#32 -RE: The Rules of Stud - Appropriate use?
From: Strong, Russell RStrong "at" raytheon.com.au>
To: Gilbert, Sean SGilbert "at" raytheon.com.au, rlaramee "at" yahoo.com
CC: Barnes, Mark MBarnes "at" raytheon.com.au
Subject: RE: The Rules of Stud - Appropriate use?
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:02:52 +1100
I have some other concerns:
1. Can the arrogance of the "man" be determined by wally, since wally doesn't
know the reasons behind the man's behaviour. The man may suffer from
narcolepsy, and wally would not know that.
2. If the arrogance can't be determined first hand, should the use of stud be
considered? How much evidence is required?
Russell
response:
With only two people involved, the answers to these questions are fairly
straightforward and are covered under
Rule #2: Appropriateness of Use,
"An appropriate declaration (of Stud.) must announce the speaker's
arrogance."
Obviously, this rule was written for the case of only two active parties.
Furthermore, Wally is free to decide if it is appropriate to use or not.
Some important elements we are missing from the Dilbert strip are
(1) tone of voice and (2) non-verbal cues like body language.
These are two important elements we normally have at our disposal whan
determining appropriateness of use.
However, when there are three parties involved, namely,
the Stud-the third, non-present party,
the (let's say) middle-man-who contributes a declaration of
arrogance,
and the listener-who declares "What a Stud.",
the matter increases in complexity exponentially.
And surprisingly, it happens fairly often.
The reason behind the complexity lies primarily within the (sometimes
hidden) agenda of the middle-man, i.e., that person who brags on behalf
of someone else, usually not present.
We consider the following senarios:
- Is the middle-man trying to arouse envy directed towards himself or
herself for (supposedly) knowing the Stud?
As in, "You should envy me because I hang out with a Stud."
- Or, is the middle-man trying to arouse envy directed towards the
original Stud? i.e., "You should envy that Stud."
- Or is the middle-man trying to actually arouse hostility
directed towards the non-present Stud? e.g., "You (listener) should
also think that this Stud is an arrogant bastard."
- There is a fourth senario and that is when the middle-man is
actually attempting to arouse self-directed hostility.
That is, "I (middle-man) am trying to piss you (the listener)
off via my boasting."
The middle-man is just using an innocent, non-present,
third party in order to fulfill their own agenda.
This senario actually happens sometimes.
Thus, the key to addressing this situation is to identify the
intent of the middle-man.
What in the world is this speaker trying to accomplish by bragging
on behalf of a third party?
For each senario, we recommend the following responses:
- "Stud," directed toward the middle-man, or optionally
"Studs," for both the middle-man and the third party.
- "What a Stud," for only the third party
- "What a Stud," for the third party again and
- "Stud," for the middle-man only
respectively.
Sometimes, the middle-man even has overlapping intentions, that is,
a hybrid agenda composed of more than one of the senarios above,
making the situation down right baffling for the audiance.
And, we haven't even begun to address the motive of the middle-man.
What causes one person to brag on behalf of another?
The real answer to that question we may never find.
In general, I have found it frustrating to determine the
real intention of the middle-man.
Therefore, by default I issue, "Studs" to cover all the bases.
-cheers, bob
#33 -Stud
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:52:13 -0800 (PST)
From: "Dave Greten" davegreten "at" yahoo.com
Subject: stud
To: rlaramee "at" yahoo.com
I'm sick and have had nothing to do for the past
couple of days besides read things in between blowing
my nose and coughing. So I figured what better time
to read over the rules of stud again.
Not sure if you heard about this one but I'd like to
throw it into the general stud discussion. A certain
prominent three star general in the Bush
Administration named Boykin, recently drew criticism
for speaking engagements to Christian groups where he
said, something to the effect, he had nothing to worry
about in the war against terrorism because "My God
(Christian god) is bigger than their God (Allah)."
No doubt this is an arrogant statement on a
(literally) divine scale. But doesn't studding
someone for this statement sound somewhat weird?
Perhaps stud is best applied to statements of physical
or mental prowess rather than statements of religious
certitude (ie, professions of faith)? Isn't there a
certain measure of pride associated with saying "My
God is the only true God"?
It sure would be funny to hear someone stud the Pope.
Thoughts? I'm not sure how I feel on the issue.
-Dave
=====
www.dgreten.com
response: Sorry to hear about the cold Bones.
i just got past one myself.
This is in interesting can of worms you're playing with
Bones. Look at all those controversial (ugly) themes you've
thrown in there: The Bush Regime, religion, hubris, the Pope.
i congradulate you for being able to unify these themes under
one common framework! (namely The Rules of Stud)
Indeed, statements like "My God is bigger than your God,"
certainly warrent a "Stud". However, that's a wee bit of a knee
jerk reaction. Sometimes, arrogant statements are so ridiculous
that they do not even deserve a stud. For example, if someone
said, "I am as strong as Superman". As a knee jerk reaction,
one might say, "Stud". But if you think about it a little longer,
it's just too damn silly to even bother.
And i think the, "My God is bigger than your God" falls into
this category, just too damn silly to even bother.
(Keeping in mind that i have not heard the full context)
-cheers, bob
|
| |
|
| |