in case anybody wants some cultural insight, this is the type of stuff that's considered funny in india.



Lesson One...

An eagle was sitting on a tree... just resting... doing nothing.
A rabbit saw the eagle and asked him, "Can I also sit like you and do nothing"?
The eagle answered, "Sure, why not"?
So the rabbit sat on the ground below the eagle and rested.
All of a sudden a fox appeared, jumped on the rabbit and ate it.

Management principle number one: To sit around doing nothing, you better be sitting very, very, high up.



Lesson Two...

A turkey was chatting with a bull.
"I would love to be able to get to the top of that tree,
but I haven't got the energy," sighed the turkey.
"Well, why don't you nibble on some of my droppings?" suggested the bull.
"They're packed with nutrients".
The turkey pecked at a lump of that and found it actually gave him
enough strength to reach the lowest branch of the tree.
The next day, after eating some more, he reached the second branch.
Finally, on the fifth day, he found himself proudly perched at the very top.
There, he was promptly spotted by a farmer who shot him out of the tree.

Management Lesson Number Two...Bull shit might get you to the top, but it won't keep you there.



Lesson Three...

A little bird was flying South for the winter.
It was so cold, the bird's wings froze and he fell to the ground in a large field.
While he was lying there, a cow came by and dropped some dropping on him.
As the frozen bird lay there in the pile of that,
it began to realize how warm it was; that was actually thawing him out.
The bird lay there all warm and happy, and soon began to sing for joy.
A passing cat heard the bird's song and came to investigate.
The cat discovered the bird under the pile of cow dropping and promptly dug him out and ate him.


Management lessons three, four and five...

Not everyone who shits on you is your enemy.

Not everyone who gets you out of shit is your friend.

from an nytimes article about women/sciences

"Dr. Steitz cited a study of letters of recommendation written for men and women seeking academic appointments. Though all the applicants were successful, she said, and though the letters were written by men and women, the study found that the applicant personal life was mentioned six times more often if the letter was about a woman.

Also, Dr. Steitz said, or women, the things that were talked about more frequently were how well they were trained, what good teachers they were and how well their applications were put together.?When the subject of the letter was male, she said, the big topics were research skills and success in the lab."

[[eek for some reason the picture won't work. it was a picture of when an apda alum ("dino") said

"Only on APDA.

The solution to people talking about your cases is to publicly admonish and threaten them? Ever think that maybe you should stop running the same cases every weekend? Maybe write a new one every now and then?

Write two cases a week. It should take you about 15-30 minutes, and you'll never have this problem again.
"
]]


...someone actually makes an intelligent point, and everybody -in four pages of arguments/defenses/dreck- ignores him.


i was talking to alex...


http://apdaweb.org/forum/viewthread.php?tid=2148&page=1
runaroundpuj: some people are so ridic
[alex]: wtf is that?
runaroundpuj: so yale is the top team for deabte this year
runaroundpuj: and someone made a secret facebook group to discuss the cases they run
[alex]: whats that mean?
runaroundpuj: a yale member found out, got pissed, and wrote about it on this message board
runaroundpuj: in debate there are two teams, gov and opposition, with two people each. gov brings up the case, and opp..... opposes it since yale was doing very well overall runaroundpuj: a person made a facebook group to discuss the cases yale brings each week
runaroundpuj: so that they can have opp arguments to it ready
[alex]: is that cheating?
runaroundpuj: well the spirit of it isn't, since large schools actually do this all the time
[alex]: how is that different than in football, watching game tape
runaroundpuj: what some people are pissed about is that it's not just looking at "good debate cases" it's looking at yale in particular
runaroundpuj: incluing not just top debaters but even mediocre ones
[alex]: you all need to have sex.
runaroundpuj: and it's putting yale at a disadvantage. but you bring up a good point
runaroundpuj: no football team would use the same successful play twice
runaroundpuj: similarly, no debate team should run the same case twice
runaroundpuj: and then whine when people know how to opp against it
[alex]: yeah
[alex]: lame yale
runaroundpuj: it's common on the circuit
[alex]: what, sex?
runaroundpuj: sadly, no
[alex]: haha

==

neha (shahipaneer) got pissed at me when i mentioned this to her - she pointed out how writing a good case takes a long time, and writing 1-2 good cases a week isn't feasible. as someone who sucked at casewriting (among other aspects of debate), i admit that certainly she's right. but that's not really the point i was making. there's no real reason anybody has ground to get pissed off at something like this when their cases are out in the open. you can't keep using cases and then complain when your competitive advantage has dissappeared. this whole question wouldn't be asked though, if they didn't recycle cases to the extent that they seem to.

On July 12, 2006 Kinsley underwent a form of surgery known as deep brain stimulation, to treat his Parkinsonism. Initial reports suggest that the operation was a success. According to Time Magazine, Kinsley's first words out of the operating room were, "Well, of course, when you cut taxes, government revenues go up. Why couldn't I see that before?"


i love people that have a sense of humor about life like this. <3