Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ptsfa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!ptsfa!rob
From: rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo)
Newsgroups: net.social
Subject: Re: Work Ethic
Message-ID: <663@ptsfa.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 24-May-85 19:16:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: ptsfa.663
Posted: Fri May 24 19:16:19 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 26-May-85 20:20:31 EDT
References: <686@udenva.UUCP> <10971@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacific Bell, San Francisco
Lines: 45
Summary: People best defined on whatever defines them.

In article <10971@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-bmd.UUCP writes:
>(I've never felt that people should be defined in terms of what they
>do to earn money, yet that is the main factor or quality that is
>always considered -- you meet a stranger, and, usually, somewhere early
>in the conversation, one will ask the other, "And what do you do?", meaning
>what work do they perform. Actually, people are probably better defined
>by their hobbies than their jobs!)

How about more flexibity and less dogmatic statements. :-) :-)
I think people are defined (whatever that means) by a thing
to the degree that the thing occupies the person's energy/thoughts/etc.
For some people it's hobbies more than work, for others it's work more
than hobbies,... or relationships, or neighborhood, or religion, or
minority status.

>It's simply a matter of definition; if it is "work", you are doing
>it to earn money to really LIVE the rest of the time. If you happen
>to luck out, and find you can get paid for doing something you
>enjoy and would do even if you were not being paid for it (assuming
>you could get access to the equipment, etc.), then maybe it could
>be better termed a "vocation" instead of "work".
>

If I enjoy what-I-get-paid-for one day, but don't want to go to work
the next (rather sleep in), just my work appear and a vocation vanish.
:-)  :-)

Let's stick to common ordinary English rather than redefine words.
I think 'work' in this discussion was meant to be synonymous with 'occupation',
which it often is in common ordinary English.
:-)  :-)
-- 


Rob Bernardo, San Francisco, California
{nsc,ucbvax,decwrl,amd,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob

	    	       _^__
	     	     ~/ \_.\
        _           ~/    \_\
      ~/ \_________~/   
     ~/  /\       /\ 
       _/  \     /  \
     _/      \ _/    \ 
              \      /