You realize that Bill Clinton fired FBI director Sessions a month after an investigation was opened on him.
You're leaving out some very important context, and you got the time frame wrong. Sessions was accused of improprieties by the first Bush administration, just prior to Clinton's inauguration. The Justice Department was investigating travel and expense abuses. He was fired that July based on recommendations from the Office of Professional Responsibility and the AG's office. It seems almost quaint now, that something as meager as inappropriate travel expenses by the FBI director could trigger investigations and firing.
The only reason for the impeachment talk is that he violated the apparent law against being president while Republican.
Neither president Johnson nor former president Clinton were Republican. They were the only two presidents to have been impeached.
Pretty sure "liberal" in the US means the same thing as "conservative," specifically it translates to "anybody I disagree with."
One thing I was surprised to see in the comments section on a very balanced local paper (which in my part of the world means fairly right of center, but not run by conspiracy theorists), somebody said he agreed with somebody else, not because she had a good point, but because "nobody can question your conservative credentials." I guess the poster in question was known to the other person to be a "conservative," so that was all the validation he needed of her post. What she said made good sense, and was quite beneficial to the conversation. Why somebody would think it needed vouching based on being by a "conservative" is beyond me.
I'm pretty left of center socially and fiscally, but if somebody I disagree with has a good point, I say that it's a good point. I might even change my mind. Hell, just look at my post history here. What I find with my right-wing whackadoodle buddies (of which I have many), the better the evidence against their position, the more they dig in their heels.
And Obama only issued this order 3 months before leaving office.... This de-compartmentalization was done specifically with the purpose of undermining the incoming administration of an opposing political party. It was never about any principles other than hurting the incoming administration.
Three months before leaving office, Obama was pretty sure it wasn't going to be an opposing political party running hte incoming administration. Your logic doesn't add up. Could it be, just maybe, that the former president, like W. before him, thought that when different intelligence agencies share info, they can come up with better assessments?
Trump at least SAYS he's going to try.... One can hope he does because this garbage has got to stop.
He also said nobody was going to lose medical coverage with his amazing tremendous health care repeal. Not exactly going to take him at his word on anything. Also, they all SAY that they want to bring the country together and reform the system, blah blah blah. And then they find a way to screw the "other team". These guys are trying something completely different.
You need to check your facts on the anti-vaxx movement. Plenty of nutjobs on both sides there. Just look at the recent outbreaks in deep-red East Texas. They think it's the damn gubberment tellin me to give my kids shots they don't need to give the libral big pharma all my money.
One thing important to note is that *you* don't always know what did or didn't influence your purchasing decisions. There's a reason some marketing curricula include psychology or sociology courses. The value Google adds is that they can evaluate the response en masse of an ad campaign. So even if your specific purchase was not specifically motivated by an ad you saw, if a advertiser sees a non-negligible uptick in the purchase of their product following an ad campaign, that is important. Also, Google can help tell them what kinds of people bought what products after seeing what kinds of ads. The advertiser doesn't care whether Graham Murray bought a frapalopacino eight hours after a flash ad. But if 20% more people who saw that ad bought one compared to people who didn't, then they have an idea of how successful the campaign was.
The idea of silence as humor is not a specific expression, and as such is not eligible for copyright protection. The precise "Everybody Loves Raymond" clip with said silence, is copyright-able, however. I do not know if there have been any lawsuits over 4'33". There have been copyright lawsuits over a single bass line, a photo of a red double-decker bus, a dictionary of made up Harry Potter words, King Kong, and sneaker design. (Side note, there was even a guy who was sued for infringing McDonald's trademark for using his own last name for his restaurant.)
You did not make up the word "copyright", therefore you cannot claim copyright thereupon. Further, you can face a fine of up to $2,500 for fraudulent copyright claims. I know you were joking, but be careful about what you slap a circle c on in real life. It's amazing that more copyfraud doesn't get punished, honestly.
You can copyright anything that you have created that has been recorded in some fashion, including a "string of words." If I wrote down a novel and creative joke and published it, and somebody performed the joke in public, they infringed my copyright. I'm rather curious how this will pan out, because Stephen Colbert's writers have been "stealing" material from @midnight, and that would make for a great lawsuit!
There have been fatalities in Texas with horses and riders being struck by large vehicles. In some jurisdictions horses aren't allowed on any roads, in others they have the right of way everywhere but highways. Seems to me they should be allowed anywhere a bicycle is.
WTF? Why is it illegal to let them walk to school unescorted? What state is that? What's the logic? Safety? Our school buses don't even have seat belts. And kindergartners walk to school all the time. This is one thing the right-wing nut jobs have correct. Pussification is real.
Remember, the GP said they live in SF area. Many people there pay rent for their parking space. Sometimes over $200/mo, according to Google. Gas prices are higher there, and you spend a lot of time just stuck in traffic burning fuel and cash. $75/wk in gas isn't unheard of, even for a small car, if your commute sucks. We're up to $500/mo already. I have no idea what insurance premiums are like in SF, but I'll bet they're expensive like everything else. Google says California averages $162/mo!! Holy crap. You're up to $662 before fees, maintenance and depreciation. Depreciation is a big one. You must have already depreciated your car if you have a TCO below $300/mo. Assume about $600/yr in maintenance and fees, and you're up to $1012/mo. I really didn't make any outrageous assumptions either.
For me, I have no depreciation, my commute is short, my car is cheap to maintain (normally), and there's no such thing as parking rent. My TCO is about $200/mo. People like you and me tend to forget that other parts of the world don't have it as easy.
The reason why it's not suitable to talk about in a work environment is because it makes most people feel uncomfortable.
I don't agree with your premise. I think most people are OK with some level of discussion about sex. It's something almost everybody has done. It's something that everybody feels a certain level of insecurity about. And it's something that can foster a sense of rapport when discussed among peers.
If you make your discomfort with the topic clear, I will avoid it with you. But if you happen to walk by when me and a buddy are talking about this crazy thing he did in high school, don't expect us to censor ourselves immediately.
There are pastors who have entire sermon series about sex, including lines about how wives must be submissive to their husbands. I'm sure their secretaries are uncomfortable with these sermons, but they had to hear the rough drafts of each one. Should the pastors be sued for sexual harassment?
I am just going to address the sexual harassment issue, since I know nothing of drugs in the workplace. That is not something that is commonplace where I live. I would not call it reprehensible if it's culturally acceptable in the region. Pressuring others to partake on the other hand... well that's a different story.
We talk about sex at work; we even have running gags about penis size and coital infrequency. It's not everybody, but some people have this level of candor with each other. We are also quick to let others know when we feel like a topic is getting too personal, and we always tread lightly with a new person around. There's one woman who works in our office a few days a month, and she prefers our work environment to the other stuffed shirt offices elsewhere. But also, we know to be a bit less raucous about certain topics when she's around.
I wonder if the plaintiff ever tried asking nicely for people to lay off the sex talk? Frankly, I don't really understand why talking about ones sexual exploits is considered sexual harassment. It's not harassment when my coworkers make me uncomfortable talking about various "political" topics (though why scientific topics like climate change have become politicized is beyond me). Why is talking about sex treated magically different?
I take issue with the GP's claim that most women are "exactly like this." Very few women want to talk about sex around men. I have known a few free spirits who had no such hang ups. But for a lot of women, sex is just such a non-important part of their lives, it takes the back burner in conversation, even among their closest friends. Think about it: they have so many other things to talk about. Family, politics, TV, hobbies, food, science, games, kids, music, school, work. When would you even find the time to talk about sex? Most men on the other hand think about women and sex incessantly.
With that in mind, I don't find discussing sex in the workplace reprehensible at all. I think it's an equalizer of sorts. Every man on the totem pole knows that his real boss is the one he goes home to every night. The guy making minimum wage gets a little satisfaction knowing that his boss hasn't gotten lucky in three months. I think you have a good point, though, around certain groups of highly educated people, the discussion of sex takes a backseat to all the other heady issues of the day. I don't know if there's deeper meaning to that, though.
Do you really think Facebook is a bunch of 'libtards' just itching to kick true patriots off their network? They've had ample ability and excuses to do just that, but there is a lot of evidence that Zuck just doesn't give a shit. As long as the human eyeballs are there to sell to his customers (hint: customers != users), he makes craptons of $$$$.
Violence against a church or religious society or any other criteria of race, skin color, language, religion or belief, nationality, descent or national or ethnic origin, sex, physical or mental disability, Age or sexual orientation, or a member of such a group, expressly requests that they be affiliated to or be incited to hatred against them,
With the intention of violating the human dignity of others, insults one of the groups referred to in paragraph 1 in such a way as to condemn or reduce that group in public opinion;... [Google translation, my German is not quite up to snuff]
It really wasn't that hard to find. Also, you might find it interesting that America has a similar doctrine called "fighting words." The Supreme Court has ruled that they are not protected speech. I think that's bullshit, but it's the law of the land.
Straw man subject line. That's a new one. If "hate speech" really meant dissenting speech, then banning "hate speech" would be a pretty bad thing. If a company chose to do it on their own, it would run afoul of social norms in American civil discourse, and probably other countries as well. But for a government body to ban dissent would be unconscionable.
Fortunately, that's not what the Austrian definition of hate speech is. And if FB chose to ban these things on their own, I think it would make it much less of a cesspool.
However, I still think it's bad for a government to ban hate speech. Unlike you, I am comfortable enough in my conviction to make that statement using the actual definition of hate speech, not some made up definition that is easy to argue against. I think that the government should not have the right to keep people from denying the Holocaust, or saying derogatory things about certain racial groups, or advocating for the relaxation of sexual assault laws. These are horrible things, and companies should have the right to keep others from using their platform to espouse them, but Austria's government can suck it.
My brother was one such male pushed out of the teaching profession. They couched it some mumbo jumbo about parents' expectations and whatnot. But it was pretty clear that they were really saying, "you're fired because PENIS!" I must be the only SJW who is also an MRA. Silly me, thinking that I should defend the rights of all.
I don't even think it happens on purpose. At my son's school there are two male teachers. The coach and the special ed teacher. That is it. The teachers are all nice non-sexist people. I'm sure they would be fine with more male teachers. But seriously, would you want to take a job where you were the only person of a different gender in the entire workplace?
I was originally planning on majoring in education when I graduated high school, but teachers just don't get paid enough. I knew my wife was going to want to stay at home once we had two kids, and I had the ability to do something that paid much better (engineering). It's possible that this type of decision is the root cause of the current imbalance, but it's hard to know for sure.
Interesting, whenever it's a boy who's the victims, the commentators give a knowing wink. As if all 15 year old boys just want to be molested by their hot teacher. Fuck that. If a news anchor pulled that shit when a girl got raped there'd be hell to pay.
Fortunately, I really can't relate. I don't really understand what parts of society are supposedly "browbeating" gender roles these days. The kids that my kids hang out with are pretty flexible in their hobbies and interests (including a boy/girl pair of twins). Maybe that has something to do with it. Who knows?
I have a 6 year old girl and a 10 year old boy. Guess who is into Lego, programming, chemistry kits, lizards, and scouting? Wrong! It's both of them. Guess who is into sewing, stuffed animals, music, art, and cooking? Wrong again! It's still both of them. Unfortunately neither of them have really shown an interest in stained glass or pipe organs, but there's still time.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think traditional gender roles are totally outdated and pointless (as much as my inner SJW would like to believe). There are definitely some things that most girls are better at than most boys and vice-versa, but they aren't as set in stone as people would like to make it. Also, those differences don't need to play an oversized role.
There are some differences in my kids' preferences that fall along more traditional pink/blue lines, Disney princesses vs football is the most pronounced, but these little things don't define them. The more important difference, as they see it, is in their preferred extra-curricular activities: fencing and dance. Ironically, their road to these interests were actually paved by members of the opposite sex, in both cases. Additionally, both of these activities are well populated by both sexes.
It's a valid point. And it's one of the reasons I'm almost sympathetic to Antifa. I would rather that we had an educated populace who can put up their own guard against faulty logic.
The problem with the second kind is that they're doing science wrong. The default position -- the null hypothesis -- is that any two given things do NOT have a causal relationship. You don't have to prove vaccines don't cause autism. Those claiming that they do have the burden of proof.
I can't rule out the possibility that $FAVORITE_THING causes $WORST_NIGHTMARE. Let's try it: I can't rule out the possibility that chocolate ice cream causes erectile dysfunction. I can't rule out the possibility that Fallout 4 causes divorce. I can't rule out the possibility that reading Slashdot causes cancer. None of these arguments are scientifically meaningful. But for the weak minded, they are all now worried about doing any of these activities.
It does sometimes. And other times it just ends up killing 45 minutes. But I think the intangible benefits of team building are worth it. I suppose the same could be said for smokers in workplaces where several of them smoke. I guess I hadn't thought of that.
Slashdot Mirror
You realize that Bill Clinton fired FBI director Sessions a month after an investigation was opened on him.
You're leaving out some very important context, and you got the time frame wrong. Sessions was accused of improprieties by the first Bush administration, just prior to Clinton's inauguration. The Justice Department was investigating travel and expense abuses. He was fired that July based on recommendations from the Office of Professional Responsibility and the AG's office. It seems almost quaint now, that something as meager as inappropriate travel expenses by the FBI director could trigger investigations and firing.
The only reason for the impeachment talk is that he violated the apparent law against being president while Republican.
Neither president Johnson nor former president Clinton were Republican. They were the only two presidents to have been impeached.
Pretty sure "liberal" in the US means the same thing as "conservative," specifically it translates to "anybody I disagree with."
One thing I was surprised to see in the comments section on a very balanced local paper (which in my part of the world means fairly right of center, but not run by conspiracy theorists), somebody said he agreed with somebody else, not because she had a good point, but because "nobody can question your conservative credentials." I guess the poster in question was known to the other person to be a "conservative," so that was all the validation he needed of her post. What she said made good sense, and was quite beneficial to the conversation. Why somebody would think it needed vouching based on being by a "conservative" is beyond me.
I'm pretty left of center socially and fiscally, but if somebody I disagree with has a good point, I say that it's a good point. I might even change my mind. Hell, just look at my post history here. What I find with my right-wing whackadoodle buddies (of which I have many), the better the evidence against their position, the more they dig in their heels.
And Obama only issued this order 3 months before leaving office. ... This de-compartmentalization was done specifically with the purpose of undermining the incoming administration of an opposing political party. It was never about any principles other than hurting the incoming administration.
Three months before leaving office, Obama was pretty sure it wasn't going to be an opposing political party running hte incoming administration. Your logic doesn't add up. Could it be, just maybe, that the former president, like W. before him, thought that when different intelligence agencies share info, they can come up with better assessments?
Trump at least SAYS he's going to try.... One can hope he does because this garbage has got to stop.
He also said nobody was going to lose medical coverage with his amazing tremendous health care repeal. Not exactly going to take him at his word on anything. Also, they all SAY that they want to bring the country together and reform the system, blah blah blah. And then they find a way to screw the "other team". These guys are trying something completely different.
You need to check your facts on the anti-vaxx movement. Plenty of nutjobs on both sides there. Just look at the recent outbreaks in deep-red East Texas. They think it's the damn gubberment tellin me to give my kids shots they don't need to give the libral big pharma all my money.
One thing important to note is that *you* don't always know what did or didn't influence your purchasing decisions. There's a reason some marketing curricula include psychology or sociology courses. The value Google adds is that they can evaluate the response en masse of an ad campaign. So even if your specific purchase was not specifically motivated by an ad you saw, if a advertiser sees a non-negligible uptick in the purchase of their product following an ad campaign, that is important. Also, Google can help tell them what kinds of people bought what products after seeing what kinds of ads. The advertiser doesn't care whether Graham Murray bought a frapalopacino eight hours after a flash ad. But if 20% more people who saw that ad bought one compared to people who didn't, then they have an idea of how successful the campaign was.
The idea of silence as humor is not a specific expression, and as such is not eligible for copyright protection. The precise "Everybody Loves Raymond" clip with said silence, is copyright-able, however. I do not know if there have been any lawsuits over 4'33". There have been copyright lawsuits over a single bass line, a photo of a red double-decker bus, a dictionary of made up Harry Potter words, King Kong, and sneaker design. (Side note, there was even a guy who was sued for infringing McDonald's trademark for using his own last name for his restaurant.)
You did not make up the word "copyright", therefore you cannot claim copyright thereupon. Further, you can face a fine of up to $2,500 for fraudulent copyright claims. I know you were joking, but be careful about what you slap a circle c on in real life. It's amazing that more copyfraud doesn't get punished, honestly.
You can copyright anything that you have created that has been recorded in some fashion, including a "string of words." If I wrote down a novel and creative joke and published it, and somebody performed the joke in public, they infringed my copyright. I'm rather curious how this will pan out, because Stephen Colbert's writers have been "stealing" material from @midnight, and that would make for a great lawsuit!
There have been fatalities in Texas with horses and riders being struck by large vehicles. In some jurisdictions horses aren't allowed on any roads, in others they have the right of way everywhere but highways. Seems to me they should be allowed anywhere a bicycle is.
WTF? Why is it illegal to let them walk to school unescorted? What state is that? What's the logic? Safety? Our school buses don't even have seat belts. And kindergartners walk to school all the time. This is one thing the right-wing nut jobs have correct. Pussification is real.
For me, I have no depreciation, my commute is short, my car is cheap to maintain (normally), and there's no such thing as parking rent. My TCO is about $200/mo. People like you and me tend to forget that other parts of the world don't have it as easy.
A male flight attendant, on the other hand, could probably sucker punch or strangle the pilot.
Well, they certainly get enough practice on the passengers!
The reason why it's not suitable to talk about in a work environment is because it makes most people feel uncomfortable.
I don't agree with your premise. I think most people are OK with some level of discussion about sex. It's something almost everybody has done. It's something that everybody feels a certain level of insecurity about. And it's something that can foster a sense of rapport when discussed among peers.
If you make your discomfort with the topic clear, I will avoid it with you. But if you happen to walk by when me and a buddy are talking about this crazy thing he did in high school, don't expect us to censor ourselves immediately.
There are pastors who have entire sermon series about sex, including lines about how wives must be submissive to their husbands. I'm sure their secretaries are uncomfortable with these sermons, but they had to hear the rough drafts of each one. Should the pastors be sued for sexual harassment?
I am just going to address the sexual harassment issue, since I know nothing of drugs in the workplace. That is not something that is commonplace where I live. I would not call it reprehensible if it's culturally acceptable in the region. Pressuring others to partake on the other hand... well that's a different story.
We talk about sex at work; we even have running gags about penis size and coital infrequency. It's not everybody, but some people have this level of candor with each other. We are also quick to let others know when we feel like a topic is getting too personal, and we always tread lightly with a new person around. There's one woman who works in our office a few days a month, and she prefers our work environment to the other stuffed shirt offices elsewhere. But also, we know to be a bit less raucous about certain topics when she's around.
I wonder if the plaintiff ever tried asking nicely for people to lay off the sex talk? Frankly, I don't really understand why talking about ones sexual exploits is considered sexual harassment. It's not harassment when my coworkers make me uncomfortable talking about various "political" topics (though why scientific topics like climate change have become politicized is beyond me). Why is talking about sex treated magically different?
I take issue with the GP's claim that most women are "exactly like this." Very few women want to talk about sex around men. I have known a few free spirits who had no such hang ups. But for a lot of women, sex is just such a non-important part of their lives, it takes the back burner in conversation, even among their closest friends. Think about it: they have so many other things to talk about. Family, politics, TV, hobbies, food, science, games, kids, music, school, work. When would you even find the time to talk about sex? Most men on the other hand think about women and sex incessantly.
With that in mind, I don't find discussing sex in the workplace reprehensible at all. I think it's an equalizer of sorts. Every man on the totem pole knows that his real boss is the one he goes home to every night. The guy making minimum wage gets a little satisfaction knowing that his boss hasn't gotten lucky in three months. I think you have a good point, though, around certain groups of highly educated people, the discussion of sex takes a backseat to all the other heady issues of the day. I don't know if there's deeper meaning to that, though.
The Panasonic/Nikon cables are not actually USB, rather UC-E##. Common misconception. Also I've never seen the mini-A or micro-A in the wild.
Do you really think Facebook is a bunch of 'libtards' just itching to kick true patriots off their network? They've had ample ability and excuses to do just that, but there is a lot of evidence that Zuck just doesn't give a shit. As long as the human eyeballs are there to sell to his customers (hint: customers != users), he makes craptons of $$$$.
As to your question regarding the definition:
Violence against a church or religious society or any other criteria of race, skin color, language, religion or belief, nationality, descent or national or ethnic origin, sex, physical or mental disability, Age or sexual orientation, or a member of such a group, expressly requests that they be affiliated to or be incited to hatred against them,
With the intention of violating the human dignity of others, insults one of the groups referred to in paragraph 1 in such a way as to condemn or reduce that group in public opinion; ... [Google translation, my German is not quite up to snuff]
It really wasn't that hard to find. Also, you might find it interesting that America has a similar doctrine called "fighting words." The Supreme Court has ruled that they are not protected speech. I think that's bullshit, but it's the law of the land.
Straw man subject line. That's a new one. If "hate speech" really meant dissenting speech, then banning "hate speech" would be a pretty bad thing. If a company chose to do it on their own, it would run afoul of social norms in American civil discourse, and probably other countries as well. But for a government body to ban dissent would be unconscionable.
Fortunately, that's not what the Austrian definition of hate speech is. And if FB chose to ban these things on their own, I think it would make it much less of a cesspool.
However, I still think it's bad for a government to ban hate speech. Unlike you, I am comfortable enough in my conviction to make that statement using the actual definition of hate speech, not some made up definition that is easy to argue against. I think that the government should not have the right to keep people from denying the Holocaust, or saying derogatory things about certain racial groups, or advocating for the relaxation of sexual assault laws. These are horrible things, and companies should have the right to keep others from using their platform to espouse them, but Austria's government can suck it.
My brother was one such male pushed out of the teaching profession. They couched it some mumbo jumbo about parents' expectations and whatnot. But it was pretty clear that they were really saying, "you're fired because PENIS!" I must be the only SJW who is also an MRA. Silly me, thinking that I should defend the rights of all.
I don't even think it happens on purpose. At my son's school there are two male teachers. The coach and the special ed teacher. That is it. The teachers are all nice non-sexist people. I'm sure they would be fine with more male teachers. But seriously, would you want to take a job where you were the only person of a different gender in the entire workplace?
I was originally planning on majoring in education when I graduated high school, but teachers just don't get paid enough. I knew my wife was going to want to stay at home once we had two kids, and I had the ability to do something that paid much better (engineering). It's possible that this type of decision is the root cause of the current imbalance, but it's hard to know for sure.
Interesting, whenever it's a boy who's the victims, the commentators give a knowing wink. As if all 15 year old boys just want to be molested by their hot teacher. Fuck that. If a news anchor pulled that shit when a girl got raped there'd be hell to pay.
Reminds me of Fract-o-rama back in the day. I wonder if they are still around. The website is still up.
Fortunately, I really can't relate. I don't really understand what parts of society are supposedly "browbeating" gender roles these days. The kids that my kids hang out with are pretty flexible in their hobbies and interests (including a boy/girl pair of twins). Maybe that has something to do with it. Who knows?
I have a 6 year old girl and a 10 year old boy. Guess who is into Lego, programming, chemistry kits, lizards, and scouting? Wrong! It's both of them. Guess who is into sewing, stuffed animals, music, art, and cooking? Wrong again! It's still both of them. Unfortunately neither of them have really shown an interest in stained glass or pipe organs, but there's still time.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think traditional gender roles are totally outdated and pointless (as much as my inner SJW would like to believe). There are definitely some things that most girls are better at than most boys and vice-versa, but they aren't as set in stone as people would like to make it. Also, those differences don't need to play an oversized role.
There are some differences in my kids' preferences that fall along more traditional pink/blue lines, Disney princesses vs football is the most pronounced, but these little things don't define them. The more important difference, as they see it, is in their preferred extra-curricular activities: fencing and dance. Ironically, their road to these interests were actually paved by members of the opposite sex, in both cases. Additionally, both of these activities are well populated by both sexes.
It's a valid point. And it's one of the reasons I'm almost sympathetic to Antifa. I would rather that we had an educated populace who can put up their own guard against faulty logic.
The problem with the second kind is that they're doing science wrong. The default position -- the null hypothesis -- is that any two given things do NOT have a causal relationship. You don't have to prove vaccines don't cause autism. Those claiming that they do have the burden of proof.
I can't rule out the possibility that $FAVORITE_THING causes $WORST_NIGHTMARE. Let's try it: I can't rule out the possibility that chocolate ice cream causes erectile dysfunction. I can't rule out the possibility that Fallout 4 causes divorce. I can't rule out the possibility that reading Slashdot causes cancer. None of these arguments are scientifically meaningful. But for the weak minded, they are all now worried about doing any of these activities.
I can't decide if he's a bull in a china shop, unwittingly making a mess of things, or the kids in that short story, The Destructors.
It does sometimes. And other times it just ends up killing 45 minutes. But I think the intangible benefits of team building are worth it. I suppose the same could be said for smokers in workplaces where several of them smoke. I guess I hadn't thought of that.