Sam Wo Reoopens

[David Kaye]

One has to ask "Why?" They've moved. Their food was okay, but not great.
Edsel Ford Fong has been gone almost 30 years, so what's the point?




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[sms]

On 4/30/2015 3:52 PM, David Kaye wrote:
> One has to ask "Why?" They've moved. Their food was okay, but not great.
> Edsel Ford Fong has been gone almost 30 years, so what's the point?

Apparently going in here:
<https://www.google.com/maps/@37.794429,-122.405085,3a,45.9y,179.59h,84.42t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s4DMy6pZeQIV5-JRh6XZoOQ!2e0>

(only works in Chrome for me)

[sf]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:52:12 -0700, "David Kaye"
<sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> One has to ask "Why?" They've moved. Their food was okay, but not great.
> Edsel Ford Fong has been gone almost 30 years, so what's the point?
>
>

Agree. Why?

--

sf

[Mike D.]

Chinatown is 40 years past its prime, yet it just sits there, between
Union Square/the Financial District and Fisherman's Wharf, taking
up extremely valuable real estate. Consider further that no restaurant
there has food worth eating. So why not try to capitalize on a name
that sounds vaguely familiar to many tourists? Like Sears' tiny pancakes,
Sam Wo is famous for being famous, not for any intrinsic qualities.

People readily accept that someone named for Edsel Ford has gone to
his eternal reward.

[sf]

On Fri, 1 May 2015 08:55:58 -0700 (PDT), "Mike D."
<spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 11:39:57 PM UTC-7, sf wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:52:12 -0700, "David Kaye"
> > <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > One has to ask "Why?" They've moved. Their food was okay, but not great.
> > > Edsel Ford Fong has been gone almost 30 years, so what's the point?
> > >
> > >
> > Agree. Why?
> >
>
> Chinatown is 40 years past its prime, yet it just sits there, between
> Union Square/the Financial District and Fisherman's Wharf, taking
> up extremely valuable real estate.

It serves the purpose of affordable housing - your opinion of what's
worthwhile will not happen due to zoning... and they want it that way.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Chinatown-clash-Co-working-space-other-tech-6234741.php?t=c159c616e700af33be&cmpid=fb-premium



--

sf

[sms]

On 5/1/2015 8:55 AM, Mike D. wrote:
> On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 11:39:57 PM UTC-7, sf wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:52:12 -0700, "David Kaye"
>> <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> One has to ask "Why?" They've moved. Their food was okay, but not great.
>>> Edsel Ford Fong has been gone almost 30 years, so what's the point?
>>>
>>>
>> Agree. Why?
>>
>
> Chinatown is 40 years past its prime, yet it just sits there, between
> Union Square/the Financial District and Fisherman's Wharf, taking
> up extremely valuable real estate. Consider further that no restaurant
> there has food worth eating.

There are actually several good restaurants in Chinatown but they are
ones that the tourists, and many locals, will never find. And if they
did find them they could not order any of the good food because it's all
listed on the Chinese-only menu and on the wall, while the standard
white-people food is on the English menu, and predictably bad.

[Tim May]

Chinatown was built after the '06 quake as a kind of Disneyland for
Chinamen, 50 years before the actual Disneyland.

(A similar attempt to build Africatown in what is now East Palo Alto failed.)

Anyway, the Chinamen I know avoid Chinatown like the Ebonic Plague.


--
Tim May

[Mike D.]

Tell us about these hidden gems of Chinatown, and the mouthwatering
secret dishes to be had there.

[David Kaye]

"Mike D." <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote

> Chinatown is 40 years past its prime, yet it just sits there, between
> Union Square/the Financial District and Fisherman's Wharf, taking
> up extremely valuable real estate.

Fine with me. It's fun to go there once in awhile. But even if we look at
it from a purely economic standpoint, Chinatown is extremely important
because it's a magnet for tourism overall. People come to SF so that they
can go to the Wharf, Alcatraz, Chinatown -- it's part of the package that
drives our tourism engine.

[sf]

On Fri, 1 May 2015 16:45:17 -0700, "David Kaye"
<sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Mike D." <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > Chinatown is 40 years past its prime, yet it just sits there, between
> > Union Square/the Financial District and Fisherman's Wharf, taking
> > up extremely valuable real estate.
>
> Fine with me. It's fun to go there once in awhile. But even if we look at
> it from a purely economic standpoint, Chinatown is extremely important
> because it's a magnet for tourism overall. People come to SF so that they
> can go to the Wharf, Alcatraz, Chinatown -- it's part of the package that
> drives our tourism engine.
>

Chinatown was designed to be a tourist magnet. That's why it was
rebuilt to look the way it does now *after* the quake.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5337215

"But the buildings constructed were different from the ones destroyed,
thanks to a businessman named Look Tin Eli. He convinced other
merchants to follow his plan and hire American architects to redesign
his building to look like China, in order to attract tourists. In many
instances, the architects designed American-style buildings, but
placed colorful pagodas with curled eaves and dragon motifs on top.

"And so you have this effect of the trademark of Chinatown today where
it's very much an Oriental Disneyland," Yung says."

--

sf

[David Kaye]

"sf" <s...@geemail.com> wrote

> Chinatown was designed to be a tourist magnet. That's why it was
> rebuilt to look the way it does now *after* the quake.
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5337215

Yes, in fact I've written this many times. Chinese investors rushed money
over here before the city fathers could relocate the residents to Hunters
Point. They hired Irish carpenters and had Chinatown rebuilt and operating
before the city could do anything about it.

>
> "But the buildings constructed were different from the ones destroyed,
> thanks to a businessman named Look Tin Eli.

I've mentioned this, too. You're not telling us anything new. Today's
Chinatown was designed as a tourist trap. Photos of the original Chinatown
show lots of slapped together clapboard construction of no particular
architectural merit.

[Mike D.]

Yes, if Disneyland had not received a lick of paint since 1965.

[Al Eisner]

On Sat, 2 May 2015, David Kaye wrote:

> "sf" <s...@geemail.com> wrote
>
>> Chinatown was designed to be a tourist magnet. That's why it was
>> rebuilt to look the way it does now *after* the quake.
>> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5337215
>
> Yes, in fact I've written this many times. Chinese investors rushed money
> over here before the city fathers could relocate the residents to Hunters
> Point. They hired Irish carpenters and had Chinatown rebuilt and operating
> before the city could do anything about it.
>
>>
>> "But the buildings constructed were different from the ones destroyed,
>> thanks to a businessman named Look Tin Eli.
>
> I've mentioned this, too. You're not telling us anything new.

Yes she is. If this has been posted here before, I at least have
forgotten it, and find the reminder welcome.
--
Al Eisner
San Mateo Co., CA

[sms]

On 5/1/2015 7:33 PM, sf wrote:

> Chinatown was designed to be a tourist magnet. That's why it was
> rebuilt to look the way it does now *after* the quake.
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5337215
>
> "But the buildings constructed were different from the ones destroyed,
> thanks to a businessman named Look Tin Eli. He convinced other
> merchants to follow his plan and hire American architects to redesign
> his building to look like China, in order to attract tourists. In many
> instances, the architects designed American-style buildings, but
> placed colorful pagodas with curled eaves and dragon motifs on top.
>
> "And so you have this effect of the trademark of Chinatown today where
> it's very much an Oriental Disneyland," Yung says."

Interesting. I didn't know this.

[evergene]

Makes sense. When I first moved to town I lived near Clement Street
and used to wonder why Chinatown had all those "Chinese-style"
buildings, while the Richmond, with its high proportion of Chinese
residents, had almost nothing similar.

[David Kaye]

"evergene" <ge...@geeaitcheekaygee.com> wrote

> Makes sense. When I first moved to town I lived near Clement Street
> and used to wonder why Chinatown had all those "Chinese-style"
> buildings, while the Richmond, with its high proportion of Chinese
> residents, had almost nothing similar.

Look at photos of SF's original Chinatown, pre-1906. It's basically a
rundown neighborhood of clapboard construction with nothing that says
"Chinese" in its look.

[sf]

On Mon, 04 May 2015 15:02:21 -0700, evergene
<ge...@geeaitcheekaygee.com> wrote:

> When I first moved to town I lived near Clement Street
> and used to wonder why Chinatown had all those "Chinese-style"
> buildings, while the Richmond, with its high proportion of Chinese
> residents, had almost nothing similar.

The Richmond has only recently, in terms of decades, had such a high
volume of Chinese residents. In the days before grocery stores
stocked such variety, Clement St was not a place anyone would think of
if they wanted to buy Chinese seasonings or vegetables.




--
A kitchen without a cook is just a room.

[Mike D.]

Right -- makes you wonder why old Chinatown is still needed when Clement
Street has been Chinatown for 30 years. All that real estate within easy
reach of BART and Caltrain cries out for high density housing for
techies. Each tower block could have an indoor boarding area for tech
buses -- win/win/win. Plus that area is already surrounded by bars,
restaurants, and clubs.

Vis Valley will be the next Chinatown.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <cdfb4868-3550-4e13...@googlegroups.com>,

Mike D. <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>All that real estate within easy reach of BART and Caltrain cries
>out for high density housing for techies.

I hope you're joking. The techies belong somewhere no one else
will ever encounter them. Maybe Antarctica. Without gear.

[sms]

No, it'll be Excelsior. It's already begun. Good weather, close to 280,
houses with in-law units. Relatively low prices.

[David Kaye]

"Mike D." <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote

> Right -- makes you wonder why old Chinatown is still needed when Clement
> Street has been Chinatown for 30 years. All that real estate within easy
> reach of BART and Caltrain cries out for high density housing for
> techies. Each tower block could have an indoor boarding area for tech
> buses -- win/win/win. Plus that area is already surrounded by bars,
> restaurants, and clubs.

Uh, Chinatown already IS high-density housing, and what's more, people can
AFFORD it. I'm not sure why you want to dump out all the people and sell to
rich folks. We have enough of that already.

[Mike D.]

So what are you? Or what do you consider yourself? Recovering techie?
"Only coders are techies!"

[Ciccio]

On 5/5/2015 2:05 PM, David Kaye wrote:
> "Mike D." <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> Right -- makes you wonder why old Chinatown is still needed when Clement
>> Street has been Chinatown for 30 years. All that real estate within easy
>> reach of BART and Caltrain cries out for high density housing for
>> techies. Each tower block could have an indoor boarding area for tech
>> buses -- win/win/win. Plus that area is already surrounded by bars,
>> restaurants, and clubs.
>
> Uh, Chinatown already IS high-density housing, and what's more, people can
> AFFORD it. I'm not sure why you want to dump out all the people and sell to
> rich folks. We have enough of that already.

Ah yes, "high-density housing" in Chinatown. Talk about "street smarts,"
we who used to frequently walk through Chinatown knew to duck into a
doorway when one heard a window open or similar sound, as there was a
good chance that garbage was being dumped out the window.

ObChinatown food: A game we had as kids when walking through Chinatown
and passing the outdoor markets was "name that vegetable."

TBT...uniquely San Francisco, being stoned and tripping off of Edsel
Ford Fung while one cures the munchies scarfing on Sam Wo noodles.

Ciccio






--
I don't care where Obama was born;
it's where he's living now that
bothers me.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <875651fe-c1a8-4d66...@googlegroups.com>,

Mike D. <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>So what are you? Or what do you consider yourself? Recovering
>techie? "Only coders are techies!"

I don't even understand the question. Anyone who has ever used
technology is a "techie"? Does that go for wheels & hammers?

[Al Eisner]

Wheels yes, hammers no. One hears often of "the invention of
the wheel". One never hears about "the invention of the hammer",
which was either a blunt instrument or an accoutrement of one of
the gods.

Hope I've been of help.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <alpine.LRH.2.00.1...@iris01.slac.stanford.edu>,

Al Eisner <eis...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>One hears often of "the invention of the wheel".

I assume there is an internet video documenting this.

[sf]

Why stop there? The city has courted Chinese developers, so the
entire City is their oyster now.

--

sf

[Mike D.]

Different question then. What do you consider to be techies? What are
their hallmarks, or earmarks, even?

[Mike D.]

Thor invented the hammer of course, so hammers are just divine.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <95f0e2d3-a4ad-458b...@googlegroups.com>,

Mike D. <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What do you consider to be techies? What are their hallmarks, or
>earmarks, even?

Uh, people who work for tech companies? (And tech companies are
e.g. Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, various startups... people
creating or more likely monopolizing new technology.) Isn't that
who you were talking about, until you took this bizarre turn toward
me?

[Ciccio]

Indeed there is and it features Al Gore describing how he invented the
wheel.

[David Kaye]

"Al Eisner" <eis...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote

> Wheels yes, hammers no. One hears often of "the invention of
> the wheel". One never hears about "the invention of the hammer",
> which was either a blunt instrument or an accoutrement of one of
> the gods.

But even chimps, apes, and bears have invented the hammer. I don't know of
any of those who have invented the wheel.

[David Kaye]

"sf" <s...@geemail.com> wrote

> Why stop there? The city has courted Chinese developers, so the
> entire City is their oyster now.

The thing is that our government and our dollar is so stable it's attracting
foreign investors with money to burn. A lot of the homes bought recently
aren't even being used, but simply kept as money havens in the same way that
people used to hoard gold.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <mibmtr$so9$1...@dont-email.me>,

David Kaye <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>A lot of the homes bought recently aren't even being used, but
>simply kept as money havens in the same way that people used to
>hoard gold.

Disgusting.

[evergene]

David Kaye wrote:

>"Al Eisner" <eis...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote
>
>> Wheels yes, hammers no. One hears often of "the invention of
>> the wheel". One never hears about "the invention of the hammer",
>> which was either a blunt instrument or an accoutrement of one of
>> the gods.
>
>But even chimps, apes, and bears have invented the hammer. I don't know of
>any of those who have invented the wheel.

New Caledonian crows (Corvus moneduloides) can build simple Milwaukee
Power Tools.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0423_030423_crowtools.html

[evergene]

When all you have is an iPhone, everything looks like an app.

[Don Martinich]

In article <jtnikahr8cg24qq0v...@4ax.com>,

Crows can build a Sawzall(R) ?

[Mike D.]

Your admission of having been a Wall Street quant made me curious about
your background. Given that, I was surprised you could look at techies
as an alien race. Don't worry, I won't out you.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <28f9cf87-66a7-4c36...@googlegroups.com>,

Mike D. <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Your admission of having been a Wall Street quant made me curious
>about your background.

Even then, I wasn't working with technology (in any more than the
minimal wheel & hammer sense I mentioned), and those certainly were
not technology companies. I'm a theorist.

[Tim May]

Those who don't live in their properties except for a few weeks out of
the year impose very little burden on the city government and its
"services."

And yet the owner of properties pay enormous amounts in property taxes
and other such fees.

The plan to finally redevelop the Tenderloin will remove tens of
thousands of dirt people and increase the revenues flowing to the
politicians.

A shining city, with the Morlocks driven underground.


--
Tim May

[Steve Pope]

Quant are definitely a subset of techies. I've worked with several
quants (quanta?) and of course many techies and they are of the
same cloth.

Steve

[David Kaye]

"Tim May" <tc...@att.net> wrote

> The plan to finally redevelop the Tenderloin will remove tens of thousands
> of dirt people and increase the revenues flowing to the politicians.

When can we start evicting you?

[evergene]

Come on, Don. Is a Sawzall really the best tool for digging grubs out
of a tree trunk? Crows are smarter than that.

[Al Eisner]

Milwaukee? Let us know when they can brew beer.

[Al Eisner]

On Tue, 5 May 2015, Ciccio wrote:

> On 5/5/2015 3:26 PM, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>> In article <alpine.LRH.2.00.1...@iris01.slac.stanford.edu>,
>> Al Eisner <eis...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>> One hears often of "the invention of the wheel".
>>
>> I assume there is an internet video documenting this.
>
> Indeed there is and it features Al Gore describing how he invented the wheel.

Al Gore is a lot older than he looks.

[sf]

On Wed, 6 May 2015 05:41:55 +0000 (UTC), spo...@speedymail.org (Steve
Pope) wrote:

> Mike D. <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, May 5, 2015 at 4:19:31 PM UTC-7, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>
> >> Mike D. <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>What do you consider to be techies? What are their hallmarks, or
> >>>earmarks, even?
>
> >> Uh, people who work for tech companies? (And tech companies are
> >> e.g. Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, various startups... people
> >> creating or more likely monopolizing new technology.) Isn't that
> >> who you were talking about, until you took this bizarre turn toward
> >> me?
>
> >Your admission of having been a Wall Street quant made me curious about
> >your background. Given that, I was surprised you could look at techies
> >as an alien race. Don't worry, I won't out you.
>
> Quant are definitely a subset of techies. I've worked with several
> quants (quanta?) and of course many techies and they are of the
> same cloth.
>

Quant as in quantum computing?

--

sf

[Al Eisner]

Earmarks? They tend to have pointy ears and say things like "Live
long and prosper".

Oh, wait, that's trekkies, not techies.

Never mind.

Not posted by Al Eisner

[Al Eisner]

Sawing down a tree to get at the grubs which are harming the tree?
A good militaristic solution! Perhaps the more hawkish crows?

[Steve Pope]

sf <sf.u...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 6 May 2015 05:41:55 +0000 (UTC), spo...@speedymail.org (Steve

>> Quant are definitely a subset of techies. I've worked with several
>> quants (quanta?) and of course many techies and they are of the
>> same cloth.

>Quant as in quantum computing?

A quant here refers either to a scientist who develops certain
trading algorithms (trading as in bonds, commodities, etc.) or
a trader who trades in such a manner.


Steve

[Tim May]

"Real crows buy Stihl ™ "




--
Tim May

[Don Martinich]

In article <69akkal2lb3fh04bk...@4ax.com>,

I use my Sawzall for a related activity- pollarding back my 3 mulberry
trees every Fall. Yeah, it's probably overkill for digging grubs but a
lot safer than using a chainsaw, even a Stihl.

[Peter Lawrence]

On 5/5/15 3:19 PM, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
> In article <875651fe-c1a8-4d66...@googlegroups.com>,
> Mike D. <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So what are you? Or what do you consider yourself? Recovering
>> techie? "Only coders are techies!"
>
> I don't even understand the question. Anyone who has ever used
> technology is a "techie"? Does that go for wheels & hammers?

I would consider someone who uses portables as terminals for
their computer sitting in their home a techie. Just saying...

;)

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <miemku$1n9$1...@dont-email.me>,

Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
>I would consider someone who uses portables as terminals for their
>computer sitting in their home a techie.

Uh, why?

It's pretty strange what minor thing someone will frixate on.
Something I did for a few months decades ago? How I use ordinary
consumer devices?

What would people who actually do tech think of how freely you
include other random people? I know I won't be considering people
who sometimes sing in the shower to be musicians any time soon.

[Peter Lawrence]

A techie isn't someone who just writes code but is also someone very
comfortable with and knowledgeable about computers and knows basic techie
stuff like Unix and is comfortable around command-line interfaces (CLI) and
Unix shells, etc..

Someone who still uses trn to post on Usenet is pretty much a techie, even
if they're not being paid by anyone to write code or some other tasks in the
high tech industry.

Contrast that with someone who only posts to Usenet using Google Groups.

You can deny it all you want, but you're a techie like it or not.

:)


- Peter

[Julian Macassey]

On Wed, 06 May 2015 22:32:28 -0700, Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> A techie isn't someone who just writes code but is also someone very
> comfortable with and knowledgeable about computers and knows basic techie
> stuff like Unix and is comfortable around command-line interfaces (CLI) and
> Unix shells, etc..
>
> Someone who still uses trn to post on Usenet is pretty much a techie, even
> if they're not being paid by anyone to write code or some other tasks in the
> high tech industry.

What about using slrn?

I consider there are nerds and brogrammers, the latter tend to have
massive gaps in their knowledge.

>
> Contrast that with someone who only posts to Usenet using Google Groups.

Another way to say lame luser.

--
The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead
all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact
that it was he, by peddling second rate technology, led them into it in the
first place, and continues to do so today. - Douglas Adams, Guardian 1995

[Tim May]

I also think a Sawzall is safer to use than than a Stihl.

I have both, actually two versions of a Sawzall and three versions of a
Stihl (2 Stihls, one Japanese arboristt chainsaw, a Shindawa).

Mostly I use a manual saw, a Japanese "Silky" saw. It has a 20'
extension pole, so it reaches quite high.

On the ground, I also mostly use the Silky saws. Clean cuts. Safely done.

So, why are the millions of dirt peole that Todd and David always
whinging about not doing this work instead of me? Mostly, they aren't
anywhere near where the work needs to be done. Secondly, they don't
actually do the work. They lean on their shovles and kvetch about how
the work is too hard.

One hundred million so-called Americans simply need to just die off.

--
Tim May

[Tim May]

Anyone who refers to "primaries" and "secondaries" and all that
polyamory gay shit is, by definiton, a Gay Area denizen.


--
Tim May

[Tim May]

On 2015-05-07 03:51:02 +0000, Todd Michel McComb said:

> In article <miemku$1n9$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I would consider someone who uses portables as terminals for their
>> computer sitting in their home a techie.
>
> Uh, why?
>
> It's pretty strange what minor thing someone will frixate on.
> Something I did for a few months decades ago? How I use ordinary
> consumer devices?

And yet you have several times referred to your life as a "quant."

Which is it? Former quant or current day polyamory bum?

--
Tim May

[Tim May]

On 2015-05-07 05:32:28 +0000, Peter Lawrence said:
> A techie isn't someone who just writes code but is also someone very
> comfortable with and knowledgeable about computers and knows basic
> techie stuff like Unix and is comfortable around command-line
> interfaces (CLI) and Unix shells, etc..
>
> Someone who still uses trn to post on Usenet is pretty much a techie,
> even if they're not being paid by anyone to write code or some other
> tasks in the high tech industry.
>
> Contrast that with someone who only posts to Usenet using Google Groups.
>
> You can deny it all you want, but you're a techie like it or not.

What am I? I used a verson of the ARPANET in 1973. I used a version of
UNIX in 1978. My group at Intel used Usenet in 1983.

When I retired from Intel in 1986 I happily used Mac thereafter.

(I even bought Apple stock....the shares I bought for $4 in 1997-8 I
sold for $500 a few years ago. Commies like Todd and David will scream,
but this is how we shove it the dirt people!!)


--
Tim May

[Tim May]

On 2015-05-06 09:53:48 +0000, David Kaye said:

> "Tim May" <tc...@att.net> wrote
>
>> The plan to finally redevelop the Tenderloin will remove tens of
>> thousands of dirt people and increase the revenues flowing to the
>> politicians.
>
> When can we start evicting you?

When you control my mortgage, and not even then (so long as I keep
paying, around another year or two).

You poor people just need to go find a place to curl up and die in.


--
Tim May

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <201505062259...@att.net>, Tim May <tc...@att.net> wrote:
>And yet you have several times referred to your life as a "quant."

It's an experience I had. I didn't hear the term "quant" then, but
only later. In any case, I certainly don't consider it more
definitional than the many other things I've done for similar, or
more time.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <mietbe$j27$1...@dont-email.me>,

Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
>A techie isn't someone who just writes code but is also someone

>very comfortable with and knowledgeable about computers ....

I strongly dislike computers.

Anyway, that's still absurd: A musician is someone who is comfortable
with music?

As I said, you're fixated.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <201505062356...@att.net>, Tim May <tc...@att.net> wrote:
>You poor people just need to go find a place to curl up and die in.

No, we just need to jettison dead weight, such as yourself.

[Tim May]

Strange, but I'll (tentavely) take you at your word.

I was reading, and make charts from,"The Wall Street Trancript," a
weekly now long gone, back around 1975.

If you had any involvement around then, or later, then you surely then
and now know the meaing of the term "quant."

It is diseneguous, ney lying, for you to now claim ignorance.


Which, parodoxically, probably annonts you as part of the ruling class.


--
Tim May

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <201505070108...@att.net>, Tim May <tc...@att.net> wrote:
>It is diseneguous, ney lying, for you to now claim ignorance.

Reed instruments aside, I claim orientation, not ignorance.

What if every field I've worked in tried to claim me? Crazy.
But there are things I've done for decades: Easy from my
perspective.

[evergene]

Tim May wrote:

>Anyone who refers to "primaries" and "secondaries" and all that
>polyamory gay shit is, by definiton, a Gay Area denizen.

Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to
his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to
give offspring to his brother. --Genesis 38:9

[Peter Lawrence]

On 5/7/15 12:47 AM, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
> In article <mietbe$j27$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> A techie isn't someone who just writes code but is also someone
>> very comfortable with and knowledgeable about computers ....
>
> I strongly dislike computers.

Then why do you own and use them?

I know many people, including musicians, who dislike computers too. That's
why they don't own them and avoid using them if possible. Many of these
people don't even own cell phones. They're technology averse. And there's
nothing wrong with that, IMHO. To each their own.

So I'm puzzled that if you strongly dislike computers, why do you still use
them.


- Peter

[Peter Lawrence]

It should be obvious that you fit the definition of a techie too.


- Peter

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <mig87f$f9t$1...@dont-email.me>,

Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
>So I'm puzzled that if you strongly dislike computers, why do you
>still use them.

Good question. I sometimes consider stopping. (I mean I used to
think they were helpful, prior to the current generation of tech
companies.) But then, why does Tim pay taxes? The alternative
seems worse. It's not as though me stopping will change anything
else. (I also watch advertising for somewhat similar reasons. I
want to know what's happening.)

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <mig8hq$gni$1...@dont-email.me>,

Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
>It should be obvious that you fit the definition of a techie too.

Uh, Tim worked for Intel, on chip defects, no less.

[David Kaye]

"Peter Lawrence" <humm...@aol.com> wrote

> A techie isn't someone who just writes code but is also someone very
> comfortable with and knowledgeable about computers and knows basic techie
> stuff like Unix and is comfortable around command-line interfaces (CLI)
> and Unix shells, etc..

I'd say a techie is someone who feels comfortable running unconventional
equipment or software with no training or hand-holding. Anybody who has
installed Linux on a computer is a techie. People who run FTP clients are
techies.

Apple users are not techies, nor are Windows users. But computer users who
have had to install video cards are techies.

My argument about why everybody shouldn't be using Ubuntu is that Ubuntu is
not ready for prime time, meaning that it's not simple to intall if you have
anything out of the ordinary in your hardware line-up such as TV cards,
off-brand wireless cards, souped-up game video cards, etc. I'd love to have
a Linux world, but it ain't gonna happen for a long time.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[David Kaye]

"Tim May" <tc...@att.net> wrote

> Anyone who refers to "primaries" and "secondaries" and all that polyamory
> gay shit is, by definiton, a Gay Area denizen.

Gay folks NEVER EVER EVER use terms such as "primary" and "secondary", and
they don't even use the term "polyamory". All that stuff is the province of
guilty liberal straight people who feel they need to justify cheating on
their partners to themselves and to others.

Gay men already know and accept that monogamy among men is unlikely after 6
months, so they either accept it openly or adopt a don't ask, don't tell
policy. I've known gay male couples who have been together for decades and
are pretty much monogamous (pretty much means a short fling maybe every
couple years).

So, don't go laying that polyamory shit on us. Polyamorists are among the
most obnoxious people I've ever met.

[David Kaye]

"Tim May" <tc...@att.net> wrote

> (I even bought Apple stock....the shares I bought for $4 in 1997-8 I sold
> for $500 a few years ago. Commies like Todd and David will scream, but
> this is how we shove it the dirt people!!)

Me? No, I'm a capitalist. In fact, I day trade from time to time.

[Tim May]

On 2015-05-07 17:49:46 +0000, Peter Lawrence said:
...

>> What am I? I used a verson of the ARPANET in 1973. I used a version of UNIX
>> in 1978. My group at Intel used Usenet in 1983.
>>
>> When I retired from Intel in 1986 I happily used Mac thereafter.
>>
>> (I even bought Apple stock....the shares I bought for $4 in 1997-8 I sold
>> for $500 a few years ago. Commies like Todd and David will scream, but this
>> is how we shove it the dirt people!!)
>
> It should be obvious that you fit the definition of a techie too.

The old form, maybe, but not the new
Instashit/Snapcrap/Twatter/FacePlant version of a techie. I don't own a
fixie, my old hoodie is from when they were called sweatshirts, and I
use Emacs.

(Spent today reading about Idris and Agda, dependent typing languages
centered around Haskell. Read de Bruijn's original Automath article,
which I remember a very gifted high school geometry teacher (Mr.
Springer, Edison High School, Alexandria, Virginia) telling us about in
1967-68. The Curry-Howard Isomorphism is the cat's meow. Not exactly
today's "techie" stuff.)

--
Tim May

[Tim May]

On 2015-05-08 02:43:24 +0000, David Kaye said:

> "Tim May" <tc...@att.net> wrote
>
>> (I even bought Apple stock....the shares I bought for $4 in 1997-8 I
>> sold for $500 a few years ago. Commies like Todd and David will scream,
>> but this is how we shove it the dirt people!!)
>
> Me? No, I'm a capitalist. In fact, I day trade from time to time.

Yet you rely on charity to get your teeth fixed?
>

--
Tim May

[Tim May]

On 2015-05-08 02:42:14 +0000, David Kaye said:

> "Tim May" <tc...@att.net> wrote
>
>> Anyone who refers to "primaries" and "secondaries" and all that
>> polyamory gay shit is, by definiton, a Gay Area denizen.
>
> Gay folks NEVER EVER EVER use terms such as "primary" and "secondary",
> and they don't even use the term "polyamory". All that stuff is the
> province of guilty liberal straight people who feel they need to
> justify cheating on their partners to themselves and to others.
>
> Gay men already know and accept that monogamy among men is unlikely
> after 6 months, so they either accept it openly or adopt a don't ask,
> don't tell policy. I've known gay male couples who have been together
> for decades and are pretty much monogamous (pretty much means a short
> fling maybe every couple years).
>
> So, don't go laying that polyamory shit on us. Polyamorists are among
> the most obnoxious people I've ever met.

Agreed on that. However, many in the "polyamory community" seem to have
many of the twee and precious affectations of many in the homosexual
community. Their special language about primaries, secondaries, fat
people, cripples, sounds a lot like the twerpy language the homoes use.

However, homoes I know laugh at the truths in these jokes:

"What did the queer say on his second date?"

"What second date?"

"What did the lesbian say on her second date?"

"Where do I park the moving van?"


--
Tim May

[Tim May]

On 2015-05-08 02:42:14 +0000, David Kaye said:

> "Tim May" <tc...@att.net> wrote
>
>> Anyone who refers to "primaries" and "secondaries" and all that
>> polyamory gay shit is, by definiton, a Gay Area denizen.
>
> Gay folks NEVER EVER EVER use terms such as "primary" and "secondary",
> and they don't even use the term "polyamory". All that stuff is the
> province of guilty liberal straight people who feel they need to
> justify cheating on their partners to themselves and to others.
>
> Gay men already know and accept that monogamy among men is unlikely
> after 6 months, so they either accept it openly or adopt a don't ask,
> don't tell policy. I've known gay male couples who have been together
> for decades and are pretty much monogamous (pretty much means a short
> fling maybe every couple years).
>
> So, don't go laying that polyamory shit on us. Polyamorists are among
> the most obnoxious people I've ever met.

By the way, thanks for your comment. Really.


--
Tim May

[Tim May]

On 2015-05-07 01:40:20 +0000, Don Martinich said:
>
> I use my Sawzall for a related activity- pollarding back my 3 mulberry
> trees every Fall. Yeah, it's probably overkill for digging grubs but a
> lot safer than using a chainsaw, even a Stihl.

I also use a Sawzall for light pruning (up to 4" branches) when the
trees are close enough for my extension cords to reach. Turning on the
Sawzall (a genuine Milwaukee, though everybody now makes them and
Milwaukee is only the historical leader--DeWalt makes an excellent one,
for instance, and I have their "45 degree angle" compact version).

I also got several of the Bosch tools that use their 10.8-12 volt
batteries, when they were on close-out at OSH and places like that. The
Impactor driver is very impressive--I did two decks with these. I
bought two of them and a drill, as the deal with the two spare
batteries was less expensive than the batteries alone! And along with
the drills and drivers on close-out, I also scored a nice cordless saw,
like a mini-Sawzall. Takes the same reciprocating saw blades, which of
course range from metal-cutting blades to large-teeth forestry blades.
(Also got an oscillating blade unit, like a Fine, but cheaper, and a
sander.)

My opinion: nearly every home should have one of these, a small and
handy reciprocating saw that runs on batteries. A battery-powered
hacksaw and handsaw in one. Anything a hacksaw or coping saw or hand
saw can do, one of these small cordless reciprocating saws can do.

(A circular saw is another matter. I have a powered De Walt worm drive
saw, similar to the classic Milwaukee worm drive saw. I also have some
crumb-bum Ryobi cordless circular saw, but I never use it. Anyone who
needs a circular saw is well-served in the $70-100 range. The worm
drive saws are a little pricier, but not by much.)

But when I am dealing with a 30-inch diameter oak that has fallen or
that needs to be removed, and then processed into rounds, I use my
Stihls.

ObFood: now planting the most recent 7 of my 15 avocado trees. Two
Gwens, two Sir Prizes, one Holiday, one Fuerte, and two Mexicolas.
Added to some Zutanos, Pinkertons, Lamb Hass, Fuerte, Hass, etc. I may
add some others next year.

(Some of my earlier trees died or failed to thrive. Fifteen is the
number I expect to have in my count. Four of my current trees are
flowering and producing. The rest are too young.)



--
Tim May

[Tim May]

On 2015-05-08 02:36:44 +0000, David Kaye said:

> "Peter Lawrence" <humm...@aol.com> wrote
>
>> A techie isn't someone who just writes code but is also someone very
>> comfortable with and knowledgeable about computers and knows basic
>> techie stuff like Unix and is comfortable around command-line
>> interfaces (CLI) and Unix shells, etc..
>
> I'd say a techie is someone who feels comfortable running
> unconventional equipment or software with no training or hand-holding.
> Anybody who has installed Linux on a computer is a techie. People who
> run FTP clients are techies.
>
> Apple users are not techies, nor are Windows users. But computer users
> who have had to install video cards are techies.

I have used Macs since 1985. I have owned dozens, up to my latest
6-core Mac Pro (the cylinder) and of course various MacBook Pro Retina
models.

Yes, I installed various video cards, such as the Six Pack Plus from
AST (IIRC). And even Radius cards into my Mac IIci, circa 1990.

I used to go to the Homebrew Computer Club at SLAC, 1977-89 (when I was
transferred to Oregon), soldeed my own S-100 PC in 1977-78 (Processor
Tech SOL), and so on. Meanwhile, at Intel, I used a PDP-11/34A to
automate my device physics lab. And then, when they transferred me to
Oregon, I had Intel's second VAX-11/780 to run my lab up there. So,
yeah, I may've been a physicist, but I've been using computers for more
than 45 years.

As for Macs, look at what professors, researchers, grad students, and
such use. They use Macs, overwhelmingly. They have bigger fish to fry
than getting some version of Linux running. The core of the Mac OS, OS
X, is of course BSD and Mach. I asssume you must know this. One can
drop into Unix at any times. Yes, I use GitHub and all that. Necessary
for installing Hackage packages for GHC (Haskell).

I started using the old Bell Unix in 1977, by the way. Primitive then,
primitive now.

>
> My argument about why everybody shouldn't be using Ubuntu is that
> Ubuntu is not ready for prime time, meaning that it's not simple to
> intall if you have anything out of the ordinary in your hardware
> line-up such as TV cards, off-brand wireless cards, souped-up game
> video cards, etc. I'd love to have a Linux world, but it ain't gonna
> happen for a long time.

The world has moved on.


--
Tim May

[Julian Macassey]

On Thu, 7 May 2015 23:10:32 -0700, Tim May <tc...@att.net> wrote:
> On 2015-05-08 02:36:44 +0000, David Kaye said:
>
>>
>> I'd say a techie is someone who feels comfortable running
>> unconventional equipment or software with no training or hand-holding.
>> Anybody who has installed Linux on a computer is a techie. People who
>> run FTP clients are techies.
>>
>> Apple users are not techies, nor are Windows users. But computer users
>> who have had to install video cards are techies.

Acttually, most of the Apple users I know, including say
Tim here and myself are techies. It is very easy to get "under
the hood" of an Apple, it looks and feels like Unix in there.
There are Unix commands and man pages to help you use them. There
is a massive amount of third party software, besides much
software originally written for the Unix and Linux world.

>
> I have used Macs since 1985. I have owned dozens, up to my latest
> 6-core Mac Pro (the cylinder) and of course various MacBook Pro Retina
> models.
>
> Yes, I installed various video cards, such as the Six Pack Plus from
> AST (IIRC). And even Radius cards into my Mac IIci, circa 1990.
>
> I used to go to the Homebrew Computer Club at SLAC, 1977-89 (when I was
> transferred to Oregon), soldeed my own S-100 PC in 1977-78 (Processor
> Tech SOL), and so on. Meanwhile, at Intel, I used a PDP-11/34A to
> automate my device physics lab. And then, when they transferred me to
> Oregon, I had Intel's second VAX-11/780 to run my lab up there. So,
> yeah, I may've been a physicist, but I've been using computers for more
> than 45 years.
>
> As for Macs, look at what professors, researchers, grad students, and
> such use. They use Macs, overwhelmingly. They have bigger fish to fry
> than getting some version of Linux running. The core of the Mac OS, OS
> X, is of course BSD and Mach.

This is true, and very much for reasons I noted above.
If you want a Unixy laptop, get a Mac. If you want a desktop that
will have top notch graphics and a good UI and erginomics, get a
Mac, they fill a space left vacant by Silicon Graphics.

>
> I started using the old Bell Unix in 1977, by the way. Primitive then,
> primitive now.

The Linux world is moving away from the last vestiges of
Sys V Unix. The init is going away replaced by systemd. This has
caused much kicking and screaming by various distros, but they
are all moving over.

>
>
>>
>> My argument about why everybody shouldn't be using Ubuntu is that
>> Ubuntu is not ready for prime time, meaning that it's not simple to
>> intall if you have anything out of the ordinary in your hardware
>> line-up such as TV cards, off-brand wireless cards, souped-up game
>> video cards, etc. I'd love to have a Linux world, but it ain't gonna
>> happen for a long time.
>
> The world has moved on.

It has and continues to evolve. Alas, since the death of
St Steven of Cupertino, Apple seem to have lost the recipe. On
the other hand Linux and its various distros are getting better.
I run Apple and Linux machines and am watching carefully.


--
Germany is known as 'the land where Israelis learned their manners'.
- P. J. O'Rourke

[sms]

On 5/7/2015 7:36 PM, David Kaye wrote:

> Apple users are not techies, nor are Windows users. But computer
> users who have had to install video cards are techies.

Apple users tend to get flustered when they have to deal with non-Apple
supported, industry-standard, hardware.

Yesterday, at my Toastmasters club meeting, within sight of the cranes
building Apple's new campus, one of the speeches had to be cancelled.

Why? The speaker needed to use the projector in the meeting room.

Huh? The projector uses a standard 15 pin VGA interface. But of course
Apple does not provide that interface on their laptops. Nor do they
supply a Mini Display Port, HDMI, Mini HDMI or Micro HDMI port. You need
to now buy a $49 Thunderbolt to VGA adapter, and carry that around with
you. If you want a wired Ethernet port, a necessity when traveling in
many places, that's another adapter, $29, and another piece to carry
around. A techie would have known all this and would have been carrying
along the necessary cables, adapters, dongles, etc. to interface a Mac
to the rest of the world. I have seen techies with Macbooks at various
classes and they a) are running Windows on the Mac via dual-boot or a
virtual machine, and b) they have brought along the necessary extra
hardware.

Apple's design philosophy is that the base product is minimalist in
order to reduce weight, thickness, and cost, and functionality needs to
be restored by adding on various dongles, adapters, and hubs.

I said to him, "why don't you give a speech about how Apple removes
common interfaces long before they are obsolete?"

He replied, "no, I'll give a speech about how Apple creates new
standards." Did I mention that he works at Apple?

I got a very nice free HP Laser Printer on Freecycle from someone who
had bought a new Mac and could not figure out how to connect the printer
since Apple had dropped the standard printer interface a few years too
early. I offered to show the guy how to use it, vi

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <mih7ds$tek$1...@dont-email.me>,

David Kaye <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>But computer users who have had to install video cards are techies.

That's crazy. I think you are confusing being a techie with being
frugal. Techies *enjoy* tech. That's the crucial thing.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <mih7o7$uad$1...@dont-email.me>,

David Kaye <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>All that stuff is the province of guilty liberal straight people
>who feel they need to justify cheating on their partners to
>themselves and to others.

You sure do like to generalize. You know what we call generalizing
when it's being applied to people? Stereotyping, and other nasty
stuff. You and Tim are really a lot alike.

[Ciccio]

Kaye recently claimed to be 90% homosexual. I gather from Tim's posts
that he is 100% heterosexual. Thus, that does not equate that Kaye and
Tim are "a lot" alike. But, of course, I don't have the acumen in
mathematics like, say, a quant.

Ciccio
--
I don't care where Obama was born;
it's where he's living now that
bothers me.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <mijdc5$sae$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Kaye recently claimed to be 90% homosexual. I gather from Tim's
>posts that he is 100% heterosexual. Thus, that does not equate that
>Kaye and Tim are "a lot" alike.

I guess that depends on what you think is important.

[Tim May]

On 2015-05-08 22:29:25 +0000, Ciccio said:

> On 5/8/2015 11:54 AM, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>> In article <mih7o7$uad$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> David Kaye <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> All that stuff is the province of guilty liberal straight people
>>> who feel they need to justify cheating on their partners to
>>> themselves and to others.
>>
>> You sure do like to generalize. You know what we call generalizing
>> when it's being applied to people? Stereotyping, and other nasty
>> stuff. You and Tim are really a lot alike.
>
>
> Kaye recently claimed to be 90% homosexual. I gather from Tim's posts
> that he is 100% heterosexual. Thus, that does not equate that Kaye and
> Tim are "a lot" alike. But, of course, I don't have the acumen in
> mathematics like, say, a quant.

I am, so far as I know, heterosexual. I have never attempted to
"explore" any other orientation. Perhaps I have other tendencies. I
don't think so, but I cannot say for sure.

I have my problems with the bitches, of course. Who doesn't? A
perverted legal system. Basically, most of the bitch claims for child
support are just another form of socialism. "I gots da right to eat
potato chips, he gots to pay for my chilluns!"

My problems with bitches are universal, of course. Mostly cured by age.

But going the homo route has never seemed attractive to me. Literally,
I don't see the attraction. And then there freaks like Chaz Bono, a
freak of a "man," and Brucina Jenner, pumping up its fake tits and
plastic vagina after its dick is sawed off. A fucking creep show.

Frankly, this freak show and the polyamory freak show makes the
run--of-the-mill homosexuality of David Kaye and others seem benign by
comparison.



--Tim
>
> Ciccio


--
Tim May

[Ciccio]

Borrowing Kaye's 90% number, I'll say that sexual preference/orientation
is very important to, at least, 90% of the people as to, at least, 90%
of their sexual interactions. Perhaps, however, loony lefty liberal
social so-called scientists have come up with some other percentages.

[Ciccio]

On 5/8/2015 9:40 PM, Tim May wrote:

> Frankly, this freak show and the polyamory freak show makes the
> run--of-the-mill homosexuality of David Kaye and others seem benign by
> comparison.

I find all such to be benign as social phenomena. I, however, find all
such to be personally repulsive albeit without my having indignation
regarding people who practice such...live and let live. Works for me.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <mildcn$1kd$2...@speranza.aioe.org>,
Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Borrowing Kaye's 90% number, .... so-called scientists have come

>up with some other percentages.

Your post is so weird, I can't tell if you're fixated on sexuality
or fixated on numbers! In any case, I was of course referring to
the tendency to stereotype, which I consider to be more important
than sexuality or numbers when it comes to my opinion of people.

[Peter Lawrence]

On 5/9/15 12:50 PM, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
>
> In any case, I was of course referring to

> the tendency to stereotype...

I think it's human nature to stereotype since it makes life less complicated
and easier to cope for those who do stereotype. It's the lazy way to get
through life versus treating each person as a distinct individual.


- Peter

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <milqgc$a8f$2...@dont-email.me>,

Peter Lawrence <humm...@aol.com> wrote:
>I think it's human nature to stereotype since it makes life less
>complicated and easier to cope for those who do stereotype. It's
>the lazy way to get through life versus treating each person as a
>distinct individual.

Generalization, which is where I started, is something people do
need to do. You can't really get through life while treating every
part of every experience as unique.

Does someone need to spew generalization, stereotypes about people,
though, particularly unsolicited? Not really, and not on a regular
basis, and certainly not as something to then defend when criticized.

[David Kaye]

"Peter Lawrence" <humm...@aol.com> wrote

> I think it's human nature to stereotype since it makes life less
> complicated and easier to cope for those who do stereotype. It's the lazy
> way to get through life versus treating each person as a distinct
> individual.

Lazy or maybe just shorthand. As animals we automatically stereotype
everything in our experience. A bear kills a man and we immediately learn
not to hang around bears. That's a stereotype, since not all bears are
harmful at all times. But it's in our best interest to make assumptions
based on past occurrences. We can't think through EVERY situation; our
brains would burn out from overuse.

I think (I know) that people confuse stereotypes with caricatures, a
caricature being an overly broad and often comic portrayal.

[Ciccio]

Your pontificating against stereotyping is quite amusing when considered
in light of your rants about business owners, capitalists, sports fans,
affluent people, and people who own items of property such as guns, to
name a few groups of people about whom you staunchly stereotype.

[Ciccio]

On 5/9/2015 12:50 PM, Todd Michel McComb wrote:
> In article <mildcn$1kd$2...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Borrowing Kaye's 90% number, .... so-called scientists have come
>> up with some other percentages.
>
> Your post is so weird, I can't tell if you're fixated on sexuality
> or fixated on numbers!

I merely related a valid observation, with which I note you don't
disagree. That you, however, continue to carry on about it demonstrates
your "fixation" regarding it.

> In any case, I was of course referring to
> the tendency to stereotype, which I consider to be more important
> than sexuality or numbers when it comes to my opinion of people.

So, you stereotype people who stereotype. That is amusing and consistent
with your penchant for stereotyping as you often display in your posts.

[Ciccio]

"Stereotyping" is just a form of inductive reasoning, which may be valid
or invalid. An indication of the invalidity of a proposition of
inductive reasoning or a stereotype is when it contains qualifiers such
as "all," "every," "always," "never," "none," or other all inclusive
concepts.

Of course, a person's ignorance is blatant when the person insists upon
applying the stereotype to distinct individuals to whom the stereotype
does not apply.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <mio4ig$qb6$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Your pontificating against stereotyping is quite amusing when
>considered in light of your rants about business owners, capitalists,
>sports fans, affluent people, and people who own items of property
>such as guns, to name a few groups of people about whom you staunchly
>stereotype.

I don't claim perfection on this point, although I've spent numerous
hours training it. In any case, if you actually look closely at
what I say, you'll find that -- at least much of the time -- I say
things like "many," or I focus on a behavior rather than a person.
In the case of gun ownership, I specifically made a statement about
the correlation between owning a gun & harm coming to one's family,
for instance.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <mio4k3$qb6$2...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>So, you stereotype people who stereotype. That is amusing and
>consistent with your penchant for stereotyping as you often display
>in your posts.

Yes, it is "amusing" and consistent that I judge individuals according
to what _they actually say_.

[Ciccio]

On 5/10/2015 11:10 AM, Todd Michel McComb wrote:

> In article <mio4ig$qb6$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:

>> such as guns, to name a few groups of people about whom you staunchly
>> stereotype.
>
> I don't claim perfection on this point,

That's good because you are a lonnnnnnnng way from being perfect
generally and on this point specifically.

> although I've spent numerous hours training it.

Well, if you charged money for providing the training it sounds like you
should refund the money to the trainees.

> In any case, if you actually look closely at
> what I say, you'll find that -- at least much of the time -- I say
> things like "many," or I focus on a behavior rather than a person.

Organic causes or physiological reactions aside, "behavior," or better
put "conduct," is volitional action by an individual. That is, a
person's conduct is not independent of the person, but it is an integral
inseparable part of the person. To assert a person's conduct is separate
from the person is folly.

Your use of the qualifier "many" to dress up a stereotype does little,
if anything, to vitiate the invidiousness of a harmful stereotypes.
Saying "*many* blacks are criminals" is just as invidious as saying
"blacks are criminals."

> In the case of gun ownership, I specifically made a statement about
> the correlation between owning a gun & harm coming to one's family,
> for instance.

And as I showed you, you asserted a statistical fallacy which
inaccurately and unfairly stereotypes homeowners with guns in their
homes as being uncaring about their household members.

[Todd Michel McComb]

In article <mip0m9$ol0$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Ciccio <franc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Well, if you charged money for providing the training it sounds
>like you should refund the money to the trainees.

People have been quite happy with me. (It's funny how some people
here insist I'm really something I've done very little, while others
are insisting I'm really not something I do regularly. But hey,
c'est la ba.food.)

>To assert a person's conduct is separate from the person is folly.

People are generally accustomed to the idea that they might change
their behavior, particularly things like what they say, whereas
there are other things that they probably will not (be able to)
change.

>Saying "*many* blacks are criminals" is just as invidious as saying
>"blacks are criminals."

That depends on context. Often, yes, you are correct.

>And as I showed you, you asserted a statistical fallacy which
>inaccurately and unfairly stereotypes homeowners with guns in their
>homes as being uncaring about their household members.

And just who started out asserting that the group of non-gun owners
didn't care about their household members? That would be you.

[Mike D.]

I was curious about this statement, because it could refer to the
case-control studies of Kellermann, et al. But Todd's original statement
was a truism on the order of "you're more likely to be hit by a car on
Manhattan Island than Mackinac Island," Mackinac Island being free of
automobiles.