Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with argument

Letting go of a friend...

The1andonly — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:44:59 -0800

One of my closest friends and I have been growing increasingly apart for the last couple of years. I am perfectly ok with this and understand that as people grow older relationships change. However, for the last year or so his behavior has grown increasingly intolerable and after a recent argument I am wondering if its worth just getting rid of the relationship altogether....Apologies in advance for the length of this post which includes facebook drama, jealous girlfriend and tales of extreme introversion. My friend X and I met a number of years ago while we were both in high school. Initially we shared many things in common but as we have gotten older things (not surprisingly) have changed. I have no problems with our relationship changing, but it seems that for X things never happen to go his way and accordingly he has become a very draining and negative person. Worst of all he is always projecting this negative attitude to others especially me. Whereas I am the type of person that thinks could do everything X is always playing it safe and advising me to do the same. I do not mind getting his point of view on things but throughout the years he has always discouraged me from taking risks or doing the things that ended up being beneficial for me such as making music or leaving my job and looking for a better one.

As his outlook in life becomes increasingly limited mine expands....On top of this, X has grown up to become extremely introverted and I am (was?) his only real friend. For the last two years or so it has become extremely difficult just to get a simple conversation going over the phone, as with him is either hit or miss, either I catch him on a good day or he just has nothing to say. Furthermore when I have any problems or major decisions, he either has nothing to say about them (his usual response is "it is what it is"), or just never supports me in taking risks or following my dreams.

I have grown to understand that this is how X is. I have therefore made new more positive friends, usually look for advice with other people and for the most part have limited our relationship to talking on the phone two or three times a week (when he feels like talking that is). X got into a relationship about a year ago and that has kept him occupied so for the most part this has worked out fine aside from little issues that we have here and there....however the following happened yesterday:

I gave X a call and found him to be even more reticent than usual. A few minutes after we started talking he starts giving me an attitude and I am like ok X what is wrong? Well it turns out that about a month ago a couple of female friends came from Florida and asked us to have dinner with them. We have been friends with these girls for about 5 or 6 years now and there has never been any type of romantic bond between us as they just happened to be part of our circle of friends. These girls also happened to be in relationships/engaged at the time so it was definitely a very friendly meet in a family restaurant. During dinner I took some pictures of the group and there were a couple of funny pictures where X tried hiding his face and so did the girls. Two days ago I posted up the pictures in facebook thinking that they were going to be pretty funny and worse comes to worse someone was going to "Dude I look horrible in those pics, please take them down". This was the reaction from everybody in the group except X who was extremely mad at me because his girlfriend got extremely jealous after seeing the pics and not recognizing who the girls were. Apparently, because X is hiding his face this makes him look "guilty" of something and she was very mad at him for this. I told X, dude you can tell her these were your friends, and those friends can corroborate their identity, X does not agree with me, saying the pics look offensive and that it was insensitive of me to put them up.

I offered to take the pictures down and asked him if there was anything else he needed from me and he said nothing. We then hung up apparently in bad terms.

I am extremely disappointed with the turn of events. If X had just asked me to take the pictures down without giving me an attitude or talking to me in accusatory language I would have just apologized and obliged with the request....I feel that this latest argument gives me the best opportunity to do away with the relationship altogether. However, X and myself are part of the same social circle (which at this point mostly talks to me),my family is friends with him, as I am friends with his family.....I am not sure what is the best course of action, do I just stop talking to him (probably causing issues/friction as we are liable to come across each other in some way) or is there some way to further distance myself while keeping civil (and for this I guess I would have to apologize to him, for putting the pictures up, which I think is ludicrous but perhaps necessary)...Also I realize things cannot possibly be all that black and white..X does have some positive features (which my anger at him does not allow me to remember) and he has been there for me in tough times (especially after a painful break-up about two years ago)

Metafilter, what is the best way to go about this? Should I just let this be?

If it can ride in it, why not on it?

cloax — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:03:16 -0800

While moving out of an apartment my humongous couch would not fit into the elevator. With the promise of 6 flights of tight stairwell looming, I posited the following: "We're on the 5th floor and have the service elevator to ourselves. Let's put it on the 4th, put the couch on top of it, take the elevator to the basement, and carry the couch out the front of the building on the first floor." My friends refused and we suffered greatly getting the couch down and out via the stairwell. I still contend my idea would have worked and my friends think I'm insane. Am I?

How can I play devil's advocate?

FairlyFarley — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:26:35 -0800

Can you help me with a formula for playing devil's advocate to a pessimistic friend? My friend and I always end up talking about the end on the world and how eveything's going down the drain. He often pulls out arguments like "200 million soda bottles go into a landfil every hour" and "China opens up a new coal factory every ten days" and "there's a mass of trash the size of Texas floating in the ocean". All these facts may be true, but it's not their factuality that I want to argue. These statements stump me when I hear them and often I end up nodding and saying "well I guess that could be true". And I feel foolish for not being able to counter properly.

Either I want some facts to throw around that make it sound like the world is getting better. Or I want to know a method for arguing against such statements that may point the argument in a more positive direction. Can you teach me any clever argument tricks you know?

I'm female. He's not. We're twenty-something Americans if it matters.

Scholasticism as a Russian dance

macg02 — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:49:01 -0800

Help me find a quotation critical of Scholasticism or Dialectical Argumentation that I thought I read in Peter Gay's 'Enlightenment' It is to the effect that Scholastic argument is like a Russian dance, where the dancers jump around very impressively, but end up in the same place. I might be very wrong in thinking Peter Gay mentioned it, but in the back of my memory that's the connection I have.

Thank you kindly

Who are the world's 50 most famous/recognizable living people?

ciocarlia — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:10:26 -0800

Help us settle a workplace debate in a scientific manner: Do you know of any research studies that have objectively identified the 50 most famous/recognizable living people in the world today? We're trying to determine if Tiger Woods is (or is not) among the world's 50 most famous/recognizable living people and have struggled to find a credible answer. We seek studies that take into consideration the entire world, not just the Western World, for example.

A quick Web search produced lists that are USA-centric. We're looking for studies that take a world-wide perspective.

Blue balls of the mind

Anonymous — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:17:49 -0800

Argumentative types: how do you avoid becoming this guy? I love debating. It's less about any passionately-held political convictions (I tend to lean conservative/libertarian, but am enough of a reactionary that I can find reasons to disagree with almost anything) and more about the logic of it. Inaccurate statements, poor reasoning and tendentious language get at me like off-key singing, and I get this wave of energy compelling me to point it out and fix it. I'm guessing most naturally pugnacious people will be able to relate to this: the endorphin rush, the elevated heartrate, that slightly bloodthirsty feeling, and the subsequent frustration and depression if you can't engage.

In the few instances where I actually have the opportunity to thrash things out with a willing and competent partner, all's well; win, lose, or draw, I generally end up in excellent humor with myself, my partner, and the world. Unfortunately, I've found that both online and off, most people either don't like arguing or aren't very good at it. Since I do try hard not to be a dick about things, that's an awful lot of debates I just can't have. And I really don't have time to waste composing long recycling-bin-bound posts, baiting my husband, and waking up at 3AM to assemble syllogisms just because I strayed into the wrong part of the blue that evening, or flipped past some ridiculous story on NPR.

I do like being a critical thinker-- probably one of my favorite things about my brain-- but would love it to be a facultative, rather than an obligate, thing. The obvious solutions-- exercise, meditation, repeating, "It's not about logic. You're not going to change anybody's mind."-- just don't help much. (Oddly, alcohol does, but I really don't need the calories.) What else might I do to help dissipate all that excess argumentative energy? Has anyone out there found serenity now?

Second Thoughts

Scattercat — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:56:50 -0800

Is there a specific word or phrase to describe this sort-of-straw-man argument tactic? (Not even sure it's a "fallacy" per se.) Example: Witness is called for some investigation to which said witness is hostile.

Witness: Prosecuting people without full evidence is a bad idea! Remember what happened in Salem...

Senator: This committee has been called a "witch hunt..."

Witness: Oh, no! I didn't mean that! I'm sure you're all very wise and thoughtful individuals, etc.

---

The Senator's tactic is what I'm interested in. That is, restating your opponent's case in more extreme terms to make THEM deny and repudiate it for you. What's that called? It's not quite a strawman because you're not arguing against it yourself, right?

For that matter, what is the Witness' tactic called? That is, when someone implies something by stating that they don't believe it is true? (Like that "Glenn Beck etc. in 1990" meme that was floating around last week.) So I guess this is two questions for the price of one.

Any insights out there in the hivemind?

I'm sorry.

Anonymous — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:40:54 -0800

Disagreement filter: Do you apologize when you inadvertently say something that hurts someone else? A friend and I disagree on whether saying something that results in a hurtful misinterpretation is worthy of an apology. On the one hand: The other person misunderstood! How am I responsible? On the other: If someone is your buddy, aren't you sorry when they are hurt?

Note: I am not trying to prove one of us is right; I think it is a valid enough disagreement. I do want to see how other people arrived at their position on the issue.

I'd like to buy a book for my girlfriend to help her structure her ideas in academic writing.

limon — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:23:31 -0800

I'd like to buy a book for my girlfriend to help her structure her ideas in academic writing. My girlfriend is a graduate student in the humanities. She is clever, erudite and rigorous, but her ability to build an argument is poor. She finds it particularly difficult to unpack a complex concept and present its constitutive parts in a logical sequence. The book I'd like to buy helps writers with these specific problems, ideally (but not necessarily) within the context of research in the humanities. What I don't want:

A general textbook on critical thinking
A manual of style

Another composition question

puckish — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:34:38 -0800

Help me come up with better models!! (re: essays and argumentation) I have a roomful of freshman comp students, and I'm trying to teach them how to "put texts together" -- specifically, critical texts taking up specific real-world issues (right now, it's academic freedom in the classroom). They get how to move from global to specific -- giving a sense of the argument as a whole, and then choosing ONE thing they want to talk about. This is fine. What I'm having a problem with is getting them beyond the compare / contrast structure, and toward, you know, actual arguments. This is basically how they go right now:

"X and Y say it's important to look at multiculturalism in the classroom in these ways. When we look at what they say, we learn that it's really important to look at multiculturalism in the classroom."

I'm trying to give them different models for structuring their papers, but I'm having a hard time brainstorming useful examples (also really tripping up on the metaphor of "conversation") This is what I have on scratch paper.

Example 1: Description
“X is true” (X being your thesis, loosely cribbed from Critic 1, for why diversity in the classroom is a good thing) “This is why X is true (Critic 1's argument)” "This is how X differs from Y" (Critic 2's argument) → a "proof" that's actually a summary, where you’re not actually being asked to make any kind of independent claim

Example 2: Point / counterpoint
“If X is true” (X being whatever argument Critic 1 makes about academic freedom in the classroom) “this is what we learn by comparing it to Y” (Y being what Critic 2 has to say about it) → a slightly nuanced version of Example 1, but where the point is to contextualize, rather than compare -- works well when the critics supposedly "agree" with one another (letting them tease out differences) -- not so well when the critics obviously disagree

Example 3: Doing a close reading
“Critic 1 says Z about academic freedom in the university” (Z being a specific claim or argument IN THE TEXT). “This is how Critic 2 interpets X’s statement – or similar statements.” (again, looking at a similar bit of text “This is what I have to say about the difference” → also a compare / contrast, but focusing on tone, word choice, stylistic differences --> lets them work mainly with block quotes, gets you away from broad "gist" generalizations

You see the problem. Maybe this is making it too complicated? What I told them that DOES seem to make sense is really simple: "What do we learn from reading your paper that we don't just learn from reading the essays?" But I think that just made them concerned.

Help? I KNOW there are people on this site who are better at this than I am. Put your pedagogical caps on, and help fix my examples!

How to compose myself into an argument?

Sova — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:49:08 -0800

Recommendations for books that teach argument composition? I'm a first year undergrad in the social sciences, and have just completed my initial round of essays and exams. While writing these I realised that I don't know how to compose proper arguments. I missed out on a lot of schooling in the past, and so didn't pick up this skill at any point. My writing is not terrible, but it's clearly failing to express what I know, what I think, and do so in any academic kind of way. I find writing essays or exam answers to be throwing enough information into the pot to reach the word count and don't know how to go beyond that.

I would like recommendations for books that will help me to compose written arguments, and preferably give some insight into how to decompose the arguments of others. I have heard of The Crafts of Research, but don't know if this would suit my needs because I'm not doing research. I'm more or less okay at doing the reading for essays, and having original ideas, I just need to know how to order that thoughtfully.

Thanks in advance!

Who's Cassandra?

DieHipsterDie — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:41:38 -0800

What is a "Cassandra Argument?" Listening to NPR I could have sworn I heard a guest use the term "cassandra argument."

Google brings up nothing. Did I hear correctly?

He really butchered that joke.

peggynature — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:22:44 -0800

Am I oversensitive? This morning, I thought I would tell my husband a humorous story that was told at my uncle's funeral. My uncle killed himself six months ago, and it was a very sad time for me and my family.

So, I told the humourous story, and when I was finished, he said, "Well, you sure butchered that story." I guess I gave him shocked/angry look, and he followed up with, "No offense."

I was really hurt by this. I suppose I was sharing the story not just in the way one would pass on a joke, but because it was my uncle's story, and I am still grieving his death, and I just felt like...sharing, and maybe having a laugh at the story together -- not becoming the butt of the joke myself. I got quite upset, to which my husband responded that he was only joking, and that he makes jokes like this all the time (i.e., saying something totally inappropriate and otherwise offensive at key moments, but with a delivery that indicates he's only joking. I guess I missed his "delivery" this time, because he sounded like he was serious.)

I was still quite upset. I understand the kind of joking he's referring to, and I do normally undersand when he does it, and I guess I find it funny in most situations. But in this situation? When someone is telling you a story from a funeral of a loved one who recently committed suicide? Is that really an okay time to decide, "I'm going to do that boneheaded insensitive joke thing I do" ?

I have to admit, I started crying. I told him it was a jerky thing to say. He told me that I also tell insensitive jokes, like sometimes I tell him to shut up sarcastically, and that it might hurt his feelings but he never overreacts to it.

To which I replied, "Okay we can't talk about this anymore. Not only did you hurt my feelings, now you've pissed me off." And I went out of the room to cool down for a while.

What I don't understand is, truly, am I being oversensitive? If he has a history of making such jokes, to which I normally respond well, does that mean I am now prohibite from being offended by them at truly sensitive moments?

In my opinion, he should apologize to me and stop trying to justify it as a joke. But I don't know if I'm being unreasonable or not. (For the record, he has said stuff along the lines of, "If I knew it would hurt you, I never would have said it" and "Well, I'm sorry." Still, I feel either the apologies were not sincere, or they were inadequate for the offense caused. They were more like, "Well I'm sorry to have offended you" than "It was the wrong thing to say, and I'm sorry.")

Name that website: annotated multi-user arguments reaching consensus?

ajp — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 12:25:51 -0800

Name that website: annotated multi-user arguments reaching consensus? I'm sure that I saw a website, many moons ago, that allowed collaborative "arguments", or discussions. It might have been intended as some sort of reconciliation service, allowing multiple people with differences to debate their points.

The aim was to encourage productive, rational discussion, rather than a free-for-all.

Some of the features:

# Paragraphs or sections of text were given a reference number -- like a Biblical verse, or a legal sub-paragraph reference number type of thing.

# Once the parties had agreed on a point, I think the previous cruft of the debate was hidden, leaving only the jointly agreed wording.

# Multiple users could contribute to any discussion.

# The aim of any discussion was to remove anger, aggression, and all that nonsense; and to produce a final written statement or consensus that all parties could agree with.

I might have this all slightly wrong, it's from a fuzzy memory. But I'm sure there's something similar out there. Somewhere. Trawling Google and del.icio.us has not revealed what I'm trying to find.

Much obliged.

Name that rhetorical device!

moxiedoll — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 14:56:11 -0800

Linguists and debaters! Does this type of argument have a name? There's a particular type of argumentation that I come across all the time, and I wonder whether there's a term for it. Here's an example:

Here in Country X, we have a policy of sending our boys to school while our girls stay home and clean house. Detractors of the policy, who arrogantly and snobbishly believe that scholars are better than those who clean homes, reveal their sexism by devaluing the work traditionally performed by women in our country.

Obviously this particular example is appealing to the idea of complimentary gender roles, but I've seen this form of rhetorical judo used by apologists for other forms of inequality as well. It's basically - by stating that X is disadvantaged, you are disadvantaging X.

Do you recognize this tactic? Do you know what it's called?

Who gave the best McCain endorsement speech?

josh — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:15:53 -0800

Who gave the most powerful, most persuasive, and most memorable endorsement of John McCain in this election? I'm going to be giving a series of talks in the spring about political argument, and I'd like to organize one of the talks around political endorsements. I'd like to watch or read, with the audience, one endorsement for Barack Obama and another for John McCain, and explore what makes the endorsements powerful, persuasive, and memorable.

Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama is the obvious choice on that side. On the McCain side - what was the single most persuasive and interesting endorsement you read or heard? Who made the equivalent of the Powell endorsement for McCain? Bonus points for YouTube video!

How can I sharpen my conflict resolution skills?

self — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:06:34 -0800

Conflict resolution-filter: How can I be a better (read: appropriately responsive and fair) moderator and listener? A lot more inside. I am a shift supervisor at a large coffee shop. First, let me make a few things about my title clear:

-I cannot fire anyone.
-I can't always send people home, if it's a busy day
-I do not make the schedule
-It is imperative that I don't (I can't even seem to) play favorites
-I have a load of responsibility to the store, as I am an active manager when there, and this whole post is only about part of the things I have to deal with.

However, the following dilemma can ruin an entire day, trickle down through morale, and ultimate affect the entire operation of the store. This is why I'm posting. Okay, here 'goes....

My job requires me to manage coworkers who deal with the same issues I do. A lot of the time, because we're in the customer service and retail industry and rely on each other to make work easier and more efficient, those issues often pertain to problems between coworkers.

When a dispute breaks out between two or more of them, they will typically come to me individually and gripe about the one another. It is my responsibility to listen to these concerns (no matter how trivial they can be), and try to effectively quell the tide of hysteria or complaining to resolution.

If I can't solve the problem, I at least need to deal with it to the point where work can continue unabated until the manager has the time to address it themselves.

This is just one aspect of my roll at the store, and I by no means have the leisure to sharpen that one skill. I'm often in the very same boat as these coworkers, working along side them. Besides having to be there for my coworkers, I am always dealing with the customers' needs, my superiors' requests, and anything else that might crop up (See top where I explain that I am effectively an active manager when I'm on the clock).

So I turn to AskMe for this one. I need to make sure my coworkers are feeling like they are being heard, that their concerns or complaints are being addressed, and that they can always talk to me. I often find myself feeling weird sympathizing with both sides of an argument (I almost feel superficial), and am tired of just feeling like a nodding head on a stick. I realize that that's the basic want of someone who is venting, but there's definitely more.

What advise can you, the great hive mind, give me about conflict resolution? What do you like to hear or see from someone you are going to to have your issues dealt with? What does this role of mine dictate in these often delicate situations? And how can I feel less boss-like and more confidant-ish?

I realize there are a multitude of books on the subject, but I often find them containing bland language or (to me) over-analytic fallacies. I'm dealing with people, not first-initial-last-names on a roster. And I'm one of those people.

In essence, help me help you*!

*as in the people

Who said it's funner to interpret people so you can agree with them?

rwhe — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 03:10:54 -0800

QuotationFilter: Who said it's more fun to construe people so that you can agree with them, than to argue with them? (I believe this was couched as a private mental game useful for dealing with boors.)

I don't care who's wrong or right, I don't really wanna fight no more.

Evangeline — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:45:41 -0800

He said/she said, he said/he said, she said/she said - when do you give up on these kinds of arguments? I'm involved in a dispute with a vendor. I work as a legal secretary and make travel arrangements for my attorneys. Last week I ordered a car to pick up one of my attorneys at the airport. She says the driver never showed, they say the driver showed. We checked to see if we had the same flight number and arrival time, and we were all in agreement. The driver was supposed to meet her outside of customs with a sign. He says he waited there for an hour after the flight landed. She says he wasn't there.

So that was boring, but this is the kind of situation I sometimes find myself in at work. Nobody has any tangible evidence. It's just one person's word against another. For the record, I believe the car service. I don't think my attorney is lying - I just think that she was in a hurry and overlooked the driver. However, I think she's going to continue to press me to get a refund, even though she's not out any money herself (it's on the firm's account).

Do you have any strategies? Do you continue to hound the vendor until they just give up and give you a refund? I don't feel comfortable doing that (particularly since I don't believe they did anything wrong), but I also want my boss to think I'm looking out for her.

Any ideas? Maybe what I'm really looking for is just a way to tell my attorney that I'm not going to press this.

I am good at arguing

dcrocha — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:38:23 -0800

I seem to be really good at debating. How can I use this "talent"? I have a passion for debating. Whatever the topic is (excluding biology and related sciences, of which i'm 100% ignorant), I think I can "feel" when other people are afraid, have weak arguments, or are shocked by some obscure stats I pull from the top of my head. Being an analytic person, I seem to be able to use all this to my advantage and counter-attack with well-constructed arguments or a good sophisms, enough to win the discussion.

Question is: given that I am not a lawyer or a politician, but a computer scientist, how can I put this "talent" to good use?

Uniq New York, Uniq New York

Blazecock Pileon — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:00:12 -0800

Why isn't GNU uniq 6.12 working as I expect? I am trying to use the --skip-fields=n argument to skip over some columns that I don't want to use for the criteria of uniqueness.

But it seems like uniq is ignoring those criteria.

Here is my sample input ("chr3test"). Imagine that that the spaces are really tabs:

+       aatgtaatt       12124016        12124007        aattNaatt       chr3

+       aactgaatt       37509704        37509695        aattNaatt       chr3

+       aatttaatc       43787257        43787248        aattNaatt       chr3

+       aatttaatt       81433256        81433247        aattNaatt       chr3

+       aattaattt       81433277        81433268        aattNaatt       chr3

+       aatttcatt       121944135       121944126       aattNaatt       chr3

+       aattcaatt       128374695       128374686       aattNaatt       chr3

+       aattcaatc       128374700       128374691       aattNaatt       chr3

+       aagtgaatt       151747168       151747159       aattNaatt       chr3

+       tattaaatt       175957080       175957071       aattNaatt       chr3

+       aatttaatt       178762409       178762400       aattNaatt       chr3

-       aattacatt       12124016        12124007        aattNaatt       chr3

-       aattcagtt       37509704        37509695        aattNaatt       chr3

-       gattaaatt       43787257        43787248        aattNaatt       chr3

-       aattaaatt       81433256        81433247        aattNaatt       chr3

-       aaattaatt       81433277        81433268        aattNaatt       chr3

-       aatgaaatt       121944135       121944126       aattNaatt       chr3

-       aattgaatt       128374695       128374686       aattNaatt       chr3

-       gattgaatt       128374700       128374691       aattNaatt       chr3

-       aattcactt       151747168       151747159       aattNaatt       chr3

-       aatttaata       175957080       175957071       aattNaatt       chr3

-       aattaaatt       178762409       178762400       aattNaatt       chr3

When I run:

uniq -f 2 chr3test

I get the entire file back, which is wrong.

If this worked, I would expect:

+       aatgtaatt       12124016        12124007        aattNaatt       chr3

+       aactgaatt       37509704        37509695        aattNaatt       chr3

+       aatttaatc       43787257        43787248        aattNaatt       chr3

+       aatttaatt       81433256        81433247        aattNaatt       chr3

+       aattaattt       81433277        81433268        aattNaatt       chr3

+       aatttcatt       121944135       121944126       aattNaatt       chr3

+       aattcaatt       128374695       128374686       aattNaatt       chr3

+       aattcaatc       128374700       128374691       aattNaatt       chr3

+       aagtgaatt       151747168       151747159       aattNaatt       chr3

+       tattaaatt       175957080       175957071       aattNaatt       chr3

+       aatttaatt       178762409       178762400       aattNaatt       chr3

When I run:

uniq -f 3 chr3test

I also get the same results.

But when I run:

uniq -f 4 chr3test

Then I get back:

+ aatgtaatt 12124016 12124007 aattNaatt chr3

It seems like those numerical entries are treated as unique, and skipping over them makes the comparison criteria "aattNaatt\tchr3", which eliminates all but the first row.

I checked the metacharacters and there are \t ("tabs") correctly placed in matching rows (the matching condition being everything but the first two columns).

Can someone point to what I'm doing incorrectly, or suggest another method (preferably command-line) to strip out duplicates without losing column data? Thanks!

Nothing's wrong. I said I'm fine. Shut up.

kerfuffled — Wed, 07 May 2008 15:09:33 -0800

How can I learn to talk through my emotions when I'm very upset instead of shutting down? It doesn't happen that often, but when I'm really upset with people close to me I have a habit of completely shutting down and being unable to speak.

I think part of it is that I can't figure out how to put my feelings into words, because I'm confused myself or I know I'm just being irrational.

Another part of it is that, when I'm angry, the only things I can think to say are ugly, hurtful things and I don't want to say something I regret and hurt someone I love.

So arguments usually end with me staring off into the distance in silence while someone (usually my poor boyfriend) begs me to tell them what's wrong. Usually, after a ridiculous amount of cajoling and/or quietly thinking and calming myself down, I can get to point where I can say "I'm upset because when you X, I feel Y" or whatever, but I'd like to avoid that wasted time in the middle where we just keep getting more frustrated and annoyed with each other. So how do I get myself out of that place, and learn to communicate my emotions even when they're messy and a little crazy.

Pay / Prevailing Wage Problem:

GuffProof — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:23:29 -0800

Help me convince company execs that it's time to bump entry level starting pay. A search of previous questions turned up a lot of good advice on getting a raise for oneself, but this is not about MY compensation, which is fair, fine & dandy.

I'm a salaried manager, but 90% of our workforce is hourly, unskilled factory labor. The starting pay for these laborers is low. Not minimum-wage low, but down in the bottom 10th percentile (according to our city and state gov't wage data).

No shock: this contributes to poor morale (constant complaints about their low pay), very high turnover, and makes recruiting / retention extremely difficult.

It has been nearly TEN YEARS since this starting pay rate was increased. What used to be a competitive wage now lags behind all other major employers in our area.

There are advancement opportunities, and factory employees can work their way up- but the pay for these 'advanced' positions is still less than the starting pay at many local companies. There are also annual raises (which range from 1.5 - 3%.)

Important note: this company is not evil, and is not run by Mr. Scrooge. Or Mr. Burns. I love my job and am completely loyal to the organization. I respect our execs and believe that their intentions are generally good at heart.

But on this starting-pay issue, I am up against a mindset which just baffles me.

When I broach the subject, I try all of the afore mentioned arguments: it's been almost a decade, gov't wage data shows that comparable employers have raised wages 16% during this same period, our employees constantly cite our low pay as their reason for quitting, morale suffers, quality suffers, recruiting suffers, etc. etc.

The response is the same each time:

'Sure, Guff, we could raise wages-- but that would not solve all of our problems. These companies that pay twice as much as we do... they still have high turn-over, they still have morale problems, they still have trouble finding quality workers. So why do it?'

This always shuts me down and I have no idea how to respond.

Please, help me find an answer to that question!

If it helps: we have approx 300 employees; business is good, but it has been a tough year. We can't afford a large increase, but they refuse to see the value in making any change.

Any ideas, suggestions, logical argument / debate tactics that elude me would be greatly appreciated. THANKS!!!!!

Why 'argument'?

b33j — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:31:30 -0800

Why do mathematicians (and/or programmers) describe information passed to a function as an 'argument'? I'm learning PHP (slowly) but find myself hung up on one small piece of terminology, 'argument'. I keep expecting an argument to be a proof, or an equation, or something that says or does something or refuses even to do something. And yet, it's just a value. So I'd like to understand why it has that name, and then I can move on. I hope.

Yes, I've read Plato already

StrikeTheViol — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:03:50 -0800

Help me find debates with a clear winner. I'm looking for written or spoken debates or arguments, regardless of particulars, where someone prevailed through sheer strength of argument and debating competence, and even supporters of opposing viewpoints would concede one side "won that one". I'm not looking for a "professor versus four-year-old" mismatch, but something where argumentative skill was clearly on display.