Res bossitans: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Res bossitans (view source)

Revision as of 21:19, 19 June 2019

472 bytes added , 19 June 2019

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,976

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{a|conf|}}Per [[Büchstein]]’s formulation in [[Discourse on Intercourse]], the person on the [[conference call]]  whose fundamental essence is to boss people around ( a “action-assigning thing” or “[[res bossitans]]”) is that person — often a contractor from Deloitte — whose sacred role in the organisation is to prod his colleagues in the ribs whenever they seem to be enjoying themselves. The sample exchange is this:
+{{a|confcall|}}Per [[Otto Büchstein]]’s formulation in [[Discourse on Intercourse]], the person on the [[conference call]]  whose fundamental essence is to tell the others what to do (in  [[Büchstein]]’s phraseology a “[[action-assigning thing]]” or “[[res bossitans]]”). More generally, the person — often a contractor from Deloitte — whose sacred role in the organisation is to prod his colleagues in the ribs whenever they seem to be enjoying themselves.
-''Scene: An [[all-hands conference call]]. Late in the day. Attendees, severally, quietly feel their life essences drain away.''
+The classic exchange is this:
+''Scene: An [[all-hands conference call]]. Late in the day. The agenda is to debating an idea allegedly floated at an [[industry forum]] which, plainly, no one likes. Attendees, severally, quietly feel their life essences draining away.''
 :'''Attendee 1''': OK, so that there seems to be consensus: it sounds like a bad idea.
-:'''Attendee 2''': Agreed. It’s hard to configure, there are potential regulatory consequences and it doesn’t really fit our business model.
+:'''Attendee 2''': Agreed. It’s hard to configure, there are potential regulatory issues and it doesn’t really fit our business model.
-:'''Attendee 3''': Yeah, but there’s an industry group that has formed to look at it.
+:'''Attendee 3''': Yeah, but the industry group  —  ''(shrugs)'' — um ... [[Goldman]].
 :'''Attendee 1''': Stupid idea, though, right?
-:'''Attendee 2''': Yeah. But who knows — maybe they’ll figure out a way to make this work, but it’s not likely.
+:'''Attendee 2''': Yeah. But who knows — maybe they’ll figure out a way to make this work, but not likely.
-:'''Attendee 3''': Ok why don't we just leave it.
+:'''Attendee 3''': OK why don't we just leave it?
-:'''Attendee 1''': Maybe just keep an eye on it — in case they do figure it out.
+:'''Attendee 1''': Yeah, definitely. Maybe just keep an eye on it — in case they ''do'' figure it out.
-:'''Attendee 2''':Yeah. Monitor it.
+:'''Attendee 2''':Yeah. Monitor it. We can join later if that happens. Just monitor it.<ref>Needless to say this is code for “forget it”. Alas, this code is unknown to [[res bossitans]].</ref>
 :'''Attendee 3''':Passively.
 :'''All attendees''' ''(nodding, in unison)'': ''Passively'' monitor it.
+:'''[[Res bossitans]]''' ''(clears throat)'': Who is going to take an action to passively monitor it?
+''Attendees, severally, quietly imagine bludgeoning the bossitans with a rock. But they will say nothing.''
-:'''[[Res Bossitans]]''' ''(clears throat)'': Who is going to take anaction to passively monitor it?
+{{ref}}