Home » Forum » Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

Author stupidity (A rant)

joyR

By way of a warning, if the following offends you then either stop reading this or stop writing utter drivel.

(Start of rant)

Story descriptions with spelling mistakes, missing words, bad grammar. If the description contains such errors, it is likely the story does too. So use a spell checker, read it before you post it. Hell, read it after you post it then go edit it..!!

Awful descriptions of sexual positions, non sexual positions too. I realise that often authors write about what they would like to have experienced but never have, but at least picture the action you are describing. Hell, go out and buy two dolls and pose them, just stop describing the impossible. Example. If she is on her hands and knees, he is fucking her from behind, he cannot lick her clit whilst still fucking her, it just is not possible. So stop describing the impossible.

What exactly is so confusing about the word 'lesbian'..?? Any author ought to posses or have access to a dictionary. Use it..!! I'm sick and tired of stories that include the male MC fucking the lesbian(s). If he is fucking them, they are bisexual, not lesbian, moron..!!

If the virgin in your story is going to lose her virginity, go look up exactly where the hymen is. Please..!! If you don't, and you get it wrong, than apart from annoying every female reader, you are displaying your ignorance for all to read. Would you read a car report written by someone who had never been in one, let alone driven it..??

If you are going to include a kink or any of the more exotic sexual acts, at least do a little research. Guessing only displays your ignorance. In your fantasy anything is possible, but when writing a story intended for others to read, the likelihood is that at least some of your readers will have practical experience of the acts you describe. If your story includes acts, attitudes etc that are inaccurate not only do you risk losing those readers, it makes you look an idiot. So either write from experience, or do a little research..!!

Facials are wish fulfilment for a lot of guys, girls too, actually. But if your cum gets in her eye you will not be popular. It stings. A lot..!! Don't believe me? Go jerk off and rub some in your own eye. You will not do it twice..!!

Before you write about anal sex, either try it, or stick a finger up your own ass. (Pause) Now try it with lube. (Pause) Now deeper. (Pause) Think maybe an enema would improve things? (Pause) Get my point..??

(End of rant)

Keet

@joyR

That's not a rant. Those are all true, relevant, and legitimate remarks.

Replies:   awnlee_jawking
Pixy
Updated:

And breathe....

To be fair, most of the people you're ranting about, are not on the forums, so, kinda' wasted your breath there.

Sperm in eye? Well the effect it has on your eyeball depends on what the chap ate recently and his overall health. Some are more acidic than others. If it hurts you, then either your cum is more acidic than normal, or the people that cum in your eye are.

The stories are fantasy, and should be taken in the spirit of such. Too much pedantry in a story will also kill it.

Oh, and you missed out fanny farts...

Replies:   joyR
awnlee_jawking

@Keet

Those are all true, relevant, and legitimate remarks.


And totally irrelevant to male-orientated fantasy porn, where men have 9-12 inch cocks de rigeur, the women are supermodel-gorgeous and always sopping wet, the women cum virtually on command and pass out when the man rubs her G-Spot and A-Spot, and when the man does eventually penetrate the woman she has one long continuous orgasm before the man pumps a pint of cum into her ;)

AJ

Replies:   Keet  Zen Master
awnlee jawking

@joyR

Think maybe an enema would improve things? (Pause) Get my point..??


Nope, I guess I'm too thick to understand what you're getting at. And since one of my stories-in-progress has a very new chapter incorporating said practice, I'm concerned in case I'm one of the targets of that facet of your rant.

AJ

Replies:   Bondi Beach
karactr

And...this is important, so pay close attention...the woman never, ever, not in a million zillion quadrillion years, quifes.

God how I wish that was true. They freakin' smell. But you never read about it in any story. Or at least I never have.

Keet

@awnlee_jawking

And totally irrelevant to male-orientated fantasy porn,

If it gets too far-fetched, impossible, and unbelievable it totally ruins the fantasy.

Michael Loucks

@joyR

What exactly is so confusing about the word 'lesbian'..?? Any author ought to posses or have access to a dictionary. Use it..!! I'm sick and tired of stories that include the male MC fucking the lesbian(s). If he is fucking them, they are bisexual, not lesbian, moron..!!


Counter-rant - a woman describes herself as 'lesbian', I accept that, and you should, too, even if she has male sex partners at some point in her life.

Experimentation or intercourse for the purpose of conception does not change their orientation. Would you consider a man who had a single same-sex encounter to be gay? As a 1994 study from University of Chicago stated:

"Development of self-identification as homosexual or gay is a psychological and socially complex state, something which, in this society, is achieved only over time, often with considerable personal struggle and self-doubt, not to mention social discomfort."


Would you consider a lesbian struggling with her identity and, because of social pressure, engaging in heterosexual relations not 'truly' a lesbian? If she has sex with a man once, can she never be lesbian? I'd also point out that the period in history matters, a lot. The social pressure against same-sex attraction in the 70s and 80s (for example) is FAR different from now (although it still exists).

One can also be 'bi-curious' without changing one's sexual identity.

Ultimately, sexual identity is in the mind of the person, and how they identify is up to them.

Replies:   joyR
joyR

@Pixy

To be fair, most of the people you're ranting about, are not on the forums, so, kinda' wasted your breath there.


And those that are probably won't read or care. Posting whilst aware of that is to my mind, ranting, letting off steam, I really don't care if it has an effect, I'm happy just having vented.

As for acidity and a whole host of other stuff (fanny farts included) I deleted three quarters of the rant before posting, no point overloading the target audience with difficult concepts like reality and common sense. At that point I hadn't finished, just bled the steam off.

As for fantasy, of course it can allow anything so long as suspension of disbelief is maintained, but those kinds of stories are not the target, if fact the worst howlers seem to occur in relatively simple sex scenes.

joyR
Updated:

@Michael Loucks

I consider there to be various sexual orientations (See below) I further expect those authors who use them, to use the correct one.

Describing a character as lesbian when in fact she is not, is a cop-out, the author either does not know or does not care enough to use the correct terminology.

Obviously if the author is male, writing to a male readership, who cares? But if the author wants to attract female readers, he is, excuse the pun. SOL

Lesbian | ˈlɛzbɪən |

adjective

from or relating to the island of Lesbos.

lesbian | ˈlɛzbɪən |

noun

a homosexual woman.

adjective

relating to homosexual women or to homosexuality in women: a lesbian relationship.

ORIGIN

late 19th century: via Latin from Greek Lesbios, from Lesbos, home of Sappho, who expressed affection for women in her poetry, + -ian.

A lesbian is a homosexual woman. The word lesbian is also used for women in relation to their sexual identity or sexual behaviour regardless of sexual orientation, or as an adjective to characterise or associate nouns with female homosexuality or same-sex attraction.

Sexual orientation

(Other) Sexual orientations

Asexual

Bisexual

Heterosexual

Homosexual

Non-binary categories

Androphilia and gynephilia

Bi-curious

Gray asexuality

Non-heterosexual

Pansexuality

Polysexuality

Queer

Replies:   Michael Loucks
helmut_meukel

@joyR

Example. If she is on her hands and knees, he is fucking her from behind, he cannot lick her clit whilst still fucking her, it just is not possible.


True, except he is a weredragon – the Chinese type, snake-like body – and transforms voluntarily/involuntarily into the dragon while fucking the woman. He then should be able to turn his snake-like long neck down and back to reach her clit with his dragon tongue.

Another scene I have problems to visualize: He 14yo, really small for his age; she a tall woman of more than 180 cm (5' 11") height. 69 position, he on his back tongue in her cunt hole, his dick full in her mouth. To me she must be a contortionist to get into this position.

Or the other way round, she is a tiny Chinese doll riding a 6' 6" tall guy cowgirl style. How can he suck her tiny tit while she has his dick fully burried in her?

HM.

Replies:   Pixy  StarFleet Carl
Jim S

@joyR

You appear to be a fan of realism; so am I. I've always thought the purpose of erotic writing is to sexually excite the reader. The jokes about stains on the keyboard or the box of tissue next to it seems to say I'm not alone in that supposition. But, for me as a reader, nothing kills the buildup faster than something so over-the-top unrealistic that it elicits a groan instead of a moan.

Lack of realism kills any story for me. Anything that is obviously physically impossible (unless precluded by something that enables it, e.g. aliens enhancing the body - example, Shinerdrinker's Mayhem In A Pill) is a flat turn off. And I stop reading at that point.

As an avid reader, I'm all for artistic license. But presenting something egregiously physically impossible? I may be just one reader but it isn't my thing. Some of the examples you gave would qualify.

Key word here is egregious. Flirting around the edge is legitimate artistic license. A good writer will know the difference.

Pixy

@helmut_meukel

"69 position, he on his back tongue in her cunt hole, his dick full in her mouth. To me she must be a contortionist to get into this position. "

Ummm, you are aware that human beings have the ability to bend in the middle? That position is quite feasible if the shorter lays flat, whilst the longer bows their back/ bends over.Indeed, it's normally how humans of different heights achieve a consensual 69, it works for me.

Replies:   helmut_meukel
Vlad_Inhaler

Going back to the original rant, I remember an author whose *name* here contained an - obviously unintentional - spelling mistake. It took months before it was fixed.
The story descriptions were not much better. That author is still on my blacklist.

PotomacBob

@joyR

I somehow just cannot raise enough of my energy to rant about badly written stories that I can voluntarily read (or not) and which I get for free.

StarFleet Carl

@helmut_meukel

Another scene I have problems to visualize: He 14yo, really small for his age; she a tall woman of more than 180 cm (5' 11") height. 69 position, he on his back tongue in her cunt hole, his dick full in her mouth. To me she must be a contortionist to get into this position.


I'm 10" taller than my wife, 6"2' and 5'4". We never seemed to have a problem. So just for the heck of it, while sitting here at my desk, I just ran a tape measure up, so while sitting straight up, the end of tape was right at my lips. I then leaned my head forward so that my chin was resting on my chest. My lips moved forward by 8". By raising my neck up, like I was looking at the sky, my lips raised by 3". (Not as flexible that way, bad discs.)

An average height 14 year old boy in the U.S. is 5'4 1/2". Even if he's the size of a 13 year old (average is 5'1"), that's still only 10" in height difference, easily made up with just neck bending, same as my wife and I.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2

@StarFleet Carl

Relative difference in torso length + neck and head is what matters for 69. Overall height including legs not so much.

helmut_meukel

@Pixy

Ummm, you are aware that human beings have the ability to bend in the middle? That position is quite feasible if the shorter lays flat, whilst the longer bows their back/ bends over

This works if the size difference isn't too extreme.
In the story I remember the fourteen year old boy was very small – all his class mates were at least 10" taller.
While I've seen a picture of a female contortionist licking
her own clit I doubt a really tall woman (nearly 6') can bend over enough without pain to perform 69 with a so small boy.

HM.

Dominions Son

@helmut_meukel

This works if the size difference isn't too extreme.
In the story I remember the fourteen year old boy was very small – all his class mates were at least 10" taller.


The average height for 14 Year old boys in the US is 65 inches (5'5"). If the boy in the story was 10" below average at 55" (4'7"), it's also possible that, for a single class, the boy was average and the rest of his class were particularly tall.

At 5'11" (71") for the woman, if the boy is 10", below average, that might be a bit much, but I am not convinced that if she sat on his face and bent over by arching her back that it would not be possible.

It also matters why the boy is short.

Take myself as an example, when we are both standing, my brother is around 2" taller than I am. If we sit on identical chairs I am 2" taller than my brother.

The reason for this is that my torso is longer than my brothers, but relative to torso length, my arms and legs are disproportionately short, while by brother's proportions are normal.

As to my legs it's mostly my thighs that are too short. I had to be fitted (as an adult) with a leg immobilizer due to an issue with one knee. The nurse commented on the shortness of my legs, and even using a immobilizer meant for a teen, the thigh section of the immobilizer was still too long.

For my arms, I am the only guy I know who has to bend over sideways to reach the bottoms of his front pants pockets.

Dominions Son

@helmut_meukel

This works if the size difference isn't too extreme.
In the story I remember the fourteen year old boy was very small – all his class mates were at least 10" taller.


The average height for 14 Year old boys in the US is 65 inches (5'5"). If the boy in the story was 10" below average at 55" (4'7"), it's also possible that, for a single class, the boy was average and the rest of his class were particularly tall.

At 5'11" (71") for the woman, if the boy is 10", below average, that might be a bit much, but I am not convinced that if she sat on his face and bent over by arching her back that it would not be possible.

It also matters why the boy is short.

Take myself as an example, when we are both standing, my brother is around 2" taller than I am. If we sit on identical chairs I am 2" taller than my brother.

The reason for this is that my torso is longer than my brothers, but relative to torso length, my arms and legs are disproportionately short, while by brother's proportions are normal.

As to my legs it's mostly my thighs that are too short. I had to be fitted (as an adult) with a leg immobilizer due to an issue with one knee. The nurse commented on the shortness of my legs, and even using a immobilizer meant for a teen, the thigh section of the immobilizer was still too long.

For my arms, I am the only guy I know who has to bend over sideways to reach the bottoms of his front pants pockets.

Michael Loucks

@joyR

I consider there to be various sexual orientations (See below) I further expect those authors who use them, to use the correct one.


Following what appears to be your logic, once a woman has sex with a man, she can never be lesbian, which makes no sense at all.

Replies:   Remus2  joyR
Remus2

@Michael Loucks

Following what appears to be your logic, once a woman has sex with a man, she can never be lesbian, which makes no sense at all.


Bi curious, gray/grey sexual, those could definitely apply. Applying lesbian to a woman in that scenario doesn't make sense to me.

REP

In today's world, sexual identity is defined by how you perceive yourself. How others perceive you doesn't matter.

Replies:   joyR
joyR

@Michael Loucks

Following what appears to be your logic, once a woman has sex with a man, she can never be lesbian, which makes no sense at all.


What makes no sense is your insistence that a woman who has sex with both men and women is a lesbian...!!

I never intimated anything about once she has ...blah blah blah... YOU did.

Does a woman being homosexual really bother you deep down so much you can't accept it..? I ask because it is a very simple concept.

Woman + Man = Heterosexual
Man + Man = Homosexual
Woman + Woman = Lesbian

Add extra partners to get bi-sexual etc.

Simple really.

Well, except for those misogynistic males who consider a lesbian to be a woman who hasn't yet been fucked properly by a man. *Rolls eyes*

joyR

@REP

In today's world, sexual identity is defined by how you perceive yourself. How others perceive you doesn't matter.


We, or at least I, am talking about the sexual identity of a character in a story written by an author. If the author does not know the sexuality of the character, how can that character be a lesbian? Or Straight? Or whatever.

Either the author knows the sexuality of the character THEY created, or they don't. If they do, they can at least use the correct term. If they don't... Then how can they use ANY term without lying to themselves and their readers, not to mention disrespecting the character.

Darian Wolfe

@joyR

Hmm my last girlfriend before my wife was anysexual. She'd fuck anyone for any reason. We were in a primary V relationship which is NOT a triad and she had so many side pieces I lost count.

awnlee jawking

@joyR

Simple really.


People can change over time (although not according to gay activists who insist it's a matter of genetics, not choice).

How many people nowadays would consider Tony Blair to be gay or even bisexual, despite his alleged youthful tryst with Charlie Falconer?

AJ

Replies:   Darian Wolfe  joyR
Darian Wolfe

@awnlee jawking

I had a close friend in school who became so good at seducing girls he got bored with them and started chasing guys. He did that for about four years then changed back.

joyR

@awnlee jawking

People can change over time


Irrelevant to my rant/follow-ups. You are talking of real people, I'm talking about characters created by an author...

Replies:   Michael Loucks
Michael Loucks

@joyR

Irrelevant to my rant/follow-ups. You are talking of real people, I'm talking about characters created by an author...


Who ALSO change over time! Consider:

Pre-teen girl has same-sex encounter, but because of social pressure/conditioning, dates a male as a teenager and has sex with him, but the relationship is stormy because she is confused about her sexuality (something of which he is not aware). After ten years of struggle, she comes to terms with her sexuality and 'marries' (can't legally because we're talking 1980's USA) a female. She has sex once more with aforementioned male to have a baby together. She calls herself a lesbian, and has never (after procreating) had sex with a guy.

That's a created character (based on one in RL). If you told her she wasn't a lesbian (by your reckoning), you would want to find a good hiding place.

So, I daresay there is NO difference between that character in my story (one example) and your hypothetical real person...

And, as has been stated repeatedly - sexual orientation is up to the individual to decide, not you.

Replies:   joyR
Uther_Pendragon

@joyR

Story descriptions with spelling mistakes, missing words, bad grammar. If the description contains such errors, it is likely the story does too. So use a spell checker, read it before you post it. Hell, read it after you post it then go edit it..!!


OUCH!
Guilty. Somehow, I send my stories to editors after giving them far more internal edits than my descriptions get. The descriptions often aren't seen by anyone else before they go up.

joyR

@Michael Loucks

That's a created character (based on one in RL). If you told her she wasn't a lesbian (by your reckoning), you would want to find a good hiding place.


I have to ask. Do you actually read anyone else's posts, or do you just lock onto a phrase and bludgeon it to death...??

I never stated that sexuality didn't change over time. YOU put those words into a response, without them having ANY relevance to my posts(s).

However, thank you for making my point. I said in my OP that there are guys who simply don't get it.

Now, since you seem unable or unwilling to accept a dictionary definition of a persons sexuality as being the appropriate and correct one to use. I suggest this is done.

My rant stands. A lesbian fucking a man is not a lesbian, she is at least bi-sexual. Period.

Replies:   Michael Loucks
Michael Loucks

@joyR

Now, since you seem unable or unwilling to accept a dictionary definition of a persons sexuality as being the appropriate and correct one to use. I suggest this is done.

My rant stands. A lesbian fucking a man is not a lesbian, she is at least bi-sexual. Period.


And you seem to be unable to understand that dictionaries are not the final word on ANYTHING.

1) A person's sexuality is how they define it, not you, and not the OED
2) Dictionaries are at best, a look into the past, and have little or no authority on any word usage once published.

Darian Wolfe

@Michael Loucks

How many people have won or lost a court case that at times meant their very lives due to the legal definition of a given word? Sorry definition does have extreme weight. Else there could never be communication much less contracts. Your honor, I know she was screaming no, its ok though because by my usage that means yes. That doesn't fly. Does word meaning g drift and change over time naturally? Of course, that doesn't give an individual the right to look at modern dictionary and thumb their nose at it. My 3 cents, inflation and all ;)

Grant

@Michael Loucks

1) A person's sexuality is how they define it, not you, and not the OED

Unless of course they are in denial.
A bloke that has sex with women & men is Bi. He might consider himself straight (Hetero), but his very actions show that he's Bi- regardless of what he might claim.

joyR

@Michael Loucks

1) A person's sexuality is how they define it, not you, and not the OED


NO. Given that my rant was about characters in stories. Their sexuality is defined by the author...!!


2) Dictionaries are at best, a look into the past, and have little or no authority on any word usage once published.


Not going to bother to reply to that pile of......

Replies:   Michael Loucks
Michael Loucks

@joyR

Not going to bother to reply to that pile of......


Of course, we all use words EXACTLY the way Shakespeare did, so a dictionary from the 17th century is perfectly valid today and words mean exactly the same thing as they did then, so there is no need for reading notes for Shakespeare (hint they IS such a need because words do NOT stay the same just because they are defined in a dictionary).

'adventure my discretion' - risk my reputation.
'Science' - 'knowledge'
'Dateless' - 'everlasting'
'Envy' - 'hatred' or 'malice', as opposed to jealousy
'Gentle' - 'nobile'
'Meet' - 'proper'
'Ordinary' - 'a tavern' or 'public house'

We can see examples of this in the King James Bible as well. And if we go back to Chaucer, we find, among other things:

'girl' - a child or either sex
'meat' - solid food of any kind (not just animal flesh)
'naughty' - poor or destitute
'nice' - silly or foolish.

Anyway, I rest my case. At BEST a dictionary is a point-in-time observation of a language. It can be nothing more.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Michael Loucks

I rest my case. At BEST a dictionary is a point-in-time observation of a language. It can be nothing more.


This is somewhat true, but id does not follow that a dictionary has lost all authority by the time it hits the book.

Authority depends on age. Of course a 400 year old dictionary lacks authority today. It does not follow from that, that a new edition published in the last decade is without authority. Yes, language changes. It does not change as rapidly as you imagine.

Replies:   Michael Loucks
Michael Loucks

@Dominions Son

It does not change as rapidly as you imagine.


I suspect it doesn't change as slowly as you suggest. Might I recommend a podcast? 'Lexicon Valley', which for the past couple of years has been hosted by John McWhorter.

Also, his book 'Words on the Move', available at Amazon. The language changes faster than you think.

That said, a passage form 'Through the Looking Glass' is very instructive:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

Replies:   Dominions Son
Michael Loucks

An example on my point:

"I literally died."

What does that mean? Use only a dictionary published more than ten years ago, please.

karactr

Again. Why can't we all get along? :p

Michael Loucks

@karactr

Again. Why can't we all get along? :p


Because in any conversation there are (at least) four different things going on:

1) A concept or idea I want to communicate
2) The words I choose to communicate that concept or idea
3) The understanding the other person has of those words
4) The concept or idea which forms in their mind

At best, any of us can have 'perfect knowledge' of two of those! And then throw in body language, tone, and context, and it's easy to see why things are misunderstood to one degree or another. WRiting is even more difficult, as some elements such as body language simply aren't available. We use smileys (well, now emoji) in an attempt to convey something of a tone, but it's imperfect.

Add to that the fact that language changes and grammar isn't fixed (nor do we agree on correct grammatical usage, correct punctuation, or even the definitions of words), and it should come as no surprise that it's difficult to get along!

The beauty of 'Free Speech' is found in diversity; the ugliness in divisiveness. But you have to take the bad with the good or humanity will be stifled.

awnlee jawking

@Michael Loucks

1) A person's sexuality is how they define it, not you, and not the OED
2) Dictionaries are at best, a look into the past, and have little or no authority on any word usage once published.


I've slagged off out-of-date dictionaries many times in the past, and yet unless there's some sort of arbiter of meaning, communication becomes very complicated.

However in this context, I have to commend a story by the late, great Rachel Ross under her 'God of Porn' alias - Girl Fag, in which male + female = homosexual, at least at first ;)

AJ

Replies:   Michael Loucks
Michael Loucks
Updated:

@awnlee jawking


I've slagged off out-of-date dictionaries many times in the past, and yet unless there's some sort of arbiter of meaning, communication becomes very complicated.


You're saying it isn't complicated in the normal case? Try talking to your significant other or your child when they are in a 'mood' (sex/gender doesn't matter) and get back to me on that! :-)

Dominions Son

@karactr

Again. Why can't we all get along? :p


Because that would be boring.

Dominions Son

@Michael Loucks

I suspect it doesn't change as slowly as you suggest.


There are multiple ways that language changes, and each happens at a different rate. The two that would be of interest for this discussion are the introduction of new words, and changes in the usage/meaning of old words.

The take up of new words is relatively rapid and dictionaries have trouble keeping up.

Changes in usage/meaning happen more slowly. Language is defined by common (majority or at least plurality) usage. People tend to be more resistant to changes in the meaning of existing words than to the adoption of new words so such changes take time to be accepted. Children are less resistant, thus changes in usage/meaning of existing words tends to happen on more of a generational time scale.

That said, a passage form 'Through the Looking Glass' is very instructive:


True, but not in the direction you think.

I've read a number of discussions of that passage by various language experts. The majority (and I would personally agree with them) give Alice the better end of that exchange.

Humpty Dumpty's position in that exchange is an example of extreme sophistry. Adopting his position doesn't just make communication difficult, it makes real communication impossible.

Replies:   Michael Loucks
Michael Loucks

@Dominions Son

Humpty Dumpty's position in that exchange is an example of extreme sophistry. Adopting his position doesn't just make communication difficult, it makes real communication impossible.


And yet, my usage of a word depends strictly on what I think it means, not what anyone else thinks it means. The one thing it can't do is mean something I didn't MEAN. My 'wrong' usage only changes your interpretation of what I said, not my intended meaning.

I totally understand the 'sophistry' here, but it's also not inaccurate.

Replies:   Grant  Dominions Son
Darian Wolfe

I once called a buddy of mine a nigga. He stopped and asked did you just call me a nigger or a nigga? I asked Why. He said because one will get your ass kicked and one won't. To me it was the same word pronounced two different ways. My sophistry didn't mean shit. Lucky for me I guessed right. Lol

Grant
Updated:

@Michael Loucks

And yet, my usage of a word depends strictly on what I think it means, not what anyone else thinks it means.


So only you might know what it is you're saying.
Language is meant to help with the transfer of ideas, concepts, knowledge. What is the point of saying or writing something for others to hear or read if only you know what you mean?

Dominions Son

@Michael Loucks

And yet, my usage of a word depends strictly on what I think it means, not what anyone else thinks it means.


No, properly it should depend on what the majority/plurality of the speakers of the language think in means.

If you can't accept that, then there is no point in anyone trying to discuss anything with you ever. Good luck with that.

Michael Loucks

If communication were as exact as some of you seem to imply, we wouldn't ever have any misunderstandings.

It is entirely possible for me to use the 'correct' words with their conventional meaning, and not be understood. This happens all the time in the real world.

I'll go to one of my favorite examples:

"I literally died!"

If I write that, it means I did, actually, for real, die (forget how I managed to write it for the sake of argument). If the vast majority of young people write that, it does NOT mean they died.

When I write 'literally' I literally mean 'literally', not 'figuratively' or 'metaphorically'. That's the dictionary definition. But guess what? That's NOT how it's used in many, many cases.

It's like grammar - "Billy and me went to the store" is wrong, but it still conveys accurate information.

Replies:   Grant  Dominions Son
Grant

@Michael Loucks

But guess what? That's NOT how it's used in many, many cases.

Which is why there are the misunderstandings you mention at the start of your post- because words aren't used correctly, because people don't understand their actual meaning.

The misunderstanding come about because people use words the way you say you do- they mean what they want them to mean- not what they really mean. If people didn't use words incorrectly, then misunderstandings wouldn't occur.

Of course you can always use words correctly with the intention of obfuscating the message.

Ernest Bywater

Dictionaries started being printed so people would have a uniform knowledge of the spelling and meanings of words as a way of minimizing misunderstandings - however the trend for the last 30 to 40 years seems to be about how quickly people can change the meaning of words . In the past changes were extremely slow due to the difficulties in transportation, now they can be sent around the world in seconds. As this trend grows with people pushing to allow more and more changes in meanings there will be a greater fragmentation of the language and more and more misunderstandings due to people not having the same meaning for the same word.

Replies:   Zom
Dominions Son

@Michael Loucks

If communication were as exact as some of you seem to imply, we wouldn't ever have any misunderstandings.


I am not suggesting communication is ever exact enough to prevent all misunderstandings. However, if you take that even half as far as Humpty Dumpty in that quote, which you seem to be suggesting you do, then you will have nothing but misunderstandings.

Without a common understanding of what words mean, communication is impossible.

It's like grammar - "Billy and me went to the store" is wrong, but it still conveys accurate information.


No, it's not like grammar at all. Yes bad grammar can still in some case convey accurate information.

However, if you are using meanings for "went" and/or "store" that are not understood in common by your audience, then accurate information will not and Can not be conveyed.

You might as well be trying to converse in Latin with a pacific island or amazonian tribe sill living in the stone age.

Replies:   Michael Loucks
Zom

@Ernest Bywater

Dictionaries started being printed so people would have a uniform knowledge of the spelling and meanings of words as a way of minimizing misunderstandings

You are preaching to the inconvertible, except for me, who thorougly agrees with you. It seems that language is now, like many other things, being driven completely by fashion, and even the venerable 'reference' tomes are now chasing the fashion dollar. Sigh ...

Michael Loucks

@Dominions Son

Without a common understanding of what words mean, communication is impossible.


And dictionaries are, at best, point-in-time and have nothing to do with actual communication because language changes faster than dictionaries can be updated. You'll note I'm not the only one saying this in the thread.

Dominions Son

@Michael Loucks

And dictionaries are, at best, point-in-time

This is true, but meaningless what matters for a dictionaries authority is not that it is point in time buy how recent that point in time is.

and have nothing to do with actual communication because language changes faster than dictionaries can be updated.


This is true with new words, but I have seen nothing convincing that this is true as to changes in meanings of existing words.

Ernest Bywater

@Michael Loucks

dictionaries are, at best, point-in-time and have nothing to do with actual communication because language changes faster than dictionaries can be updated.


Wrong. Dictionaries are part of keeping the communications system clean. However, in the past few decades the people responsible for them have been ignoring that aspect in an attempt to curry favor with the current in crowd.

A language is made up of three major components - proper language, vernacular language, and slang. The slang varies from year to year as well as location to location, and it used to be wrong to include them in a dictionary unless they cross multiple generations, and then they are not meant to be used in proper or formal communications due to how they can cause confusion. The proper language aspects rarely change, and when they do it's extremely slow while most changes are due to the addition of new words.

Another thing to keep in mind is the use of dictionaries in the English language started in the middle 17th century and it took a long time for them to be a common use item due to the costs involved in buying a any printed book and the level of illiteracy in the general population. Thus dictionaries didn't become much of a regular item until the 19th century.

Max Geyser

I'm not offended or upset by the original post or the person posting it, just passing along an observation.

I have millennials working for me. Some of the disdain heaped on that generation is undeserved, while some of it hits the mark squarely.

The most glaring issue to me is the complete lack of gray area in anything. I expect younger people to be open-minded and have a certain curiosity in their demeanor. No, everything is black or white, right or wrong and nothing will nudge them from their preconceived positions. It's like they are young curmudgeons. I expect a rather old person to be set in their ways and see no gray area. I don't expect that of someone in their mid-20s. I have no idea what shared experience they have in their upbringing, but it's the most troubling commonality I see in that generation. I wonder if knowledge and wisdom will soften them over time, or if they'll be even more resolute in their inability to see reason.

Yes, OP, I assumed your generation. I will expect you'll excoriate me as if I'd assumed your gender. You may not be a millennial, but you certainly post like one.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Remus2
Dominions Son

@Max Geyser

I have no idea what shared experience they have in their upbringing, but it's the most troubling commonality I see in that generation.


They have been taught by the advocates of identity politics among college faculty that anyone who disagrees with them is not merely wrong, but evil as well.

Remus2
Updated:

@Max Geyser

The most glaring issue to me is the complete lack of gray area in anything. I expect younger people to be open-minded and have a certain curiosity in their demeanor. No, everything is black or white, right or wrong and nothing will nudge them from their preconceived positions.


I don't know that I agree with "everything" being black or white, but I do agree with the spirit of that message. Pinning down when that began isn't hard either. In the states, it was in and around the first term of the Clinton presidency. A decade later, it was reinforced by speeches such as this;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4l3zp3H_gE

Al Gore: you know things your parents don't know speech for those that don't want to click the link.

The end result being the near death of critical thinking skills among the majority of youth. Critical thinking skills don't work well with the global warming/carbon tax religion. That btw is only the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended). From my perspective, thought control appears to be the end goal. Banning of unapproved speech, thoughts, and certain books already occur. It's like a set up for Bradbury's Firemen visiting Orwell's Oceania.

Replies:   Michael Loucks  Jim S
Michael Loucks

@Remus2

The end result being the near death of critical thinking skills among the majority of youth. Critical thinking skills don't work well with the global warming/carbon tax religion. That btw is only the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended). From my perspective, thought control appears to be the end goal. Banning of unapproved speech, thoughts, and certain books already occur. It's like a set up for Bradbury's Firemen visiting Orwell's Oceania.


A theme in my AWLL series from almost day 1. It's been coming for a long time (as you say), and I've used the story to document quite a bit of the 'moral panic' mentality that created situations where the cops get called if pre-teen kids walk two blocks to the neighborhood 7-11 unsupervised.

Jim S

@Remus2

I don't know that I agree with "everything" being black or white, but I do agree with the spirit of that message.

I found this earlier today. It's an opinion piece from a millennial and offers some insight into binary thinking by that generation as opposed to that of their parents. It might offer some further insights.

Replies:   Remus2
Bondi Beach
Updated:

@awnlee jawking

An enema cleans things up a bit and thus reduces the aroma as well as the amount of fecal material the penis or strap-on acquires while rooting (yay, Ernest!) around in there.

Not a requirement but an esthetic improvement, according to those who practice anal sex.

If someone else pointed this out already, then count me as "Second that."

~ JBB

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Bondi Beach

Thanks. I managed to read more into Joy's statement than was actually there.

AJ

Remus2
Updated:

@Jim S


I found this earlier today. It's an opinion piece from a millennial and offers some insight into binary thinking by that generation as opposed to that of their parents. It might offer some further insights.


From your link;


We earn less, have fewer assets, more debt, and less wealth. Barely half of Millennials earn what our parents did at 30.


On the whole, that statement is correct as far as it goes. It's the argument (paraphrased in many ways) most often used. However, they never seem to explain the reasons for it. First among them being college debt with a strong second being the nature of degrees obtained.

However, even that doesn't explain the whole picture. For boomers and earlier, the prevailing attitudes of millennials closely mirror socialism, but to the millenials, it means something else.

Trying to discuss it gets into a quagmire that quickly turns political. Millennials simply do not want to hear what anyone else thinks or says. They learned to turn to the collective mind where individualism is for the most part, unwelcomed. That is where boomers and earlier fail. They don't understand the collective.

Need proof of that? Reference facebook, twitter, etc. The 21st century version of lynch mobs/firemen are active 24/7. From their number, the firemen are born to control thoughts. Express a thought unapproved by the collective and watch what happens to you. At this time, it's primarily digital content they try to control. The logical path fwd is for that to extend into the dead tree world.

I could go on for a month of Sundays, but the end result is, failure of all to remember history as it happened rather than what they would have it be. While the focus is on millennials, it is not just them bringing this about. The people who should have been around to help guide the youth were no where to be found. What else were those youth to use when they needed questions answered? In the age of online media, they turned to the collective mind of the digital world.

At this point in time, I don't see a path in Western Europe nor North America that doesn't lead to Firemen in Oceania. But what do I know, I'm just one more passing digital voice.

Edited to correct spelling error

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Remus2

First among them being college debt with a strong second being the nature of degrees obtained.


And a lot their student loan debt results from the federal student loan program encouraging students to pursue degrees that add nothing to their earning potential.

their is nothing wrong with pursuing such degrees, if you can afford to do it or can get enough scholarships and grants for a full ride. However, pursuing such degrees on debt is stupid to the tenth power.

This is what their collectivist thinking gets them, but they will never recognize it.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2

@Dominions Son

their is nothing wrong with pursuing such degrees, if you can afford to do it or can get enough scholarships and grants for a full ride. However, pursuing such degrees on debt is stupid to the tenth power.


To the first point, an argument can be made there is something wrong with it. Someone else is paying for that scholarship or grant. A good portion of which, if not the majority, being used for non-productive degrees. Four years of college to get the privilege of asking "do you want fries with that" defies logic and good sense. It's a waste of resources that could have gone to someone else with a stronger motivation.
To your latter point, I agree. It is stupid to go into heavy debt for 'any' degree. It is especially stupid to do so for a fry cook degree.

helmut_meukel

@Remus2

Someone else is paying for that scholarship or grant. A good portion of which, if not the majority, being used for non-productive degrees. Four years of college to get the privilege of asking "do you want fries with that" defies logic and good sense. It's a waste of resources that could have gone to someone else with a stronger motivation.


Can you really get scholarships or grants without any strings attached? Thus you can select any degree you want including basket weaving or something alike?

BTW, what's your definition of 'non-productive degrees'?
My definition is every degree regardless of subject where the ratio of open positions to graduates is worse than 1 to 5.

HM.

PS. I believe we need people who know all about basket weaving, but a dozen worldwide are enough.

StarFleet Carl

@helmut_meukel

BTW, what's your definition of 'non-productive degrees'?
My definition is every degree regardless of subject where the ratio of open positions to graduates is worse than 1 to 5.


Computers and robots are working to reduce them (as are increasing minimum wages), but there are still plenty of positions open (for now) in asking if you want fries with that. 7-11 and OnCue have help-wanted signs in their windows locally, seems like all the time. (For those of you not familiar with those brand names, they are combination gas stations and convenience stores.)

StarFleet Carl

@Remus2

To the first point, an argument can be made there is something wrong with it.


A very good argument can be made that something is wrong with it. Children in school are being indoctrinated that they have to go to college and get a four year degree. The skilled trades are being neglected and discarded. We still need carpenters, electricians, welders, mechanics, HVAC - but people with those abilities are looked down upon by the 'educated' degree people.

When I was a contractor in Indiana and showed up at one house, the owners made me use the back entrance and park behind the house and such. In the course of casual conversation as I was working, I found out that the owner was a professor at Purdue and made $140,000 per year, living in a $300,000 house. He was proud of his degree and that he made so much.

I asked him if he knew what my bill was going to be for doing my work on his house, which I finished in about 3 hours. He said no, the realtor had handled it. I said, you can do math, right? He looked offended and said, of course. Good. My invoice for 3 hours work is $750, doing the installation and testing afterwards. During my working season, I do an average of 6 these installs every week, average invoice is $900. My gross business income is $170,000 per year, I only work 8 months of the year due to weather. Enjoy your degree.

(And since I did my taxes, my NET income due to the way the tax code here is averaged about $500 per year. I'll grant you out of that $750 invoice, $250 of it was for materials - but that was it. Gotta love business taxes.)

Jim S

@helmut_meukel

Can you really get scholarships or grants without any strings attached? Thus you can select any degree you want including basket weaving or something alike?

The quick answer is yes. But not all grants and scholarships exist without strings attached. Some are qualified, i.e. available only for use in a certain area of study. What the ratio between the two is? I have no idea.

Taoman
Updated:

I saw a funny posting. It showed a foot high stack of paper next to a pamphlet. The the caption said: "What I know about Star Wars canon and what I know about real life."

Dominions Son

@helmut_meukel

Can you really get scholarships or grants without any strings attached?


No strings attached? Probably not, at a minimum most private scholarships and grants require the recipient to maintain a certain GPA or higher.

And there are scholarships and grants out there that are degree (or at least field specific). And yes, there are even private foundations that fund scholarships and grants in the unmarketable degrees/fields.

Remus2

@helmut_meukel

BTW, what's your definition of 'non-productive degrees'?
My definition is every degree regardless of subject where the ratio of open positions to graduates is worse than 1 to 5.

I consider it more along the lines of 1 to 3. Anything more than that drives the wages paid down. Simple supply and demand dictates that.

I would also add my voice to SF on the point regarding the trades. Somebody has to build and maintain the bridges, buildings, cars, trains, airplanes, homes, and everything else a modern society needs. Without that, the society in question will not be capable of maintaining 'modern' status.

Replies:   Tw0Cr0ws
Dominions Son

@helmut_meukel

BTW, what's your definition of 'non-productive degrees'?


I prefer going with marketability/lack there of, rather than productivity.

And by marketability I mean degrees that have companies actively searching for employment candidates who hold those specific degrees. Those are the degrees with high earning potential.

Note: the list of marketable degrees is not static.
As the income potential goes up, more students pursue that degree and the labor supply in that field becomes glutted. Then the income potential/marketability goes down as companies don't need to put effort into finding candidates in those fields.

Part of the problem is that Universities, and their student advisors/recruiters can't (or don't bother trying to) keep up with the relative supply/demand changes on a field by field basis.

Replies:   Remus2  awnlee jawking
Remus2

@Dominions Son

Note: the list of marketable degrees is not static.
As the income potential goes up, more students pursue that degree and the labor supply in that field becomes glutted. Then the income potential/marketability goes down as companies don't need to put effort into finding candidates in those fields.


With only one exception, there has never been a time in my life and memory where there were enough engineers or medical personnel to glut the labor supply. The exception being computer engineering. The .com bubble was the time frame for that. It was also the time frame where foreign born computer engineers swamped the market.
I heard a lot of bitching in that regards, but an engineering degree without a post degree P.E. license requirement is subject to that. Not all of them were subject to that, especially those computer engineering types that focused on the market niches that tie into national security concerns.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Remus2

With only one exception, there has never been a time in my life and memory where there were enough engineers or medical personnel to glut the labor supply.


On medical personnel:

1. Most non medical people don't know this (I'm an exception) but medicine is not necessarily that lucrative financially. The median income for doctors across all specialties in the US is only around $80k, and that's before they pay for malpractice insurance.

2. Medical is highly specialized, and while the overall market for doctors is not glutted, the markets for some of the individual specialties are.

3. Of course the general medical labor supply shortage is going to get worse soon. During the original/early political fight over Obamacare (sorry, don't recal the official name), I read an article written by a doctor with some stats about doctors. The article was very critical of Obamacare, but that's not the point. He mentioned in the article that almost half of the doctors in the US were older and within only a decade or two of retirement.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2

@Dominions Son

1. Most non medical people don't know this (I'm an exception) but medicine is not necessarily that lucrative financially. The median income for doctors across all specialties in the US is only around $80k, and that's before they pay for malpractice insurance.


So you're the only person who knows this?
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/mobile/physicians-and-surgeons.htm
They seem to believe it's a national median of 208K.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics apparently disagrees with you.
You're also leaving out nurses, lab techs, various imaging techs, so forth.

Tw0Cr0ws

@Remus2

Somebody has to build and maintain the bridges, buildings, cars, trains, airplanes, homes, and everything else a modern society needs. Without that, the society in question will not be capable of maintaining 'modern' status.


Look around at the crumbling infrastructure and you can see that no one in power cares about that.

Dominions Son

@Remus2

So you're the only person who knows this?

Nowhere did I claim that. But most people don't pay that much attention to pay levels outside their own field. I got that number futzing around on a private website offering pay level data for various fields.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics apparently disagrees with you.


I might have been missremembering, it was a while back that I saw it, and it might have been starting, rather than full field median. Too far off for that big of a change.

You're also leaving out nurses, lab techs, various imaging techs, so forth.


Most of whom make significantly less than doctors.

Dominions Son

@Remus2

So you're the only person who knows this?

Nowhere did I claim that. But most people don't pay that much attention to pay levels outside their own field. I got that number futzing around on a private website offering pay level data for various fields.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics apparently disagrees with you.


I might have been missremembering, it was a while back that I saw it, and it might have been starting, rather than full field median. Too far off for that big of a change.

You're also leaving out nurses, lab techs, various imaging techs, so forth.


Most of whom make significantly less than doctors.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2

@Dominions Son

Most non medical people don't know this (I'm an exception)

Must have misinterpreted that.

might have been missremembering, it was a while back that I saw it, and it might have been starting, rather than full field median. Too far off for that big of a change.

Unless it's a stat from the mid seventies, you must have suffered a memory error.

Most of whom make significantly less than doctors.

Yep they do make less.
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/mobile/registered-nurses.htm
RN 70k median average degree BS.

Radiology/MRI
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/mobile/radiologic-technologists.htm
60k median, average degree AS.
This btw is the best bang for the buck with rising wages and 13% growth in jobs projected.

However you went to apples and oranges comparisons. None of the above will be asking if you want to fill up or if you want fries anytime soon.

Ernest Bywater

@Remus2

The Bureau of Labor Statistics apparently disagrees with you.


Were the BLS quoting take home pay, business revenue / income.

I don't know about in the USA but at the time the Aust government socialized the general medical field here in Australia I was earning some side money by helping my GP set up his books to handle the changes. The problem was the business revenue was about the same, but the actual amount profit dropped dramatically, and thus so did his take home pay. The issue was the extra staff required to handle the extra paperwork for the government, they had to put on and extra person per 2 doctors in the practice, thus increasing the costs for no benefit. Over the years the actual cost of service went up to cover the cost of the extra staff.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Remus2
Dominions Son
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater


Were the BLS quoting take home pay, business revenue / income.


Mostly it's gross(pre tax) earnings reported by employers

There are very few single doctor practices or 2-3 doctor partnerships left in the US, and most of those are small towns in remote areas where the town is too small to support a full on for profit practice. Some of those towns, because they are so remote and want a local clinic will look for pre-med students and make a deal, we pay all of your tuition and when you graduate, you have to serve as our doctor for x number of years.

Larger partnerships have re-organized as LLCs* for tax and non-medical liability issues and to have backoffice staff to handle mandatory government and/or insurance paperwork and other general business issues.

But most of the primary care doctors (GPs, internists)
work as employees of either a hospital (or multi-hospital organization) or a corporation that runs multiple clinics.

*LLC= Limited Liability Corporation.
1. separates business and personal taxes
2. With a partnership each partner individually can be held liable for the full amount of any liability the partnership has. And they can go after the partners personal assets to collect. While an LLC is treated like any other corporation for liability purposes, The liabilities of the corporation are fully separate from the owners and once the assets of the corporation are exhausted, the creditors can't get anything more.

PotomacBob

@joyR

By way of a warning, if the following offends you then either stop reading this or stop writing utter drivel.


How am I supposed to know whether it offends me unless I read it?

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2

@Ernest Bywater

Were the BLS quoting take home pay, business revenue / income.

Gross income of the individual salary as reported by the internal revenue service. Business revenue / income is a separate category.

Remus2

@PotomacBob

How am I supposed to know whether it offends me unless I read it?


I guess you assume it will be offensive and proceed from there... or not.

awnlee jawking

@Dominions Son

I prefer going with marketability/lack there of, rather than productivity.

And by marketability I mean degrees that have companies actively searching for employment candidates who hold those specific degrees. Those are the degrees with high earning potential.


According to UK university statistics, the best job prospects in terms of employability and starting salary are for Economics graduates.

That makes zero sense to me. Economics lacks the academic rigour to be a STEM subject and economists seem to have zero accountability. In fact, the more outrageous their predictions, the more feted they become. And who the hell employs an economist in a productive, commercial business? As far as I can see, the best thing anyone can say about economics as a subject is that it can sometimes be used to sneak a Nobel Prize to a mathematician.

AJ

Dominions Son

@awnlee jawking

According to UK university statistics, the best job prospects in terms of employability and starting salary are for Economics graduates.


Could just be low supply vs moderate demand.

And who the hell employs an economist in a productive, commercial business?


Stock brokerages, large Wall Street banks,insurance companies, loads of companies that produce actual products need to track economic trends and have estimates of future economic states both short and long term for business planning purposes.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Dominions Son

loads of companies that produce actual products


I've worked at lots of companies that produced actual products, some of them operating in more than one country, and to the best of my knowledge none of them employed economists.

AJ

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@awnlee jawking

I've worked at lots of companies that produced actual products, some of them operating in more than one country, and to the best of my knowledge none of them employed economists.


1. You wouldn't be unless you worked at the VP level or higher.

2. They wouldn't necessarily be directly employing economists full time, but they would be buying economic reports from other companies that primarily employ economists to generate those reports, but that still creates demand for someone to employ economists.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Dominions Son

1. You wouldn't be unless you worked at the VP level or higher.


No, that's untrue. Virtually all the companies I worked at were transparent about their organisational structures and job titles.

Economists mainly inhabit financial companies and governmental bodies where their 'forecasts' only affect other people's money :(

AJ

Replies:   Dominions Son  Tw0Cr0ws
Dominions Son
Updated:

@awnlee jawking


Economists mainly inhabit financial companies and governmental bodies where their 'forecasts' only affect other people's money


Only half true. Every company in every industry / field needs to do mid to long term planning, 3-10 years out. To do that planning properly, they need economic forecasts. That drives demand for more employment of Economists, even if those companies don't employ any economists directly.

Virtually all the companies I worked at were transparent about their organisational structures and job titles.


Job Titles don't necessarily tell you that much. Unless those companies were fairly small, it's a decent bet that one of the direct reports to either the CEO or the CFO has at least a bachelors degree in economics even if they aren't titled as "economist".

Replies:   awnlee jawking
Remus2

AJ & DS,

Something to keep in mind. There are distinct differences in organizational structures originating in the UK and US. The differences in relevant laws alone assures this.

There are other conditions that further force divergences. Manufacturing base and cultural among them. It's a mistake to assume the same thoughts, rules, and practices apply to both sides of the pond. As such, telling each other it's "half true" or "untrue" is being a bit presumptive.

awnlee jawking

@Dominions Son

Unless those companies were fairly small, it's a decent bet that one of the direct reports to either the CEO or the CFO has at least a bachelors degree in economics even if they aren't titled as "economist".


I think that's unlikely. Companies requiring financial expertise hire people with business or accountancy degrees.

AJ

Replies:   Remus2  Dominions Son
Remus2

@awnlee jawking

In the UK you would be correct for the most part. In the US that would not be the case.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
Dominions Son

@awnlee jawking

Companies requiring financial expertise hire people


They also need people with at least some economic, not just financial for mid to long term planning.

PotomacBob

@awnlee jawking


According to UK university statistics


University of Kentucky?

awnlee jawking

@Remus2

If you look at the composition of boards of US companies, quite a few board members have economics degrees. But virtually of those all have economics with business management or went on to get an MBA.

AJ

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2

@awnlee jawking

I think that's unlikely. Companies requiring financial expertise hire people with business or accountancy degrees.


In the UK you would be correct for the most part. In the US that would not be the case.


If you look at the composition of boards of US companies, quite a few board members have economics degrees. But virtually of those all have economics with business management or went on to get an MBA.


In the UK, the propensity is to outsource that to an independent firm as you yourself noted. It's apples and oranges to compare US and UK based corporations.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
Tw0Cr0ws

@awnlee jawking

Economists mainly inhabit financial companies and governmental bodies where their 'forecasts' only affect other people's money :(


Maybe this is a US thing but it seems most companies try to do as much as they can using other peoples money.
Stockholders, investors, the government etc.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
karactr

Personally, it's not the degree, it's the person. I have two degrees, I don't use them. I like assembly line work...it's mindless and pays well. At one time the highest paying degree was philosophy. The discipline taught you to THINK and many upper level business ppl had this degree.

These days, everybody seems in for the quick buck without putting in the work or discipline.

I abhor the thought of my grandkids work ethic.

awnlee jawking

@Tw0Cr0ws

Maybe this is a US thing but it seems most companies try to do as much as they can using other peoples money.


No, that transcends national borders and is a key part of Anglo-Saxon Capitalism (as though Anglo-Saxons invented it!).

Any publicly owned company will be under pressure to load itself with debt to liberate cash for investment and shareholder rewards, and to make it less attractive to potential buyers.

AJ

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@awnlee jawking

Any publicly owned company will be under pressure to load itself with debt to liberate cash for investment and shareholder rewards, and to make it less attractive to potential buyers

In my investing experience, any company using debt to reward shareholders, i.e. dividends, will find itself in trouble with investors. Maybe not immediately, but it will happen. Knowledgeable investors know how to read a balance sheet. And there are enough sources around (ValueLine being one that I use) that permit timely research. And knowledgeable investors tend to punish misbehaving companies.

Thats not to say debt won't be abused, i.e. overused. Much like an individual temporarily overextending their personal indebtedness. Sometimes with good reason. As long as it is corrected in a timely manner (repaid), nothing untoward happens. Either to a corporation or an individual.

To suggest, however, that the structure of a corporation invites abuse, however, just isn't accurate in my own experience. Otherwise, it would occur far more extensively than it does.

Replies:   Tw0Cr0ws
StarFleet Carl

@awnlee jawking

the best job prospects in terms of employability and starting salary are for Economics graduates.


Because they know enough to be able to function when the register goes down.

"Let's see, you have a Number 2 and a Kids Happy Meal, that totals out to $8.62, out of $10, gives you $1.38 in change."

awnlee jawking

@Remus2

In the UK, the propensity is to outsource that to an independent firm as you yourself noted.


I don't believe I did.

AJ

Replies:   Remus2
Tw0Cr0ws

@Jim S

In my investing experience, any company using debt to reward shareholders, i.e. dividends, will find itself in trouble with investors. Maybe not immediately, but it will happen.


Carry it to the extreme and prosecutors refer to doing that as a Ponzi scheme.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Tw0Cr0ws

Sadly Vulture Capitalists seem to get very rich by buying up undervalued companies, selling off the good bits, loading up the rest with debt, then either floating the rump on the stock market, selling it to unsuspecting suckers or letting it fall into administration.

AJ

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@awnlee jawking

or letting it fall into administration.


Is "fall into administration" the same as "file for bankruptcy" in the U.S.?

Replies:   Michael Loucks
Michael Loucks

@PotomacBob

Is "fall into administration" the same as "file for bankruptcy" in the U.S.?


As a rough equivalent, allowing for differences in the law, yes.

Remus2

@awnlee jawking

Let's assume your comment was misinterpreted by me. Does it make the outsourcing comments any less true?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-09/britain-s-debate-over-outsourcing-services-heats-up

https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/06/28/britains-outsourcing-model-copied-around-the-world-is-in-trouble

Admittedly It's been few years since I've had any interaction in the UK, or with UK business interest. The last time being in HMNB Clyde, and HMNB Portsmouth, but even then outsourcing was preferred. Prior to that I had some business with LLOYDS, same thing.

Everything I find now suggest they kept that model although it hasn't worked well for them. Show me where that's wrong?

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Remus2

Let's assume your comment was misinterpreted by me. Does it make the outsourcing comments any less true?


I thought we were discussing whether productive companies needed to employ economists.

You are right that the UK government is keen on outsourcing infrastucture projects, and that has been, frankly, disastrous. But the government also employs lots of economists.

Some of the top UK economists serve on the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. Once a month they meet, go over the current economic data and share their predictions for the future. Then they try to reach a consensus on changes to interest rates to steer future growth rates close to but slightly under 2%.

The forecasts by the economists often vary wildly. On occasion, some predict a stalling, shrinking economy while others predict a strongly growing economy. That's consistent with the lack of rigour associated with economics as a subject. And no economists serving on the MPC have been sacked for consistently incorrect predictions, which is consistent with the lack of accountability for economic forecasts.

Why would a productive company hire an expensive employee who is consistently outperformed by 'same again plus a little bit'?

AJ

Dominions Son

@awnlee jawking

The forecasts by the economists often vary wildly. On occasion, some predict a stalling, shrinking economy while others predict a strongly growing economy. That's consistent with the lack of rigour associated with economics as a subject.


It's also consistent with all the rigor of the hard sciences applied to a system that is inherently steeped in chaos.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Dominions Son

It's also consistent with all the rigor of the hard sciences applied to a system that is inherently steeped in chaos.


There's certainly a parallel with weather forecasting. Not long ago, the UK's Met Office were boasting about how far into the future they could predict the weather with their new, multi-million pound computer system. Then someone pointed out that their forecasts were still less accurate than 'same again plus a little bit'. ;)

AJ

awnlee jawking

@awnlee jawking

Some of the top UK economists serve on the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee.


In one of those serendipitous coincidences that do so much to enrich life, I've just read a guest column in my newspaper by Bank of England head Mark Carney. (I can't find it on-line so it may be behind their paywall.)

The main thrust of the article is his usual 'Project Fear' anti-Brexit rabble-rousing. But buried in the depths, he admits that Bank of England forecasting hasn't been very good and one of the steps the BoE is taking to address the issue is that, in future, it will employ fewer economists.

I don't exactly see how that will achieve anything, but I was really tickled to read that bearing in mind my anti-economics ranting :)

AJ

Remus2

@awnlee jawking

Why would a productive company hire an expensive employee who is consistently outperformed by 'same again plus a little bit'?


The premise for that is predicting market shifts and trends. Unfortunately, quantitative predictions made by economist rarely, if ever, match qualitative models. These predictions are not much better than can be produced by a soothsayer. If they could somehow be made accurate, bear markets would be a thing of the past.

That however is detached from reality. Markets can turn at a moments notice due to the inherent level of chaos embedded in them.

A company that knows it's business should do well without a horde of economist reading crystal balls in my opinion.

If we add government to the equation, it gets far worse. You will never find a higher concentration of arse kissers and incompetence than you will in a large government organization.

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@Remus2

If we add government to the equation, it gets far worse. You will never find a higher concentration of arse kissers and incompetence than you will in a large government organization.


Ever heard of Enron?

Replies:   Tw0Cr0ws  Remus2
Tw0Cr0ws

@PotomacBob

They went out of business.
How often does a government go out of business over such a little thing as incompetence?
If they lose money they just reach into the taxpayers pockets and grab some more, or at worst cry to the bigger government they are a part of for a bailout (like Greece in the EU).

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2
Updated:

@PotomacBob

Ever heard of Enron?


You'd have to be hiding under a rock the last 20 years not to have heared of them.

However that is comparing apples and oranges.

Replies:   PotomacBob
Remus2

@Tw0Cr0ws

How often does a government go out of business over such a little thing as incompetence?
If they lose money they just reach into the taxpayers pockets and grab some more...

Sad but true.

PotomacBob

@Remus2

If, under your rules, only governments (apples) can be incompetent, then private enterprises (oranges) cannot be incompetent because your rules say so.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2
Updated:

@PotomacBob


If, under your rules, only governments (apples) can be incompetent, then private enterprises (oranges) cannot be incompetent because your rules say so.


First, they are not 'my' rules.

Second, no group of people are free from incompetence.

Private enterprise tends to weed out the worst of the incompetence or they do not survive long as a private enterprise. Government does not rid itself of them, rather they promote them.

You will find no where, in any shape, form, or fashion where I said private enterprise was free of incompetence. What you will find is I stated government has a higher concentration of them. If for no other reason than it's much harder to fire a government employee than it is an employee of private enterprise.

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@Remus2

Private enterprise tends to weed out the worst of the incompetence or they do not survive long as a private enterprise. Government does not rid itself of them, rather they promote them.


And just how is you know that comparison to be true? Is there some independent study or studies to back up your assertion?

Replies:   Dominions Son  Remus2
Dominions Son
Updated:

@PotomacBob

Really, it's a matter of incentives.

In a private for profit enterprise, if the company loses money year over year, eventually it goes bankrupt.

There is no incentive for efficient operation in government. In fact, at least in the US, the incentive is for government agencies to be as inefficient as possible. A large part of the problem is the pay structure of management employees in the US government.

At all levels of management, pay is determined by a combination of budget and employee head count.

If an agency (or subset there of) comes in under budget, they risk Congress cutting their budget. But going over budget becomes exhibit 1 in "why we need a bigger budget/more employees".

Business owners don't like loosing money.

Incompetent employees produce less than the value of their pay. The company looses money on those employees.

A few incompetent employees might be able to hide in a large enough enterprise, but the more incompetent employees there are, the more they will affect the companies bottom line, and the more incentive the company has to get rid of them.

There are only two ways an unproductive (incompetent) worker survives in a for profit enterprise.

1. Nepotism (a relative of a high level executive or the owners.)

2. They are somehow protected from being fired by a contract. Now the general rule in the US is employment is at will unless there is a written contract.

Personal employment contracts are exceedingly rare in the US below the executive level outside of a few industries. And unionism has been declining in the US for decades. The % of the private sector workforce that was unionized was only 10% in 2016, down from 20% in 1983. That means that nearly 90% of the private sector work force in the US is employed at will.

At will means that the employee can be fired without notice (they can show up at your work station and have security escort you off the premises), or cause (they are under no obligation to tell you why you are being fired).

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@Dominions Son

Nice answer in outlining your opinion. But I don't see anything there that says you have any actual evidence to back up your assertion that "You will never find a higher concentration of arse kissers and incompetence than you will in a large government organization."
Having worked in large private organizations, I would assert that there is plenty of incompetence to go around in private and government organizations.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son
Updated:

@PotomacBob


I would assert that there is plenty of incompetence to go around in private and government organizations.


Sure, if and only if you include private non-profit organizations. Because they have many of the same incentives as governments.

That's why I limited my response to private for profit enterprises.

A for profit enterprise that allows any significant level of incompetence to build up in the organization will cease to exist.

The same can happen to a private non-profit, if the incompetence is allowed to infect the fund raising part of the organization. Though one could survive a long time with a high level of incompetence as long as it doesn't spread to their fund raisers.

P.S. It wasn't incompetence that killed Enron. A number of their executives, and even former executives went to jail because they were engaged in willful accounting fraud an other financial frauds.

If they were incompetent the whole thing would have fallen apart much sooner.

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@Dominions Son

These statements are your evidence?

Remus2

@PotomacBob

And just how is you know that comparison to be true? Is there some independent study or studies to back up your assertion?


Appeal to authority... interesting. Call it empirical evidence observed from working for, with, and contracted through both government and private interest.

This has obviously struck a nerve with you. I'm guessing your handle has something to do with your location, and after this, who you work for or have worked for.

Replies:   Jim S  PotomacBob
Tw0Cr0ws

@joyR

Story descriptions with spelling mistakes, missing words, bad grammar. If the description contains such errors, it is likely the story does too. So use a spell checker, read it before you post it. Hell, read it after you post it then go edit it..!!


Not just the descriptions but the titles too!

There is a recent story titled The Looser

joyR

@Tw0Cr0ws

Not just the descriptions but the titles too!

There is a recent story titled The Looser


Agreed.

But don't you think you are taking a big risk being on topic..??

Replies:   Tw0Cr0ws
Jim S

@Remus2

Appeal to authority... interesting. Call it empirical evidence observed from working for, with, and contracted through both government and private interest.

One of my favorite Robert Heinlein's quotes seems to address appeals to authority:

What are the facts? Again and again and again – what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" – what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!

Especially "....what are the facts, and to how many decimal places?" If it can't be expressed so, it's opinion, not fact. /end of rant

StarFleet Carl

@Tw0Cr0ws

There is a recent story titled The Looser


While I haven't read this particular piece, was it about the choice a man made when faced with two prostitutes?

Or perhaps it was a story about a man who went around with a wrench, turning all bolt head he found to the left? (And all propane tank fittings to the right?)

PotomacBob

@Remus2

I'm guessing your handle has something to do with your location, and after this, who you work for or have worked for


Since you didn't identify your guess, let me just respond by saying I guess you are guessing wrong about my employment history. And it wasn't that your assertion struck a nerve with me. To me, it just seemed that you (as so many on this site do) were making assertions without any obvious facts. The assertions here are often opinion. But if your source is that you were there and participated and therefore you know first hand what you asserted, I accept your expertise. I've only worked for private enterprise - and my first-hand knowledge is that there is plenty of incompetence.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2

@PotomacBob

To me, it just seemed that you (as so many on this site do) were making assertions without any obvious facts.

They are demonstrable facts, not assertions. Anyone who ever thinks they need proof should visit capital hill, an IRS office, DMV, or any other equivalent office on either side of the pond. The evidence is there for any and all to see.

Replies:   PotomacBob
awnlee jawking

@Tw0Cr0ws

There is a recent story titled The Looser


I've just read the story Neuaddllwyd by Aurora (which I thoroughly enjoyed!) and I have absolutely no idea whether the title is spelt correctly ;)

AJ

Replies:   joyR
joyR

@awnlee jawking

I've just read the story Neuaddllwyd by Aurora (which I thoroughly enjoyed!) and I have absolutely no idea whether the title is spelt correctly ;)


It is.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@joyR

How about My Little Ventrue by Novus Animus (which I haven't read - not my cup of tea). Is that spelt correctly?

AJ

Replies:   joyR  Tw0Cr0ws
joyR

@awnlee jawking

How about My Little Ventrue by Novus Animus (which I haven't read - not my cup of tea). Is that spelt correctly?


If you have not read it, and it's "not your cup of tea", why do you care?

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@joyR

If you have not read it, and it's "not your cup of tea", why do you care?


I suppose the point is that you can't tell for sure whether a story title is spelt correctly without reading the story.

AJ

Replies:   joyR
joyR

@awnlee jawking

I suppose the point is that you can't tell for sure whether a story title is spelt correctly without reading the story.


Or referring to a dictionary..?

PotomacBob

@Remus2

At least you cite actions where I have a little experience. To adequately back up the assertion, you'd need not only a representative sample of all types of government offices but all types of private enterprises as well so you could compare the two. A visit or two (like my own experience) is not enough to condemn the government and praise private enterprise. To do that, you'd need to create a database of experiences in each to compare each type with the other before you could reach a logical conclusion based on a fair sample.
Your "demonstrable facts" are like walking out in the street and interviewing 10 people (or some other number) at random and then, based on their answers, declaring that Joe Schmoe will win the next election. Mr. Schmoe may well win, but the sample is too small to be representative. Might as well flip coin and declare the winner.
So many people claim that the government is the problem to all our ills that you'd think there are significant studies to back up the assertion. And maybe there are such studies. But I haven't seen them, and nobody on this site has shared them, not even a summary. I have seen many opinion columns raising the same issue - but they are just what they say they are - opinions.
I don't have many dealings with the government - any government. I have visited capital hill a few times. Based on what I've personally seen - I'd have to guess that members of Congress are mostly AWOL. The one time I dealt with a staffer for my own representative (seeking information), I was treated promptly and courteously, and he sent me the information I requested. My one experience doesn't prove anything either way.
I deal with the IRS only when I file my tax returns electronically each year. I never hear from them - but the refund check always shows up in my bank a few weeks later.
A few years ago, I called the local Social Security office to inquire about the procedure for applying for benefits. The woman on the phone suggested I was not only eligible but that it would be in my own financial interest to apply for early benefits. (I had not previously been aware of that option.)
At the state DMV, when it was my turn, I saw the next available agent, and he quickly accommodated my request.
I can't remember any other dealings with the government since I applied for a marriage license back before Hector was a pup.
On the other hand, my dealings with the private sector have been many and varied. The vast majority of those were handled efficiently and courteously. A small minority were the only ones I had (or can remember) in either government or private enterprise that I would unpleasant and for which I would blame "incompetence." Most of that, I suspect, was due to inadequate training by management, in places that appear to have huge turnover of their staffs.
I dispute that the evidence is there for any and all to see. If that is your experience, so be it, but it is contrary to mine.
Should I guess that all your private-enterprise experiences have been joyful? Most of mine have been, but not all. I just don't see that there is enough data available to establish that either government or private enterprise is less incompetent than the other.
For several decades, the Congress has been replacing government workers with private contractors to do the work. The biggest thing that has accomplished is to increase the cost. When the Army loses soldier and replaces him or her with a private contractor who makes three times as much money - and they claim they have cut the government because there's one less employee - that doesn't make sense to me.
The semi-government Postal Service delivers mail to me six days a week, and delivers packages to me seven days a week. The private companies charge many times as much to make the same kind of deliveries - and I see no evidence that one is more incompetent than the other. All of those workers - both public and private - are friendly and helpful.

Replies:   Remus2
Remus2
Updated:

@PotomacBob

At least you cite actions where I have a little experience. To adequately back up the assertion, you'd need not only a representative sample of all types of government offices but all types of private enterprises as well so you could compare the two. A visit or two (like my own experience) is not enough to condemn the government and praise private enterprise. To do that, you'd need to create a database of experiences in each to compare each type with the other before you could reach a logical conclusion based on a fair sample.

Your "demonstrable facts" are like walking out in the street and interviewing 10 people (or some other number) at random and then, based on their answers, declaring that Joe Schmoe will win the next election. Mr. Schmoe may well win, but the sample is too small to be representative. Might as well flip coin and declare the winner.

So many people claim that the government is the problem to all our ills that you'd think there are significant studies to back up the assertion. And maybe there are such studies. But I haven't seen them, and nobody on this site has shared them, not even a summary. I have seen many opinion columns raising the same issue - but they are just what they say they are - opinions.

I don't have many dealings with the government - any government. I have visited capital hill a few times. Based on what I've personally seen - I'd have to guess that members of Congress are mostly AWOL. The one time I dealt with a staffer for my own representative (seeking information), I was treated promptly and courteously, and he sent me the information I requested. My one experience doesn't prove anything either way.

I deal with the IRS only when I file my tax returns electronically each year. I never hear from them - but the refund check always shows up in my bank a few weeks later.

A few years ago, I called the local Social Security office to inquire about the procedure for applying for benefits. The woman on the phone suggested I was not only eligible but that it would be in my own financial interest to apply for early benefits. (I had not previously been aware of that option.)

At the state DMV, when it was my turn, I saw the next available agent, and he quickly accommodated my request.

I can't remember any other dealings with the government since I applied for a marriage license back before Hector was a pup.

On the other hand, my dealings with the private sector have been many and varied. The vast majority of those were handled efficiently and courteously. A small minority were the only ones I had (or can remember) in either government or private enterprise that I would unpleasant and for which I would blame "incompetence." Most of that, I suspect, was due to inadequate training by management, in places that appear to have huge turnover of their staffs.

I dispute that the evidence is there for any and all to see. If that is your experience, so be it, but it is contrary to mine.

Should I guess that all your private-enterprise experiences have been joyful? Most of mine have been, but not all. I just don't see that there is enough data available to establish that either government or private enterprise is less incompetent than the other.

For several decades, the Congress has been replacing government workers with private contractors to do the work. The biggest thing that has accomplished is to increase the cost. When the Army loses soldier and replaces him or her with a private contractor who makes three times as much money - and they claim they have cut the government because there's one less employee - that doesn't make sense to me.

The semi-government Postal Service delivers mail to me six days a week, and delivers packages to me seven days a week. The private companies charge many times as much to make the same kind of deliveries - and I see no evidence that one is more incompetent than the other. All of those workers - both public and private - are friendly and helpful.


You went through a lot of trouble writing that attempting to prove your assertion. At least you've mentioned limited experience.

Let's clear something up here. You seem to believe I'm making a blanket indictment. Where in "highest concentration" does it state "all"?

All is including every single individual. You and I both know that is BS. When dealing with an organization comprised of thousands, there will be large variance of personalities, abilities, work ethics, etc. So again where is "all" in "highest concentration?" If we take a sample 1,000 people out of government and private enterprise each, and say 95 out of 1,000 meets criteria A in government, and 63 out of private enterprise meets criteria A, then it follows that government has a higher concentration.

I don't recall ever saying government is the source of all our ills either.

Lastly, you're expecting data from studies. Tell me since you are assuming everything I'm saying is wrong, where are your studies to prove me wrong?

We can go back and forth on this forever and never get the other to agree. So assume I disagree with you and will continue to do so. As for me I'm done with this.

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@Remus2

Tell me since you are assuming everything I'm saying is wrong, where are your studies to prove me wrong?


As I said previously, I suspect no such studies exist. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, and I have no interest in trying to do so. You may well be right, and I'd be happy if you had actual evidence, rather than anecdotal evidence, that your assertion is correct.

Tw0Cr0ws

@joyR

But don't you think you are taking a big risk being on topic..??


I did have that 'Danger, Will Robinson' feeling as I clicked post ;)

Ernest Bywater

There are no studies on the incompetence of government workers because most studies are paid for by government bureaucrats and they won't fund anything that tells the truth about how they waste government money. The private enterprise funded studies are always aimed at proving what they want to know in the first place, and thus they won't fund anything to do with government work practices either.

All but 1 in a million studies are developed to present the finding the people paying for them want them to show when they set out the terms of the studies. Thus 99.99% of such studies are wasted money.

.................

To give you a good idea on how government studies work there's an Australia federal government agency that looks into gender work discrepancies and every 2 years they do surveys to show what the gender wage gap is. They always find a gender wage gap showing women being paid less than men. However, they totally ignore that everyone in the industries they're surveying are all being paid according to the industrial award wages rates for that industry and they state both genders get paid the same hourly rate for the same job. Since they get paid the same amount per hour the only way there can be a wage discrepancy is either differences due to being on different position levels or different numbers of hours worked or additional bonus payments.

The survey results are usually set via work levels so they can compare people at the same job levels. The few times I've seen the raw data properly analyzed the gender wage gap has always come down to work choices of the people involved due to things like a higher percentage of the women refusing to work much overtime and refusing to work in remote locations and refusing to travel for work. Some do all those but they are a markedly smaller percentage of the female work force than the men in the equivalent industry.

The results of all of the gender wage gap surveys always say women get less on average despite the same hourly pay rate, so they want the women paid at a higher rate, but they don't want the women to have to do the longer hours or more difficult lifestyle choices to get the high average pay.

Replies:   PotomacBob  PotomacBob
Tw0Cr0ws

@awnlee jawking

It is, they are one of the forms of vampire in the game world of Vampire: The Masquerade.

No, I don't read that or play it, the last vampire story I enjoyed was the movie 'Lost Boys', since then I'm just so over all the vampires.

PotomacBob

@Ernest Bywater

Thus 99.99% of such studies are wasted money.


How do you know that?

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
PotomacBob

@Ernest Bywater

There's a study out in the last few days about pay scales at Google. (I believe it was paid for by Google). It shows men, in some categories, earn less than women. Google, according to news stories, has promised to adjust pay scales to fix the discrepancy. I don't know whether the study was worldwide or just in the U.S.

Ernest Bywater

@PotomacBob

How do you know that?


Two major factors make that situation clear:

1. They bring back the results the paying authority state is what they expected before the study was done.

2. When there are studies of the same subject from people with different viewpoints on them you end up with conflicting study results due to all of them meeting the main criteria mentioned in 1 above.

Zen Master

@awnlee_jawking

...the man pumps a pint of cum into her


Surely you knew it is four gallons, one gallon from each of your four balls. It's explicitly pointed out several times in "Three Square Meals".

-ZM

Replies:   joyR  awnlee jawking
joyR

@Zen Master

Surely you knew it is four gallons, one gallon from each of your four balls. It's explicitly pointed out several times in "Three Square Meals".


Best not to confuse them by actually responding on topic...

awnlee jawking

@Zen Master

one gallon from each of your four balls


The four ball is brown, so the gentleman producing gallons of cum would be of Afro-Caribbean descent ;)

AJ

Replies:   karactr
karactr
Updated:

@awnlee jawking


awnlee jawking 3/11/2019, 6:18:36 PM

@Zen Master

one gallon from each of your four balls

The four ball is brown, so the gentleman producing gallons of cum would be of Afro-Caribbean descent ;)

AJ


Could be Polynesian or Indian.

Edit: Oh, or Aboriginal.

Back to Top