Comment On Non-Compliant By Design

The IT Support Department at Stephen S.'s company was divided into two distinct castes: helpdesk admins and system admins. And the differences between these two groups were many. [expand full text]
« PrevPage 1 | Page 2 | Page 3Next »

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 11:02 • by Pim
First!

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 11:06 • by Xanthus179
Was going to be first, but got locked out of my account. Check my comment in about nine hours.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 11:17 • by me (unregistered)
uh, third?

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 11:23 • by snoofle
And this clearly illustrates why, when saddled with strangling procedures, you should use them to cause as much damage as possible, thus forcing the upper up's to notice and change the stupid rules.

Yeah, it'd be nice to be able to fix stuff and just do things right, but rules are rules; smart people use them to effect change!

Hail Process!

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 11:25 • by shepd
BTDTGTT.

Although, in this case, it was the next level up rejected perfectly valid tickets because of the slightest bit of troubleshooting being missing, even things that make no sense. Example:

I write a ticket for a customer with dry DSL that can't get online. The ticket is rejected because I didn't test for dialtone.

Rejected tickets were never followed up, so the customer would call back angry as hell the next week when no technician shows up/fixes anything (it would take as many as 7 days to get a tech out). More than 3 rejects in a month (which you could not fight--even in the case of stupidity like this) and you would be up for review. More than 6 in two months and you are fired, no questions asked.

As you can imagine, nobody would write tickets anymore. They would just find excuses to get someone off the phone. "Your DSL doesn't work? Have you tried scandisk? No? Well, let me know the results when you call back. Thanks for calling. Bye!"

This also benefited you in two ways: You reduced your average handle time (a metric the company used to decide your value and how good of a shift you would get) and you didn't spend time in customer followup (which you would have to do to write a ticket--too much followup and you would be written up/fired). Oh, and a third bonus way: Since you were going through calls like wildfire, you could go to the washroom (which, BTW, came out of your your entire 2 x 10 minute breaks for an 8 hour period) at will, since you would rarely end up on a long call.

While I worked there, we had company meetings trying to figure out why so many customers were leaving. The helpdesk staff, so abused, really didn't care. The fewer customers, the fewer calls. Sure, they might lay you off. But the pay was so low, temp agencies were hiring at exactly the same pay rate. So who cares? Besides, if you're laid off, you get pogey, which is nice.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 11:35 • by A Nonny Mouse
244662 in reply to 244657
agreed. if i get given too much power, i ask for it to be taken away from me

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 11:36 • by NonWTF (unregistered)
The process worked, flawed policy was fixed.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 11:45 • by PyroTyger (unregistered)
It took them two days to fix this process screw-up? Wow... try working in the public sector. Six months, minimum.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 11:54 • by Vollhorst (unregistered)
That should teach him a lesson about accepting such a crappy job. Everyone gets what he deserves it seems.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 11:54 • by lolwtf
244676 in reply to 244651
Ninth!

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 12:21 • by akatherder
244680 in reply to 244657
snoofle:
when saddled with strangling procedures, you should use them to cause as much damage as possible


I like the way you think. I wouldn't necessarily use the word "damage", but you can't get in trouble for following a process to the letter. If you can, you shouldn't be working there. So do whatever dumbass retarded things the process tells you to do and fall back on the process as your excuse.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 12:24 • by kastein
The Process be Praised!

Those poor people on the other side of the country... they couldn't even surf the web or play minesweeper/solitaire while waiting for their passwords to be reset. That's just cruel.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 12:26 • by Fishbone (unregistered)
244682 in reply to 244659
shepd:
BTDTGTT.

Although, in this case, it was the next level up rejected perfectly valid tickets because of the slightest bit of troubleshooting being missing, even things that make no sense.
-- snip --
So who cares? Besides, if you're laid off, you get pogey, which is nice.


wow... Now i know why support at most ISPs totally sucks

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 12:37 • by bigtuna (unregistered)
244683 in reply to 244659
shepd:
BTDTGTT.

Although, in this case, it was the next level up rejected perfectly valid tickets because of the slightest bit of troubleshooting being missing, even things that make no sense. Example:
---eek-----

Sure, they might lay you off. But the pay was so low, temp agencies were hiring at exactly the same pay rate. So who cares? Besides, if you're laid off, you get pogey, which is nice.


seriously? I'll never be surprised by bad tech support at my ISP again... bet they do the same thing

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 12:40 • by kaetuu89
Sounds like the democrats in congress and their pork project.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 12:40 • by chikinpotpi
I call BS. There are no help desk admins named Stephen... the vowel to consonant ratio is far too high...

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 12:44 • by Neil (unregistered)
Nice tirade of jealousy for a fairly mundane problem. Could have told the whole story in like two sentences.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 12:45 • by Matt A (unregistered)
244687 in reply to 244659
shepd:
BTDTGTT.

Although, in this case, it was the next level up rejected perfectly valid tickets because of the slightest bit of troubleshooting being missing, even things that make no sense. Example:


I know that you typed that acronym to save yourself 10 seconds of typing time. But as a result, you cost all the rest of us who don't know what it means, more than 10 seconds of time looking it up. Just so we could know what you were talking about.

In short, acronyms are over used.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 12:45 • by MrsPost
244688 in reply to 244680
akatherder:
snoofle:
when saddled with strangling procedures, you should use them to cause as much damage as possible


I like the way you think. I wouldn't necessarily use the word "damage", but you can't get in trouble for following a process to the letter. If you can, you shouldn't be working there. So do whatever dumbass retarded things the process tells you to do and fall back on the process as your excuse.

Depends on your definition of 'damage'.

I love following the convoluted and sloooooooooooooooooow procedures we have in place for production environment changes for a certain manager because he's been a complete asshat about changes so now what would have taken 4 hours takes 4 days.

Is this damage? Nope. It's following the procedures. It isn't my problem if said procedures keep a production system broken for days on end. Although I do kind of snicker for those days.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 12:45 • by JamesQMurphy
Reminds me of a line from Atlas Shrugged:

"If you want to defeat any kind of fraud – comply with it literally, adding nothing of your own to disguise its nature." -- Francisco D'Anconia

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 12:49 • by IV (unregistered)
244690 in reply to 244687

In short, acronyms are over used.


I think you meant IS, AAOU.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 12:51 • by Pat (unregistered)
244691 in reply to 244684
kaetuu89:
Sounds like the democrats in congress and their pork project.


Huh-huh. You is funny.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 12:53 • by darkmage0707077 (unregistered)
244692 in reply to 244683
shepd:
BTDTGTT. -HORROR STORY SNIPPED-

bigtuna:
seriously? I'll never be surprised by bad tech support at my ISP again... bet they do the same thing

Fishbone:
wow... Now i know why support at most ISPs totally sucks


You're both really this surprised? I've always suspected this would happen to the help desk jobs left over in the US after all the outsourcing to other (cheaper) countries: they would be restructured to be as close to said countries' cheapness as possible.
At least now we know we should try to be respectful of the people we get on call when our DSL goes out at 9 at night (emphasis on "try").

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 12:54 • by Brian C (unregistered)
I always tell people "The best way to get a stupid policy reversed is to follow it to the letter."

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 13:00 • by snoofle
244695 in reply to 244688
MrsPost:
akatherder:
snoofle:
when saddled with strangling procedures, you should use them to cause as much damage as possible


I like the way you think. I wouldn't necessarily use the word "damage", but you can't get in trouble for following a process to the letter. If you can, you shouldn't be working there. So do whatever dumbass retarded things the process tells you to do and fall back on the process as your excuse.

Depends on your definition of 'damage'.

I love following the convoluted and sloooooooooooooooooow procedures we have in place for production environment changes for a certain manager because he's been a complete asshat about changes so now what would have taken 4 hours takes 4 days.

Is this damage? Nope. It's following the procedures. It isn't my problem if said procedures keep a production system broken for days on end. Although I do kind of snicker for those days.
Quite. My intent was "slow things down as much as possible by following the process to the letter". Business folks don't care about process, only results and the best way to get them to carry your torch is to make them wait for stupid procedures to be performed in stupid ways.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 13:05 • by Matt A (unregistered)
244696 in reply to 244690
IV:

In short, acronyms are over used.


I think you meant IS, AAOU.


Well played sir.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 13:09 • by ThePants999
244697 in reply to 244687
Matt A:
I know that you typed that acronym to save yourself 10 seconds of typing time. But as a result, you cost all the rest of us who don't know what it means, more than 10 seconds of time looking it up. Just so we could know what you were talking about.

So, having looked it up and written a post about how everyone else had to waste time looking it up, you didn't fancy telling the rest of us so we didn't have to waste time looking it up? :-)

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 13:16 • by Charles Manson (unregistered)
244700 in reply to 244657
snoofle:
And this clearly illustrates why, when saddled with strangling procedures, you should use them to cause as much damage as possible, thus forcing the upper up's to notice and change the stupid rules.

Yeah, it'd be nice to be able to fix stuff and just do things right, but rules are rules; smart people use them to effect change!

Hail Process!
I used to work with a guy that thought that way. At the time I thought he was jerk. When I matured I became that guy.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 13:28 • by Code Dependent
244702 in reply to 244686
Neil:
Nice tirade of jealousy for a fairly mundane problem. Could have told the whole story in like two sentences.
You could tell the plot of my favorite TV show in two sentences, too. I'll just watch the show; but thanks anyway.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 13:34 • by Acrobat Jane (unregistered)
244704 in reply to 244697
ThePants999:
Matt A:
I know that you typed that acronym to save yourself 10 seconds of typing time. But as a result, you cost all the rest of us who don't know what it means, more than 10 seconds of time looking it up. Just so we could know what you were talking about.

So, having looked it up and written a post about how everyone else had to waste time looking it up, you didn't fancy telling the rest of us so we didn't have to waste time looking it up? :-)


lol, good point. Personally I just thought if the OP couldn't be bothered to write out the sentence then I couldn't be bothered to read the sentence they couldn't be bothered to write.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 13:40 • by Jamie (unregistered)
and hence why Indian call centres generally suck - this is exactly what they do

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 13:41 • by anon (unregistered)
244707 in reply to 244685
chikinpotpi:
I call BS. There are no help desk admins named Stephen... the vowel to consonant ratio is far too high...


Steve work for ya?

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 13:44 • by anon (unregistered)
244708 in reply to 244686
Neil:
Nice tirade of jealousy for a fairly mundane problem. Could have told the whole story in like two sentences.


I actually enjoyed the writing in this story... heh... personal jet pack... nice job Jake!

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 13:45 • by shepd
244709 in reply to 244683
bigtuna:
shepd:
BTDTGTT.

Although, in this case, it was the next level up rejected perfectly valid tickets because of the slightest bit of troubleshooting being missing, even things that make no sense. Example:
---eek-----

Sure, they might lay you off. But the pay was so low, temp agencies were hiring at exactly the same pay rate. So who cares? Besides, if you're laid off, you get pogey, which is nice.


seriously? I'll never be surprised by bad tech support at my ISP again... bet they do the same thing


Yes, totally serious. I was being paid $10.41/hr (Temp agencies absolute minimum pay is $10/hr, if you had even half a brain and would come to work on time you'd get $12/hr).

I was expected to work shifts that would change every two weeks. You could be on a 5 pm - 1:30 am shift (the 30 minutes were lunch) working SuMThFSa, and then be put on an 7 am - 3:30 pm shift working MTuWThF, meaning on Friday you leave work at 1:30 am, go to sleep at 2 am at home, wake up at ~6 am (with ~4 hours sleep) and work 8 am - 4:30 pm.

And this sort of BS would happen to anyone who didn't fight to keep their AHT (average handle time) under ~8 minutes (below 8 minutes and you were in the top 25% and had a pretty good pick of shifts). If your AHT was above about ~14 minutes you be getting the worst of the worst, since that would place you in the bottom 50%. Oh, if you were on a call that lasted longer than your shift (and this would regularly happen) you would get to stay overtime until it was done. Not that the last bit is a surprise, but imagine being on a horrid 30 minute long call at the end of the shift change... God help you.

This wasn't even for some huge DSL provider, like Bell Canada. It was for a mid-level DSL provider that covered maybe 25% of Ontario with marketing.

The only non-call centre experienced manager there was replaced with one from Arvato (xbox live) (I believe, but could have been a different call centre) support while I was there. The head team lead or whatever he was was from Nordia (Bell ExpressVu) or some other hellhole.

Yes, those who have worked the call centre circuit know what city I'm talking about, and can probably guess who it is. And, sadly, this was NOT the worst call centre job around. They actually could get much worse.

Average turnover, as far as I could guess (I only spent 3 months there), was about 6 months to 1 year, considering nobody, apart from one or two exceptions, had worked there for over 1 year. The company had been about the size it was when I was there for at least a few years previously. We were having such a hard time getting warm bodies in seats, a supervisor (team lead) was hired to support DSL that, even after a month on the phones, didn't know how to figure out the IP address of a WinXP box.

I wish I could post the call review checklist. What they gave the most weight to was a WTF in itself (An incredible amount of points were given to 'Used customers name:' eg "Mike, could you please click 'My Computer'. Thanks Mike." -- there were NO POINTS at all assigned to actually solving the customer's problem [or something like that, I can't remember, I blocked it from my head]).

Absolute worst job I ever had in my life. And I've worked some ridiculous stints: Electrician's helper in an extremely unsafe factory (1/4" oil slick through the entire factory floor for months at a time on a 40 foot high skyjack [I'm afraid of heights]), Plastics factory machine operator (brushing boot polish on freshly "baked" chair bases with no mask, INSTANT vapourization), Telecomms installer (at welding factory owned by Mennonites, meaning the entire factory was on a generator by religious decree).

It was actually so bad my wife and I decided that I was going to quit work, go bankrupt, live on welfare, and see if I could go back to school on the government's dime and get a REAL effin job. Because at least with welfare your homelife is better. This was absolutely serious. I was at home crying in bed for a few weeks over this decision because it is pretty painful to realize your life is a complete failure. At the last minute (and I mean that seriously, I had already drafted a resignation letter) I managed to snag a decent job. I gave 1 week notice, which I'd normally never do, but I couldn't stay there any longer than that. Even that week was too long (my manager there would probably agree, but for different reasons). I left there absolutely bust and needed a week without work to get my life back in order.

Man, sorry for the spiel. It felt *so* good to vent, though!

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 13:47 • by system admin (unregistered)
One minor mistake of the system admins.
One major whine of the helpdesk agent Stephen.
And guess what? We got that palankin thing just a few weeks later!

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 13:56 • by T-Biscuit (unregistered)
244716 in reply to 244709
shepd:
bigtuna:
shepd:
BTDTGTT.

Although, in this case, it was the next level up rejected perfectly valid tickets because of the slightest bit of troubleshooting being missing, even things that make no sense. Example:
---eek-----

Sure, they might lay you off. But the pay was so low, temp agencies were hiring at exactly the same pay rate. So who cares? Besides, if you're laid off, you get pogey, which is nice.


seriously? I'll never be surprised by bad tech support at my ISP again... bet they do the same thing


Yes, totally serious. I was being paid $10.41/hr (Temp agencies absolute minimum pay is $10/hr, if you had even half a brain and would come to work on time you'd get $12/hr).

I was expected to work shifts that would change every two weeks. You could be on a 5 pm - 1:30 am shift (the 30 minutes were lunch) working SuMThFSa, and then be put on an 7 am - 3:30 pm shift working MTuWThF, meaning on Friday you leave work at 1:30 am, go to sleep at 2 am at home, wake up at ~6 am (with ~4 hours sleep) and work 8 am - 4:30 pm.

And this sort of BS would happen to anyone who didn't fight to keep their AHT (average handle time) under ~8 minutes (below 8 minutes and you were in the top 25% and had a pretty good pick of shifts). If your AHT was above about ~14 minutes you be getting the worst of the worst, since that would place you in the bottom 50%. Oh, if you were on a call that lasted longer than your shift (and this would regularly happen) you would get to stay overtime until it was done. Not that the last bit is a surprise, but imagine being on a horrid 30 minute long call at the end of the shift change... God help you.

This wasn't even for some huge DSL provider, like Bell Canada. It was for a mid-level DSL provider that covered maybe 25% of Ontario with marketing.

The only non-call centre experienced manager there was replaced with one from Arvato (xbox live) (I believe, but could have been a different call centre) support while I was there. The head team lead or whatever he was was from Nordia (Bell ExpressVu) or some other hellhole.

Yes, those who have worked the call centre circuit know what city I'm talking about, and can probably guess who it is. And, sadly, this was NOT the worst call centre job around. They actually could get much worse.

Average turnover, as far as I could guess (I only spent 3 months there), was about 6 months to 1 year, considering nobody, apart from one or two exceptions, had worked there for over 1 year. The company had been about the size it was when I was there for at least a few years previously. We were having such a hard time getting warm bodies in seats, a supervisor (team lead) was hired to support DSL that, even after a month on the phones, didn't know how to figure out the IP address of a WinXP box.

I wish I could post the call review checklist. What they gave the most weight to was a WTF in itself (An incredible amount of points were given to 'Used customers name:' eg "Mike, could you please click 'My Computer'. Thanks Mike." -- there were NO POINTS at all assigned to actually solving the customer's problem [or something like that, I can't remember, I blocked it from my head]).

Absolute worst job I ever had in my life. And I've worked some ridiculous stints: Electrician's helper in an extremely unsafe factory (1/4" oil slick through the entire factory floor for months at a time on a 40 foot high skyjack [I'm afraid of heights]), Plastics factory machine operator (brushing boot polish on freshly "baked" chair bases with no mask, INSTANT vapourization), Telecomms installer (at welding factory owned by Mennonites, meaning the entire factory was on a generator by religious decree).

It was actually so bad my wife and I decided that I was going to quit work, go bankrupt, live on welfare, and see if I could go back to school on the government's dime and get a REAL effin job. Because at least with welfare your homelife is better. This was absolutely serious. I was at home crying in bed for a few weeks over this decision because it is pretty painful to realize your life is a complete failure. At the last minute (and I mean that seriously, I had already drafted a resignation letter) I managed to snag a decent job. I gave 1 week notice, which I'd normally never do, but I couldn't stay there any longer than that. Even that week was too long (my manager there would probably agree, but for different reasons). I left there absolutely bust and needed a week without work to get my life back in order.

Man, sorry for the spiel. It felt *so* good to vent, though!


You gonna be alright, homeslice?

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 14:06 • by webhamster
244720 in reply to 244683
bigtuna:
shepd:
BTDTGTT.

Although, in this case, it was the next level up rejected perfectly valid tickets because of the slightest bit of troubleshooting being missing, even things that make no sense. Example:
---eek-----

Sure, they might lay you off. But the pay was so low, temp agencies were hiring at exactly the same pay rate. So who cares? Besides, if you're laid off, you get pogey, which is nice.


seriously? I'll never be surprised by bad tech support at my ISP again... bet they do the same thing


It's true, but not when I managed an ISP helpdesk in the late 90's/early 2000's. I gave people crap for doing that stuff. Sadly, since I left, I found out it turned into exactly that. But back when I was in that racket the helpdesk was manned by people who actually knew stuff and enjoyed playing with computers in their spare time. Now it's all kids who can't do anything but read a script.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 14:10 • by GreyWolf
244721 in reply to 244707
anon:
chikinpotpi:
I call BS. There are no help desk admins named Stephen... the vowel to consonant ratio is far too high...


Steve work for ya?


Eczbn?

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 14:26 • by Charles Dickens (unregistered)
After doing support for so long, he'd answered his personal phone the same way a few of times.


They were the few of times; they were the fewest of times.

Actually, I got this way too after a few months of working tech support...

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 14:35 • by RogerC
244730 in reply to 244687
Matt A:
shepd:
BTDTGTT.

Although, in this case, it was the next level up rejected perfectly valid tickets because of the slightest bit of troubleshooting being missing, even things that make no sense. Example:


I know that you typed that acronym to save yourself 10 seconds of typing time. But as a result, you cost all the rest of us who don't know what it means, more than 10 seconds of time looking it up. Just so we could know what you were talking about.

In short, acronyms are over used.
IOW, TANSTAAFL.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 14:40 • by MrsPost
244731 in reply to 244726
Charles Dickens:
After doing support for so long, he'd answered his personal phone the same way a few of times.


They were the few of times; they were the fewest of times.

Actually, I got this way too after a few months of working tech support...

When I started answering my home phone like this I knew it was time to take a few vacation days.

Then again, I gave in and just had my hair cut to accomodate the headset divot.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 14:55 • by Maurits
244735 in reply to 244687
Matt A:
shepd:
BTDTGTT.

[Y]ou cost all the rest of us who don't know what it means, more than 10 seconds of time looking it up.


Wow, I feel pretty good about myself - I didn't know what it meant, but I figured it out (without looking it up) in under 10 seconds.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 15:08 • by Todd (unregistered)
244737 in reply to 244709
shepd:

Yes, totally serious. I was being paid $10.41/hr (Temp agencies absolute minimum pay is $10/hr, if you had even half a brain and would come to work on time you'd get $12/hr).

...snip...

Man, sorry for the spiel. It felt *so* good to vent, though!


Actually, interesting story. My wife has worked in a few call centers (airlines, banking, etc) and has many similar stories.

I'm continuously befuddled at this. Its not rocket science...its basic common sense that improving the way call centers work would have a huge impact across the board on your organization. But yet no company does it. I just can't figure it out.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 15:08 • by shepd
244738 in reply to 244716
T-Biscuit:
You gonna be alright, homeslice?


Oh yeah, no problem now. Finally in a sweet-ass job. Only way I'm leaving now is against my choice. :^)

Funny thing, though, someone from that horrid job tried to sway me away from doing what I do now, saying the company would eat up my time and sucked. I'm glad I didn't listen, he was wrong on both counts.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 15:17 • by D C Ross (unregistered)
244740 in reply to 244730
RogerC:
IOW, TANSTAAFL.


Gesundheit.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 15:22 • by Code Dependent
244743 in reply to 244709
shepd:
I was being paid $10.41/hr... *snip* ...if you had even half a brain and would come to work on time you'd get $12/hr.
Ow... it had to hurt to admit that.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 15:36 • by snoofle
244745 in reply to 244740
D C Ross:
RogerC:
IOW, TANSTAAFL.


Gesundheit.
Best. Comment. Today.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 15:59 • by pink_fairy
244748 in reply to 244730
RogerC:
Matt A:
shepd:
BTDTGTT.

Although, in this case, it was the next level up rejected perfectly valid tickets because of the slightest bit of troubleshooting being missing, even things that make no sense. Example:


I know that you typed that acronym to save yourself 10 seconds of typing time. But as a result, you cost all the rest of us who don't know what it means, more than 10 seconds of time looking it up. Just so we could know what you were talking about.

In short, acronyms are over used.
IOW, TANSTAAFL.
Interoperability between Broca's area on the part of a meme's proponent, on the one hand, and Wernicke's area on the part of the recipient, on the other, using the metalinguistic short-cut of an acronym is a perfectly cromulent methodology.

There are, however, two problems in this instance:

(1) It's not an acronym. How the hell would you pronounce it?
(2) It's incorrect. It should be "BTDTGT(IG)T." FTFY.
(3) Did it really take you ten-plus seconds to figure it out? How tragic...

Oops.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 16:03 • by KJB (unregistered)
244752 in reply to 244702
Code Dependent:
Neil:
Nice tirade of jealousy for a fairly mundane problem. Could have told the whole story in like two sentences.
You could tell the plot of my favorite TV show in two sentences, too. I'll just watch the show; but thanks anyway.


Gilligan and company almost get off the island. Ha one sentence.

Re: Non-Compliant By Design

2009-02-18 16:12 • by Mogri (unregistered)
244755 in reply to 244748
pink_fairy:
Interoperability between Broca's area on the part of a meme's proponent, on the one hand, and Wernicke's area on the part of the recipient, on the other, using the metalinguistic short-cut of an acronym is a perfectly cromulent methodology.

There are, however, two problems in this instance:

(1) It's not an acronym. How the hell would you pronounce it?
(2) It's incorrect. It should be "BTDTGT(IG)T." FTFY.
(3) Did it really take you ten-plus seconds to figure it out? How tragic...

Oops.


Ignoring your rampant pseudointellectualism for a moment, I believe the acronym (and it is an acronym -- a word (as NATO, radar, or laser) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term ; also : an abbreviation (as FBI)) is "Been there, done that, got the t-shirt." I'm not sure where your (IG) comes in. How tragic...

Oops.
« PrevPage 1 | Page 2 | Page 3Next »

Add Comment