"In future we will have the ProTour on the one hand and races like Paris-Roubaix and the Tour de France on another calendar of the same level," he said. "I think that's good, you know, the ProTour will in the future be the calendar of the globalisation of innovation and we will have the monuments of sorts on another calendar. We have the support of the teams and I think that's very good news."
I don't see how this makes much sense. How can a series with the GTs, P-R, MSR, etc. be on the same level as a series with the likes of the TdU, Tour of China, etc.? It sounds delusional.
In doing an MBA... it quickly became aparent that most of the academic theories on management were probably bogus. But the intent is to fill your head with some useless knowledge that arms you with the ability to win a management discussion by dropping jargon and theory when others in the room are ignorant of the useless knowledge.
It goes something like this. There are 10 of you in a meeting. Someone is beating you on simple logic (or worse... beating you with bogus logic). You drop into your argument that if you apply Maslow's Motivation Theory and the GE/McKinsey Matrix to the problem... it clearly supports your viewpoint. Non-MBA'ers are flummoxed. Maybe there's another MBA'er in the room who is hopefully on your side and replies like he understands what you are talking about (this is the MBA code of behavior). Then its discussion over... MBA'ers win.
In doing an MBA... it quickly became aparent that most of the academic theories on management were probably bogus. But the intent is to fill your head with some useless knowledge that arms you with the ability to win a management discussion by dropping jargon and theory when others in the room are ignorant of the useless knowledge.
It goes something like this. There are 10 of you in a meeting. Someone is beating you on simple logic (or worse... beating you with bogus logic). You drop into your argument that if you apply Maslow's Motivation Theory and the GE/McKinsey Matrix to the problem... it clearly supports your viewpoint. Non-MBA'ers are flummoxed. Maybe there's another MBA'er in the room who is hopefully on your side and replies like he understands what you are talking about (this is the MBA code of behavior). Then its discussion over... MBA'ers win.
Yes, but it would fail if someone were to call you on it. Sort of how you and Bro called on alienator yesterday/today. And if you get busted, you will look like a bigger tool.
Yes, but it would fail if someone were to call you on it. Sort of how you and Bro called on alienator yesterday/today. And if you get busted, you will look like a bigger tool.
Yeah... agreed. But not however if the arguably bogus theory actually supports your case. Then the one doing the "calling" has to disprove the theory... rather than logic.
My point... that my exaggerated example probably missed the mark in portraying... was that every field has its levels of knowledge. As long as there is an acceptance of the validity of that knowledge... one can use it to assert authority like military rank. You're struggling though if someone above you in rank in the company has a dislike for MBA BS.
BTW... this was just a personal observation. It seems most prevalent when there is a critical mass of MBA'ers running around within the corporation, and upper management are MBA'ers themselves.
Yes, but it would fail if someone were to call you on it. Sort of how you and Bro called on alienator yesterday/today. And if you get busted, you will look like a bigger tool.
where was this? with all the spam and busy [censored] right now, i've been avoiding the other forums.
Not if the arguably bogus theory actually supports your case. Then the one doing the "calling" has to disprove the theory... rather than logic.
Not necessarily. For instance, s/he can just point out why that particular theory would not be applicable for the case in question. I can understand what you are saying in the MBA world, but it just wouldn't work in the scientific world - because there will always be somebody who will be skeptical and call you on any bogus logic/theory that you are using. There is however, the usual escape clause of "further investigation is required...".
where was this? with all the spam and busy [censored] right now, i've been avoiding the other forums.
It started in the "Jerks and the cars they drive" thread... then alienator tried to create a diversion in a new thread he titled "[censored] like Pendejo and Bro Deal"... and it finished off with a small epilogue in the "Inquiry into the psyche of some cyclists" thread.
where was this? with all the spam and busy [censored] right now, i've been avoiding the other forums.
All in the Bike cafe. It started off with someone questioning the cyclist's psyche cyclingforums.comt449553.htmlOpen ↗. And then alienator comes around with his statistics and how generalizations are flawed. At the same time, another thread is started on jerks and the cars they drive, where again the same argument ensues. Finally, it becomes a contest between alienator, and Bro, Cranky & Pendejo, with the end result being that tables are turned and alienator is shown that he is using the same generalizations he is chastising others of using. And to add to the fun, things become a bit personal with alienator starting a thread on [censored] - Bro & Pandejo. Now, unlike many pi$$ing contests in the GT section, I think this contest has a clear loser.
I think this post of Pendejo takes the cake: "Since Alienator has been studying physics for so long, I guess it's not too surprising that his logic tends to obey the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: try to locate it and it disappears."
where was this? with all the spam and busy [censored] right now, i've been avoiding the other forums.
BTW, I thought the spam has gone down appreciably. And the search feature actually works. So, it shouldn't be too difficult to being up to date, especially if you use the "Today's forum topics" link.
Not necessarily. For instance, s/he can just point out why that particular theory would not be applicable for the case in question. I can understand what you are saying in the MBA world, but it just wouldn't work in the scientific world - because there will always be somebody who will be skeptical and call you on any bogus logic/theory that you are using. There is however, the usual escape clause of "further investigation is required...".
The scientific world is based on the scientific process. The management/corporate world IMO is a dog-eat-dog jungle of power and empires where any advantage will be adopted... irrespective of its validity. It is quite a chuckle to listen to MBA lecturers who are business academics... who quite often have never left a university... expound theory that they fervently believe to be a reliable model... based on "proofs" (they are not really proofs usually... rather observations that support the theory) in business management journals by other business academics who also have not worked in a real corporation. Journals that are never read by anyone other than business school academics.
The scientific world is based on the scientific process. The management/corporate world IMO is a dog-eat-dog jungle of power and empires where any advantage will be adopted... irrespective of its validity. It is quite a chuckle to listen to MBA lecturers who are business academics... who quite often have never left a university... expound theory that they fervently believe to be a reliable model... based on "proofs" (they are not really proofs usually... rather observations that support the theory) in business management journals by other business academics who also have not worked in a real corporation. Journals that are never read by anyone other than business school academics.
You know, that almost sounds like some areas of cosmology (especially inflationary theories), string theory, and some aspects of particle physics. Many of the theories do not have any testable predictions.
OMG, I could SO use that in my work world. That's awesome.
Reminds me of the time I was in a meeting of sorts with about 30 people. The "speaker" (I use that term loosely) looked like Senator Palpatine. So, I emailed a pic of the evil senator to a few of my friends throughout the room, kicked back in the back of the room and watched each of them open it up on their laptops and try their hardest to keep a straight face in this very serious meeting. 😄
All in the Bike cafe. It started off with someone questioning the cyclist's psyche cyclingforums.comt449553.htmlOpen ↗. And then alienator comes around with his statistics and how generalizations are flawed. At the same time, another thread is started on jerks and the cars they drive, where again the same argument ensues. Finally, it becomes a contest between alienator, and Bro, Cranky & Pendejo, with the end result being that tables are turned and alienator is shown that he is using the same generalizations he is chastising others of using. And to add to the fun, things become a bit personal with alienator starting a thread on [censored] - Bro & Pandejo. Now, unlike many pi$$ing contests in the GT section, I think this contest has a clear loser.
I think this post of Pendejo takes the cake: "Since Alienator has been studying physics for so long, I guess it's not too surprising that his logic tends to obey the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: try to locate it and it disappears."
I enjoyed reading that, but how come the Crankmeister was not included in the [censored] group to make it a trio?
I enjoyed reading that, but how come the Crankmeister was not included in the [censored] group to make it a trio?
Either I am not considered a [censored] by alienator because he has consummate respect for me...or he has such little respect that I am not worthy of his attention. With his later reference to me as an anklebiter... I suspect it is the latter...
But I prefer to consider in my own little head, and for the benefit of my ego... that he is really scared of angering me......... ...[img]clicksmilies.combox2.gifOpen ↗[/img]...
But I prefer to consider in my own little head, and for the benefit of my ego... that he is really scared of angering me......... ...[img]clicksmilies.combox2.gifOpen ↗[/img]...
