Page 178 - 181 off topic posts from thread: On layoffs, very bad attendance, and Iger's legacy being one of disgrace

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
Somebody we’ll meet at Starbucks and you can show me with graphs and a laser pointer how exactly that plays out differently??

PSLs on me!!
I maybe should have said rigged as its somehow a secret. The purpose of the stock market is to make money. If only a few sectors make money due to external manipulation, thats where the money will go. It is a shame that manipulation of monetary policy is being used to avoid the short term pain that needs to take place. Pain is coming and it will be worse due to the risk adverse society we live in.

I think the best place to be is the lifeboat of durable physical assets such as gold and land (not housing).
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
I maybe should have said rigged as its somehow a secret. The purpose of the stock market is to make money. If only a few sectors make money due to external manipulation, thats where the money will go. It is a shame that manipulation of monetary policy is being used to avoid the short term pain that needs to take place. Pain is coming and it will be worse due to the risk adverse society we live in.

I think the best place to be is the lifeboat of durable physical assets such as gold and land (not housing).
Many have benefited and have become very wealthy from long term investing ( even though some would never know it just by how they live and act ) . It's not rocket science. Diversified index funds buying monthly regardless of share price is a tried and true formula. The ones who chase the sectors that they think will get hot usually are the ones who get burned. For gold, that's fool's gold but to each his own. Some can't buy into the stock market. Some are busy living above their means, slaves to debt and keep our economy going.
 

Tom P.

Well-Known Member
Nice to see how posts around here get deleted without even the courtesy of notifying the poster that it has happened or the reason why. Fantastic.
 

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
Well, then when Disney is in debt because they spent so much money on the rethemes, I hope they learn a valuable lesson about giving in to the Twitter mob.
But they didn’t. Certain factions in the company wanted to do this, note how last season’s “You Must Remember This” was about SotS, almost a year ago. They chose to announce it in June to piggyback on the Aunt Jemima/Uncle Ben revisionism train after the murder of George Floyd.
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
Nice to see how posts around here get deleted without even the courtesy of notifying the poster that it has happened or the reason why. Fantastic.
Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the terms and conditions for using the boards:
5A54EBBC-11D6-4407-970B-89133438E7B3.jpeg
Also:
BB62E662-E270-460C-AC23-0BA8A59BA927.jpeg

 

Tom P.

Well-Known Member
Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the terms and conditions for using the boards:
I am familiar with the terms and the conditions, yes. I never said that the moderators did not have the right to remove my post, or any post, at their discretion. I was not suggesting that they are somehow required to notify me if they do so. I was expressing displeasure with their choice of how to handle the removal of a post. I personally think it is a better practice to notify someone when a message is removed, either in the thread or privately.
I thought it was obvious why it was deleted, you were telling someone to "shut up."
Going to the rules that @_caleb referenced, I don't see any category of prohibited content that telling someone to "shut up" would fall into. Of course, as has been established, these are your boards and you have the discretion to remove any post you like for any reason. But I don't see a clear case where what I posted violated the rules.

Also, I understand that sometimes the tone, tenor, or even humor of a message doesn't come through in a message board posting. I debated whether or not to add an emoji to the end of that very brief post. Perhaps I erred in deciding not to. It was not meant as an actual request for the poster to stop posting. It was meant as a short, sweet, and somewhat humorous way to indicate that I thought what they posted was patently absurd. I guess I need to work at better conveying the intent of my comments.
 

wdwmagic

Administrator
Moderator
I am familiar with the terms and the conditions, yes. I never said that the moderators did not have the right to remove my post, or any post, at their discretion. I was not suggesting that they are somehow required to notify me if they do so. I was expressing displeasure with their choice of how to handle the removal of a post. I personally think it is a better practice to notify someone when a message is removed, either in the thread or privately.

Going to the rules that @_caleb referenced, I don't see any category of prohibited content that telling someone to "shut up" would fall into. Of course, as has been established, these are your boards and you have the discretion to remove any post you like for any reason. But I don't see a clear case where what I posted violated the rules.

Also, I understand that sometimes the tone, tenor, or even humor of a message doesn't come through in a message board posting. I debated whether or not to add an emoji to the end of that very brief post. Perhaps I erred in deciding not to. It was not meant as an actual request for the poster to stop posting. It was meant as a short, sweet, and somewhat humorous way to indicate that I thought what they posted was patently absurd. I guess I need to work at better conveying the intent of my comments.
I see your intention was different, but it appeared to come under.

"3. Be courteous and respect your fellow members. To be clear, personal attacks, aggressive messages, and passive-aggressive behavior is unacceptable. If you take particular issue with another user and are unable to reply in a civilised and constructive way to their posts, you should ignore the user."

You have to realize that moderation of a forum this size has to be done quickly, and there just isn't time to try and infer poster intentions in all situations.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Who you know and where the person hiring went to school are always more important as you move up the ladder than where you graduated from college ranks. The reason why "Public Ivies" graduates have more success getting jobs is because they have, for the most part, some of the largest alumni networks in the country. UCSB is among the top five public universities in the country, but it won't help you coming out of college like a UNC, Texas or Wisconsin because it doesn't have the same kind of alumni network.

Of course, that's true in almost everything.

But a degree from a school like UNC or UCLA generally counts more/looks more impressive to a random unaffiliated person than the same degree from a school like, say, Arizona State.

The "Public Ivies" tend to give a person the best of both worlds, in that they're one of the top 10-15 public universities in the country AND they have gigantic alumni networks.
 

Tom P.

Well-Known Member
Of course, that's true in almost everything.

But a degree from a school like UNC or UCLA generally counts more/looks more impressive to a random unaffiliated person than the same degree from a school like, say, Arizona State.

The "Public Ivies" tend to give a person the best of both worlds, in that they're one of the top 10-15 public universities in the country AND they have gigantic alumni networks.
I disagree. I don't think the average person looking over job candidate resumes really cares at all about where they went to school. I think they look at the fact that they completed college and what their degree is and that's about it. I really just don't think where you go to school matters hardly at all in getting hired.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
I disagree. I don't think the average person looking over job candidate resumes really cares at all about where they went to school. I think they look at the fact that they completed college and what their degree is and that's about it. I really just don't think where you go to school matters hardly at all in getting hired.

I think it matters very little (if at all) once you have experience in the field and employers on your resume, but I think it does make a difference (at least in some cases) for people fresh out of school. Of course, as was already mentioned, alumni networks are a far bigger help in that regard.

It matters a TON in certain fields, but that's generally grad school/professional level degrees and not undergrad.
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
I think it matters very little (if at all) once you have experience in the field and employers on your resume, but I think it does make a difference (at least in some cases) for people fresh out of school. Of course, as was already mentioned, alumni networks are a far bigger help in that regard.

It matters a TON in certain fields, but that's generally grad school/professional level degrees and not undergrad.
I tend to agree. Employers generally don't care what undergrad you come from but grad school degrees and where the person went to school. Fuqua is highly regarded as a premier business school. ( Go DUKE )!
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Generally speaking: it’s still who you know or who you...wait...nevermind.

The “the school matters” is largely a myth in practice. A defense mechanism for people to feel like they didn’t overpay. But US higher ed is an overpayment...for a variety of reasons.

There are of course a variety of situations/exceptions.
 

Heppenheimer

Well-Known Member
Generally speaking: it’s still who you know or who you...wait...nevermind.

The “the school matters” is largely a myth in practice. A defense mechanism for people to feel like they didn’t overpay. But US higher ed is an overpayment...for a variety of reasons.

There are of course a variety of situations/exceptions.
I can think of one instance where "the school (might) matter": applying to medical school. Multiple other factors, of course, are more important, including raw grades, MCAT score, volunteer experience and the actual interview. Anyone with top grades (lets say, 3.5 GPA or above) and who crushes the MCAT is going to get in, no matter what undergrad school they attended, unless they completely botch the interview. Lesser grades (like in the 3.0 to 3.4 range), and everything else being equal between prospective candidates, though, the decision might go to the student who went to a university with a more rigorous academic reputation.

Perhaps the situation may also apply for other highly competitive grad schools.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
I can think of one instance where "the school (might) matter": applying to medical school. Multiple other factors, of course, are more important, including raw grades, MCAT score, volunteer experience and the actual interview. Anyone with top grades (lets say, 3.5 GPA or above) and who crushes the MCAT is going to get in, no matter what undergrad school they attended, unless they completely botch the interview. Lesser grades (like in the 3.0 to 3.4 range), and everything else being equal between prospective candidates, though, the decision might go to the student who went to a university with a more rigorous academic reputation.

Perhaps the situation may also apply for other highly competitive grad schools.

It absolutely matters for grad/professional school applications. They often weigh GPAs differently based on the school from which it was received (I know this firsthand from someone who was involved in the admissions process for a law school).

With that said, the standardized test score generally matters the most. The undergrad degree is going to be more of a tiebreaker for close cases than anything else.
 

robhedin

Well-Known Member
Generally speaking: it’s still who you know or who you...wait...nevermind.

The “the school matters” is largely a myth in practice. A defense mechanism for people to feel like they didn’t overpay. But US higher ed is an overpayment...for a variety of reasons.

There are of course a variety of situations/exceptions.
Definitely true. The only time I care about the school (or honestly if they even went to college) is if I need someone with a masters or phd for very specialized positions. Without that need, it's basically a checkbox at most.

Honestly, I think we've done society a disservice by making people think that a college degree is a must. I tend to think that vocational schools or work co-op would be fine for many people. I've got about 30 people working for me, and the lowest paid person makes over $120k/year. Two of the best people I've got don't have a degree.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Honestly, I think we've done society a disservice by making people think that a college degree is a must. I tend to think that vocational schools or work co-op would be fine for many people. I've got about 30 people working for me, and the lowest paid person makes over $120k/year. Two of the best people I've got don't have a degree.

There should absolutely be more vocational schools and less people going for 4 year liberal arts degrees. I think Europe handles that much better.
 
Top Bottom