Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[eerr]

That is why people fight.  Everyone is right, but someone has to be wrong.

Precisely.  Because everyone is right, or so they think.  Nobody is deliberately wrong (i.e. they don't truly believe something they think is wrong, because thinking something's wrong implies not believing it).

Sometimes people are deliberately wrong.

These assumtions in which people assume only the probable will happen, is causing alot of debate.

Part semantical, part assumptional.

[Shades]

A) You seem to think experience and being irreplaceable are the same thing.  They are absolutely not.
B) The very fact that companies fail is proof enough that no manager can really know who is vital and who isn't.  They're only human after all.

Just to support (sort of) Aqizzar's point here. The number of times I've worked for a company that has chosen to 'let go' of someone (not me) that has irreplaceable knowledge is scary, at least once for all but one of the companies I've worked for so far. In each case management was shocked that the cheap just out of uni employees could not instantly pick up everything the guy with 10+ years of detailed knowledge knew.

Management works on man-hours, experience rarely enters the picture. If you find a manager that does value experience then stay with that company.

[Earthquake Damage]

Sometimes people are deliberately wrong.

That's just advocating a wrong opinion to cause strife (e.g. trolling, Devil's Advocate, and so forth).  Nobody genuinely believes something they consider false, by definition.  So when two people with conflicting views meet, they're each certain the other is wrong (though occasionally one or the other is open-minded enough to revise their view during the argument/debate).  That's my point.

[MrWiggles]

Sometimes people are deliberately wrong.

That's just advocating a wrong opinion to cause strife (e.g. trolling, Devil's Advocate, and so forth).  Nobody genuinely believes something they consider false, by definition.  So when two people with conflicting views meet, they're each certain the other is wrong (though occasionally one or the other is open-minded enough to revise their view during the argument/debate).  That's my point.

Ooo, interesting post. Might contain the functional definition of open mindiness. Good portion you see that term used as 'agree with me', or 'its wrong to reject something', when all it means is to entertain an idea. Acceptance and rejection doesn't have grounding in being opened minded.