theUpsideDown

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers." -said by plato reciting what socrates thought of his generation

Quoted every hundred years to remind idiot older generations how they were being classified when they were the younger generation. Also serves to remind everyone the generational griping is neither new nor meaningful.

​​​​

Buck Rogers

..............

theUpsideDown

A bit of advice to all, ive notice boomers are generally mad at igen, not millennials, and there's years defining both groups. Make sure you know how you're hating.

Unofficial survey results over my time is showing overwhelmingly boomers hate college age kids. Millennials arent in college, haven't been for years.

Buck Rogers

Not to diminish the quote ....I think it is good at pointing out perspective(which I am a big fan of) but...

Misbehaving Children in Ancient Times

Dear Quote Investigator: There is a great quote by Plato or Socrates about the misbehavior of children in antiquity that I read in the New York Times. The quote shows that the problems between generations are not just a recent occurrence. Instead, the conflicts between parents and offspring are timeless [NY8]:
The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.
I wanted to use this quote, so I needed to know who said it; however, the NYT website contained a surprise. The newspaper had retracted the quote and now there was a note that said “Its origin is unclear, although many researchers agree that Plato is not the source.” I am sure I have seen this quote before. Can you tell me where it came from and who said it?

Quote Investigator: The quote is so entertaining and it fills its niche so well that it is cited repeatedly around the globe. Over the decades the quotation or a close variant has appeared in newspapers such as: Oakland Tribune of California in 1922; The Bee of Danville, Virginia in 1946; Winnipeg Free Press of Manitoba, Canada in 1976; The Sunday Herald of Chicago, Illinois in 1982; the Sun-Herald of Sydney, Australia in 2005; and the Taipei Times of Taiwan in 2008 [SOC1-SOC6]. The words are usually attributed to Socrates and the confusion with Plato is understandable because Plato’s dialogues are the primary source of knowledge concerning Socrates.

QI has determined that the author of the quote is not someone famous or ancient.



It was crafted by a student, Kenneth John Freeman, for his Cambridge dissertation published in 1907. Freeman did not claim that the passage under analysis was a direct quotation of anyone; instead, he was presenting his own summary of the complaints directed against young people in ancient times. The words he used were later slightly altered to yield the modern version. In fact, more than one section of his thesis has been excerpted and then attributed classical luminaries. Here is the original text [CAMB]:
The counts of the indictment are luxury, bad manners, contempt for authority, disrespect to elders, and a love for chatter in place of exercise. …

Children began to be the tyrants, not the slaves, of their households. They no longer rose from their seats when an elder entered the room; they contradicted their parents, chattered before company, gobbled up the dainties at table, and committed various offences against Hellenic tastes, such as crossing their legs. They tyrannised over the paidagogoi and schoolmasters.
Not everyone misquoted and misattributed the work of Kenneth John Freeman. In an essay published in 1912 an educator named James J. Walsh of Fordham University properly credited Freeman and did not modify his text. Walsh used the excerpts in an address to fellow educators at the Schoolmasters’ Club of New York in 1911 [WAL].

In 1921 Munsey’s magazine reprinted a passage from Walsh’s essay and gave him credit. However, all of the excerpted text was actually from Freeman’s original work. The quotation in Munsey’s excised a section of Freeman’s text and combined two passages to create one [MUN]. In 1922 Freeman’s words were firmly reattached to Socrates in the Oakland Tribune [SOC1].

In the 1960s the publisher Malcolm Forbes attempted to determine the true origin of the quotation, but the investigation of his magazine was unsuccessful as discussed in the reference Respectfully Quoted. Now thanks to the Google Books archive the mystery is solved.

PilotWombat

Ok, yall, back to the TA.

Finally got 16's update to the iPad and gave it a read. BK makes a good case for his 'no' vote, and his reasons are the few valid points I've seen come up against this TA. Yes, I realize I'm submitting arguments against my own interest here. I just want to get both sides of the story.

• Abrogation of seniority: This is probably my own biggest issue with this whole TA. The NegNotepad says this:
  Quote:

  ...because there is no way to know from what category pilots who bid for 30-hour status would come, it became clear that there was no way to honor seniority while potentially offering 30-hour No Fly status to some pilots, but denying it to others.
  I...what? I don't follow. Why couldn't we proffer the 30 hour NFS in seniority order, then inversely assign? The company didn't know where all these unpaid-leaves were going to come from, but they were more than happy to allow people to not get paid and deprecate their own internal departments to save money. Why wouldn't they do the same for pilots? It'd be more than worth it to allow some 330A to take 30 hours of 717B pay for a while.
• Lookback period: This is one I hadn't thought of when this thing came out. The lookback period should reset to 2019 after the conclusion of the agreement. Like seniority, I totally agree.
• Splitting the pilot group: This goes along seniority and commuter/non-commuter lines. On the seniority side, a older senior-in-category pilot with no interest in changing their category could take a 4.5% pay cut and not get much in return. On the commuter side, people who choose to commute (and a few who are forced to) get a massive QOL benefit, but those of us that live in base, don't get anything. If one doesn't give a rat's butt for anyone else, ok, I understand the argument. Personally, I think they're relatively pithy and I'm happy for those that benefit, but points of view differ.
• Polling and concessions: These arguments are ones I just don't agree with, because they seem to lack context. Regarding polling, BK argued that polling several months ago overwhelmingly stated "no concessions". That was when SM was rampant with management's proposal of a straight 15% cut. Of course the pilot's view of that was "no way". Personally, I thought at the time and still think the question had been purposefully designed to get a "no" response reaction. If it had instead asked about "no concessions unless accompanied by large, equivalent, permanent, and beneficial improvements to the contract," the polling wouldn't have been so cut and dry.
• Precedent: 16 has been making this argument for a while, and while I agreed with it during the summer, I don't really buy that it applies here. First, with 20-04, we stood our ground and got significantly better results than our peers (looking at you, United), thanks in large part to 16's efforts. So, frankly, it worked and the precedent now is that we're willing to be good partners as long as you come to us with something reasonable. We will no entertain anything less. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

In the end though, 20-04 as written is the agreement we have before us to decide, and I wonder what the nay-sayers think would happen if we shoot this down (I wondered the same for 20-03). If we do, the company will say "Ok, you do you," then continue to furlough all of us off the bottom and lower ALVs/TLVs to their contractual minimums. While I agree that seniority issues and the lookback period should have been part of the deal, it's not like they're going to go simply come back and offer the same deal with those changes made. They'll put out a press release that says "we tried to work with the pilots and they chose to furlough instead, so it's on them" and keep on keeping on. What do we gain from that outcome?

TED74

No way this thing doesn't pass.

NoDeskJob

Yep. If I had to go Price is Right, I’d say 82% pass rate

GogglesPisano

I bid 83%

😎

theUpsideDown

Put me down for 96% pass with 69% participation.

Crown

I am not a victim nor do I pretend to be one. To me, life is hard, things happen, the cards are stacked against you, etc. I'm fortunate to have worked hard, made some good decisions, many bad ones, and had some luck along the way. Truth be told I don't hold ill will towards the boomers. Where I get frustrated is in situations like this LOA, where we literally have the chance to keep every pilot on the payroll thanks to our Union and certain people are lashing out saying that the 1700+ need to take their medicine.

I'm all for boosting the DZ retirement when we get the chance to if this LOA passes. There's no excuse not to.