From: kumiko yvonne watanabe (dlvdisc@geekbabe.com)
Date: Thu Jun 18 2009 - 21:45:49 CDT
ok... but... before we throw the hypothesis away as invalid, consider
the survey as a whole, not to the individuals and the individual survey
they took, but as a whole survey, as unique points not connected to any
individual, then it may validate a small minority that is contrary to
the majority, which can justify this interpretation of the presented
data.
> The one whose "public exposure" answer was thrown out answered
> the "understand why it has to be" choice on the BDR question,
> but not the "bunch of bull$#!+" answer.
I think the choice was something like: "I don't like it, but I
understand why..." So for that particular question, it means that this
person doesn't agree with the bdr but understands why it has to be in
place. There is still personal a disagreement with it.
This one there can be some different interpretations ...
1. The person may have answered the question as a didn't apply becauses
of a mis-understanding or not knowing what the question was asking for.
2. The person just doesn't gage public exposure, going out in public is
just that, going out in public - there are no degrees or time division
of public exposure - do or don't, and is confident enough where its not
a issue so it doesn't apply to this person. This person disagrees
with the bdr but understands why (but may or may not follow) the bdr as
needed.
ie This person dresses how they want to, bdr based or not, goes out in
public, and doesn't care what the public thinks. Its the public's
problem to accept this person. This person can probably handle
whatever the public reacts.
But this attitude can negatively affect others around them.
3. It could also be a newbie that never had any public exposure and
answered as it didn't apply because this peson never has gone out, but
still disagrees with the bdr but understands why its needed.
> All three whose answers were thrown out on the restroom
> question answered that they support the BDR guidelines.
Yes, they can support the bdr, but these individuals can think too that
for themselves the bdr doesn't apply to them, but it applies to other
people. I have seen individual attendees think this way. We have had
at least one case of one person who thinks/wanted to be much younger
and dressed that way, and considered how everyone else dressed was
considerably worse than her, and everyone else needed to get a new
wardrobe. So there can be some others that think about the bdr and
restroom issue is for others but to themselves it doesn't apply.
> Looking at the response containing the "... this is Vegas,
> baby" comment, no, none of the "does not apply to me"
> answers were selected.
This person wants the un-inhibited freedom of doing anything one wants
as the cliche says, "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas". So it
means that how one looks and behavior shoudn't be a concern, so we as a
organization shouldn't care either...since we are in LV, or DLV should
be open free for all, dress how one feels and behaves how one feels and
it stays only in LV and it doesn't go home.
This person doesn't take into account how this behavior has negatively
impacted others IN LV and has destroyed their vacations, and it
explains a selfish way of thinking or reasoning or attitude (for which
the bdr was created to prevent) against the bdr that some attendees
may have.
But it doesn't mean that other issues doesn't apply to this person. Its
like a oxymoron, where bad dress and behavior is ok if this person does
it to others, as long as that the same bad dress and behavior by others
doesn't negatively impact their own fun... then its different, and now
has become issues that apply to them because they are now on the
receving end of that type of behavior and dress.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 20 2009 - 13:44:33 CDT