Comments

Hey, thanks Tom. That book looks like a winner and I've ordered it. I'm hoping it has the same kind of wit as John Nichols' The Milagro Beanfield War which was thoroughly enjoyable.

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 9, 2005 12:22 PM

I always try to have enough focus to "keep my eyes on the road" while remaining very attentive to (and interested in) all the things in my peripheral vision. That's what helps me find productive detours to take along the way to the ultimate destination on a project.

Posted by Jeffrey at August 9, 2005 12:30 PM

Thank you for this post Mr. Peters.

I am just focusing on this word I have no idea what it means; Could anybody let me know what MBWA stands for please? Cheers.

Posted by Omara at August 9, 2005 2:51 PM

MBWA = Management By Walking Around.

Posted by Erik Hansen at August 9, 2005 3:28 PM

While I'm happy to be #3 on the hit parade above - my key point was that, while yes, I too believe in mucking around in the problem - a lot of folks don't have the time or $ to spend doing so to the exclusion of doing something NOW (sometimes doing anything is better than doing nothing). And, it's easy to use "creativity" as an excuse for sloppy planning. Saw it too many times in Corporate America.

Posted by Mary Schmidt at August 9, 2005 3:37 PM

Ok, I'm really confused.

Doesn't the approach depend really on the project, industry, time allocated, level of support etc.

It would seem to me that for a senior level consultant, like Tom Peters advising some Major Marketing CEO on biz dev; this is great and provides wonderful, interesting WOW results at times. And they are willing to pay the price for that WOW potential.

But a local, less prestigious consultant who is charging billable hours to a front line manager of a small-medium sized hotel outsourcing a solution for their reservation system revamp is another story. How does a small consultant itemize "creative unfocus" for a customer who is willing to pay only for what they need at the moment, and often to the lowest bidder.

Other, more technical specialties also require more direct focus on objectives, processes and solutions than creative meandering. Health and Safety Requirements provision, Hazardous Materials training, etc. require more straightforward, requirement driven attention and, yes, for better or worse, focus and attention to detail at the beginning, middle and end.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 9, 2005 3:37 PM

Completion of any new task is a never ending flow, back and forth, between focus and broadcast views. You might start scanning broadcast, then turn to focus on a detail that leads you right back out into an entirely new broadcast perspective. Focus shouldn't be the enemy.

Posted by SS at August 9, 2005 3:48 PM

SS got it right. Seeing that comment reminded me of The Deep Dive DVD of IDEO's approach to problem solving and design: it is a constant cycle in which the focus and idea orientation expands and contracts.

Posted by Jeffrey at August 9, 2005 4:52 PM

Mr Peters, being a fan of word games myself, what a wonderful surprise to find your goal is to surprise the client.

It's a strange goal to have when business is overly focused on achieving the written goal, exactly as it's planned. Yet having that goal allows you to do the work you do, and break out from the client’s blinkered vision.

Although I’m now very curious; how often do you surprise yourself when surprising the client?

Enjoy,

Posted by Michael Vanderdonk at August 9, 2005 8:39 PM

I would really love to have that quote that your buddy uses - I can put it to good use myself. It does take nerve, especially when you're a small fish trying to better the big ones. More than nerve it takes supreme confidence in your own abilities to even "think" like that. Getting to "being a BRAND" is not easy, but once you're there, you know you have something to offer that no one else does.

By the way, I agree with the "100 sequential foci" - it's a great way to turn "auto-focus" into something wildly creative, eventually leading to "WOW".

Posted by Naina Redhu at August 9, 2005 11:45 PM

I think Tom O'Leary has a point above BUT... Say I'm asked to look at a hazardous materials training issue. The brief might be as simple as: x% of my staff haven't been trained and y% need a refresher course. I could organise the training, tick the boxes in the people's HR file and walk away - and maybe that's what the client wants. Alternatively, I could as I'm doing this ask about their induction training, on-going training programmes, how they apply the specific training we're dealing with in this exercise, whether the facilities and resources these people work with are appropriate for things we're training them about etc etc. And this could raise other, more important issues.

Even if the client says, "Very interesting but no" my own interest and PSF instinct will drive me to at least look around and raise the issues.

So, yes there will always be very tightly defined projects with specific and measurable goals. But even these will usually throw up other areas for work and improvement. (BTW, see the "Relating to Anomolies" post - it's kinda linked to this subject.)

Posted by Mark JF at August 10, 2005 2:55 AM

Authors have different writing processes. Some plot and outline very tightly and build a story around it. Some use character development tools (like biography checklists, etc.) Some have almost obsessive compulsive routines, needing to write at the same time every day or in the same place, etc. Others let the story develop in their minds as they drive their car and pull over abrubtly at times to write something down. You see, there is no one correct approach to anything.

Announcing any one particular approach as the enlightened path is restrictive in itself. Some people thrive in chaos, others in structure. Some people can live comfortably in an untidy house, others can't relax in a mess. People are different, and that's what makes us unique.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 10, 2005 3:26 AM

I agree that people, taken as individuals, are different and go about things differently. There's something about it in Machievelli's The Prince (don't have my copy of it anymore) where he asks how it is that one person who is prudent and cautious can fail while another who makes essentially the same moves but does them with reckless abandon succeeds. He contrasts several historical examples to support his point.

His answer is that there is an unpredictable tide in the affairs of men and if your actions are in tune with that tide, or the times you find yourself living in, you will be successful at what you are doing regardless of your approach (or gender!).

I think it comes down to how much talent you have for what it is you are doing, how hard you work at developing and expressing that talent and, to an extent, how much good luck you have.

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 10, 2005 5:41 AM

Interesting posts!

Some of this reminds me of the oft-seen story/situation: seconds left in a
basketball game; the coach designs "THE PLAY" to win the game; designates who
passes and who shoots; the game begins; Michael Jordon takes the ball; senses
the play will likely fail and makes his own play...

The coach, seeing the non-planned play, cries out "NO! NO! NO!".

The ball goes in, the team wins - the coach yells out "GREAT SHOT! GREAT PLAY!"

Give 'em what they need, not what they want?

Of course, if the shot fails ....

And lastly, how does one go about training people to take that shot, to be Jordon?

Morning musing........

Posted by Michael J at August 10, 2005 7:58 AM

Wonderful to catch up on this discussion after my holiday :-)

Ten thoughts from my view of the world about the focus/wide debate;

1 Be determined; focussed almost to the point of being “blind” to challenge; persistent and dogged to the point of being boring ….. BUT ….. encourage, welcome and celebrate challenges to your thinking.

3 Find older, wiser people to act as your mentor. At the same time find young, brash people to challenge your thinking

4 Follow up, follow up, follow up and become obsessive about checking out things. Check the comprehension of your listener ….. drive your work mates mad ….. become a pain the neck ….. but make sure you do it with a smile.

5 Seek out cynical people and listen to them - they have a valid and important view that may differ from you ….. BUT ….. do not speak only to cynics.

6 Make sure your teams contain “exciting” people and “dull” people – celebrate their differences - they are all important people.

7 Recruit “weirdoes” (you know what I mean) to your team. They will always challenge the status quo!

8 Force people to change their seats. In offices, make sure people don’t get too settled in one place - we can all learn from those with different backgrounds, training, skills and life experiences.

9 Encourage discussion, participation, corporate hugging, away days, free thinking time… BUT ….. sometimes, people have to be TOLD …..

10 Constantly review and adjust your own goal posts. Life is dynamic ….. so is work.

Posted by Trevor Gay at August 10, 2005 8:15 AM

Trevor,

Kudos to ur 10 thoughts! Well said. I especially like ur points 3, 5, 6 & 7. U jus hit the NAIL on its HEAD!

Posted by K.Sriram (from India) at August 10, 2005 10:22 AM

Michael J - my great unfocus sports story, one us Bear lovers will remember for the rest of our lives, is November 1982.

John Elway just led Stanfurd's football team to score with a few seconds left in the Big Game against UC Berkeley. They're ahead by less than a touchdown. Time for only one kickoff.

Before the kickoff, the Cal receiving team decides to just keep the ball alive. Not a good way to get a touchdown, but there's only five second left in the game, and they lost anyway.

Stanfurd kicks off the ball, and Kevin Moen catches it. When he's tackled, he laterals the ball to the nearest Bear before going down. He laterals it to the next Bear, because he's going down too. The third Bear runs for only a few yards before lateraling it. The fourth Bear gets away from the pack, runs for more yardage, and laterals it before he goes down. The fifth Bear runs for more yards, and just as the kicker is about to get him, he blindly throws the ball behind him, to be caught by . . . Kevin Moen, the first Bear to catch the ball. He runs into the end zone for a touchdown, tackling a Stanfurd band member and stomping on Gary Tyrell's trombone. Cal won.

Probably the most unfocused play you can think of; no one knew what they were going to do next, and the coach wasn't even involved. Whatever focus there was, was on the goal of keeping the ball alive. And they ended up scoring the winning touchdown in the most bizarre finish in college football history.

(no TP, his knee was not down)

Posted by Ron at August 10, 2005 1:14 PM

Ron, I love the football analogy. There's nothing more exciting, in sport or in life, than seeing the "play" unfold as it happens, without knowing what's going to happen next! Edge of your seat sort of stuff.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 11, 2005 6:39 AM

Just returned from a wonderful trip to Toronto and am glad to see such interesting dicussions. (Tom- aren't you supposed to be on vacation?!) My thoughts on focus. In my experience focus actually often kills creativity. I used to create a goal then establish an exact path to completion (focusing). It can be effective and is usually successful. On more important projects and especially ones that involve other people I have come to believe that the single biggest factor is accurately defining the destination - then simply establishing a timetable for completion.

A few years ago I was quite active in adventure racing. Adventure racing is somewhat like orienteering in that you move from point to point on a map without a prescribed course. The most famous of these races is the Eco-Challenge. These courses were sometimes hundreds of miles long. You are simply given coordinates on a map that serve as required checkpoints and you determine the best course to each. It differs from orienteering in that each segment might require a different a different mode of transportation - mountain bike, kayak, ropes, horse, etc. (anything non-motorized). Simply put it is a race and the goal is to get your entire team to complete the course as quickly as possible. As you might imagine in this type of environment, you would constantly be challenged by changing conditions, unexpected obstacles, and physical challenges. The best teams were those that constantly developed innovative solutions to the issues they faced. Those that focused too intently on an originally conceived plan almost always failed or performed poorly. They would expend too much energy going a route that proved to be much more difficult than anticipated or they would simply get blocked by an obstacle that they were determined to overcome. There was no shortage of determination or focus on the goal yet this combination of determination and focus created an inability to re-focus.

What kinds of things did the winners do? They would actually pick up their kayaks or canoes and physically carry them over a pass in the mountains rather than go all the way around the range via water. They would bungee cord the strongest and the weakest bikers together in order to create the fastest possible "team speed." They would use their jackets to create makeshift sails - some even used kites as sails. It was literally amazing to see the kinds of things people did in order to move most rapidly.

In the end it was about spending the least amount of time getting to the final checkpoint. Much of that time was spent backing up, readjusting, redirecting, and ultimately moving forward. Those that did it most rapidly won. If you focused too intensely on a single route or method you were lost.

For me it was a fascinating laboratory of human dynamics in the real world. My biggest takeaway was that focus and determination could just as easily kill creativity as fuel it.

Posted by walter white at August 11, 2005 10:20 AM

Walter, the Eco-Challenge is awesome. I used to watch it. Remember Team Playboy several years ago? If I'm not mistaken, they finished the course and gained some deserved respect. The major US competitor at the time was Team Sprint? was it?

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 11, 2005 1:29 PM

Tom - the race you are referring to was the Eco-Challenge held in Borneo. I think Team Playboy did finish a revised course. Sometimes race directors create an alternate division and a slightly altered course in the middle of a race for those teams that don't meet certain cutoff times. It allows them to keep racing and helps keep the spread of teams manageable. Imagine trying to provide medical and rescue support over a field of teams spread out over 100 miles! To finish any category of Eco is a great accomplishment. The team major US competitor at the time was Team Eco-Internet - pretty sure they won that one.

There hasn't been an Eco-Challenge held the last several years because the promoter - Mark Burnett - moved on to some other projects - i.e. Survivor, The Apprentice, etc. If you watched Eco in the past you can perhaps understand the parallel to the focus discussion. The TV coverage on eco-challenge typically isn't directed towards the leading teams but rather on those that are dysfunctional and struggling. Burnett understands that the dynamics involved in the human side of the equation is the drama. You now know the theme forumla he used to create his success in TV production. In a very real sense, Eco-Challenge, Survivor, and The Apprentice are all the same thing - just in different settings.

Posted by walter white at August 11, 2005 4:57 PM

I've seen the Apprentice, US and UK versions. Total rubbish, though the UK version was more interesting. There was one guy on it, I think his name was Paul. He made it to the final four. Now this guy had integrity. He'd been in the 'boardroom' several times and each time he refused to rat his teammates out, refused point blank to tell Alan Sugar (the UK's version of Donald Trump) who he should fire. His view was that they were all a team and should stick together; the decision to fire or not fire should be made by Sugar without any help from them. He understood loyalty which in my view is the foundation of integrity.

If Burnett's other shows are anything at all like the Apprentice, the 'team spirit' is about as phoney as you can get.

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 11, 2005 5:46 PM

That was it! Team Eco-Internet! Fantastic analogy per this discussion! Adapt and overcome!

I didn't know that Burnett did that! I love Survivor. The last series (Survivor Palau) just finished a couple of weeks ago in Ireland! My wife would leave me tomorrow if Fireman Tom came to the door! Well deserved win for him!

I heard that people are getting a bit tired of Survivor in the States now? How could anyone get tired of it?

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 11, 2005 6:15 PM

Tom - I think a good number of people are getting tired of it but it still has a good following. Noel - Burnett's shows aren't really about showing true team spirt or even really high and effective performance. Outstanding performance doesn't really draw the mass market like conflict and character flaws. Its kind of like a soap opera. I'm not really a fan of reality tv because I am in the small group that likes to see the high performance rather than the character flaws and leadership goofs that are typically overemphasized in those shows. I can appreciate Burnetts understanding of the mass market on this issue, however, and can't argue with his success.

Posted by walter white at August 12, 2005 9:57 AM

I never judge a man by the size of his wallet, Walter.

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 12, 2005 11:20 AM

Noel - that would indeed be a poor metric. Just in case it wasn't clear - I am not an admirer of Burnett's formula. I find it interesting that he moved from Eco to Survivor and The Apprentice. I can't explain the mass appeal but then it's not all that important either. ;)

Posted by walter white at August 12, 2005 4:08 PM

Ah, but it is! The show depicted exactly what 'team spirit' amounts to in many corporations today - totally out for yourself while pretending to be a 'team player'. In fact, he constructed the show to tap that nerve and encouraged people to function as phonies in order to 'get ahead'.

The show was marketed as "real world business". This is not real business. Teamwork requires building a genuine camaraderie that does not include stabbing people in the back for the sake of holding onto your job. Teamwork requires loyalty and trust.

Burnett could have chosen any format for his show. He opted for an angle I do not like to see encouraged. He zeroed in on disloyalty and humiliation, believing that people would be more interested if they could once a week fascinate over the infighting and someone's ultimate humiliating defeat in a public contest. It is an old trick to gain ratings. something that in my view deserves no respect.

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 12, 2005 4:59 PM

Noel - point taken. I am simply pointing out that he uses the same formula in all his shows. He could have chosen any format for the show but I'm not sure that a different format would have been as commercially successful. I shudder to think that anyone would construe it as real world business! It is low level entertainment at best. Neither is it illustrative of teamwork - its more like a primer of how NOT to have effective teamwork.

Posted by walter white at August 12, 2005 11:50 PM

Then why admire him for producing it?

It's like that old saying: "If you're into humiliation, this could work for you."

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 13, 2005 3:50 AM

You can admire someone's knowledge of a market (and ability to exploit it) without respecting their "product" or views on society Noel. I admire anyone's 'ability' to grow a business from nothing to Wal*Mart but don't really respect any consumerist venture which attempts to sell more things that people don't need, even if they are really successful at it!

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 13, 2005 4:54 AM

Besides Noel, Survivor (American version) is way cool! You might be confusing it with the shite reality TV from the UK and Ireland who tried to follow the format with the likes of Big Brother and The Farm, etc....now THAT'S humiliating! And yet, Big Brother does very well...just to prove my point that I can "appreciate" how its producers nailed a market without having any respect whatsoever for the product. I just can't believe that there are that many brain-dead people in the UK/Ireland to keep BB on air for so many seasons!

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 13, 2005 5:00 AM

Tom, I bet Walter appreciates you answering my question for him ; ) At the very least, you've shown how it could be answered.

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 13, 2005 7:51 AM

Tom - thanks for weighing in. Noel - love him or hate him Burnett created or at least popularized the whole reality TV genre. While admire is not the appropriate word for me I can respect the fact that he packaged people acting like middle school kids and turned the product into a phenomenal worldwide success - at least from a financial standpoint. Like Tom, I am amazed - and even a bit alarmed! :) that so many people find it so compelling! These shows were never produced for critical acclaim - but Burnett can be noted for recognizing a mass market appeal and capitalizing on it to a degree seldom seen before. But we digress - wasn't this conversation about focus?! ;)

Posted by Walter White at August 13, 2005 12:49 PM

Walter, Burnett does not inspire emotion in me, except perhaps indifference. Respecting him for popularizing "the whole reality TV genre"? Well, there's no accounting for taste. Anyone can package people looking foolish and humiliating themselves. I do not think this is something that deserves respect. viagra generic overnight

Burnett has been seen before and will be seen again. He's like a pimp standing outside a lap dancing club heckling you to come in and enjoy people humiliating themselves for money. Or a drug pusher standing on a corner selling people fascinating things that they are really better off not enjoying.

There is nothing that I can see to admire or respect him for, neither his marketing prowess nor his bank account and certainly not his show for the reasons given above.

As to our digression, sometimes it is better to let a conversation wend its way along, one thought leading on to another, because this way we get to see a subject debated from all points of view and also, get to see what people are really thinking and why they're thinking it.

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 13, 2005 1:45 PM

I try not to take myself so seriously Noel. While I agree that my respect for a person requires much more than their success on any commercial or financial plane; where do you draw the line? Along those same lines, we shouldn't 'respect' anyone for producing unecessary plastic products or creating persuasive advertising to sell those products...or producing mindless sitcoms like Friends, or works of fiction, or designer clothes, etc. The fact is, most television, reality or not, is drivel. But I like drivel. I used to enjoy Gilligan's Island, Get Smart, etc.

I suppose that it all depends on how loosely we define 'respect' or 'admire'.

But, then, I don't know the man behind the producer's mask. Maybe he is doing truly great work for society, and his 'work' is merely a vehicle that allows him the finances to support his more 'respectable' pursuits.

I couldn't agree more with your view about the benefits of allowing a conversation to 'wind its way along'. I used to feel guilty when I took a tangential direction in my responses; but everything is connected in a way and often exploring bits to the side of the issue will bring further understanding to the issue itself...and linkages. In essence, it strengthens the argument against being overly focused! (How's that for bringing it back!)

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 14, 2005 2:57 AM

In my view, not very good, Tom O' ; )

I agree that there's a lot of drivel on TV, but there's also interesting things and the great thing is that you can choose what you want to watch. Haven't seen Gilligan's Island or Get Smart. Enjoyed Cheers! though, Taxi, WKRP Cincinnati, Good Neighbors, The Kumars, The Keith Barret Show and many others from time to time.

Where we draw the line is mostly in my opinion a matter of taste. If you want to watch "drivel", as you put it, go ahead. I'm not suggesting we should ban it or introduce legislation to stop it. There are a lot of things out there that I wouldn't watch or buy, but lots of other people would and do. We can debate the merits of them and you can make your case for why you think they're good or useful or enjoyable or whatever and I can make my case for why I think they're rubbish (or drivel), as I think the Apprentice is. And if you essentially agree with me and tell me that it is drivel but that you like watching it anyway, that's your right. I might question your intelligence or the clarity of your brain from time to time after you've told me that you like feeding your mind with drivel, but I wouldn't try to stop you doing it.

On the respect or admire thing, that's very clear to me. I either respect or admire someone or something or I do not. There's no grey area there, Tom.

On what Burnett does in his spare time, I'm not interested in what people get up to in their private lives. It's his work we're discussing, how he chose to apply the talents he has. I really do not think he is doing "truly great work for society". For his own bank account, yes. Benefitting "society"? I don't think so.

I agree it is possible to "bring further understanding" to an issue by letting a conversation wend its way along, and for my part, I promise that when we do wander off topic I will do my very best to resist that highly attractive urge to intellectualize and concentrate instead on getting straight to the heart of the matter as I hope the rest of us will too.

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 14, 2005 5:10 AM

Certainly you'd agree that Cheers, Taxi and WKRP in Cincinnati are as full of drivel as anything else on television, with the exception of Big Brother UK perhaps, which really takes the cake. I don't think that your enjoyment of them should make anyone question your intelligence or the clarity of your brain Noel. Sometimes, intelligent people like to stop thinking and watch a puppet show.

Mr. Burnett happens to be very successful at what he does, and has applied his talents very well in that regard. He is 'respected' in his corporate circles for his contributions to his game.

samples for viagra I respect him as much as do anyone else who I don't know personally but who is successful in their business...Ted Turner, Walt Disney, Joe Namath, Tom Clancy, etc. That is to say, I respect that they are or were among the best at what they do. Because I don't know them personally, I can only respect their success in their chosen field. For all I know, they all wear women's dresses at night and chant strange things in the woods. Personally, I don't care.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 14, 2005 2:08 PM

No, Tom O', I don't find Cheers!, Taxi, or WKRP in Cincinnati "full of drivel". I found them entertaining, even interesting; some of their episodes depicted very pleasant moments in human relationships and captured some very fine acting.

Respect by association doesn't work either. That someone is 'respected' in corporate circles, even powerful corporate circles, is not much of a reason for me to respect them also. A man makes up his own mind on who does or does not deserve his respect and that decision is based on the values he lives by, the things he would or would not do.

It's like that song, Teach Your Children, from Crosby, Stills and Nash (I don't think Neil Young had joined them at the time the song was released). Here are the opening lyrics:

You
Who are on the road
Must have a code
That you can live by
And so
Become yourself
Because the past
Is just a goodbye.

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 14, 2005 3:21 PM

Noel, I think that we might be talking about two different things here. While I'm advocating that it is possible to respect accomplishment, you are defending your right not to respect a person or a specific product of that person. As I eluded to earlier, I am not suggesting that I respect Mr. Burnett or any other accomplished professional as a person because I don't know them and can't possibly make that sort of judgement.

Still, I remain convinced that it is possible to respect accomplishment without respecting or admiring specific qualities or outputs of an individual. For example, I respect Cromwell's capabilities as a leader even though I have no respect for his puritanical assault on Catholics in Ireland. Because I didn't know him personally, I cannot make further judgements about my respect for him as a person; although I am swayed to believe that I wouldn't have respected him much as a fellow-man working towards a more harmonious world.

Someone whose accomplishments in a given field are respected by their industry peers does give credence to their capabilities and does influence my perception of whether their 'work' deserves respect. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

Personally, I don't like much of Frank Lloyd Wrights architecture, but I understand through associated industry acknowledgements, that he is a respected American architect and therefore, with that industry support, I have formed a respectable opinion of his accomplishments as a leader in his industry.

Likewise, when Mark Burnett is touted by most television and media measuring sticks as a "visionary" in his field, I am more compelled to respect him as an accomplished and successful producer.

...Mark Burnett is a great visionary, able to see into the future with far better accuracy than any of his competitors. His No. 1 talent is having the right idea at the right time... - Time Magazine

...Burnett was listed as one of the most influential people in the world in Time magazine's "Time 100 List". He has served two elected terms on the Board of Directors for the British Academy of Film and Television Arts in Los Angeles and is a member of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. - cbs.com

...Burnett most recently received the Philanthropist of the Year Award from the Reality Cares Foundation. In addition, he was featured in Time Magazine’s “Time 100 List” of the most influential people in the world today; named on the “Top 101 Most Powerful People in Entertainment” list by Entertainment Weekly for the last three consecutive years; garnered the #1 position on TV Guide’s Most Valuable Players list; and earned the Number Two position on Access Hollywood’s “Top 10 in Entertainment 2000 list. Burnett was a recipient of a Special Recognition Award for “Survivor” from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD); was named in the Advertising Age Top 100 for 2001; and is a featured business leader in Variety’s 2001 “A Tradition of Trendsetting.” Early this year at NATPE, he received the Brandon Tartikoff Legacy Award recognizing individuals who have a unique passion and vision for television... nbc.com

...he was also a decorated British Paratrouper and consultant to the SAS...

viagra free sample online

I believe these accomplishments are respectable, without having any personal opinion of the work or person.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 14, 2005 5:28 PM

Okay, Tom. You respect his resume and what people say about him rather than his work, i.e., the show he conceived and produced (the Apprentice, the subject of this detour) which you are now saying you have no personal opinion on. It's not what I would do, but you're free to arrive at your non-opinion however you choose.

It's good to see you fighting for what you believe in.

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 14, 2005 6:06 PM

Actually, I started defending his accomplishments in "Survivor", I wasn't one of the 28 million who watched The Apprentice. But, it [the apprenctice] obviously was successful and I can only conclude that he nailed the market, giving them what they wanted. It's not that I don't have an opinion, though. My opinion is that our particular opinions on product or person are irrelevant in terms of our ability to appreciate the value of effort and accomplishment.

I really did enjoy this banter Noel, exactly because of the conviction of your opinions. And hey, I only have a couple more weeks here before I'm off on my holiday/relocation. I wonder how my views will change after being re-programmed in the good 'ole US of A?

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 15, 2005 3:53 AM

Me too, Tom. It was fun and nice to see neither of us took it personally. Good luck in the States and I wouldn't worry too much about being reprogrammed. Wherever you go, that's where you are. What I mean is that travel might give someone more perspective, but you'll still be the same person no matter where you're living. At least, that's what I've found and I've changed countries a few times.

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 15, 2005 4:57 AM

Couldn't agree more Noel. I read a great quote once and ashamedly cannot remember who to attribute it to or the exact wording...but the jist was "send a fool around the world and he comes back a fool." Thankfully, I have never succumbed to generic national identity. I was Tom in the US, Mexico, Italy and Ireland and will remain Tom in Bellingham! I might still be a fool, but I'm a unique one ;)

Posted by Tom O'Leary at August 15, 2005 7:01 AM

Can't honestly say I haven't been a fool at times myself nor that I aspire to always being one which I know you don't either. It's like Willy Wonka (yes, Willy Wonka) says:

"A little silliness now and then is prized by the wisest men."

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 15, 2005 7:17 AM

So there's no confusion, real people humiliating themselves or ripping each other to shreds on TV does not in my view class as “a little silliness” though I recognize other people’s right to enjoy or fantasize about whatever they want even if I don’t respect it.

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 15, 2005 1:11 PM

I go away for a few days and you two carry on without me. Not a bad thing actually as I don't think I could have stated my position as eloquently as Tom. Good dicussion guys.

Posted by walter white at August 16, 2005 12:51 PM

Thanks, Walter. Shame you missed it though. You know, you could equip your laptop with wifi or just drop into one of the many internet cafes all over the world; that way you'd never have to be out of touch and could really lend your moral and vocal support to those people supporting your view, rather than dropping out and coming back in when it's all over, which would have made it a much more interesting debate for us all, don't you think? ; )

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 16, 2005 1:45 PM

Noel - wifi is a good idea - just got to get the laptop first. It gets so tiring carrying around the desktop, even with the LCD monitor. Can you imagine the load with a CRT? :) As far as the internet cafes - the US is somewhat behind that trend - I don't think they are nearly as common here as they are in Europe.

Posted by Walter White at August 16, 2005 8:20 PM

Sure, Walter. I understand.

Posted by Noel Guinane at August 17, 2005 2:31 AM