But don't you sometimes feel self-righteous giving out advice? Do most people use what you tell them? 

its not a case of having a big mouth,. It s a case of being first honest with your self, and then being honest with others. Its only your preception that you are forced to sit silently, and say nothing, because you fear a rejection. Take away the fear and speak honestly. People will always respect you for it, even if they are initially offended by your honesty.  They will realise that your honesty is simply good advice.

Robi... If I was any of those words then I would accept the lable ...

Please understand that most of my posts are done seriously tongue in cheek with very little semblence of honesty...

My apologies if you didnt get that, an took me seriously,,, it wasnt my intention

Now Im off to throw some dwarves into a hedge....

I’ve become increasingly irritated with the fact that it’s social unacceptable to be completely honest. For example, I can’t tell my girlfriend the reason she can’t find a mate is because she’s conspicuously self-absorbed. I’m unable to tell my boss that his friend is a good source for poorly thought out ideas. And I’m forced to sit silently and listen to a couple destroy their marriage with hostile bantering about who left the milk out verses who bought expired milk in the first place.

My feeling is that a lot of problems could be tackled if someone with a big mouth used it (place innuendo here). Why has it become so offensive to provide a straight forward, slightly negative, factual observation to someone who’s clearly already unhappy without it? 

@ No. 38

"Why has it become so offensive to provide a straight forward, slightly negative, factual observation to someone who’s clearly already unhappy without it? "

It is not  difficult  at all if one has the courage to accept the consequences.

1) Tell your friend she  is "conspicously self-absorbed." If she doesn't want to be your friend any more, accept it.

2) Tell your boss his friend is an idiot. If he fires your ass because he values his relationship with his friend more than your work  (and for reasons you couldn't  possibly be privy to),  accept it.

3) Either walk away from the milk-squabbling couple or tell them they are both nuts and watch them turn on you as  a common enemy.  Accept it.

There is a difference between wanting to be helpful and wanting to shame people.  In your example  about the cross-dresser in the locker room,  you very skillfully mocked that person's behavior and dress.  Did you consider whether that person might be mentally unbalanced as opposed to a not-so-garden variety cross-dresser, beer-belly and all? Would it have made a difference to you had it been RuPaul?

Charlie's fake rant provided  the perfect example of the need for civility. Someone who didn't know him took offense and he apologized. He didn't say, you idiot, you took it the wrong way!  He also showed class and grace by keeping his sense of humor.

Of  course, had he made some comment about  black people, I would have gone medieval on his Irish ass.  (Jussssst kidding...)

i didnt assume anything.. if you personally find it offensive then thats your issue, not mine. i didnt go into the details of the question simply stated my opinion... whether im wrong or not doesnt matter really does it. Except to those i want to help. smiles..

If you just throw the plain truth at the face of people, many people won't listen to it cos it might be harsh. So we put a "spin" on things to make it more digestable to others.

These spins waste time and can be confusion, but they serve a purpose.

I belive the show that Sven mentioned. Try walking around just calling out the truth as you see it, and people will not want to talk with you anymore.

When I was your age I thought exactly the same way, about 5 years ago I suddenlky realised that people do not want to hear the truth even though it might be painstakingly obvious. 

Bearing in mind that women always claim to be more mature than men and let us assume that as one gets into middle age the difference grows to ten years, all you have to is to wait around 13 years and the irritation will disappear.  Until then I am afraid you are doomed to remain irritated

If I am am worng about females being more mature than men, then I am afraid you will have to wait a little longer 

Your problem is that you have intelligence and more importantly (or unfortunately) insight and that is not appreciated by those who have less.

@ No. 38

"Why has it become so offensive to provide a straight forward, slightly negative, factual observation to someone who’s clearly already unhappy without it? "

It is not  difficult  at all if one has the courage to accept the consequences.

1) Tell your friend she  is "conspicously self-absorbed." If she doesn't want to be your friend any more, accept it.

2) Tell your boss his friend is an idiot. If he fires your ass because he values his relationship with his friend more than your work  (and for reasons you couldn't  possibly be privy to),  accept it.

3) Either walk away from the milk-squabbling couple or tell them they are both nuts and watch them turn on you as  a common enemy.  Accept it.

There is a difference between wanting to be helpful and wanting to shame people.  In your example  about the cross-dresser in the locker room,  you very skillfully mocked that person's behavior and dress.  Did you consider whether that person might be mentally unbalanced as opposed to a not-so-garden variety cross-dresser, beer-belly and all? Would it have made a difference to you had it been RuPaul?

Charlie's fake rant provided  the perfect example of the need for civility. Someone who didn't know him took offense and he apologized. He didn't say, you idiot, you took it the wrong way!  He also showed class and grace by keeping his sense of humor.

Of  course, had he made some comment about  black people, I would have gone medieval on his Irish ass.  (Jussssst kidding...)

It takes courage to consider that you might possibly not be right

Here's a bad idea for modern living: insist that you are right. Many of us cling to the conviction that we're right about nearly everything, from the origins of the universe to how to load the dishwasher. We relish our own correctness ("I told you so!"), crow over other people's mistakes and dismiss those who disagree with us as ignorant, idiotic or evil. Most of us are complicit in encouraging this culture-wide obsession. Consider the way we make business and political leaders of those who decline to admit that they could be wrong. And consider just how well that's worked out for us.

Try accepting the possibility that you could be wrong – right now, in the middle of that argument about the dishwasher or David Cameron. For most people, doing so is difficult and counterintuitive – and then startlingly rewarding. It converts conflicts into conversations. It fosters empathy for and curiosity about others. It gives you a shot at learning something new. As a bonus, it looks humble, generous, courageous and wise – because it is.

The world is a messy, confusing, complicated place, and none of us is above getting it wrong. Accept that, and ethically and intellectually you've done right.

Kathryn Schulz is the author of Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error (Portobello, £15), out now. Visit theschooloflife.com

Well...that's encouraging and depressing at the same time. Do you think women handle the truth better....or do men? 

My theory is that men do. 

Do not think you can generalise.  Although I will admit that if a man cannot handle the truth, I personally think that he is behaving like a woman.   So maybe I do think that men do handle the truth better than women but it does not mean they they can handle it.

I have had more problems with women at work than with men - I am not referring to relationships, just to professional conduct.  Mainly because they tend to bear a grudge longer. 

I too prefer a male boss or colleague to a female one. It's not so much that they hold a grudge.....but that they get one in the first place. 

Having said that, as a female, I'm at a disadvantage because most men will treat me as an emotionally driven entity instead of a rational one. 

And I'm extremely rational. Perhaps this is why I have issues with people who can't handle the truth. 

I too prefer a male boss or colleague to a female one. It's not so much that they hold a grudge.....but that they get one in the first place. 

Having said that, as a female, I'm at a disadvantage because most men will treat me as an emotionally driven entity instead of a rational one. 

And I'm extremely rational. Perhaps this is why I have issues with people who can't handle the truth. 

Female - OK.  Extremely rational - crikey!  But of course if I thought otherwise it would be improper for me to say so as do not want to get reported to admin

emotionally driven entity...is better surely than a sex object... or is it?

transgender...as in someone who had his dick cut off?

Nope... lock the nutcase in a locker next time and call the mental asylum:

RichardM,

In 30 years living in Swizerland, I have yet to see any of this violence stuff. Of course the attitude is different in the US, cause that's where its all happening.

It's happening here as well,  particularly domestic violence.  Just ask the staff at the Center for Victims of Infractions.  It's one of the reasons that there is increasing support for getting Swiss citizens to  keep their weapons in a local armory.  Crime, although relatively low, is not reported as effectively as it is in other countries. IMHO; there is a see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil attitude which prevails here.

In the case of the La Reserve incident, a drunk sheik was beating upon another hotel  guest (a man) with a belt in the hotel bar. Why? Because the man had  refused the sheik's advances. 

I’ve become increasingly irritated with the fact that it’s social unacceptable to be completely honest. For example, I can’t tell my girlfriend the reason she can’t find a mate is because she’s conspicuously self-absorbed. I’m unable to tell my boss that his friend is a good source for poorly thought out ideas. And I’m forced to sit silently and listen to a couple destroy their marriage with hostile bantering about who left the milk out verses who bought expired milk in the first place.

My feeling is that a lot of problems could be tackled if someone with a big mouth used it (place innuendo here). Why has it become so offensive to provide a straight forward, slightly negative, factual observation to someone who’s clearly already unhappy without it? 

Know what the local one is called?   Belle Idée....  as in, it's a great idea to get lunatics off the street...

Years ago,  I was at a conference and was staying at  a beautiful hotel in Glion, near Montreaux.  It was late at night and I heard a man yelling at the top of his lungs as a woman in room next  door. She was crying and screaming. 

I called the front desk. They said they  were aware  of the problem and couldn't do anything about it.  Well, I knocked on the door of the room and a  small guy answered  the door.  He swore up and down he was not beating her.  I went  to her and asked  her if she wanted help and she said no.  I got some sleep. Of course, I wouldn't do that in most other countries...

By the way, a couple of years ago, a customer was beaten with a belt by another customer in La Reserve  hotel, just outside Geneva. The staff dd nothing to intervene. The case went to  court eventually and nothing happened to the very  rich offender.

Even if No.38 tells the manager,  I wouln't be too surprised to see the person back in  the locker  room...

I think Myriam said it well.

If we want the other person to listen to our feedback, we need to put the feedback in a form that the other person will digest. Otherwise, we can scream out the truth all we want, but the other person won't listen.

after 5 years here i was under the distinct impression that the State of Geneva specialised in leaving the nutters on the street....

Those of us who have, so far, managed to escape identification and tagging for future lobotomising, work in hedge funds, or banks....

n°38

You start from a wrong assunption: That you know the truth and you are right about it.

If you want people to accept your advise, you might start by getting off your high horse and presenting your suggestions as they really are: YOUR suggestions and YOUR opinions.

I'd advise (and that's MY advise), that you tell your friends, colleagues, etc. what you think, but that you start by saying: "Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the impression that..." and by adding "I know it's none of my business. I tell you because I care, but please tell me if I shouldn't".

A little humilty in the modes might make them wonder if you are not actually right.

A little humilty in your thinking might make you wonder if you are not actually wrong.

(P.S. The call me the Granny because SOMETIMES i give wise advise. But I'll let you judge if this is one).

lucky it wasnt me...Id have kicked his raggedy  "sheikhy" camel riding ass from here to bagdad and back....

("fag in suit should have stood up for himself......" is what most people would think but dare not say....who lets anyone beat you with a belt and does nothing??? )

Well, I suppose the victim would  have fought back had it not been for the massive body guards...

Lest you think I might have fabricated or embellished this story, here is the information.  I made reference to it to demonstrate the lack  of effective policing in Geneva.  I've provided a rough english translation.

Of course this story is not about "race" so much as money. As we say in the States, money talks, bullshit walks.

Tribune de Genève  archives

Article - 27/03/2009

COUR D’APPELL’infraction n’a pas été jugée dangereuse et un vice de forme profite au magnat arabe.

Court of Appeals:  Infraction judged not  to be dangerous; appeal refusal benefits Arab magnate

«L’honneur du cheik a été rétabli», triomphe Me Marco Crisante. Son client, le cheik Falah Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan est «libéré des fins de la poursuite pénale»: il voit sa dernière condamnation annulée par la Cour de justice.

"The honor of the sheik has been restored," trumped attorney Marco Crisante. Hisclient, the sheik Falah Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan has been "freed from criminal prosecution": [the sheik] saw his previous conviction overturned by  the Court  of Justice.

L’été dernier, le procureur général avait requis une amende d’un million de francs contre le demi-frère du président des Emirats arabes unis. Puis le Tribunal de police avait finalement condamné le riche Arabe à verser 10 000 francs pour avoir frappé avec une ceinture un client d’hôtel à Bellevue en 2003. Me Crisante, qui plaidait l’acquittement, avait recouru contre la décision du tribunal. Résultat: cette semaine, la Cour d’appel libère le cheik des poursuites pénales tout en déclarant qu’il a frappé au moins à une reprise Silvano Orsi. Pourquoi? La Cour écarte toute «lésion corporelle avec usage d’un objet dangereux». La ceinture n’étant pas jugée dangereuse seule les «lésions corporelles simples» sont retenues. Une infraction qui ne se poursuit que sur plainte. Et c’est là que le bât blesse: à l’époque des faits, Silvano Orsi, avait transmis sa dénonciation par fax. Mais pour une telle démarche, une signature manuscrite était requise. La plainte n’était donc pas valable devant les juges.

The previous summer, the federal prosecutor had demanded a fine of one million Swiss francs against the half-brother of the President of the United  Arab Emirates.  Then the Police Tribunal also fined the rich Arab to pay 10,000 Swiss francs for having hit with a belt a client of a hotel in Bellevue in 2003. Attorney Cristante, who argued for an acquittal, went on to appeal against the Tribunal's [original]  decision.  Result:  this week, the Appeals Court released the sheik from criminal proceedings while declaring that he had hit at least once Silvano Orsi.  Why? The Court set aside all  “bodily harm  with  the usage of a dangerous object”.   The  belt having been judged as not being dangerous, only [the charges] of simple  assault were retained. An  infraction is not  prosecuted if a  complaint is not  filed.  And that is where salt has been rubbed into  the wound: at  the time of the incident, Silvano Orsi, filed his complaint  via fax.   However, for such a procedure, a written  signature was required. The complaint was therefore not valid before the judges.

«Pas avec la boucle»

« Not  with the buckle »

Rappelons que l’altercation a eu lieu le 19 août 2003. Silvano Orsi, sirote un verre avec un ami dans le salon de l’hôtel La Réserve à Bellevue. Assis non loin d’eux, le cheik leur offre une bouteille de champagne. Le client, qui ne boit pas d’alcool, refuse poliment. Mais le membre de la famille royale se vexe. Il se serait assis sur l’accoudoir du plaignant et l’aurait frappé à plusieurs reprises, avec son ceinturon, au visage et aux mains.

Recall that the altercation took  place the 19 of  August 20003. Silvano Orsi, was having a drink with  a friend in the salon of the hotel, La  Réserve in Bellevue.  Seated not far away from them, the sheik offered them a bottle of champagne. The client, who doesn’t drink alcohol, politely refued.  However, the member of  the royal family was  angered. He [is said] to have placed  himself on the arm of the plaintiffs chair  and [is said to have] hit [Silvano] several times, with his belt, on the face and the hands.

Falah Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan dit s’être senti humilié parce qu’il aurait été traité d’homosexuel par Silvano Orsi. Le cheik a clairement outrepassé les limites de ce qui est acceptable, estimait cet été le Tribunal de police. Mais la cour d’appel s’est montrée plus critique vis-à-vis des déclarations de Silvano Orsi: «Aucun des employés de l’hôtel n’a déclaré avoir pansé les plaies de Silvano Orsi, qui soutient avoir reçu des soins. (…) Il ne peut être établi que le coup a été porté avec la boucle de la ceinture. »

Falah Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan said that he said he had been called a homosexual by Silvano Orsi. The sheik had clearly gone past the bounds acceptable [of  propriety], decided the Criminal court.  However, the  Court  of Appeals showed itself to be more skeptical in regard to Silvano Orsi’s declarations. “None of the hotel employees declared having bandaged the wounds of Silvano Orsi, who alleged he had received such  aid. (…) It  cannot be established that the blow  was struck by the buckle of  the belt.” 

Défendu par Me Alec Reymond, Silvano Orsi examine la possibilité d’un recours devant le Tribunal fédéral: «Le cheik n’a pas à être fier de cette décision, il doit avoir honte vis-à-vis de moi, de Dieu et de la Suisse, pays des droits de l’homme. Il s’est libéré de l’amende qui lui paraissait si douloureuse à payer, mais nous attaquerons sur le plan civil, car il y a eu des coups portés contre moi. Et j’ai subi des dommages. »

Represented by Attorney Alec Reyond, Silvano Orsi is reviewing the possibility of appealing  before the Federal Tribunal:  “The sheik shouldn’t be proud of this decision, he should feel shame before me, God and Switzerland, land of human rights. He has been released from having  to pay the fine that appeared so onerous, however, we plan to attack him on the civil [procedure] front, because of the blows he hit with.  And  I have wounds [as a result].

Depuis cette altercation, Silvano Orsi, qui a été cadre chez Swisscom à Genève, n’a plus jamais repris son emploi: douleurs dorsales, antidépresseurs et tranquillisants, le quadragénaire est en incapacité de travail complète depuis cinq ans.

Since the altercation, Silvano  Orsi,  who had been in management with Swisscom in Geneve, has not resumed working : back pain, antidepressants and tranquilizers, the forty-something has been incapacitated  for five years.

I doesn't say anything about bodyguards... I still think you made that part up ;)

I Think it is about moderation. I can be rather opinionated about certain things, first post and I am already "sharing" ;) and so at times have difficulty restraining myself from pointing out failures from my work colleague.

I think that honesty is of vital importance but needs to be tempered with an understanding of the consequences unwelcome truths may bring.

Lest you think I might have fabricated or embellished this story, here is the information.  I made reference to it to demonstrate the lack  of effective policing in Geneva.  I've provided a rough english translation.

Of course this story is not about "race" so much as money. As we say in the States, money talks, bullshit walks.

Tribune de Genève  archives

Article - 27/03/2009

COUR D’APPELL’infraction n’a pas été jugée dangereuse et un vice de forme profite au magnat arabe.

Court of Appeals:  Infraction judged not  to be dangerous; appeal refusal benefits Arab magnate

«L’honneur du cheik a été rétabli», triomphe Me Marco Crisante. Son client, le cheik Falah Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan est «libéré des fins de la poursuite pénale»: il voit sa dernière condamnation annulée par la Cour de justice.

"The honor of the sheik has been restored," trumped attorney Marco Crisante. Hisclient, the sheik Falah Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan has been "freed from criminal prosecution": [the sheik] saw his previous conviction overturned by  the Court  of Justice.

L’été dernier, le procureur général avait requis une amende d’un million de francs contre le demi-frère du président des Emirats arabes unis. Puis le Tribunal de police avait finalement condamné le riche Arabe à verser 10 000 francs pour avoir frappé avec une ceinture un client d’hôtel à Bellevue en 2003. Me Crisante, qui plaidait l’acquittement, avait recouru contre la décision du tribunal. Résultat: cette semaine, la Cour d’appel libère le cheik des poursuites pénales tout en déclarant qu’il a frappé au moins à une reprise Silvano Orsi. Pourquoi? La Cour écarte toute «lésion corporelle avec usage d’un objet dangereux». La ceinture n’étant pas jugée dangereuse seule les «lésions corporelles simples» sont retenues. Une infraction qui ne se poursuit que sur plainte. Et c’est là que le bât blesse: à l’époque des faits, Silvano Orsi, avait transmis sa dénonciation par fax. Mais pour une telle démarche, une signature manuscrite était requise. La plainte n’était donc pas valable devant les juges.

The previous summer, the federal prosecutor had demanded a fine of one million Swiss francs against the half-brother of the President of the United  Arab Emirates.  Then the Police Tribunal also fined the rich Arab to pay 10,000 Swiss francs for having hit with a belt a client of a hotel in Bellevue in 2003. Attorney Cristante, who argued for an acquittal, went on to appeal against the Tribunal's [original]  decision.  Result:  this week, the Appeals Court released the sheik from criminal proceedings while declaring that he had hit at least once Silvano Orsi.  Why? The Court set aside all  “bodily harm  with  the usage of a dangerous object”.   The  belt having been judged as not being dangerous, only [the charges] of simple  assault were retained. An  infraction is not  prosecuted if a  complaint is not  filed.  And that is where salt has been rubbed into  the wound: at  the time of the incident, Silvano Orsi, filed his complaint  via fax.   However, for such a procedure, a written  signature was required. The complaint was therefore not valid before the judges.

«Pas avec la boucle»

« Not  with the buckle »

Rappelons que l’altercation a eu lieu le 19 août 2003. Silvano Orsi, sirote un verre avec un ami dans le salon de l’hôtel La Réserve à Bellevue. Assis non loin d’eux, le cheik leur offre une bouteille de champagne. Le client, qui ne boit pas d’alcool, refuse poliment. Mais le membre de la famille royale se vexe. Il se serait assis sur l’accoudoir du plaignant et l’aurait frappé à plusieurs reprises, avec son ceinturon, au visage et aux mains.

Recall that the altercation took  place the 19 of  August 20003. Silvano Orsi, was having a drink with  a friend in the salon of the hotel, La  Réserve in Bellevue.  Seated not far away from them, the sheik offered them a bottle of champagne. The client, who doesn’t drink alcohol, politely refued.  However, the member of  the royal family was  angered. He [is said] to have placed  himself on the arm of the plaintiffs chair  and [is said to have] hit [Silvano] several times, with his belt, on the face and the hands.

Falah Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan dit s’être senti humilié parce qu’il aurait été traité d’homosexuel par Silvano Orsi. Le cheik a clairement outrepassé les limites de ce qui est acceptable, estimait cet été le Tribunal de police. Mais la cour d’appel s’est montrée plus critique vis-à-vis des déclarations de Silvano Orsi: «Aucun des employés de l’hôtel n’a déclaré avoir pansé les plaies de Silvano Orsi, qui soutient avoir reçu des soins. (…) Il ne peut être établi que le coup a été porté avec la boucle de la ceinture. »

Falah Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan said that he said he had been called a homosexual by Silvano Orsi. The sheik had clearly gone past the bounds acceptable [of  propriety], decided the Criminal court.  However, the  Court  of Appeals showed itself to be more skeptical in regard to Silvano Orsi’s declarations. “None of the hotel employees declared having bandaged the wounds of Silvano Orsi, who alleged he had received such  aid. (…) It  cannot be established that the blow  was struck by the buckle of  the belt.” 

Défendu par Me Alec Reymond, Silvano Orsi examine la possibilité d’un recours devant le Tribunal fédéral: «Le cheik n’a pas à être fier de cette décision, il doit avoir honte vis-à-vis de moi, de Dieu et de la Suisse, pays des droits de l’homme. Il s’est libéré de l’amende qui lui paraissait si douloureuse à payer, mais nous attaquerons sur le plan civil, car il y a eu des coups portés contre moi. Et j’ai subi des dommages. »

Represented by Attorney Alec Reyond, Silvano Orsi is reviewing the possibility of appealing  before the Federal Tribunal:  “The sheik shouldn’t be proud of this decision, he should feel shame before me, God and Switzerland, land of human rights. He has been released from having  to pay the fine that appeared so onerous, however, we plan to attack him on the civil [procedure] front, because of the blows he hit with.  And  I have wounds [as a result].

Depuis cette altercation, Silvano Orsi, qui a été cadre chez Swisscom à Genève, n’a plus jamais repris son emploi: douleurs dorsales, antidépresseurs et tranquillisants, le quadragénaire est en incapacité de travail complète depuis cinq ans.

Since the altercation, Silvano  Orsi,  who had been in management with Swisscom in Geneve, has not resumed working : back pain, antidepressants and tranquilizers, the forty-something has been incapacitated  for five years.