There is no shortage of people who can tell you all of the reasons why you will fail in accomplishing your dreams. But such pronouncements are really a confession—they are telling you why they fail in achieving their goals and dreams.
When I was a teenager I played on the high school basketball team. I had always been a starter on the team, but one year several “friends” began telling me all of the reasons why I wouldn’t be a starter in the upcoming season. I hadn’t grown enough, I wasn’t fast enough to play another position, I simply wasn’t good enough. Such negativity began to weigh on me and I started to believe it. Ultimately it had an impact on my performance.
Some people do not like the idea that others harbor big dreams. It is a slap in their own face, a reminder of their own failings. But rather than re-evaluate their own conclusions and make the requisite changes, they prefer to drag others down to their level of misery.
While we cannot change such people, we can take steps to reduce their impact on us. We can refuse to deal with them. We can recognize the fact that their failures are no reflection of us. We can reject their self-pity and rise above it. Most importantly, we can associate with people who are not jealous of other’s success, but admire and encourage it.
Showing posts with label second-handers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label second-handers. Show all posts
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Burglars
Last week my wife walked in on a burglarly in progress in our home. Fortunately, there was no confrontation and the burglar left through the front door. He must have been in the house for only a few moments before my wife arrived, as nothing was disturbed, rifled, or taken. The only damage was 1 broken window.
Such events provoke several thoughts. One is intense anger that someone would be so brazen as to enter our home. He has no idea what might await him, or happen to him. He takes a huge risk in breaking into a home. But I doubt he has given that much thought--he wants something and he's going to go get it.
And that leads to my second thought. Burglars are simply taking the easy way out. Rather than learn a productive skill, they survive by victimizing others. Rather than trade value for value, they simply seize the values that they desire.
In some ways, this mentality is shared by a lot of painting contractors. I hasten to add that I am not calling any contractor a crook. But many contractors do not regard a paint job as an exchange of values. They view is as a confrontational activity between the client and the contractor, in which each tries to get something over on the other.
As an example, many contractors argue that customers always hire on price. They see no other value involved in the transaction. So they offer the most basic value they can--putting paint on the wall. They don't accept credit cards, have insurance, do color consultations, or offer any other value that customers will pay for. They simply put paint on the wall, and then complain that customers won't pay for quality.
I would argue that such an attitude is a form of theft. A contractor who believes such things is robbing himself and his family. By depriving his customers of the additional values that he could offer, he prevents himself from commanding a better price. And while his intentions may be better than the punk who broke into my house, I'd still like to slap some sense into him. What I'd like to do to that punk is a different matter.
© BEP Enterprises Incorporated 2008
Such events provoke several thoughts. One is intense anger that someone would be so brazen as to enter our home. He has no idea what might await him, or happen to him. He takes a huge risk in breaking into a home. But I doubt he has given that much thought--he wants something and he's going to go get it.
And that leads to my second thought. Burglars are simply taking the easy way out. Rather than learn a productive skill, they survive by victimizing others. Rather than trade value for value, they simply seize the values that they desire.
In some ways, this mentality is shared by a lot of painting contractors. I hasten to add that I am not calling any contractor a crook. But many contractors do not regard a paint job as an exchange of values. They view is as a confrontational activity between the client and the contractor, in which each tries to get something over on the other.
As an example, many contractors argue that customers always hire on price. They see no other value involved in the transaction. So they offer the most basic value they can--putting paint on the wall. They don't accept credit cards, have insurance, do color consultations, or offer any other value that customers will pay for. They simply put paint on the wall, and then complain that customers won't pay for quality.
I would argue that such an attitude is a form of theft. A contractor who believes such things is robbing himself and his family. By depriving his customers of the additional values that he could offer, he prevents himself from commanding a better price. And while his intentions may be better than the punk who broke into my house, I'd still like to slap some sense into him. What I'd like to do to that punk is a different matter.
© BEP Enterprises Incorporated 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Bullies and Second-Handers
I have been active on various Internet forums for 8+ years. I am aware of only 1 other person who has be regularly active during that period--whom I will call Harvey. During this time I have witnessed a very ugly side to the man. I quit visiting his board for a period of time. In early 2006 he contacted me regarding this and we talked on the phone. I explained that I did not like his approach and wouldn’t condone it. If he changed I would consider visiting his board. For a short while he was more civil, but when the civility began to disappear so did I.
In March of this year he posted on his board about "a so called professional's blog". Harvey went on to write that "he has pretty much copied what I have written about why we can't price by the square foot floor area!" Harvey proceeded to call the author "a low life crumb" for using the work of someone else "for their betterment, trying to make others think that they are creative!"
I was made aware of the post by a friend who questioned if the post referred to me. I suspected it did and contacted Harvey. He refused to deny that the post referred to me. He did however, remove his post. I then wrote an open letter that I shared with a small number of people, including Harvey.
Harveyresponded with several emails requesting that I retract the open letter. He ended one email by writing: “I can state with assurance that this would be your BEST chance at damage control.” I did not retract the letter, and heard nothing further from Harvey.
In August he joined a particular board and began to take pot shots at me. Several friends emailed asking why he was doing this. I was not certain, but suspected a lingering animosity. Desiring to avoid open warfare on the board, I wrote a post implicitly addressed to Harvey. He eventually responded. A few excerpts are included below, along with my comments:
In March of this year he posted on his board about "a so called professional's blog". Harvey went on to write that "he has pretty much copied what I have written about why we can't price by the square foot floor area!" Harvey proceeded to call the author "a low life crumb" for using the work of someone else "for their betterment, trying to make others think that they are creative!"
I was made aware of the post by a friend who questioned if the post referred to me. I suspected it did and contacted Harvey. He refused to deny that the post referred to me. He did however, remove his post. I then wrote an open letter that I shared with a small number of people, including Harvey.
Harveyresponded with several emails requesting that I retract the open letter. He ended one email by writing: “I can state with assurance that this would be your BEST chance at damage control.” I did not retract the letter, and heard nothing further from Harvey.
In August he joined a particular board and began to take pot shots at me. Several friends emailed asking why he was doing this. I was not certain, but suspected a lingering animosity. Desiring to avoid open warfare on the board, I wrote a post implicitly addressed to Harvey. He eventually responded. A few excerpts are included below, along with my comments:
Harvey: Just because you decide that somebody (me perhaps) has taken something out of context to somehow disprove your credibility doesn't make it so and I'll tell you that it ain't so.
I clearly established the context in which I was writing. I was referring to the markup of materials and its impact on the price. I gave numerical examples in addition to my textual explanation. This was the context that I established as the basis for my comments. To address my comments while ignoring that context is fallacious, and that is precisely what you did. I never denied that material costs could fluctuate.
Harvey: YOU are being consumed by your own philosophical BS. I find Ayn Rand to be somewhat of a mental case, personally and judging by your behavior and your secret squirrel topics, I probably ain't far off with my assessment.
Now we are getting closer to the real heart of the matter and the apparent source of your animosity and anger. You bring up Ayn Rand, which I had not done. Why do so when she was irrelevant to the topic? In doing so, you are resorting to an ad hominem attack—you are trying to refute my argument by reference to someone I admire. And then you engage in petty slurs against her in a very juvenile attempt to make a point. You might as well say that my mother wears army boots.
These comments are rather revealing, in that you make no attempt to address anything substantive. Phrases such as “philosophical BS”, “mental case”, and “secret squirrel topics” are simply childish. You make no attempt to provide evidence to support your claims. You just lash out in anger, as if that will provide a compelling argument.
This is in sharp contrast to my posts. When someone questions my position, I respond with facts and numbers. I explain why I reached my conclusion. I certainly do not respond with “I’ve seen it for years” or "you are a mental case" or "may family has been doing this for 50 years".
What is particularly interesting in the above is that you jump to conclusions about my mental state while simultaneously launching into an irrational and unintelligible rant. You question my behavior while simultaneously raising irrelevant issues. You suggest that I might have some issues while you demonstrate that you actually do have issues.
I will not speculate as to your motivation. But I have enough experience with irrational thugs to know the general ideas that underlie your type.
I’ve said before that you are nothing more than a bully. Like a little child who stomps his feet and holds his breath when he doesn’t get his way, you resort to personal insults and threats. Unable to provide a logical argument, you resort to the only tactics available to brutes. This has been your pattern for years, and not just with me.
The underlying premise to such actions is that reality is malleable to your whims. If you hold your breath long enough, or shout enough threats, others will appease you. That may work with some people, but it won’t work with me.
You exhibit all of the symptoms of a second-hander—a person whose self-worth is dictated by the opinions others have of him. A second-hander reacts to disapproval in one of two ways—he lashes out or he appeases. He typically oscillates between the two, depending on the circumstances and his emotional state at the time.
This has been your pattern for years. For example, you threatened to beat up Richard Kaller, and then quickly claimed that you didn’t mean it. One day you’d be his biggest defender, and the next a brutal enemy. You berated Paul Burns, and then gave him a forum on your board. You see-saw between outright hostility and transparent timidity.
You likely regard this as “philosophical BS”. Petty minds often do. But what you think is of little concern to me.
These comments are rather revealing, in that you make no attempt to address anything substantive. Phrases such as “philosophical BS”, “mental case”, and “secret squirrel topics” are simply childish. You make no attempt to provide evidence to support your claims. You just lash out in anger, as if that will provide a compelling argument.
This is in sharp contrast to my posts. When someone questions my position, I respond with facts and numbers. I explain why I reached my conclusion. I certainly do not respond with “I’ve seen it for years” or "you are a mental case" or "may family has been doing this for 50 years".
What is particularly interesting in the above is that you jump to conclusions about my mental state while simultaneously launching into an irrational and unintelligible rant. You question my behavior while simultaneously raising irrelevant issues. You suggest that I might have some issues while you demonstrate that you actually do have issues.
I will not speculate as to your motivation. But I have enough experience with irrational thugs to know the general ideas that underlie your type.
I’ve said before that you are nothing more than a bully. Like a little child who stomps his feet and holds his breath when he doesn’t get his way, you resort to personal insults and threats. Unable to provide a logical argument, you resort to the only tactics available to brutes. This has been your pattern for years, and not just with me.
The underlying premise to such actions is that reality is malleable to your whims. If you hold your breath long enough, or shout enough threats, others will appease you. That may work with some people, but it won’t work with me.
You exhibit all of the symptoms of a second-hander—a person whose self-worth is dictated by the opinions others have of him. A second-hander reacts to disapproval in one of two ways—he lashes out or he appeases. He typically oscillates between the two, depending on the circumstances and his emotional state at the time.
This has been your pattern for years. For example, you threatened to beat up Richard Kaller, and then quickly claimed that you didn’t mean it. One day you’d be his biggest defender, and the next a brutal enemy. You berated Paul Burns, and then gave him a forum on your board. You see-saw between outright hostility and transparent timidity.
You likely regard this as “philosophical BS”. Petty minds often do. But what you think is of little concern to me.
Harvey: Somehow, you seemed to position yourself here as the Guru of I don't know what but man, we all have something to add here and just because it our opinions oppose yours doesn't mean we're "out to get you".
If I am regarded as a Guru—a title that I have never claimed—then it would be by the evaluations of others. Assuming that such is true (i.e., that I am regarded as a Guru), I can only conclude that it is on the basis of the ideas I present and my manner of doing so. I present logical arguments for my positions. I cite numbers and facts. I do not threaten or berate others, even when they disagree with me.
According to Wikipedia, a guru "is a person who is regarded as having great knowledge, wisdom and authority in a certain area, and uses it to guide others." I did not explicitly seek such a status, but if I have attained it, I would not regard it as a bad thing. But why would that bother you? Does any success that I have attained threaten you?
I have never had an issue with someone disagreeing with me. However, I expect more than “you are wrong because I said so”. That is neither compelling nor factual. It explains nothing. And until facts are presented that refute my position, I will remain adamant in that position.
My position is not a matter of opinion. It is based on facts. You imply that all opinions have equal merit, an idea that I thoroughly reject. An opinion that is not founded on facts is just a fantasy.
Interestingly, you find it necessary to point out that those who disagree with me are not “out to get [me]”. Whatever would give you the impression that I think that? The fact that I have the courage and conviction to stand up for myself and my ideas does not mean that I think others are "out to get me". I can only conclude that you are projecting your own insecurities upon me.
You recently joined the board, and within a short time were attempting to assert your authority by reference to your family’s history in the industry. You repeatedly told us that your arguments are true “because you’ve seen it”. You claimed profundity for comments that others regarded as obvious. These are not the actions or attitudes of someone who is interested in learning and sharing. These are the actions and attitudes of someone who is trying to impress. When those tactics did not work, you resorted to childish and fallacious attacks on me.
I have largely avoided you for the past several years. I had previously told you that I did not appreciate or condone your tactics and I would not be party to them. For a brief period you behaved in a more civil manner, but when you could no longer resist your natural inclination to be rude and arrogant, I ceased visiting your board.
That was apparently unacceptable to you. You responded by attacking me on your board, but didn’t have the courage to name me. When I questioned you on this, you refused to deny that you were referring to me. You apparently thought that I, and others, could not see through your transparent and petty anger.
More recently you have taken the same approach on the board. Others on the board contacted me privately, asking why you were attacking me. You may be deluding yourself with your visions of grandeur and your underhanded methods, but others are not buying your silliness. Nor are they blind to the object of your hatred.
I do not know the source of your insecurities. But they are obviously deep and profound. Given your frequent reference to your family’s history in the industry, I suspect that therein lies some, if not all, of the answer. But that is speculation, and I will not claim it to be true.
When you attacked me earlier this year, I was content to limit access to my open letter. I gave access to less than 6 people and had password protection on the letter. You did not know this, and your emails pleading for me to remove the letter were further evidence of your second-hand nature. It was rather evident that you could not tolerate the idea that many people could be reading the truth about you.
You have again chosen to attack me publicly. Justice demands that I treat you in the manner that you deserve. This is my way of doing so. If you wish to make an ass of yourself, I will not stand in the way. I will however, document that fact and I will continue to share it when and where appropriate. I may also reveal your true identify, at my discretion, to those who ask.
I have never had an issue with someone disagreeing with me. However, I expect more than “you are wrong because I said so”. That is neither compelling nor factual. It explains nothing. And until facts are presented that refute my position, I will remain adamant in that position.
My position is not a matter of opinion. It is based on facts. You imply that all opinions have equal merit, an idea that I thoroughly reject. An opinion that is not founded on facts is just a fantasy.
Interestingly, you find it necessary to point out that those who disagree with me are not “out to get [me]”. Whatever would give you the impression that I think that? The fact that I have the courage and conviction to stand up for myself and my ideas does not mean that I think others are "out to get me". I can only conclude that you are projecting your own insecurities upon me.
You recently joined the board, and within a short time were attempting to assert your authority by reference to your family’s history in the industry. You repeatedly told us that your arguments are true “because you’ve seen it”. You claimed profundity for comments that others regarded as obvious. These are not the actions or attitudes of someone who is interested in learning and sharing. These are the actions and attitudes of someone who is trying to impress. When those tactics did not work, you resorted to childish and fallacious attacks on me.
I have largely avoided you for the past several years. I had previously told you that I did not appreciate or condone your tactics and I would not be party to them. For a brief period you behaved in a more civil manner, but when you could no longer resist your natural inclination to be rude and arrogant, I ceased visiting your board.
That was apparently unacceptable to you. You responded by attacking me on your board, but didn’t have the courage to name me. When I questioned you on this, you refused to deny that you were referring to me. You apparently thought that I, and others, could not see through your transparent and petty anger.
More recently you have taken the same approach on the board. Others on the board contacted me privately, asking why you were attacking me. You may be deluding yourself with your visions of grandeur and your underhanded methods, but others are not buying your silliness. Nor are they blind to the object of your hatred.
I do not know the source of your insecurities. But they are obviously deep and profound. Given your frequent reference to your family’s history in the industry, I suspect that therein lies some, if not all, of the answer. But that is speculation, and I will not claim it to be true.
When you attacked me earlier this year, I was content to limit access to my open letter. I gave access to less than 6 people and had password protection on the letter. You did not know this, and your emails pleading for me to remove the letter were further evidence of your second-hand nature. It was rather evident that you could not tolerate the idea that many people could be reading the truth about you.
You have again chosen to attack me publicly. Justice demands that I treat you in the manner that you deserve. This is my way of doing so. If you wish to make an ass of yourself, I will not stand in the way. I will however, document that fact and I will continue to share it when and where appropriate. I may also reveal your true identify, at my discretion, to those who ask.
© BEP Enterprises Incorporated 2008. Reproduction or distribution in whole or part, by any means, is prohibited.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
