Folks, I'm looking for a word to describe a person or person's specific activity. I'll describe the scenario, and then I'm wide open on thoughts.
Team leader A asked team leader B for something that while was not directly in the project scope, will certainly be necessary for future projects. Team leader B did not want to do this work. Instead of just saying so, TL B goes into a filibuster-like rant about how if we're going to work on things out of scope, then we might as well cancel all the projects, re-establish scope and restart the projects. In his rant it was obvious that he wasn't serious about cancelling, but wanted to, in a way, grandstand to make a point that the requested item was out of scope. The whole thing was exasperating and a bit embarassing as TLB made our dept. appear...kind of immature to be honest.
Anyway, I am looking for a word to describe him and/or his behavior in this case. I'm thinking of something similar to 'obstructionist', not so much an antagonist. I'm sure there's a word to describe the kind of "Well if that's how you feel well then we'll just ya ta da da this and do that and blah blah blah, and you'll have this and we'll have that...and blah blah blah" line of BS.
Regards
Any thoughts?
How about "selfish", as in selfishly wasting the time of everyone else in the meeting at that moment?
Hmm.
Grandstand to make a point.
Issue a threat (of cancellation).
But it’s a bluff.
Kind of like 'cutting off your nose to spite your face', but can’t think of a single word for that.
incentivist
good one, Vernon!
>incentivist
I thought you were trying to stir trouble with that word. That got me thinking about the sort of smarmy sidekicks who act as though they are loyal aides, but are actually fomenting dischord for their own ends. I propose that such people be called adjutators.
monocular vision, tunnel vision, rigid, inflexible, unadaptable, closed-minded, intemperate
antifacial-rhinectomy
I'm gonna steal this and use it when the opportunity arises and people are going to think me witty beyond description ... but only those few who understand what the heck it means. Thank you, Vernon.
but only those few who understand what the heck it means
I confess I am one of the many who doesn't understand what it is, Father Steve.
A "rhinotomy" is defined as an "Incision into the nose" so I assume a "rhinectomy" is the removal of the nasal passage [in the same sense that an "appendectomy" is the removal of the appendix].
If a "facial" is a treatment which improves the appearance of the face, then I presume an "anti-facial" is a treament which disfigures the face.
On this basis, an "anti-facial rhinectomy" would seem to be an operation which disfigures the shape of the nose, presumably by removing the nasal passage.
Anyone who survived an "antifacial-rhinectomy" would have to breath exclusively through the mouth, like a 'mouth-breather', a slang term for a person as stupid as a goldfish or other mouth-breather.
Very clever, Vernon.
> I am one ... who doesn't understand what it is
'cutting off your nose to spite your face', but can’t think of a single word for that.
antifacial-rhinectomy
Obstructionist is one word.
But a term that I often use is "box-checker." This is someone who does EXACTLY what has been enumerated for him to do and not one iota more - even if failing to do this action will obviously cause irreparable harm to the final project. I did not coin this term.
Another term I use (which so far as I know I did initiate) is "technician's syndrome" to describe a person who knows some little pissant piece of 'knowledge', but lords it over people who are generally much smarter than he is - mainly because he has protection by authority and not because he knows all that much. It's a very common failing among semi-competent and incompetent technicians. Most of the really competent ones don't have any need to play this sort of game. Think that character Jimmy Fallon plays on SNL, "The Company Computer Guy."
It's not meant to be exclusive to technicians, but to people who think at about the level of a very poor technician trying to fabricate any excuse to continue playing solitaire instead of doing what he got hired to do.
k
Perhaps this would be a good application of "prescriptivist".
In Québec, when somebody reacts like Team Leader B did, somebody will invariably say (with rolling eyes):
"Bang, bang. T'est mort sinon j'joue pu" (slang meaning Bang, bang. You're dead or I'm not playing anymore.)
It means the person is immature and everybody knows it - like those little kids playing "cowboys" or "war" and one of the kids is really immature and refuses to play unless everybody follows his rules.
"Bang, bang", you see, is French for "Bang, bang."
Here endeth today's French lesson.
Father Steve
Take your pick, awm, and welcome aBoard:
Projection:
Attributing one's thoughts or impulses to another person. In common use, this is limited to unacceptable or undesirable impulses. Examples: (1) a man, unable to accept that he has competitive or hostile feelings about an acquaintance, says, “He doesn’t like me.” (2) a woman, denying to herself that she has sexual feelings about a co-worker, accuses him, without basis, of flirt and described him as a “wolf.”
This defense mechanism is commonly over utilized by the paranoid.
A broader definition of projection includes certain operations that allow for empathy and understanding of others. Recognition that another person is lonely or sad may be based not upon having seen other examples of loneliness or sadness and learning the outward manifestations but upon having experienced the feelings and recognizing automatically that another person’s situation would evoke them. [projective identification]
Projective Identification:
As in projection, the individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by falsely attributing to another his or her own unacceptable feelings, impulses, or thoughts. Unlike simple projection, the individual does not fully disavow what is projected. Instead, the individual remains aware of his or her own affects or impulses but mis-attributes them as justifiable reactions to the other person. Not infrequently, the individual induces the very feelings in others that were first mistakenly believed to be there, making it difficult to clarify who did what to whom first. http://www.coldbacon.com/defenses.html(This site is a bit...unseriously written; the def.'s are none the less valid.)
Jackie, this is an eye-opener. Mind if I quote you over in the alcoholism/paranoia thread?
is that a 5th of scotch? or Kentucky bourbon? or what?
(do they still sell whiskey in bottles that hold 1/5th of a gallon? is it sold in metric quanities now?)
How do you pronounce that, Bel?
scotch ... bourbon Ptoo!
Gimme a fifth of cinnamon schnapps, please.
Sparteye, I've heard belMarduk speak; she pronounces that "that".
>>>Sparteye, I've heard belMarduk speak; she pronounces that "that". HA!!
But essentially, Jackie's right, we pronounce bang exactly like in English.
Helen, I had to go check our vast (ha) stock re: your question. We have a bottle of Irish whiskey (alas, not Bushmill's, sorry) and a bottle of bourbon; both are in 750 ml bottles.
and 5 times 750 is 3750ml, which is equal to .99 gallons.. so the answer is (thanks to Jackie) Yes.
(i am by no means a teatotaler, but i make a habit not to drink alone, so i rarely have hard liquor in the house--when i am having a party, i tend to by the 2 liter (apx 1/2 gallon!) bottles.. so its feast or famine!)
3750ml, which is equal to .99 gallons.
Not here it isn't.
In NZ, 1 gallon is very nearly 4.5 litres, not 3.8
Is that an imperial gallon?
This is why it is so difficult to compare gasoline prices in the United States with gasoline prices in other parts of the Commonwealth.
"other parts"??!!
While generally speaking, i don't consider the US to be part of The Commonwealth countries, we do share:
language
common law-(US common law, in 49 states and at federal level is based on English common law
(2 point for knowing which state doesn't have most of its civil and criminal code based in english common law)
there is some commonality in government structure(sure we got rid of aristocracy and royalty, but we still have '2 houses' for government)
and
our current system of measurements:yards/inches, pints/gallons, quarts/pecks/bushels, rods/acre's etc are based on the old standards of the English.
(even the most widely practiced religions in US are ones that got started in UK!)
Its a bit of an exageration to say we are part of the commonwealth.. but we do still have a special relationship with UK..
(Websters says this about commonwealth)
commonwealth
• noun 1 an independent state or community, especially a democratic republic. 2 (the Commonwealth or in full the Commonwealth of Nations) an association consisting of the UK together with states that were previously part of the British Empire, and dependencies. 3 an aggregate or grouping of states or other bodies. 4 (the Commonwealth) the republican period of government in Britain between the execution of Charles I in 1649 and the Restoration of Charles II in 1660. 5 (the commonwealth) archaic the general good.
it really a matter of which date you pick for #2--as to whether or not we should be considered a member of the commonwealth.
I think the state in the USA that does not use English common law is Louisiana; but maybe it's Texas...
Or I could be completely off which isn't unheard of...
I'm pretty sure it's Louisiana -- they use the Napoleonic Code.
Yah, the code used in Louisiana is different. For example, the code for the letter "F" is pronounced deet-deet-dah-deet, after the French fashion.
>other parts of the Commonwealth.
Excuse me? The US has never been a member of "The Commonwealth", that social/trade club for former component states of the British Empire.
http://www.thecommonwealth.org/HomePage.asp?NodeID=20593
In reply to:
While generally speaking, i don't consider the US to be part of The Commonwealth countries, we do share:
language
Yes and no. In many, if not most, Commonwealth countries English is neither the official nor the majority language.
It is not "an exaggeration" to say that the US is part of the Commowealth, it simply wrong. The Commonwealth did not exist until after WWII, nearly 200 years after the US had left the clubhouse. The date is not open for one to pick as you state - The Commonwealth came into existence on a specific date. Prior to that, there was no "Commonwealth of Nations" for any country to be part of.
I forget which one (Romania?), but one of the Eastern European countries has joined La Francophonie despite having no historical connection with the former French Empire.
So, no doubt the USA could apply to join the Commonwealth, and might even be accepted.
Bingley
>So, no doubt the USA could apply to join the Commonwealth, and might even be accepted.
Why not? A cuople of African countries with no historical ties to the old Empire have been allowed in. Mozambique is one, so maybe Mrs Heinz-Kerry could sponsor the US application.
etaoin sez: "the Padre was kidding."
And the Old Padre responds: "worked, too, didn't it."
> worked
dime to you.
we pronounce bang exactly like in English
Huh. And I thought it'd be something like, "loy".