Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!lanl!crs From: crs@lanl.ARPA Newsgroups: net.social,net.women Subject: Re: Rampant misinterpretation on the net (so what else is new?) Message-ID: <28233@lanl.ARPA> Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 16:47:09 EDT Article-I.D.: lanl.28233 Posted: Fri Jul 12 16:47:09 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 04:05:55 EDT References: <11494@brl-tgr.ARPA> Distribution: net Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 49 Xref: watmath net.social:827 net.women:6409 Bravo, Will Martin! > People are *NOT* characterized by *work* -- *work* is > what you do to earn money to really *live* the rest of the time. If you > want to "define" or "characterize" a person (assign them to some slot > for classification purposes, maybe to sort them in your mind or > whatever), you will be much more accurate and much better served by > looking at ther HOBBIES than at their jobs. How true! I *really* like my work -- but I *love* my play. > If I had enough income to quit today, and still provide adequate support > for both the needs (food, shelter, etc.) and the enjoyments of life > (basically what I characterize as "hobbies", whether it be quiltmaking, > ham radio, gun collecting, eating out in different and interesting > restaurants, reading, etc. [including some things not usually considered > as a "hobby"]), I'd quit. If the idea of having no job, even if you had > income, is distressing to you, I fear you lack internal resources and a > strong-enough self-image. I couldn't agree more. This in no way suggests that equal oportunity for *all* is not an ideal for which we should fight but I *do* think that some of the follow-ups to Will's article were getting on him pretty hard. On the other hand, Will's (earlier) article may have been a *wee* bit provocative for this forum of enlightenment (;->) > I view with disdain your comments about "ambition". This is often, and > falsely, characterized as a desirable trait. It is not. "Ambitious" > people cause trouble for us all, and are usually unpleasant and in many > instances contemptible. If you have innate ability, you will "rise", or > be selected for some suitable position, without having to claw your way > to it over the bodies of your co-workers, simply because you will stand > out from the mediocre mass. If you don't have this ability, and get to a > higher position through maneuvering, you cause untold grief for all > involved. Nicely said. > > Will Martin > -- Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa