Jun 9, 2007

Top Ten Reasons

Pinky and The Brain,
I tried originally to publish this in the LANL Reader's Forum but it was
rejected on the grounds of being 'counterproductive whining veiled as

Top 10 reasons not to be negative about the new security checkpoint

In the past several months, I'd heard many complaints about the new security
checkpoints at the Diamond Dr-Jemez Rd intersection. In an attempt to
discourage this unpleasant negativity, I present the top 10 reasons why we
should not be negative about this:

10) It's not necessary. If people don't like the new security checkpoint,
no-one is forcing them to drive through it. They can find a different job
without these security checkpoints.

9) No-one is entitled to complain about their commute because other people have
worse commutes than all of us here at the lab. The only person entitled to
complain about their commute is the single person with the worst commute in the
world. And I happen to know that guy; he rides a flatuent camel over a snowy
pass between Kazahkstan and Azerbaijan and is full-body cavity searched every
day at the border just to work for pennies a day to feed his starving children.
And he doesn't complain, so neither should you! Even should the lab add
full-body cavity searches, so long as we're not on camels, we should submit
without complaint. Complaining when other people have it worse just makes us
look spoiled.

8) Complaining at the lab is clearly ineffective. You're just making
unpleasant noise for the rest of us.

7) Other corporations such as WalMart and McDonalds also have security
checkpoints. Since they do, it must be OK. QED!

6) No false positives.

5) Longer commute means warmer winters and richer Saudis.

4) Based on sound science.

3) WalMart has greeters. Now so do we.

2) ... next ... next ... next ... next ...

and, finally, the number one reason not to be negative about the new
security checkpoint:

1) Instead of being negative, we should focus on the positive: These
new security checkpoints have absolutely eliminated any possibility whatsoever
that a terrorist smuggles in a bomb on the passenger seat!


Anonymous said...

Sure is hard to understand why that constructive and humorous post was rejected from the LANL forum.

[that is sarcasm for the thinking impaired]

Anonymous said...

Actually, 2:19, could you explain why? It's not clear to me. Which Forum policies does it violate? You think the Forum editors should judge humor? If it was funnier, then they should have accepted it? You might disagree with the message, you might think it's poorly written or lousy humor but why should the author not be allowed to post it to the Forum?

I for one think there's some outrageous new policies going on at the lab. I'm happy to see that someone else is outraged by them even if I don't necessarily think I'll be recommending the author to the Letterman staff anytime soon.

Anonymous said...

I don't know what the policies are for the forum. However, if I were trying to maintain a civil and constructive tone on it, I would have rejected the post. It adds nothing to the discussion and is not particularly amusing (at least not to me). In my opinion, it is indeed meaningless whining.

I agree there are outrageous things going on. The large intestine is annoying and does not add much, but at this point its like whining about the sun coming up in the morning. It is not going anywhere. Energies are best spent elsewhere.

I've not looked at the forum in quite a while, so I guess I should peek in on it. It usually is a string of complaints about someone that got cut off in traffic or whatever that morning and expecting laboratory management to do something about it. So I don't tend to look at it very often.

Anonymous said...

5:34 agrees with the editors' decision to reject yet also admits he never reads the forum because it's full of pointless drivel. Perhaps the drivel to value ratio is so high because the editors reject everything that isn't drivel.

Also, I don't read the top 10 list as a complaint about the large intestine. I think rather it is commenting on the recent discussion about the lab's new random testing policies. I've been paying attention to those discussions (which are actually happening in the forum as well as on the blogs) and they seem to be mostly reasonable complaints asking hard questions, for example about the intrinsic value of privacy. These complaints are frequently answered by people who either say, "quit then if you don't like it," or "walmart does it too," or "other people have it worse, so don't complain."

I don't know what was intended, but I read this top ten as a completely merciless mockery of those morons and their simplistic attempts to silence the discussion.

Anonymous said...

3) WalMart has greeters. Now so do we.

LOVED IT! Number 3 had me ROTFL! We could all use more good humor like this. Keep up the good work and don't let the ol' sour-pusses make you feel bad about trying to give us all a good laugh.

Anonymous said...

How about this for an explanation.

1. LANL is managed by a bunch of incompetent, petty bureacrats.

2. The person who okays letters for the Reader's Forum is an at-will employee.

3. One of those petty bureacrats could read the letter, not like it, and fire the editor tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

Geez, I sure can't imagine why the Lab's Newbulletin wouldn't post such obvious ass-kissing tripe as this. This is typically what you see there anyways.

Anonymous said...

6/10/07 11:41 AM

I'm not sure what list you were reading but this list was far from 'towing the company line'.

I believe your SarCasmometer© needs to be calibrated.

Anonymous said...

When the time comes that I am required to take a polygraph, I will piss on the polygraph machine and claim that I forgot which civil liberties were being trampled that particular day.

Anonymous said...

Inversely, I plan on attaching electrodes to my genitals when giving my urine sample.

I'm not keen on the idea of a stranger with an apparent 'golden shower' fetish overseeing this, but hey... if I don't like it, I will just go work somewhere else.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Inversely, I plan on attaching electrodes to my genitals when giving my urine sample.

I'm not keen on the idea of a stranger with an apparent 'golden shower' fetish overseeing this, but hey... if I don't like it, I will just go work somewhere else.

6/11/07 4:53 PM

How bout a "Hot Lunch"?