Fuel? What the hell does that mean, Lord?
Eh, I don’t know about that. Housework, for example. My whole philosophy is that a half-done job is better than a not-done job. No, my house isn’t perfect, but if I didn’t tackle any of the work before I was ready to do it really, really well, it wouldn’t get done at all. It would be better to do it really well in the first place, perhaps, but then I wouldn’t have time to read all those stories to my kids or sew all those quilts for my relatives’ weddings and babies. (And if I ripped out and redid every imperfect seam, the quilts wouldn’t get done either. So I only redo really icky problems, because it’s simply not practical to resew everything three times.)
If the cost of doing a job really well is more than the benefit of having it done really well as opposed to ‘well enough,’ then I’m all for mediocrity if it gives me time to do more beneficial things.
Beautiful! I have a needlepoint on my kitchen wall that says, “Housework, if done properly, can kill you.”
Hmmm. Between that and your extremely spiffy name, I hope you and I are going to get along very well indeed. 
And you set out to prove it by posting this thread, right?:rolleyes:
Quoting EJ: "And, on a message board, excellence (the antithesis of mediocrity) has certain obvious minimum standards - properly spelled words, complete sentences, logical grammar and syntax, the ability to accurately convey humor or scorn; some thought will have obviously gone into - or not gone into - any given post. "
Now, for the sake of debate, here are just a few attempts at intentional mediocrity as posted by the author of this thread (source, other recent threads.) To wit:
*This only an excersize.
*I’m only responded with such.
*Why is what one “understands” as God have any effect on what God is?
*One of the main properties of the term “God” is that it’s properties of being are not wholey defined. The one thing that is agreed on about God, a property that can be distinguisted, is that it is the ‘highest spiritual power’.
*The term God is heavily debated as to it’s specific attributes.
*But amoung those debates, the idea of God, which I have presented to you, is agreed upon.
*I was using it sinonimusly
*Criteria that I have explain in the definition I provided you.
I’m just using your own writing as an example of the argument. Your choice to not thoroughly consider your words, your structure, or your spelling is indicative of intentional mediocrity. Somewhere in your reasoning you felt that these posts were “good enough”, though they obviously failed to meet your own stated standards. How difficult that must be! You must despise yourself!
Your further subjective opinion about the ability to convey scorn and humor is just as laughable as the first. You’ve perfected scorn, btw. You do need to work on that humor thing, though.
Doh! Please replace subjunctive with subjective in the above post. I’m striving for excellence, after all.
As you wish.
Thank you, Farm Boy. Now, fetch me that pail…