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