"We Are the Champions" and GP?

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

Jbot, I'm not sure why it matters who requests the song. If you think, as I do, that the song takes a dismissive attitude towards the losing alliance - 'mock' may be too strong - (if you agree that "No time for losers" refers to the team that just lost), it should incredibly obvious how this song is not GP. If you don't agree with that, and you realize that I think differently about this song, then why would you bother asking how I find this song un-GP? I'm confused here.

Now, it's perfectly legitimate to say that the non-GP elements are minor and can be overlooked. But if you acknowledge that the "losers" in the song are the teams that just lost, it's fairly hard not to see parts of this song as (at least in minor ways) exhibiting qualities that are diametrically opposed to the concept of gracious professionalism. And again, if you agree that the song is dismissive of the losing alliance, how does gracious professionalism being "an internal ruler" have anything to do with it? I'm not saying this is what the song says, but if I walk up to a losing team and say "your robot sucks and I'm glad you lost," would you say "Oh, well GP is an internal ruler, and I guess for Paul, that was GP"? No. We may not be able to describe the entirety of possible actions that fall under the 'GP' label, but to paraphrase Justice Stewart, we know it when we see it, and being dismissive of losing teams is not gracious professionalism.

Wow.... Well, that's like saying stepping on ant and genocide are the same thing because they're both killing.

The song is fine.... If it wasn't I'm sure Dean Kamen, Woodie Flowers, or Dave Lavery would've put an end to it a long time ago.

[Elgin Clock]

http://www.lyrics007.com/print.php?id=TkRJNE1qY3k

If you look at the rest of the lyrics, and not just the chorus it actually applies more to the overall goals of FIRST than just a song to play at the end of Finals.

But it's been no bed of roses
No pleasure cruise -
I consider it a challenge before the whole human race -
And I ain't gonna lose -

What's the challenge before the whole human race we are accomplishing within FIRST? Is it a win in the final rounds of a competition that won't mean anything a year from now when we start over again?
No.

The challenge laid upon us all by FIRST is to inspire, and educate kids about science & technology.

If this is the challenge that Queen is talking about when analyzed to apply to the FIRST world, then I sure as heck don't want any losers bringing us forward into the 21st century and beyond when it comes to educating our kids.

I've paid my dues -
Time after time -
I've done my sentence
But committed no crime -
And bad mistakes
I've made a few
I've had my share of sand kicked in my face -
But I've come through

What's the "sentence" we've all had to pay? Is there a reason we all call it (sometimes jokingly) the six weeks of he-double hockey sticks? lol

We have commited no crimes, except when we have excluded people from participating in FIRST (but none of us would think about doing that now would we?)

Bad mistakes? Sure. Every year. Ever thought about the competition at the end of the year, and said to yourself, or to your teammates, "what if we had only had this feature, or what if we had only made this improvement on our bot like team XXX has done?
Then would we be more famous this year and made it to the "big show"?
Would we be recognized more?
We all as individuals have ego's to feed, and even as a team we strive to feed our ego's and do the best we can, but small mistakes along the way happen.
It's human nature, and the nature of competition.

We've all lost matches. We've all had "sand kicked in our face" by a loss. It's not intentional, but it's the nature of competition, there are winners, and there are people who go home without winning trophies.

But in the end, we've all "come through" better people from this experience, haven't we?

Have you ever lost a regional, and then just given up with your team, or with FIRST in general?

If you have spent the time to read all of this, then I'm guessing your answer to that question is a big NO.

It's not about winners, it's not about losers, it's about inspiration, and all that comes with that.

The only losers in FIRST are those who can't be bothered to teach the new generation of students coming through the program a little something before they leave their teams behind and move on.

Leaving knowledge behind to the younger generation, even if it's only someone a year or 2 younger than you, is truely making you a champion, and in the end securing your legacy.

Those who fail to do that and don't share their knowledge before they move on... well... that "L" word that is in question within this song can certainly come into play in that situation imho.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

The song is fine.... If it wasn't I'm sure Dean Kamen, Woodie Flowers, or Dave Lavery would've put an end to it a long time ago.

Dang. And I was SO hoping to stay out of this whole tempest in a teapot. But since my name was brought up, I will make only two points:

1 - There is absolutely no inconsistency between the song "We Are The Champions" (and by that, I mean the ENTIRE song, including all the lyrics) and the concept of Gracious Professionalism. There is no need to "acknowledge that the song is in conflict with the ideals of gracious professionalism, and ..." because the conflict just does not exist. And the choice of the song certainly does NOT "put the lie to the entire concept of gracious professionalism."

To me, the song is one of triumph and celebration, of recognizing a job well done, of superior performance, and of acknowledgment of a fierce competition. There are no implicit put-downs of the other competitors and no denigration of anyone else’s efforts. Read the lyrics from the standpoint of someone talking/singing about themselves and their own team. Read every word as it applies to that team, and see if you understand how this is so. When I read the line "no time for losers" and apply it to myself, it becomes my own statement about how I refuse to succumb to the forces that are trying to prevent me from succeeding. "No time for losers" means that _I_ have no time to be a "loser" and that _I_ will not give in to those pressures. It has absolutely nothing to do with how I look upon my competitors or a form of condescension. It is all about introspection and how I look at myself (which then, at an entirely different level, does become a factor in how I do treat my competitors, but let's keep it simple and not get into the meta-effects for right now).

As Sean Witte said so very well earlier, "not winning is different than being a loser." There are a lot of teams that may not "win" a FRC competition. But very, very few of them are "losers" by almost any measure that you choose to use. And I would submit that the corollary is also true - "winning is different than being a champion." I can win a competition a lot of different ways, through hard work, intense effort, etc. But I can also "win" a competition through the use of unethical behavior, working outside the rules, cheating, etc. (are you listening, Barry Bonds?). Tell me someone is a "winner" and I know nothing of HOW they "won" a competition. Tell me someone is a "champion" and I know they compete while doing their very best, with honest values, integrity, respect, fierce determination, and dignity. It is very easy to be a "winner" and a "loser" at the same time. But it is almost impossible to be a "champion" and a "loser." The song celebrates those that are "champions." And I believe that is entirely in line with the very best interpretation of Gracious Professionalism.

2 - It is the end of the summer. The academic year is about to begin (and in some cases, has started already), and with it the preparations will begin for a new FRC season. There are new team members to recruit, new teams to create, new sponsors to find, new corporate executives to brainwash, new grants to write, new mentors to indoctrinate, and new technologies to develop. All of this must be done before the formal kick-off in January. So don't we all have something better and more productive to discuss?

-dave

[Brandon Holley]

dave is 100% right


there is absolutely nothing wrong with this song. if you truly find it offensive than i think you might want to leave the building near the end of the final match so you do not have to listen to it. honestly this topic is ridiculous...