On 10 Apr 2007 at 15:15, Michael L. Meyer wrote: > I must say I'm really enjoying this discussion, and seeing/agreeing > with points on the different sides of the different issues raised. > However, this one point: > > On Apr 10, 2007, at 12:09 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > But it is a cultural difference -- a difference between people who > > live their lives on inflexible schedules (and leave no time for > > anything else) and people who are less rigid about it. > > doesn't make sense to me. I am a person with a pretty definitive > schedule, and a busy one, at that. Why should it follow, then, that > I have no time for anything else?
You've made the choice to work for someone who allows no flexibility. You don't have to be self-employed to work for an employer that isn't too concerned with whether you arrive at 9am on the dot or 9:05am or 9:55am. In well-managed companies, what matters is whether you get your work done. Now, if you have a job where you're taking over real- time operations (such as customer service) from another person, there's not much leeway there -- if you are late, either the job is not covered or the previous person has to cover for you. So I can understand why some portion of the 1,097 people who passed by within earshot couldn't pause. But the issue for me is that so very, very few of them felt the had the time or interest to do so. It's not that I'm denying that there aren't large numbers of people who really, really must be at work on time. It's that even if that number would be 90% of those who passed by, that still leaves 110 people who would have had the luxury to stop. I don't think the numbers would be even close to 90% (for those with no flexibility), so I can only include that the reason people didn't stop were: 1. they didn't notice 2. they wanted to avoid contact 3. they weren't interested enough to delay even a few minutes Those possibilities sadden me. > Or more specifically, don't have > time to appreciate good aesthetic experiences? Just because I might > have to pass by the world-famous violinist in the subway because I > need to get to work on time in the morning? Do you really think that all 1,097 passers-by were under that kind of time pressure? > And though I may not stop to listen, why does it automatically follow > that I didn't appreciate the beauty of the music? Perhaps as I > walked by I said to myself, "Wow, that is beautiful music-making. I > wish I could stop to hear more." Is that reaction less valid than > that of the person who thinks that AND stops? That's just unfair. I think the number of people was way smaller than I'd expect, given the above scenario. Sure, it's possible (and, indeed, likely) that many people enjoyed it. But there's no evidence of it. Surely if any significant number of 1,097 people really did enjoy it, more than the handful would have given some indication of it. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
