Aug. 2nd, 2023

missdiane: (Blues Brothers - WHAP)
So I finally received the "proposal" from that staff guy that has difficulty listening to simple instructions. Lordy...it's a...well let me just show you a piece.

For reference, here's an example of what a forestry project should look like from our resident forestry expert. You state in succinct terms what the point of the research is, what the goals are and then you can get a little wordy/science-y in the methods section.

I made sure to let staff guy know in every bit of instructions that we don't upload proposals, what the layout is (which is very short and to the point) and that they have character limits. Here's a snippet from his TOME:

Thus far, New Jersey has overwhelmingly focused on forest stewardship objectives (e.g. wildlife habitat; groundwater recharge; public recreation) rather than woodland management ones (e.g. forest products). But even forest stewardship can be difficult to achieve in New Jersey, as many residents are adverse to any type of tree cutting on public lands - even to improve wildlife habitat - as evidenced by the long-standing controversy at Sparta Mountain Wildlife Management Area. These viewpoints are consistent with the “preservation” mindset compared to states like New Hampshire, which embrace more of a “conservation” ethos. While this terminology seems interchangeable to the layman, it actually speaks to two divergent management philosophies, which played out on a large stage when the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905 and John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club called for preservation while the Forest Service’s first director, Gifford Pinchot, wanted conservation. Pinchot subscribed to the concept of utilitarianism and borrowed from 18th-century English philosopher Jeremy Bentham when advocating for “the greatest good for the greatest number” in government decision-making regarding forest management. This mantra of “utilitarian conservationism” was shared by President Theodore Roosevelt, and he and Pinchot became close friends and together exponentially expanded the national forest system to 150 units. The embedding of the U.S. Forest Service within the U.S. Department of Agriculture than the U.S. Department of the Interior is a product of this mindset.


Um...yay? Who gives a rat's ass about the philosophy of the creating of the forest service? What is it that YOU are actually doing? Because there's a whole lot of this hoo-ha and the actual supposed part of what he's doing for his research is...not it. It's a laundry list of a bunch of model building and consulting and not a lot of "we are going to study this thing and as a result reach these objectives"

Former Bosslady made the mistake of rolling by to say hi and I've drafted her to be a reviewer so she can hopefully go "Um...what the hell are you actually DOING here?" I'm going to allude to it but he's already made it clear that he thinks I'm a peon rather than a decider. Douchenozzle, I've been doing this for over a decade. I know what you're supposed to do and you're an idiot. But you know big fancy-type words. Whoopdediddlydo.

Oh, the back is well enough to get me to work this morning. But dude is making my head hurt. Whew. Current Bosslady is on vacation until Monday so if the back is iffy the next couple of days, I'll just WFH on the downlow.
missdiane: (Bitchslappin')
Mr. Lofty McSnobberton responded whining that the proposal I sent him as an example is long like his and boo hoo hoo does he need to chop it down? Well buddy, I sent you that one PER YOUR REQUEST since you're piggybacking off what was started by someone else and it was written in 2017 before the new database with more character limitations. That and if you'd have just READ the instructions on my site that say verbatim in the two applicable sections "This entry in the NIFA Reporting System (NRS) is limited to 8000 characters. You may wish to consider this space limitation when writing this section" you'd have known this but you don't fucking listen. Instead you decided that the instructions that I structured to mirror the new site (that has no instructions since the feds keep fucking with it) was clearly substandard.

With help from Emily to make it more lofty sounding, I went with "The proposal that we send for pre-NIFA-submission review can be lengthier and contain historical and philosophical background for review purposes if you believe it will give project reviewers additional substance to understand what your research goals are and how you will accomplish them. While a more fulsome explanation does allow for the full context to be understood, under the new NIFA guidelines we really must advise that the most successful applications are concise and absent extraneous details. NIFA reviewers are looking for your ability to hone in on the most critical issues to meet your clearly stated goals and objectives."

What I really was thinking "Listen asshole, while I know you adore the scent of your own farts, the feds don't and will see right through your stream of consciousness bullshit and reject it. LISTEN TO ME ALREADY"

I also told him "I send your project out for review" and he came back asking for the links so HE could send it out. No dickweed, it's a regulated process. You don't send your own damned proposal out for review.

Profile

missdiane: (Default)
missdiane

January 2026

S M T W T F S
    12 3
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 7th, 2026 09:48 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios