I find it difficult to understand a situation where a multi-million dollar company can exist and prosper for a quarter century without the development of a single commercially viable product...unless it is the seat of a technological religion that takes on the guise of a company.
Such a religion has its own bible, messiah, following of the faithful, evil angles, martyrs, apostles creed, and the road of grace to paradise. What is central to such an community of faith is the preservation of that faith and the proselytizing to enhance its membership. There is nothing wrong with religion, it is an ancient an long venerated tradition in human history, but it is not the function or the expectation of religion to advance the understanding of the objective universe. On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < [email protected]> wrote: > From Axil: > > > > > In short order, my colleague lost his job, was banned, and was never > rehired. As a real word > > > prerogative and a practical life lessen, when staying in business and > making money is more > > > important than dispensing the truth, the pursuit of truth suffers. > > > > FWIW: > > > > Late last year I was deeply involved in an attempt to upgrade our new high > volume scanning equipment to a new software version. There had been endless > delays that seemed to hamper our efforts to complete the upgrade process. > The truth of the matter, the new software upgrade was a POS. At one > meeting, a meeting which had not been attended by my new supervisor, a new > supervisor who had been hired only a few months prior, I tried to dispense > some "truth" of the matter to some of the users who used the scanning > software. The users already knew the software was a POS. We ALL knew the > software was a POS. Nevertheless, I asked the user supervisor to give us... > give me additional time to work out the bugs in the upgrade process. > However in order to accomplish this we needed to step back and continue > using current software version for a little while longer. Unfortunately, > the user supervisor, misinterpreted my suggestion as an attempt to stop the > upgrade process altogether. No amount of effort on my part could convince > this user that if we could just back off for a little while longer and > continue to use the current software version, I would eventually get most > of the worst bugs worked out. Then we could upgrade. At the end of that > meeting I was both drained and frustrated. I felt I had failed in my > efforts to ameliorate my user's quite justified frustrations over the > on-going software upgrade issues we were all battling with. The meeting > happened late Friday afternoon. I was glad it was the weekend. > > > > Monday morning I was called into the office of my new supervisor. He read > me the riot act. He basically told me that the software conversion was > going on schedule no matter what I had to say on the matter. What > dumbfounded me was the fact that my new supervisor, a supervisor who was > supposed to be in my ball court, had ended up misinterpreting what I had > said to the user supervisor as well. He, too, thought I was trying to stop > the upgrade process. He took what the user supervisor had claimed I had > said and had never bother to ask me what I had actually said at that > meeting. My supervisor essentially threatened my employment status if I > didn't shape up very soon. During our little meeting, after I told my > supervisor what I actually had said, I noticed he immediately pivoted. He > then accused me of not communicating properly with my users. In other > words, it was still all my fault. > > > > It was at that point in my 36+ years career working for the state of > Wisconsin when I realized it was time for me to start seriously planning my > exit strategy. When there is that amount of dysfunctional communication > occurring at the management level, there is no point constantly trying to > fix things when you, yourself, occasionally become the target of > management's wrath. > > > > There is an epilogue to this story: The new software version was, in turn, > upgraded to an even newer version about six months later. The upgrade was > done so on urgent request from the software company. They too, knew the > previous software version was a total POS. The next upgrade was just as > much a harrowing experience as the previous upgrade had been... and in some > cases even worse. I lost several sleepless nights. But in the end, after > the proverbial sh#t had once again hit the fan, and boy did it smell, and > the guilty parties were finally fingered out I noticed that the same > supervisor now seemed to be much more pleased with my current job > performance. Nevertheless, I continue to plan my exit strategy. I have no > interest in finding out whether Dr. Jekyll might on a moment's notice > revert back t o Mr. Hyde based on another miscommunication snafu. At least > I'm lucky in that I still have my job. I can continue planning my eventual > exit strategy in an orderly fashion. > > > > So, yes, I sympathize with the plight of your engineering colleague. In my > experience software engineers can be just as pathologically honest. It's > also been my experience that management can occasionally act like they > don't know what they are doing. The means: the truth of the matter often > gets shoved down the toilet. > > > > * * * > > > > But what does what you had to say about the unfortunate circumstances > pertaining to your engineering colleague plus what I had to say about my > own recent employment predicament have to do with Dr. Mills? You seem to be > implying that Dr. Mills is deliberately behaving in a dishonest way. If so, > please elaborate on what it is "the doctor" is deliberately doing that you > feel is dishonest? It is at least obvious to me that "the doctor" truly > believes in the truthfulness of CQM theory. Perhaps you don't. If so, it > seems to me that what might believe to be the truth is just as much a > matter of personal interpretation as it is for Dr. Mills to believe in his > own version of truth. As for me, I certainly don't have enough physics > under my belt to say either yay or nay on the matter. Rather, my point is: > Someone believing in something for which you might not believe is the real > truth of the matter is not grounds to imply that the other party behaving > in a dishonest way. From my POV, that seems to be what you are implying > here. Please enlighten me if I have misinterpreted your intentions on this > matter. > > > > Regards, > > Steven Vincent Johnson > > svjart.orionworks.com > > zazzle.com/orionworks >
