Sad, but true. We do. I never much cared for the anonymous character assassination that has flourished on all three of the LANL blogs. I believe it says something unsavory about the people who work there. From the Saturday COW, here is our selection for Comment of the Week:
Actually, the anti-Pedicini folks should shut their holes. At least John isn't afraid to (a) speak his mind even if the opinion is not what people want to hear and (b) he signs his name when he posts on the blog. There is a reason why LANL higher-ups want to keep him around ... he knows what he is talking about even if they don't want to hear him say it.
I respect someone who has the courage to use his own name to voice his convictions. Not so much respect for anonymous cowards.
--Doug
11 comments:
Pardon me, but he thinks he knows what he is talking about, even when he doesn't...
I've noticed that some people just can't take a hint.
Not my problem, fortunately. I'd like to suggest, though, that with people like 9:44, it's no small wonder that LANL is such an unhappy place to work these days.
Complete self-assurance is Pedecini's "aura". His breadth of knowledge is huge; however, he has the fatal flaw of not knowing what he doesn't know (or worse, not being able to admit it). The result is an appearance of arrogance coupled with just enough occasional ignorance to make his pronouncements suspect among his slightly less knowledgeable, but slightly more intellectually cautious, colleagues.
I respect it when people sign their names on this blog. Takes some guts and/or self-confidence. Also, given that any loser (and his teenage son) can post here, you are guaranteed to have quite a bit of junk signed "Anonymous".
Yet, it should be recognized that not all anonymous posts here are created equal. There are anonymous posts and then there are anonymous posts. In fact, some of the more thoughtful and informative posts I've read on this blog have been anonymous, not the signed ones. You just have to filter out the noise to see the signal.
There are anonymous posters and there are blog admins who allow anonymous postings. And not surprisingly, allowing anonymous postings induce anonymous postings. On the other hand, there would only be a handful of bloggers when only allowing ID checked users (Doug, Eric, Frank, Greg, John).
Caveat, I prefer the anonymity even if it requires to read through 99% garbage to get to the 1% useful information.
Anonymous alien from outer space
Why annonymous postings? Just look at how Mr. Pedecini has been demonized when he has expressed an opinion that someone cruising this blog happens to disagree with. Do we respect opposing views at the Lab? Not likely! How about view points that conflict with the "official" Lab position? Most of us know that the Lab will eat its own offspring when push comes to shove, and so we employees know better than to believe we actually have the right to exercise free speech when it comes to the Lab. Ironic, but true.
It's been said...one man's garbage is another man's treasure.
It has also been said that all of LANL's problems can be attributed to LANL Management and the NNSA (or, previously, DOE).
This blog has clearly demonstrated that a great deal of LANL's problems come from the rank and file staff that have accumulated there over the years.
As a side thought: I wonder if the 'Doc Aq' stalker contributions might be legally construed as cyber-bullying? If so, I suspect Google will have no objections to handing over their logs to the FBI.
"I suspect Google will have no objections to handing over their logs to the FBI."
12/7/09 1:31 PM
Yeah, in your dreams!
I heard Hugo Chavez paid the Doc Aq stalker $20,000 in cash.
Perhaps the LANS recruitment motto should be: "We cater to cowards!" It would help increase the size of the flock.
Post a Comment