.
US forestlands covered 732 million acres in 1920; today they cover 747 million acres.
A gain of 15 million acres over 85 years.
Roughly 176,471 acres gained a year.
Meanwhile, worldwide, we are losing rainforests to the tune of 1.5 acres per second.
That works out to 47,336,400 acres lost a year...more than 268 times the rate forestlands are growing in the U.S.
The Register is such a timesaver for Slashdotters...it has the anti-M$ slant built in.
From TFA:
Just exactly how did Valve 'throw you into the fray'??? You walked around for about 20 minutes (longer if you stopped to view the scenery), during which you were a.) UNARMED, and b.) IN-FUCKING-VULNERABLE. How exactly is this 'throwing you into the fray'???
*sigh*
The fact is, there is more vegetation on the planet now than there was 100 years ago
I call bullshit.
State your references or admit you're pulling 'facts' out of your ass.
Wow...someone has issues....and his name rhymes with synonomous.
Quick news flash for you, Braveheart. Technology is not inherently evil. If you don't like the direction this is going, change it. You were the one railing about 'regaining control of your country', and now you're talking about leaving the country? How about some consistency?
By the way,
the government is going to need people like us...anytime something like this happens, people like us become more powerful.
Way to cut and paste my original response into something completely new, jackass. If you're going to quote me, have some fucking integrity. You are worse than the ones you pretend to despise.
Actually, this is a great idea. Have a contest in which participants vie for the honor of having the most interesting display seen from space.
We could have categories like:
No, I'm not interested in trying to figure out how I can benefit by the feds bending me over.
That's too bad. I am interested. I'm intensely interested in this mandate of technology...because the government is going to need people like us (the technologically-inclined) to figure out how to implement it. People like us will troubleshoot it. People like us will find a way to subvert it. People like us will have to find a way to protect it from said subversion. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
I'm interested because anytime something like this happens, people like us become more powerful.