iSixSigma

Posts by Stan

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General Posts by Stan

Viewing 21 posts - 1 through 21 (of 21 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #35135

    Ken Feldman
    Participant

    Wow, Stan must have had a heck of a night last night.  He was real prolific this morning from 10a to 10:30a and was able to dispatch no less than 5 insulting responses to well intentioned posts.  Congratulations on a possible new isixsigma record.  Let’s all chime in and congratulate Stanley on a job well done.

    0
    #97874

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Darth,
    Just got a call – I got 5 but my cycle time was longer. I will be up the rest of the night doing a value stream map and find some opportunities for cycle time reductions.
    Good night.

    0
    #97882

    Mikel
    Member

    Dear Mr. Vader,
    Thank you for the recognition. I will work hard to keep it up.

    0
    #97883

    Ken Feldman
    Participant

    I know I am asking for it, but it is Dr. Vader to you!!!!  Yes, another one for your PhD envy :-).

    0
    #97885

    Mikel
    Member

    Dr. Vader,
    No PhD envy, I respect the work it takes to get the degree.
    Most PhD’s don’t use the Dr. title in day to day activities and those that do, in my experience, think people should be humble in their presence. Our Dr. Steve furthers the flag waving, here I am, with his subject lines. I am not particualrly impressed with any of the advice he has given.
    Two masters degrees here – I do respect education. I also know there are a lot of educated fools out there.
    Peace – I have no issue with your advice or that you don’t take the same sarcastic approach as I do with some people (not everybody).
     

    0
    #97888

    Stansfans
    Member

    Stan’s contribution to this website offers little value when
    compared to the contempt he holds for those with
    distinguished credentials, not to mention the blatant
    disrespect he masks under the banner of “sarcasm.” We
    must remember that “sarcasm” is a remark that means the
    opposite of what is said. Personally, I find Stan’s remarks
    to be openly hostile (and degrading) to many well-
    intentioned individuals (and organizations), most of which
    are seeking productive discussion and answers to their
    questions. There is a big difference between the concept
    of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Aggression.
    Perhaps it is time for us to speak out and let Stan know
    that his behavior is unacceptable. He must come to
    understand that his participation on this website does not
    provide us with any type or form of collective leadership,
    but it does serve to give Six Sigma and its practitioners a
    bad name. But then again, it may be that this is what he is
    seeking. It is often the case that “negative attention” is
    better than no attention.

    0
    #97890

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Stansfans,
    Just like everyone else you certainly have a right to your opion and a right to express it. So does Stan. If that level of “agression” is a problem for you or anyone else you will struggle in the business world. It isn’t always a world of herbal tea.
    People scream for people to be held accountable and then back away if it seems to be slightly confrontational. There is a price for accountability and frquently Stan is holding someone accountable for posting some response that is more lazy than seeking information. Remember the J Paul Getty quote “The meek shall inherit the earth but not the mineral rights.”
    As far as the discussion group goes if you don’t like something don’t open it. That is your right. If you find something offends you and you continue to open it then that is your responsibility. The answers are consistent enough that you should realize the probability of what type of response you are about to open. It is part of being an adult and a member of a free society. The John Lupienski guideline may help: Once is random chance, twice is coincidence and three times is a trend. If you have opened more than 3  and they were sarcastic – it is now your issue not Stan’s.
    I have never read a book yet that was 100% good. The value is reading it and finding those pieces that you can save and use when the time is right. Same goes for the discussion group.
    Some are sarcastic comments. There are others that are informative – we all do that. There have been those esteemed members of the Six Sigma Industry that have posted responses that some of us would rather have had a sarcastic remark than regurgitation of some mindless dogma (or a formula that anyone can look up in a book).
    Worse there are some who consistently post ignorance and stupidity. That is more objectionable (for me) than the sarcasim.
    Quoting Dennis Miller “That is just my opinion. I could be wrong.”

    0
    #97892

    SSNewby
    Member

    What are you proposing?   A nice neat little socially acceptable forum in which we offer technically sound advice and opinions and stay away from expressions of personality or emotion?  Like it or not, the way you say something communicates as much as the thought being expressed.   If an expert tells me something and says it in an exasperated manner, more thought has been conveyed than the technical answer.   I might not like it and the expert might take that tact too often, and if that’s the case I stop listening.   That is his/her prerogative, and mine also.
     
    If Stan’s advice is the problem and, as you said in your post, he is ill informed and incorrect in his Six Sigma/statistical/analytical input, challenge that.
     
    As I said in a previous post, step to the plate and call him out.  If he is wrong and misleading readers, challenge him.  Otherwise picking at his personality is non-value added.  
     And when you say “the contempt he holds for those with distinguished credentials”?….. geeze, it comes across that you have a serious ego issue here…. as a PhD myself with years of senior management experience, my thought about getting challenged by anyone on anything is “so what?”  Let’s discuss it and if you are right and I’m wrong, I learned something and I’m better off for it.  You are what you are and are what you contribute, and nothing more.  I don’t care where you went to school, what degrees you hold, and what you have done in your career – what are you doing now?   Are you contributing or not?  That’s all that matters.  I think that Stan and many others here contribute to the understanding of the Six Sigma body of knowledge, snotty and disrespectful posts or not.   If anyone is offensive, don’t read his/her posting.   Like with Howard Stern – you don’t need FCC intervention and penalties, just don’t watch him and he’ll implode. 

    0
    #97893

    Stansfans
    Member

    SSNewby and Carnell make the same arguments as the
    porn industry —- if you don’t like it don’t look. In the same
    manner, they try to justify their position. The only
    statistical value offered is the equality is STAN = SPAM. I
    am sorry SSNewby, but I highly doubt you have “years of
    senior management experience” as you purport. I have
    rarely seen individuals with such credentials hangout and
    participate in a “techie” forum. They are usually too busy
    trying to run businesses.

    0
    #97894

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Stansfans,
    There is a large gap between the potential damage done by Stan’s posts and the damage done by the porn industry. That comment is pure button pushing.
    Lets take out the emotion. lets do 2 things:
    1. You have proposed that Stan = SPAM. Make that case with something other than emotion. I did a search and SPAM seems to generally be defined as:
    Unsolicited “junk” e-mail sent to large numbers of people to promote products or services. Sexually explicit unsolicited e-mail is called “porn spam.” Also refers to inappropriate promotional or commercial postings to discussion groups or bulletin boards. http://www.getnetwise.org/glossary.php
    2. Follow that up with SSNewby’s request to provide examples of the incorrect technical advice.
    I am sure there are enough people here that will support you if you are correct.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #97895

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Stansfans,
    I missed the part on credentials. Credentials have boundaries. I can respect a person with a Phd for their dedication, discipline and commitment. Does that make them the final word – no.
    I worked in one place with a man who held 9 patents and was functionally illiterate. The owner of the business was wise enough (and he was educated) to put someone working with him to document his inventions.
    A very successful BB in Southern California that was heavily tatooed and had a pierced tongue. Probably would not have even been chosen in a lot of other environments.
    A BB in Wave One at Allied Signal, no education beyond High School, he changed casting designs to eliminate deburring after machining.
    Anyone who has done a project in a factory knows that a maintenance person is a valuable team member. The other side is they come with colorful personalities. A cost/value proposition. 
    There are all kinds of reasons to listen to people. It is having the wisdom to know you should do something with it.
     

    0
    #97898

    Mikel
    Member

    Even I will support you if you provide a good argument.
    But Stan = SPAM is just plain stupidity on your part. See if you go after my real advice for example let’s just discuss what Dr. Steve offered vs what I offered.
    You don’t know what you are talking about.

    0
    #97900

    SSNewby
    Member

    That was an interesting response to my comments regarding your posting.  
     
    Mike Carnell did a good job addressing your thoughts regarding a correlation existing between sarcastic comments expressed in a technical forum with the damage done by the porn industry and also with your equating Stan’s comments with spam, so I’ll leave that alone.  It sounded a little goofy, but if that’s what you think, I can’t change it and don’t know that I’d want to if I could.  Those are your beliefs to hold.
     
    As to why I like to read postings in this forum and occasionally feel compelled to respond, like anyone else with Six Sigma interest and responsibility, I try to gain as much application insight as possible.   It’s been my good fortune to be able to “sell” my corporation on Six Sigma, but with that came the added responsibility of bringing it in and making it work   I had/have a great deal to learn and believe that I have found a very good information source in isixsigma.  I’ve been able to hook up with many thought leaders in the field because of articles, advertisements, and comments in isixsigma, bringing quite a few of them into the corporation for various consultations.  In an attempt to effectively develop and apply the program, I took Six Sigma training at the Black Belt level from one of the better providers and worked on a couple of projects during my training.   But, as you well know, that’s not the same as having done years of Six Sigma projects at the Black Belt level and understanding the nuances of making it work. I like getting the thoughts and hearing the experiences of people who have been there and done it.  With Six Sigma programs spreading from corporation to corporation like they have, I’ll bet you’d be surprised at the folks that are starting to pay attention to your “techie” forum.   Too many managers over the years have in effect abdicated their management responsibility to IT professionals because they don’t understand the jargon and the technology, and that can’t happen with a somewhat more amorphous concept like Six Sigma and expect it to be successful.
     In my note to you I suggested that you get in there and show Stan what an ill-informed and misleading curmudgeon he is.   I notice, although that was the main thought expressed in your initial posting, you still stayed away from engaging him on a technical level.  Why is that?   

    0
    #97901

    Stansfans
    Member

    Mr. Carnell, I am fully satisfied that you now recognize the
    potential damage many of Stan’s posts may be causing. It
    is quite self-evident that a large amount of Stan’s
    commentary is pure “junk,” much like SPAM. With regard
    to your own rhetoric, I am reminded of what Sir Winston
    Churchill once said: “A lie gets halfway around the world
    before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” I now
    leave each of you to continue with your professional
    intransigence.

    0
    #97905

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    At this point I do not see any danger in Stan’s post. Any one who blindly follows anyones advice without some effort of their own to understand an answer creates their own problem. There is always a risk when you post a response. The quality of the response is frequently a reflection of the original post.
    Unsolicited “junk” e-mail sent to large numbers of people to promote products or services. Sexually explicit unsolicited e-mail is called “porn spam.” Also refers to inappropriate promotional or commercial postings to discussion groups or bulletin boards. http://www.getnetwise.org/glossary.php
    1. it isn’t unsolicited
    2. it isn’t e-mail
    3. it isn’t promoting products or services
    4. most do not consider it sexual (if you do SPAM & Stan are not your problem)
    5. it isn’t inappropriate promotional or comercial postings
    Classifying it as SPAM is incorrect or maybe it just fits your Sir Winston Churchill quote. A little more button pushing with the emotionally charged words? 
    You don’t seem to be able to live up to your own expectations for Stan. Either way until you do more than throw emotional feces against the wall I am done discussing this with you. I am exercising that television like right I told you about before.
    PS: I am assuming you understand what intransigence means. As Dr. Marty Rayl used to say when he would stand people in front of the mirror he hung in his office “Do you want to see what your problem is?” You never made your case counselor.

    0
    #98008

    Gabriel
    Participant

    Stan, I am with you.
    Not that I like your “sarcasm”, as you call it, which I think sometimes goes too far. But it is a small price we have to pay to have you in this forum. We all have defects, and you are not the exception. I found less value in the post of other very polite posters that self promote as being experts and the owner of the truth.

    0
    #98009

    Gabriel
    Participant

    “We must remember that “sarcasm” is a remark that means the opposite of what is said.”
    Sarcasm: A cutting, often ironic remark.
    Irony: The use of words to convey the opposite of their literal meaning.
    So your definition of “sarcasm” in fact would be “irony”, and “sarcasm” would closely match Stan’s behaviour indeed.

    0
    #98011

    Bill Ahls
    Participant

    I really enjoyed the use of the word “curmudgeon”. I had to get out the webster.com.
    Thanks,
    Bill :)

    0
    #98012

    Bill Ahls
    Participant

    Mike,
    In the cost/value proposition pertaining to maintenance men, I understand that the value comes from their contribution. What is the “cost” element?
    Bill

    0
    #98013

    Bill Ahls
    Participant

    That’s the second time in 5 minutes I had to get out my webster.com (intransigence). I’m about to r-u-n-n-o-f-t

    0
    #98055

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Bill,
    The cost is maintaining Peaceful Coexistence in the team. Most of the time it creates a step function in effort. The information from someone who is versed in the technical side of equipment and aware of operator issues is always valuable.
    Good Luck.

    0
Viewing 21 posts - 1 through 21 (of 21 total)

The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.