J
Zeb_Carter
.-- - ..-.
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2006
- Posts
- 20,584
So, how many resigned, were terminated from their positions?
Wait, I have the answer to that...zero, none, nada.
Wait, I have the answer to that...zero, none, nada.
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
This is just a ballpark estimate, but zero seems like its close to the mark.
Handley_Page
Draco interdum Vincit
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2007
- Posts
- 78,287
Is the Jury back with it's verdict ?.
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
jomar
chillin
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Posts
- 27,550
They ustacould just buy a new one for a few hundred thou.
Hard to imagine that someone had the initiative to do manual work when a machine was around, though.
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
JOMAR
Its common at guvmint agencies, where red-tape is always a problem.
When cell phones first came out my agency authorized 20 minutes of calls per month, and every call had to be justified during a monthly review with my supervisor. So we stopped using the cell phones, to avoid the monthly inquisition.
Its common at guvmint agencies, where red-tape is always a problem.
When cell phones first came out my agency authorized 20 minutes of calls per month, and every call had to be justified during a monthly review with my supervisor. So we stopped using the cell phones, to avoid the monthly inquisition.
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
That seems strange. 
I would think the instruments would be just as clean if washed first by hand and then by the machine, or even cleaner. If there were fragments of tissue or food stuck in the tools, I would think they would have to be washed by hand to remove such foreign matter, and then washed in the usual way. This may be a matter of good deeds being punished by a bureaucracy.
I would think the instruments would be just as clean if washed first by hand and then by the machine, or even cleaner. If there were fragments of tissue or food stuck in the tools, I would think they would have to be washed by hand to remove such foreign matter, and then washed in the usual way. This may be a matter of good deeds being punished by a bureaucracy. 
driphoney
tittivator
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Posts
- 9,107
That seems strange.
I was confused by that wording, too, because what you say seems logical to me, a layperson. Then I decided it probably was just badly described, otherwise, surely there wouldn't have been the contamination risk.
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
That seems strange. I would think the instruments would be just as clean if washed first by hand and then by the machine, or even cleaner. If there were fragments of tissue or food stuck in the tools, I would think they would have to be washed by hand to remove such foreign matter, and then washed in the usual way. This may be a matter of good deeds being punished by a bureaucracy.
The way bureaucracies work is they have methods for doing everything, and if somebody uses a different method, even with better results, that person is ruthlessly punished for thinking.
Possibly it went this way: A technician inspected some instruments after removing them from a cleaning machine and noticed fragments of food or tooth or gum tissue that had not been removed. Being a diligent worker, he or she then started washing them with an ordinarhy scrub brush to remove such particles before putting them in the machines. Others may have seen this, realized that method worked better and got the instruments cleaner, and done the same thing. A bureaucrat saw them doing a better than expected job and got excited about protocol not being followed and pressed the panic button.
Unfortunately, this is how bureaucracies operate.
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
That seems strange. I would think the instruments would be just as clean if washed first by hand and then by the machine, or even cleaner. If there were fragments of tissue or food stuck in the tools, I would think they would have to be washed by hand to remove such foreign matter, and then washed in the usual way. This may be a matter of good deeds being punished by a bureaucracy.
I was confused by that wording, too, because what you say seems logical to me, a layperson. Then I decided it probably was just badly described, otherwise, surely there wouldn't have been the contamination risk.
The way bureaucracies work is they have methods for doing everything, and if somebody uses a different method, even with better results, that person is ruthlessly punished for thinking.
Possibly it went this way: A technician inspected some instruments after removing them from a cleaning machine and noticed fragments of food or tooth or gum tissue that had not been removed. Being a diligent worker, he or she then started washing them with an ordinarhy scrub brush to remove such particles before putting them in the machines. Others may have seen this, realized that method worked better and got the instruments cleaner, and done the same thing. A bureaucrat saw them doing a better than expected job and got excited about protocol not being followed and pressed the panic button.
Unfortunately, this is how bureaucracies operate.
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
BOX
Bureaucrats always fret about lawyers, and juries are always filled with morons.
Bureaucrats always fret about lawyers, and juries are always filled with morons.
Similar threads
