Funniest Practical Joke ............

[Michael]

All of these things need to be resolved every now and then..in my experience a few times a year here, as this isn't Wikipedia, a more or less static encyclopedia. It's a sentient, morphing community. That can make it a pain in the ass at times, but also means that you can be exposed to more thought, logic, and valid information here on accident than you can often find on any one subject on purpose elsewhere.

I appreciate your comments and hope that you will continue to return. It gets better. It gets worse. But it's always full of valuable information if you're willing to search for it, because like any serious educational tool, you get out of it what you put into it.

Well roared, Lion!

Or, as a biodynamic farmer once told me, crops need manure.

[DwayneEMTP]

...but I don't see a flaw and I don't see that I was arguing at all when I posted the article to which you took exception; rather, I presented testimony to speak for itself.

I think the issue that Kaisu is dealing with here is one that you and I have spoken about in the past. You seem to post what you consider general or sometimes specific information on a topic, that people then create opinions from, and respond, but then you reply, "But why are you arguing with me? That is not my opinion, it is simply AN opinion, I have no opinion on this subject."

I think it's sometimes the teacher in you coming out, but most of us have a hard time discussing issues with someone that posts information yet has no personal mental investment in the outcome of the discussion. That's where I think Kaisu is getting lost. She seems to be saying, "Ah, Micheal is here to do some mental sparring and exercise." and is attempting to give you the fodder you need to do so, yet your replies seem, to me at least, to say, "Why do you keep addressing me? I have no opinion here, nor interest in any opinions you may have developed, I'm simply adding fuel to a fire that I have no need for."

Kaisu's comments make perfect sense to me. You posted some definitions, which to me, combined, and taken with a little dose of common sense, can be construed to mean that you are opposed to practical jokes, as well as believe that they may cause harm.

She replied that using that tactic to defend your argument, a not unknown tactic used by many with feeble minds, was beneath you and seemed to assume that you'd done it to be funny, and poked a little fun at you for it. Of course that was not a tactic you were using, as it IS beneath you as well as requires an investment in the conversation to justify it's use. But, having assumed your investment, in error, it was the logical conclusion for her to have drawn.

You're reply, and I paraphrase is something like, "But I have no idea what you mean. I have not taken any sides, but simply produced unbiased testimony." Most people argue and debate using their opponents motivations as tools to help to illuminate their own points, or disassemble those of their opponents. When your motivation does not involve resolving the issue at hand, but further thinking about the issue instead, many of us go flying off into the ditch.

Anyway..she certainly doesn't need the mental midgets in the crowd to make her points, and as it's likely I came nowhere near any of her intended points anyway, I'll jump back into the wings for now...

Dwayne

[Michael]

You seem to post what you consider general or sometimes specific information on a topic, that people then create opinions from, and respond, but then you reply, "But why are you arguing with me? That is not my opinion, it is simply AN opinion, I have no opinion on this subject."

I didn't say it was not my opinion, and I didn't say I have no opinion on the subject.

First off, it stands to reason that posting testimony without comment suggests alignment with that testimony; that's what "speaks for itself" means.

Second, I explicitly made my opinion about practical jokes known in subsequent posts.

Kaisu's comments make perfect sense to me. You posted some definitions, which to me, combined, and taken with a little dose of common sense, can be construed to mean that you are opposed to practical jokes, as well as believe that they may cause harm.

Consistent with the opinion on the subject I subsequently expressed also in my own words.

She replied that using that tactic to defend your argument, a not unknown tactic used by many with feeble minds, was beneath you and seemed to assume that you'd done it to be funny, and poked a little fun at you for it. Of course that was not a tactic you were using, as it IS beneath you as well as requires an investment in the conversation to justify it's use. But, having assumed your investment, in error, it was the logical conclusion for her to have drawn.

You're reply, and I paraphrase is something like, "But I have no idea what you mean. I have not taken any sides, but simply produced unbiased testimony."

I didn't say, nor imply, that it was unbiased. I took a side. I was manifestly invested.

Most people argue and debate using their opponents motivations as tools to help to illuminate their own points, or disassemble those of their opponents.

In that practice I number among most people.

When your motivation does not involve resolving the issue at hand

Have you read my posts here?

but further thinking about the issue instead

Why "instead"? Resolving an issue requires further thinking.

many of us go flying off into the ditch.

I will eagerly pursue anyone into a ditch by the side of the roads of logic and evidence in order to see which of us will rescue the other, and I will joyfully celebrate the save if a save is possible. Ditches by the side of the road of courtesy I find less appealing to enter because I don't view them as productive laboratories. You know, BSI, Scene Safety and all that...

[DwayneEMTP]

...and I don't see that I was arguing at all when I posted the article to which you took exception; rather, I presented testimony to speak for itself.

It is because of the bolded comment that I took what follows to mean that you didn't intend it as part of your argument but as a stand alone piece of information, seperate from your stated opinion. And again, it is in the context of the above that I made the referrences to Kaisu as well. Can you show me how I've misunderstood?

...Ditches by the side of the road of courtesy I find less appealing to enter because I don't view them as productive laboratories.

And could you explain this as well in it's context of this conversation? I'm not tracking.

Dwayne

[Michael]

It is because of the bolded comment that I took what follows to mean that you didn't intend it as part of your argument but as a stand alone piece of information, seperate from your stated opinion. And again, it is in the context of the above that I made the referrences to Kaisu as well. Can you show me how I've misunderstood?

It's just a technical distinction.

To take another example for the purpose of illustration: If you ask me What's the best way to socialize healthcare and I post, say, this article [if you can't view it, it reports the public-health atrocity of socialized dentistry in England], or wordlessly display a photograph that depicts evidence or testimony - say a crowd of people with rotten teeth at a British gathering - I haven't (yet) argued. But I have, I think, indicated by the citation alone - which doesn't profess to be proof - that I believe the best way to socialize medicine is not to socialize medicine at all. So far nothing I've read here shows me that I was wrong to predict readers would immediately comprehend my opinion about practical joking from my having posted the article I posted. Someone seemed to think that I owed more than that, but it's taken me a long time to figure out that that person was demanding an argument from me to back up an element or elements that hadn't appeared to me controversial. I'm sorry to disappoint, but now it is I who must say the critiques I received were insufficiently explicit. If the OP had asked Do you think practical jokes are good things? or Do you think hurting people's feelings is good? Or Do you think everyone should lighten up to my specifications? then posting the article I posted would have been an inadequate (though not incomprehensible nor, as charged, dishonest) response, because it would have been insufficiently standing in the place an argument should have held.

Here is a famous example of an illustration followed, only when the narrator begins speaking, by a brief argument.

Just as if the OP had asked Would Barry Goldwater (the hawk-candidate who had proposed deploying nukes in Viet-Nam) would make a good President, posting the Daisy commercial - which would reveal my opinion without my argument - would have been an inadequate, though, again, a clear and fair, reply. But the OP had asked Why do political candidates waste their money on advertising instead of purely rational discourse to promote their ideas, I think posting that Daisy commercial without comment would have been a fine response, because it would be a meta-response, the picture worth more than the proverbial 10,000 words. In both instances, saying Look and see the consequences for yourself expresses a position without explicitly arguing. Naturally, arguments have uses that illustrations don't, which is why arguing was invented. But illustrations have uses that arguments don't, which is why they survive.

The OP asked us to regale him with hilarious stories of practical jokes. I posted an article that addressed that request by presenting the downside of categories of behavior into which practical jokes have been known to fall. That's not an argument. Kaisu wrote that she didn't see the relevance of my post to the topic. I did what I could to fill in the gaps that I tried - very hard - to imagine my posting of the article could have left with such an intelligent and articulate reader.

And could you explain this as well in it's context of this conversation? I'm not tracking.

When I find another poster's responses to my repeatedly goodwilled efforts consistently discourteous, as happened on this thread, I discontinue engagement.

Kisses!

[Richard B the EMT]

I read a reference to "Bubba" the schoolyard bully. I'd usually have him "sikked" on me, as opposed to

Bubba of Attica Cellblock 3, who wants you to be his wife, and he's only interviewing guys for the position! He might "skip" to you.

Anyway, Schoolyard Bubba didn't need urging by others, he hated me on his own. In retrospect, that is what gave me the training I needed to be on the track team: Running away from him giving me yet another beat-down!

As for retributions for pranks played against me, somehow they always backfired, and I was the one in trouble for it, never the original instigator. Remember? I was the one blitzed in an attack, but the only one suspended for fighting.

Then, there was the time someone set my jacket on fire...while I was wearing it!

The nearest to hazing I come is, doing my light duty assignment, following a line of duty injury, at FDNY Headquarters, I work in the Duty Determination Clinic. When someone in Probie School comes in, and they are easy to pick out, as they are required to be in class A dress uniform with no cap "device" on their hats, and "SIR"ing everyone in a full uniform, I always assume an angry demeanor, and ask them, "Did you get permission from your supervisors to be sick or injured BEFORE you became sick or injured?" Sometimes I get a fearful "Nosir, SIR", before I tell them I'm fooling around.

Years ago, there were 4 generic groups at my VAC. One just left me alone, the second told me I needed to get drunk, the third told me I needed to be laid (the "ladies" in that group never offered to follow through on that, incidentally) and the forth felt I needed BOTH!

My personal philosophy has become, over the years, pretty simple. If it hurts someone emotionally, physically, or financially, it is NOT funny, Period!

[Michael]

Shoulda had this discussion 12 years ago, or even a 6 years ago.

[sirduke]

Actually it just cost that person money as they drive to the mechanic. Or even worse they are distracted by it and hit a child running across the street.

I'm glad it is clear that you have no desire to be professional by your own statement. So why don't you leave the profession to the professionals.

Spec, I always thought you were a pretty smart fellow, but alas, guess I was wrong. From reading all your postings on this, I've come to the opinion that you are not only anal retentive, but sexually frustrated as well.

As for the mechanic bill, a normal person would look under the vehicle and see the tie wrap, oh wait, then they would get run over and killed thus delaying the response to the patient. Oh Shit, I'm an asshole and a accessory to murder... Damn me.

Get a life brother.

And no, I won't leave EMS, and yes, I am a professional, just because I disagree with you doesn't make me unprofessional, just different.

[spenac]

Spec, I always thought you were a pretty smart fellow, but alas, guess I was wrong. From reading all your postings on this, I've come to the opinion that you are not only anal retentive, but sexually frustrated as well.

As for the mechanic bill, a normal person would look under the vehicle and see the tie wrap, oh wait, then they would get run over and killed thus delaying the response to the patient. Oh Shit, I'm an asshole and a accessory to murder... Damn me.

Get a life brother.

And no, I won't leave EMS, and yes, I am a professional, just because I disagree with you doesn't make me unprofessional, just different.

You slay me dude.

But honestly no one should touch another person or persons belongings, heck even if it ends up funny 99% of the time I would not want it to haunt me for the 1% it goes wrong. Just because fire fighters or even your EMS department has done things like that for years does not make it right. Also when one of the increasing number of lawsuits being brought against EMS hits your service you can bet the lawyer will use the lack of professionalism at the station to help win his case when he questions whether you actually did a professional job with his client.

I do apologize though for my rude address to you. Despite my disagreeing with your actions I should have done so much more professionally. Sorry.

[firedoc5]

My EMT partner last shift is very tall - 6'6" and I am the tallest woman at 6'. Our erstwhile colleagues amused themselves by moving the seats up in our rig. We would jump in and re-introduce our chins to our knees. This happened twice. We retaliated - we had to.. it was the honor of the team at stake... We put KY on the door handles of their rig, water on the seats and Arby's sauce in the gloves...

And before you all go ape, our 3 teams of 1 EMT - 1 Paramedic ran 27 calls between noon and 3 am with one a long distance transfer. Our response times are monitored and we have to answer for anything substandard. We did a bang up job.

Guilty as charged. Actually I (5'3"), and another Medic (she was 5'1"), would "forget to move the seat back sometimes. You would know immediately when the next person to drive would hop in quickly. BAM, followed by "@#%*" coming from the garage.

When I first started full time at a private service they went out to get me some pants. They came back with boy's size 18 Garanimals for me. But hey, they fit and I wore them for about two years.

Another time my shorter stature was questioned was when there was an older ambulance they had was a three-speed on the column. The seat wouldn't move up. So they duct-taped a 2x4 board to the clutch. For me it worked, so that one backfired on them too.

Sure I'd have the guys put my stuff in the kitchen up on the top shelf so they could see me have to climb up on the counter to reach it. But I didn't mind.

I just say that I didn't waste my hormones growing tall.