Talk:Opportunism

Selfish?

Too broad a definition for me. Opportunism can be applied to the whole in many circumstances, and for the betterment of others. Needs a lot of work in the broad generalization of the definition. Blondesareeasy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Conscious choice?

The use of the word 'conscious' firstly assumes free will choice, which is not proven to be the case and in fact is opposite to the opportunist hardwired individual, as to how someone is willing or can modify their behaviour is also an individual thing. Also the use of 'conscious' is the thrill of escaping legalistic proceedings, which are very often the results of opportunistic criminal justice employees i.e police and prosecutors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.77.236 (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Opinions (as opposed to consensus usage)

I would like to see some more info on Vladimir Lenin's definition of the term "opportunism" Rag-time4 21:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It hardly seems very relevant as Lenin lived before the advance of what call themselves "democracy" and "socialism" could render the best examples of the phenomenon. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it seems relevant. What do Obama's actions or democracy or socialism have to do with this? ADREY 20:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrey (talk • contribs)

Why this article describes Opportunism as exclusively political term

This word is being used in many other contexts too. For example they may say "opportunistic hunter" to describe some animal's behavior.

Yes it is wrong to make out it is only a political term, psychopaths and manipulators are often opportunist as well. --Penbat (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I got to this page from a link about opportunistic bacterial pathogens. In a comment on general quality, it is generally better not to begin a paragraph with the word "But"InfiniteThinking (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Additions

I have expanded and restructured my original article considerably with a discussion of different categories of opportunism. The article has had a lot of interested readers, suggested by around 100,000 hits per year, and thus it is worth trying to do a good job on it. A problem so far is, that general treatments of the concept "opportunism" in the scientific literature are extremely scarce. I intend to provide more references to relevant literature. The article does not contain any original research as far as I know, except that different opportunisms are discussed together in one article for the first time. User:Jurriaan 7 July 2010 10:18 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.136.223.40 (talk)

"But"

In response to the comment, I have removed the word "but" from the beginning of the sentence where the word occurs. User:Jurriaan 17 August 2010 14:17 (UTC)

This won't do. ...

There seems to be a move to limit the use of the word to a particular sense, which is unjustified. The sense certainly exists, but it is not the only one and it is not excusable to limit the article to that sense. Consider:

"Opportunism should not be confused with "seeking opportunities" as such, or "using opportunities when they arise". Opportunism refers rather to a specific way of responding to opportunities which involves the element of self-interestedness and disregard for relevant (ethical) principles."

"Confused with" has nothing to do with it. Those senses are perfectly valid and in some disciplines are in routine use. To add a value judgment to the meaning is only valid in arbitrary senses. In common use the value-free (or even praiseworthy) senses also are common, and correct, currency. (Opportunistic goals etc.) I don't want to start an edit squabble, but either this stricture must go, or it must be put into a separate section, or a totally new article must be started to accommodate constrained coinages limited to narrow fields in psychology, ethics and rhetoric. If I were to limit the use of say, "power" to "the rate at which work is performed", the psychologists, ethicists and political scientists would object, and rightly so, however happy this might make the physicists. In the example of opportunism, there might be a suggestion that the topic should be split into separate articles, but I would object to that as well; there are matters of context that are best discussed together. What I suggest is that we tailor the title paragraph to carry summary definitions suited to various contexts, and have headings appearing in the table of contents, for each of the disciplines as appropriate. I am a bit snowed under at the moment, but unless I am pre-empted, I shall begin to prepare something of the type as soon as may be. I am perfectly happy to assist or support any such initiative from someone else, or of course, accept assistance if I get in first, and would use as much of the existing material as little modified as possible. JonRichfield (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, Jon. "Opportunism" DOES NOT MEAN SIMPLY "seeking opportunities" as such, or "using opportunities when they arise". PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE. I have already provided different sections for different disciplines and for different kinds of opportunism, upon previous request. I have built this article up from scratch, and spent a lot of time on it. I do not do this just so that some pimply freshman can wreck it. It has been read by a very large number of people. If you start to vandalize this article according to your prejudices, without any valid reasons, I am simply going to restore the article to the good quality text it was. So BEWARE. If you wreck this article, the consequences are yours. User:Jurriaan 26 September 2011 19:22 (UTC)

Jurriaan, in the interests of courteous intercourse, I suggest you wait a day or so and reconsider your response, having re-read whatever it was you say you had no idea about. Meanwhile, when I have time I shall prepare a suitable structure for the article if you don't beat me to it. Would you like me to pass any proposed improvements by you before posting them? Cheers for now, JonRichfield (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to wait at all. What you wrote is waffly, vague rubbish. More importantly, you do not provide any good reason for altering the article; moreover you try to insinuate that you are an authority on the topic without stating your credentials. To acommodate your comment to some extent, I have tried to phrase the relevant sentence more clearly. I warn you one more time though. If you begin to hack into the article without prior discussion of what you wish to change, and without providing good reasons or evidence first, I am just going to undo your vandalism. And we're going to have a war until the article is locked against alteration. Sure, nobody "owns" a wiki article, and all changes which improve the article are welcome. But the changes must indeed be IMPROVEMENTS. If somebody trying to masturbate his ego starts to wreck articles with all sorts of illegitimate nonsense, this is not conducive to anything, and it will be most vigorously opposed. So, Mr Richfield: either first provide clear, relevant and precise arguments on this talk page backed up with solid evidence to show why certain changes are desirable, or else LAY OFF THIS ARTICLE. User:Jurriaan 26 September 2011 22:13 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.48.162 (talk)

Please Jurriaan, it is most distasteful to deal with this sort of reaction on WP, in which we are supposed to be a civilised as well as logical team. I realise that some other people reject the very possibility of editing, let alone contributions to, anything they have produced, but if that were to be your attitude, I could hardly believe that you would have chosen WP as a platform; after all, below the submission buttons on every page you submit, you will have seen the admonition and counsel: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Perhaps we should ask someone to increase the size and change the colour and typeface of that text, but being opposed to unnecessary changes to established and adequate work as I am, I hesitate; as it stands, the message hardly counts as fine print. Now, no one I have asked expressed anything less than deep admiration and appreciation for your investment of time and effort in your contributions, but in the light of the warning I have quoted, that appreciation cannot extend to condoning any assumption of your special personal authority to impose strictures on the semantics of English terminology, least of all when it is partly technical terminology. Of course we can hardly but defer to your personal standards of cogency, but I assure you that their persuasiveness would in no wise be compromised if you supported them more specifically, less enthymemetically and indulged in fewer, or at least less frequent, intimations of dire consequences to particular parties. Of course I am indebted to you for your helpful assessment of my contributions hitherto, so much so that would I blush to place further demands on your time and effort, but if I were to bring myself to do so, I should very likely wonder whether you could see your way to something a little more specific than the points you have made so far; they hardly reflect anything I said or proposed. And incidentally, a word to the wise: do please supervise your predictive text facility more carefully; you should see how it rendered "mandate" for example! No matter, the outline of the article's improvement, correction, and replacement text is coming on nicely and is already taking shape in spite of competing demands on my time. I would love to pass it on to you for approval, but in view of your expressed lack of interest, perhaps it would be a kindness not to. I'm sure it will do you proud anyway. JonRichfield (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Jon, I really don't give a shit about whether you think I am civilized or not. It is my duty to protect articles to which I devoted a lot of time so that they would be useful to the reader, against bullshit artists, ego-trippers, fascist academics and stupid vandals. And I will do so. I spent ten years at university and thirty years in the workforce, as teacher, librarian, research statistician, translator/editor, and documentalist, and therefore I am not at all impressed, if some pimply freshman starts to run roughshod over the articles in which I invested time so that they would be comprehensible and useful to the average reader. The problem with your latest missive is that it is VERY LONG on WORDS and VERY SHORT on CONTENT. If you have specific proposals to make about the format or content of the article, please - as I already suggested before - state your proposals on this talk page first, so that we can discuss them. I have never said that I am against other people improving the article; what I am opposing is arrogant jerks who don't have any experience ripping up articles which somebody crafted together with a lot of care, just because, in their arrogant opinion, the articles are not to their own taste. So to make it perfectly clear one more time: if you start to carry out major surgery in this article without discussing it first, I am going to wipe out your work mercilessly. And so, there is really no point at all in your work UNLESS YOU DISCUSS THE PROPOSED CHANGES FIRST. I hope it is all perfectly clear to you now. User:Jurriaan 27 September 2011 00:24 (UTC)

This won't do either...

One other point, Jon: if you consider (1) that the article contains "enthymemes", and (2) that these enthymemes are undesirable, misplaced or erroneous, then YOU SHOULD POINT OUT exactly which items you object to, on this talk page, and what you think is wrong with them. For unless and until you do this, YOU commit precisely the sin you accuse ME of, because in that case you have not provided evidence or proof of what's wrong - you have merely INSINUATED an error without stating what it is. I have no objection to removing enthymemes if (1) they are proved to exist, and if (2) they can be reasonably judged to be inappropriate in the context. But such constructive criticism does require a good argument, not mere "authorative" wafting by someone who has a terribly high opinion of his own judgement. I have been active in wikiland a number of years, and it not infrequently happens that some high falutin' academic wants to take me to task for what I wrote, in order to impose his standards on me... which, as proved by what they say and do themselves, they do not in fact honour themselves! That sort of scurrilous maneouvre does not in fact "improve" the article's utility, neutrality, objectivity or clarity, but only panders to someone's ideosyncrasies. That aside, there exists an intrinsic difficulty with the concept of opportunism, since - as I point out several times, in different contexts, in the article - the selfish exploitation of opportunities with disregard for relevant principles often DEPENDS precisely on utilizing AMBIGUITIES OF INTERPRETATION in the understandings that the people involved have; in particular, understandings about what moral principles are relevant and applicable in the given case, given that there may be little clarity about what those principles are anyhow. User:Jurriaan 4 October 2011 20:33 (UTC)

Hi Jurriaan, as I said some time back, my time is a bit constrained at the moment, so please forgive the delay in the promised materialisation of my replacement for your material. I realise that you are eager to see it, but there is an old Scots saying of much merit: "Half-done work shouldna be shewn tae bairns and fules." Accordingly, I beg you to exercise a bit of patience. Nonetheless, should you happen to be in an obliging mood, I should be grateful if you could give a hint at what it was that kept you at university for ten years. I will not embarrass you by asking the name of the university. And what branch of the workforce did you bless with your talents? This is not a basis for criticism you understand, but if I am to correspond with you as well as contribute to your opus, I prefer to have some perspective on which to base it. Some of your lines of thought strike me as, shall we say... creative? And I should hate to ascribe them inappropriately or abrasively. But please feel welcome to reserve your responses if you understandably should happen to feel a self-protective need to keep such details private. Cheers for now, JonRichfield (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Jon, the sole purpose of the talk page according to wikipedia protocol is to discuss how the article is to be improved, and NOT to enter into disputes or discussions about someone's reputation. I am happy to supply relevant details about myself, but not in wikipedia; my user page provides an email address which you can use for queries, out of wikipedia. You are, of course, free to correspond with me about an article outside of wikipedia. Your concern about creativity is certainly legitimate; in principle, the finished wikipedia articles must be strictly based on only reliable documentation of what somebody has already said. Any wikipedia article is admittedly a creative act, a creative synthesis, but only within certain limits which are defined in the guidelines. However, I realize there is a problem with creativity in this article, insofar as comprehensive, in-depth treatment of the various forms of opportunism I have described in the article is very scarce in the scholarly literature, EVEN ALTHOUGH the term opportunism itself is bandied about in the various fields and contexts which I have mentioned in the article; I have written from what I know, but not necessarily referenced all of it. That is, I have piloted something which is not yet finished in terms of wikipedia standards. I suppose the reason for the lack of a definitive treatment of opportunism is, because human opportunism inescapably refers to disregard for some relevant principle WITHOUT people necessarily agreeing about what that principle is, or about its applicability. That is to say, the opportunist actor has one view of the merit of his activity, and others take a different view. I realize very well, that in branches of science such as biology, theoretical physics, or game theory, the moral or normative connotations surrounding the concept of opportunism (which are implied in human opportunism socially) do not apply. Opportunism in biology, for example, is thus simply an objective description of a particular behaviour or behavioural disposition of an organism (which I had already STATED prior to your edit). I already make the point in the article, that a game-theoretical understanding of opportunism does not necessarily make opportunist behaviour right or wrong, good or bad - it is simply an operation which is performed which can be defined in terms of the pursuit of interests thought to be at stake (in reality, of course, the definitions themselves do presuppose some value judgement). But such an "objective" or neutral description is much more difficult to achieve in human affairs, since, as I have taken pains to clarify in the article, the morality of opportunist behaviour is perpetually in dispute. Indeed, human opportunism would not be opportunism at all, if the distinction between right and wrong, good or evil, good or bad, moral or immoral etc. could be precisely and unambiguously defined in every case. Opportunism thrives precisely through ambiguities in human behaviour, in the "implied" understandings that exist about what people's obligations to each other are, including the ambiguities of linguistic communication. Legally speaking, human opportunism as such is not a crime, even although certain criminal actions could be understood or interpreted as "opportunist". If opportunism was strictly a crime - let's say, in a theocracy - then the article would be easily finished, since, in that case, we could simply refer to the legal definitions and the inventorizations of the crime. But to my knowledge such definitions do not exist, and for a very good reason: opportunism refers to a "grey area" in human affairs, to behaviours which are possible, feasible, tolerated or accepted even although many people disapprove of them. Jon, I am not "eager to see your "materialisation of my replacement for your material" - that is your arrogant, fatuous presumption - but I am interested to see your arguments and reasoning for the replacement of my material. If you can contribute to improving the article, that is all to the good; in that case, readers concerned with this topic (including myself) can learn something new. A "new section" page is available for your reconstructions. If you reasonably provide arguments and ideas for possible improvements, we can work together. If however you simply replace this article with another article without further ado, we will have a war. That's all there's to it. User:Jurriaan 4 October 2011 22:41(UTC)

One other thing, Jon: you say haughtily you are "too busy" to state anything substantial in a constructive sense about how to improve the article, but you are not "too busy" to slight the article I've written. How about writing your own articles, instead of acting opportunistically and parasitically in somebody else's article? If you are such a hot-shot, provide your own articles, rather than feed vicariously off other people's ! User:Jurriaan 5 October 2011 20:22(UTC)

Well Jurriaan, I was just beginning to get a twinge of hope on reading the first para in this section, when you added a second para. Pardon me if I forbear to reply to that part.

Availing myself of your invitation to discuss matters before publishing, let me point out that your argument (as opposed to most of the content of the article) is inconsistent. You were decidedly restive at my very first (correct and logical) point, which even is trivial to source if you should happen to desire a source for anything so obvious. I said, and I beg you to re-read it in the spirit in which it was tendered: "There seems to be a move to limit the use of the word to a particular sense, which is unjustified. The sense certainly exists, but it is not the only one and it is not excusable to limit the article to that sense..." and so on.

You went on at some length about how other uses of the word omitted the associated pejorative sense, but your difficulties arose from a totally unnecessary structure of concession. What the article needs is restructuring, very likely containing most of its current text with little or no alteration. The simple facts on which the restructuring is to be based are as follows:

• The article is about a word and its usage, and cannot reasonably be constrained to any single discipline or subset of disciplines in which the word is used in limited senses. It may well deal with those senses in turn and in context, but that is no justification for asserting strictures in its general usage.
• In its broadest, simplest sense opportunism is behaviour or tendencies calculated to make the most of adventitious circumstances. This is not a new word and appears in many dictionaries. Etymologically it is a simple construction and accordingly had been coined and adopted at need, and clearly understood without excessive demands on the perspicacity of the readers. It is used in various senses in various disciplines and in various senses in various contexts within individual disciplines.
• In certain disciplines and certain contexts the word is largely value-free, for example in biology and game theory. In other disciplines it traditionally is value-associated, such as in some aspects of ethics, psychology, sport, and the like. Such values may be either positive or negative. For example, in a game of rugby opportunism in intercepting a pass is occasion for often passionate enthusiasm, without the slightest hint of criticism. Recognition of a business opportunity, in the sense of serving a social need is in no way worse. Seizing a passing buss or cruising taxi may be seen neutrally or as praiseworthy; in fact, failing to strike while the iron is hot or seize time and tide by the forelock may be regarded as foolish, idle, or improvident. Conversely, opportunism in the turncoat sense, or exploitation of those in need, or deprivation of someone's rights, or cheating in sport when the referee is unsighted, is widely regarded in a negative sense.
• Note that of all those possibilities, only the value-free sense is intrinsic to the word; all the others, however useful or comprehensible, are extraneous. This does not mean that they are in any sense inferior or solecisms, but it certainly makes nonsense of any suggestion that they are the basic senses.
• None of this means that the material currently in the article needs wholesale replacement, but there are some points to correct, and a logical structure should be imposed. I should suggest something like a heading paragraph that makes some of the foregoing points, followed by a section for value-free opportunism with subsections for appropriate disciplines, and a section for value-laden senses with subsections according to requirements.

I trust that the foregoing will soothe your suspicions of my ambitions for making inroads into your article. In case they do not, then before replying, in the light of your statements on your perceived responsibilities to your creation, please read: Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

All the best, JonRichfield (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Jon, now we are at last getting a bit more substance from you... but the improvement on your side is only very small. Your claim is, that "opportunism" to many people means just "the pursuit of opportunities". But... regrettably you provide NO proof or evidence for this judgement at all, and thus you provide no rational or scientific grounds for modifying the article.

I do not deny at all that people will use and abuse words in all sorts of ways, irrespective of their conventional meaning, and in this sense I am certainly willing to include something about that in the article, or will support you doing this. The same can be said though of any wiki entry - for every wiki entry a statement could be made, that the word gets used and abused in various alternative ways. I see as my task though not to weasle about what a concept "can" mean, but to specify clearly what it DOES mean.

What you forget is, that we are not simply dealing with a word meaning in wikipedia. Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary, BUT a universal encyclopedia of ideas, concepts, categories, events, conditions, processes, histories and the like. So this article is not simply a dumb display of word meanings, it attempts to describe and explain a concept in an understandable, yet reasonably comprehensive way.

Let's suppose that you are correct, that we are dealing with "just a word". Well allright then, Jon, do me a favour, stop being a lazy critic and get off your butt, go and LOOK UP that word in ten reputable dictionaries. You will find that my interpretation of opportunism closely reflects the normal dictionary definitions of this concept. I suppose I could improve and precise the wording in some respects, and I am happy to do so. But the point is that EVERY definition of opportunism and opportunist behaviour mentions (1) the element of selfishness or self-interestedness and (2) the (cynical) disregard for certain relevant norms, or principles, or intended plans/goals. So the case which you provide is extremely WEAK and tenuous, because human opportunism is NOT normally understood as SIMPLY AND ONLY "pursuing opportunities".

The only real positive suggestion so far is, that we should include the observation that the term is also used in a much LOOSER sense of the "pursuit of opportunities." The problem with your case though is that it is not scientific but emotionalist. In what I wrote I have never denied the positive appreciation of pursuing opportunities. I have only argued, that this is not what "opportunism" in the proper or substantive sense is about. There already exists a wiki article about "opportunity" to which this article refers, plus a cluster of articles around the notion of "opportunity". I do not want to confuse or conflate the concept of "opportunism" with all that. It may be wise, in the end, if we split the article into "opportunism" (biology), "opportunism" (social science) etc. However, I do not want this redivision process to end in a technocratic-bureaucratic destruction of the moral dimension of what opportunism means, as referred to by each dictionary definition.

So to conclude Jon, I am sorry but you still have not done any real justice to the concept of opportunism, and I am really wasting my time, because you just make various easy assertions without stating any evidence, ground or reason for your high falutin' opinions, and you show no evidence of having done ANY research. User:Jurriaan 7 October 2011 23:40(UTC)

Please note J, that I never suggested for one moment that you have been guilty of inconsistency or even variety in your point of view. Unfortunately I don't really have time for this stuff, but occasionally in passing I pause anew to savour your revealed standards of wit, sense and expression. After all, in a world of waste and want, one must gather one's education and entertainment as opportunistically as one may. Love and kisses; thank mother for the ducks. JonRichfield (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Crude bias: opportunism classified to psychology

The wikipedia "authorities" have classified this article on opportunism as a topic in psychology. WRONG! The whole point of the article is that this topic is NOT simply a topic in psychology, but is used in a variety of social and natural sciences as well as in the humanities. User:Jurriaan 5 October 2011 20:27(UTC)

^Anyone else find it funny that this guy represents everything he complains about in the article? By the way I've spent 40 years studying Wikipedia at TOP universities, don't worry.

Spotle99 (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please do not tamper with this article without first discussing your proposed changes on this talk page. If the vandalism keeps up, the page will be locked. User: Jurriaan 25 March 2012 1:23 (UTC)

Theft of the article

This article was stolen by VSD publishing, and published under false authorship for private profit. See, on amazon.com, Jesse Russell & Ronald Cohn, Opportunism. VSD Bookvika Publishing, January 2012.[1] This provides a very good illustration of opportunism.

Good grief! How hard-up can publishers get? Presumably they didn't read it before snatching the opportunity. Serves them right I reckon; I am totally unsympathetic. JonRichfield (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Reduction edits

Nikkimaria has once again tried to cut down very considerably the size of an article I originated, and has split off part of it, to make the article conform better to wikipedia standards. Some parts have now disappeared. If readers want to consult the longer original version, they can consult the version of 22 april 2013 that is stored in the archive annex of this article. Separate new articles have been extracted from this article on political opportunism, economic opportunism, sexual opportunism, intellectual opportunism, legal opportunism and spiritual opportunism. Jurriaan (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Opportunism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130903233632/http://www.utdallas.edu/~mikepeng/pdf/Peng02JM.pdf to http://www.utdallas.edu/~mikepeng/pdf/Peng02JM.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515001750/http://msfraud.org/Articles/abuseopportunism.pdf to http://msfraud.org/Articles/abuseopportunism.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/dec/x01.htm,
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.compete.pl/paper/brylak-text.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Personal relfection

In the Political subsection, the sentence "...most politicians are "opportunists" to some extent at least (they aim to use political opportunities creatively to their advantage, and have to try new initiatives)" sounds more like an opnion rather than a referenced fact. It would be better at least to include a reference to a survey or poll showing a link between opportunism and politicians rather than making a claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aole2539 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Opportunism and Whistleblowing

Whistleblowing is all about exposing opportunistic behavior? Right? 78.0.147.35 (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

With Panama Papers being example of such exposure. 78.0.147.35 (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Opportunism versus opportunity

Opportunity: What makes Opportunism possible when making principles improbable. Opportunity can't be equal, the takers are not. It is not infinite, sometimes it runs out. Grab one while it's hot, live to regret what you got.

Opportunism: Opportunity ill-used with principles abused. First Verbatim Here (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)