Averagenessesss...ssss

It’s been quite a while since I posted a blog or had an online rant. I’ve been so busy with work, most my rants were work related and done within the confines of space and time of work. However, lately I’ve developed some online activities as in watching some talent show stuff on youtube. I try to stick to the good stuff, but sometimes…


Anyway…

There’s one thing that started to really irk me: “People complaining about averagenessess..sss…”

I’ve been thinking about it because of my work, and no matter how annoying and time wasting it might be, I decided I could accept it. Why and how?

Not everybody I have to work with has affinity with what I do, or the knowledge and experience. I am the specialist and can and will help them as long as they will learn from it. In some cases I just wanted them to go away and be replaced by someone who, at least, will learn.

I’m not an expert in everything either, so I had to learn and did learn, to work together with people and have them do what they do best so I didn’t have to do it and screw it up, so we reached our goals. There’s nothing wrong with it, it’s even very smart and it works well. This way all involved can concentrate at what they do best and what they prefer doing and the results are fantastic. That’s excellence….by people who are in certain areas average.

I figured most people won’t know much and won’t have much experience in most subjects and skills, but they will have skill, knowledge and experience in a few subjects and skills. This means, when you look at everything from a bird’s point of view, the masses won’t know much, or at least not the finest points, of any subject. But within the masses there are groups who do. That’s fine. That’s great, even!

Back to the talent shows. Most talent shows focus on music. Especially the televized ones attrakc a lot of people, the masses so to speak. It is watched by the masses. In other words, most contestants and viewers will be average in skill, knowledge and experience when it comes to music.

One act/contestant/auditionee takes the stage. The judges love it, the masses love it, the specialists don’t. Next thing you know, online, the specialists are complaining about the judges and the masses and about how they know nothing and in some cases should die because of it.

I mean, seriously? You expect everybody in the world to have an above average knowledge, skill and experience in music? Or even, you really think everybody should at least have an above average knowledge in music? Isn’t music first for entertainment? Then, if the judges and the masses were entertained, didn’t the artist at least reach that goal? Yeah, maybe the judges should know better. However, they’re in it for the entertainment value. As long it’s not hurtful and racist, I really don’t see why it’s such a problem.

In some cases it even doesn’t matter when it comes to important subjects like health. Yes, I think the average person should at least know something about healthy food, feeding habits and exercize, but I don’t experct everybody to be experts. That would be unreasonable, like expecting people to have a certain knowledge in music. In case of health, most important is to try and stay healthy. In music, it’s most important you enjoy it. Everything else is extra, but not mandatory.
The thing is, if you don’t like it, don’t watch it! We’re living in a world in which a lot is possible, a lot is happening and a lot of quality is reached. Maybe not in that show, maybe even not on tv, but it is in real life.

Also, I think this world has enough sing birds, what about the work horses? What about the beautifully talented people behind desks, or the ones in shops, or the ones in hospitals and in other services? They're f****** good at what they do and while they're at it, they're keeping life going so the sing birds can sing.

reKickstart Reading Rainbow

Eventhough I'm not sure it will reach the Dutch shores, let alone the classrooms, and eventhough there are other things I would love to see changing in classrooms, I still think this is a good project and should be backed up: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/readingrainbow/bring-reading-rainbow-back-for-every-child-everywh

I Sincerely Apologize

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7ZizDguxJA

Bullying

I can see how a lot of people find this reply fantastic. Granted, it was a good reply, but not quite that brilliant. I'm saying this, because there seems something fundamentally wrong about his reasoning. He reasons the bullies bully, because they don't get the loving attention from their parents. I'm sure in some cases this is true, however, the root of the problem I think is something different.

Anywway, here's Mr. Wheaton's response:

Wil Wheatons reply about bullying

The reason why his response doesn't sit well with me is, I was never (or hardly ever) the bullied, and I was never the bully. I was shy, had a lack of confidence, was different from all the other children and even willfully placed myself outside the group. My interests were different and my attempts at altering my interests to fit in were minimal. I had all the makings to be bullied....but I wasn't while one of my best friends was, constantly. As a matter of fact, I was always the best friend of the bullied throughout my whole life. I was never popular, never conformed to the group spirit and and I was largely ignored. People literally went sitting with their backs towards me during lunch breaks.

Because of this, I figured there must be something else. I asked myself often, why them, not me? What tells me apart from them? Why are they bullied and I'm merely ignored? Is it the clothes I'm wearing? Is it the things I like and the things I don't like? Is it my own attitude and stance? Or am I just not interesting in any way?

 I think it has more to do with wanting to belong to a group, or trying to define the characteristics needed to belong to a group, that causes especially youngsters to bully. Cause what bullying does is solidifying and strengthening the bully's position and placing the bullied even further outside the group.

I was never too concerned about belonging in a group. I always had one or two, usually only one, sometimes only imagined, close friends. I always enjoyed my own private time and my own private things and activities. I always loved to see the backs of people visiting for my "pleasure". I never enjoyed the company of others much, probably because we didn't share many interests. Or maybe I was just closed off.

I remember reacting to the ocassional bullying I endured. I suppose I just looked in surprise at them, or just laughed in their faces or shrugged it off. And I also remember even challenging a group of bullies whoms ages were well above ours. I never ran faster before or since.


Anyway, I couldn't relate to Wil's reply. To me it was always simple; just ignore them, and they'll stop automatically. Though I thoroughly enjoyed the laughing in their faces. You should have been there.   I still believe in walking my own way and doing my own things and try not to be too much in other people's ways and respect other people's doings as long they're not in your way too much. Life is give and take and I suppose I've been very lucky.

EDIT: Obviously, this is not the say all, end all and if you have a good idea why bullies bully and the bullied get bullied, please enlighten me.

I Did a Test

Oh cool, I got Guinan:

You can do the test here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/star-trek-the-next-generation-recurring-character-quiz

Why the Widely Accepted Reason to Like Star Trek Doesn't Ring True

Disclaimer: This is a stream of consciencesnous while exploring why I tend to actually not like Star Trek. Beware of grammar- and spelling mistakes, irritations, returning irritations and general bile. Apologies for the absence of images. Google "Elim Garak" and you'll find out what my favourite character on DS9 looked like. Good luck!

When asked Trekkers often reply: “Because it shows a positive future; it gives hope.”


I could never agree with that reply. I always felt there was something distinctively wrong with it, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on it. I’ve been thinking about this since last summer, which, quite frankly, is probably an inordinate amount of time for this kind of subject. When I was trying to figure out why the Netherlands went from a republic to a kingdom it at least felt worthwhile.

The last couple of months I spent a lot of time watching TNG and DS9 (Trekkers know what I’m talking about) and rewatching. During most of that time I stuck to watching what I knew I enjoyed, but I did, initially, take the time to watch it all in the right order without skipping any episodes…almost (I skipped a few episodes from DS9 in which the grand nagus took a central role. No regrets.). I couldn’t shake the feeling of disagreement with that overall accepted reason for liking star trek. I suppose it also had a lot to do with me being rather bored during a lot of the episodes, especially a lot of the TNG stuff and the early DS9 stuff. Yet, it did not answer my question why I felt liking star trek had nothing to do with the naïve idea it is because it shows a bright and beautiful future.

The first cracks for me came with the realization the only reason I ever liked star trek, if ever, was because of sentimental reasons. I grew up watching star trek and TNG was what star trek looked like to me. Hell, TNG was what sci-fi looked like to me. I realized I didn’t actually remember any storylines from my initial viewing. However, at first rewatch I was delighted to find I did remember all the crewmembers (except for Tasha, but who cares about her?). To my mild surprise I also realized none of the stories looked familiar to me, which was weird since I watched enough TNG back in my teens to know what it was all about and who all the characters were. And to my great disappointment, rewatching TNG didn’t quite excite me as much as I hoped, but I persevered and watched it all (some listened while cleaning the house).

Since I had set my heart on watching all star trek that is available I set out to watch all of DS9. The first three seasons were a familiar borefest I wrestled my way through, but to my relief it contained more good episodes than TNG and it encouraged me to keep going. I didn’t watch eight episodes in one day like I had with TNG (How did I survive that!?!? How did I do that at all!?!?), but managed to fit in four episodes every evening (This had also to do with more spare time when watching TNG and it reduced to evenings and weekends for DS9). To my delight and relief I found the Dominion war and the accompanying characters rather interesting, so much so I actually looked forward to watching the next episode. Unfortunately, that usually only lasted for a max of six episodes, then it would always and reliably return to the borefest I had come to expect and accept.

So I pointed out I was actually quite bored during a lot of the episodes (unfortunately most). Here come all my complaints about star trek:

1) Characters who always get along with each other are boring to watch. It’s conflict that makes stories interesting;

2) The villains are mainly rather one dimensional since in one episode you can’t quite explore characters. After the one episode they often disappear forever. Though recurring villains are not explored either;

3) Moral dillemma’s are discussed, but never get any breathing space (one episode is really not much) which means most subjects are only superficially explored which sometimes makes for interesting television, but usually just doesn’t quite cut the cake);

4) Since everyone in Starfleet gets along, the Federation citizens have become morons in dealing with people who aren’t quite like them (Quick to judge, talk with relish, ambitious, federation social, skilled in everything but social awareness, with a holier than thou attitude. I hate every episode with Barclay in it, not because of Barclay, but because of the compassionately dead Enterprise crew. To me it only shows human kind has learned nothing in the future….except for Data….which is ironic, because he isn’t even close to being humanoid…which goes to show, because the only thing they know is technology and that is what Data is.);

5) Most of the characters don’t get a real chance to develop and remain one dimensional. Characters hardly every learn anything, which keeps them going on the same level in the same way which makes a character and the stories they’re in predictable and therefore often boring.

It slowly became clearer to me when I read something someone else said when asked what he prefered, star trek or Doctor Who. His reply was Doctor Who, because it was written better. Where Star Trek focused more on the development of technology (as opposed to human kind), Doctor Who focusses more on the dramatic aspect of the franchise. Where Star Trek adopts a holier-than-thou attitude, Doctor Who just wants to entertain.

That’s what I love about Doctor Who: “It knows it’s silly, and it doesn’t do anything to redeem it. Yet, it manages to make sense in moral issues and sometimes even in character development.”

That’s what I dislike about Star Trek: “They adopt a holier-than-thou attitude, but don’t quite have the chops to support nor justify that attitude.”

Doctor Who doesn’t have an attitude and therefore doesn’t need to live up to one. Star Trek has an attitude and often fails to live up to it. That’s very annoying.

Also, I believe sci-fi should say something about us; that’s where it’s added value lies. The technological development is just a display of what human kind wishes for and what might be possible in the future. However, when I come back home from work and turn the tv on, I’m not interested in reading the technology catalogue and accompanying manuals. History also shows the best loved stories are the ones where a character goes on a (mental) journey and all the technology caters to the story of the character. Technology itself, unless it’s about Data (generalized, obviously), is not what’s interesting, it’s what human kind does or doesn’t do with it. Technology doesn’t make stories, people do. Inanimate objects, which a replicator is no matter how much it chats, aren’t interesting. However, computers that come to life might be interesting. But there it is again, animation, life, but I digress.

Though having spouted this (without spell- nor grammar check), I have to admit I really enjoyed DS9. Ironically, it was never the Starfleet people, or “the good guys” as captain Sisko would call them and himself, that made DS9 interesting. It were the Cardassians, it were the founders, it was that weasel Weyoun. I believe it’s because they were more human than all the humans on that station (Though the only Cardassian on the station was Garak). It was because the Cardassians had all kind of colours; they weren’t just black and white, they had all kind of interesting shades of grey. And the most beautiful thing about it was, secretly we understood so well why they choose to do certain things (or I did anyway). Which brings me back to the Federation: For a people “so advanced”, they’re so moronic in their social behaviour and empathy, it not only makes me want to throw things at my tv, but worse, it undermines the whole idea of Star Trek. Plus, the quality of too many stories was piss poor.

That’s why I hate Star Trek.

Limburgish Expressions

You know what I miss most about Limburg? Some of the expressions.

Just two of them:
 Expression: "Doa is gein kip kepot?"
Freely translated it says: "There's no chicken broken".
It means: "There's no-one there."

Expression: "Doa wil ich noch neet kepot gevonje weare."
Loosely translated: "There I wouldn't want to be found broken".
Meaning: "I wouldn't ever want to go/be there."

Expression: "Klein pötjes hebbe groeëte oère.

Some kind of translation: "Small jars have big ears."
Meaning: "Children are listening in on grown ups."