Thanks for your response, Curt. That clears it up a bit for me. It makes
sense. Of course some of us DID site the old principles and think we really
meant it.
-Elaine
>Many people objected to "dynamic optimism" because it conveyed a Pollyannish
>kind of thinking. The term makes me think of sales-types (in the companies
>I worked for) who always thought the great solution to all our trouble lay
>around the next corner and were always racing to get there. Since they never
>bothered to check whether their super-duper fixes would do any good, the fixes
>never were. Very dynamic, very optimistic, and very useless.
>
>I generally like the new principles. 2.5 was pretty zippy, but I often thought
>"woo - would I really mean *THAT*?" The new set feels very solid, although
>I concede a shorter one would be nice for rhetorical purposes.
--- CurtAdams@aol.com wrote:
> Many people objected to "dynamic optimism" because it conveyed a Pollyannish
> kind of thinking. The term makes me think of sales-types (in the companies
> I worked for) who always thought the great solution to all our trouble lay
> around
> the next corner and were always racing to get there. Since they never
> bothered
> to check whether their super-duper fixes would do any good, the fixes never
> were.
> Very dynamic, very optimistic, and very useless.
>
> I generally like the new principles. 2.5 was pretty zippy, but I often
> thought
> "woo - would I really mean *THAT*?" The new set feels very solid, although
> I concede a shorter one would be nice for rhetorical purposes.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:17 MDT