Taking Freedom for Granite
Dan Clore
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
The Boston Phoenix
Taking freedom for Granite
Libertarians shake it up! Or, my weekend with the Free State
Project
BY ADAM REILLY
LANCASTER, NH -- Last November, Russell Kanning -- a big,
shambling man prone to furtive whispers and gleeful giggles
-- relocated from California to New Hampshire. He made the
move under the auspices of the Free State Project, an
ambitious plan to pack the Granite State with tens of
thousands of libertarian activists who pledge to make it
their home. Kanning no longer works as an accountant;
instead, he mows lawns in Keene, which lets him get paid
under the table, tax-free.
His real vocation, though, is fighting tyranny. Earlier this
year, Kanning traveled to the Manchester airport and --
carrying only pocket-size copies of the Constitution and the
Declaration of Independence -- tried to board a Southwest
Airlines flight to Philadelphia. There was just one catch:
he refused to take off his shoes, and insisted that he not
be frisked. (He also declined to provide identification.) As
a result, Kanning was promptly arrested and jailed; a few
days later, he pled guilty to a trespassing charge.
Why did he do it? "We're not going to be free if we keep
cowering at the airport," Kanning explained as he stood
outside his tent at PorcFest 2005, the Free State Project's
annual shindig. "When you watch people shuffle through there
with their socks and their bags -- dude! This is freedom?"
In most places, Kanning would be dismissed as an extremist.
But here at PorcFest 2005, he was a celebrity and a hero.
(The porcupine, a friendly little creature you don't want to
mess with, is the project's designated mascot.)
"We need to start a revolution," Kanning told me near the
end of our conversation. "In the last revolution, we had to
get to the point where we said, 'No, no, I'm not paying
taxes. Here's your tea.' The thing I want to do this time
around is see if we can do this without shooting anybody."
A SIMPLE PLAN
If things work out the way they're supposed to, thousands of
libertarians who share Kanning's outlook will be flocking to
New Hampshire in the next few years. The Free State Project
was the brainchild of Jason Sorens, an earnest, baby-faced
Yale PhD who received a hero's welcome in Lancaster.
Sorens's epiphany was simple: move a large number of
libertarians to a small state, where they can go about
remaking the political landscape as they see fit.
Libertarians who sign the project's Statement of Intent --
so far, about 6600 in number -- aren't agreeing to live in
the same community, or to work toward a specific set of
goals. They are, however, agreeing to move to New Hampshire
no more than five years after the total number of signers
reaches 20,000. (New Hampshire got the nod after Free
Staters chose it over several other states in a popular
vote.) Once they've arrived, the theory goes, their
libertarianism will permeate culture and politics -- from
school boards to the state legislature -- leading to the
advent of "liberty in our lifetime." At least, that's the idea.
The Free State Project is still in its early stages, but
it's also off to a bit of a slow start. Four years in, the
20,000-signature mark looks awfully remote. And only
100-some Free Staters have already made the trek to New
Hampshire from points west and south. But their faith in the
project's potential seems both boundless and unshakable.
Last Saturday evening, as a libertarian hard-rock outfit
serenaded the 500 Free Staters gathered at Rogers Campground
and Motel, I asked Amanda Phillips, the project's president,
what she hoped its legacy would be in 20 years. "I would
love to see New Hampshire as a beacon of liberty for the
rest of the country and the rest of the world," replied
Phillips, who is attending Harvard Law School this fall. "A
place for the rest of the country and the rest of the world
to look at and say, 'Look, this is how these libertarian
ideas will work in practice.' And they're going to work
well. And many of them already work well."
It's challenging -- to put it gently -- to imagine a future
in which a bunch of New Hampshire libertarians tutors the
rest of humanity on political fundamentals. For one thing,
the Libertarian Party (LP) has never shown signs of becoming
a national political force in its own right. The LP's
political high point came in 1980, when the Ed Clark/David
Koch presidential ticket garnered about 921,000 votes, or
1.1 percent of the national total. Since then, the party's
presidential nominees have struggled to hit the half-percent
mark; in 2004, Michael Badnarik topped out at just over
397,000 votes, or about a third of a percent. Part of the
problem is that the libertarian umbrella covers widely
disparate elements: there are anti-taxers, gun-rights
advocates, civil libertarians, Ayn Randians (a/k/a
"objectivists"), polyamorists . . . the list goes on and on.
All agree on one thing -- they don't want to be messed with
-- but that may be all they agree on.
To be fair, not all small-L libertarians (or, to use the
preferred Free State phrase, "freedom-loving people")
identify with the Libertarian Party. Rabid tax-haters can
ignore the more unsavory elements of the GOP and vote
Republican; indeed, the ability to capitalize on anti-tax
sentiment is a key part of the current Republican
ascendancy. Conversely, libertarian types who see civil
liberties as paramount, or who want to stave off any
reduction of reproductive rights, can hold their noses and
vote Democratic.
But while the major parties may have claimed the loyalty of
salad-bar libertarians like these, they'll never have the
allegiance of purists like those in the Free State Project.
For these men and women, the imperial arrogance and
puritanical impulses of the Bush administration are
repugnant. But so is the abiding Democratic commitment to
some form of welfare state -- and most state governments,
which keep on taxing and spending and regulating education
and banning smoking, are no better. (New Hampshire is a
welcome exception: there's no income tax and no mandatory
car insurance, and guns can be carried freely and openly.)
In fact, for most Free Staters, politics in today's United
States is utterly debased.
For die-hard libertarians, however, this sorry state of
affairs could be a blessing in disguise. After all, the
worse things get, the more likely people are to realize that
libertarians have the answer. And the past few weeks --
which saw the US House and Senate reaffirm the Patriot Act,
and the US Supreme Court deal blows to medical marijuana and
private-property rights -- have given Free Staters plenty of
new ammunition with which to make their case. "I think the
real problem we have is, it's the frog in the boiling
water," said Seth Cohn, an affable techie who left Oregon
with his wife in 2004 and now lives in New Hampshire. "Until
the water gets hot enough, nobody jumps out. And if it turns
up slowly enough, nobody ever jumps out. The water's gotten
pretty hot -- and there are some of us that will want to go
ahead and say, 'No more'"
Badnarik -- the ex-presidential candidate, and a registered
Free Stater -- takes this argument even further. "I think
the Libertarian Party will be the primary political party,"
he told the Phoenix in Lancaster. "I think the existing
government has stepped on its own feet publicly, and
disturbed the American public so dramatically, that the cat
is out of the bag."
Clad in an Air Force One–logo polo shirt, and looking like a
cross between Mike Dukakis and David Copperfield, Badnarik
promised to do his part for the coming libertarian
renaissance in 2006, when he'll wage a soon-to-be-announced
campaign that will "open the floodgates" and "shatter the
rumor that Libertarians can't win." This will keep him in
Texas for a few years -- but as a committed Free Stater, he
considers New Hampshire his home-to-be. "I'm not very happy
about snow, and I love Texas," Badnarik says. "But I love
liberty more. And if moving to New Hampshire is going to
help me create an environment where I can make my decisions,
and government works for me, then I consider that a very
small sacrifice to make."
FREEDOM ISN'T PRETTY
It's impossible, after hanging around PorcFest for a couple
of days, not to feel genuine admiration for the men and
women involved with the Free State Project. In today's
United States, it's cause for celebration when half the
electorate simply turns out to vote. Contrast that with the
commitment shown by the Free Staters, who are literally
abandoning their old lives to build new ones based on
political principles they hold dear. Furthermore, while the
frequent anti-tax griping in Lancaster probably wouldn't
endear the project to most liberals, the ever-widening scope
of the Bush administration's "War on Terror" has made
libertarians' darker dystopian visions seem less far-fetched
than they used to be.
Still, it's hard to imagine the Free State Project inspiring
a true mass movement -- and though it may sound odd, the
problem is largely aesthetic. At the risk of painting in
too-broad strokes, and with apologies where appropriate, the
Free Staters are, on the whole, a somewhat dorky bunch. They
tend to look like people you'd see at a Star Wars or
Dungeons and Dragons or Mensa or Linux convention; the big
difference is, they're packing heat. (Hip-holstered handguns
were one of the hottest accessories at PorcFest.) Maybe this
is inevitable: libertarians are still a marginal subculture,
and marginal subcultures tend to attract individuals who,
for whatever reason, are uncomfortable in the mainstream.
But if the Free State Project wants to become the national
focus for current and potential libertarians, a more
polished public image wouldn't hurt.
Then again, the Free Staters seem to appreciate this
challenge. Another discussion at PorcFest centered on
whether to sign with an advertising agency -- one run by a
Free Stater who'd offered his services at reduced cost -- in
order to develop a more sophisticated marketing campaign.
This would risk compromising the project's DIY ethos, but it
could also be a boon for recruitment. The stewardship of
Phillips -- a smart and photogenic woman with a knack for
framing libertarianism in feminist terms -- could help as well.
Time will tell. The sober outsider's assessment is that the
Free State Project will, at best, peter out a few years from
now and join the long list of failed American political and
social experiments. But as long as the Free Staters press
on, there's an outside chance that something truly
revolutionary is happening an hour north of Boston.
Adam Reilly can be reached at
mailto:are...@phx.com
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in
any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in
itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or
tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never
entered into any war, or act of hostility against any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no
pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce
an interruption of the harmony existing between the two
countries.
-- The Treaty of Tripoli, entered into by the USA under
George Washington
G*rd*n
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> The Boston Phoenix
> Taking freedom for Granite
> Libertarians shake it up! Or, my weekend with the Free State
> Project
> BY ADAM REILLY
> a true mass movement -- and though it may sound odd, the
> problem is largely aesthetic. At the risk of painting in
> too-broad strokes, and with apologies where appropriate, the
> Free Staters are, on the whole, a somewhat dorky bunch. They
> tend to look like people you'd see at a Star Wars or
> Dungeons and Dragons or Mensa or Linux convention; the big
> difference is, they're packing heat. (Hip-holstered handguns
> were one of the hottest accessories at PorcFest.) Maybe this
> is inevitable: libertarians are still a marginal subculture,
> and marginal subcultures tend to attract individuals who,
> for whatever reason, are uncomfortable in the mainstream.
> But if the Free State Project wants to become the national
> focus for current and potential libertarians, a more
> polished public image wouldn't hurt.
A more general statement of the problem is that libertarians
appeal to people through reason, but most people aren't
rational. Hence the "aesthetics" problem -- superficial
appearance counts for more with the public than behavior,
character or intention.
zztop8970
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dd2fsj$4oe$1...@reader2.panix.com...
Here we go agian. Do you have any statistics to back up your elitist claim
that most people aren't rational?
Dr. Zarkov
You hit the nail right on the head--as even a cursory review of the
"arguments" on Usenet will illustrate.
Mr. Bobo
be taken seriously, you have to go by personal experience.
In my personal experience (and probably yours as well) people vote for
Democrats or Republicans mainly because their parents were Democrats or
Republicans (partisanship is like religion) and because they think the
candidate they're voting for will funnel more money into their pet programs
than his Demoblican opponent. What's needed is to get people to think about
the hidden costs of pork barrel programs, zoning, occupational licensing,
and so on.
Alex Russell
The is no outcry in the USA regarding corporte welfare.
There is no outcry in the USA regarding the administration lying about
various reasons for invading Iraq.
There is no outcry about a political hack outing an active CIA agent for
base political purposes.
There is no outcry regarding the Patriot act.
Alex Russell
Jim E
"Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
news:42F47A62...@columbia-center.org...
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> The Boston Phoenix
> Taking freedom for Granite
> Libertarians shake it up! Or, my weekend with the Free State Project
Losertarians typically have a <1% effect on anything, including elections.
And what does this crap have to do with
igneous rock formations?
Jim E
Jim E
G*rd*n
> In newsgroups, people who cite their sources get ignored. If you want to
> be taken seriously, you have to go by personal experience.
> In my personal experience (and probably yours as well) people vote for
> Democrats or Republicans mainly because their parents were Democrats or
> Republicans (partisanship is like religion) and because they think the
> candidate they're voting for will funnel more money into their pet programs
> than his Demoblican opponent. What's needed is to get people to think about
> the hidden costs of pork barrel programs, zoning, occupational licensing,
> and so on.
It's not just elections and Usenet (although it certainly was
tempting to respond to Mr. ZZ's request for statistics with
the results of the last national election). I was recently
reading the story of a potato chip manufacturer whose chips
sold very well in some local independent stores, but could
not get major chains to take up his product. Everyone agreed
the product itself was really great, but....
It turned out that what was wrong with his product was
not the product itself, nor the physical package, nor the
distribution, but the appearance of the package. The label
of the old package was stodgy and sober and basically said
there were potato chips in it. The new one had a graffiti-
style typeface and a cat or a monkey wearing a sailor hat
and claimed that there was something wild and crazy about
the chips. Sales of the chips jumped ten- or twentyfold.
It's not hard to extrapolate from that behavior to the
failure of the libertarians in elections. The problem is,
if you're selling potato chips, putting a dumb, glitzy label
on them doesn't affect their quality. But in politics to a
large extent you are what you say. So the libbits are
stuck -- they can't get stupid enough for mainstream
politics.
zztop8970
"Mr. Bobo" <93d...@cua.edu> wrote in message
news:ld6Je.68436$FP2.3057@lakeread03...
> In newsgroups, people who cite their sources get ignored. If you want
to
> be taken seriously, you have to go by personal experience.
Nonsense.
> In my personal experience (and probably yours as well) people vote for
> Democrats or Republicans mainly because their parents were Democrats or
> Republicans (partisanship is like religion)
Not my experience at all.
> and because they think the
> candidate they're voting for will funnel more money into their pet
programs
> than his Demoblican opponent.
Certainly. That's the epitome of rationality. You're making *my* case.
zztop8970
"Alex Russell" <alexande...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:bW6Je.161465$HI.157629@edtnps84...
Yes, so?
>
> The is no outcry in the USA regarding corporte welfare.
First of all, that's wrong, as a cursory examination of posts in this ng
will show. But even if it were true, so what? how does that show people are
not rational?
> There is no outcry in the USA regarding the administration lying about
> various reasons for invading Iraq.
Again, false, as a cursory examination of posts in this ng or reading of
editorials in the left of center press will show. But even if it were true,
so what? how does that show people are not rational?
> There is no outcry about a political hack outing an active CIA agent for
> base political purposes.
> There is no outcry regarding the Patriot act.
>
Third time, both of those claims are false, but even if they were true so
what? how does that show people are not rational?
It appears that your definition of "rationality" is "thinking like me". talk
about a pathetic elitist.
> Alex Russell
Curly Surmudgeon
It doesn't help that some of our candidates are geeks or weirdo's either.
In local elections we've had some truly bizarre candidates running that
advocated extremist planks. That does not encourage a positive attitude
to our core issues.
Michael Badnarak was a good candiate but I think that Harry Browne was a
disaster for the party. Each of us has to get more involved with
candidate selection and financing. For the first time in many years I
felt good about contributing to a candidate. Although Badnarik didn't get
a lot of votes I feel that his message was sound and actually changed
perceptions of some voters.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
zztop8970
> "Mr. Bobo" <93d...@cua.edu>:
> > In newsgroups, people who cite their sources get ignored. If you
want to
> > be taken seriously, you have to go by personal experience.
> > In my personal experience (and probably yours as well) people vote
for
> > Democrats or Republicans mainly because their parents were Democrats or
> > Republicans (partisanship is like religion) and because they think the
> > candidate they're voting for will funnel more money into their pet
programs
> > than his Demoblican opponent. What's needed is to get people to think
about
> > the hidden costs of pork barrel programs, zoning, occupational
licensing,
> > and so on.
>
>
> It's not just elections and Usenet (although it certainly was
> tempting to respond to Mr. ZZ's request for statistics with
> the results of the last national election).
And what do those result tell you about the rationality of voters? It
appears that you define "rational" as "thinking like me" - typical elitist
nonsense.
> I was recently
> reading the story of a potato chip manufacturer whose chips
> sold very well in some local independent stores, but could
> not get major chains to take up his product. Everyone agreed
> the product itself was really great, but....
>
> It turned out that what was wrong with his product was
> not the product itself, nor the physical package, nor the
> distribution, but the appearance of the package. The label
> of the old package was stodgy and sober and basically said
> there were potato chips in it. The new one had a graffiti-
> style typeface and a cat or a monkey wearing a sailor hat
> and claimed that there was something wild and crazy about
> the chips. Sales of the chips jumped ten- or twentyfold.
And this proves people are irrational?
How about this alternative explanation:
Potato chips are a commodity. There is next to no difference between brand X
and brand Y. One way to improve sales of commodity products is to stand
out - using, among other things, eye-catching typeface or memorable logos,
so the manufacturer and the supermarket owners' decisons were clearly
rational. As for the buyers - if people were to actually waste their time
carefully inspecting the label of every commodity they purchase every time
tehy reached for one off the shelf, making a typical supermarket visit take
upwards of 3 hours - THEN THAT would be proof of irrationality. The rational
buyer is showing that his time is more preciosu than that.
>
> It's not hard to extrapolate from that behavior to the
> failure of the libertarians in elections.
Not with your ideological blinkers on, no. Using rational thinking, it is
exteremely hard to extrapolate from the buying patterns of commodity
products which are by definition, low-involvement, small impact impulse
purchases, to behaviour patterns regarding high-involvement, highly
differentiated decisions.
Curly Surmudgeon
Well, there are people speaking against those crimes but we have to
understand that the news media is not well served by pointing it out to
citizens. Corporate masters do not want real events honestly portrayed
for it threatens their rule.
Until journalism grows a spine and begins doing their job even those of us
who speak out are unlikely to be heard.
> Alex Russell
Dr. Zarkov
> "G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote ...
>>"Mr. Bobo" <93d...@cua.edu>:
>>
>>> In newsgroups, people who cite their sources get ignored. ...
>>>Democrats or Republicans mainly because their parents were Democrats or
>>>Republicans (partisanship is like religion) and because they think the
>>>candidate they're voting for will funnel more money into their pet
> > programs
>
>>>than his Demoblican opponent. What's needed is to get people to think
> > about
>>>the hidden costs of pork barrel programs, zoning, occupational
> > licensing, and so on.
>>
>>
>>It's not just elections and Usenet (although it certainly was
>>tempting to respond to Mr. ZZ's request for statistics with
>>the results of the last national election).
>
>
> And what do those result tell you about the rationality of voters? It
> appears that you define "rational" as "thinking like me" - typical elitist
> nonsense.
It is not elitist to recognize that people in general don't think very
clearly.
You're quibbling over the definition of "rational." Just look at the
"arguments" in most posts or that you typically hear anywhere. They are
usually personal attacks, anecdotes, hasty generalizations, non
sequiturs, and just about every other fallacy in reasoning. People
don't take the time, or are unable, to research and analyze the
background of an issue.
According to a national poll, "Half of all Americans believe everything
in the bible is literally true."--Newark Star Ledger 11/16/00.
Morpheus Stormcrow
"Curly Surmudgeon" <cu...@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote in message
news:11fa726...@corp.supernews.com...
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 18:01:43 +0000, Alex Russell wrote:
> Until journalism grows a spine and begins doing their job even those of us
> who speak out are unlikely to be heard.
You mean like showing the good soldiers have accomplished in Iraq instead of
just the death count?
Morpheus Stormcrow
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Hey there, chief, I wouldn't take a rock over freedom.
G-R-A-N-T-E-D
Dropped out of school too early, Danny boy?
Morpheus Stormcrow
"Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> wrote in message
news:0J-dnbS7RNQ...@rcn.net...
> zztop8970 wrote:
>> "G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote ...
>>>"Mr. Bobo" <93d...@cua.edu>:
>>>
>>>> In newsgroups, people who cite their sources get ignored. ...
>>>>Democrats or Republicans mainly because their parents were Democrats or
>> > programs
>>
>>>>than his Demoblican opponent. What's needed is to get people to think
>> > about
>>>>the hidden costs of pork barrel programs, zoning, occupational
>> > licensing, and so on.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's not just elections and Usenet (although it certainly was
>>>tempting to respond to Mr. ZZ's request for statistics with
>>>the results of the last national election).
>>
>>
>> And what do those result tell you about the rationality of voters? It
>> appears that you define "rational" as "thinking like me" - typical
>> elitist
>> nonsense.
>
>
> It is not elitist to recognize that people in general don't think very
> clearly.
>
> You're quibbling over the definition of "rational." Just look at the
> "arguments" in most posts or that you typically hear anywhere. They are
> usually personal attacks, anecdotes, hasty generalizations, non sequiturs,
> and just about every other fallacy in reasoning. People don't take the
> time, or are unable, to research and analyze the background of an issue.
> and because they think the
>>>>candidate they're voting for will funnel
>
> According to a national poll, "Half of all Americans believe everything in
> the bible is literally true."--Newark Star Ledger 11/16/00.
For the sake of argument, let's accept the number 50%. Even so, how is that
irrational for people to believe the Bible as truth? You're forgetting,
people who believe the Bible as all true believe in God and are religious.
They choose to believe that God gave them life, and performed miracles. If
Jesus could rise from the dead, how far-fetched is it that the parting of
the Sea of Reeds actually happened? There is nothing irrational or illogical
about following Christianity. A person has faith or not, and a negative
can't be proven. Can you prove God doesn't exist? If he does, as the
faithful believe, then there certainly is nothing impossible in the Bible. I
think it's more irrational to slander religious people who believe
differently than non-religious people. That's an elitist behavior.
Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest a religious person doesn't act
rationally in everyday, real-world situations. It's fallacious to believe
otherwise.
brique
Morpheus Stormcrow <fio...@fdgb.com> wrote in message
news:86aJe.3283$fJ1....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
If he did, he still lasted a few years more than you did.
Okay, it's a crap pun, but it is not as divorced form the story as you may
wish to suggest.
>
brique
Jim E <YD64...@SEA.net> wrote in message
news:3lkf1mF...@individual.net...
Rocks have a higher IQ, greater integrity and better sense of humor than 99%
of political candidates for office.
>
>
> Jim E
>
>
Dr. Zarkov
> "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> wrote...
>>zztop8970 wrote:
>>>"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote ...
>>>>"Mr. Bobo" <93d...@cua.edu>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In newsgroups, people who cite their sources get ignored. ...
>>>>>Democrats or Republicans mainly because their parents were Democrats or
>>>>>Republicans (partisanship is like religion)more money into their pet
>>>>programs
>>>>>than his Demoblican opponent. What's needed is to get people to think
>>>>about
>>>>>the hidden costs of pork barrel programs, zoning, occupational
>>>>licensing, and so on.
>>>>
>>>>It's not just elections and Usenet (although it certainly was
>>>>tempting to respond to Mr. ZZ's request for statistics with
>>>>the results of the last national election).
>>>
>>>
>>>And what do those result tell you about the rationality of voters? It
>>>appears that you define "rational" as "thinking like me" - typical
>>>elitist nonsense.
>>
>>
>>It is not elitist to recognize that people in general don't think very
>>clearly.
>>
>>You're quibbling over the definition of "rational." Just look at the
>>"arguments" in most posts or that you typically hear anywhere. They are
>>usually personal attacks, anecdotes, hasty generalizations, non sequiturs,
>>and just about every other fallacy in reasoning. People don't take the
>>time, or are unable, to research and analyze the background of an issue.
>>
>>the bible is literally true."--Newark Star Ledger 11/16/00.
>
>
> For the sake of argument, let's accept the number 50%. Even so, how is that
> irrational for people to believe the Bible as truth? You're forgetting,
> people who believe the Bible as all true believe in God and are religious.
> They choose to believe that God gave them life, and performed miracles. If
> Jesus could rise from the dead, how far-fetched is it that the parting of
> the Sea of Reeds actually happened? There is nothing irrational or illogical
> about following Christianity. A person has faith or not, and a negative
> can't be proven. Can you prove God doesn't exist? If he does, as the
> faithful believe, then there certainly is nothing impossible in the Bible. I
> think it's more irrational to slander religious people who believe
> differently than non-religious people. That's an elitist behavior.
The point was not the rationality of conventional religion (although it
does not seem very rational to me), but believing "everything in the
Bible is literally true." Aside from miracles, much of the Bible just
doesn't make sense. Do you really think that any rational person could
take the story of Noah's Ark as literally true?
brique
Can you prove God does exist in a rational scientifically provable way? Of
course not, it is an Article of Faith and no more rational than the
obsessive compulsive who has an equally strong Faith that requires certain
actions be taken to ward off misfortune or dire consequence. And who is to
say they are wrong? Sooner or later, people who walk under ladders will get
something dropped on their head.
To the mentally disturbed, even the most crazed behavior is 'rational' by
their lights. The paranoid who continually checks over their shoulder for
people following them is being as rational as one who checks for traffic
before crossing an empty road. Just because you don't see a car doesn't mean
there aren't any out there.
If you sincerely beleive that wishing hard enough will bring Tinkerbelle
back to life, then there is nothing impossible in 'Peter Pan', but that is
not an argument that a reality containing flying boys, fairies and
crocodiles that go 'tick-tock' is 'rational'
>
> Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest a religious person doesn't act
> rationally in everyday, real-world situations. It's fallacious to believe
> otherwise.
Then why are a bunch of sincerely religious types running around bombing
the shit out of non-beleivers? Or would it be 'elitist' to suggest such
behavior is irrational?
>
>
Alex Russell
Yes, a few people have noticed and are against the invasion, but there
is no general outcry even amoung "left" american politicians. I put the
left in quotes as most lefties in the USA seem like right wing
extremists to other parts of the world.
>
>
>>There is no outcry about a political hack outing an active CIA agent for
>>base political purposes.
>>There is no outcry regarding the Patriot act.
>>
>
>
> Third time, both of those claims are false, but even if they were true so
> what? how does that show people are not rational?
Everything I have read points the Bush administration outing Palmer to
discredit her husband who had written a report says that the "yellow
cake" story was false. Base political motive. Now people who are
approuched by usa operative looking for information are going to think
twice before cooperating as they now have to worry about the USA
adminstration outing the person they talk to, thus putting their own
life in danger.
I would be interested in reading what you say shows my understanding of
this affair is wrong.
>
> It appears that your definition of "rationality" is "thinking like me". talk
> about a pathetic elitist.
Oooh, a personol attack, boo hoo, I'm going roll up into a ball and die.
Your pointless personal attack adds so much authority to your writing.
I think it is irrational to support a government that repeatedly lies to
you. I think it is irrational to support a government that is big on
infringing on personal liberty while doing mainly counter productive
things to try to make people safer from terrorists.
The Bush admin talks about making the usa less dependant on foriegn oil.
It wants to do things like drill for oil in Alaska. All the oil they can
get out of alska will not be equal to the extra oil used every day
because the Bush admin decided to let the average gas milage that cars
sold in the usa must get not be improved. The bush admin would rather
help big oil than actually do anything concrete to reduce the depence of
the usa on foriegn oil. Irrational.
Just because you disagree on what is rational doesn't mean you are an
idiot. It likely means you have different vcalues than me. In any case I
will not be stooping to your level and adding personal attacks to my
posts. I'm too "elite" for that.
Clinton was almost impeached over a blow job. A blow job is more
important than invading a foriegn country for reasons that we now know
were lies? The blow job didn't kill over a thousand brave american soldiers.
Any rational person that actually values their freedom should be
speaking out against the excesses of the Patriot act. There were some
odd rules about what information various agencies in the USA could
share, but the Patriot act gives far too much power to various
government agencies. I personally think it is irrational to think
spending money on "no fly lists" when cockpit doors need to be made
stronger and lockable.
>
>
>>Alex Russell
>
>
>
Morpheus Stormcrow
"brique" <briqu...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:112336923...@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net...
That's what I said.
> and no more rational than the
> obsessive compulsive who has an equally strong Faith that requires certain
> actions be taken to ward off misfortune or dire consequence. And who is to
> say they are wrong?
Not me. All superstitutions stem from some form of truth/coincidence.
> Sooner or later, people who walk under ladders will get
> something dropped on their head.
Not necessarily.
> To the mentally disturbed, even the most crazed behavior is 'rational' by
> their lights.
You must argue more than that. Of course there is a crazy person out there
who would consider himself rational, as would a murderer. That's not enough
to claim rationality. Society and logic play a major role in what is deemed
"rational." Would society and logic say a crazy person is rational? No. In
terms of the Bible, if a person believes in God, which is not irrational by
any means, the Bible says it's the inspired word of God, so it's infallible.
The question is, is the interpretation of God's word correct? That is
another subject entirely, but the answer to that question, although within
the same subject, does not answer the topic of discussion now. Is it
rational to literally believe Noah built an ark, or was it meant as a
metaphor as to sin's natural presence in humans? Yes, Christianity is a
faith doctrine, but that doesn't make it irrational by default anymore than
man believing we could one day go to the moon before we had, or knowing
oxygen existed, or before protons, neutrons, and electrons were discovered
even though many scientists believed there was more to an atom. Because God
requires faith to believe in him, that doesn't mean he doesn't exist, and he
very well may show up one day. As I said, a negative can't be proven, so
there's no sense calling a Christian irrational for trusting in the Bible's
word without any proof to the contrary.
>>
>> Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest a religious person doesn't act
>> rationally in everyday, real-world situations. It's fallacious to believe
>> otherwise.
>
> Then why are a bunch of sincerely religious types running around bombing
> the shit out of non-beleivers? Or would it be 'elitist' to suggest such
> behavior is irrational?
The Bible is strictly Christian in nature, the people to which Zarkov and I
were referring to.
Morpheus Stormcrow
Yes it is.
zztop8970
"Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> wrote in message
news:0J-dnbS7RNQ...@rcn.net...
> > "G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote ...
> >>"Mr. Bobo" <93d...@cua.edu>:
> >>
> >>> In newsgroups, people who cite their sources get ignored. ...
> >>>Democrats or Republicans mainly because their parents were Democrats or
> >>>Republicans (partisanship is like religion) and because they think the
> >>>candidate they're voting for will funnel more money into their pet
> > > programs
> >
> >>>than his Demoblican opponent. What's needed is to get people to think
> > > about
> >>>the hidden costs of pork barrel programs, zoning, occupational
> > > licensing, and so on.
> >>
> >>
> >>It's not just elections and Usenet (although it certainly was
> >>tempting to respond to Mr. ZZ's request for statistics with
> >>the results of the last national election).
> >
> >
> > And what do those result tell you about the rationality of voters? It
> > appears that you define "rational" as "thinking like me" - typical
elitist
> > nonsense.
>
>
> It is not elitist to recognize that people in general don't think very
> clearly.
First of all, saying "I think very clearly, while people in general don't"
is elitist. It is practically the definition of elitism.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism].
That aside, not thinking very clearly is quite distinct from irratioanlity.
People have avrying levels of intelligence, but that doesn;t make those on
th elower endof the spectrum irrational.
>
> You're quibbling over the definition of "rational."
No, I'm using the actual definition of "rational", whereas my interlocutors
are defining "rational" as "thinking like I do".
>Just look at the
> "arguments" in most posts or that you typically hear anywhere. They are
> usually personal attacks, anecdotes, hasty generalizations, non
> sequiturs, and just about every other fallacy in reasoning.
Non of which constitutue irrationality..
G*rd*n
"Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com>:
> The point was not the rationality of conventional religion (although it
> does not seem very rational to me), but believing "everything in the
> Bible is literally true." Aside from miracles, much of the Bible just
> doesn't make sense. Do you really think that any rational person could
> take the story of Noah's Ark as literally true?
Most of them haven't read the Bible. It is fairly irrational,
I think, to declare that everything in a book is true, if one
hasn't read it.
zztop8970
Fourth time, this is both false and irrelevant. You are assuming that
"rational" by definition translates into opposition to the war. IOW, just
as I've suggested , you equate "rationality" with "thinking like me".
>I put the
> left in quotes as most lefties in the USA seem like right wing
> extremists to other parts of the world.
>
> >
> >
> >>There is no outcry about a political hack outing an active CIA agent for
> >>base political purposes.
> >>There is no outcry regarding the Patriot act.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Third time, both of those claims are false, but even if they were true
so
> > what? how does that show people are not rational?
>
>
> Everything I have read points the Bush administration outing Palmer to
> discredit her husband who had written a report says that the "yellow
> cake" story was false. Base political motive. Now people who are
> approuched by usa operative looking for information are going to think
> twice before cooperating as they now have to worry about the USA
> adminstration outing the person they talk to, thus putting their own
> life in danger.
>
> I would be interested in reading what you say shows my understanding of
> this affair is wrong.
assume for the sake of argumet that your reading of the affair is 100%
accurate. How does that translate into irrationality? You yourself identify
a valid political motive for the Bush admin's actions - someone wrote an
article damaging to them, so they take actions to limit that damage. The
fact this these actions may, hypothetically harm soem other interest of the
admin does not make the act irrational.
>
> >
> > It appears that your definition of "rationality" is "thinking like me".
talk
> > about a pathetic elitist.
>
> Oooh, a personol attack, boo hoo, I'm going roll up into a ball and die.
> Your pointless personal attack adds so much authority to your writing.
>
> I think it is irrational to support a government that repeatedly lies to
> you. I think it is irrational to support a government that is big on
> infringing on personal liberty while doing mainly counter productive
> things to try to make people safer from terrorists.
>
> The Bush admin talks about making the usa less dependant on foriegn oil.
> It wants to do things like drill for oil in Alaska. All the oil they can
> get out of alska will not be equal to the extra oil used every day
> because the Bush admin decided to let the average gas milage that cars
> sold in the usa must get not be improved. The bush admin would rather
> help big oil than actually do anything concrete to reduce the depence of
> the usa on foriegn oil. Irrational.
>
> Just because you disagree on what is rational doesn't mean you are an
> idiot. It likely means you have different vcalues than me. In any case I
> will not be stooping to your level and adding personal attacks to my
> posts. I'm too "elite" for that.
>
>
> Clinton was almost impeached over a blow job. A blow job is more
> important than invading a foriegn country for reasons that we now know
> were lies? The blow job didn't kill over a thousand brave american
soldiers.
Clinton was impeached over a felony - lying under oath. Didn't you just get
done preaching about how it is irrational to support someone who repeatedly
lies to you?
G*rd*n
> ...
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > I was recently
> > reading the story of a potato chip manufacturer whose chips
> > sold very well in some local independent stores, but could
> > not get major chains to take up his product. Everyone agreed
> > the product itself was really great, but....
> >
> > It turned out that what was wrong with his product was
> > not the product itself, nor the physical package, nor the
> > distribution, but the appearance of the package. The label
> > of the old package was stodgy and sober and basically said
> > there were potato chips in it. The new one had a graffiti-
> > style typeface and a cat or a monkey wearing a sailor hat
> > and claimed that there was something wild and crazy about
> > the chips. Sales of the chips jumped ten- or twentyfold.
"zztop8970" <no...@tospeakof.com>:
> And this proves people are irrational?
> How about this alternative explanation:
> Potato chips are a commodity. There is next to no difference between brand X
> and brand Y. One way to improve sales of commodity products is to stand
> out - using, among other things, eye-catching typeface or memorable logos,
> so the manufacturer and the supermarket owners' decisons were clearly
> rational. As for the buyers - if people were to actually waste their time
> carefully inspecting the label of every commodity they purchase every time
> tehy reached for one off the shelf, making a typical supermarket visit take
> upwards of 3 hours - THEN THAT would be proof of irrationality. The rational
> buyer is showing that his time is more preciosu than that.
If the consumers are mostly unconcerned with the quality of the
potato chips, then the most rational approach would be determine
which were the cheapest, which would have nothing to do with
the decor of packaging. (If they were _completely_ unconcerned
with the quality of the potato chips, of course, they needn't
go to the store at all.)
It is clear that consumers made some kind of connection
between what was printed on the package, and the quality of
the product within, but this was not a rational connection.
Dr. Zarkov
> "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> wrote...
That definition says:
"Elitism is a belief or attitude that an elite - a selected group of
persons whose personal abilities, specialized training or other
attributes place them at the top of any field (see below) - are the
people whose views on a matter are to be taken most seriously, or who
are alone fit to govern. Thus elitism sees an elite as occupying a
special position of authority or privilege in a group, set apart from
the majority of people who do not match up with their abilities or
attributes. Thus this selected elite is treated with favouritism.
Members of an inherited elite are aristocrats."
I am not (and libertarians are not) saying we are an elite who are alone
"fit to govern" or who should be "treated with favoritism." Quite the
contrary.
Saying I think clearly while people in general do not is merely a
statement of fact; it does not fit that definition of elitism, but this
seems to me to be an unimportant semantic quibble. The point is that
the statement is not saying a certain group is entitled to a special
place. It is a fact that people differ widely in most characteristics,
including reasoning ability. It is not inaccurate, immodest, or elitist
to claim to be much different from most people in one respect any more
than it would be for a 7-foot tall person to claim to be taller than
most people.
>>Just look at the
>>"arguments" in most posts or that you typically hear anywhere. They are
>>usually personal attacks, anecdotes, hasty generalizations, non
>>sequiturs, and just about every other fallacy in reasoning.
>
>
> Non of which constitutue irrationality..
Call it thinking very unclearly then; the point is the same.
Dr. Zarkov
I don't think he got the pun until you pointed it out, and maybe still
doesn't.
zztop8970
That would be *a* rational approach, not necassarily "the most rational
approach". equally rational approaches include getting the most convenient
one off the shelf since the price differentail is not likely to be worth
the effort required to scan the prices of all available brands and packages,
and compute the price per unit taking into consideration the different sized
packaging. Another equally rational approach is to get the one you had last
time, since it was good, and one of the best ways of picking the one you had
last time is having packaging that stands out.
> (If they were _completely_ unconcerned
> with the quality of the potato chips, of course, they needn't
> go to the store at all.)
>
> It is clear that consumers made some kind of connection
> between what was printed on the package, and the quality of
> the product within, but this was not a rational connection.
It is far from clear. All that has been established is that flashy packaging
was good enough to get the national brands to provide shelf space for that
brand, with the totaly unsurprisng results that sales increased thereafter,
as compared to sales in local chains- and that's even assuming you are
relating the fact of the case correctly, which in your case requires quite a
leap of faith.
Jim E
Point.
That's why politics is so entertaining.
Jim E
Morpheus Stormcrow
"Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> wrote in message
>
> Aside from miracles, much of the Bible just doesn't make sense.
That's because you don't understand it.
Morpheus Stormcrow
"Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> wrote in message
Ah, look, the little dog is barking. How big do you feel now?
Curly Surmudgeon
What part of my statement do you fail to comprehend? If you can formulate
a coherent question I'll be happy to phrase it in one and two syllable
words just for you.
brique
As was I, the true beleivers bombing abortion clinics.
>
>
brique
"LANCASTER, NH -- Last November, Russell Kanning -- a big,
shambling man prone to furtive whispers and gleeful giggles
-- relocated from California to New Hampshire. He made the
move under the auspices of the Free State Project, an
ambitious plan to pack the Granite State with tens of
thousands of libertarian activists who pledge to make it
their home. Kanning no longer works as an accountant;
instead, he mows lawns in Keene, which lets him get paid
under the table, tax-free."
So, a story about bunch of libertarians trying to build a presence in the
'Granite' State with the purpose, they beleive, of increasing their freedom
does not warrant the use of the term 'Granite' in the headline?
>
>
brique
Dr. Zarkov <Mi...@Mongo.com> wrote in message
From his posted reply....he still doesn't.
>
brique
About twice as big as you, and much better company.
>
>
G*rd*n
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com>:
> > If the consumers are mostly unconcerned with the quality of the
> > potato chips, then the most rational approach would be determine
> > which were the cheapest, which would have nothing to do with
> > the decor of packaging.
>
> That would be *a* rational approach, not necassarily "the most rational
> approach". equally rational approaches include getting the most convenient
> one off the shelf since the price differentail is not likely to be worth
> the effort required to scan the prices of all available brands and packages,
> and compute the price per unit taking into consideration the different sized
> packaging. Another equally rational approach is to get the one you had last
> time, since it was good, and one of the best ways of picking the one you had
> last time is having packaging that stands out.
I don't know how supermarkets are set up where you live, but
here in New York every item for sale has to be clearly marked
not only as to the price per item but the price per unit
measure, for potato chips probably dollars and cents per pound.
It takes about twenty seconds to figure out which potato chips
are the cheapest if quality is not a large consideration.
This follows your proposition, "Potato chips are a commodity.
There is next to no difference between brand X and brand Y."
The rational approach for the person who can spare twenty
seconds to survey the prices in the potato-chip aisle is to
do just that. The rational approach for the person who
cannot spare the twenty seconds is either to not buy potato
chips at all, or to grab the first bag she sees and go
immediately to the checkout line. However, since we were
considering the actual buying of potato chips, I was
assuming that the buyer did have at least a few seconds to
spare in which to buy them.
Anyway, in none of the above cases will the buyer be in the
least concerned with the decor of the packaging. Only the
price per pound will matter.
Now let us move on to the rational buyer for whom quality is
a consideration -- the people for whom there _is_ a difference
between Brand X and Brand Y. This was the sort of case I
mentioned above, but perhaps did not make sufficiently explicit.
We have a potato chip manufacturer who makes high-quality
potato chips, the kind potato-chip connoisseurs prefer.
Apparently there are such people, because that is how our
potato-chip manufacturer got as far as the independent
stores.
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com>:
> > ...
> > It is clear that consumers made some kind of connection
> > between what was printed on the package, and the quality of
> > the product within, but this was not a rational connection.
"zztop8970" <no...@tospeakof.com>:
> It is far from clear. All that has been established is that flashy packaging
> was good enough to get the national brands to provide shelf space for that
> brand, with the totaly unsurprisng results that sales increased thereafter,
> as compared to sales in local chains- and that's even assuming you are
> relating the fact of the case correctly, which in your case requires quite a
> leap of faith.
So why did they provide shelf space for the flashy packaging,
if not for the reason I give above? Because here you are
quite right. The national chains' buyers -- in this context
"buyer" means the person who buys for the store, and the end
user is the "customer" or "consumer" -- the buyers said that
they could not move the chips because the label was too stodgy.
And why was that? Clearly, as I said, "consumers made some
kind of connection between what was printed on the package,
and the quality of the product within, but this was not a
rational connection."
As far as my veracity goes, while no one is immune from
making mistakes, I'll point out, once again, that no one, in
the many years I have been posting on the Net, has ever
shown that I knowingly posted a falsity. The story I give
above was written up on a web site concerned with the design
of web sites in order to illustrate the importance of good
design. Perhaps it was a fiction -- I didn't go to the city
where it was supposed to have happened and go through the
records. But it doesn't seem like a fiction to me. If I
have deceived anyone -- which I doubt -- it is only because
I myself was deceived.
jmh...@apex.home.loc
public perception of the people interested in such a project is?
If they can find a suitable location, all congregate there and
and start implementing their political agenda of libertarianism
then the public will be able to judge, over time, just who and what
they are and what this political approach has to offer.
jmh
zztop8970
SO, a full paragraph required for you to conclude with the exact point I
made to you: That buying the cheapst brand is *a* rational approach, and
that grabbing the first bag one sees is *also* a rational approach. What was
the point of writing the above? A simple "yes, you were right, there are
multiple rational approachs" would suffice.
> However, since we were
> considering the actual buying of potato chips, I was
> assuming that the buyer did have at least a few seconds to
> spare in which to buy them.
>
> Anyway, in none of the above cases will the buyer be in the
> least concerned with the decor of the packaging. Only the
> price per pound will matter.
Yes, the fallacy of false dillema. There are other scenarios, in which the
decor does make a difference. e.g. when the buyer's spouse tells him to get
brand X, or when the buyer has previously tried brand X, and want to find it
again.
You have clearly said this, but have clearly not made a convincing case
that consumers made some kind of connection between what was printed on the
package, and the quality of the product within. All you've shown is that
sales increased once the product was on the national chains, a trivial
unsurprising result. The consumers were actiong rationally in both the
pre-national phase, and the post-national phase. Pre-national, since the
quality of chips was good, chip connoisseurs who presumably shop in the
specialty local stores were able to find it and buy it despite having a
stodgy label (IWO - no connection was made between quality and a flashy
label by the buyer who actually cares about chip quality). Post-national, a
much larger population, which presumably has a smaller percentage of chip
connoisseurs now had access to the product, with the trivial result that
sales went up. There is nothing remotely irrational or surprisng about this,
nor the slightest support to the notion that people who bought the new
packaing associated that new packagine with higher quality.
>
> As far as my veracity goes, while no one is immune from
> making mistakes, I'll point out, once again, that no one, in
> the many years I have been posting on the Net, has ever
> shown that I knowingly posted a falsity.
That's only because it is nearly impossible, unless you admit to it, to show
that when you posted something wrong, you knew it to be wrong. We have only
your word to go by, and once your lies/mistakes/misleading representations
are exposed you can always say (as you often do) that you didn't know it
wrong, was misled by the primary source, forgot the details, relying on your
hazy memory etc... So the above is not saying much. You do, in fact, post
many, many things which are wrong, which is the point I was making - you
will note I did not accuse you of intentionally doing so, only that
assuming that the things you posts are accurate representations of fact
requires a leap of faith.
> The story I give
> above was written up on a web site concerned with the design
> of web sites in order to illustrate the importance of good
> design. Perhaps it was a fiction -- I didn't go to the city
> where it was supposed to have happened and go through the
> records. But it doesn't seem like a fiction to me. If I
> have deceived anyone -- which I doubt -- it is only because
> I myself was deceived.
No one is questioning that good design can improve sales. What is being
disputed is your claim is that the improved sales are due to consumers
making an irrational connection between the a packaging and the quality
inside.
>
brique
zztop8970 <no...@tospeakof.com> wrote in message
news:elqJe.880$zr1...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
otherwise of potato chip package design, particularily as one of the
debators seems more interested in finding any grounds, no matter how
trivial, on which to question the honesty of the other rather than the
'rationality' of paotato chip purchasing decisions.
It is common lore within the design field that certain types of design and
choice of colors can 'imbue' a product with 'desirable' qualities which may
sway consumer choice when confronted with products which are otherwise
pretty identical. So, on one level it could be claimed that making a choice
between identical products based on their packaging is not a rational
process, rather it is an irrational response to subconcious prompting of
'qualities' which the consumer prefers.
An example could be this : Potato chips in a plain bag with a prominent
label saying 'Economy Family Size' will attract the spending concious
consumer whilst probably repelling the upwardly aspiring consumer who
prefers the same chips to be in a bag labelled "Mrs Beeton's Traditional
Style Chips" and is happy to pay more for the same product.
Of course, if the purchasing process is designed to bolster consumer
self-image and congratulate the consumer on their good taste or their eye
for a bargain then it doeshave a rational basis, btu that has to do with the
contents of the packaging is a moot point.
Another example would be the craze for pet rocks. Due to clever advertising
and promotion, people actually paid money for items they coudl literally
pick up off the ground. How rational was that?
> >
>
>
zztop8970
<snip>
So, your example actually supports *my* point, becuase as you say , "the
purchasing process...does have a rational basis", eben when the product is
identical but packaged and/or priced iddferntly, and the rationality derives
from the different objectives the consumers have.
>
> Another example would be the craze for pet rocks. Due to clever
advertising
> and promotion, people actually paid money for items they coudl literally
> pick up off the ground. How rational was that?
This is a better example, but fails to prove the claim that most people are
irrational. Pet rocks sold about 1,000,000 units
[http://makower.typepad.com/joel_makower/2004/12/biodegradable_p.html] , so
at best , this example shows that in a country of nearly 300,000,000, about
one third of one percent exhibited irrational behaviour at one point. Not a
very surprisng statistic, and when coupled with the fact the the pet rock
fad faded awya as quickly as it rose, it would tend to support *my* position
yet agian. For if it was true that the majority of people are irrational,
one would expect many more than a million units sold, and that such
behaviour would still be going on strong today.
G*rd*n
"zztop8970" <no...@tospeakof.com>:
>>>> That would be *a* rational approach, not necassarily "the most rational
>>>> approach". equally rational approaches include getting the most convenient
>>>> one off the shelf since the price differentail is not likely to be worth
>>>> the effort required to scan the prices of all available brands and packages,
>>>> and compute the price per unit taking into consideration the different sized
>>>> packaging. Another equally rational approach is to get the one you had last
>>>> time, since it was good, and one of the best ways of picking the one you had
>>>> last time is having packaging that stands out.
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com>:
>>> I don't know how supermarkets are set up where you live, but
>>> here in New York every item for sale has to be clearly marked
>>> not only as to the price per item but the price per unit
>>> measure, for potato chips probably dollars and cents per pound.
>>> It takes about twenty seconds to figure out which potato chips
>>> are the cheapest if quality is not a large consideration.
>>> This follows your proposition, "Potato chips are a commodity.
>>> There is next to no difference between brand X and brand Y."
>>> The rational approach for the person who can spare twenty
>>> seconds to survey the prices in the potato-chip aisle is to
>>> do just that. The rational approach for the person who
>>> cannot spare the twenty seconds is either to not buy potato
>>> chips at all, or to grab the first bag she sees and go
>>> immediately to the checkout line.
"zztop8970" <no...@tospeakof.com>:
>> SO, a full paragraph required for you to conclude with the exact point I
>> made to you: That buying the cheapst brand is *a* rational approach, and
>> that grabbing the first bag one sees is *also* a rational approach. What was
>> the point of writing the above? A simple "yes, you were right, there are
>> multiple rational approachs" would suffice.
I told the story about the potato chips to demonstrate that
a very widely observed phenomenon, that of non-rational choice
in the purchase of goods. Of course, the story does not apply
to rational consumers, for example those who believe that all
potato chips are the same and therefore buy only the cheapest,
or the most ready to hand. There was also a certain amount
of humor in implicitly comparing political candidates to
potato chips, or perhaps I should write _potatoe_ chips since
I am talking about politicians.
Once you rang in with a quibble I could not resist the
temptation to annoy you with a tedious, pedantic explanation
of my previous article, the first paragraph of which, above,
recognizes your point, if you want to call it that, in order
to dismiss it. It was simply a sadistic impulse which I
happened to have a little time to indulge. You seem to like
this sort of thing, but I must warn you I will probably grow
tired of it before your needs are fully satisfied. My
appetite for querelous tedium is limited.
Does that answer your question?
G*rd*n:
>>> However, since we were
>>> considering the actual buying of potato chips, I was
>>> assuming that the buyer did have at least a few seconds to
>>> spare in which to buy them.
>>>
>>> Anyway, in none of the above cases will the buyer be in the
>>> least concerned with the decor of the packaging. Only the
>>> price per pound will matter.
"zztop8970" <no...@tospeakof.com>:
>> Yes, the fallacy of false dillema. There are other scenarios, in which the
>> decor does make a difference. e.g. when the buyer's spouse tells him to get
>> brand X, or when the buyer has previously tried brand X, and want to find it again.
Right. There is always some nit to pick, some quibble to be
advanced. There are probably an infinitude of possible reasons
for people to choose one brand of potato chips over another
-- let us not discount the influence of the Saturnian ant men.
G*rd*n:
>>> Now let us move on to the rational buyer for whom quality is
>>> a consideration -- the people for whom there _is_ a difference
>>> between Brand X and Brand Y. This was the sort of case I
>>> mentioned above, but perhaps did not make sufficiently explicit.
>>> We have a potato chip manufacturer who makes high-quality
>>> potato chips, the kind potato-chip connoisseurs prefer.
>>> Apparently there are such people, because that is how our
>>> potato-chip manufacturer got as far as the independent
>>> stores.
What? Nothing to say? What about the people who buy potato
chips to SHOOT THEM UP???
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com>:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> It is clear that consumers made some kind of connection
>>>>> between what was printed on the package, and the quality of
>>>>> the product within, but this was not a rational connection.
"zztop8970" <no...@tospeakof.com>:
>>>> It is far from clear. All that has been established is that flashy packaging
>>>> was good enough to get the national brands to provide shelf space for that
>>>> brand, with the totaly unsurprisng results that sales increased thereafter,
>>>> as compared to sales in local chains- and that's even assuming you are
>>>> relating the fact of the case correctly, which in your case requires quite a
>>>> leap of faith.
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com>:
>>> So why did they provide shelf space for the flashy packaging,
>>> if not for the reason I give above? Because here you are
>>> quite right. The national chains' buyers -- in this context
>>> "buyer" means the person who buys for the store, and the end
>>> user is the "customer" or "consumer" -- the buyers said that
>>> they could not move the chips because the label was too stodgy.
>>> And why was that? Clearly, as I said, "consumers made some
>>> kind of connection between what was printed on the package,
>>> and the quality of the product within, but this was not a
>>> rational connection."
"zztop8970" <no...@tospeakof.com>:
>> You have clearly said this, but have clearly not made a convincing case
>> that consumers made some kind of connection between what was printed on
> the
>> package, and the quality of the product within. All you've shown is that
>> sales increased once the product was on the national chains, a trivial
>> unsurprising result. The consumers were actiong rationally in both the
>> pre-national phase, and the post-national phase. Pre-national, since the
>> quality of chips was good, chip connoisseurs who presumably shop in the
>> specialty local stores were able to find it and buy it despite having a
>> stodgy label (IWO - no connection was made between quality and a flashy
>> label by the buyer who actually cares about chip quality). Post-national,
> a
>> much larger population, which presumably has a smaller percentage of chip
>> connoisseurs now had access to the product, with the trivial result that
>> sales went up. There is nothing remotely irrational or surprisng about
> this,
>> nor the slightest support to the notion that people who bought the new
>> packaing associated that new packagine with higher quality.
Well, there is the possibility that the post-national
consumers bought the potato chips solely because they liked
to look at the package. In that case, though, they could be
sold empty packages. We should also expect them to preserve
the packages, yet I am pretty sure diligent investigation
would find that the packages were soon thrown away. I don't
know for sure, though. Maybe you could look into it and
report back to the Net.
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com>:
>>> As far as my veracity goes, while no one is immune from
>>> making mistakes, I'll point out, once again, that no one, in
>>> the many years I have been posting on the Net, has ever
>>> shown that I knowingly posted a falsity.
"zztop8970" <no...@tospeakof.com>:
>> That's only because it is nearly impossible, unless you admit to it, to show
>> that when you posted something wrong, you knew it to be wrong. We have only
>> your word to go by, and once your lies/mistakes/misleading representations
>> are exposed you can always say (as you often do) that you didn't know it
>> wrong, was misled by the primary source, forgot the details, relying on your
>> hazy memory etc... So the above is not saying much. You do, in fact, post
>> many, many things which are wrong, which is the point I was making - you
>> will note I did not accuse you of intentionally doing so, only that
>> assuming that the things you posts are accurate representations of fact
>> requires a leap of faith.
Actually, I think my veracity content is pretty high.
You're welcome to show otherwise, though -- why don't you
pore through all my innumerable postings and come up with
batting average? And do it with a few other people so
there will be something to compare it with. That's a
project that should go a long way toward assuaging your
hunger for tedium.
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com>:
>>> The story I give
>>> above was written up on a web site concerned with the design
>>> of web sites in order to illustrate the importance of good
>>> design. Perhaps it was a fiction -- I didn't go to the city
>>> where it was supposed to have happened and go through the
>>> records. But it doesn't seem like a fiction to me. If I
>>> have deceived anyone -- which I doubt -- it is only because
>>> I myself was deceived.
"zztop8970" <no...@tospeakof.com>:
>> No one is questioning that good design can improve sales. What is being
>> disputed is your claim is that the improved sales are due to consumers
>> making an irrational connection between the a packaging and the quality
>> inside.
Well, then, how do you interpret the phenomena? We know the
consumers are not buying rationally according to price or
proximity, because if they were, the packaging wouldn't
matter. What's left? (Besides the Saturnian Ant Men, that
is.) Here's all I can come up with off the top of my head:
-- the consumers think the quality of the contents is
somehow determinable from the decor of the package;
-- the consumers don't care about the contents;
-- the consumers are seeking some kind of total
experience that involves _both_ the packaging
_and_ the contents.
All of these strike me as non-rational approaches to the
purchase of potato chips.
"brique" <briqu...@freeuk.com>:
> I do wonder at the rationality of this discussion regarding the efficacy or
> otherwise of potato chip package design, particularily as one of the
> debators seems more interested in finding any grounds, no matter how
> trivial, on which to question the honesty of the other rather than the
> 'rationality' of paotato chip purchasing decisions.
Mr. ZZ has it in for me. I once asked him why he named
himself for a third-rate rock band. He's probably one of
the band members.
brique:
> It is common lore within the design field that certain types of design and
> choice of colors can 'imbue' a product with 'desirable' qualities which may
> sway consumer choice when confronted with products which are otherwise
> pretty identical. So, on one level it could be claimed that making a choice
> between identical products based on their packaging is not a rational
> process, rather it is an irrational response to subconcious prompting of
> 'qualities' which the consumer prefers.
> An example could be this : Potato chips in a plain bag with a prominent
> label saying 'Economy Family Size' will attract the spending concious
> consumer whilst probably repelling the upwardly aspiring consumer who
> prefers the same chips to be in a bag labelled "Mrs Beeton's Traditional
> Style Chips" and is happy to pay more for the same product.
> Of course, if the purchasing process is designed to bolster consumer
> self-image and congratulate the consumer on their good taste or their eye
> for a bargain then it doeshave a rational basis, btu that has to do with the
> contents of the packaging is a moot point.
Well, it could be part of the total-experience thing I
mentioned. There are theorists of advertising who believe
that the enjoyment of many products, and thus repeated purchase
of them, depends on providing _post-purchase_ support for their
consumption. For instance, the Marlboro Man not only encourages
the prospective smoker to go out and buy a pack of Marlboros,
but even as he's smoking the pack, to enjoy his association
with tough, colorful cowboys in flannel shirts out under the
Big Sky. It seems unlikely that this association could be
enjoyed in the presence of rational analysis, but I could
be wrong about that. Next time I open a can of Campbell's
soup I'll take care to think about its, and therefore my,
association with Andy Warhol, and I'll let you all know what
happens.
Or wait! There's a box of Brillo under the sink....
brique:
> Another example would be the craze for pet rocks. Due to clever advertising
> and promotion, people actually paid money for items they coudl literally
> pick up off the ground. How rational was that?
Pet rocks are rational. In effect, they make fun of the
consumer experience, especially the ecstasy of labeling
which we have just been discussing. But one can understand
the humor only by analyzing the experience rationally. It
is curious that most people are capable of reason yet
decline to use in except as a desperate stratagem _in_
_extremis_. Pet rocks were an exception -- people found it
in themselves to enjoy a _little_ exercise of reason. Who
knows what might come of that? Perhaps the libertarians
should encourage a revival!
Lee Rudolph
...
>brique:
>> Another example would be the craze for pet rocks. Due to clever advertising
>> and promotion, people actually paid money for items they coudl literally
>> pick up off the ground. How rational was that?
>
>
>Pet rocks are rational. In effect, they make fun of the
>consumer experience, especially the ecstasy of labeling
>which we have just been discussing. But one can understand
>the humor only by analyzing the experience rationally. It
>is curious that most people are capable of reason yet
>decline to use in except as a desperate stratagem _in_
>_extremis_. Pet rocks were an exception -- people found it
>in themselves to enjoy a _little_ exercise of reason. Who
>knows what might come of that? Perhaps the libertarians
>should encourage a revival!
By this point in a thread, to have returned the Subject: header
to its original relevance is a major tour de force. Taedituri
te salutant!
Lee Rudolph
Alex Russell
It is rational for the bush admin to "out" Palmer if their only concern
is short-tem political gain. Long term they have damaged the ability of
the CIA to recruit foriegn sources of information thus making the "war
on terrorism" that much more difficult. Seeing as the Bush admin claims
to want to fight terrorism this seems like a poor trade to me.
I would expect most usa citizens to see that it is not in their best
interest to support these sort of selfish actions, but I have not seen
any widespread hue and cry.
Lying about a private act that should only concern Clinton and his wife
is much less important than lying about Iraq's lack of WMD to start a
war that has killed thousands without improving security in the usa at
all. If more people in the usa were better educated about what Bush
claimed, and what were the actual facts and what the Bush admin knew and
when they knew it, they should be outraged.
I find the whole usa obsession with sex bizarre. A nipple causes a
national scandal. A movie of game can have all the brutal violence it
wants, but show simulated sex and it should be banned. Wierd.
>
>
Alex Russell
Curly Surmudgeon
--------------snip----------------
>> I don't know how supermarkets are set up where you live, but
>> here in New York every item for sale has to be clearly marked
>> not only as to the price per item but the price per unit
>> measure, for potato chips probably dollars and cents per pound.
>> It takes about twenty seconds to figure out which potato chips
>> are the cheapest if quality is not a large consideration.
>> This follows your proposition, "Potato chips are a commodity.
>> There is next to no difference between brand X and brand Y."
>> The rational approach for the person who can spare twenty
>> seconds to survey the prices in the potato-chip aisle is to
>> do just that. The rational approach for the person who
>> cannot spare the twenty seconds is either to not buy potato
>> chips at all, or to grab the first bag she sees and go
>> immediately to the checkout line.
>
>
> SO, a full paragraph required for you to conclude with the exact point I
> made to you: That buying the cheapst brand is *a* rational approach, and
> that grabbing the first bag one sees is *also* a rational approach. What was
> the point of writing the above? A simple "yes, you were right, there are
> multiple rational approachs" would suffice.
Why waste everyone's time rephrasing the words of another rather than just
getting to your point? Unless your intent is to piss the poster off it
serves no purpose to paraphrase words we've just read.
Curly Surmudgeon
> Not that I've been following the efforts but who really cares what the
> public perception of the people interested in such a project is?
Undoubtedly the participants at a minimum. Once a group is marginalized,
misrepresented, ridiculied, or otherwise astranged the fundamental message
becomes garbled undermining the entire effort.
Those who define the debate rule. It's extremely important to clearly
present a message. Even when the message is false, perhaps more so as
Karl Rove has demonstrated, it is important to get your message across to
those who you will ultimately have to obtain consent from.
> If they can find a suitable location, all congregate there and
> and start implementing their political agenda of libertarianism
> then the public will be able to judge, over time, just who and what
> they are and what this political approach has to offer.
It's not sufficient to move 10,000 voters. To direct the social
structures requires a concerted effort from non-libertarians as well as
libertarians, cooperation is mandatory for a stable environment. That
means getting the _willing_ cooperation of non-affiliated voters. To
obtain their willing cooperation requires that the message not be
misrepresented by opposition.
Misrepresenting opponents has been taken to an art form by Republicans and
Democrats are now learning the trick too.
G*rd*n
> >> Another example would be the craze for pet rocks. Due to clever advertising
> >> and promotion, people actually paid money for items they coudl literally
> >> pick up off the ground. How rational was that?
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) writes:
> >Pet rocks are rational. In effect, they make fun of the
> >consumer experience, especially the ecstasy of labeling
> >which we have just been discussing. But one can understand
> >the humor only by analyzing the experience rationally. It
> >is curious that most people are capable of reason yet
> >decline to use in except as a desperate stratagem _in_
> >_extremis_. Pet rocks were an exception -- people found it
> >in themselves to enjoy a _little_ exercise of reason. Who
> >knows what might come of that? Perhaps the libertarians
> >should encourage a revival!
lrud...@panix.com (Lee Rudolph):
> By this point in a thread, to have returned the Subject: header
> to its original relevance is a major tour de force. Taedituri
> te salutant!
Yes, brique is to be commended. But he has probably dozed
off by now.
Curly Surmudgeon
Brique: Accomodating the ignorance of the brain-dead is a waste of time
and effort. Plus it ruins a truly humorous situation. Personally I find
it much more entertaining to see them flail and attack by just alluding to
their intellectual inability to grasp the obvious.
Plus they'll never admit their fuckup even after you explain it in words
they can understand.
Your mileage may vary.
brique
Not really, when choosing potato chips, basing the choice on the packaging
is irrational, but when basing your choice on suggested lifestyle
preferences, the packaging is the purchase, not the contents, which may be
'rational' on that basis, but is irrational for choosing a potato chip.
>
> >
> > Another example would be the craze for pet rocks. Due to clever
> advertising
> > and promotion, people actually paid money for items they coudl literally
> > pick up off the ground. How rational was that?
>
> This is a better example, but fails to prove the claim that most people
are
> irrational. Pet rocks sold about 1,000,000 units
> [http://makower.typepad.com/joel_makower/2004/12/biodegradable_p.html] ,
so
> at best , this example shows that in a country of nearly 300,000,000,
about
> one third of one percent exhibited irrational behaviour at one point. Not
a
> very surprisng statistic, and when coupled with the fact the the pet rock
> fad faded awya as quickly as it rose, it would tend to support *my*
position
> yet agian. For if it was true that the majority of people are irrational,
> one would expect many more than a million units sold, and that such
> behaviour would still be going on strong today.
You miss my point, which is that 'irrational' behavior is not always as
apparent as in the case of the pet rock. The purchasers of the pet rock, if
all theyw ere doing was buying a rock, were irrational. but if what they
were purchasing was 'status'... projecting their chosen lifestyle as being
cool or hip, then it was rational. But again, it is the purchase of the
packaging around the product, not the product itself in question.
The same approach produces a similar view of politcal candidates, what is
sold is the packaging, not the actual content and that is what forms the
'purchasing' decision of the voters.
>
Mel Tanbor
> > > > Then why are a bunch of sincerely religious types running around
> bombing
> > > the shit out of non-beleivers? Or would it be 'elitist' to suggest
such
> > > behavior is irrational?
> >
> > The Bible is strictly Christian in nature, the people to which Zarkov
and
> I
> > were referring to.
>
> As was I, the true beleivers bombing abortion clinics.
I would argue (as would 99% of christians) that anybody who murders (and
bombs abortion clinics) is not a Christian or believer (let alone a true
believer, whatever that means) of christianity, no matter what they may say
of themselves. There are some rules one needs to follow to be a Christian,
committing murder is breaking a big one.
brique
>
brique
Mel Tanbor <parc...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:RuuJe.76618$gL1....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
in terrorist acts. Which does not change the fact that the Islamic
fundamentalists truly beleive they understand their religious wriitngs and
traditions better than anyone else, as do the Christian fundamentalists
truly beleive they understand the Bible better than anyone else.
They are the same mentality, just parading behind different banners.>
brique
True, true.... but I was curious to see at which point Morbid Sturmchow
would stop trying to argue and start slinging personal abuse.
The nominations for the 2005 SFB trophy close next month and I do want him
to have a fair shot at it this year otherwise Constant Constance wins yet
again, which would be sooooooooo boring, he uses the same acceptance speech
every year, wears the same shabby tux and never buys a round of drinks for
his fellow nominees.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Mr. Bobo
out than the general public. (Recognizing the ineffectiveness of random
searches, understanding the difference between love of country and love of
the government, looking for hidden effects of regulation and government
programs, etc.) If we do get stupid enough for mainstream politics, we'd
alienate our voter base.
> It's not just elections and Usenet (although it certainly was
> tempting to respond to Mr. ZZ's request for statistics with
> the results of the last national election). I was recently
> reading the story of a potato chip manufacturer whose chips
> sold very well in some local independent stores, but could
> not get major chains to take up his product. Everyone agreed
> the product itself was really great, but....
>
> It turned out that what was wrong with his product was
> not the product itself, nor the physical package, nor the
> distribution, but the appearance of the package. The label
> of the old package was stodgy and sober and basically said
> there were potato chips in it. The new one had a graffiti-
> style typeface and a cat or a monkey wearing a sailor hat
> and claimed that there was something wild and crazy about
> the chips. Sales of the chips jumped ten- or twentyfold.
>
> It's not hard to extrapolate from that behavior to the
> failure of the libertarians in elections. The problem is,
> if you're selling potato chips, putting a dumb, glitzy label
> on them doesn't affect their quality. But in politics to a
> large extent you are what you say. So the libbits are
> stuck -- they can't get stupid enough for mainstream
> politics.
>
Mr. Bobo
intelligent people. Aside from making campaign statements that reflect
logical errors, a candidate can appeal to people who don't have the mental
energy to think things through by choosing good soundbites, choosing better
labels (like the potato chips), and being entertaining. That's part of what
it might take for Libertarians to win on a large scale.
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dd324f$e9l$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> "Mr. Bobo" <93d...@cua.edu>:
> > In newsgroups, people who cite their sources get ignored. If you
want to
> > be taken seriously, you have to go by personal experience.
> > In my personal experience (and probably yours as well) people vote
for
> > Democrats or Republicans mainly because their parents were Democrats or
> > Republicans (partisanship is like religion) and because they think the
> > candidate they're voting for will funnel more money into their pet
programs
> > than his Demoblican opponent. What's needed is to get people to think
about
> > the hidden costs of pork barrel programs, zoning, occupational
licensing,
> > and so on.
>
>
G*rd*n
> As I pointed out in my previous post, being stupid would alienate
> intelligent people. Aside from making campaign statements that reflect
> logical errors, a candidate can appeal to people who don't have the mental
> energy to think things through by choosing good soundbites, choosing better
> labels (like the potato chips), and being entertaining. That's part of what
> it might take for Libertarians to win on a large scale.
... "But in politics to a large extent you are what you say." ...
zztop8970
So you agree they acted rationally, if possibly short sightedly. You are
making *my* point, then. Most people are rational.
>Long term they have damaged the ability of
> the CIA to recruit foriegn sources of information thus making the "war
> on terrorism" that much more difficult. Seeing as the Bush admin claims
> to want to fight terrorism this seems like a poor trade to me.
And you may well be correct (and then again - you may be wrong- either in
your reading of the facts, or in your analysis of them) - but the fact that
you are right and others wrong does not equate to them being irrational.
>
> I would expect most usa citizens to see that it is not in their best
> interest to support these sort of selfish actions, but I have not seen
> any widespread hue and cry.
So, I've already pointed out to you that you are wrong about the breadth of
the outcry (incidently, other poster have hinted that the results of the
last elections might be proof of "irrationality" - but in reality, even if
for the sake of argument we assume thta a vote for Bush was irrational ,
Bush did not win the popular vote, so even by that count there were more
people opposed to Bush than Bush supporters). But agin, *you* may think
that it is not in their interest etc... bu tthey think otherwise - and
thinking differntly from you, and even being wrong because of that does not
equal being irrational.
Lying under oath is lying under oath. If he lies under oath about topic A
(which is relatively inconsequential) , is it not reasonable to expect he
would lie about topic B, when not under oath , if topic B is more importnat?
zztop8970
You are playing a game of semantics. The act being discussed is purchasing
potato chips, and the relationship of that purchase to the packaging. You
have already conceded rational motivations for having the package influence
your choice.
So you assume that the purchasers of pet rocks kept the packaging around to
project their lifestye choice (vs. picking up a rock in their yard and
telling everyone they have a pet rock?) What makes thier act irrational is
that all the desired benefits - projecting a certain lifestyle, "enjoying"
the rock as a "pet- could be achieved with a free rock from their yard,
hence the irratioanlity of paying for it.
> The same approach produces a similar view of politcal candidates, what is
> sold is the packaging, not the actual content and that is what forms the
> 'purchasing' decision of the voters.
Now this is compeltly false. For starters, voting is by secret ballot, so
the "projecting" can be compeletly seperated from the actual vote (i.e, you
can tell all your frinds you voted for candidate in package A, while in
reality voting for candidate in package B). But more importantly, you are
making the same invalid extrapolation that G*rd*n did - from behaviour
associated with low-involvement, low-risk, low-impact decisions such as
buying a low priced commodity item, to decisions which are high-involvement,
high-risk, high imapct and well differentiated. You don't need to go as far
as political choices to see that such extrapolation is invalid. Consider the
act of buying chips vs. the act of buying a house. I seriously doubt that
painting a house with bold colors or advertising it with flashy fonts and
logos will make people buy it.
But since you believe what you wrote, do tell us: what superficial packaging
influenced your decision in the last elections you participated in?
> >
>
>
zztop8970
Your question and apparent dismay is better directed at G*rd*n than at me.
My point was - there are multiple rational appraoches. I made that point in
an earleir post. G*rd*n subsequently rephrased this point in a long winded
paragraph, concluding with the exact same point. But for some reaosn your
panties did not get all twisted about his paraphrasing.
Curly Surmudgeon
In reading backwards I do not see where anyone restated your position.
G*rd*n made his own points while disagreeing with yours. I am not
commenting on either position but a particulary obnoxious internet trait
of restating the words of others in a fashion intended to throw doubt on
their words and twist their statements to your position.
Your arguements might be better received if you spoke only for yourself
and not reinterpet the words of others. We are quite capable of forming
our own conclusions without your narrative.
> But for some reaosn your
> panties did not get all twisted about his paraphrasing.
Now you're trying to tell me what intimate wear covers my senstive parts?
I do not wear panties. If you are that interested in my undergarments then
be advised that I need a steel jockstrap to contain my attributes.
You'd be well advised to speak only for yourself and cease trying to
dictate format and positions of others.
zztop8970
You've told a story about a very widely observed phenomenon - that sales of
brands carried by national chains outpace sales of the smae brnads when they
are carried by local specialty stores - and you alleged that that phenomenon
indicates a non-rational choice in the purchase of goods, but you have
failed to support that claim with a shred of evidence.
> Of course, the story does not apply
> to rational consumers, for example those who believe that all
> potato chips are the same and therefore buy only the cheapest,
> or the most ready to hand. There was also a certain amount
> of humor in implicitly comparing political candidates to
> potato chips, or perhaps I should write _potatoe_ chips since
> I am talking about politicians.
>
> Once you rang in with a quibble I could not resist the
> temptation to annoy you with a tedious, pedantic explanation
> of my previous article, the first paragraph of which, above,
> recognizes your point, if you want to call it that, in order
> to dismiss it.
But it does *not* dismiss it, it restates it, in very similar words. I
claimed there are multiple rational actions, and you agree identifying one
rational action as being price sensitive, and another action being time
sensitive.
> It was simply a sadistic impulse which I
> happened to have a little time to indulge. You seem to like
> this sort of thing, but I must warn you I will probably grow
> tired of it before your needs are fully satisfied. My
> appetite for querelous tedium is limited.
>
> Does that answer your question?
No, it doesnot. I repeat, if we can see one rational behaviour - "look for
the cheapest price, buy it", and another as "grab the first bag", then
clearly there is more than one "rational" action, which is the point I made
to you. You do not dismiss this point, you agree with it.
>
>
> G*rd*n:
> >>> However, since we were
> >>> considering the actual buying of potato chips, I was
> >>> assuming that the buyer did have at least a few seconds to
> >>> spare in which to buy them.
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, in none of the above cases will the buyer be in the
> >>> least concerned with the decor of the packaging. Only the
> >>> price per pound will matter.
>
> "zztop8970" <no...@tospeakof.com>:
> >> Yes, the fallacy of false dillema. There are other scenarios, in which
the
> >> decor does make a difference. e.g. when the buyer's spouse tells him to
get
> >> brand X, or when the buyer has previously tried brand X, and want to
find it again.
>
>
> Right. There is always some nit to pick, some quibble to be
> advanced. There are probably an infinitude of possible reasons
> for people to choose one brand of potato chips over another
> -- let us not discount the influence of the Saturnian ant men.
This is a pretty lame reductio. I'm sure you can do better than that if you
really apply yourself, G.
As it turns out, there is much research to support that the single most
important variable in buying decisions for commodities is brand recognition
. Thus, it is rational for a person to look for a brand he knows - using
among other things, the flashy package, and it is equally rational for
producers to make thier brand noticable and eye catching, using among other
things, flashy packages.
Of course, when one has no argument, a lame rebuttal is to dismiss the
argument as a "nit", or "quibble".
>
>
> G*rd*n:
> >>> Now let us move on to the rational buyer for whom quality is
> >>> a consideration -- the people for whom there _is_ a difference
> >>> between Brand X and Brand Y. This was the sort of case I
> >>> mentioned above, but perhaps did not make sufficiently explicit.
> >>> We have a potato chip manufacturer who makes high-quality
> >>> potato chips, the kind potato-chip connoisseurs prefer.
> >>> Apparently there are such people, because that is how our
> >>> potato-chip manufacturer got as far as the independent
> >>> stores.
>
>
> What? Nothing to say? What about the people who buy potato
> chips to SHOOT THEM UP???
what do you wnat me to say? That you are yet again making *my* point? The
potato-chip connoisseurs are acting ratioanly - they have identified a
brand of chips with superior quality, and are going out of thier way to find
it. Non-connoisseurs are buying what's available in the large chains,
becuase they don't percieve the differnce in quality as something worth
going out of their way for.
Yes, that unlikely possibility exists. The more trivail explantion is that
now that the brand is carried by national chains, more people have access to
it - for connoisseurs who seek it out specifically it is more accessible,
and for non-connoisseurs , it becomes one more option out of many, so some
pick it up, and some return to it identifying it by its flashy package. A
trivial, unsurprisng and entirely rational behaviour all around.
of course *you* do. (or perhaps you don't, and are lying about that as well.
There's no end to the mysteries0
> You're welcome to show otherwise, though -- why don't you
> pore through all my innumerable postings and come up with
> batting average? And do it with a few other people so
> there will be something to compare it with. That's a
> project that should go a long way toward assuaging your
> hunger for tedium.
I'm convinced of it, and you can't be. Interested parties can carry out
thier own research. So all in all, it seems like a pretty pointless
excercise. Perhaps some other day, if you really ask nicely.
>
>
> "G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com>:
> >>> The story I give
> >>> above was written up on a web site concerned with the design
> >>> of web sites in order to illustrate the importance of good
> >>> design. Perhaps it was a fiction -- I didn't go to the city
> >>> where it was supposed to have happened and go through the
> >>> records. But it doesn't seem like a fiction to me. If I
> >>> have deceived anyone -- which I doubt -- it is only because
> >>> I myself was deceived.
>
> "zztop8970" <no...@tospeakof.com>:
> >> No one is questioning that good design can improve sales. What is
being
> >> disputed is your claim is that the improved sales are due to consumers
> >> making an irrational connection between the a packaging and the quality
> >> inside.
>
>
> Well, then, how do you interpret the phenomena?
> We know the
> consumers are not buying rationally according to price or
> proximity, because if they were, the packaging wouldn't
> matter. What's left? (Besides the Saturnian Ant Men, that
I've already interpreted it for you. The increase in sales is trivially
explained by the broader reach of national chains. The national chains have
limited and precious shelf space, and don't cary any and every brand, only
brands that are likely to sell well. Good design improves sales, so once the
quality potato chips were packaged nicely, they rationally decided to carry
them.
And why does good design improve sales? for many reasons, the one most
pertinat to our discussion is that when dealing with commodities such as
chips, a critical factor is brand recognition - and flashy packages aid in
brand recognition. Is relying on brand recognition for purchase decisions
irrational? Of course not - if I tried brand X and liked it, I'm likely to
want to buy it again.
Feel free to either dismiss this argument as a "nit", or tro pretned I
haven;t already explained it twice.
Alternatively, feel free to show something more substantial in support of
your theory that consumers are irratioanly associating flashy packges with
high quality, other than merely your assertion to that effect.
zztop8970
Then you need to read a lot more carefully. In post
<sTfJe.3365$fJ1....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>
I wrote as follows
"[Buying the cheapest package]would be *a* rational approach, not
necassarily "the most rational
approach". equally rational approaches include getting the most convenient
one off the shelf since "
In his response <dd56ik$c6l$1...@reader2.panix.com> G*rd*n wrote
"The rational approach for the person who can spare twenty
seconds to survey the prices in the potato-chip aisle is to
do just that. The rational approach for the person who
cannot spare the twenty seconds is ...to grab the first bag she sees "
I don;t knwo if you just don't read very carefully, or seriosuly can't see
that the above two positions are the same.
> G*rd*n made his own points while disagreeing with yours. I am not
> commenting on either position but a particulary obnoxious internet trait
> of restating the words of others in a fashion intended to throw doubt on
> their words and twist their statements to your position.
In which case, as I wrote earlier, you should be directing your displeasure
at this "particulary obnoxious internet trait of restating the words of
others " at G*rd*n. Go on now, we're all waiting.
>
> Your arguements might be better received if you spoke only for yourself
> and not reinterpet the words of others. We are quite capable of forming
> our own conclusions without your narrative.
>
> > But for some reaosn your
> > panties did not get all twisted about his paraphrasing.
>
> Now you're trying to tell me what intimate wear covers my senstive parts?
> I do not wear panties. If you are that interested in my undergarments then
> be advised that I need a steel jockstrap to contain my attributes.
You should familiarize yourself with modern English idioms.
brique
IF the decision is based on the packaging and the desire to purchase that
packaging, it is a rational decision in that one is choosing between the
'lifestyle' represented by each type of package. But as a basis for making a
purchasing choice regarding the contents, it is irrational as the packaging
bears little, if any, relationship to the relative merits of the contents.
I have never participated in an election, being of the opinion that
regardless of the packaging used, all politicians are generally slime-balls
who hold the interests of the voters slightly below their pet cats interest
in Mongolian throat-singing.
Curly Surmudgeon
His posting was similar to patent law. In his first statement he gives
you credit for "prior art" while in the second his "new invention" is
attached. That wasn't a matter of restating your words as much as
expanding on your beginning. You seem more interested in pursuing an
idiotic metaphore and arguement than the original thread.
>> G*rd*n made his own points while disagreeing with yours. I am not
>> commenting on either position but a particulary obnoxious internet trait
>> of restating the words of others in a fashion intended to throw doubt on
>> their words and twist their statements to your position.
>
> In which case, as I wrote earlier, you should be directing your displeasure
> at this "particulary obnoxious internet trait of restating the words of
> others " at G*rd*n. Go on now, we're all waiting.
>
>>
>> Your arguements might be better received if you spoke only for yourself
>> and not reinterpet the words of others. We are quite capable of forming
>> our own conclusions without your narrative.
>>
>> > But for some reaosn your
>> > panties did not get all twisted about his paraphrasing.
>>
>> Now you're trying to tell me what intimate wear covers my senstive parts?
>> I do not wear panties. If you are that interested in my undergarments then
>> be advised that I need a steel jockstrap to contain my attributes.
>
> You should familiarize yourself with modern English idioms.
Modern English does not justify negative implications or innuendo.
zztop8970
No, that's a fallacy of false dillema, assuming that there is an "either/or"
choice here.- buying either for content, or for 'lifestyle' projections.
Typically, both are in action - one wnats to buy chips because they taste
good/are a conveneint snack or whatever, and ALSO wants his purchases (of
chips, or any other item) to project a certain lifestyle. And you have
already conceded that using the packaing for at least one of these is
rational.
Ok. Think of the most expensive thing you've ever bought and tell us what
superficial packaging
influenced your decision .
>
>
brique
No, I have 'conceded' that buying a particular brand because of the
packaging is only rational if it is the packaging you are purchasing.
Equally, choosing to buy the first brand in view is rational only if the
basis for your choice is a limitation on the time available to make the
choice. Basing your choice on the quality of the contents is rational if you
desire the best tasting chip. But choosing a brand on the basis that it is
the first available one is irrational if your choice is not time-limited, as
is choosing a brand on the basis of its packaging if quality is your goal or
choosing a brand on quality grounds if all you want is the cheapest.
A decision can be either rational or irrational not because of 'what' you
buy, but because of 'why' you buy it.
It was a classic motor-bike, which I purchased and lovingly rebuilt because,
to my eye, it was beautiful.
It was also the most uncomfortable, noisy, expensive and downright dangerous
bike I have ever ridden.
I still loved it.
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
zztop8970
His first statement is "The rational approach for the person who can spare
twenty seconds to survey the prices in the potato-chip aisle is to do just
that. " This is a restatement of ""[Buying the cheapest package] would be
*a* rational approach"
His second statement is "The rational approach for the person who cannot
spare the twenty seconds is ...to grab the first bag she sees ". This is a
restatement of "equally rational approaches include getting the most
convenient one off the shelf" . There is no "new invention".
Even if there were to be a "new invention", e..g, if he were to say in his
second statement "The rational approach for the person who cannot spare the
twenty seconds is to do something else entirely", that would still be a
restatement of my point that there are multiple rational approaches. Since
you are allegedly very
displeased with the particulary obnoxious internet trait of restating the
words of others , I can't wait for your criticism of G*rd*n. Go on now,
we're all waiting.
>
> >> G*rd*n made his own points while disagreeing with yours. I am not
> >> commenting on either position but a particulary obnoxious internet
trait
> >> of restating the words of others in a fashion intended to throw doubt
on
> >> their words and twist their statements to your position.
> >
> > In which case, as I wrote earlier, you should be directing your
displeasure
> > at this "particulary obnoxious internet trait of restating the words of
> > others " at G*rd*n. Go on now, we're all waiting.
> >
> >>
> >> Your arguements might be better received if you spoke only for yourself
> >> and not reinterpet the words of others. We are quite capable of
forming
> >> our own conclusions without your narrative.
> >>
> >> > But for some reaosn your
> >> > panties did not get all twisted about his paraphrasing.
> >>
> >> Now you're trying to tell me what intimate wear covers my senstive
parts?
> >> I do not wear panties. If you are that interested in my undergarments
then
> >> be advised that I need a steel jockstrap to contain my attributes.
> >
> > You should familiarize yourself with modern English idioms.
>
> Modern English does not justify negative implications or innuendo.
"Getting your panties in a twist" is a neutral idiom meaning "get angry".
The negative implication and innuendo exit in your mind alone. Perhaps it is
an indication that you are not quite secure in your masculinity (an
impression further reinforced by your over the top "I need a steel
jockstrap").
zztop8970
No, that's not what you cinceded. You conceded it is rational to buy
according to package if you want to project a certain lifestyle image.
> Equally, choosing to buy the first brand in view is rational only if the
> basis for your choice is a limitation on the time available to make the
> choice. Basing your choice on the quality of the contents is rational if
you
> desire the best tasting chip. But choosing a brand on the basis that it is
> the first available one is irrational if your choice is not time-limited,
as
> is choosing a brand on the basis of its packaging if quality is your goal
or
> choosing a brand on quality grounds if all you want is the cheapest.
> A decision can be either rational or irrational not because of 'what' you
> buy, but because of 'why' you buy it.
a long winded reptition of the same false dillema.
I am looking for an answer to the question "what superficial packaging
influenced your decision" to buy that motorbike, and can't see it. I can see
some rational, non-superficial decision influencers (the desire to own a
classic, aesthetics), but no superficial packaging. Perhaps we need to dig a
little deeper: If a different bike, a modern, comfortable, quiet,
inexpensive or safe bike was also on offer, standing on a flashy display,
with bold font and a monkey logo on the sticker, would those superficial
packages have altered your decision?
brique
Which is what basing your choice on the packaging amounts to, it is choosing
the packaging which, in your opinion, reflects the choices a person like you
wishes to make or be seen to make.
>
> > Equally, choosing to buy the first brand in view is rational only if the
> > basis for your choice is a limitation on the time available to make the
> > choice. Basing your choice on the quality of the contents is rational if
> you
> > desire the best tasting chip. But choosing a brand on the basis that it
is
> > the first available one is irrational if your choice is not
time-limited,
> as
> > is choosing a brand on the basis of its packaging if quality is your
goal
> or
> > choosing a brand on quality grounds if all you want is the cheapest.
> > A decision can be either rational or irrational not because of 'what'
you
> > buy, but because of 'why' you buy it.
>
>
> a long winded reptition of the same false dillema.
In what way is it a false dialema? You present it as an either/or choice of
rational/irrational. I suggest a set of choices which vary in their
rationality according to the motivation for the purchase compared with the
reasoning for the choice of purchase made. It gets more complicated than
that. The rational choice for the time-limited purchaser of grabbing the
first brand of chips to hand becomes an irrational choice if the flavor
grabbed is one not to the purchasers taste.
Then read my response a little more closely : I purchased the bike "because,
to my eye, it was beautiful."
I further explain that in actuality "It was also the most uncomfortable,
noisy, expensive and downright dangerous bike I have ever ridden."
In that sense, the bike itself was the 'superficial packaging' masking the
reality of its contents.
Which, if what I wanted was a safe, or cheap, or quiet or comfortable bike,
would have made my choice irrational. But what I wanted was a bike I
considered to be a beautiful piece of machinery and, it is fair to say, not
one that needed to have a monkey logo on the sticker to attract my
attention..
>
>
>
brique
inept feminity in the one so described, an implication which seems to put
the negative implication and innuendo in your mind also. Perhaps you are not
so secure in your masculinity either, should we be asking what secrets hang
in your closet?
>
Morpheus Stormcrow
>>
>> "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> wrote in message
>> news:r7-dneaB077...@rcn.net...
>> >>
>> >>>"Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
>> >>>news:42F47A62...@columbia-center.org...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>G-R-A-N-T-E-D
>> >>>
>> >>>Dropped out of school too early, Danny boy?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If he did, he still lasted a few years more than you did.
>> >> Okay, it's a crap pun, but it is not as divorced form the story as you
>> >> may
>> >> wish to suggest.
>> >
>> >
>> > doesn't.
>>
>> Ah, look, the little dog is barking. How big do you feel now?
>
> About twice as big as you, and much better company.
Doubt it.
Morpheus Stormcrow
As Mel and I have said, a person may feel himself justified, but it's not up
to the self to judge what he does as rational or religiously correct.
Morpheus Stormcrow
Rove.
Morpheus Stormcrow
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 21:31:40 +0000, Morpheus Stormcrow wrote:
>
>>
>> "Curly Surmudgeon" <cu...@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote in message
>>> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 18:01:43 +0000, Alex Russell wrote:
>>
>>> Until journalism grows a spine and begins doing their job even those of
>>> us
>>> who speak out are unlikely to be heard.
>>
>> You mean like showing the good soldiers have accomplished in Iraq instead
>> of
>> just the death count?
>
> What part of my statement do you fail to comprehend? If you can formulate
> a coherent question I'll be happy to phrase it in one and two syllable
> words just for you.
In other words, your answer is no because that would show the good we're
doing in Iraq. Gotcha.
Morpheus Stormcrow
I love people who think they're better than others, using the same tactics
as those they criticize, but have gained acceptance by aligning themselves
with majority opinion in the group, either intentionally or unintentionally,
like you and Curly. Bask in your glorious hypocrisy, brique, and keep that
award for yourself.
Morpheus Stormcrow
>
> Dr. Zarkov <Mi...@Mongo.com> wrote in message
> news:r7-dneaB077...@rcn.net...
>> >
>> >>"Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
>> >>news:42F47A62...@columbia-center.org...
>> >>
>> >>>News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
>> >>>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>> >>
>> >>Hey there, chief, I wouldn't take a rock over freedom.
>> >>
>> >>G-R-A-N-T-E-D
>> >>
>> >>Dropped out of school too early, Danny boy?
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > If he did, he still lasted a few years more than you did.
>> > Okay, it's a crap pun, but it is not as divorced form the story as you
> may
>> > wish to suggest.
>>
>>
>> doesn't.
>
Fishing season is still open.
brique
I glad you agree that you use those same tactics, actually, given your track
record in trolling this newsgroup, it would be difficult for you to deny it.
Still, how does it feel to have a little of your own shit thrown back at
you?
Now, fuck off back to alt.neo-con and you can be in a majority too!
>
>
brique
>
Dan Clore
> "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> wrote in message
>>According to a national poll, "Half of all Americans believe everything in
>>the bible is literally true."--Newark Star Ledger 11/16/00.
>
> For the sake of argument, let's accept the number 50%. Even so, how is that
> irrational for people to believe the Bible as truth?
To start with, the Book of Genesis begins with two different
creation myths, which use different names for God (one of
them a plural in mixed masculine and feminine form) that
contain many contradictory details. They cannot logically
both be true. To believe that the Bible is literally true,
you have to believe, among other things, that God ("Elohim")
created plants before he created man, *and* that God
("Yahweh") created plants after he created man.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Dan Clore
> I have never participated in an election, being of the opinion that
> regardless of the packaging used, all politicians are generally slime-balls
> who hold the interests of the voters slightly below their pet cats interest
> in Mongolian throat-singing.
I once got a CD of Tibetan monks throat-singing. When I
started it up, my dog went over and lay down with her nose
against the stereo, positioned precisely between the speakers.
Dan Clore
> "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
> news:42F47A62...@columbia-center.org...
>
>
> G-R-A-N-T-E-D
>
> Dropped out of school too early, Danny boy?
Early enough to go to college full-time at sixteen.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Morpheus Stormcrow
> Morpheus Stormcrow wrote:
>> "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> wrote in message
>> news:0J-dnbS7RNQ...@rcn.net...
>
>>>According to a national poll, "Half of all Americans believe everything
>>>in the bible is literally true."--Newark Star Ledger 11/16/00.
>>
>> For the sake of argument, let's accept the number 50%. Even so, how is
>> that irrational for people to believe the Bible as truth?
>
> To start with, the Book of Genesis begins with two different creation
> myths, which use different names for God (one of them a plural in mixed
> masculine and feminine form) that contain many contradictory details. They
> cannot logically both be true. To believe that the Bible is literally
> true, you have to believe, among other things, that God ("Elohim") created
> plants before he created man, *and* that God ("Yahweh") created plants
> after he created man.
If you take it literally.
Morpheus Stormcrow
You growing a brain.
Morpheus Stormcrow
I'm not going anywhere.
Dan Clore
>>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 18:01:43 +0000, Alex Russell wrote:
>>Until journalism grows a spine and begins doing their job even those of us
>>who speak out are unlikely to be heard.
>
> You mean like showing the good soldiers have accomplished in Iraq instead of
> just the death count?
The mass media try very hard to cover any good the US
government might have achieved in Iraq. Problem is, they
can't find much good to report.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
Morpheus Stormcrow
> Morpheus Stormcrow wrote:
>> "Curly Surmudgeon" <cu...@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote in message
>> news:11fa726...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 18:01:43 +0000, Alex Russell wrote:
>
>>>Until journalism grows a spine and begins doing their job even those of
>>>us
>>>who speak out are unlikely to be heard.
>>
>> You mean like showing the good soldiers have accomplished in Iraq instead
>> of just the death count?
>
> The mass media try very hard to cover any good the US government might
> have achieved in Iraq. Problem is, they can't find much good to report.
I haven't seen any "good" stories the last two years. Being from the Bay
Area, that doesn't surprise me...
Dan Clore
Right--as in "literally true".
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Curly Surmudgeon
Brique's second statement _is_ the "new invention."
> Even if there were to be a "new invention", e..g, if he were to say in his
> second statement "The rational approach for the person who cannot spare the
> twenty seconds is to do something else entirely", that would still be a
> restatement of my point that there are multiple rational approaches. Since
> you are allegedly very
> displeased with the particulary obnoxious internet trait of restating the
> words of others , I can't wait for your criticism of G*rd*n. Go on now,
> we're all waiting.
I can't help but wonder at the import you give this irrational metaphore.
>> >> G*rd*n made his own points while disagreeing with yours. I am not
>> >> commenting on either position but a particulary obnoxious internet
> trait
>> >> of restating the words of others in a fashion intended to throw doubt
> on
>> >> their words and twist their statements to your position.
>> >
>> > In which case, as I wrote earlier, you should be directing your
> displeasure
>> > at this "particulary obnoxious internet trait of restating the words of
>> > others " at G*rd*n. Go on now, we're all waiting.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Your arguements might be better received if you spoke only for yourself
>> >> and not reinterpet the words of others. We are quite capable of
> forming
>> >> our own conclusions without your narrative.
>> >>
>> >> > But for some reaosn your
>> >> > panties did not get all twisted about his paraphrasing.
>> >>
>> >> Now you're trying to tell me what intimate wear covers my senstive
> parts?
>> >> I do not wear panties. If you are that interested in my undergarments
> then
>> >> be advised that I need a steel jockstrap to contain my attributes.
>> >
>> > You should familiarize yourself with modern English idioms.
>>
>> Modern English does not justify negative implications or innuendo.
>
> "Getting your panties in a twist" is a neutral idiom meaning "get angry".
Neutral? Do you wear panties?
> The negative implication and innuendo exit in your mind alone. Perhaps
> it is an indication that you are not quite secure in your masculinity
> (an impression further reinforced by your over the top "I need a steel
> jockstrap").
To prove that would require a statistically significant sample, not just
your assertion. Why are you now devolving into sexual allegations?
Curly Surmudgeon
>
> "Curly Surmudgeon" <cu...@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote in message
> news:11fbofj...@corp.supernews.com...
>> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 21:31:40 +0000, Morpheus Stormcrow wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Curly Surmudgeon" <cu...@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote in message
>>> news:11fa726...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 18:01:43 +0000, Alex Russell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Until journalism grows a spine and begins doing their job even those of
>>>> us
>>>> who speak out are unlikely to be heard.
>>>
>>> You mean like showing the good soldiers have accomplished in Iraq instead
>>> of
>>> just the death count?
>>
>> What part of my statement do you fail to comprehend? If you can formulate
>> a coherent question I'll be happy to phrase it in one and two syllable
>> words just for you.
>
> In other words, your answer is no because that would show the good we're
> doing in Iraq. Gotcha.
You've gotten no answer because your distractions are off-topic. You
raised yet another irrelvant straw man. What part of that simple
statement do you fail to comprehend?
--
Dan Clore
So what "good" stories have they failed to cover? Be specific.
Curly Surmudgeon
>
> "Curly Surmudgeon" <cu...@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote in message
> news:11fbofj...@corp.supernews.com...
>> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 21:31:40 +0000, Morpheus Stormcrow wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Curly Surmudgeon" <cu...@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote in message
>>> news:11fa726...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 18:01:43 +0000, Alex Russell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Until journalism grows a spine and begins doing their job even those of
>>>> us
>>>> who speak out are unlikely to be heard.
>>>
>>> You mean like showing the good soldiers have accomplished in Iraq instead
>>> of
>>> just the death count?
>>
>> What part of my statement do you fail to comprehend? If you can formulate
>> a coherent question I'll be happy to phrase it in one and two syllable
>> words just for you.
>
> In other words, your answer is no because that would show the good we're
> doing in Iraq. Gotcha.
You needn't substitute your assumptions for my clear words nor change the
thread. The dialog was this:
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 21:31:40 +0000, Morpheus Stormcrow wrote:
>
> "Curly Surmudgeon" <cu...@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote in message
> news:11fa726...@corp.supernews.com...
>> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 18:01:43 +0000, Alex Russell wrote:
>
>> Until journalism grows a spine and begins doing their job even those of us
>> who speak out are unlikely to be heard.
>
> You mean like showing the good soldiers have accomplished in Iraq instead of
> just the death count?
What part of my statement do you fail to comprehend? If you can formulate
a coherent question I'll be happy to phrase it in one and two syllable
words just for you.
You asked a question, I answered. Now it's your turn to respond. Do try
to stay on topic.
Paul Bramscher
his secular Bible with him -- but has he considered the balance of
individual freedom vs. collective safety?
Or the fact that the so-called "free" market and glorious airline
companies can set these sorts of rules of they want to. You can't go to
a ballgame here without getting searched to see if you're bringing your
own beer (or soda pop). So long as "the market" has no problem with
increased security, then "the market" will get what "the market" wants.
He's just shown himself to be a champion of the "free" market, but
generally out of step with what the great majority of remaining
consumers will put themselves through.
Me? I quit flying 15 years ago and haven't attended a corporate sports
even in about the same amount of time.
As for Republicans and anti-tax rhetoric, the writer of this article
seems to be basing his facts on Reagan speeches of the 80's more so than
realities of the 00's. Republicans love to spend. They just don't like
to tax the rich.
They use "tax" in the more general sense. They tax the middle-class and
poor by decreasing services, use them to fight their wars, raise flat
fees for services, etc.
Dan Clore wrote:
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> The Boston Phoenix
> Taking freedom for Granite
> Libertarians shake it up! Or, my weekend with the Free State Project
> BY ADAM REILLY
>
> LANCASTER, NH -- Last November, Russell Kanning -- a big, shambling man
> prone to furtive whispers and gleeful giggles -- relocated from
> California to New Hampshire. He made the move under the auspices of the
> Free State Project, an ambitious plan to pack the Granite State with
> tens of thousands of libertarian activists who pledge to make it their
> home. Kanning no longer works as an accountant; instead, he mows lawns
> in Keene, which lets him get paid under the table, tax-free.
>
> His real vocation, though, is fighting tyranny. Earlier this year,
> Kanning traveled to the Manchester airport and -- carrying only
> pocket-size copies of the Constitution and the Declaration of
> Independence -- tried to board a Southwest Airlines flight to
> Philadelphia. There was just one catch: he refused to take off his
> shoes, and insisted that he not be frisked. (He also declined to provide
> identification.) As a result, Kanning was promptly arrested and jailed;
> a few days later, he pled guilty to a trespassing charge.
>
> Why did he do it? "We're not going to be free if we keep cowering at the
> airport," Kanning explained as he stood outside his tent at PorcFest
> 2005, the Free State Project's annual shindig. "When you watch people
> shuffle through there with their socks and their bags -- dude! This is
> freedom?"
>
> In most places, Kanning would be dismissed as an extremist. But here at
> PorcFest 2005, he was a celebrity and a hero. (The porcupine, a friendly
> little creature you don't want to mess with, is the project's designated
> mascot.)
>
> "We need to start a revolution," Kanning told me near the end of our
> conversation. "In the last revolution, we had to get to the point where
> we said, 'No, no, I'm not paying taxes. Here's your tea.' The thing I
> want to do this time around is see if we can do this without shooting
> anybody."
>
> A SIMPLE PLAN
>
> If things work out the way they're supposed to, thousands of
> libertarians who share Kanning's outlook will be flocking to New
> Hampshire in the next few years. The Free State Project was the
> brainchild of Jason Sorens, an earnest, baby-faced Yale PhD who received
> a hero's welcome in Lancaster. Sorens's epiphany was simple: move a
> large number of libertarians to a small state, where they can go about
> remaking the political landscape as they see fit. Libertarians who sign
> the project's Statement of Intent -- so far, about 6600 in number --
> aren't agreeing to live in the same community, or to work toward a
> specific set of goals. They are, however, agreeing to move to New
> Hampshire no more than five years after the total number of signers
> reaches 20,000. (New Hampshire got the nod after Free Staters chose it
> over several other states in a popular vote.) Once they've arrived, the
> theory goes, their libertarianism will permeate culture and politics --
> from school boards to the state legislature -- leading to the advent of
> "liberty in our lifetime." At least, that's the idea.
>
> The Free State Project is still in its early stages, but it's also off
> to a bit of a slow start. Four years in, the 20,000-signature mark looks
> awfully remote. And only 100-some Free Staters have already made the
> trek to New Hampshire from points west and south. But their faith in the
> project's potential seems both boundless and unshakable. Last Saturday
> evening, as a libertarian hard-rock outfit serenaded the 500 Free
> Staters gathered at Rogers Campground and Motel, I asked Amanda
> Phillips, the project's president, what she hoped its legacy would be in
> 20 years. "I would love to see New Hampshire as a beacon of liberty for
> the rest of the country and the rest of the world," replied Phillips,
> who is attending Harvard Law School this fall. "A place for the rest of
> the country and the rest of the world to look at and say, 'Look, this is
> how these libertarian ideas will work in practice.' And they're going to
> work well. And many of them already work well."
>
> It's challenging -- to put it gently -- to imagine a future in which a
> bunch of New Hampshire libertarians tutors the rest of humanity on
> political fundamentals. For one thing, the Libertarian Party (LP) has
> never shown signs of becoming a national political force in its own
> right. The LP's political high point came in 1980, when the Ed
> Clark/David Koch presidential ticket garnered about 921,000 votes, or
> 1.1 percent of the national total. Since then, the party's presidential
> nominees have struggled to hit the half-percent mark; in 2004, Michael
> Badnarik topped out at just over 397,000 votes, or about a third of a
> percent. Part of the problem is that the libertarian umbrella covers
> widely disparate elements: there are anti-taxers, gun-rights advocates,
> civil libertarians, Ayn Randians (a/k/a "objectivists"), polyamorists .
> . . the list goes on and on. All agree on one thing -- they don't want
> to be messed with -- but that may be all they agree on.
>
> To be fair, not all small-L libertarians (or, to use the preferred Free
> State phrase, "freedom-loving people") identify with the Libertarian
> Party. Rabid tax-haters can ignore the more unsavory elements of the GOP
> and vote Republican; indeed, the ability to capitalize on anti-tax
> sentiment is a key part of the current Republican ascendancy.
> Conversely, libertarian types who see civil liberties as paramount, or
> who want to stave off any reduction of reproductive rights, can hold
> their noses and vote Democratic.
>
> But while the major parties may have claimed the loyalty of salad-bar
> libertarians like these, they'll never have the allegiance of purists
> like those in the Free State Project. For these men and women, the
> imperial arrogance and puritanical impulses of the Bush administration
> are repugnant. But so is the abiding Democratic commitment to some form
> of welfare state -- and most state governments, which keep on taxing and
> spending and regulating education and banning smoking, are no better.
> (New Hampshire is a welcome exception: there's no income tax and no
> mandatory car insurance, and guns can be carried freely and openly.) In
> fact, for most Free Staters, politics in today's United States is
> utterly debased.
>
> For die-hard libertarians, however, this sorry state of affairs could be
> a blessing in disguise. After all, the worse things get, the more likely
> people are to realize that libertarians have the answer. And the past
> few weeks -- which saw the US House and Senate reaffirm the Patriot Act,
> and the US Supreme Court deal blows to medical marijuana and
> private-property rights -- have given Free Staters plenty of new
> ammunition with which to make their case. "I think the real problem we
> have is, it's the frog in the boiling water," said Seth Cohn, an affable
> techie who left Oregon with his wife in 2004 and now lives in New
> Hampshire. "Until the water gets hot enough, nobody jumps out. And if it
> turns up slowly enough, nobody ever jumps out. The water's gotten pretty
> hot -- and there are some of us that will want to go ahead and say, 'No
> more'"
>
> Badnarik -- the ex-presidential candidate, and a registered Free Stater
> -- takes this argument even further. "I think the Libertarian Party will
> be the primary political party," he told the Phoenix in Lancaster. "I
> think the existing government has stepped on its own feet publicly, and
> disturbed the American public so dramatically, that the cat is out of
> the bag."
>
> Clad in an Air Force One–logo polo shirt, and looking like a cross
> between Mike Dukakis and David Copperfield, Badnarik promised to do his
> part for the coming libertarian renaissance in 2006, when he'll wage a
> soon-to-be-announced campaign that will "open the floodgates" and
> "shatter the rumor that Libertarians can't win." This will keep him in
> Texas for a few years -- but as a committed Free Stater, he considers
> New Hampshire his home-to-be. "I'm not very happy about snow, and I love
> Texas," Badnarik says. "But I love liberty more. And if moving to New
> Hampshire is going to help me create an environment where I can make my
> decisions, and government works for me, then I consider that a very
> small sacrifice to make."
>
> FREEDOM ISN'T PRETTY
>
> It's impossible, after hanging around PorcFest for a couple of days, not
> to feel genuine admiration for the men and women involved with the Free
> State Project. In today's United States, it's cause for celebration when
> half the electorate simply turns out to vote. Contrast that with the
> commitment shown by the Free Staters, who are literally abandoning their
> old lives to build new ones based on political principles they hold
> dear. Furthermore, while the frequent anti-tax griping in Lancaster
> probably wouldn't endear the project to most liberals, the ever-widening
> scope of the Bush administration's "War on Terror" has made
> libertarians' darker dystopian visions seem less far-fetched than they
> used to be.
>
> Still, it's hard to imagine the Free State Project inspiring a true mass
> movement -- and though it may sound odd, the problem is largely
> aesthetic. At the risk of painting in too-broad strokes, and with
> apologies where appropriate, the Free Staters are, on the whole, a
> somewhat dorky bunch. They tend to look like people you'd see at a Star
> Wars or Dungeons and Dragons or Mensa or Linux convention; the big
> difference is, they're packing heat. (Hip-holstered handguns were one of
> the hottest accessories at PorcFest.) Maybe this is inevitable:
> libertarians are still a marginal subculture, and marginal subcultures
> tend to attract individuals who, for whatever reason, are uncomfortable
> in the mainstream. But if the Free State Project wants to become the
> national focus for current and potential libertarians, a more polished
> public image wouldn't hurt.
>
> Then again, the Free Staters seem to appreciate this challenge. Another
> discussion at PorcFest centered on whether to sign with an advertising
> agency -- one run by a Free Stater who'd offered his services at reduced
> cost -- in order to develop a more sophisticated marketing campaign.
> This would risk compromising the project's DIY ethos, but it could also
> be a boon for recruitment. The stewardship of Phillips -- a smart and
> photogenic woman with a knack for framing libertarianism in feminist
> terms -- could help as well.
>
> Time will tell. The sober outsider's assessment is that the Free State
> Project will, at best, peter out a few years from now and join the long
> list of failed American political and social experiments. But as long as
> the Free Staters press on, there's an outside chance that something
> truly revolutionary is happening an hour north of Boston.
>
> Adam Reilly can be reached at
> mailto:are...@phx.com
>
brique
Why, do you need one of my spares?
>
>
brique
> brique wrote:
>
> > I have never participated in an election, being of the opinion that
> > regardless of the packaging used, all politicians are generally
slime-balls
> > who hold the interests of the voters slightly below their pet cats
interest
> > in Mongolian throat-singing.
>
> I once got a CD of Tibetan monks throat-singing. When I
> started it up, my dog went over and lay down with her nose
> against the stereo, positioned precisely between the speakers.
Maybe your hound was a re-incarnated Bhuddist nun? We had a cat who would
lie on top of the piano purring whenever any Beethoven was played. Then
again, she was slut, she purred for Bach and Mozart too :)
>
> --
> Dan Clore
>
> My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
> Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
brique
Then stay here and be in a minority, it's your free choice, just dont expect
any sympathy for your solitude.
>
>
Morpheus Stormcrow
> Morpheus Stormcrow wrote:
>> "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
>> news:3lo6hqF...@individual.net...
>>>Morpheus Stormcrow wrote:
>>>>"Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:0J-dnbS7RNQ...@rcn.net...
>
>>>>>According to a national poll, "Half of all Americans believe everything
>>>>>in the bible is literally true."--Newark Star Ledger 11/16/00.
>>>>
>>>>For the sake of argument, let's accept the number 50%. Even so, how is
>>>>that irrational for people to believe the Bible as truth?
>>>
>>>To start with, the Book of Genesis begins with two different creation
>>>myths, which use different names for God (one of them a plural in mixed
>>>masculine and feminine form) that contain many contradictory details.
>>>They cannot logically both be true. To believe that the Bible is
>>>literally true, you have to believe, among other things, that God
>>>("Elohim") created plants before he created man, *and* that God
>>>("Yahweh") created plants after he created man.
>>
>> If you take it literally.
>
> Right--as in "literally true".
I understand that, I was agreeing.