Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri
It seems that the people complaining about "the bad spirit of a song" that is usually played in celebration would probably never have a problem with it if they were on the other side.
|
I'm hoping to make this my last response to this thread, since it seems to me we've mostly reached an impasse. I felt particularly compelled to respond to what I felt was, frankly, a fairly snide ad hominem attack.
In 2006, when the mentors on my team went off into a room to decide our team's strategy (instead of letting the students decide/vote/have input) on the overall design of the robot. Some students on the team thought we should go for the low 1 point goal; others thought we should go for the high goal. The mentors came out and told us that we would be building for the low goal. While I thought that this decision strategically best, I was extremely unhappy that the mentors had made the decision rather than the students, and in response, I wrote a six-page e-mail to the entire team expressing my concerns, even though I agreed with the decision. I c
It seems to me that there are two eminently reasonable arguments to be made for keeping the song:
1. "I acknowledge that the song is in conflict with the ideals of gracious professionalism, and I really don't care, because GP has no meaning for me."
2. "I acknowledge that the song is in conflict with the ideals of gracious professionalism, and I do care, but I choose to look the other way, considering the fact that most of the song is unobjectionable."
Argument #1, of course, has its own issues, and I doubt anyone would be willing to make this argument (when I say "reasonable", I mean purely from a logical perspective). Argument #2 is, while not my own personal opinion, is certainly in most ways reasonable. As others have pointed out, the line "No time for losers", however you interpret it, appears only three times in the song.
However, as much as I found Tim Delles' more complete reading and analysis of the song to be interesting, thoughtful, and a good read, it doesn't click for me. For one thing, while looking at the song in its entirety is an interesting exercise, and can provide a useful context, analysis of the whole cannot brush away objectionable parts (if we acknowledge them as objectionable).
Furthermore, in relation to the "thousands of different opinions": everyone is welcome to their opinion, but that doesn't mean that everyone's opinion is equally valid. Imagine someone saying, "I think the 'losers' are actually the people who won the competition, because winning is bad." This is an obvious mis-interpretation of the song lyrics. To have an force of reason behind them, interpretations must have
evidence.
To me, both the words ("No time for losers") and the tone/notes (a clear reference to the "nanny nanny boo boo" child's taunt) indicate a lack of respect for one's opponent which is counter to the spirit of gracious professionalism. Am I saying that this is the only possible interpretation?
Absolutely not. Personally speaking, it's the only interpretation that clicks.
Anyway, this time I really have talked long enough. Thanks again to everyone who posted here, and I apologize for any comments that were (or you felt were) objectionable. I was a bit tired and should have gone to bed sooner =).
Thanks,
Paul Dennis
1719