[chefcrsh]

Dr. Mabuse, on 20 November 2009 - 11:15 PM, said:

My fault.

Well duh!
Seriously no harm no foul, just dialogue here.

Dr. Mabuse, on 20 November 2009 - 11:15 PM, said:

What seems to be missing between us is a lot of information, especially background, on the people we talk about.

True dat.

Dr. Mabuse, on 20 November 2009 - 11:15 PM, said:

My Olympic medalist wasn't a false authority on the subject he was discussing.

I'll take your word for it. But my disagreement was not with his qualifications, but rather on setting the bar too high for such qualifications in such casual speaking situations. Most institutions probably can not afford an olympic star most of the time. They make due with less celebrated speakers and on a 1 or 2 hour, or even half day address these are usually good enough because the content can only be very general in nature.

I have often substituted on a degree program for F&B executives sometimes teaching for a whole week (night classes) at a stretch. I don't have any teaching degree and indeed I am a form 3 drop out with some random college courses for self education (plus 30 years of work experience). I am always concerned that I am woefully unqualified to teach and so I take my preparation in earnest, and when I am not sure of something I tell the class I don't know but I can try to find out and have the regular instructor let them know what I find. The School (a prominent HK university) seems to think my delivery style and real life experience more than make up for my lac of teaching qualifications. I don't know but I think judging that is up to them (and ultimately the students who pay for the class).

Same for your example. His being placed to speak would be a decision made by your company, probably HR, and probably a group...a decision market, maybe with the help of an outside event planer. You liked the speaker and that is just fine, but if you hadn't, lets say the speaker had suggested he also prayed every day to help him reach his goals, would your one disagreement justify his disqualification from being a motivational speaker? Wouldn't it at the very least take a majority of attendants agreeing with you that he was not qualified, that his speech was not proper motivation? I think so.

I guess I am borrowing from Christians (well the few that actually follow it anyway) here with a who are we to judge? Just because we as individuals didn't like something, or something didn't agree with our worldview, doesn't mean it was unsuitable. I don't agree with what those Christians teach, but it would not be justifiable for me to go into their gatherings demanding they teach something else.

Back to WTF. When a public school board tries to institute creationism in a public school maybe a WTF is justified. But more practical is what Bobby Henderson (and many others) did (perhaps after a sigh and a WTF). They went to the cause of their dismay and pushed for what was right. All the while delivering clear factual news to the world of the problem and fighting against their opponents with concise and brilliant argument, not a random thrown WTF. But in the case of a private company making the best of an attempt to offer a little extra for employees...especially in these dismal economic times...and with such scant evidence of what (if anything) was wrong. I can't see how a WTF on a random discussion board is either productive or indeed justified.

And one last thing. Given your long ago or Fred's recent conversion form born again Christian to atheists, it would be reasonable to assume that at some time in the past the WTF objection may have been raised if Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins was presented to speak at a work fair. To me the WTF in question was not raised for reasons of qualification, but just because the flavor on offer was not the favorite of the WTF shouter. In which case I say it was mistaken on that count as well. Remember Francis Colliins a very noted and accomplished scientists is a practicing Christian, certainly this gives us clear evidence that the most accomplished of scientists can also believe in things we are incredulous of. We know from Pew research that medical scientists are the most likely to be religious, ergo a medical research facility may well have a large population of people who want and enjoy the things listed in the opening post as part of their work related entertainment. Why should they be given less consideration by the facilities HR in terms of providing those soft support items, than any other sect of employee?

[Frederick]

chefcrsh, on 21 November 2009 - 12:52 AM, said:

No thats not what happened Fred.

OK then, let's see what happened, shall we?

chefcrsh, on 18 November 2009 - 01:28 PM, said:

but he story as presented only looked for the anomalies to be peeved about. I have no evidence in this specific case, but I do have a wealth of personal experience to draw on that suggests this is nothing more than an artificial storm in a teacup.

You, calling me a liar.

chefcrsh, on 19 November 2009 - 12:32 PM, said:

Well Fredricks lack of knowledge of the persons credentials is not the same as the person actually having no credentials. Again he was using what appeared to be a form of poisoning the well, without actually telling us what the persons qualifications were. or what was discussed.

You, calling me a liar, or stupid, and then accusing me of poisoning the well, since it must be so important to me that you believe what happened in my workplace last week.

Do you realize that i put about 30 seconds into that post during a very busy budgeting season? No, you just assume that I am being deliberately misleading.

I realize you think you acted reasonably, but also realise that I have no intention of ever responding to a thinly veiled personal attack in any other way.

If that means being seen as childish in your eyes, so be it. After Angola, what you (or anyone else) thinks, doesn't matter.

[chefcrsh]

Frederick, on 21 November 2009 - 03:20 PM, said:

OK then, let's see what happened, shall we?

chefcrsh, on 18 November 2009 - 01:28 PM, said:

but he story as presented only looked for the anomalies to be peeved about. I have no evidence in this specific case, but I do have a wealth of personal experience to draw on that suggests this is nothing more than an artificial storm in a teacup.

You, calling me a liar.

No, you are wrong. Odd though you seem to know how to spell liar, but don't seem to know what it looks like when other people don't spell it. Some strange new form of dyslexia?

Frederick, on 21 November 2009 - 03:20 PM, said:

chefcrsh, on 19 November 2009 - 12:32 PM, said:

Well Fredricks lack of knowledge of the persons credentials is not the same as the person actually having no credentials. Again he was using what appeared to be a form of poisoning the well, without actually telling us what the persons qualifications were. or what was discussed.

You, calling me a liar, or stupid, and then accusing me of poisoning the well, since it must be so important to me that you believe what happened in my workplace last week.

Wrong again, but very odd that you keep insisting what is clearly not so is so. You know there are people who specialize in helping people with such paranoid delusions...but I don't think this is the place to seek that help. Also this sort of twisting of the evident truth to suit your desired narrative, does not make a good case for your honesty but rather it adds to the plausibility of my suspicion that we do not have a nearly complete picture of your company's "health week."

Frederick, on 21 November 2009 - 03:20 PM, said:

Do you realize that i put about 30 seconds into that post during a very busy budgeting season?

. Don't care. No one forced you to do so (I assume) you did so of your own free will. I fail to see that your lack of time and clarity is my responsibility. If you don't have enough time to be on a discussion board and it is interfeering with your work, then don't log on, but in any case don't blame anyone here for your shoddy work or time misspent.

Frederick, on 21 November 2009 - 03:20 PM, said:

No, you just assume that I am being deliberately misleading.

No again. But I do guess you have been doing so for the past several posts.

Frederick, on 21 November 2009 - 03:20 PM, said:

I realize you think you acted reasonably, but also realise that I have no intention of ever responding to a thinly veiled personal attack in any other way.

So you plan to stick to being childish, abusive, and not engaging in reasoned discussion on a skeptics discussion board? Again, why join the board in the first place then?

Frederick, on 21 November 2009 - 03:20 PM, said:

If that means being seen as childish in your eyes, so be it. After Angola, what you (or anyone else) thinks, doesn't matter.

So you only value the opinions of a southwestern African nation? Seems like confirmation bias to me, but if that is true why not then join the Angola discussion forums? By the way I am pretty sure refusing to enter discussions in a discussion forum, speaking foully and with degrading remarks to its members and generally carrying on like a child are generally considered as childish, it's not something I just made up, but more of a modern, first world, empirical cultural thing.

[Dr. Mabuse]

chefcrsh, on 21 November 2009 - 02:12 AM, said:

You liked the speaker and that is just fine, but if you hadn't, lets say the speaker had suggested he also prayed every day to help him reach his goals, would your one disagreement justify his disqualification from being a motivational speaker? Wouldn't it at the very least take a majority of attendants agreeing with you that he was not qualified, that his speech was not proper motivation? I think so.

If he would have brought up prayer, and saying it helped him reach his goal, I would question the relevance of prayer to those of us who aren't religionists. He would have failed to instill motivation by bringing it up. Especially considering that only a minority of the work force in my company are practicing religion as such.
Had he started ranting about praying makes our circuit boards perform better, then I really would have gone "WTF?!"...

Quote

I guess I am borrowing from Christians (well the few that actually follow it anyway) here with a who are we to judge?

Indeed! It is one of the philosophies I've kept when I left Christianity behind. That's why I strive to learn about something or someone before dismissing it. Too many people get judgmental on stuff they know too little about to have an informed opinion.

Quote

And one last thing. Given your long ago or Fred's recent conversion form born again Christian to atheists, it would be reasonable to assume that at some time in the past the WTF objection may have been raised if Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins was presented to speak at a work fair. To me the WTF in question was not raised for reasons of qualification, but just because the flavor on offer was not the favorite of the WTF shouter. In which case I say it was mistaken on that count as well.

How about re-reading the first paragraphs of the opening post again. From what I get out of it is that it'd be like your CEO inviting you and a number of chefs of your caliber to a week seminar on how to assemble MacDonald-burgers.
Context is important.

[chefcrsh]

Dr. Mabuse, on 23 November 2009 - 03:19 AM, said:

How about re-reading the first paragraphs of the opening post again. From what I get out of it is that it'd be like your CEO inviting you and a number of chefs of your caliber to a week seminar on how to assemble MacDonald-burgers.
Context is important.

Referred to it many time in this discussion, still don't see anything of a WTF nature (especially (but not only) since it is a useless thing to say, doubly so in a discussion forum not connected with one's work). While the analogy does not hold (you have to assume that every employee at the facility is a high calibre ...um medical research facilities staff? whatever) Most chefs would be well served by a week in McD's training. Regardless of your opinion of their food, they are without a doubt the most successful (by any measure) restaurant business in the world.

I think it is you who assume to much from the OP, not me who is dismissing too easily. Fred had plenty of opportunity to add some meat to the scrawny skeleton of his story, the fact that he resorted to name calling, mud slinging, and fallacy rather than answering simple questions suggests there was not any decent meat to the whole thing. I did try to give benefit of doubt, but was abused for the effort. I can take it alright, but don't see why that alone would make me more credulous. Your note about the quantity of Christians it makes the point, but skirted the issue. If the majority of your colleagues were motivated by that stuff wouldn't it mean the speaker (ipso facto) was qualified? And so isn't the motivational speech highly subjective and not very much something you can hang with an empirical pin?

[Dr. Mabuse]

chefcrsh, on 22 November 2009 - 11:48 PM, said:

Most chefs would be well served by a week in McD's training. Regardless of your opinion of their food, they are without a doubt the most successful (by any measure) restaurant business in the world.

Yeah, I realised that a few seconds after I hit "send", but by then it was past bed-time for me and I was tired. It was a bad analogy.

Quote

Fred had plenty of opportunity to add some meat to the scrawny skeleton of his story, the fact that he resorted to name calling, mud slinging, and fallacy rather than answering simple questions suggests there was not any decent meat to the whole thing.

True...

Quote

And so isn't the motivational speech highly subjective and not very much something you can hang with an empirical pin?

Indeed. It's all about the motivational speaker drowning us with stuff, and me/us cherry-picking whatever works for me/us.
But when all I'm fed is woo-woo, then there aren't many cherries to pick (except 'drink lots of water'). I think that's my ultimate point.




Edit: yeah before I forget...

Quote

Regardless of your opinion of their food, they are without a doubt the most successful (by any measure) restaurant business in the world.

I'm actually interested in your opinion on their food, you being an authority after all...
Honestly!

[chefcrsh]

Dr. Mabuse, on 24 November 2009 - 04:22 AM, said:

Edit: yeah before I forget...

Quote

Regardless of your opinion of their food, they are without a doubt the most successful (by any measure) restaurant business in the world.

I'm actually interested in your opinion on their food, you being an authority after all...
Honestly!

Well I have heard that McD's is low quality, but I disagree. They do their utmost to provide very high standards (for what they are) across the globe. They buy only fresh chuck beef and fresh vegetables and daily fresh baked buns, sometimes setting up the bakeries and farms in geographic locations suitable to their emerging businesses.

I think what people mean, and what I agree with is they are very low sophistication. It is the simplest food to make, and so it tastes simple.

I held the title of Best Burger in Hong Kong for many years, and so know a thing or two about making a great classic burger (no foie gras need apply). I am certain I can out burger anyone at McD;'s anywhere anytime. But my volume is in the hundreds a day. Theirs is in the...billions? My feeling is that with that volume their food has no soul. It isn't bad but it isn't interesting either. It is the pulp fiction, the boy-band music, the blue light poster, of cuisine.

I do have the occasional urge for the cocaine they must be putting into the ketchup (I used to think it was in the French fries like everyone else, but now I only have occasional cravings for the burger or big mac, so it must be the ketchup). Odd thing is for the past twenty or thirty years the every once in a blue moon when I have a McD's I am always disappointed and vow to never eat that pap again. But the craving inevitable returns and I must again return to the source of my dismay.

In a recent healthy food workshop (and in a video-cast once) I compared the nutrition of Mc D's food with other allegedly "more healthy" options (like Subway and Pret A Manger) and found it to be not worse by anything other than fractional measures. It is not made of rotten meat or pure corn syrup, it is real food, made much the same as you would make it yourself, just dumbed down to the simplicity required to have billions of teenagers acrross the globe making safe affordable edible fuel.

[Dr. Mabuse]

Thanks for your opinion.

It fairly well sums up my own thoughts about them.
I visit McD a few times a year, but I never promise myself never to go there again, since I actually like it to a point.
Just as long as I don't over do it by visiting as often as once a month...