Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Just testing
BH, being a little concerned for my health just presently, thought she would run her own series of tests. And being a lady they are not at all technical, quite simple in fact. Now our kitchen is so arranged that there are two cupboard doors under the sink, both opening from the centre, that is to say there is one hinge on the left and the other on the right. For many years the arrangement has been that cleaning gear resides on the right and the small grey bucket thoughtfully provided by Epsom & Ewell Borough Council to hold our kitchen waste, our very own waste transfer station (micro), resides on the left. So all she has to do is swap things around, stand back and watch the fun.
Which seems to be very various. There are periods when I consistently remember before I bend down to open a cupboard door that the waste bucket has been moved. There are rather more periods when I consistently fail to remember. Sometimes the hand gets most of the way to the left hand door and then stops: the facts that I do not have anything to do with cleaning and that I am rather averse to the various smells and pongs which cleaning chemicals seem to come with have eventually got far enough down the brain stem to inhibit already started motor action. A timing problem. But most of the time it seems to be more or less random; the brain has just given up on this one and is having a rest before trying to reset the relevant memory cells.
A rather different angle might be that she is waiting to see how long it is before I bring some order to the experiment, perhaps by keeping score or perhaps, more elaborately, by keeping a spreadsheet. Perhaps she has a bet on with one of the neighbours.
However, just presently I am worrying about something else. Is it fair to call someone a bully who does not know it? Does one have to have malice and intent to qualify as a bully? In slightly different contexts, priests and lawyers both would say that one does, although the lawyers do have the cop out of criminal negligence, which allows one to be sent to jail for a long period without one ever having intended to commit a crime. Not sure of the stance of priests on that one.
OED gives twenty four inches to various other meanings of bully, quite various and some with a positive rather than a negative tone. A relic on the positive side being the just about current phrase 'bully for you'. It gives maybe four inches to the sort of bully in question here (including the various derivatives in the four inches) without addressing either malice or intent. In fact the way it is written neither are necessary. One bullies if one behaves in an overbearing or intimidating manner and that is the end of it.
Which is, I suppose, fair enough if you are at the receiving end. And it is perhaps right to label a person who bullies as a bully. One does not stop the behaviour by being mealy mouthed about what one calls it. But I would still say that absence of malice and intent is mitigation. One might try to take the bully aside and explain things, after which if he or she persists the mitigation falls. Alternatively, he or she may never have realised the effect they were having on others. He or she might just have thought the victim a bit wet, but entirely happy to modify behaviour when everything was spelt out by the people from HR or social services or wherever.
Which seems to be very various. There are periods when I consistently remember before I bend down to open a cupboard door that the waste bucket has been moved. There are rather more periods when I consistently fail to remember. Sometimes the hand gets most of the way to the left hand door and then stops: the facts that I do not have anything to do with cleaning and that I am rather averse to the various smells and pongs which cleaning chemicals seem to come with have eventually got far enough down the brain stem to inhibit already started motor action. A timing problem. But most of the time it seems to be more or less random; the brain has just given up on this one and is having a rest before trying to reset the relevant memory cells.
A rather different angle might be that she is waiting to see how long it is before I bring some order to the experiment, perhaps by keeping score or perhaps, more elaborately, by keeping a spreadsheet. Perhaps she has a bet on with one of the neighbours.
However, just presently I am worrying about something else. Is it fair to call someone a bully who does not know it? Does one have to have malice and intent to qualify as a bully? In slightly different contexts, priests and lawyers both would say that one does, although the lawyers do have the cop out of criminal negligence, which allows one to be sent to jail for a long period without one ever having intended to commit a crime. Not sure of the stance of priests on that one.
OED gives twenty four inches to various other meanings of bully, quite various and some with a positive rather than a negative tone. A relic on the positive side being the just about current phrase 'bully for you'. It gives maybe four inches to the sort of bully in question here (including the various derivatives in the four inches) without addressing either malice or intent. In fact the way it is written neither are necessary. One bullies if one behaves in an overbearing or intimidating manner and that is the end of it.
Which is, I suppose, fair enough if you are at the receiving end. And it is perhaps right to label a person who bullies as a bully. One does not stop the behaviour by being mealy mouthed about what one calls it. But I would still say that absence of malice and intent is mitigation. One might try to take the bully aside and explain things, after which if he or she persists the mitigation falls. Alternatively, he or she may never have realised the effect they were having on others. He or she might just have thought the victim a bit wet, but entirely happy to modify behaviour when everything was spelt out by the people from HR or social services or wherever.
# posted by Jim @ 5:25 AM 
