Dave James Posted August 11, 2005 Report Share Posted August 11, 2005 Ever seen a syndicated TV show called "Street Smarts"? Two contestants are given a question and then asked to decide on the basis of looks alone which of three "man on the street" interviewees will be able to answer it correctly. The questions are so manifestly elementary that, well, an elementary school student with a C average could nail 99% of them without even breaking a sweat. That's the "fun" part. As it turns out, most of these "man on the street" types couldn't pour water out of a boot with the directions on the heel. Funny, yes, but when you stop to think about it, that level of ignorance is scary. Up over and out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted August 11, 2005 Report Share Posted August 11, 2005 The "young girl" will be selling insurance policies. Some of her customers may be paying premium payments for 1000 years. ← 1000 years? Wow! Weizen, send me her number; I want to buy insurance from her NOW!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son-of-a-Weizen Posted August 11, 2005 Report Share Posted August 11, 2005 To me, 1066 is just one of those things that you KNOW. The way you know your multiplication tables or that Charles Dickens wrote "Great Expectations." I don't remember learning about the Battle of Hastings or the Norman Conquest, but I know that I know it. One thing education has lost is the idea that there are some things you should just KNOW in order to be culturally literate. There are certain dates that should be automatic, like knowing your own name. 1066. 1215. 1517. 1619. 1776. 1789. 1792. 1812. 1865. 1876. 1914. 1917. 1929. 1938. 1941. 1945. etc, etc. If you don't know the significance of those years, you can't call yourself an educated adult. I would certainly expect any college graduate to know all of them and a high school graduate to know most of them. He left out **1893 .....what a dummy. ** the year Cracker Jack was introduced at the Chicago World's Fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost of miles Posted August 11, 2005 Report Share Posted August 11, 2005 The questions are so manifestly elementary that, well, an elementary school student with a C average could nail 99% of them without even breaking a sweat. That's the "fun" part. As it turns out, most of these "man on the street" types couldn't pour water out of a boot with the directions on the heel. ← To quote the great Marx (Groucho, that is) in Duck Soup: Why, a four-year-old child could understand this report. (Aside to aide)Run out and find me a four-year-old child. I can't make head nor tail out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danasgoodstuff Posted August 11, 2005 Report Share Posted August 11, 2005 Most of my younger library co-workers just give me blank looks when I kpoint out that the reason that the Dem's used to do better in National elections was that they used to own the south... (Lyndon Johson knew he was cutting his own party's throat when when he pushed the voting rights act through Congress, with a lot of Republican help, and took a perverse pride in doing it anyway). 1066 I knew immediately, but not some of the others. How about 1745 or 1885? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted August 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2005 In 1493, Columbus sailed the deep blue sea - that's how I remember that - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vibes Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 In 1493, Columbus sailed the deep blue sea - that's how I remember that - ← 1492, actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 1066 I knew immediately, but not some of the others. How about 1745 or 1885? ← It wasn't on my list, but 1745 was the year Jonathan Swift died. The Treaty of Dresden was signed that year too. As for 1885, Victor Hugo and former President Grant died that year. King Oliver was born that year as were Gabby Hayes, Ezra Pound and General George S. Patton (not to mention Huddy "Leadbelly" Leadbetter, Jerome Kern and Sinclair Lewis). The Washington Monument was dedicated in that year and the first skyscraper was built in Chicago. Pasteur introduced his rabies vaccine and "Huck Finn" was published. Oh, and the Statue of Liberty arrived in NYC that year (although it wouldn't be assembled for another year). Interestingly, the statue was intended to be a centennial gift, but it took so long to design and build that the U.S. got it ten years late... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son-of-a-Weizen Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 (edited) I certainly wouldn't get the Patton B'Day and Hugo bone orchard date (1885)...but I would correctly peg the beginning of the Thirty Years War - 1618. What in blazes are they teachin' up there in those NY public schools, Alex?? Edited August 12, 2005 by Son-of-a-Weizen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalo Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 you are giving some young girl flack for not knowing the battle of hastings was in 1066???? Um, it's really about a college graduate tossing out Pearl Harbor as a response. It's not at all unfair to have a laugh about that on a bulletin board. ← Uhmm, yeah. Getting something a decade or two off is acceptable, I guess. But this college graduate missed by about 900 years! Fair game, I say... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted August 12, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 in 1495, Columbus made the trip alive - that's how I remember that - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted August 12, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 I want to add something very interseting here - I love this site but do feel it's cliquish and has many instances of a double standard - and what has happened to THIS thread is a perfect example, as it is now unrecognizeable from my original post and topic - when I did a similar thing to another thread, and completely changed the topic, I was vilified and criticized for daring to do so by even the head honcho on this board - funny how nobody seems to object now, since you guys are all pals. Now, that other thread had slightly different circumstances, but even those exhibited the double standard - I had seen several previous instances when posters here attacked someone's thread as indicaing spam. I did so on that other thread, though I later apologized for being incorrect. But I was attacked not just for being wrong, but for even trying to make that judgement - interesting place this is - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 It is the place, doncha know! The fact is that there are many instances where threads get hijacked and move in strange ways. I don't think there was an attempt to move the thread away from your topic, it just happened, and I would say that happens at every BBS in the world. I don't recall a thread which you apparently tried to hijack and got criticized for it, so I can't comment on any perceived differences. But the bottom line is, your thread got hijacked, get over it. Or, better yet, for purposes of research, find an AARP discussion board and ask the question there. You may get a wee bit more useful responses there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 (edited) I feel your pain! I DEFINITELY see "age discrimination" at work in the state agency I've worked for the last 21 years. In two ways. In one way: young applicants do better than older applicants. There is a tendency here the last four years to hire the most attractive applicants, believe it or not. The former regime was one of dirty middle-age-crisis men, and they hired a bevy of beauties regardless of qualification or experience. (Human Resources staff that advised them against this trend were released). The current regime is a spin-off of that and the trend continues, with some attractive young men added to the rosters. The other way: age within the agency: there has been a deliberate attempt at this agency to remove all senior workers for various reasons that I won't go into here. As a result, with downsizing of over one third over the last four years, a large number of these employees "released" were employees with long tenure. I believe that there are less than a dozen employees now that have fifteen or more years of service, and they are not in important managerial positions. There are not more than two dozen of 425 that have been with the agency between ten and fifteen years. It has really meant a lot of organizational/professional knowledge gone literally out the door, and has been crippling to the mission and its execution. A pity indeed! And no, I don't want to be interviewed etc. It wouldn't be healthy. Edited August 12, 2005 by jazzbo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son-of-a-Weizen Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 since you guys are all pals. All pals? Why, Chuck wouldn't even lend me the keys to his Mercury Marquis the last time I was out in MI.....and Moose & Ghost haven't written to me in weeks and failed to send the Polly Pocket gift set to my 8-year-old on her recent B'day! Pals my foot!!! Hmmph! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted August 12, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 Dan - the thread I was referring to was the one about putting LPS onto DVD - but anyway, I was just pointing out an inconsistency, and it is something I see here, for better or for worse. I mean, I was treated as an internet leper, as in how dare I hijack the thread? At any rate I think this is an appropriate place to ask these questions, as many of us are past the middle-aged mark - and thanks, Jazzbo, interesting stuff - how about if I ID you in the book as "Jazzbo, USA" (just kidding) - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 since you guys are all pals. All pals? Why, Chuck wouldn't even lend me the keys to his Mercury Marquis the last time I was out in MI.....and Moose & Ghost haven't written to me in weeks and failed to send the Polly Pocket gift set to my 8-year-old on her recent B'day! Pals my foot!!! Hmmph! ← There's always a wheat bear in my fridge for those who wish to visit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave James Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 The other way: age within the agency: there has been a deliberate attempt at this agency to remove all senior workers for various reasons that I won't go into here. As a result, with downsizing of over one third over the last four years, a large number of these employees "released" were employees with long tenure. I believe that there are less than a dozen employees now that have fifteen or more years of service, and they are not in important managerial positions. There are not more than two dozen of 425 that have been with the agency between ten and fifteen years. It has really meant a lot of organizational/professional knowledge gone literally out the door, and has been crippling to the mission and its execution. A pity indeed! ← Lon, This is interesting. If I recall correctly, you work in the public sector. That tends to be an area where employees are more protected than are their counterparts on the private side of the fence. It's also an area that's generally more sensitive to incidences of age discrimination. Further, and correct me if I'm wrong, early retirement with more or less full benefits is a viable and often used option. That being the case, the idea of older employees being "forced out" peaks my curiosity. If that's really happening (and I don't have any reason to think it isn't) and it's happening on something other than a voluntary basis, I'm surprised someone hasn't slapped someone else with a wrongul termination lawsuit. Up over and out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Rat Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 I want to add something very interseting here - I love this site but do feel it's cliquish and has many instances of a double standard - and what has happened to THIS thread is a perfect example, as it is now unrecognizeable from my original post and topic - when I did a similar thing to another thread, and completely changed the topic, I was vilified and criticized for daring to do so by even the head honcho on this board - funny how nobody seems to object now, since you guys are all pals. Now, that other thread had slightly different circumstances, but even those exhibited the double standard - I had seen several previous instances when posters here attacked someone's thread as indicaing spam. I did so on that other thread, though I later apologized for being incorrect. But I was attacked not just for being wrong, but for even trying to make that judgement - interesting place this is - ← As a relative outsider here, I'd say there is some cliquishness here, but nothing pathological. We've all got personalities, and we have to live with some eqanimiousness with the consequences of those personalities. I have a tendency to rile folks up by being a contrarian pain in the ass, other people take their licks for other reasons (except Jazzmoose, whom everyone loves unconditionally). Anyhow topic drift is probably worse here than anywhere, but it makes for lively conversation. I thnk the line gets drawn when it looks less like drift and more like someone wresting away the wheel. The 1066 post was an honest attempt at a post on the general topic of generational conflict. Just that congratulating ourselves on being culturally literate always takes priority! --eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 Dave, Oh there have been lawsuits slapped! They've mostly been unsuccessful. This being a "right to work" state, and each state agency employing "at will," when state agencies "restructure" or "reorganize" they can do things that they cannot otherwise. . . and get away with it. And when the Legislature tells agencies "give us money back and/or operate with less funding" and employees are let go. . . they have one deaf ear and another that listens to their appointed agency leaders and hears what they want to hear. When a governing body of a state agency is appointed by a Governor for example, and the biggest threat to them is "we're going to tell the Governor on you" (which ultimately, besides a few federal cases that are rarely won by employees, is the biggest deterrent to their behavior) then the threat is diluted beyond deterring behavior. So I think that state employees are protected less in some states than others, and that this instance is one where they are less protected, and the agency head is put in place by the Governor and acting along loose guidelines by the Legislature. . . . Not good for the employees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 I want to add something very interseting here - I love this site but do feel it's cliquish and has many instances of a double standard - and what has happened to THIS thread is a perfect example, as it is now unrecognizeable from my original post and topic - when I did a similar thing to another thread, and completely changed the topic, I was vilified and criticized for daring to do so by even the head honcho on this board - funny how nobody seems to object now, since you guys are all pals. Now, that other thread had slightly different circumstances, but even those exhibited the double standard - I had seen several previous instances when posters here attacked someone's thread as indicaing spam. I did so on that other thread, though I later apologized for being incorrect. But I was attacked not just for being wrong, but for even trying to make that judgement - interesting place this is - ← Allen, c'mon. This thread is nowhere near the same thing as what happened in the DVD/LP thread where, starting with post #2, you posted almost two pages of worthless jabber because you thought the original post was spam (how that helps even if the post is spam, I have no idea). Even after several posters said it wasn't spam, you got defensive and snippy. And I don't think I vilified you anywhere in that thread. This thread, on the other hand, has had a rather natural progression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 I think Allen should be banned anyway for daring to attempt to rehijack the thread back to it's original topic. We don't need those kind of people around here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted August 12, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 (edited) Jim, you did say in that thread that only YOU should be the determinant of what is spam - when in earlier threads I had seen other posters here who felt ok in making that judgement - and I absolutely did not get snippy except in response to personal attacks - there really is a cliquish sense around here about what is accepted from some posters and not the others - and this thread was quite clearly hijacked - with plenty of "jabber" that is as irrelevant as what I posted on that other thread - so I think this proves my point - - Edited August 12, 2005 by AllenLowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted August 12, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 and by the way I've tried to hunt down that thread for relevant quotes, but can't seem to locate it in the data base - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted August 12, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 and furthermore - this thread was essentially hijacked in post 4, not much later than my post in that other thread - further illustrating my point - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.