A couple major fallacies in your message -- comments in-line
Nancy Folsom wrote:
>
> I don't know Chet and so all I have are the words we type here. What
> the thread _does_ bring to mind--generally--is that we frequently
> mistake our importance and the importance of our pet projects. Given
> the context of the discussion:
>
> - Software serves the business need, not the programmer's ego. Killing
> a project is not about the programmer (usually) but is about the
> business. I gather Chet's loyalty is more to his software and less to
> the company. Frankly, if I was the employer, I'd welcome the
> resignation of anyone who's loyalty was so placed.
You gather wrong.
My loyalty is to the people I work with. I expect the same towards me.
However, when my loyalty isn't reciprocated, I do get a little miffed.
It's a bit beyond the pale to keep this kind of decision secret from me
and then reveal it in such a public way.
> - Our software itself is sometimes the cause for jobs being lost, and
> even when it's not, it's often perceived to be a threat. And, so, it's
> rather ironic when programmers complain about job loss when we are in
> an industry that has at the very least displaced who knows how many
> workers?
>
> I've written and deleted a bunch of drivel about how maybe one is
> better served by detaching their feelings business decisions--saving
> themselves from the feeling that the world is out to personally slight
> them at every turn. Uh oh, I see it's slipped back in. <eg>
>
Obviously you haven't read this entire thread because this post displays
a serious mis-reading of it...
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.2 - Release Date: 2/28/2005
©2005 Chet Gardiner |
