Chad Perrin: SOB

6 March 2006

Off-Topic Commentary

Filed under: — apotheon @ 02:42

This page used to be my Resume/CV page. I have moved that to my new(er) Resume/CV page. The fact that page is newer is no guarantee it’s anywhere near updated, though.

I’ve changed this to an off-topic commentary page because it drew such commentary like flies to honey, and I wanted a place for people to be able to post such stuff that didn’t require deletion to keep the Resume/CV page somewhere within the realm of on-topicness and respectability.

8 Comments »

  1. Dear Apotheon,

    I am far from being an IT guy, i just love to read techrepublics articles. I am doing so for years. I appreciate your articles and that of a few other people. I have two questions à pro pos of your manifesto. My first language is not English nor the second, so excuse my grammer. When you say:”proactively pursue economically sound policy” – what is the difference beatween proactively pursue and actively pursue? And if i can be proactive can i be propassive too? My second question what happened in particular in Bosnia which curtailed your sense of humor? Best regards: Endre

    Comment by Endre Hivatal — 14 March 2006 @ 06:45

  2. The term “proactive” is in contrast to “reactive”: one is proactive when one takes action in an anticipatory manner, in advance of the trouble it is meant to address. Being reactive, meanwhile, involves attempting to address trouble after it has come to affect you.

    So far as I’m aware, the term “propassive” does not officially exist, though perhaps it should.

    To answer your question about proactively vs. actively, the term “actively” includes actions that are both proactive and reactive in nature.

    Regarding my sense of humor being shot off in Bosnia — that’s just a joke I like to use when people (wrongly) accuse me of lacking a sense of humor. The truth is that my sense of humor tends often toward the dry, particularly in print, so that those without sufficient familiarity with the English language, with me, and/or with subtlety, might miss some of my jokes and assume everything I say is in deadly earnest when in fact that is often not entirely the case.

    Welcome to this weblog, Endre, and thanks for the kind words.

    Comment by apotheon — 14 March 2006 @ 07:08

  3. Hello Chad I see one of you interests being technical writing. Do you have any technical articles available to view, and in which technical fields have you written in.

    Regards David Brett RPS

    Comment by RPS — 13 March 2008 @ 09:43

  4. David —

    A fair bit of the writing you can find by way of the online publication credits page on this website demonstrates some of the technical writing I have done. Lately, the majority of my technical writing has leaned toward security-related subjects, and may be found among my writings at TechRepublic’s IT Security weblog. There is a link to a list of those writings from the online publication credits page as well.

    Comment by apotheon — 13 March 2008 @ 10:21

  5. You wrote: The Art of Fallacious Argument If you can’t address my actual points, there’s no point making points any longer. Go ahead — if you’re going to respond to my points with irrelevancies, straw men, and ridicule, you can just have this discussion without me. Posted: 07/09/2008 @ 08:12 PM (PDT)


    Chad, we have more in common than you think. You may be unhappy that I haven’t accorded you the respect you feel you deserve but I have addressed all your points using words that will one day make more sense to you. I am more than 40 years your senior and have been where you are. You may not like what I’ve said, but trust me – one day, perhaps in the near future, my words will have more meaning for you.

    I no long contribute much to the blogosphere but I recognize you to be an intelligent man and so spent an inordinate amount of time responding to your concerns. Take care, my friend …

    Comment by Dick Epler — 10 July 2008 @ 05:57

  6. You may be unhappy that I haven’t accorded you the respect you feel you deserve but I have addressed all your points using words that will one day make more sense to you.

    Your patronizing attitude does not incline me to view your words in a positive light.

    . . . and your words make perfect sense to me. They’re just missing my fucking point 90% of the time.

    I am more than 40 years your senior and have been where you are.

    1. Do you actually know where I am, or are you just making assumptions? Don’t bother answering that. It’s rhetorical.

    2. What does the fact you’re 40 years older prove? Are you trying to say that your approach to “debate” is excusable because you’re senile?

    You may not like what I’ve said, but trust me – one day, perhaps in the near future, my words will have more meaning for you.

    I don’t trust you. I don’t even know you. You make statements that ignore the core of my own points, as though that invalidates them, then back your statements up with “trust me”. Sorry — I tend to trust reason, logic, and evidence over hand-waving and patronizing nonsense.

    By the way . . . I don’t see what any of this has to do with an out of date Resume/CV page. Perhaps you could have responded somewhere more appropriate.

    Comment by apotheon — 10 July 2008 @ 08:22

  7. The tone of your response, Chad, reinforces my point … and also answers your question as to ‘what all this has to do with your Resume/CV page.’

    If you want people to respond to your ‘points’ you need to identify them in a way that invites a response.

    Regarding Bill Gates, I believe I agreed with all your points except for two: 1) Bill (and all businessmen) should exhibit ethical conduct (presumably from a list of do’s and don’ts); and 2) Because Bill wasn’t ‘ethical’ his success shouldn’t be recognized.

    My response to your objections was an attempt to inject some reality into your world in a way that didn’t injure your tender sensibilities (your responses tend to exhibit that knee-jerk quality characteristic of a pseudo-intellect). Everything I wrote, Apotheon, was an attempt to get you to see that success, especially great success such as that experienced by Bill Gates, IS a validation of a person’s ethics as measured by how many people have benefited (a core component of ethics).

    You need to know, Chad, that age has a way of expanding one’s horizon to provide a vision of the world unavailable to the young. Especially those who have reached that point where they ‘know’ they have found all the important answers. At this point, it’s not just me that you don’t trust … you seem to trust no one except for yourself … the infallible Apotheon (the exalted one).

    Pity that you’re destined to learn the hard way. I no longer think my words will have any meaning for you in the ‘near’ future. I only hope that in the meantime the collateral damage to your associates won’t be too great.

    Comment by Dick Epler — 14 July 2008 @ 07:56

  8. If you want people to respond to your ‘points’ you need to identify them in a way that invites a response.

    Apparently, my statements there did invite a response, because you responded — it just appears you responded to things you wish I’d said (presumably because those straw men were easier to knock down than my actual points).

    Regarding Bill Gates, I believe I agreed with all your points except for two: 1) Bill (and all businessmen) should exhibit ethical conduct (presumably from a list of do’s and don’ts); and 2) Because Bill wasn’t ‘ethical’ his success shouldn’t be recognized.

    1. Everybody should exhibit ethical conduct. Failing that, they should be removed from the ability to engage in unethical conduct, having proven themselves incompetent or unwilling to respect the rights of others.

    2. His success should be recognized. It should just be recognized for what it is, rather than for some fairy-tale land corporatist’s ideas of virtue (“winning” at a pointless game at all costs, including violating the rights of others). It’s true that he accomplished a lot — just as it is true that Ted Bundy accomplished a lot (he was one of the more elusive serial killers, after all — that takes some skill, y’know).

    My response to your objections was an attempt to inject some reality into your world in a way that didn’t injure your tender sensibilities (your responses tend to exhibit that knee-jerk quality characteristic of a pseudo-intellect).

    You are a patronizing jackass, frankly. My responses aren’t knee-jerk — they’re reasonable responses to someone who doesn’t address points made, claims ethics need not apply in a field of endeavor that can (negatively) affect the lives of millions, and takes the tone of someone who obviously considers all who disagree with him to be slow children who need his guidance to avoid sticking their hands into fires. In other words, you are so obviously a puffed-up windbag who is unwilling or unable to actually consider anything anyone has to say in opposition to your points because it might make you “look bad” to admit you could learn something by paying real attention to what others say from time to time.

    Everything I wrote, Apotheon, was an attempt to get you to see that success, especially great success such as that experienced by Bill Gates, IS a validation of a person’s ethics as measured by how many people have benefited (a core component of ethics).

    1. If people have benefited because you intentionally chose to pursue a path meant to benefit them, then perhaps there is some ethicality to your actions — but Gates’ behavior was obviously more along the lines of screwing people over at every turn for his own benefit, and accepting accolades when it was perceived by others that he helped people (essentially by accident). Worse, his supposed benefits bestowed upon others are mostly misperceptions — since he actively interfered with the efforts of others who could have benefited many, many more.

    2. You’re starting to sound like one of those idiots who took what Ayn Rand said about enlightened self interest (“selfishness” as she called it) and assumed she was talking about self-centeredness. She was obviously no cheerleader for Nietzschean egocentricity, but people who argue that ethicality is determined entirely by narrow, cherry-picked definitions of results without any regard for how one got there (in essence, adherents of the “ends justify the means” ethos) sure do give Rand a bad name that way when they associate their behavior with her writings.

    You need to know, Chad, that age has a way of expanding one’s horizon to provide a vision of the world unavailable to the young.

    I do know that. I’m not twelve any longer. I’m not seventy, either. I’ve come a long way, and I have a long way to go.

    On the other hand, if you’re not careful, experience (it’s not really age, so much) has a way of narrowing your horizons in some ways as well, of setting you in a rut and making you incapable of seeing past your nose when someone challenges you.

    I can claim a sea change in my views on matters of ethics in this century — maybe two of ’em, depending on how one qualifies something for such a change. That’s because I’m always growing, always hungry to learn more, and keep my mind open to strong arguments, profound insights, and meaningful questions. You, however, have provided none of these. You provide only direct contradiction without support, and try to puff it up with statements about how such a young whippersnapper like me couldn’t possibly understand.

    Go away and trouble me no more, unless you can actually support your damned arguments, please.

    At this point, it’s not just me that you don’t trust … you seem to trust no one except for yourself … the infallible Apotheon (the exalted one).

    There are people I trust. You certainly haven’t earned it, by stating that someone successful enough is exempt from the constraints of ethics (or can even define ethics simply by getting away with shit), and by utterly failing to support your “arguments”, followed by insulting me.

    . . . and maybe you should stop implying I’m some kind of megalomaniac or malignant narcissist with those pointed references to my nickname. Either address my points, or continue looking like an ass for avoiding them in favor of cheap shots. Your choice, I guess.

    Comment by apotheon — 14 July 2008 @ 10:49

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

All original content Copyright Chad Perrin: Distributed under the terms of the Open Works License