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 pu