Sgt_Markoff

These two 'high-handed' verdicts of mine (taken from two different thread discussions) are not incompatible. First: any obvious, practical truth can be 'recognized' by a public no matter what level of intellect they otherwise possess. When millions of people tap their feet and whistle and snap their fingers to a song on the radio, what intellect is needed to recognize this? No! I'm not saying that their greatness is 'due to' their huge influence on all subsequent music. It does not STEM FROM this. This is not the relationship. You have it the wrong way around. I'm saying rath

Whoopi Whatever? She never worked in studio-era Hollywood. M. Night Shamalyan similarly, couldnt have gotten a job in classic Hollywood as a fluffer.

LA ...STEP UP or shut up.

Major corporations like DELTA Airlines are goofing up on an issue this topical, and oh, they should turn to you for advice? If you want to dwell in a detached, impractical, 'dictionary definition' of the concept on the table, by all means do so ...if you want to insist in your point. Meanwhile, the premise I asserted, still stands. And I supported it with some clearly credible reference which anyone ought to accept. Criminey the fecking internet. Unbelievable.

--Uncle Joe I get the joke here. Yawn. 'Playing' with verbiage. Seen it 1000x before. Okay. Taking it seriously: gee, since when is it ...'pseudo-scientific' or 'theoretical' ..."jargon" or ..."rhetoric" ...when major financial periodicals like Forbes and Fortune report on a trend? Is that mere "verbiage"? Look. When I casually back-up a statement with some simple www references, does that irk you? Well. Let's turn it around, Shoddy "web expostulating"....yes, I'm sure we're all tired of that! Its a trait of the net! But...err....how else would you describe the utter gibber

Fedya, a normally astute poster, blathered: Huh? Eh? You are really reaching here. Blacklists? Name anywhere that strange, incoherent precept is being adopted, (or would be adopted) as an extension of our discussion here (which is purely descriptive). What the eff are you even talking about? Get it together. I'm hardly a business major but you are clearly not one either. Blacklists? How? Marketing strategies ...do not necessarily involve ANY use of 'blacklists'. Blacklists? -whether right or wrong-- have nothing what so ever to effing do with this topic at all. Thanks for muddying the

I don't see a single coherent reply to my original statement which is worth a good god-damn. Do you think this is an imaginary phenomenon? Really? When Forbes and Fortune are reporting it? Do you really wanna take a 'dictionary definition' stance to hide behind? But why? Is this prospect so daunting that you have to plunge your head-in-the-sand and deny its even happening? Ludicrous. Do you really think mega-conglomerates are not taking into account the contemporary push towards diversity? Listen clowns. Uncle Joe, I'm talking specifically to you. Don't lurk in the shadows like a coward.

Well. :) Did you read the whole article? I provided several, in order to show that this new paradigm isn't just 'based on one report'. Meanwhile (back at the ranch) I'm not quite sure how your dictionary-definition diversity pertains, to the earlier point we embarked on: "does diversity marketing equate to more money"? The articles show that it is starting to. What do companies care if they are being equally liked by both sides, they only care whether this new left-leaning strategy is profitable. If it is, they certainly aren't going to care that they haven't kept everyone in the new definitio

Diversity = dollars: yes I think the data is starting to bear it out. Of course, this is only 'web evidence' but its mounting up. Once Pew goes after the topic then maybe we'll see. https://tinyurl.com/ybqdersc https://tinyurl.com/y54anrxc http://tinyurl.com/y3q3bjyz http://tinyurl.com/y57hx2vj http://tinyurl.com/y7qt2so3

Aye. I sure remember Brad Davis. He would have been a major star. Hard working, enthusiastic young actor: 'A Rumor of War', 'Chiefs', 'Midnight Express'.

It's true enough as far as it goes, that all the social sciences are interpretative; that's their nature. We've spoken about it in the 'Get Smart' thread or some other place around this forum. Anyway --although at first it might seem as if social studies 'should' be on board along with hard science, as everything else seemingly is these days. But no--there's very good reason for them to remain interpretative and not engineering-like. Keep them un-pliable and un-engineered. Under no circumstance would we want human socialization to lend itself to any kind of programming (aka 'manipulation'), as

'written by the victors' is exactly the notion which makes my skin crawl. A hideous conceit that seduces too many in the crowd these days. But otherwise yes I agree with what you and LA are saying. The information age is plaguing us with poor mental habits. Sure, not even books are immune from error but books have all sorts of oversight and error-catching. But if you consume a poorly-prepared documentary on television, the entire format skates past this.

That's a healthy attitude to take. I myself have really been working on bettering my interactions but it can be like, "three steps forward, two steps back". I'm a friendly 'Doctor Jekyll' Monday through Thursday, but Friday to Sunday 'Mister Hyde' comes out. I'm surprised I've lasted on the site this long. I'm surprised I get home on Friday and Saturday nights at all without winding up in Brooklyn tombs or Lenox Hill Hospital. Job stress...

Truly. If I had known how that horseplay of mine was going to sully my reputation around here I never would have done it. Just didn't know folks were so sensitive! Some veteran forum-ites like 'Hibi' still aren't talking to me. I'm persona non-grata

The popularity of the History Channel and the Discovery Channel is a little disturbing to me in that people who so avidly watch these information-outlets become all too easily convinced that they are the 'last word' in any topic. Such is the power of the television screen, seriously. The very nature of the 'visual' medium; it utterly beguiles the brain no matter what info is presented. --TopBill'd Questioning historicism is good; and has a lot of different directions you can pursue. But its also dangerous. because it can lead down the path that the post-structuralists took. Minds