Nonbelievers.(toohardtopronounce.com)
toohardtopronounce.com
Nonbelievers.
http://toohardtopronounce.com/2008/2/13/non-believers
24 comments
Interesting idea, to save your best oration until after the first rejection. Does anyone here do this?
When I was involved in student government in college I successfully pulled off a stunt similar to this against an obdurate administration. A group of deans had started a process by which they were going to take some public, widely opposed actions that would be deleterious to campus life. They had started a series of negotiations with the heads of some major student organizations, plus me (as president of the student body), ostensibly to come to a mediated response with all of the stakeholders.
At the penultimate meeting, our student coalition came to the administration with a reasonable, but amended version of the plan that we were willing to accept. They thanked us profusely and told us and the student newspaper that they were reviewing the proposal and integrating it into their plan.
At the last meeting, they presented us with the "final plan" they were going to execute. It turned out that they had incorporated none of our changes; the series of meetings had been an elaborate kabuki designed for the illusion of "listening to the students."
I'd prepared the other students for what we'd do if this turned out to be the case. At the meeting, I told the deans that it was clear that they had no real interest in incorporating student opinions and that for them to unapologetically discard our changes meant that the whole thing was a farce. If they wanted to execute their plan while systematically disregarding student input, that's wholly their prerogative, but we have no interest in helping them with the appearance of gathering student input. If and when they were actually interested in student input, we'd love to help them but until then there was no sense wasting time with meetings. Every one of the student leaders got up and left the room as we'd done in contingency planning.
The deans caved 36 hours later.
Did anyone else not find the quality of discussion low? Poor logic and superficial, emotional responses. Reminds me why I stopped watching (almost all) television.
I think your analysis is superficial, actually. The show is quite nuanced. This was a snippet, depicting one of the characters trying to sell a lipstick ad; I don't think anything in the scene is enough for someone to conclude that the show is plagued by poor logic.
When I was involved in student government in college I successfully pulled off a stunt similar to this against an obdurate administration. A group of deans had started a process by which they were going to take some public, widely opposed actions that would be deleterious to campus life. They had started a series of negotiations with the heads of some major student organizations, plus me (as president of the student body), ostensibly to come to a mediated response with all of the stakeholders.
At the penultimate meeting, our student coalition came to the administration with a reasonable, but amended version of the plan that we were willing to accept. They thanked us profusely and told us and the student newspaper that they were reviewing the proposal and integrating it into their plan.
At the last meeting, they presented us with the "final plan" they were going to execute. It turned out that they had incorporated none of our changes; the series of meetings had been an elaborate kabuki designed for the illusion of "listening to the students."
I'd prepared the other students for what we'd do if this turned out to be the case. At the meeting, I told the deans that it was clear that they had no real interest in incorporating student opinions and that for them to unapologetically discard our changes meant that the whole thing was a farce. If they wanted to execute their plan while systematically disregarding student input, that's wholly their prerogative, but we have no interest in helping them with the appearance of gathering student input. If and when they were actually interested in student input, we'd love to help them but until then there was no sense wasting time with meetings. Every one of the student leaders got up and left the room as we'd done in contingency planning.
The deans caved 36 hours later.
Did anyone else not find the quality of discussion low? Poor logic and superficial, emotional responses. Reminds me why I stopped watching (almost all) television.
I think your analysis is superficial, actually. The show is quite nuanced. This was a snippet, depicting one of the characters trying to sell a lipstick ad; I don't think anything in the scene is enough for someone to conclude that the show is plagued by poor logic.
Interesting scenario with student government. Remarkably similar to the content of the video, too.
I didn't find poor logic in the show per se, but in the discussion within the show -- the thinking of the participants of the meeting. The show may have done a very nuanced job of capturing that boardroom discussion true to reality and in a way that appeals to the audience... my issue with is the quality of that discussion itself, the quality of the reasoning of the participants.
I didn't find poor logic in the show per se, but in the discussion within the show -- the thinking of the participants of the meeting. The show may have done a very nuanced job of capturing that boardroom discussion true to reality and in a way that appeals to the audience... my issue with is the quality of that discussion itself, the quality of the reasoning of the participants.
What would happen if a VC sent you a term sheet, you had good alternatives, and sent them back a term sheet with a whole lot of changes marked out in red (say, no board seats, no preferred stock, no outside CEO, shorter vesting period, etc)?
So I'm interested in everyone else's response at the end. Would you have sat down? What would be your response to the second command to sit?
Of course I'd sit. I just convinced him the worthiness of my idea, and in dealing with someone so prideful, you have to show some face to get the business. When arguing with such stubborn and prideful people, the best conclusion that can happen is proving your point without humiliating that person (again, only if you want do business). That is, if you can swallow your own pride. I'd sit and say "I'm listening".
I agree 100%.
Well, if I was him and I just made that fantastic speech, I would have proceeded to pack up my things to drive home the point that "I'm not staying unless you convince me I'm not wasting my time."
If I was me I probably would have never made that speech, and I would have remained sitting.
If I was me I probably would have never made that speech, and I would have remained sitting.
The only reason for that speech was to get him to say, "Sit down."
Huh, that's interesting. I had saw it as a pissing match between the two guys. It seemed like if the younger guy sat, he'd be conceding command. And yet, the mere fact that he was asked to sit down means the older guy concedes his point. That's why I was wondering.
In such a setting, I would assume that nothing happens without reason; at least that is the marketer's motto...
I didn't even obey the command to install Flash 9.
For someone who funds a couple Flash-based startups, that's a little surprising...
You don't like flash?
No, I just didn't have Flash 9 installed on the machine I was using.
Some of the startups choosing between Javascript and Flash say that this is one of the problems with Flash. If you choose any recent version, some fraction of people won't have it installed, and faced with the interruption of installing it, will just click on Back instead.
Some of the startups choosing between Javascript and Flash say that this is one of the problems with Flash. If you choose any recent version, some fraction of people won't have it installed, and faced with the interruption of installing it, will just click on Back instead.
Is there a tipping point where the increased multimedia power of flash overpowers the accessibility of javascript? We're powering though some pretty serious technical hurdles to get what we're working (which has highly graphical components) on running in pure javascript.
Seeing what Heroku has done has encouraged us to keep going, but we wonder if picking pure javascript really was the wisest choice.
Seeing what Heroku has done has encouraged us to keep going, but we wonder if picking pure javascript really was the wisest choice.
Good point. There needs to be a good reason to get mandate an install. Sorta like desktop software.
and some fraction, like me, won't have any version installed.
Some fraction will also not have JavaScript enabled. That was very popular among nerds back when JavaScript wasn't essential to web browsing.
Fortunately, that particular brand of nerd can safely be ignored. They are a tiny, tiny minority who make a lot of noise on websites such as this.
Fortunately, that particular brand of nerd can safely be ignored. They are a tiny, tiny minority who make a lot of noise on websites such as this.
Tiny but influential. So I don't think they can always be that safely ignored, especially for startups that hope to begin with techy early adopters.
the man asking the guy to sit down is saying it in a way "i know you are right, I was wrong, there is no other way to say it because I am so stubborn everyone hates me, but lets do business"
On the show, he sat. :)
* His standing up was interesting, but I wouldn't respect it if I were his audience. You can put all your cards on the table with less drama. To me, he was too overtly aggressive & theatrical. It unnecessarily puts the rest of the room on the defensive.
*Did anyone else not find the quality of discussion low? Poor logic and superficial, emotional responses. Reminds me why I stopped watching (almost all) television.