It seems to me that all the literature, all the gurus, all the training courses, etc. (if you forgive the slight exaggeration) stress the need to "sell the message to senior management".

OK, now the hard question: has anyone actually witnessed a senior manager who "bought"?

Personally, in over 20 years experience, I have seen organizational culture change occur in the following circumstances:

1. New senior manager arrives from outside, already convinced of the power of a Quality culture

2. Quality champion somehow survives unscathed and manages to get promoted to a position of real power

3. "Near death experience" threatens survival of company, and senior manager (if not already replaced in cases 1 or 2 above), out of desperation, accepts the need to make necessary changes.

But I have never witnessed a senior manager who wakes up one day and says "gee, maybe all this Quality stuff is worth a go".

Have you?

Discuss...

:frust:

Actually, I did see this happen once. It took about 10 years to finally get to the guy but one day he finally woke up and "saw the light." I think it was when everything else was running smoothly and his area was the one that always ended up with nonconformances, returns and allowances being charge against his dept, etc. We had a formal quality system in place, then went ISO. At about the second to the last surveillance in our 3 year series, the registrar's auditor took him off to the side and told him that he was a disgrace to an otherwise world class quality system and that if he would work with the QA dept. instead of fighting them, he could probably bring his dept. to the top of the list instead of the bottom.

I will be forever grateful to that auditor, he turned the guy around, we went from a dismal 5% on-time delivery to 95% and reduced data entry errors that caused customer complaints by about 90%.

Now, I guess that you could say this fits into one of your "unless" categories, but it is truly a gratifying experience if you've ever been involved in a turnaround like it.

Originally posted by SteelMaiden
At about the second to the last surveillance in our 3 year series, the registrar's auditor took him off to the side and told him that he was a disgrace to an otherwise world class quality system and that if he would work with the QA dept. instead of fighting them, he could probably bring his dept. to the top of the list instead of the bottom.Yes I have seen it happen too, where the President/Owner of the company I worked for said hey wait a second this is a good thing QA is trying to do. I think why it happened was that I went to him and explained why we are doing this and howmuch money it will save the company in the long run. JMHO if you put things to "Top management" in $$ figures thats when they will understand you.

Steel, as far as the auditor pulling the guy aside and telling him that he was a disgrace that was just wrong. JMHO, you don't want to make personal attacks. I am surprised it worked and that the guy he told this to didn't belt him one.

Originally posted by ISO GUY
Steel, as far as the auditor pulling the guy aside and telling him that he was a disgrace that was just wrong. JMHO, you don't want to make personal attacks. I am surprised it worked and that the guy he told this to didn't belt him one.If an external auditor has built up some familiarity with the people who he audits, regularly, it is quite possible to be able to make that type of comment. If I were to ask my auditor, "Hey Joe, off the record, how am I doing, honestly? C'mon let me have it." You may be able to say something like Steel refers to. But, I can see where you can get in the sh-ts with the Company owner and, maybe, with your own Company. I made that mistake with a Supplier, only once. During a routine Source Inspection, the company foreman asked me, off the record, well, tell me; How does our product compare to my competitor's? Being quite young and trusting him, I told him that his stuff sucked compared to what I was used to seeing. That made it's way back to the Supplier's owner and then back to my company's President. My boss chewed me out good. He said it wasn't professional and even though they suck, you never tell them like that. He said, "When you're dealing with a Customer-Supplier relationship, nothing's off the record". I never did it again. I would hope that my Auditor tells me like it is. Just don't tell me I'm a disgrace to my profession, even though it may be true. Got it?;)

Back to the thread.

Bruce, No. I've never seen it. I also have been in Quality since 1966. It's a never ending battle!:ko: :smokin:

I think it was when everything else was running smoothly and his area was the one that always ended up with nonconformances, returns and allowances being charge against his dept, etc. At about the second to the last surveillance in our 3 year series, the registrar's auditor took him off to the side and told him that he was a disgrace to an otherwise world class quality system and that if he would work with the QA dept. instead of fighting them, he could probably bring his dept. to the top of the list instead of the bottom. All things considered, this must clearly be a "near death experience" on Bruce's list. JMHO if you put things to "Top management" in $$ figures thats when they will understand you. Exactly. That is as far as I know the only kind of language that really works: Where's the money in it? There in no use telling people that the customer gets mad if we do this or don't do that... Find out what it costs and tell them that instead. Steel, as far as the auditor pulling the guy aside and telling him that he was a disgrace that was just wrong. JMHO, you don't want to make personal attacks. I agree. Just complicate the situation by dragging facts into the discussion instead.

/Claes

Actually, it wasn't a near death experience, it was pretty normal for the industry...but I think I did state in the first post that it could probably fall into that category. (yes indeed, the industry norm for delivery was 100% not on time!) sad isn't it? And we were considered the best of the best.

Yep, I agree, I would never encourage an auditor to do something like that, but the manager in question was a troublemaker from the word go, and our auditors knew it. Corrective actions were never on time, or effective, he did everything he could to throw a wrench in the process. The rest of the business was really great, so great that they managed to actually pull this guys group's weight for 4 surveillances. It just finally caught up.

So, please don't think that I am advocating beating people up with an auditor, I'm not. Just saying that miracles can happen, and sometimes you can get people to see the light.

Point well taken Steel. We had a similar situation where I work and rather than letting the person keep going the way they were going they canned their butt. I didn't think you were advocating what the auditor did and I am sure the manager deserved it, I just don't know if I could do something like that. As mad as I get at times I just look at the person and laugh to myself rather than insulting them and risk them smacking me around. :vfunny:

Bruce,

There is one very interesting thread here that discusses senior management's commitment (!) to Quality- Is That A Knife In My Back?!?! -
http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=4237

I would vote for your third option - Near Death Experience -caused by some stiff competition and demands by end users of the product.

IMO, both, the 'new senior manager' and the the 'promoted surviving champion' are more likely to mould into the CEO culture ( MONEY!) than otherwise.

Why do you think there is a separate clause on 'Management Resposibility & Commitment'?

-Atul.

Bruce,

I have seen these changes occur within several companies to a large extent, though only about twice was it a complete turnaround of culture. I spent several years in the early 1990's working for a registrar on ISO & QS and I worked with several companies where the top management or owner was only entering into QS because of contractual requirements and let me know. On later visits I was pleasantly surprised with the attitude adjustment and commitment with in several companies. Now management was committed and behind the system. There were still some lapses in most, but overall the change had occurred.

In my experience the key to this commitment was a Quality manager or another responsible person that was exceptional in relating the benefits and successes to the bottom line (Which is not easy). And of course the top management, at sometime, had to look at the data and listen.

Additionally the Quality Manager or eq. had an inner sales person that was dying to get out

However, In my experience this is still not the norm. But this must be what keeps me trying. It is either that or some sickness where I crave pain & frustration. :frust:

Bruce,

I love it!!! Way to call it!

Regards,

Kevin

So, please don't think that I am advocating beating people up with an auditor, I'm not. Don't worry Steel, I never thought you did. Besides it worked that time. The problem is that this guys superiors should have slapped him, not the auditor. Just saying that miracles can happen, and sometimes you can get people to see the light. Yes, and it's ever so nice to see it happen. After all that's more or less what our line of work is about, isn't it?

In many cases our role is that of the missionary, and that role is something we all need to subject to continual improvement. What strikes me as very odd is that it's usually fairly easy to get people on the factory floor to grasp these ideas, and such a toil to get the managers to do the same thing. We all seem to have our ways and means to get through, and I'd like to hear more about how the rest of you do it.

Great discussion you all. I'm very glad to have this forum. It's a brilliant place to go to when the batteries need recharging.

/Claes

In many cases our role is that of the missionary
I have never viewed it nor heard it put that way before Claes. It really is in many instances. It is hard to get managers to buy in to changes. IMHO it is due to being product or delivery orientated, at least we get product out this way, type of thinking. As the industries move more towards the process based standards I hope this attitude/philosophy will change.

After rejecting a shipment of product to a particular customer, I had a plan manager tell be that he would rather have product at the customers door than to tell them we held the shipment because it had been rejected. We did have to pay for the return shipment and replace the order. I'm now at a different company but the overall feeling is still the same - make the delivery.

With the emphasis on JIT and 100% on time, the managers are focused on getting the product out and let QA tell me if it's good or not.
:frust:

With the emphasis on JIT and 100% on time, the managers are focused on getting the product out and let QA tell me if it's good or not. Oh yeah. That's one my pet peeves too. As long as it's added to the delivery figures, it would seem that anything goes. The strange thing is that in most companys rejects and customer complaints are not subtracted from the initial delivery figures. If they were, I'm sure it would change that note somewhat...

/Claes

I am really amazed that JAMA has backed the 16949 standard. I would think that it is because of it being processed based. The American companies try to grasp little tid bits of the Toyota, Nissan, etc. ways of doing business without understanding why it works for them. JIT, Kaizan, Ho Shin (sp), only work because it is part of their culture. It is all gauged by the conformance to the established process. I can remember reading where they look at a VP of Quality or even a Quality Manager and ask why? Why do we need a person at that level to say it is a quality product, it should be part of the process. IMHO by putting these programs in place, like Six Sigma, we are only treating the symptoms and not the true disease. I'm not saying that you'll not see any gains in implementing the programs. What I have seen is when implementing JIT & FIFO a company will ensure the warehouse is still over stocked just in case something goes wrong with the manufacturing "process". The company culture is what will drive change, and the ownership in the culture (managers, supervisors) is what implements the change.
I'll get off my soapbox.
:bigwave:

Originally posted by Randy Stewart
I can remember reading where they look at a VP of Quality or even a Quality Manager and ask why? Why do we need a person at that level to say it is a quality product, it should be part of the process.
:bigwave:

The real question is why do you even need a Quality Department? IMHO there is no reason to have one, but it is necessary because people are lazy, the more things you do for them the less they do on their own so now it becomes necessary to have QA. Make any sense?:bonk:

Originally posted by ISO GUY


The real question is why do you even need a Quality Department? IMHO there is no reason to have one, but it is necessary because people are lazy, the more things you do for them the less they do on their own so now it becomes necessary to have QA. Make any sense?:bonk:

Exactly!!! If management truly embraced the concept of quality management (not QA or QC or 6S, etc.) then the need for a QA or QC department would disappear. Quality would be inherent in the process. However, quality is still viewed as something that is separate and apart from the product and process - almost like something that can be added or taken away
without fundamentally changing the actual product. Way too many in upper management still view quality as an expense, an irritation that must be borne by the hard working execs trying to keep the business afloat while dealing with those too picky customers. :frust:

As odd as this sounds, I would really love to be able to work myself out of a job. That, to me, is success.

Good topic!!!

Cheers & happy snow covered Friday! (Is it Spring yet?!?!)

I would really love to be able to work myself out of a job

When I was Quality Manager that was how I started my orientation class. It is the only job whose primary purpose should be to put employees in the unemployment line (1 way or another). Too often in QA/QC we inspect and give it a pass or fail, never taking it further up the line to see how it happened. We are usually the ones that end up with the Root Cause Analysis training and that's where it ends. How many out there get the Concerns or QRs and are told we need this answered??? We need to take responsibility for that, we taught them to do it and we let them get away with it. Keep it moving up stream.
:smokin:

Stew’s comment:

“IMHO it is due to being product or delivery orientated, at least we get product out this way, type of thinking.”

Claes goes on to expand on this topic as being a pet peeve. Me too! To do Stew’s comment justice, I am recommending that those following this thread read “The Leader’s Handbook” by Peter Scholtes. He explores the difference between a 'Customer In' focus and a 'Product Out' focus. CEOs with a focus on Management by Numbers will always choose Product Out. Additionally, this is further confirmed with the emphasis required to keep the Stockholder’s happy before the needs of the Customer. Without customers, a business does not exist. One would think that a CEO should have brains enough to figure this out. Does anyone else find it interesting that we never see a CEO post a comment here? Why would they visit? Certainly not in the name of Quality!!

It would be interesting if all areas and all people in an organization absorb a Quality Culture into their work. But would this dissolve the need for Quality professionals? I don’t think so. I think we are here to stay, albeit in smaller numbers and perhaps we will be called something else. Either way, I think our focus will be the same.

Regards,

Kevin
:bigwave:

Very interesting subject - why do we have quality departments/professionals ?

It is bizarre that companies employ so many professional people on good salaries to do a job, and then another load of people to tell them how thay should have done it (the quality department).

It just shouldnt be, but that is the way it is for a lot of companies.

In my comparitively short time in this business I have seen the erosion of quality control/inspection functions at companies I have known to a state where in many it no longer exists. I wonder how much further this erosion will go - quite rightly too, so long as the responsibility for quality is taken up by those who should have had it in the first place.

Originally posted by M Greenaway

In my comparitively short time in this business I have seen the erosion of quality control/inspection functions at companies I have known to a state where in many it no longer exists. I wonder how much further this erosion will go - quite rightly too, so long as the responsibility for quality is taken up by those who should have had it in the first place.

M.,

Help me out here. Are you saying that the burden for poor quality control is now being shouldered by the people who should have had it in the first place? Management? Owners? I think that's what you are implying. If so, wish them well. It's only a matter of time. When I applied for a position 10 years ago, the position was created (opened) for just that reason. Others, Designers, Engineers, Tech Writers and a pretty good cross section of manufacturing (Electricians, Assemblers, etc.) hands on personnel, all had a shot of assuming the product compliance role. They couldn't do it, unless that was all they had to do. The grass always looks greener thing. Thinking about Quality is a mind set. Like looking before you open your driver side door before getting out on a busy street. Some don't. We all know what can happen, even though the written law prevents you from legally taking their door off and a few of their limbs.Quality Control/Assurance occupations are usually viewed as "Anybody can do it". When I'm told that my job is easy, this is my typical response: "Remember, everybody elses job looks easier than your own and they better they do it, the easier it looks." It's catching on because I get to repeat it so often. As long as Management isn't willing to bear the responsibility for producing junk or failing audits, they will always need a smart guy/gal to blame. That's where you come in. Well, not the gal thing. Well, maybe not even the smart thing! :vfunny: Take the rest of the day off without pay!:ko: :smokin:

I have seen lots of changes in organizations to improve quality. However, most of these changes resulted in NO improvement. Even if there were an improvement there would be no way to determine if it had occurred.

It seems to lead back to 'superstitious learning'. Those at the center of the universe…oops, I mean heads of an organization believe that they got where they are because of their flawless theory and immense background in ‘smoke & mirrors’.

Example:
Check out Toyota’ web site and look at their annual report, page 41. Looks like automotive sales (Toyota) have been increasing in North America over the past 6 years.

The executives of our auto related organization think their stupendous efforts have led to our growth over these same years. It couldn’t be the baby boomers spending more. Growth is linear, it can only go up!!

These executives are in the ‘Unaware or Denial’ pane of the Change Model. They are comfortable where they are. They only see the quarterly dividend. It could make them look bad or reveal their own shortcomings by adopting a new philosophy about business. Remember profits can only go UP.

How could they know. How could they????

I guess this could also lead back to the linear interpretation of the universe. Was anyone taught how to find the sum of the angles of a triangle? How about on a spherical surface? Ouch. My brain hurts, that’s too much to think about. Maybe its too much effort to think period.
:bonk:

Looks like automotive sales (Toyota) have been increasing in North America over the past 6 years.

You have to look at "Market Share". Toyota has increased it's market share over the past 6 years along with it's productivity.

The point I'm trying to make with the comparison to Toyota's sales growth is that the growth of most organizations (not necessarily Toyota, they are probably the exception) is tied to the spending habits of the baby boomer generation. Superstitious learning occurs. They (upper management) think they have succeeded because of their theory... if they have one.

There are other organizations besides Toyota that show similar growth. Yes, market share would be a good measure for strategic positioning, but understanding the spending habits of each generation would be more valuable. When the baby boomers stop spending, we will slide into depression and everyone will wonder why.

I agree with you. I think we are starting to see the decline of SUV sells, especially in the US manufacturers arena. Another issue to look at is where the emphasis is being placed now, younger buyers! If you watched the movie "Fast & the Furious" you got an idea of what is going to be the move of the future IMO. Smaller cars, lots of horse power, and a lot of after market mods available!!!!! "GEN X" is a smaller market than the Baby Boomers were. The corporations need to look at operating profit not just "Gross Sale $'s".
:bigwave:

Originally posted by Randy Stewart
I think we are starting to see the decline of SUV sells, especially in the US manufacturers arena.Not likely to happen in Texas! It looks like a Monster Truck rally on the freeways around here. The only way for a little car to survive is if it's small enough to slide under the SUV or truck in case of collision..:eek:

I saw a cartoon once that asked the question "who is the real patriot?" (or to that effect) accompanied by a picture of a guy driving a huge US made gas guzzling SUV and another pic of a guy driving a small foreign made car.

Originally posted by Lucinda

I saw a cartoon once that asked the question "who is the real patriot?" (or to that effect) accompanied by a picture of a guy driving a huge US made gas guzzling SUV and another pic of a guy driving a small foreign made car.

Go Girl:bigwave:

Like where does the gas come from? Duh! I now have a great answer for someone chastising me for buying an import truck. Not SUV. A little guy with a reputation for Quality :p Sorry I never thought about it that way. But, that's why we're here. :ko: :smokin:

The sale figures, in the Detroit area, for B3 SUVs is down close to 18% from last year. I know it doesn't show the influx of imports (Toyota, etc.) but the eyes have been open. Mid-sized trucks are still strong but vehicles like the Excursion, Expedition aren't selling like they once were. What I think Trailwalker was referring to is that you don't see GEN Xers buying these cars & trucks, at least not here. These guys come out of college with an IT degree, have a good disposable income and they're buying the Civics, Preludes, Volvo, etc. because there is very little brand identification with the B3. On top of that, it is a smaller market people number wise. IMO you should see an increase in the Cross Over vehicles, the smaller SUVs (Escape) and cars like the GM Vibe and Ford Focus. I know the Baby Boomers have NASCAR, but up here the new race for the next generation of car buyers is the World Rally series.
:thedeal:

When I took my business classes I only recall a few times when the topic of quality was ever discussed, and in those cases it concerned quality control.

I suspect that if Quality is taught in college as a requirement to any business degree then our future managers, CEOs and COOs would automatically be trained (or at least aware) in quality.

I was taken aback when my MBA itinerary did not include quality but plenty of $$.

Did I just do a root cause here!!!

John Swartz said:

When I took my business classes I only recall a few times when the topic of quality was ever discussed, and in those cases it concerned quality control.

I suspect that if Quality is taught in college as a requirement to any business degree then our future managers, CEOs and COOs would automatically be trained (or at least aware) in quality.

I was taken aback when my MBA itinerary did not include quality but plenty of $$.

Did I just do a root cause here!!!

Hi John,

You hit upon one of my more irritating pet peeves. If colleges spent more time on the principles of quality and less time on managerial accounting - I think the focus would indeed change from the short term balance sheet approach to management to a more systems based long term focus. I have nothing against accounting or finance classes - I think they is necessary for the well rounded student. However, as you noted, not many classes deal with quality and if a student is lucky (sarcasm is oozing here...) he or she can escape undergrad without ever hearing the word "quality" mentioned. However, ask him or her what EBIT is and they can rattle that off without thinking. To my mind (warped as it may be... :vfunny: ) this is a grevious oversight that is in desperate need of correction.

Cheers!!

John Swartz said:

When I took my business classes I only recall a few times when the topic of quality was ever discussed, and in those cases it concerned quality control.

I suspect that if Quality is taught in college as a requirement to any business degree then our future managers, CEOs and COOs would automatically be trained (or at least aware) in quality.

I was taken aback when my MBA itinerary did not include quality but plenty of $$.

Did I just do a root cause here!!!
I'll say you did... This is one of my favourite pet peeves too. After all, looking only as far ahead as to the next quarterly report hardly condones a focus on long term improvement.

/Claes

I heard on the radio on my way into work this a.m. a snippo from Rush Limbaugh (sp?) stating that the the chairman of the newspaper editor's association mentioned in a keynote address that the decline in newspaper circulation was due to short-term strategies forced by newspaper owners. This was his farewell address as he leaves his position of chairman. Rush countered that a business is in business to make profit and was laughing at the apparent fact that this chairman just didn't get it. He went on to say that increasing circulation is the key, not a different way to manage the shop.

I think Rush is a complete idiot, woefully ignorant of what life, business, finance and politics are supposed to be about. I am amazed that he has such a following. The chairman was talking about abandoning short-term tactics for long-term strategies. I believe he was right.

Sadly, most MBAs I have met know little about business and a lot about finance. What is the difference between the accountant and the business manager? Hard to tell the difference from my perspective. Additionally, speaking with most finance folks, I get the impression that they think the rest of us just don't get it. To these folks, Rush makes good sense I suppose. However, these folks are busy drilling, hacking, and blasting holes into a boat we try to keep afloat. Amazing! Isn't it?

Kevin

ISO GUY said:

The real question is why do you even need a Quality Department? IMHO there is no reason to have one, but it is necessary because people are lazy, the more things you do for them the less they do on their own so now it becomes necessary to have QA. Make any sense?:bonk:
In spite of all the knowledge and systems and certificates, I see that quality is still being 'inspected into the products'. Quality Departments are working as Inspection departments. Quality that is taught in the colleges ( even the Engineering colleges, let alone MBA courses) is heavily focussed on inspection function. There is no attempt to imbibe any 'Quality Culture' into the minds of students.

M Greenaway said:

In my comparitively short time in this business I have seen the erosion of quality control/inspection functions at companies I have known to a state where in many it no longer exists. I wonder how much further this erosion will go - quite rightly too, so long as the responsibility for quality is taken up by those who should have had it in the first place.
If Production departments are now shouldering this responsibity, I think it's a good sign. The objective IMHO, should be to make the processes so robust that they cannot produce rejections. Even after that we will need quality professionals just to monitor and keep the processes that way. You cannot really work yourself out of job.

- Atul.

The success of the QMS depends on the support from the top management. The entire quality system will crumble if top management does not participate and support in this endeavour.

This is to reinforce the point that the senior management must do a set of things as a part of QMS

"I think Rush is a complete idiot, woefully ignorant of what life, business, finance and politics are supposed to be about. I am amazed that he has such a following. The chairman was talking about abandoning short-term tactics for long-term strategies. I believe he was right."

Kevin, I am amazed also, but it appears from his popularity that a good number of people like to hear his "garbage".

"The success of the QMS depends on the support from the top management. The entire quality system will crumble if top management does not participate and support in this endeavour."

Venkat, I agree top management should be involved. However, as I look back over the years, especially at companies I have worked for, there has always been a someone with a quality title that was part of "Top Management",i.e., Vice-president corporate quality,quality director,etc.
Juran once stated that the role of the quality manager is changing; from compliance issues to business issues.
Have we as quality professionals failed to change with the times or could it be that we are not relating to our peers, in there language, the need for quality to be part of the process.

Sam and Kevin,

Since Rush is "a complete idiot, woefully ignorant of what life, business, finance and politics are supposed to be about" I would expect that to come to such a conclusion you guys are quite the opposite -- experts in the areas of life, business, finance, and politics, not to mention the quality area. That's quite a broad range of valuable talent that humanity could really use about now. Therefore I expect to see one or both of you guys on your own nationally syndicated talk/TV shows or newspaper/magazine columns soon telling all of us dummys what's what. After all, if a "complete idiot" can do it and succeed, the sky's the limit for you two! Get out there and counter the obscene damage (brainwashing maybe?) that Rush and his ilk have done by creating many millions of other "complete idiots" who happen to agree with much of what they say. Let your quality backgrounds show the way!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Mike S.:)

Mike. S,
Thanks for the vote of confidence. However, my right to disagree with or voice my opinion about someone or something does not necessarily make me an expert in the field. Do I have alternate solutions to opinions of people like Rush L. ? Sure I do, We all do or should have opinions about things we do not agree with . Opinions, whether positive or negative express our individuality, which is guaranteed.:)

Call me an idiot. Rush is dead on and says things that others are thinking about and it's refreshing. He has been extremely accurate with his assessments. I'm not surprised that some think he's a moron. After all, half the country are morons. The great divide. Too bad they don't let him get on prime time. Why is that you think? He may create a lot more idiots? Egads, ratings would drop for CNN and MSNBC. Love it. :p

:ko: :smokin:

Sam said:

Mike. S,
Thanks for the vote of confidence. However, my right to disagree with or voice my opinion about someone or something does not necessarily make me an expert in the field. Do I have alternate solutions to opinions of people like Rush L. ? Sure I do, We all do or should have opinions about things we do not agree with . Opinions, whether positive or negative express our individuality, which is guaranteed.:)
__________________
Sam,

Sure you have a right to express your opinion!!! Thankfully, the Cove is one forum to allow us all to do that on many subjects. However, when you say/agree Rush is a "complete idiot", "ignorant" and his thoughts/opinions are "garbage" -- these are very strong words. You did not say you disagree or have an alternate opinion, you made a statement as though stating provable facts, so that's why I figured you must be an expert -- not giving opinions but stating facts. And based on what you said I felt I might be guilty by association of also being an "idiot", "ignorant" and a person with thoughts like "garbage" because I happen to share many (not all) of Rush's opinions.

Perhaps I misinterpreted your words. Mea culpa.

Mike S.

Mike S.
Sorry for the confusion. Perhaps I should have qualified my statement with an "IMO".:)

Mike S. said:

And based on what you said I felt I might be guilty by association of also being an "idiot", "ignorant" and a person with thoughts like "garbage" because I happen to share many (not all) of Rush's opinions.
Perhaps I misinterpreted your words. Mea culpa.
Mike S.

Mike S.

Of course it is just a harmless misinterpretation, more like a harmless insinuation. In other words, "If the shoe fits, wear it".
Because it wasn't adressed to you, personally, it wasn't meant to demean the garbage followers. It was just a written conversation between two professionals in agreement that there must be something wrong with those that don't see it their way.
Philosophers, Gurus....etc. is where I have the most fun. It, at times, oozes aloofness, arrogance, intellect:bonk:, philosphy....and all those other things that the unfortunate masses haven't been educated in, or fail to understand.

It also reminds me to be very careful, lest I become like that. Why do you think I chose my signature?

Nothing personal guys. JMHO

In advance, Mea Culprit!:vfunny: :ko: :smokin:

energy said:

Call me an idiot. Rush is dead on and says things that others are thinking about and it's refreshing. He has been extremely accurate with his assessments.

I'll grant him this much: he knows his audience and gives them exactly what they want to hear. Personally, his mixture of misogynism, racism, and cynicism doesn't appeal to me.

He and his listeners are certainly entitled to their opinion, and the right to express it. However, the one thing which ticks me off more than anything (not just Mr. Limbaugh does this, though he seems to do it frequently) is when these opinions are presented as if they were FACTS (which they often are not).

Bruce

Bruce,

Well, you drove me to the dictionary on misogynism. Hatred of women? Is it misology-hatred of reason? Racist? Is that because he's Caucasian and tells you things that you don't want to hear? There is plenty of racism to go around and it's not all aimed at minorities. Anyway, you left out homophobic. Does that bother you, too? I agree that many commentators state things as fact, including Rush. My problem is that I don't have the time to check it out. It just sounds good. I've been thinking the same things myself. It has more to do with our bend/tilt towards the topics of today.
How's the weather in Paris? We were in the 90's yesterday. High 80's today.

" What if the hokey pokey is really what it's all about"

What????? You mean it's not!!! :ko:

energy said:

How's the weather in Paris? We were in the 90's yesterday. High 80's today.

Actually, from April 14 to 26 I'm only about 100 miles northeast of you. (Business trip, not vacation)

Bruce

It appears that my comments about Rush somehow projected themselves onto folks here at the Cove. My apologies, but my comments weren’t targeted at offending anyone here. Guilt by association?: I am more open-minded than you give me credit for. I listen to Rush on occasion, need I say more?

However, I do take exception to the personal attacks.

Kevin,

C'mon -- personal attacks? Lighten up. I think the replies to your post were softer and less attacking than YOUR original post, yet you take exception?

You're obviously an intelligent guy. And as a "super moderator" -- I submit MHO that a moderator should be talented in the ways of mediation and arbitration, soft(er) spoken, and not so easily offended. You said you did not intend to offend anyone, and I'll take you at your word, but surely upon further reflection you must realize that if you are going to attack the thoughts and opinions of someone popular, whether it be Rush or Deming, those who agree with that person's thoughts and opinions are going to come to the defense. And when you make statements of fact (not opinions) as you did that that popular person is a "complete idiot" and "woefully ignorant" those who believe the same thing are going to be offended. There is no way around it -- even Spock would call it logical.

And suggesting that because you listen to Rush sometimes means you are open-minded does not prove anything to me. Arafat might listen to what Sharon says, but that does not mean he is being open-minded!

Just a few suggestions from a relative newcomer: State opinions as such and facts as such. If you're going to attack something or someone strongly, expect a correspondingly strong a defense from the supporters of the opposite opinion; therefore be careful how strongly you come across. And don't get hurt when you get back as strong as you give. Fair is fair.

Maybe we'll find the next subject something we can agree on!?

Mike S.

Mike,

I am sure that there is more that we agree on than we disagree on. We agree Arafat is not open-minded, at least about the recent, longstanding situation. However, if you have read my posts here for the last few years, you will find that for the most part, I am. This is not to say that I can’t be the opposite or will not take the opposite position on occasion.

Although my opinion of Rush is not good, I agree I was a bit harsh. It was a broader condemnation of him than it needed to be and should have focused on the instance rather than the whole. I also accept that it is fair that those who endorse a position/person come to its/their defense. I would. And, you are right that I should be softer spoken as a moderator (“super moderator” is something Marc bestowed on me and not a label I would give or gave myself) by facilitating more than contributing. This is not to say that I won't change hats from time to time.

Folks will make statements here from time to time and forget to preceed their comments with an "IMHO", "Stepping onto a soap box", etc. (I try to give a warning when I do project). As energy pointed out, we should give folks the benefit of the doubt, especially in cases where/when we know know it would generally apply. Anyone has the right to question the person (perhaps has the obligation) to ask for clarification, but in no instance should we find it acceptable to attack another Cove member (or anyone else as you point out). Thick or thin skin, there's little room here or anywhere for it. I hope that you agree.

Regards,

Kevin

Kevin,

Got to jump in here, for a few. We met here. I enjoy your posts and your gift with the written word. As a Maderator , I found you very tolerant of my irreverence for the often eulogized fathers of Quality and I have no complaints, what so ever. We have a new group of intelligent young professionals frequenting the Cove who haven’t really gotten the feel for the intent of some of the posts. What you and others say can, and will, be taken quite literally. When I saw Michael’s post regarding your bashing of Rush L, I joined in because it was another shot at two intellects discussing something common to one another without regard to who may have another opinion. That’s all it was. You know how I love to pop balloons.
Mike S.’s last post caught me by surprise because I thought you handled the situation pretty good. Your personal attack thing actually looked like an after thought.

Mike S.,

I never kick a guy in the hand when it is extended. If you read back on Kevin’s posts, you will be hard pressed to see another post that resembled the Rush thing. There are plenty of arrogant, pompous individuals to vent on here. I do. Kevin isn’t one of them. He just happens to be a Moderator for threads dealing with Gurus, Philosophers that draws those types of people. As I said before, I romp through here on occasion to rub shoulders with the crème de la crème of the Quality world just to remind them that the quality world doesn’t revolve only around them. Kevin is one of the good guys. He has to be. We drink the same water. He’s only about 15 miles away from me, even though we never met. :vfunny:

I always enjoy a good brawl, but I feel this one is a little one sided. No offense intended. Don’t forget it’s my birthday tomorrow, 4/23/43. Just send money!


:agree: :smokin:

Don’t forget it’s my birthday tomorrow, 4/23/43. Just send money!
Happy birthday, Energy.

:D /Claes

Happy Birthday Energy!!!!!

Dave

energy said:

Don’t forget it’s my birthday tomorrow, 4/23/43. Just send money!

:agree: :smokin:

Happy Birthday Energy! I just have one comment to make:
"You're still older than I am!" :vfunny:

Have a good one, and have a beer for me while you're out there fishin'.

energy said:
There are plenty of arrogant, pompous individuals to vent on here
I resemble that remark! I mean I resent that remark! :vfunny:

On the Rush theme, I love Rush. Whether or not I agree with him, I think he is great entertainment. He and Coach Don Cherry are a lot alike. If you don't know "Grapes", you don't know hockey!

[I learned the Canadian National Anthem by watching "Hockey Night in Canada". I could sing it before I could sing our own!

Sorry... I lost my head

Energy,
Excellent post!! Just to add, when we take this stuff too serious we become those pompous, arrogant targets.

Sam said:

Energy,
Excellent post!! Just to add, when we take this stuff too serious we become those pompous, arrogant targets.

Sam,

At times, I'm sure, even I can appear that way! Not too often because you have to know what you're talking about!:bonk:
Dealing with Q types for a very long time has showed me that some of us think that we are a cut above the populace by virtue of our titles. Early on I learned to ally myself with the worker bees because they can make or break you, if they choose to. Once they understand that you aren't displaying that arrogance and actually listen to them, life is so much easier. You can gain respect and get things accomplished without demanding it. Everybody has a job to do and, in my opinion, nobody is more important than another. Some just make more money at it. That's just the way it is. JMHO :ko: :smokin:

[QUOTE] energy said:
I always enjoy a good brawl, but I feel this one is a little one sided. No offense intended. Don’t forget it’s my birthday tomorrow, 4/23/43. Just send money!
____________________
The brawl -- a very mild one I think -- is over from my perspective. Everyone has said their piece and now we move on.:truce:

I have very little money to offer, Energy, so you're out of luck there. But I'll say "happy birthday" and wish that on your next fishing trip may they bite so well that you run out of hellgrammites and minnows and wear some of the finish off your favorite lure.

Mike S.

Hey Energy... happy birthday!!! I hope you're posting from home and enjoying your day off... Wait!! What am I saying?? If you were enjoying a day off, what in the world would you be doing posting here? :biglaugh:

BTW... What's it look like from that side of the hill? :D :bonk: :ko:

Cheers!!!!

energy said:

Don’t forget it’s my birthday tomorrow, 4/23/43. Just send money!



Happy Birthday!

I'd offer money, but Euros aren't legal tender in the US (yet) :D :vfunny: :cool:

Bruce

Happy Birthday energy!!! Opening day and a birthday in April? It must be bittersweat!!!

Thanks for posting your thoughts. As Mike put it, there are other things to discuss.

Enjoy the next 3 hours and 13 minutes........

Kevin