Calling a spade a #$#@@ shovel 6

[patprimmer]

In some of my posts here some seem to get their knickers in a knot for directly calling something exactly and bluntly what it is rather than sanitising it.

In the code of ethics thread by tctctraining, I just called using market knowledge gained from your employer theft. Let me make it clear, there have been no reactions there to date, but I only just posted there.

A few weeks ago I referred to deliberate inaccuracies on time sheets as fraud. That got a very defensive response about justification that involved denial as part of the justification.

I will try to explain the difference between calling something bluntly, exactly what it is vs whether or not it is justifiable.

A real life example.

All through school I played several codes of Rugby. I mostly played in the front row of the scrum, often as rake or hooker. No sniggering please.

When packed down with both arms interlocked with the props you are very vulnerable to someone who has a loose arm and decides to try to gouge your eyes.

When someone is fouling you in such a way, it is very hard for the referee to detect the offense and you need to suffer or retaliate.

Your four courses of action are to:-

1) Complain to the ref. Almost always totally ineffective and actually encourages an escalation of the fouls on you.

2) Throw you head rapidly up out of the scrum and clast your face as you bring your knee up hard into the opposition players face. You will most likely break the nose of the wrong player on the right team. You may or may not get penalised by the ref.

3) The fingers trying to gouge your eyes often end up in your mouth. You can bite them very and I mean very firmly.

4) Suffer in silence.

The only two effective methods are fouls. Are they justified, Are they ethical.

Years of experience taught me 3) was the most efficient and effective option.

Some people who never had their face mauled while packed down act all discussed, but how can they judge.

To sanitise it is not facing facts squarely.

I learned to call it exactly what it is then decide whether or not it was also justified under the circumstances.

In my opinion, santising things distorts the assessment of justification.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[mauricestoker]

How true, Tick.

 

[btrueblood]

"however when asked "Do you think my ass looks big in this?" I know what to answer. "

Me too: "Yes, your donkey needs a bigger stable."

I don't often get asked that question, though.

 

[patprimmer]

btrue, your a braver man than me, well maybe not. Wana compare bruises and scars.

TheTick, going back a bit, It may well be a manure shoveling device, and when shoveling uphill, is somewhat more effective than a pointy stick. ;-)

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

Being that this thread is about "telling it like it is" ... IMO, the phrase "Calling a spade a shovel" means exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to mean.

A spade is a spade; it is a tool used to dig into packed material.
A shovel is a shovel; it is a tool used to move loose material.

Their shapes are different and their intended functions are different. Calling them anything other than what they are is inaccurate and confusing.

Telling it like it is, is a good thing, but the 'telling' can be delivered in both constructive and destructive ways. I believe the constructive way is the better choice.

 

[patprimmer]

OK OK in a thread on being precise with language before assessing something I took some poetic license. Of course it should be to call a spade a spade, but it also means to be as blunt as necessary with ourselves when assessing things ethical with absolutely no sanitisation to distort our assesment.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[btrueblood]

Pat,

Of all people, given your OP! If you read my post as anything other than literally, then you have mistaken me. I meant, if asked by the owner of a donkey, etc., then my answer would be as stated.

Regarding my wife's gluteal area, that's a whole 'nother matter. Once bruised, twice shy. Nowadays my response to such questions from SWMBO is likely to be along the lines of "Oh crap, I think the neighbor's dog is on fire", followed by a hasty exit (stage left).

 

[Ron]

BTB...better the neighbor's dog than your ass...I agree.

Pat is exactly right. It serves no purpose in these forums to sugarcoat stuff. For the most part, it is anonymous and usually not intended as personal flaming.

Sometimes you can tell people to go to hell and they'll enjoy the trip...other times you have to "pre-heat" them(to be blunt...set their asses on fire) to give them an idea of what hell is really like.

Sometimes I use diplomacy...sometimes a baseball bat. I don't necessarily intend to do either...it's just what strikes me at the time.

 

[southard2]

This whole discussion reminds me the the Depeche Mode song, "policy of truth".

You had something to hide
Should have hidden it, shouldn't you?
Now you're not satisfied
With what you're being put through

It's just time to pay the price
For not listening to advice
And deciding in your youth
On the policy of truth

Things could be so different now
It used to be so civilized
You will always wonder how
It could have been if you'd only lied

It's too late to change events
It's time to face the consequence
For delivering the proof
In the policy of truth

Never again
Is what you swore
The time before

Never again
Is what you swore
The time before

Now you're standing there tongue tied
You better learn your lesson well
Hide what you have to hide
And tell what you have to tell

You'll see your problems multiplied
If you continually decide
To faithfully pursue
The policy of truth

Never again
Is what you swore
The time before

Never again
Is what you swore
The time before

Never again
Is what you swore
The time before

I have found that there is a time for everything under the sun. A time to run and a time to fight. If we were all totally truthful and PURELY ethical we would be lynched and run out of every town we worked in. That is the truth. So I like the old saying of "Knowing when to pick your battles". I leave lots of ammo in my arsenal for the really important stuff. As a structural engineer it is impossible to police everyone. Individuals must govern themselves or risk tyranny.

John Southard, M.S., P.E.

http://www.pdhlibrary.com

 

[Qshake]

Pat - Like you I spent a young lifetime playing rugby, specifically the striker or hooker position and for the most part loved every bit of it.

I suspect that like most persons exposed to athletics and thus an early opportunity to understand the concept of action-reaction and consequences, we've grown to "cut to the chase" and be more direct. I find that most colleagues like this sort of thing and often stop by for some candid advise. And, of course, some don't like it all, claiming that such an approach lacks tact and such. Because I'm mainly interacting with engineers all day long my frankness is, more often than not, appreciated.

As I've matured and interact with clients more and more I find myself biting my tongue and looking for ways to express myself and my ideas in a less antagonistic way. The only downfall is that when I'm back with my own crew, the usual new kid on the block who fouls up is quick to catch all my bottled up angst.

Not that I spend much time on this matter, as Cass noted, I'm getting to that certain age that I just don't care. I guess I'm only lucky that more people prefer honesty over garbage.


Regards,
Qshake

Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.