Underpinnings of Irrationality
Tom Beckner
<eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net> wrote in message
news:b0nI6.1153$Be3.1...@news.shore.net...
> In the next few minutes the subject proceeds to turn your spoon
> from a treasured heirloom to a pitiful, useless, unrecognizable
> shred of twisted metal, leaving you amazed and breathless
snip
> A truly independent thinker, on the contrary, would have
> realized the fallacy. The subject has only demonstrated
> assertion (B), namely the fact that he could bend your spoon.
Ok.
> We could debate whether this ability derives from paranormal
> powers which could be latent in all of us or whether trickery
> was involved. But in no way does it prove statement (A), namely
> the contact with space civilizations.
>
> The human mind, which loves to jump to conclusions, has
> established a transition (B is true, and it was stated in the
> context of A, therefore A must be true) which is completely
> unwarranted.
Neither has the association been precluded. The question remains open.
snip
> Pitfall Five: The Coconut Fallacy
>
> When I told the story of these repeated teasers to one of my
> scientific colleagues, physicist Edwin May, he sighed and said
> he understood my frustration. "It's like my experiences
> researching parapsychology in India," he said with a shrug.
> "People would tell me that if I went to a monastery two hours
> outside Benares, I would find an amazing wise man who could
> materialize an object inside a coconut as I was holding it.
> They did not expect me to actually do it. So I would buy a
> coconut at the local market and like a stubborn American
> scientist I would hire a driver and I would go two hours away
> from Benares, and sure enough, there was a monastery full of
> wise monks and they would direct me to an especially holy man
> who was meditating in his hot little dusty cell. Yes, he said,
> he could materialize a physical object inside my coconut by the
> sheer force of his spirit, but what made me think that I could
> hold the coconut?" In the business of MJ-12, Condor, Falcon,
> and the Aviary, there is no information, no document, no evidence
> that does not come from a source that is either a suspected forger
> or someone closely associated with governmental disinformation.
> In every case the hoaxers are firmly in control of the coconut.
> And we are left holding the bag.
snip
Interesting, as in the parallel of FDR's participation in the attack on
Pearl Harbor. For 59 years fedgov "held the coconut", perpetuating the lie
that the attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise.
As for the year 2000 problems we seem to be in good shape.
A few "bent spoons" in the form of concerns about coal shortages to supply
power plants in the coming year, Fortune 500 companies with inventory and
accounting system problems, a few problems with automated billing systems,
but no public confirmation of major Y2k problems and hence no reason to make
the association.
After correcting an air conditioning problem in a classroom the other day,
while on the way out my boss remarked in passing to the instructor, "... Ok,
you're in pretty good shape."
"Thanks", she answered, "I work out twice a week."
Tom Beckner
NA
Tom Beckner <beck...@erols.com> wrote:
[snippage]
>Interesting, as in the parallel of FDR's participation in the attack on
>Pearl Harbor. For 59 years fedgov "held the coconut", perpetuating the lie
>that the attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise.
Tedious. Mr Beckner, when last you were asked about the Constitution of
the Confederate States of America - an entity which fought the bloodiest
war with the United States of America, an entity whose anthem you claim to
whistle when the Star-Spangled Banner is played - you fell strangely...
silent.
This week you wave the flag o'er the fallen heroes of Pearl Harbor.
DD
Tom Beckner
NA <docd...@clark.net> wrote in message
news:XUII6.3889$DW1.1...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
> In article <9cvi8p$5uo$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> Tom Beckner <beck...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> [snippage]
>
> >Interesting, as in the parallel of FDR's participation in the attack on
> >Pearl Harbor. For 59 years fedgov "held the coconut", perpetuating the
lie
> >that the attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise.
>
> Tedious. Mr Beckner, when last you were asked about the Constitution of
> the Confederate States of America - an entity which fought the bloodiest
> war with the United States of America, an entity whose anthem you claim to
> whistle when the Star-Spangled Banner is played - you fell strangely...
> silent.
What is the question?
> This week you wave the flag o'er the fallen heroes of Pearl Harbor.
It'll be interesting to see the network television presentations in memorial
of the Pearl Harbor attack this coming year during the week of Dec 7.
Replays of the FDR "Day Of Infamy" speech will be seen from a different
perspective as the revelations of fedgov criminal activity gradually become
acknowledged.
This flag you're so proud of has been flown to protect some bad actors:
Lincoln in his relationship with mercantile sponsors and slave owners
including the U.S. military, FDR and Clinton in their support of Communist
sponsors, are three visible examples.
Tom Beckner
NA
Tom Beckner <beck...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>NA <docd...@clark.net> wrote in message
>news:XUII6.3889$DW1.1...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
>> In article <9cvi8p$5uo$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
>> Tom Beckner <beck...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snippage]
>>
>> >Interesting, as in the parallel of FDR's participation in the attack on
>> >Pearl Harbor. For 59 years fedgov "held the coconut", perpetuating the lie
>> >that the attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise.
>>
>> Tedious. Mr Beckner, when last you were asked about the Constitution of
>> the Confederate States of America - an entity which fought the bloodiest
>> war with the United States of America, an entity whose anthem you claim to
>> whistle when the Star-Spangled Banner is played - you fell strangely...
>> silent.
>
>What is the question?
The one you dodged a few weeks back, Mr Beckner... let me see if this new
one works, now:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&th=1a5e2c12f747c47,13&start=0&ic=1
--begin quoted message (with Mr Beckner's quote):
>The Constitution was at issue in South Carolina as The War against the tax
>collectors began and it is still at issue today to anyone that understands a
>contract.
*Which* constitution, Mr Beckner? South Carolina seceded from the United
States of America, along with a few other states, forming the Confederate
States of America. Most folks who have a bit of respect for a document
tend to read that document sufficiently to be familiar with it... for
those who are not familiar the Preamble states:
--begin quoted text:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty
to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America.
--end quoted text
'We the people of the United States... do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.'
Since the Confederacy no longer considered itsself to be a part of the
United States of America, having seceded and changed its name, it stands
to reason that it was not subject to the Constitution for the United
States of America.
So do tell, Mr Beckner... about which one were they so concerned?
--end quoted message
... and nary an answer to be found. Second time, then, Mr Beckner...
about which Constitution was the Confederacy so concerned, given that it
was no longer subject to the Constitution for the United States of
America?
[snippage]
>This flag you're so proud of has been flown to protect some bad actors:
>Lincoln in his relationship with mercantile sponsors and slave owners
>including the U.S. military, FDR and Clinton in their support of Communist
>sponsors, are three visible examples.
... not to mention the thorough whomping that was given to the rebels by
the forces which fought under it... but such things are mentioned most
frequently by sore losers and ungracious winners, some say.
DD
Bradley K. Sherman
<eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net> wrote:
>
>FWIW. YMMV.
Just remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
--bks
D. Scott Secor
Being as the clue-impaired Google and my cursed ISP have seen fit to archive
only the last few posts in this thread, I request a repost of the article
that began the thread.
Much thanks.
D. Scott Secor
I seldom take offense at being mistaken for someone else. But Bradley?
That's okay Esk, I think that BKS and I did agree on something ... once.
Thanks muchly lots! I wanted to forward it to a UFO "believer" with whom I
am familiar.
(Damned Road Runner ... mumble, mumble ... and Google too ... razafratz!)
Tom Beckner
> --begin quoted message (with Mr Beckner's quote):
>
> >The Constitution was at issue in South Carolina as The War against the
tax
> >collectors began and it is still at issue today to anyone that
understands a
> >contract.
>
> *Which* constitution, Mr Beckner?
The U.S. Constitution.
> ... not to mention the thorough whomping that was given to the rebels by
> the forces which fought under it...
And not to mention the civilians that were killed by Union forces, the
slaves that were put to forced labor by the Union Army; the cities, farms
and businesses that were burned to the ground.
Fedgov mercenaries still operate this way today in foreign countries and
here in the U.S.
I forget what the Indians at Wounded Knee were guilty of, but they got The
Lincoln Method For Conflict Resolution just the same.
The Waco massacre started out over a two hundred dollar tax beef.
>... but such things are mentioned most
> frequently by sore losers and ungracious winners, some say.
Is it true that Lincoln had Maryland state legislators arrested to affect
the outcome of Maryland's vote on whether to secede or stay with the Union?
Tax collection can be an expensive proposition.
Tom Beckner
D. Scott Secor
news:OB_I6.1280$Be3.1...@news.shore.net...
> D. Scott Secor <se...@mn.rr.com.no$pam> wrote:
> | Brad? BRAD?
>
> | I seldom take offense at being mistaken for someone else. But Bradley?
> | That's okay Esk, I think that BKS and I did agree on something ... once.
>
> from you, and somewhere in the middle, my brain turned off.
I excuse your brain fart. Everyone's entitled to a few.
In the interim I noticed that my ISP managed to "backfill" the past few
days, weeks, months, decades of posts since last I checked. I suppose that
my griping about their pathetic <24K NGs may have had something to do with
it. I wouldn't have had to pester you had they done it a bit earlier in the
day though. I suspect that Google may be back up to speed as well.
> | Thanks muchly lots! I wanted to forward it to a UFO "believer" with
whom I
> | am familiar.
>
> Well, personally, I'm pretty psyched to use the techniques myself, and to
> get a couple of good hoaxes started :)
Oh goodie. If ever you need an anonymous source for Bigfoot and alien
sightings, give me a holler. Did I tell you that my brother-in-law's wife's
sister's boyfriend's uncle's plumber just identified the first McDonald's
arches on Mars? Yep! Hang a right at the face and travel north until you
reach 19.5 degrees longitude. Better leave out the 19.5 stuff or the
legions of Hoagland-Art Bell fans may actually buy that story!
Have fun, and take care.
NA
Tom Beckner <beck...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>NA <docd...@clark.net> wrote in message
>news:c9UI6.3942$DW1.1...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
>
>> --begin quoted message (with Mr Beckner's quote):
>>
>> >The Constitution was at issue in South Carolina as The War against the tax
>> >collectors began and it is still at issue today to anyone that understands a
>> >contract.
>>
>> *Which* constitution, Mr Beckner?
>
>The U.S. Constitution.
So... since the Confederacy no longer considered itsself to be a part of
the United States of America, having seceded and changed its name, it
stands to reason that it was not subject to the Constitution for the
United States of America.
Is that how an 'issue' is dealt with in that part of the world... just
withdraw from it and bring forward nothing to replace it?
DD
Wade Ramey
docd...@clark.net ( NA) wrote:
> So... since the Confederacy no longer considered itsself to be a part of
> the United States of America, having seceded and changed its name, it
> stands to reason that it was not subject to the Constitution for the
> United States of America.
Lincoln wasn't subject to it either.
Wade
Tom Beckner
> Is that how an 'issue' is dealt with in that part of the world... just
> withdraw from it and bring forward nothing to replace it?
No.
South Carolina was still operating under the Constitution while Lincoln was
sending more troops to re-enforce Fort Sumner in the tax collection effort.
Did Maryland have cause to vote on secession?
Did Lincoln cause the arrest of Maryland legislators in an effort to affect
the state vote in reference to secession?
Tom Beckner
Tom Beckner
<eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net> wrote in message
news:%mXI6.1269$Be3.1...@news.shore.net...
> Yep. I've never been swayed by obvious kooks before. But y2k was
> different. I adopted a "read between the lines" attitude, and a "better
> safe than sorry" philosophy. Additionally, there were some credible
> sources issuing warnings.
>
> I started coming to my senses after 1/1/99, got really pretty sceptical
> after the fiscal year rollover for NY and a couple other states
> (4/1/99?) and stopped doing anything but reading after the final FERC
> report, when even the most rabid of the doomers couldn't find a simgle
> way to refute it.
I don't know what the final FERC report is or when it was written.
Charlotte's Web by Infomagic was a concern for me. It stated that even with
100% remediation there would still be a significant loss of efficiency in
automated systems.
By Dec 31, 1999 it was "no problem found" or Y2k Ready up and down the line.
Jan 1, 2000 began with the crash of the DoD satellite imaging system and
each day since then reports of automated system problems have surfaced.
Corporate and government efficiency has been affected. It didn't affect me
that much, I was glad the lights stayed on. Rising energy prices were just a
distraction but no big deal. My screwed up personal property tax bills were
resolved with a few phone calls, about an hour and a half wasted. Screwed up
health insurance bills took a little longer, as did the screwed up cell
phone accounts which took three months to resolve.
Reports of new and improved systems have been few and far between. The only
Y2k success stories I've seen are the lights stayed on.
I came across a direct digital field controller reading the year 1993 last
week. A/c problems, in progress. No big deal, just an incremental loss of
efficiency.
Here's another one, just a coincidence like the tread coming off a rubber
tire:
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005Abx
Polluted ethanol closes gas stations
2001-05-05 By Carrie Antlfinger Associated Press Writer
MILWAUKEE - Gasoline tainted by a bad batch of the fuel additive ethanol has
been shipped to roughly 50 Milwaukee area service stations, forcing more
than a dozen to close. The problem was discovered on Thursday after Archer
Daniels Midland Co. mixed 100 times the usual amount of a rust inhibitor
into ethanol that was sent to blending terminals in Wisconsin, Illinois and
Iowa.
Thirteen Mobil stations in the Milwaukee area were closed, while 34 affected
Citgo stations and one Speedway-Superamerica station were deciding midday
Friday whether to close, according to Erin Roth, executive director of the
Wisconsin Petroleum Council.
BP Amoco also received a shipment of the bad ethanol, but it was not blended
with any gasoline, Roth said.
The problem comes as supplies of environmentally-friendly reformulated
gasoline are tight across the Midwest and motorists in Wisconsin are paying
an average of $1.80 per gallon.
Gas sold in the Midwest during the summer driving season is treated with
cleaner-burning ethanol, a corn derivative, to meet federal emissions
standards.
Roth was unsure how many gallons of gas were blended with the tarnished
ethanol, a mishap that occured Wednesday night at a facility in Granville,
Wis.
"We caught it early enough so that most of it is still in the tanks out at
the terminal," Roth said.
Archer Daniels Midland, which overtreated 120,000 gallons of ethanol with
the rust inhibitor, said the shipment "will not have a long-term effect on
the gasoline supply in the Midwest."
ADM said the ethanol also was distributed to terminals in Chicago, Rockford,
Ill., and Bettendorf, Iowa, but so far there have not been reports of gas
stations closing in other states.
Roth said the gas could harm fuel filters, but "will not cause serious
damage" to vehicles. Affected cars may not start properly.
Gas storage tanks at affected service stations will have to be cleaned out
and refilled, and Roth estimated that the Milwaukee stations would be
resupplied by Sunday
http://www.oklahoman.com/cgi-bin/show_article?ID=679678&pic=none&TP=getbusin
ess
End quoted material.
Tom Beckner
NA
Brooklyn Bridge defense, Mr Ramey... the matter of Mr Becker's assertion
was not President Lincoln.
DD
NA
Tom Beckner <beck...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>NA <docd...@clark.net> wrote in message
>news:WK1J6.4009$DW1.1...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
>
>> Is that how an 'issue' is dealt with in that part of the world... just
>> withdraw from it and bring forward nothing to replace it?
>
>No.
>
>South Carolina was still operating under the Constitution while Lincoln was
>sending more troops to re-enforce Fort Sumner in the tax collection effort.
This 'tax collection effort', Mr Becker... what was the stance of the
Supreme Court on it?
>
>Did Maryland have cause to vote on secession?
One thing at a time, Mr Becker... first South Carolina, then something
else. Please be so kind as to indicate the Supreme Courts's ruling on
the above-mentioned matter.
DD
Bradley K. Sherman
>100% remediation there would still be a significant loss of efficiency in
>automated systems.
Without extraordinary proof. Heck, without *any* proof.
--bks
Tim May
"Tom Beckner" <beck...@erols.com> wrote:
> Charlotte's Web by Infomagic was a concern for me. It stated that even with
> 100% remediation there would still be a significant loss of efficiency in
> automated systems.
I never took Ivan seriously after reading his "devolution" pieces which
somehow discussed reindeers and a collapse to neolithic levels...all
without a shred of serious reasoning.
The fact that he issued his "conclusions" but was never involved in any
discussions or follow-ups was...illustrative.
> By Dec 31, 1999 it was "no problem found" or Y2k Ready up and down the line.
>
> Jan 1, 2000 began with the crash of the DoD satellite imaging system and
> each day since then reports of automated system problems have surfaced.
> Corporate and government efficiency has been affected.
I would ask for proof, save that I don't think you have the common sense
to balance real evidence with anecdotal evidence.
Though I was worried enough to spend about $5000 on Y2K preps, most of
which was either recoverable or was more than balanced out by a
decreased vacation budget in '98-99, the fact is that remediation was
almost wholly successful.
(This remediation effort had a lot to do with the boom in capital
spending in '99, with lots of new PC systems and upgrades. Part of the
reason for the boom in stock prices in 2000, almost certainly.)
However, efficiency in 2000 and 2001 has been enormous. If Tom Beckner
knows of factories shutting down, production lines failing, he needs to
give _significant_ evidence of this. And he needs to explain why
unemployment is at a 30-year low.
(Note: Offering high employment rates as proof that automated systems
must be failing will _not_ be considered to be proof!)
>
> Reports of new and improved systems have been few and far between. The only
> Y2k success stories I've seen are the lights stayed on.
>
This is so ludicrous as to make everything else Tom says suspect.
Bizarre.
At least Cory was claiming there were "hidden" problems. Tom's claim
that the only success story is that the lights are still on is bizarre
beyond all belief.
--Tim May
--
Timothy C. May tc...@got.net Corralitos, California
Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon
Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go
Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
Wade Ramey
docd...@clark.net ( NA) wrote:
> Brooklyn Bridge defense, Mr Ramey... the matter of Mr Becker's assertion
> was not President Lincoln.
Jumping to conclusions, DD? This is Usenet. I wasn't defending
anything/anybody. Just making an observation.
Wade
NA
Wade Ramey <wrame...@home.remove13.com> wrote:
>In article <ILbJ6.4044$DW1.1...@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
> docd...@clark.net ( NA) wrote:
>
>> Brooklyn Bridge defense, Mr Ramey... the matter of Mr Becker's assertion
>> was not President Lincoln.
>
>Jumping to conclusions, DD?
No more than usual, Mr Ramey.
>This is Usenet. I wasn't defending
>anything/anybody. Just making an observation.
An observation can be an invoking of the Brooklyn Bridge defense as well,
Mr Ramey... one who knows this is UseNet might know that as well.
DD
Bob Brock
>In article <9d3ccj$giv$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> "Tom Beckner" <beck...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>> Charlotte's Web by Infomagic was a concern for me. It stated that even with
>> 100% remediation there would still be a significant loss of efficiency in
>> automated systems.
>
SNIP
>Bizarre.
>
>At least Cory was claiming there were "hidden" problems. Tom's claim
>that the only success story is that the lights are still on is bizarre
>beyond all belief.
I found a lot of 1998-9 to be bizarre. What, with all the assumptions
and accusations. With the news media actually taking things
seriously. All the talk about how if GPS failed that farming would be
impossible and the talk of tractor transmissions failing due to date
related failure.
Since rollover, I've simply found those who continue to stretch their
imagination to continue trying to convince people that they were
actually right to be amusing. This is especially true since they have
lost all credibility with rational people...
Wade Ramey
eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net wrote:
> Pitfall Two: The Ratchet Effect
>
> This particular fallacy was discovered by a skeptic who noticed
> that most amateurs of the paranormal never went back to a
> baseline of normal belief once they had become convinced of a
> certain weird fact, even if it was later proven to be false.
>
> A perfect example of this fallacy is given by the current
> legends about live humanoids in the custody of the Air Force.
> Several independent researchers have become convinced that there
> were such humanoids in an underground base under Area 51. It
> took me months to find the man who was the source of the rumor.
> When he was interviewed, it turned out he had never seen
> any such humanoids. Yet the people who had believed in his
> story did lot simply erase the statement from their mental
> blackboard. Instead, they started looking for any confirmation,
> any other hint, from any source, that little humanoids might be
> held in some underground base. Their belief had become too dear
> to them to be questioned, even when they knew its underpinnings
> to be wrong. Their assumptions about the world had been "
> ratcheted" one notch and could not come down again, no matter
> what the evidence was.
>
> This fallacy is not limited to ufologists. If you can get
> people to buy lottery tickets just once on the expectation that
> they might win a million dollars, they will probably go on
> buying lottery tickets even if they keep losing: it would now be
> too painful for them to let go of the pleasant realization that
> they might win a million dollars next week, especially as their
> losses (now viewed as investments) keep mounting.
Pifall Eight: Misunderstanding you own theory. The last paragraph is not an
example of the "ratchet effect" described.
Wade
Tom Beckner
> One thing at a time, Mr Becker... first South Carolina, then something
> else. Please be so kind as to indicate the Supreme Courts's ruling on
> the above-mentioned matter.
I don't know.
I read something about Lincoln putting one of the Supreme Court jurors under
house arrest or something to that effect. Is the case you are inquiring
about before or after this event, if true?
Tom Beckner
Wade Ramey
docd...@clark.net ( NA) wrote:
> An observation can be an invoking of the Brooklyn Bridge defense as well,
> Mr Ramey... one who knows this is UseNet might know that as well.
An observation could be an invoking of the Brooklyn Bridge defense, I
suppose, but mine wasn't. So your use of the term in this case is ...
curious. I suspect you are falling victim to the Uri Geller defense,
whereby one justifies an utterance on the basis of a ill-considered hunch,
tantamount to a paranormal intuition gone awry, but it could easily be some
other malady.
Mr. Ramey
Tom Beckner
Tim May <tc...@got.net> wrote in message
news:tcmay-B1438A....@news.got.net...
> > Reports of new and improved systems have been few and far between. The
only
> > Y2k success stories I've seen are the lights stayed on.
> This is so ludicrous as to make everything else Tom says suspect.
>
> Bizarre.
>
> At least Cory was claiming there were "hidden" problems. Tom's claim
> that the only success story is that the lights are still on is bizarre
> beyond all belief.
My simple claim is that I haven't seen the Y2k success stories, only stories
to the contrary.
An exception, which I just remembered, is the EDS success story for the GM
remediation and bonus job. Upon inquiring about that deal with the original
author of the story, the writer at Computer World (?) wrote back that GM
officials stated the bounus was paid. I posted that stuff here at the time,
but don't have the emails or story URL's available anymore.
If the guys at EDS did get paid, I hope they put the money in yachts and
BMW's. If they put the money in EDS stock (1Q 2000) that's Ok too, they
should be getting back close to even by now. Since employment is so high
right now, even the EDS guys that got laid off should be back on their feet
by now, too.
The more numerous stories about failed automated accounting systems or
systems that lost efficiency are a matter of record, not my invention.
Montgomery County MD school system, W.W. Grainger, Hershey, Whirlpool, Grove
Crane, Clark Equipment, Nike and so on. The seven year low in domestic
refinery capacity, posted by the API in Feb 2000, is a matter of record. No
direct causal relationship to automated systems inefficiency, only the
coincidence that refineries were failing all over the world and a number of
domestic pipelines were experiencing catastrophic failures.
Things are looking up for the past few weeks in the financial markets. The S
& P is almost back to 1999 levels. The cost of business is a little higher
due to rising energy prices, but it's no big deal. It's only paper.
Tom Beckner
Tom Beckner
<eskw...@SPAMBLOCK.shore.net> wrote in message
news:RVbJ6.1293$Be3.1...@news.shore.net...
>
>
> Tom, come to your fucking senses. Quit digging in deeper. If you are
> trying to make some kind of weak point that y2k caused a bump in the road,
> you don't even have enough evidence to support THAT.
Agreed.
The financial markets and the energy markets are experiencing problems. I
can't quantify the degree of the problems other than by looking at price and
availability. I cannot state the cause of the price and availability changes
other than by conjecture and speculation.
> Did you read the article I reposted? Did you understand it? Did you
> think about whether you were subject to the types of illogic they
> mentioned?
Yes. As for parallels, Daschal's (sp?) attack on tax cuts comes to mind.
> Fer Chrissakes, will you ever learn?
It would have been convenient for me to have had the options of Ebonics and
Close Enough For Gov Math Skills, back when I took the College Boards.
Another parallel to the methodology you illustrated comes to mind when I
hear the response of fedgov officials to questions about the GAO's inability
to reconcile and certify the fedgov's books.
Tom Beckner
Tim May
"Tom Beckner" <beck...@erols.com> wrote:
> Tim May <tc...@got.net> wrote in message
> news:tcmay-B1438A....@news.got.net...
>
> > > Reports of new and improved systems have been few and far between. The
> only
> > > Y2k success stories I've seen are the lights stayed on.
>
> > This is so ludicrous as to make everything else Tom says suspect.
> >
> > Bizarre.
> >
> > At least Cory was claiming there were "hidden" problems. Tom's claim
> > that the only success story is that the lights are still on is bizarre
> > beyond all belief.
>
> My simple claim is that I haven't seen the Y2k success stories, only stories
> to the contrary.
First, I have seen many reports of remediation. True enough, after
January 1, 2000 arrived and Y2K was dismissed as "hype," there were
fewer reports of remediation...Y2K was a journalistic dead issue, so
reports about how Intel and Cisco had remediated were not interesting
enough to publish. But they were real nonetheless.
Second, aside from "reports you have seen," you need to open your eyes
and look around you. Trains not derailing or getting jammed up, oil
still flowing in Alaska, refineries expanding output (despite usual and
intermittent fires, maintenance, etc.), chip factories running
full-tilt, and on and on.
_This_ is the context in which it is foolish to make a claim that the
only "reported" Y2K success is that the lights are still on. Look
around. Draw the obvious conclusions.
> The more numerous stories about failed automated accounting systems or
> systems that lost efficiency are a matter of record, not my invention.
Because the case of an accounting system that prints "19100" or that
fails to process accounts is much more newsworthy than the 99.999738% of
accounting systems which are paying people on time, which are resulting
in record low unemployment, and which are enabling factories to be
running at full capacity.
> Things are looking up for the past few weeks in the financial markets. The S
> & P is almost back to 1999 levels. The cost of business is a little higher
> due to rising energy prices, but it's no big deal. It's only paper.
You are quoting stock prices selectively. The Dow and S & P both were
higher in 2000 than in 1999. Though you may be correct that the S & P
may be reaching late 1999 levels, any theory that Y2K triggered massive
problems must explain how the Dow and S & P and Russell 2000 and QQQ and
so on were at their highs *months* after the alleged meltdown.
The ups and downs of the stock market can be used to "prove" nearly
anything, through simpleminded correlation. The reality is that stock
prices rose well into 2000 and Y2K had no significant correlation, in a
causal sense, at least in terms of alleged glitches. (Increased
purchases of PCs and new software in 1999 as a _remediation_ effort
probably _did_ boost the sales of Oracle, Dell, Intel, Broadcom, etc.
But this was not _causally_ related to actual Y2K glitches. If this
needs to be explained to anyone, do some hard thinking.)
Jacques Bernier
England. Multiple personality (Goobers-DocDwarf-King-Tinfoiler).
Let us be benevolent!
JB
On Mon, 07 May 2001 04:39:51 GMT, Wade Ramey
<wrame...@home.remove13.com> wrote:
snip
Jacques Bernier
"These temporary job offers have always been subject to cancellation
at any time, even after employee has travelled cross country at own
expense. This results in the employee LOSING money in the JOB market.
The rate of these financially disastrous temporary job cancellations
or early terminations has risen sharply since 1998.
Part of the reason is reduced corporate computer system reliability.
If the computer system is unreliable, work can't get done. This is a
valid reason for temporary "contract" employee termination, at any
time --- even before beginning work. Surely, at least part of the
reason for this computer reliability problem is the Y2K bugs.
This posting reveals that this is not the only reason for the high
risk of job cancellation for "contract" employees, resulting in losing
money in the job market. Market hourly rates for temporary contract
job assignments are higher, even though the supply of workers is
greatly exceeding the demand. This seems to defy the law of supply and
demand, but it does not: The pay premium is compensation for the now
very high risk of actually losing money in the job market.
Needless to say, if this disaster befalls a temporary contract worker,
especially if several times in a row; the supply of Risk Capital is
exhausted. Once this happens, the worker then must accept whatever
local (risk-free) job available, even if this means working minimum
wage. If the local job pay is low, then the necessary Risk Capital for
returning to suitable work for the employee's skills is never
replenished. For older, minority, and handicapped workers, the
prospects for re-entry to jobs using the employee's skillset are even
more remote.
For affected workers in this segment of the job market, the Y2K Bugs
have "bitten" hard, indeed. In 1999, it was "lockdowns" and
remediation induced computer reliability and bottleneck problems. Then
post-roll, the problem has been residual Y2K Bugs. The second variant
of the Leap Year Date Bug, the so-called "Y2K+1" Bug, which hit on
12/31/00, has substantially delayed any prospects for the computer
reliability situation returning to normal any time soon. Now, as this
posting indicates, add to this risk factor the economic uncertainty
that is a second order effect of Y2K (a cascading effect.) The result
is that working temporary leased manpower jobs away from home has
become as risky and speculative as trading futures or options. So many
older skilled workers are now underemployed long term, as a result,
which does not bode well for the Nation's economic future. This
problem will inevitably impact national productivity and personal
income levels, as well as being a disaster for those individuals
directly affected by "losing" in this new very high risk job market.
===================================================
Interesting bit on Intel too!
Pollies will be pollies!
JB
On Mon, 7 May 2001 01:15:37 -0400, "Tom Beckner" <beck...@erols.com>
wrote:
snip
ProNews/2 User
On Mon, 7 May 2001 08:46:32, jber...@microtec.net (Jacques Bernier)
wrote:
Yes, pollies will be pollies but I don't know what the clip has to do
with Intel or pollies.
I gotta run, got some software to fix today but as long as I'm here.
There was some discussion in c.s.y2k about Advanced Micro Devices (AMD)
and Oracle (ORCL) stock last year. I picked up some AMD last November
and watched it fall from 21 to 13.5. It's 30+ now. I'll be cashing
out some AMD and picking up ORCL this week. ORCL's at an interesting
price point.
I'm not "day trading", claiming that this proves anything about
anything. Pre-rollover, I had a few chats with DD on investing. I
thought it was too scary for me. Now, there are interesting situations.
I'm not into "picks", "hot tips", "timing the market", or "momentum
plays". I'm simply observing that valuations and situations are
interesting.
I'm surprised that there haven't been reports of Y2K doomers making it
big, shorting the market. I guess that's too hard to do right and too
easy to get cleaned out by a missed window.
I'm outa here for another few weeks. I had the flu. Now I gotta do the
work I was going to do when I checked out last time. Keep up the good
posts everyone.
Tim - Thanks for the guidance on investing.
Bob Brock - You're right to stay out of the market. You're always
right.
DD - You still have everyone fooled, keep up the good work.
Wade - Liked your Cowles post, it should have made bestof-usenet.
BKSie - Gasoline, housing prices, electricity, state taxes. You got it
all. Har.
JB - I like your stuff, even when I don't understand it.
Tom B - Maybe catch you in a couple weeks for lunch.
Whit - It's bikini season.
Everyone else - Keep writing. Any day now, someone will recognize your
brilliance. I'll be back as soon as I get caught up.
NA
Wade Ramey <wrame...@home.remove13.com> wrote:
>In article <IvjJ6.4074$DW1.1...@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
> docd...@clark.net ( NA) wrote:
>
>> An observation can be an invoking of the Brooklyn Bridge defense as well,
>> Mr Ramey... one who knows this is UseNet might know that as well.
>
>An observation could be an invoking of the Brooklyn Bridge defense, I
>suppose, but mine wasn't.
This might, indeed, be the case, Mr Ramey... how might this have been
determined from its use?
>So your use of the term in this case is ...
>curious. I suspect you are falling victim to the Uri Geller defense,
>whereby one justifies an utterance on the basis of a ill-considered hunch,
>tantamount to a paranormal intuition gone awry, but it could easily be some
>other malady.
It could easily have been, Mr Ramey, and I'd be interested in seeing where
the evaluation went awry. All there seems to be at this point is:
'(a) did (action).'
'(b) did (action), also.'
'This is a Brooklyn Bridge defense.'
'It was not an defense, it was an observation.'
'An observation can be an invoking of a Brooklyn Bridge defense.'
'An observation can be an invoking of a Brooklyn Bridge defense but mine
wasn't; your use of the term is... curious.'
So... while *an* observation can be *this* one wasn't. Howso?
DD
NA
Tom Beckner <beck...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>NA <docd...@clark.net> wrote in message
>news:SNbJ6.4045$DW1.1...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
>
>> One thing at a time, Mr Becker... first South Carolina, then something
>> else. Please be so kind as to indicate the Supreme Courts's ruling on
>> the above-mentioned matter.
>
>I don't know.
This self-admitted ignorance does not seem to prevent you from coming to a
conclusion about Constituionality in the absence of an opinion from the
branch of government established by the Founders specifically to determine
Constitutionality, Mr Beckner... but ignorance can be cured.
>
>I read something about Lincoln putting one of the Supreme Court jurors under
>house arrest or something to that effect. Is the case you are inquiring
>about before or after this event, if true?
Eh? You read something about something else and ask if this occurred
before or after an event about which you have already admitted ignorance;
it seems that there are *two* matters about which you should do your own
homework.
DD
NA
Jacques Bernier <jber...@microtec.net> wrote:
>http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005Air
[snippage]
>Part of the reason is reduced corporate computer system reliability.
>If the computer system is unreliable, work can't get done. This is a
>valid reason for temporary "contract" employee termination, at any
>time --- even before beginning work. Surely, at least part of the
>reason for this computer reliability problem is the Y2K bugs.
'Surely'? And the data which demonstrate this causal relationship are...
where?
[snippette]
>Then
>post-roll, the problem has been residual Y2K Bugs. The second variant
>of the Leap Year Date Bug, the so-called "Y2K+1" Bug, which hit on
>12/31/00, has substantially delayed any prospects for the computer
>reliability situation returning to normal any time soon.
... and the data supporting this are... where?
DD
NA
It might be that others have had similar difficulties.
>
>On Mon, 7 May 2001 08:46:32, jber...@microtec.net (Jacques Bernier)
>wrote:
>
>> http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005Air
[snippage]
>DD - You still have everyone fooled, keep up the good work.
Fooled? Never claimed to be nothin' more'n a COBOL-codin' fool... except,
of course, when the situation demands I reveal myself as the King of
England.
DD
Bob Brock
User) wrote:
>I sure don't understand this one.
>
>On Mon, 7 May 2001 08:46:32, jber...@microtec.net (Jacques Bernier)
>wrote:
>
>> http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005Air
>>
>Bob Brock - You're right to stay out of the market. You're always
>right.
Well, thanks Cory. I've always worried about not having your
permission to invest my money as I see fit. Well, about as much as I
worried about your Y2k predictions and how to build LED flashlights.
You're a blast Cory. Keep up the good work and go to Yahoo to stroke
Paul's ego. Gotta keep you boy happy you know!
Tim May
kiy...@ATTGlobal.XOUT.net (ProNews/2 User) wrote:
> I sure don't understand this one.
Nor do I. Nothing in the report matches my own observations in and
around Silicon Valley and in the larger economy.
> On Mon, 7 May 2001 08:46:32, jber...@microtec.net (Jacques Bernier)
> wrote:
>
> > http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005Air
> > Part of the reason is reduced corporate computer system reliability.
> > If the computer system is unreliable, work can't get done. This is a
> > valid reason for temporary "contract" employee termination, at any
> > time --- even before beginning work. Surely, at least part of the
> > reason for this computer reliability problem is the Y2K bugs.
Nonsense, both about the "reduced reliability" and about this non-event
as a reason for contract workers getting canned. Fact is, the downturn
in the dot com industry is resulting in lots of layoffs...and the first
to go are the contract workers. 'Nuff said.
> > For affected workers in this segment of the job market, the Y2K Bugs
> > have "bitten" hard, indeed. In 1999, it was "lockdowns" and
> > remediation induced computer reliability and bottleneck problems. Then
> > post-roll, the problem has been residual Y2K Bugs.
There have been very few reported residual bugs. Certainly there have
been some. No one would dispute that. But no measurable effect on
efficiency, productivity, reliability.
> > The second variant
> > of the Leap Year Date Bug, the so-called "Y2K+1" Bug, which hit on
> > 12/31/00, has substantially delayed any prospects for the computer
> > reliability situation returning to normal any time soon.
This is pure science fiction.
> > ===================================================
> > Interesting bit on Intel too!
> >
> > Pollies will be pollies!
This is referring to the well-publicized news that Intel is offering
graduating students who had received employment offers a bonus if they
will NOT report for work. Nothing to do with Y2K.
(I speak as someone who follows Intel quite closely, because I worked
there in the 70s and 80s, because I know a lot of people who still work
there, because it's the leading chip company, and because I own a
boatload of stock.)
Nothing do do with Y2K.
>
> I'm surprised that there haven't been reports of Y2K doomers making it
> big, shorting the market. I guess that's too hard to do right and too
> easy to get cleaned out by a missed window.
First, the overall stock market only dropped well into 2000. Any short
sellers of the overall market would have lost badly well into 2000. Lots
of hedge funds did exactly this, betting the market would decline for
various reasons, and had to liquidate to cover their shorts.
Given that the ups and downs of the market were not causally correlated
with the Y2K bug, qua bug, anyone shorting the market in anticipation of
a crash in January-February 2000 likely lost a lot of money.
Selling the dot coms short would have made a lot of money, but that's a
separate issue. I don't recall much commentary here in this newsgroup
about dot coms, except for a few comments that a bubble was forming.
Who wrote about this _before_ the crash of the dot coms in 2000?
Well, I did. Here's an excerpt from a post I wrote on December 13, 1999.
This was 3-4 months _before_ the peak-and-crash of the "tulip dot coms"
I refer to below. (Note that I was NOT an investor in Commerce One,
Freemarkets.com, Pets.com, Boo.com, JDSU, or VA Linux.)
--begin--
From: Tim May (tc...@got.net)
Subject: Re: Odds x Stakes > Costs to Prepare
Newsgroups: comp.software.year-2000, misc.survivalism
Date: 1999/12/13
....
4. Almost better to think these things out via mini-scenarios, like case
histories. For example:
....
"I believe that even if there are not other major disruptions, there may
be a crash of the Internet stocks and other "tulip dot coms" during 2000.
This could be caused by failures in Russia, by lingering accounting
problems, even "for want of a nail" critical parts shortages in key
manufacturing sectors. I estimate this at perhaps a 30% likelihood. The
stakes for me, with my stock portfolio, are about $300K if the market
declines 30%. [I just picked this guy's porfolio at a milllion bucks,
just to be simple.] I could justify spending a good fraction of this to
insure my portfolio. Fortunately, I can buy portfolio insurance, in the
form of puts and LEAP puts for a lot less than 30% of my portfolio's
value. In fact, for less than 5%. So that's what I'll do."
--end--
>
> I'm outa here for another few weeks. I had the flu. Now I gotta do the
> work I was going to do when I checked out last time. Keep up the good
> posts everyone.
>
> Tim - Thanks for the guidance on investing.
You're welcome. I believe the solid companies out there will do very
well over the next several years.
There is no support for the recent claims here that "reliability
problems due to Y2K" are crippling the industry and causing contract
workers to be laid off. Rather, just the usual business cycles.
(I saw people laid off all around me at Intel in 1974, when I had
freshly arrived. Probably the only thing that saved me and other NCGs
was an informal policy not to lay off those who had just started
working. Had Intel had the "reverse hiring bonus" notion then, I expect
I would have received an offer of a bonus check to not show up for work.
As with the situation in 2001, this didn't mean there was a "Y1974"
software problem. Ditto for 2001.)
Jacques Bernier
Jacques Bernier
Hope this help, old cane!
J the B
E'er yer prime source of documentation
On Mon, 07 May 2001 13:01:11 GMT, docd...@clark.net ( NA) wrote:
rrrrrip
Jacques Bernier
User) wrote:
>JB - I like your stuff, even when I don't understand it.
Some call it inscrutable!
>Whit - It's bikini season.
Thanks God for smooth favors.
>I'll be back as soon as I get caught up.
Cherry blossoms time! Keep your eyes on the road, old koa stick!
JB
Jacques Bernier
>In article <hdwX38NCLQJC-pn2-3t4mx47CXmSc@localhost>,
>ProNews/2 User <kiy...@ATTGlobal.XOUT.net> wrote:
>>I sure don't understand this one.
>
>It might be that others have had similar difficulties.
If it was that easy, everybody would be doing it.
rippolinni
>>DD - You still have everyone fooled, keep up the good work.
>
>Fooled? Never claimed to be nothin' more'n a COBOL-codin' fool... except,
>of course, when the situation demands I reveal myself as the King of
>England.
One doesn't preclude the other, does one now, old streaker?
JB
Wade Ramey
docd...@clark.net ( NA) wrote:
> >An observation could be an invoking of the Brooklyn Bridge defense, I
> >suppose, but mine wasn't.
>
> This might, indeed, be the case, Mr Ramey... how might this have been
> determined from its use?
You appear headed towards the Psychic Hotline Defense, whereby if it can't
be determined that your claim is false, then a reasonable inference is that
it is true. Suppose you had claimed that I was thinking about Jean Luc
Picard when I made my observation: "Star Trek thinking, Mr. Ramey." I would
have denied it, but you could have responded "how might this have been
determined from its use?", clinching the argument for the Dan Quayle IQ
decile.
As I said, it only appears the PHD is being invoked here; some other
fallacy may be involved.
> >So your use of the term in this case is ...
> >curious. I suspect you are falling victim to the Uri Geller defense,
> >whereby one justifies an utterance on the basis of a ill-considered hunch,
> >tantamount to a paranormal intuition gone awry, but it could easily be some
> >other malady.
>
> It could easily have been, Mr Ramey, and I'd be interested in seeing where
> the evaluation went awry. All there seems to be at this point is:
>
> '(a) did (action).'
>
> '(b) did (action), also.'
>
> 'This is a Brooklyn Bridge defense.'
I would say the evaluation went awry at the last line, sir, as I wasn't
defending anything. I was just sounding off about Lincoln, in a rather
banal fashion given the learned Civil War scholars on this board, some of
whom are living in that era - in that adorable fashion common to much of
Usenet.
Up next, the Sigmund Freud Defense? Wherein DD informs me that whatever I
think about what I wrote is just a mask, a "defense" mechanism as it were,
with possible ties to New York, and that only he knows what I was really
thinking.
Mr. Ramey
Tom Beckner
> Second, aside from "reports you have seen," you need to open your eyes
> and look around you.
I was prejudiced by the things that affected me directly. The building I was
operating was owned by a pension fund for police and firemen from a
Mid-Western state. They were flush with cash. However, Y2k arithmetic
problems affecting the automated accounting systems (S/36) caused the asset
managing company to go out of business in 1999, taken over by a company that
was then sold Dec 1999 delayed to Jan 2000, then contracting administrative
services to a major nation- wide managing company that had accounts so
fouled up that VEPCO made the building owner deposit $20K cash to continue
utility service. Other vendors put us on cash only, they were so frustrated.
My insurance agent, a small company, spent weeks at a time in accounting
turmoil in 2000 and again in 2001 as contractors tried to make the new
system they had installed work well enough to conduct business five days in
a row without failing.
This is the loss of efficiency from remediation that Infomagic discussed.
These aren't showstoppers, but they are not increased efficiency either.
They are examples of reduced efficiency compared to 1997 and 1998 based on
my observation.
Trains not derailing or getting jammed up, oil
> still flowing in Alaska, refineries expanding output (despite usual and
> intermittent fires, maintenance, etc.), chip factories running
> full-tilt, and on and on.
>
> _This_ is the context in which it is foolish to make a claim that the
> only "reported" Y2K success is that the lights are still on. Look
> around. Draw the obvious conclusions.
Tom Beckner
NA
Jacques Bernier <jber...@microtec.net> wrote:
>http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005B2m
M Bernier, this is an article about the stock market... which goes up and
goes down. Are you saying that this is documentation (from a 'prime
source') of 'Then post-roll, the problem has been residual Y2K Bugs. The
second variant of the Leap Year Date Bug, the so-called "Y2K+1" Bug, which
hit on 12/31/00, has substantially delayed any prospects for the computer
reliability situation returning to normal any time soon'?
This appears to be 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc'; there seems to be nothing
to remove it from this category.
>
>Hope this help, old cane!
>
>
>J the B
>
>E'er yer prime source of documentation
DD
NA
Jacques Bernier <jber...@microtec.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 May 2001 13:04:31 GMT, docd...@clark.net ( NA) wrote:
>
>>In article <hdwX38NCLQJC-pn2-3t4mx47CXmSc@localhost>,
>>ProNews/2 User <kiy...@ATTGlobal.XOUT.net> wrote:
>>>I sure don't understand this one.
>>
>>It might be that others have had similar difficulties.
>
>If it was that easy, everybody would be doing it.
Doing what, M Bernier?
>
>rippolinni
>
>>>DD - You still have everyone fooled, keep up the good work.
>>
>>Fooled? Never claimed to be nothin' more'n a COBOL-codin' fool... except,
>>of course, when the situation demands I reveal myself as the King of
>>England.
>
>One doesn't preclude the other, does one now, old streaker?
Given a definition of '1 : to make a fool of : DECEIVE' it seems to.
DD
NA
Wade Ramey <wrame...@home.remove13.com> wrote:
>In article <kRwJ6.4149$DW1.1...@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
> docd...@clark.net ( NA) wrote:
>
>> >An observation could be an invoking of the Brooklyn Bridge defense, I
>> >suppose, but mine wasn't.
>>
>> This might, indeed, be the case, Mr Ramey... how might this have been
>> determined from its use?
>
>You appear headed towards the Psychic Hotline Defense, whereby if it can't
>be determined that your claim is false, then a reasonable inference is that
>it is true.
Appearances can be deceiving, Mr Ramey; what I *am* doing, appearances or
no, is attempting to determine the facts of the matter.
[snippage]
>As I said, it only appears the PHD is being invoked here; some other
>fallacy may be involved.
As stated, appearances can be deceiving; as you are the author of the use
in question you have been asked to explain how it is that what you've
written is not as it appears.
>
>> >So your use of the term in this case is ...
>> >curious. I suspect you are falling victim to the Uri Geller defense,
>> >whereby one justifies an utterance on the basis of a ill-considered hunch,
>> >tantamount to a paranormal intuition gone awry, but it could easily be some
>> >other malady.
>>
>> It could easily have been, Mr Ramey, and I'd be interested in seeing where
>> the evaluation went awry. All there seems to be at this point is:
>>
>> '(a) did (action).'
>>
>> '(b) did (action), also.'
>>
>> 'This is a Brooklyn Bridge defense.'
>
>I would say the evaluation went awry at the last line, sir, as I wasn't
>defending anything.
Mr Ramey, you've already admitted that the evaluation of 'Brooklyn Bridge
defense' might be appropriate, based on appearances... but yet, somehow,
the evaluation is inapropriate, based on... something else.
>I was just sounding off about Lincoln, in a rather
>banal fashion given the learned Civil War scholars on this board, some of
>whom are living in that era - in that adorable fashion common to much of
>Usenet.
So this is your statement of intention? Again, how was this to be
determined from your words?
>
>Up next, the Sigmund Freud Defense?
Perhaps it might be wiser to strive for something more probable, Mr
Ramey... such as a simple, clear 'No, you misinterpret my remarks, what i
had hoped to convey was...'
... if, of course, you are capable of such things.
DD
Bradley K. Sherman
>operating was owned by a pension fund for police and firemen from a
Unnamed fund: STRIKE TW000000!
>Mid-Western state. They were flush with cash. However, Y2k arithmetic
Unnamed state: STEEERIIIIIKE THREEEEEEEEEE! YOU'RE OUT!
>problems affecting the automated accounting systems (S/36) caused the asset
>managing company to go out of business in 1999, taken over by a company that
Strike four and we're not even out of the first paragraph.
Twas ever thus.
--bks
Tim May
"Tom Beckner" <beck...@erols.com> wrote:
> Tim May <tc...@got.net> wrote in message
> news:tcmay-EEDEC4....@news.got.net...
>
> > Second, aside from "reports you have seen," you need to open your eyes
> > and look around you.
>
> I was prejudiced by the things that affected me directly. The building I was
> operating was owned by a pension fund for police and firemen from a
> Mid-Western state. They were flush with cash. However, Y2k arithmetic
< rest of Tom's personal experience elided>
"It snowed here today so I assume it snowed everywhere."
"Our town's largest employer went bankrupt so I assume the whole world
is in a depression."
Generalizing from a specific case and assuming it proves something about
the outside world is fraught with logical errors.
> problems affecting the automated accounting systems (S/36) caused the asset
> managing company to go out of business in 1999,
Even if you are right about this "cause" (and I have my doubts that a
building management company would fail for this reason, let alone fail
back in 1999), this is unlikely to cause the whole world to have Y2K
problems.
(More on my doubt: Companies usually fail for mismanagement. Saying it
was a S/36 upgrade problem sounds like an excuse. Even if the S/36
software failed utterly, collecting rents and utilities and scheduling
maintenance could be done manually. How hard is it to have a standard
book entry system on 20 or 40 rentals, or whatever number? Unless the
building was the Sears Tower, collecting rents and paying bills is a
"solved problem." I think the "Y2K upgrades caused us to go bankrupt"
excuse is just that, an excuse.)
In any case, the "look around you" point is the more important one. If
your experience in your building in your town was "widespread," don't
you think the economy would have tanked in 1999? It didn't. Unemployment
fell to 30-year lows, factories operated at full capacity until late
2000--long, long after any "real" Y2K glitches would have already
appeared--and there is no evidence of widespread outages, shutdowns, or
billing problems.
I understand you are bothered by having been laid-off from your building
support job (I recall you telling us this earlier, too), but imputing
Y2K to this is simply what shrinks call "magical thinking."
>
> This is the loss of efficiency from remediation that Infomagic discussed.
>
And where was Ivan Mingham after January 1, 2000?
(Frankly, he was not around in any forum I can find to discuss his
predictions of "devolution to the neolithic" at any time in 1998, 1999,
or 2000.)
> These aren't showstoppers, but they are not increased efficiency either.
> They are examples of reduced efficiency compared to 1997 and 1998 based on
> my observation.
And I am saying that your _personal_ experiences do not reflect what was
and is obviously happening in the general economy. The numbers on the
economy are widely available in newspapers and suchlike. If you are
claiming that you are reasoning from your own personal experiences and
assuming the trends continue elsewhere, the effects would be evident in
employment rates, profits, gross domestic receipts, etc. They are not.
Steve Thompson
Quoting Bradley K. Sherman (b...@panix.com):
> >I was prejudiced by the things that affected me directly. The building I was
>
> >operating was owned by a pension fund for police and firemen from a
>
> >Mid-Western state. They were flush with cash. However, Y2k arithmetic
>
>
> Strike four and we're not even out of the first paragraph.
>
> Twas ever thus.
It's nice to see that some things never change.
> --bks
Regards,
Steve
--
Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes.
Don Scott
He devolved in a massive spiral.
Tragic accident, yes it was. So tragic that the media (mediums?) were
instructed by the central conspiracy to never report the details.
But, at this late date, I will now divulge the details. Set your
decoder rings to W23, N24, Hobbit4573, MilneFactor9.
********************** start decode block***********
kjh nb niug .mnab .di;ug fjndba otl kjbf ,.hbsald fuyp96;qljb,.fm
asdkjfh lkasdb ;f9876 pqy;fjkb ,mna sb f.;uh .amn;oihs ;oih f/.ih n/ n
/,m a.,n lkjhn man lkj flkjda oj'fpj'apkj f 'au'9su kjn f'9u[ d7 foi
/alkjh ;sdoih f'ija'098734[9y f.kjgdaliutfl9a hd;ihf ;oiah ;diyp a98yd
;iuay d;yf lkjdh fkjh l.
************************end decode block***************
And don't smugly think that can only happen in Ivan's state of
Arizona. It's coming to *your* state soon. Your state legislators
have been sworn to secrecy. Well, imagine that!!!!! As Jim Lord said,
the details are in the water. And he's not all wet. Not yet, I bet.
Get set. It's gonna happen *real* soon. Y2K was merely delayed by a
factor of n to the xth power by TD. The JoAnne factor lives in the
source code - waiting for the opportune time to strike. Cowles said
the trains would stop carrying fossil fuels, and I haven't seen one
since. More power to Rick, I say. His predictions were shocking but
hardly illuminating. Cory was right, and then he was left. Behind.
In the dust. Sucking exhaust. Probably fossil fuel exhaust. Who
knows? The Baron knows, but he's been in the underground bunker
waiting for the smog to clear. Once it does, look out motherf**kers -
the Baron has a bulldozer and he's rip-roaring mad about spending all
that money on Y2K preparations. I just hope that he got the GPS on
the 'dozer reset.
DS
Tom Beckner
> (More on my doubt: Companies usually fail for mismanagement. Saying it
> was a S/36 upgrade problem sounds like an excuse. Even if the S/36
> software failed utterly, collecting rents and utilities and scheduling
> maintenance could be done manually. How hard is it to have a standard
> book entry system on 20 or 40 rentals, or whatever number? Unless the
> building was the Sears Tower, collecting rents and paying bills is a
> "solved problem." I think the "Y2K upgrades caused us to go bankrupt"
> excuse is just that, an excuse.)
Not bankrupt. They chose to sell the business while it was profitable. I
suspect the cost of moving to a new system was a factor. I also believe they
hit a home run when they sold the business.
As for the size of the company, it was an 800 pound gorilla. They managed
square feet hundreds of times the size of the Sears Tower in the U.S. Just
the local D.C. portfolio involved thousands of transactions and hundreds of
contracts to be managed monthly. The local portfolio accounting was being
"run" by only two employees dedicated to that task. I don't think it was
necessarily the A/P and A/R systems that were the showstopper. It was the
customized lease management and reporting system that was necessary to
report performance to building owners and provide information for fed, state
and local taxes, permits and fees. It was the customized process for
filtering A/P through the budget and cost accounting maze to match cash
flow, revenue and projected outlays. Kind of a JIT deal with money volume
and velocity.
> In any case, the "look around you" point is the more important one. If
> your experience in your building in your town was "widespread," don't
> you think the economy would have tanked in 1999?
No. We were going through management transitions, but no showstopping
events. The energy sector was being disrupted, but no showstoppers except
for the Venzeualian oil refinery that crashed. The one that predicated the
kerosene and #2 oil shortage in the NE U.S.
>... It didn't. Unemployment
> fell to 30-year lows, factories operated at full capacity until late
> 2000--long, long after any "real" Y2K glitches would have already
> appeared--and there is no evidence of widespread outages, shutdowns, or
> billing problems.
The Year 2000 was replete with reports of automated systems problems
affecting college class scheduling, municipal utility billing problems, and
S&P 500 company inventory problems.
> I understand you are bothered by having been laid-off from your building
> support job (I recall you telling us this earlier, too), but imputing
> Y2K to this is simply what shrinks call "magical thinking."
"My" building was sold Dec 2000. I had been advising this to the local
"boss" since late '98, but this never entered into the owner's decision.
They figured out it on their own, same as I had, sometime in late 1999. Year
2000, 2Q on, was a parade of prospects inspecting the property.
I was subsequently fired by the new building owner three days before the
normal 90 day probationary period for new employees. I told the "new"
housekeeping contractor supervisor I would break the windows out of his car
if any more company tools came up missing, and break someones knees if any
of my personal tools came up missing. The next day, missing tools appeared
in the company tool box.
I informed the housekeeping contractor and the owner's representative on a
Friday, and was fired by my boss, another contractor, on Monday, after I
came in at 5:00 AM to accompany the fire marshall on the annual inspection.
My replacement is smarter, younger, more productive and cheaper. If he's
smart he'll keep a low profile and stay that way. He's not an operating
engineer, but that doesn't mean anything.
> And I am saying that your _personal_ experiences do not reflect what was
> and is obviously happening in the general economy. The numbers on the
> economy are widely available in newspapers and suchlike. If you are
> claiming that you are reasoning from your own personal experiences and
> assuming the trends continue elsewhere, the effects would be evident in
> employment rates, profits, gross domestic receipts, etc. They are not.
My personal experience included spending August 2000 to November 2000 as the
sole point of contact for vendors and tenants in the building. I spent a lot
of time trying to resolve A/P problems caused by the inefficiency of the
heavy hitter management company.
I was sympathetic to the vendors and short tempered with management, but
that was before I became a Democrat. I consider myself to actually be
employable now, even in the highest of circles. Just tell me what you want
to hear and I'll justify it.
Nationwide company, I just took a peek at their chart on Yahoo! I would say
they have some serious problems to account for. I know first hand they have
lost a significant amount of business in the D.C. area.
As for the new owners, California company with Asian financing, too bad the
building has gone from 110% occupancy (basis design) late 1999 to about 80%
now. I count the new owners as being pretty sharp, I think what they'll
have to eventually identify and adress is their local representative. It
takes a special person to piss off Cisco in a chump change 4000 sq. ft.
sublet deal, piss off major vendors and fire a champion such as myself all
in their first 87days.
My getting fired was not a Y2k deal. I bit the dust on this job same as a
couple other heavy hitter local vendors did. I suspect the quality of
service will be passed through to the tenants, but not the savings in cost.
Lucent, Xerox, Nike are another deal all together. These companies suffered
efficiency problems.
Enough people bitch, the story comes out sooner or later, especially if the
stock goes down.
Where are the stories about the new system installations that are greater
and better than they were in 1998? It's two years since rollover, who's
hitting the home runs?
I've got a feeling they are out there and corners have been turned. Right or
wrong seems to me a lot of inertia needs to be overcome.
Tom Beckner
Tom Beckner
> >I read something about Lincoln putting one of the Supreme Court jurors
under
> >house arrest or something to that effect. Is the case you are inquiring
> >about before or after this event, if true?
>
> Eh? You read something about something else and ask if this occurred
> before or after an event about which you have already admitted ignorance;
> it seems that there are *two* matters about which you should do your own
> homework.
That makes two of us.
Tom Beckner
Tim May
"Tom Beckner" <beck...@erols.com> wrote:
> > In any case, the "look around you" point is the more important one. If
> > your experience in your building in your town was "widespread," don't
> > you think the economy would have tanked in 1999?
>
> No. We were going through management transitions, but no showstopping
> events. The energy sector was being disrupted, but no showstoppers except
> for the Venzeualian oil refinery that crashed. The one that predicated the
> kerosene and #2 oil shortage in the NE U.S.
Well, you were the one who cited "your building" as proof that Y2K was a
major disaster. Now, tonight, you are saying "no showstopping events."
I would say that I am confused, except there is no point trying to
follow logic such as you've given us.
> > I understand you are bothered by having been laid-off from your building
> > support job (I recall you telling us this earlier, too), but imputing
> > Y2K to this is simply what shrinks call "magical thinking."
>
> "My" building was sold Dec 2000. I had been advising this to the local
> "boss" since late '98, but this never entered into the owner's decision.
> They figured out it on their own, same as I had, sometime in late 1999. Year
> 2000, 2Q on, was a parade of prospects inspecting the property.
Which demonstrates _what_ about widespread Y2K crashes?
> I was subsequently fired by the new building owner three days before the
> normal 90 day probationary period for new employees. I told the "new"
> housekeeping contractor supervisor I would break the windows out of his car
> if any more company tools came up missing, and break someones knees if any
> of my personal tools came up missing. The next day, missing tools appeared
> in the company tool box.
Shit happens. So you were fired. So you had to threaten some thieves. I
still don't see how your shitty experiences say anything about the
actual severity of Y2K problems.
> I informed the housekeeping contractor and the owner's representative on a
> Friday, and was fired by my boss, another contractor, on Monday, after I
> came in at 5:00 AM to accompany the fire marshall on the annual inspection.
Y2K relevance?
...
> My personal experience included spending August 2000 to November 2000 as the
> sole point of contact for vendors and tenants in the building. I spent a lot
> of time trying to resolve A/P problems caused by the inefficiency of the
> heavy hitter management company.
Y2K relevance?
> Where are the stories about the new system installations that are greater
> and better than they were in 1998? It's two years since rollover, who's
> hitting the home runs?
There are many exciting products out there. I have bought some of them
for my own use. Look around.
Your bitterness at being an unemployed blue collar worker in a rust belt
town, combined with your participation in the Y2K debate here, has made
you into a classic case: the UFO abduction aliens fucked up my life, Y2K
problems fucked up my life, the fluoridated water fucked up my life.
Pull out of your power dive before it's too late.
NA
Mr Beckner, leaving such things aside... basing interchanges on 'I once
heard...' or 'I read something...' is not a habit to which I am
accustomed; when you have some documentable facts to bring forward in
support of your opinions you might want to bring them forward.
DD
Jacques Bernier
California will get only one-third of the new power that Gov. Gray
Davis promised to deliver by July 1, virtually ensuring a brutal
summer of blackouts for the energy-strapped state.
Davis had pledged to take emergency measures to get 5,000 extra
megawatts up and running by summer. Instead, the state will have 1,698
megawatts of the promised new power by July 1, according to the
California Energy Commission. Even by Sept. 1, California will have
added just 3,669 megawatts.
The goal of 5,000 megawatts -- enough to power 5 million homes -- was
crucial because it represents the gap between expected supply and
demand this summer.
==========================================================
Watch it Tom, I think TM is getting purple!
Beek's sleep at the lab now. He decorated his room like a round the
world sailboat. Bought a gool old Westclock analog mechanical
timekeeper too!
Can you spell obsolete infrastructure? Just add a dash of y2k and they
lost power steering. Draggin' the rest of us down the chute.
CA was Lalaland indeed, wasn't it old now, old forger?
JB
On Tue, 08 May 2001 23:29:56 -0700, Tim May <tc...@got.net> wrote:
>In article <9da8n2$chp$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> "Tom Beckner" <beck...@erols.com> wrote:
>
rrrrrip
>Shit happens. So you were fired. So you had to threaten some thieves. I
>still don't see how your shitty experiences say anything about the
>actual severity of Y2K problems.
rrrrrip
Jacques Bernier
Fact is, some would even, God forbid, lay their hands on yer gnarly
neck and break a finger or two.
JB
NA
Jacques Bernier <jber...@microtec.net> wrote:
>I don't think some of us will "leaving such things aside".
It might be wise if you did your best to think for yourself, M Bernier...
it is said that improvement begins at home, you know.
>
>Fact is, some would even, God forbid, lay their hands on yer gnarly
>neck and break a finger or two.
Do you think that some are so ashamed by their skills at discourse that
they feel the need to resort to physicalities? How sad... had I but known
that such folks existed I would have attempted to be more anonymous.
DD
Jacques Bernier
>>
>>Fact is, some would even, God forbid, lay their hands on yer gnarly
>>neck and break a finger or two.
>
>Do you think that some are so ashamed by their skills at discourse that
>they feel the need to resort to physicalities? How sad... had I but known
>that such folks existed I would have attempted to be more anonymous.
What about my fingers?
JB
Tom Beckner
> > Where are the stories about the new system installations that are
greater
> > and better than they were in 1998? It's two years since rollover, who's
> > hitting the home runs?
>
> There are many exciting products out there. I have bought some of them
> for my own use. Look around.
That's good, Tim. Are batteries included?
I came across an example of a new and improved system on the way home from
work this evening.
The in-laws are coming over to visit this weekend and we're having a
cook-out or whatever, according to the weather. Around here the weather is
just a matter of whether it rains or not; black-outs aren't a concern as
they are in your state.
I stopped at Home Depot and bought a LP fired grill to cook hamburgers and
hotdogs.
Since I don't have any money right now, I did the logical thing to meet my
financial requirement and paid by credit card. I only have made credit card
transactions about ten times in the last year, and was really surprised at
how this one was carried out and the amount of time it took, which was close
to thirty seconds net.
The clerk swiped my card through a card reader, had the verification on her
screen instantaneously. She handed me an electronic pad for my signature and
it was a complete transaction, including receipt in my hand.
This system is definitely better than anything I have seen them use before.
Tom Beckner
Tim May
"Tom Beckner" <beck...@erols.com> wrote:
> Since I don't have any money right now, I did the logical thing to meet my
> financial requirement and paid by credit card. I only have made credit card
> transactions about ten times in the last year, and was really surprised at
> how this one was carried out and the amount of time it took, which was close
> to thirty seconds net.
>
> The clerk swiped my card through a card reader, had the verification on her
> screen instantaneously. She handed me an electronic pad for my signature and
> it was a complete transaction, including receipt in my hand.
Been common here in California for several years, depending on the store
of course.
BTW, the transaction is no more "complete" at the end than it ever
was...unless you are one of the few using a debit card instead of a
credit card. (Or an ATM card.)
All you are seeing is more automation of the old process. The credit
card is still a credit card. Digital money is still in the future.
But, you make my point. More efficient and faster methods are spreading
throughout the economy.
Tom Beckner
> But, you make my point. More efficient and faster methods are spreading
> throughout the economy.
I'm trying to make your case. It isn't easy based on direct observation.
I've mentioned the EDS / GM remediation success claims and the Home Depot
POS success story as two new and improved systems.
Tom Beckner
Tim May
"Tom Beckner" <beck...@erols.com> wrote:
There are many cases of improved technology. However, ascribing them to
"post-Y2K" as opposed to "pre-Y2K" is both difficult and ill-considered.
There have only been 16 full months in the post-Y2K period, and many of
the products now appearing for the first time were designed prior to Y2K.
I could point to the new Apple Titanium Powerbook (or the dual G4
machines, or the Cube, or the iBook) as a post-Y2K success. Or to the
new Dell 1 GHz laptops with 15-inch screens running 1600 x 1200
displays. Or to new drugs. Or to the new BMW Z8 sports car. And so on.
What's the point? If you think that somehow the world was plunged into
darkness by Y2K problems but that the sheeple are being lied to by the
Zeta Reticulans who run the world, well, then there is nothing I can say.
Fact is, factories and wafer fabs and design centers and labs have been
humming along at breakneck speeds for most of 2000 and even the current
"recession" has barely made a dent in overall employment figures. (And
even if the country were to go into a 1987-88 recession, or an even
deeper 1991-92 recession, or a much deeper 1973-74 recession, this would
hardly constitute proof of any kind of Y2K problems. Causation is
needed, not just correlation.)
NA
Tom Beckner
> What's the point? If you think that somehow the world was plunged into
> darkness by Y2K problems but that the sheeple are being lied to by the
> Zeta Reticulans who run the world, well, then there is nothing I can say.
The world plunged into darkness?
I feel more comfortable speaking for myself. Thanks anyway.
Tom Beckner
Tom Beckner
Lincoln's dictatorship is something I keep stumbling over. Guess I need to
open my eyes:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sobran/sobran158.html
McCarthyism and Lincolnism
by Joseph Sobran
Old liberals still recall "the McCarthy era" with shudders, as they recall
the way Wisconsin's Senator Joseph McCarthy smeared innocent people with
baseless charges of Communism, ruining lives and careers with abandon. That'
s the way the story is usually told, anyway. We still use the word
"McCarthyism" for reckless assaults on freedom of speech and thought.
Can anyone name McCarthy's victims? How many were there, really? And were
they all innocent?
The truth is that McCarthy did very little damage. He did make some wild
overstatements, but he was dealing specifically with the problem of
Communist infiltration of the federal government. During Franklin Roosevelt'
s administration, the Soviet Union was welcomed as an ally of the United
States, and the bloody tyrant Joseph Stalin was affectionately nicknamed
"Uncle Joe." American Communists and sympathizers eagerly moved into
government jobs; at least two Soviet agents - Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter
White - had Roosevelt's ear.
McCarthy wasn't interested in persecuting people in private life; his
purpose was to get Stalin's little helpers out of the US Government. And he
did strike fear into the hearts of liberals who, taking their lead from
Roosevelt himself, had been guilty of flirting with Communism.
Despite liberal hysteria about McCarthy's "hysteria," there was nothing for
ordinary people to be hysterical about. Civil liberties were safe; there
were few false or arbitrary arrests; McCarthy had little power to hurt
anyone if he had wanted to.
The average educated American - that is to say, each of us, in his dull and
passive moments - would be startled to learn that Abraham Lincoln was a
greater menace to civil liberties than the infamous McCarthy. Lincoln's most
recent biographer, David Herbert Donald, observes that the four years of
Lincoln's presidency saw "greater infringements on individual liberties than
in any other period in American history."
Lincoln's most notable transgression was his suspension of the privilege of
habeas corpus, an emergency measure that enabled the government to make
thousands of arbitrary arrests - without charges, without trials. Since the
Constitution lists the power to suspend habeas corpus among the powers of
Congress, Lincoln was usurping a legislative prerogative. McCarthy never did
anything approaching this.
Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that Lincoln's act was in violation of the
Constitution. Lincoln, said Taney, was exercising executive, legislative,
and judicial powers simultaneously - that is, acting as a dictator, not as a
constitutional executive.
Lincoln ignored Taney's ruling, continued the arbitrary arrests, and even
wrote an order to arrest Taney himself - one of the most high-handed acts of
any American president. McCarthy never did or could have wielded such power.
When Maryland's state legislature rejected Lincoln's request for troops,
supplies, and money, condemning his war as "unconstitutional," Lincoln
ordered the arrest of 31 of the legislators, along with the mayor of
Baltimore and a Maryland congressman. He installed a puppet government in
the state for the duration of the war. So much for "government of the
people, by the people, for the people." In the course of the war thousands
of critics of the government were jailed and hundreds of newspapers were
shut down. Northerners who objected to the war on the Confederacy were
smeared as "Copperheads" and "traitors." All these measures were far beyond
the capacity, or the aspirations, of McCarthy.
It was Abraham Lincoln, not Joseph McCarthy, who conducted a "reign of
terror," with thousands of real victims. So why do liberals still use
McCarthy, not Lincoln, as a symbol of political repression? Shouldn't they
warn us against "Lincolnism"?
Ah, but McCarthy was fighting for a "reactionary" cause - anti-Communism.
And Lincoln was fighting for "progressive" causes - strong centralized
government and (later) the abolition of slavery. If you crack down on
liberty for what liberals consider "progressive" reasons, your sins are
forgiven. That's also why liberals forgave Stalin so much. As Lenin said,
you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.
Lincoln once argued that it might be necessary to violate part of the
Constitution in order to save the whole. By that reasoning, a man who is
sworn to uphold the Constitution could justify violating 99 per cent of it.
Joe McCarthy had no need of such arguments, because he never found it
"necessary" to violate anyone's constitutional rights.
May 14, 2001
snip
End quoted material.
Tom Beckner
NA
Tom Beckner <beck...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>NA <docd...@clark.net> wrote in message
>news:8C8K6.4436$DW1.2...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
>> In article <9da9gg$h16$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
>> Tom Beckner <beck...@erols.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >NA <docd...@clark.net> wrote in message
>> >news:lVwJ6.4150$DW1.1...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
>> >
>> >> >I read something about Lincoln putting one of the Supreme Court jurors under
>> >> >house arrest or something to that effect. Is the case you are inquiring
>> >> >about before or after this event, if true?
>> >>
>> >> Eh? You read something about something else and ask if this occurred
>> >> before or after an event about which you have already admitted ignorance;
>> >> it seems that there are *two* matters about which you should do your own
>> >> homework.
>> >
>> >That makes two of us.
>>
>> Mr Beckner, leaving such things aside... basing interchanges on 'I once
>> heard...' or 'I read something...' is not a habit to which I am
>> accustomed; when you have some documentable facts to bring forward in
>> support of your opinions you might want to bring them forward.
>>
>> DD
>
>Lincoln's dictatorship is something I keep stumbling over. Guess I need to
>open my eyes:
>
>http://www.lewrockwell.com/sobran/sobran158.html
How interesting... an editorial! Now, Mr Beckner, do tell... what is the
difference between 'putting under arrest' and 'writing an order of
arrest'?
DD
Bob Brock
One requires actual incarceration while the other authorizes it? I
haven't read the article, but this is the obvious difference.
Tom Beckner
> How interesting... an editorial! Now, Mr Beckner, do tell... what is the
> difference between 'putting under arrest' and 'writing an order of
> arrest'?
I don't know. More than likely it's the same price.
Tom Beckner
NA
You should have stayed with your original answer, Mr Beckner; an honest
admission of ignorance is, some say, superior to smug conjecture.
DD
Jacques Bernier
ignorant conjecture!
But some say the silliest thangs, aren't they, old needle?
Anyway and by the biddibye, is yer salad fresh?
3 fois
passera
la dernière, la dernière
3 fois
passera
la dernière y restera
http://www.spaceweather.com/
THE SUNSPOT THAT WOULDN'T DIE: Sunspots are normally short-lived --
rarely do they persist longer than a single 27-day rotation of the
Sun. However, sunspot 9393 is an exception. It has already crossed the
face of our star twice, in March and April, and now it appears to be
back for a third transit. This SOHO extreme ultraviolet image (right)
shows a hot spot emerging over the Sun's eastern limb on May 15th just
where 9393 ought to be.
========================================================
Bit britlle, if ye don't mind me say so.
Don't catch cold, now, old magpie!
JB
Richard Brennan
superior to conjectured smugness.
--
Richard Brennan
NA
Jacques Bernier <jber...@microtec.net> wrote:
>Ohers mused that an honest admission of smugness *is* superior to
>ignorant conjecture!
Is *that* what got you where you are today, M Bernier?
>
>But some say the silliest thangs, aren't they, old needle?
When these 'some' are rational, perhaps.
DD
NA
You might say that, Mr Brennan, but when the response to questions of
fact is 'I don't know' and... little else the Inquiring Explorer might get
weary. This same interchange of an assertion prompting an inquiry
generating an 'I don't know' and... little else has occured between me and
Mr Beckner previously; I was not in the habit then, nor am I now, of doing
his homework.
DD
Richard Brennan
into the field of conjecture yourself, whether it be smug or not is for
you alone to know, of course.
--
Richard Brennan
NA
How interesting... and which statement of mine, Mr Brennan, seems
conjectural?
DD
Tom Beckner
> >I don't know. More than likely it's the same price.
>
> You should have stayed with your original answer, Mr Beckner; an honest
> admission of ignorance is, some say, superior to smug conjecture.
And you sir, I can presume, are an authority on conjecture.
It may be that Lincoln in his pursuit of mercantilism and an aggressive
central government needed more progressive jurors to support his cause, but
merely issuing arrest orders for the unwashed served his purpose as he began
his career as an outlaw and assumed dictitorial privledge.
We live and work at the pleasure of government thanks in part to the
precedent he set, infringing on the Bill Of Rights and insulating fedgov
from accountability to The Constitution.
The selection of jurors rather than the reading of the law has taken on new
significance:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter1.asp
Ann Coulter
'Centrist' in liberal-speak
http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- THE New York Times has demanded that
Senate Democrats block Bush's "judicial ideologues," whom, the Times
predicts, will compare unfavorably to "Clinton's centrist judicial choices."
As one Clinton "centrist" nominee said to a female prosecutor appearing in
her courtroom: "Shut your f***ing mouth." Another lawyer received this
admonition from the centrist judge: "I don't give a s**t." That was the
criminal's messiah: Judge Frederica A. Massiah-Jackson of the Philadelphia
Common Pleas Court.
One time, Massiah-Jackson betrayed the identity of two undercover officers
in her courtroom, announcing to the assembled criminals -- "take a good look
at these guys ... and be careful out there."
When asked about this episode by a stunned Senate Judiciary Committee,
Massiah-Jackson first said she did not recall the incident, twice refused to
comment, once categorically denied it (despite contemporaneous news
accounts), and finally gave a cockamamy account of having been
misunderstood.
Only after the undercover officers had submitted statements to the committee
describing how Massiah-Jackson had flamboyantly exposed them in open court
did the judge begin to recall the incident with greater clarity. In
"reconstructing the incident," she said she had been instructing school
children present in the courtroom to respect police officers.
The story didn't really hang together because, on account of being
undercover and all, undercover officers would not be identifiable to
schoolchildren as police officers.
Be that as it may, it turned out Massiah-Jackson had already stated on the
record that she was talking to criminal defendants, not any alleged school
children in the courtroom. At a later hearing, the D.A. had raised the
incident with Massiah-Jackson, and she cavalierly dismissed the D.A.'s
outrage, saying: "I do say that to certain defendants."
In another classic Massiah-Jackson moment, Commonwealth vs. Johnson, the
judge sentenced the brutal rapist of a 10-year-old girl to the statutory
minimum. She apologized to the rapist for even that much time: "I just don't
think the five to 10 years is appropriate in this case even assuming you
were found guilty." She refused the D.A.'s offer to present a pre-sentence
report and victim-impact statement, saying: "What would be the point of
that?" (The five-year sentence was not crippling. After his release, the
defendant was re-arrested for raping a 9-year-old boy.)
In another special moment for the whole Rainbow Coalition, when
Massiah-Jackson was informed that both the defendant and victim in a rape
case had AIDS, she said: "Why are we having a trial? We are talking about
life expectancy of three years for both of them. What difference? What kind
of punishment can we give (the defendant)? ... What's the purpose of the
trial long range?"
In light of the fact that Massiah-Jackson had just announced there was no
purpose in trying the defendant, the prosecutor requested that the judge
recuse herself. She refused, and the victim died while the recusal motion
was on appeal. The trial proceeded before Massiah-Jackson, who sentenced the
defendant to one year of probation, allowing him to serve no time for a
vicious rape and beating. ("What's the purpose?")
Sentencing a defendant who had slashed a woman in the face with a straight
razor while stealing her purse, Massiah-Jackson refused to apply a sentence
enhancement for use of a deadly weapon. When the D.A. noted that the
enhancement was required, the centrist judge accused her of being
"vindictive." Massiah-Jackson was reversed on appeal for ignoring the
enhancement.
Indeed, Massiah-Jackson was reversed in a number of criminal cases. But in
response to the Judiciary Committee request that she provide a list of her
reversals -- a pro forma request -- she repeatedly claimed she had not been
reversed in a single criminal case.
After having been caught in this and other lies, "centrist" Massiah-Jackson
decided to withdraw her nomination. The New York Times was in a high
dudgeon. Not because Massiah-Jackson had sneered at AIDS victims and rape
victims, shouted obscenities from the bench or outed undercover cops, but
because of the "judicial mugging" the Senate had put her through. The judge
at least would return to the state bench "with her honor intact," the Times
editorialized. "Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Senate."
Indeed, even after all this came out about Massiah-Jackson (despite the
encumbrance of the judge's tendency to lie), she was avidly supported for a
life-tenured federal judgeship by: The New York Times, top Philadelphia law
firms, judges, Philadelphia Mayor Edward G. Rendell, the NAACP, the
Barristers' Association of Philadelphia Inc., the Hispanic Bar Association,
the Asian American Bar Association of the Delaware Valley and -- surprise --
the Philadelphia Bar Association.
When Bush's judicial nominees come under attack from the same groups for
failing to be duly "centrist," remember what they mean by that.
Jacques Bernier
or so!
Getting wiser by the day, now that you ask, old colibri!
Just finish scanning a few lines o' the:
Southern California, State Average Gas Prices Hit $2
USDA vets join fetal loss investigation
An energy council expects five times the outages forecast
Police Face Bounty For Their Lives
California Blackouts may create shortage of water
Corporate Obfuscation: Perverted Language, Buried Facts
==============================================
How about you write a best-sellin' Holly-wool pitchure about less than
sterling code remediation in an obsolete grid?
Whaddabat it, old canary?
JB
NA
Jacques Bernier <jber...@microtec.net> wrote:
>Thank Heavens, Mighty Mite, I thought you were pouting there for a day
>or so!
It appears that your thinking is of its usual quality, M Bernier.
DD
NA
Tom Beckner <beck...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>NA <docd...@clark.net> wrote in message
>news:evkM6.5283$DW1.2...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
>
>> >I don't know. More than likely it's the same price.
>>
>> You should have stayed with your original answer, Mr Beckner; an honest
>> admission of ignorance is, some say, superior to smug conjecture.
>
>And you sir, I can presume, are an authority on conjecture.
You can presume many things, Mr Beckner... the validity of your
presumptions is another matter entire.
>
>It may be that Lincoln in his pursuit of mercantilism and an aggressive
>central government needed more progressive jurors to support his cause, but
>merely issuing arrest orders for the unwashed served his purpose as he began
>his career as an outlaw and assumed dictitorial privledge.
Many things 'may be', Mr Beckner... just as there 'may be' a difference
between 'putting under arrest' and 'writing an order of arrest'; now that
your ignorance about such matters has been admitted in public it might do
you well to do a bit of solid research (as contrary to your usual habits
as such activity might be).
>
>We live and work at the pleasure of government
You do, you do, you *do* believe in spooks? It might be discovered, Mr
Beckner, that after doing homework one might learn that a great deal of
fear results from raw ignorance.
DD
Jacques Bernier
As you well know, I have for a long time advocated for geeks to buy
Krispy Creme's shares.
They are flying like wild kites, I swear, old pelican. Think how
nouveau richer if you hadda been listenin'!
And ol' yeller in hot pursuit too! He can smell them hot doughnuts fer
miles.
JB
Jacques Bernier
Looks like some old folks wetted their pampers and are not amused:
http://www.sightings.com/general10/halftrillion.htm
JB
On Wed, 16 May 2001 18:15:12 -0400, "Tom Beckner" <beck...@erols.com>
wrote:
Jacques Bernier
noggin all that time then, old dodo?
JB
Tom Beckner
> >We live and work at the pleasure of government
>
> You do, you do, you *do* believe in spooks? It might be discovered, Mr
> Beckner, that after doing homework one might learn that a great deal of
> fear results from raw ignorance.
I see.
Would it be fair to say that you have made every reasonable effort to
overcome this unfortunate condition?
Can we continue to procede on the basis that Lincoln did interfere with the
Maryland state legislature and did, in fact, order the arrest of the Supreme
Court jurist during the course of events following the rejection of the
federal forces at Fort Sumner?
Tom Beckner
Richard Brennan
"an honest admission of ignorance is, some say, superior to smug
conjecture."
This, following "You should have stayed with your original answer, Mr
Beckner;" seemed conjectural in that it involved a guess that Mr
Beckner's guess was smug.
--
Richard Brennan
NA
NA
My homework, Mr Brennan? That which seems one way to one might not have
a similar appearance to another.
>
>"an honest admission of ignorance is, some say, superior to smug
>conjecture."
>
>This, following "You should have stayed with your original answer, Mr
>Beckner;" seemed conjectural in that it involved a guess that Mr
>Beckner's guess was smug.
That is what I wrote, Mr Brennan, but I am confused... are you indicating
that by reporting what 'some' say I make myself one of that group? If
that is the case one might need to be careful in reporting things like
'The world, some say, is flat'.
DD
NA
Jacques Bernier <jber...@microtec.net> wrote:
>What has been the purpose ot the apparatus sitin' on top o' yer hard
>noggin all that time then, old dodo?
That has already been addressed, M Bernier; please do your own homework.
DD
NA
Tom Beckner <beck...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>NA <docd...@clark.net> wrote in message
>news:LtFM6.5433$DW1.2...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
>
>> >We live and work at the pleasure of government
>>
>> You do, you do, you *do* believe in spooks? It might be discovered, Mr
>> Beckner, that after doing homework one might learn that a great deal of
>> fear results from raw ignorance.
>
>I see.
So you say, Mr Beckner, but time will tell.
>
>Would it be fair to say that you have made every reasonable effort to
>overcome this unfortunate condition?
I do not recall making any statements about even attempting to do so, Mr
Beckner, and I do recall making statements about my limitations... but my
memory is, admittedly, porous.
>
>Can we continue to procede on the basis that Lincoln did interfere with the
>Maryland state legislature and did, in fact, order the arrest of the Supreme
>Court jurist during the course of events following the rejection of the
>federal forces at Fort Sumner?
The only documentation you've given in support of those assertions, Mr
Beckner, is an editorial in a Web 'newspaper'; I do not often find myself
motivated to do much based on such... but I am, of course, of limited
experience.
DD
Richard Brennan
>>
>>"an honest admission of ignorance is, some say, superior to smug
>>conjecture."
>>
>>This, following "You should have stayed with your original answer, Mr
>>Beckner;" seemed conjectural in that it involved a guess that Mr
>>Beckner's guess was smug.
>
>That is what I wrote, Mr Brennan, but I am confused... are you indicating
>that by reporting what 'some' say I make myself one of that group? If
>that is the case one might need to be careful in reporting things like
>'The world, some say, is flat'.
>
obfuscation.
--
Richard Brennan
NA
How very gracious of you.
>>>
>>>"an honest admission of ignorance is, some say, superior to smug
>>>conjecture."
>>>
>>>This, following "You should have stayed with your original answer, Mr
>>>Beckner;" seemed conjectural in that it involved a guess that Mr
>>>Beckner's guess was smug.
>>
>>That is what I wrote, Mr Brennan, but I am confused... are you indicating
>>that by reporting what 'some' say I make myself one of that group? If
>>that is the case one might need to be careful in reporting things like
>>'The world, some say, is flat'.
>>
>An honest admission of confusion is, some say, superior to weaselly
>obfuscation.
The possibility of this condition had no bearing on my confusion, Mr
Brennan... but it does not answer my question, either. Second request,
then: are you indicating that by reporting what 'some' say I make myself
one of that group?
DD
Tom Beckner
> >Can we continue to procede on the basis that Lincoln did interfere with
the
> >Maryland state legislature and did, in fact, order the arrest of the
Supreme
> >Court jurist during the course of events following the rejection of the
> >federal forces at Fort Sumner?
>
> The only documentation you've given in support of those assertions, Mr
> Beckner, is an editorial in a Web 'newspaper'; I do not often find myself
> motivated to do much based on such... but I am, of course, of limited
> experience.
Final answer?
Tom Beckner
NA
Whether it is or not, Mr Beckner, it seems more than the situation
deserves.
DD
Tom Beckner
> >Final answer?
>
> Whether it is or not, Mr Beckner, it seems more than the situation
> deserves.
Very well. I accept your lack of interest in examination of the events.
From the article "Getting Lincoln Right" by David Dieteman:
Quote:
Also, should those who debate the greatness of Lincoln ignore the fact that
he arrested and exiled a US Congressman from Ohio - Clement Valladigham -
who was also running for governor of Ohio at the time, over anti-war remarks
made during a campaign speech? Valladigham was arrested in his bedroom in
the middle of the night.
Should one also overlook Lincoln's destruction of the rule of law in "loyal"
Maryland? When Maryland voiced its support for the CSA and appeared itself
ready to secede, Lincoln arrested 31 Maryland legislators, the mayor of
Baltimore (the nation's 3rd largest city at the time), and a US Congressman
from Maryland, as well as numerous editors and publishers.
Not only did Lincoln imprison two US Congressmen, he also wrote out an
arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Roger Taney,
after Taney wrote the opinion in Ex Parte Merryman (1861) rebuking Lincoln's
illegitimate suspension of habeas corpus (see Charles Adams, p 46-53). John
Marshall, whose opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803) famously declared that
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say
what the law is," also wrote the opinion in Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout
(1807) declaring that suspension of habeas corpus was a power vested only in
the Congress. Lincoln simply ignored the law. Additionally, US Army troops
refused to release Merryman into the custody of a federal marshal sent by
Taney pursuant to the court order that Merryman be freed.
Lincoln, then, imprisoned members of the federal legislative branch, and
also sought to imprison the chief member of the federal judiciary. What
happened to checks and balances? Lincoln, with the backing of the army,
simply exercised whatever powers he desired. As noted Lincoln scholar Mark
Neely writes in The Last Best Hope of Earth, Lincoln arrested the
Marylanders "without much agonizing over their constitutionality" (p 133).
End quote.
Lincoln, the lawyer and outlaw, consolidated and leveraged his power for the
benefit of his mercantilist sponsors. Parallels of his adventurism can be
drawn with Stalin, FDR, Castro and Kruschev (sp?) in the course of their
respective military adventures in support of their respective communist
sponsors.
As for your prior question of how secession could be viewed in the context
of The Constitution, it has been addressed by others. From the article:
Quote:
Also, secession was not an illegal act (see my two articles linked above for
a more detailed argument). The Constitution of 1789 gave particular powers
to the federal government, reserving all other powers to the states and the
people of the states via the 9th and 10th Amendments, as well as in virtue
of the common sense fact that a government of delegated powers has only
those powers which have been delegated. The Constitution of 1789, which
created a federal government of delegated powers, did not delegate the power
to force states to remain in the union. If this power is possessed by the
federal government, by logical extension, does the federal government also
have the power to force individual citizens to remain in the United States
at gunpoint? Is it illegal for individual citizens to renounce their
citizenship? On Lincoln's view, it would have to be, otherwise why prevent
the renunciation of citizenship by entire states through their legislatures?
The following persons all recognized the right of states to secede (again,
see my two articles linked above for more details):
William Rawle, George Washington's first nominee to be the first Attorney
General of the United States. Rawle wrote the constitutional law textbook
used at West Point until 1861, A View of the Constitution. In Chapter 32 of
the book, Rawle recognizes the right of secession. In other words, before
Abraham Lincoln's war, the federal government officially taught its military
officers at West Point that states had the right to secede.
St. George Tucker. In 1803, Tucker published an American edition of
Blackstone's Commentaries, which included View of the Constitution. This was
only 14 years after the Constitution of 1789 was ratified. Tucker argues
that the states having first seceded from England, and then from the
Articles of Confederation, it necessarily follows that states had the right
to secede under the Constitution. More strongly, Tucker argues that states
have a duty to secede when the federal government usurps its powers
delegated under the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson (the third President of the US). The author of the
Declaration of Independence, and its phrase that governments derive "their
just Powers from the Consent of the Governed," repeated these revolutionary
sentiments in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, authored in response to
the nullification of the First Amendment by President John Adams (the second
president) via the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. A mere nine years after
the Constitution was ratified, the Federalist Party made opposition
political speech a crime. Among those newspaper editors imprisoned under the
Sedition Act was Benjamin Franklin Bache, the grandson of Benjamin Franklin.
Bache died shortly after being released from jail. A friend of Jefferson,
Bache's crime was criticizing the Adams regime in print. In response to the
Alien and Sedition Acts, Jefferson reiterated the right of secession to
overthrow tyrannical governments.
John Quincy Adams (the sixth president). Adams supported the secession of
the New England states in response to the War of 1812. In particular, when
the British burned Washington, DC, the New England states, fearful of the
destruction of their homes at the hands of the British, argued that the
federal government had breached its constitutional duty to protect against
foreign invasion. On this point, see Tom DiLorenzo's chapter "Yankee
Confederates" in Secession, State and Liberty.
Joseph Story (Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court). Like John Quincy
Adams, Story also supported New England secession. Aside from the War of
1812, various New England states threatened secession in 1803 over the
Louisiana Purchase (since it was feared by the WASPish North that the
addition of Roman Catholic Spaniards would dilute the ethnic purity of
America) and in 1809 over the embargo.
Franklin Pierce (the 14th President of the US). Lincoln's Secretary of War,
William Seward, wrote papers to arrest former president Pierce because
Pierce dared argue that Lincoln's acts in starting and waging the war were
unconstitutional.
James Buchanan (the 15th President of the US). Buchanan, who allowed the CSA
to seize federal properties, but did not act on CSA offers of compensation,
blamed Lincoln for provoking the South into war.
John Tyler (the tenth President of the US). Of "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too"
fame, Tyler was a member of the Confederate House of Representatives.
Lord Acton. The esteemed British (and Roman Catholic) intellectual famously
wrote to Robert E. Lee:
I saw in States Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the
sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction
but as the redemption of Democracy.... I deemed that you were fighting the
battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for
the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that
which was saved at Waterloo.
End quote.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman50.html
Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD
candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.
© 2001 David Dieteman
Tom Beckner
NA
Tom Beckner <beck...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>NA <docd...@clark.net> wrote in message
>news:qp_M6.5553$DW1.2...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
>
>> >Final answer?
>>
>> Whether it is or not, Mr Beckner, it seems more than the situation
>> deserves.
>
>Very well. I accept your lack of interest in examination of the events.
Mr Beckner, please try to address what I have written, not what you wish
me to have written; this is not the first time you've done this sort of
thing.
>
>From the article "Getting Lincoln Right" by David Dieteman:
[snippage]
>As for your prior question of how secession could be viewed in the context
>of The Constitution, it has been addressed by others.
Mr Beckner, I do not recall asking any question of 'how secession could be
viewed in the context of The Constitution'; document this assertion or
retract it, please.
DD
Tom Beckner
> Mr Beckner, please try to address what I have written, not what you wish
> me to have written; this is not the first time you've done this sort of
> thing.
Can you be more specific?
> >From the article "Getting Lincoln Right" by David Dieteman:
>
> [snippage]
>
> >As for your prior question of how secession could be viewed in the
context
> >of The Constitution, it has been addressed by others.
>
> Mr Beckner, I do not recall asking any question of 'how secession could be
> viewed in the context of The Constitution'; document this assertion or
> retract it, please.
No.
It's a matter of record at the beginning of the thread and speaks for
itself.
Tom Beckner
NA
Tom Beckner <beck...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>NA <docd...@clark.net> wrote in message
>news:cj6N6.5601$DW1.2...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
>
>> Mr Beckner, please try to address what I have written, not what you wish
>> me to have written; this is not the first time you've done this sort of
>> thing.
>
>Can you be more specific?
Of course I can.
>
>> >From the article "Getting Lincoln Right" by David Dieteman:
>>
>> [snippage]
>>
>> >As for your prior question of how secession could be viewed in the
>context
>> >of The Constitution, it has been addressed by others.
>>
>> Mr Beckner, I do not recall asking any question of 'how secession could be
>> viewed in the context of The Constitution'; document this assertion or
>> retract it, please.
>
>No.
Not surprising in the least, Mr Beckner... you've demonstrated
difficulties with documentation previously.
>
>It's a matter of record at the beginning of the thread and speaks for
>itself.
The it should be rather simple for you to generate a URL from
http://groups.google.com to show where it is. Second request, then, Mr
Beckner: I do not recall asking any question of 'how secession could be
viewed in the context of The Constitution'; document this assertion or
retract it, please.
DD
Tom Beckner
> The it should be rather simple for you to generate a URL from
> http://groups.google.com to show where it is. Second request, then, Mr
> Beckner: I do not recall asking any question of 'how secession could be
> viewed in the context of The Constitution'; document this assertion or
> retract it, please.
Very well. Let's pretend you never addressed the issue or questioned it.
Quote:
*Which* constitution, Mr Beckner? South Carolina seceded from the United
States of America, along with a few other states, forming the Confederate
States of America.
End quote.
I used to be comfortable with Lincoln as The Great Emancipator.
I used to believe Maryland stayed in the Union by choice.
Tom Beckner
NA
Tom Beckner <beck...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>NA <docd...@clark.net> wrote in message
>news:8PjN6.5698$DW1.2...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
>
>> The it should be rather simple for you to generate a URL from
>> http://groups.google.com to show where it is. Second request, then, Mr
>> Beckner: I do not recall asking any question of 'how secession could be
>> viewed in the context of The Constitution'; document this assertion or
>> retract it, please.
>
>Very well. Let's pretend you never addressed the issue or questioned it.
>
>Quote:
>
>*Which* constitution, Mr Beckner? South Carolina seceded from the United
>States of America, along with a few other states, forming the Confederate
>States of America.
>
>End quote.
Quite right, Mr Beckner... my apologies for assuming that you know that
the capitalising of The Constitution indicated The Constitution of the
United States of America; perhaps I should have made this more clear. In
the quotation you've cited the lowercase indicates *any* constitution...
so now that you've brought it up again you might be so kind as to address
the question, which you've failed to do so far.
After that is addressed it might be interesting to look at the habits of
coining monies shown by this Confederacy... those can be seen to be a
*real* hoot!
DD
Jacques Bernier
lure. It was made out of yellow tin foil, in the manner o'
dime-a-rands.
You wiggle n' jiggle it, isn't it, old peacock?
JB
On Sat, 19 May 2001 23:10:29 GMT, docd...@clark.net ( NA) wrote:
Rip
>After that is addressed it might be interesting to look at the habits of
>coining monies shown by this Confederacy... those can be seen to be a
>*real* hoot!
Some kind of fiat, I presume?
JB
NA
Jacques Bernier <jber...@microtec.net> wrote:
[snip]
>On Sat, 19 May 2001 23:10:29 GMT, docd...@clark.net ( NA) wrote:
>Rip
>>After that is addressed it might be interesting to look at the habits of
>>coining monies shown by this Confederacy... those can be seen to be a
>>*real* hoot!
>
>Some kind of fiat, I presume?
Please do your own homework, M Bernier... in this case you might find
something interesting, especially when compared to the way it was handled
under The Constitution.
DD
Jacques Bernier
>>Some kind of fiat, I presume?
>
>Please do your own homework, M Bernier...
I thought that what I was doin', old seagull, askin' questions to the
Wellhead!
In a similar vein:
Vite . . . empty the mattress
=============================================================================================
How wrong can a bloke be?
A lot of frogs are getting Napoleons, is all!
LOL
Crazy Anglos, I say!
JB
NA
Jacques Bernier <jber...@microtec.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 20 May 2001 03:10:16 GMT, docd...@clark.net ( NA) wrote:
>
>
>>>Some kind of fiat, I presume?
>>
>>Please do your own homework, M Bernier...
>
>I thought that what I was doin', old seagull, askin' questions to the
>Wellhead!
The quality of your thinking, M Bernier, seems to be... as usual.
DD