From the Editorial: Lab dodges worst; mission must broaden post:
-Gus
__________________________________________
The LANL community hardcore will never admit it has to change...ever! Arrogant butt-head cowboys don't take friendly advise very kindly; criticism even less. By definition the best and brightest can never be wrong. That's just who we are at Los Alamos.
Now here are the standard comebacks to a post like this one.
1) This person doesn't know what he's talking about.
2). He obviously doesn't work at the Lab, so ignore him.
3). He probably got RIFed in the last layoff and is bitter.
4). I know who this is. He is (fill in the blank) and hates the Lab. So there.
5). Must be one of the anti nuke Santa Fe liberals.
6). WTF! Ass hole!
7). He mispelled a word! Poor grammar, so must be an idiot to boot!
What you won't hear on this blog:
Hmmm, maybe she's got a point!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Hmm. Maybe she's got a point here.
The post has no real point it just seems to be a series of insults about people at the lab. Why do you allow this crap on the blog?
I believe the real question, 11:57, is why do we allow *your* crap here? The author of the post has made a very accurate observation about many LANL staff. The typical response to any news article that is critical of LANL is exactly as described above.
-Gus
Ok Guss,
I will admit that I am not very bright person so be please be patient with me. I simply do no understand your point. Where is the "accurate observation" about LANL staff made by the original poster?
"
The LANL community hardcore will never admit it has to change...ever!
Arrogant butt-head cowboys don't take friendly advise very kindly;
criticism even less. By definition the best and brightest can never be wrong. That's just who we are at Los Alamos."
So line by line.
"The LANL community hardcore will never admit it has to change...ever!"
First of all who is the LANL community hardcore? Almost every staff member I know wants change and more diversity at the lab and have wanted this for a long time. The sentence just seems to be be insult with last part of "ever!"
" Arrogant butt-head cowboys don't take friendly advise very kindly; criticism even less."
This is just an insult from the Nanos days by saying the staff are arrogant butt-head cowboys.
Where is the proof that we are arrogant butt-head cowboys? You know some of the work by Brad Hollian looking at our safety record and security record showed that these accusations by Nanos are not true. On the whole the staff can take advise and criticism, in fact most people at the lab even criticize the lab. What annoys people is when the criticism is simply incorrect or just insulting whether it comes from the news media or posters on the blog.
"By definition the best and brightest can never be wrong. That's just who we are at Los Alamos."
This "best and brightest" thing that people keep saying is some silly
phrase used by DOE officials but not by people at the. I do not know anyone at the lab says this about themselves. Again it seems to be nothing more than an insult.
So Guss where have I gone wrong? I can understand someone saying that LANL management needs to change or never admits
that it is wrong but I cannot say that about the regular workers at the lab.
Of course it is possible that I am a complete moron who cannot see the obvious.
"Of course it is possible that I am a complete moron who cannot see the obvious."
Well, 12:43, I will concede that possibility.
;-}
I have to admit, though, you don't sound like a complete moron.
However, I also concede that you do not have the perspective that Pinky and I have, gained through having experienced the dubious pleasure of fielding hundreds upon hundreds of comments to those numerous news articles which have been critical of LANL.
I can state with a high degree of assurance that the overwhelming majority of responses to those stories which were authored by LANL employees follows the pattern that the original post outlines.
Having worked at LANL for some 20 years, I can also verify that many of my ex. colleagues up on the hill would invariably discount any news story that painted an unflattering picture of LANL. My time at LANL also made me passingly familiar with the arrogant attitudes of many of the staff there. I was no doubt one of the arrogant ones! Those attitudes have at times severely alienated our sponsors as well as colleagues from the other labs.
You, on the other hand, are clearly more objective in your assessment of the media and their ability to accurately write about LANL, so let me announce here and now that the author of the comment dated 12/18/07 12:43 PM is an exception, and that this post does not apply to him!
-Gus
"What you won't hear on this blog:
Hmmm, maybe she's got a point!"
Wait, it was a she? Let's not stop at seven standard comebacks. Here are a few more that apply.
8. Do you know how she got her job?
9. She has emotional problems.
10. Who is she sleeping with?
Arrogance, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. If you hire people whose technical training has included large doses of not accepting any givens or conventional wisdom without question, they are unlikely simply to salute and do what the Admiral tells them. Universities are the only other place where I have seen this phenomenon considered acceptable. In my opinion, it has been an essential component of the creativity and strength of this Lab . (Maybe not the best and the brightest, but pretty darn good.)
As one who has tried to change facets of the Lab for 30 years, and has instead seen the changes go in what I consider to be the wrong direction (i.e., more direction from the top down), what I worry about is whether we can maintain our value to the Nation as we change into a "normal" industrial defense contractor.
By the way, isn't it advice? :-)
Having worked at LANL for some 20 years, I can also verify that many of my ex. colleagues up on the hill would invariably discount any news story that painted an unflattering picture of LANL.
Could it just be l learned response to the jaded "journalism" on LANL. I think if the stories were fairly and accurately reported on a consistnt basis this behaviour would cease. People are tired of being attached and it is a learned response to bedefensive.
I rarely see an accurate article in the paper, and when the truth comes out there rarely is a clarification.
On the flip side, LANL has flaws, makes mistakes, and engages in behaviors that are frowned upon by others.
if this posting has no point, why are we still posting replies?
5:26,
Your comment has a Zen character to it. This calls for a Haiku:
Blog Posting. Pointless?
Then why are we still posting?
I don't know, do you?
-Gus
If the original post falls flat on its face in the forest, does it make anyone besides me laugh?
2:54 pm: Yep, 12:43 is the same as the original poster - doesn't know the difference between "advise" and "advice."
People actually do all sorts of things on this blog that serve to identify them (at least in subsequent posts). If you are personally familiar with the person's idiosyncrasies, of course, you can immediately identify them individually.
It's funny how many excuses you have for not allowing comments. Bad grammar, what a joke, tell us the real truth.
7:46, yep how right you are. FN...
The original poster made no point at all except the claim that people at the lab do not accept criticism. This, like most of the other anti-lab posts we see, is empty of real content. No specifics. No policy or facts to debate. Just insulting generalities. It is exactly this type of "criticism" that I, for one, cannot accept. The writer has unwittingly illustrated, by the inanity of her comments, why we dislike this type of thing. Standard comebacks 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 apply.
Before you fit hollian for a saint's hat, let's remember how he was opposed to drug testing (letter to the New Mexican). I've heard LANL has processed over 80 terminations because of drug positives and that the problem is so bad that the DOE is now refusing to process clearances because of prior drug use.
No problem here...right Brad?
Now, what were you saying about safety???
12/19/07 4:14 AM
Brad presented real numbers. As for drug testing who do you think is more of a threat, a casual marijina smoker or a total alcohlic or presription drug junkie?
As for the orginal poster. He, probably being that anti-nuke ass hole from Santa Fe, Mechels, is bitter after being RIFed in the last lay off, does not know what he is talking about, so ignore him. Sorry, just having fun.
"the problem is so bad that the DOE is now refusing to process clearances because of prior drug use."
Is that true? Even if it happened more than 10 or 20 years ago? How does that make sense? Who do they expect to hire - kindergarteners? or just Mormons and/or people from the radical right... ah, suddenly this makes sense...
Post a Comment