communication (was Congratulations)

[Martin_Taylor2]

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.16.09.52]

From [Marc Abrams(2003.12.16.0636)]

[From Bill Williams 16 December 2003 12:46 AM CST]

Martin & Bill,

Why does it matter _what_ the reference level of another individual is? What
matters is what is perceived about that individual, not what the 'real
intent' of the other is.

I thought I pointed that out. Was I wrong?

That we will never know for sure. That's why it's
important to make sure you are perceiving correctly, _that_ is somthing we
_do_ have some control over.

How?

We obviuosly, cannot get into someone's head
and 'see' intent.

Nevertheless, that's what we must do to the best of our ability in
any communication. Successful communication (seen from the omniscient
viewpoint) occurs when both parties correctly perceive the intent of
the other.

Successful communication (from the viewpoint of the originator of a
communication) occurs when the originator of the communication
perceives that the recipient correctly perceived the originator's
intent.

Successful communication (from the viewpoint of the recipient) occurs
when the recipient perceives that the originator perceives the
recipient to have correctly perceived the originator's intent.

That complexity is why communication is so difficult--and why it is
hard to be sure whether someone is an enemy. Deceit is a part of
communication.

Bill Williams says another cannot be an enemy if he presently has no
power to hurt me. I say he can, because he may gain that power, and
if he has a reference level to see me hurt (rather than to achieve
some other end that incidentally causes me hurt as a side-effect),
then he is an enemy. Also I cannot agree that "hurt" just means
physical damage. I think it means any restriction on my ability to
control, and that can happen through symbolic manipulation.

Martin

[Marc_Abrams1]

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.16.1106)]

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.16.09.52]

>That we will never know for sure. That's why it's
>important to make sure you are perceiving correctly, _that_ is somthing

we

>_do_ have some control over.

How?

By reflection and introspection, to name two ways. The MOL is a technique of
this type and Chris Argyris has a number of successful techniques he uses,
with 'Going-up-the-ladder' the equivalent to the MOL.

Nevertheless, that's what we must do to the best of our ability in
any communication. Successful communication (seen from the omniscient
viewpoint) occurs when both parties correctly perceive the intent of
the other.

And, I'm suggesting something different. We need to make sure that our
perceptions are in line with what the other party intends them to be. We can
check our perceptions, we can't check someone else's intent.

Successful communication (from the viewpoint of the originator of a
communication) occurs when the originator of the communication
perceives that the recipient correctly perceived the originator's
intent.

�t depends on what and how you define 'successful'. If I'm communicating
something to someone, I intend for them to take a specific action, this is
not always explicit, but it is always implied. So a 'succesful'
communication would be one where I saw the intended action I wanted or was
told by the individual why he /she did not intend to take that action. If I
did not get either, chances are he did not percieve my communication
correctly.

That complexity is why communication is so difficult--and why it is
hard to be sure whether someone is an enemy. Deceit is a part of
communication.

Yes, but there are ways around that.

Bill Williams says another cannot be an enemy if he presently has no
power to hurt me. I say he can, because he may gain that power, and
if he has a reference level to see me hurt (rather than to achieve
some other end that incidentally causes me hurt as a side-effect),
then he is an enemy. Also I cannot agree that "hurt" just means
physical damage. I think it means any restriction on my ability to
control, and that can happen through symbolic manipulation.

Martin, this is why I said it makes no difference what the 'intent' is. What
is critical here is if a threat is perceived and acted upon.

Marc

[Bill_Williams1]

[From Bill Williams 16 December 2003 11:00 AM CST]

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.16.09.52]

Bill Williams says another cannot be an enemy if he presently has no
power to hurt me. I say he can, because he may gain that power, and
if he has a reference level to see me hurt (rather than to achieve
some other end that incidentally causes me hurt as a side-effect),
then he is an enemy.

Perhaps I should have said, _while_ a person lacks the capacity to injure me I wouldn't consider them an enemy.

And, Martin says,

Also I cannot agree that "hurt" just means physical damage. I think it means any restriction on my ability to control, and that can happen through symbolic manipulation.

You might be right, but I'm not familiar with how this would work. A comic could be said to create laughter by "symbolic manipulation." However, the laughter is "created" only in the context of a willingness to attend to the message. In the absence of a choice to attend to the message I can't see that any manipulation of symbols could have an effect.

However, I think I see how to cope with the question you raise, without giving away everything I wanted to claim. So, I'll concede that if the person generating the communication is more intelligent than the receiver, the receiver might be conned, and thus "hurt."

Bill Williams

[Martin_Taylor2]

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.16.1721]

From [Marc Abrams (2003.12.16.1106)]

> [Martin Taylor 2003.12.16.09.52]

I think I should refere you you the papers on the
Layered Protocol (aka PCT approach to
communication in the PCT sepcial issue of the
International Journal of Human Computer
Communication.

> Nevertheless, that's what we must do to the best of our ability in

any communication. Successful communication (seen from the omniscient
viewpoint) occurs when both parties correctly perceive the intent of
the other.

And, I'm suggesting something different. We need to make sure that our
perceptions are in line with what the other party intends them to be. We can
check our perceptions, we can't check someone else's intent.

In spite of what you said int eh part of your
message I didn't quote, I regasrd it as literally
impossible to determine that one's perceptions
are an accurate reflection of teh real outer
world (assuming it exists).

> Successful communication (from the viewpoint of the originator of a

communication) occurs when the originator of the communication
perceives that the recipient correctly perceived the originator's
intent.

�t depends on what and how you define 'successful'. If I'm communicating
something to someone, I intend for them to take a specific action, this is
not always explicit, but it is always implied. So a 'succesful'
communication would be one where I saw the intended action I wanted or was
told by the individual why he /she did not intend to take that action. If I
did not get either, chances are he did not percieve my communication
correctly.

Exactly. You got it!!

> That complexity is why communication is so difficult--and why it is

hard to be sure whether someone is an enemy. Deceit is a part of
communication.

Yes, but there are ways around that.

Within the communication, no. By incorporating
the perception that was the "Promal Message" of
the communication into a perception that has
other inputs, yes. But that's not the point, when
you are talking about the act of cumminicating.

> Bill Williams says another cannot be an enemy if he presently has no

power to hurt me. I say he can, because he may gain that power, and
if he has a reference level to see me hurt (rather than to achieve
some other end that incidentally causes me hurt as a side-effect),
then he is an enemy. Also I cannot agree that "hurt" just means
physical damage. I think it means any restriction on my ability to
control, and that can happen through symbolic manipulation.

Martin, this is why I said it makes no difference what the 'intent' is. What
is critical here is if a threat is perceived and acted upon.

You can be under threat from somebody that isn't
an enemy. Anyone with whom you are in conflict
can be a threat. So can an inanimate object such
as an overhanging snow wall. It is intent that
makes an enemy. And then it does not matter
whether that enemy has presently the power to
hurt me (i.e. reduce my ability to control). One
can be an enemy without being a threat, and one
can be in conflict without being an enemy.

One I perceive as an enemy is one I perceive as
having a reference for a controlled perception
that intrinsically involves the reduction of my
ability to control (i.e. not for a perception
whose satisfactory control has a side-effect of
reducing my ability to control).

Martin

[Bill_Williams1]

[From Bill Williams 16 December 2003 5:24 PM CST]

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.16.1721]

> Bill Williams says another cannot be an enemy if he presently has no

power to hurt me. I say he can,

OK. If you want to define enemy this way it makes sense in terms of the way you are considering the issue. What I was concerned with was the tendency that people sometimes have of attributing intentions to others where it is doubtful such intentions exist-- the result sometimes being a self-confirming prediction. Thus hostilities can arrise out of over active immaginations.

Bill Williams

[Marc_Abrams1]

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.16.1834)]

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.16.1721]

> > Nevertheless, that's what we must do to the best of our ability in
>> any communication. Successful communication (seen from the omniscient
>> viewpoint) occurs when both parties correctly perceive the intent of
>> the other.
>
>And, I'm suggesting something different. We need to make sure that our
>perceptions are in line with what the other party intends them to be. We

can

>check our perceptions, we can't check someone else's intent.

In spite of what you said int eh part of your
message I didn't quote, I regasrd it as literally
impossible to determine that one's perceptions
are an accurate reflection of teh real outer
world (assuming it exists).

There are _many_ 'real' worlds. Our perceptions are one of them.

>�t depends on what and how you define 'successful'. If I'm communicating
>something to someone, I intend for them to take a specific action, this

is

>not always explicit, but it is always implied. So a 'succesful'
>communication would be one where I saw the intended action I wanted or

was

>told by the individual why he /she did not intend to take that action. If

I

>did not get either, chances are he did not percieve my communication
>correctly.

Exactly. You got it!!

Great, so we _do_ perceive this in a similar light.

> > Bill Williams says another cannot be an enemy if he presently has no
>> power to hurt me. I say he can, because he may gain that power, and
>> if he has a reference level to see me hurt (rather than to achieve
>> some other end that incidentally causes me hurt as a side-effect),
>> then he is an enemy. Also I cannot agree that "hurt" just means
>> physical damage. I think it means any restriction on my ability to
>> control, and that can happen through symbolic manipulation.
>
>Martin, this is why I said it makes no difference what the 'intent' is.

What

>is critical here is if a threat is perceived and acted upon.

You can be under threat from somebody that isn't
an enemy. Anyone with whom you are in conflict
can be a threat. So can an inanimate object such
as an overhanging snow wall. It is intent that
makes an enemy. And then it does not matter
whether that enemy has presently the power to
hurt me (i.e. reduce my ability to control). One
can be an enemy without being a threat, and one
can be in conflict without being an enemy.

Martin, this is all a play on words. No matter how you slice it and dice it,
it all comes down to what we perceive to be the truth. _That_ is the
'reality' of the situation because we act to bring that (i.e.
perception)into a certain state, whether that perception is real, imagined
or a combination of the two. For each of us our perceptions _are_ our world
and our reality. Whether I consider somebody an enemy, threat, friend,
buddy, rival, etc. depends on how _I_ perceive that person. Certainly that
person has a say in how I perceive them, but not _totally_. I can only
influence another person and the amount of influence I have depends not on
me, but on the other person. Let me remind you that we still have a flat
earth society, and people who believe in astrology.

One I perceive as an enemy is one I perceive as
having a reference for a controlled perception
that intrinsically involves the reduction of my
ability to control (i.e. not for a perception
whose satisfactory control has a side-effect of
reducing my ability to control).

_This_ I believe may very well be true. It may also be a bit presumptuous.

Marc

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.16.1700)]

Bill Williams (16 December 2003 5:24 PM CST) --

What I was concerned with was the tendency that people sometimes
have of attributing intentions to others where it is doubtful such intentions
exist-- the result sometimes being a self-confirming prediction.

I thought that what you were initially concerned with was having a reference for a person being an "enemy". I think this was a very legitimate concern. People do develop references for people (or groups) being their enemy and this, of course, leads these people to act to bring their perception of that person (or group) to the reference.

If you want (have a reference for) a person to be your enemy you control for perceiving them this way. In extreme cases this is called paranoia and it's certainly not a good basis for communication. But sometimes people really _are_ your enemy and it's wise to take some precautions to protect yourself from them. This is clearly true of bin Laden. He is my enemy, not because I
want him to be but because _he_ wants himself to be. This is clearly not true of Saddam Hussain. He was not my enemy or America's enemy; indeed, he was our ally for quite some time. I think this administration did set a reference for Saddam being the enemy and went after him, possibly because he was easier to get than bin Laden. This strikes me as somewhat crazy.

What the administration should have done (I think, but of course, the White House didn't call me either) is try to catch bin Laden and the people who support him. At the same time they should have done things to get at the root cause of Islamic terrorism, which, I believe, is a pervasive feeling on the part of many Arabs of humiliation at the hands of the West, including
Israel. I think the Bush administration could have done these things -- for the same reasons that Nixon was able to patch up US relations with China -- but they didn't. So now I would at least like to them to protect me from our real rather than our imagined enemies.

Best

Rick

marken1.vcf (93 Bytes)

[Martin_Taylor2]

[From Bill Williams 16 December 2003 5:24 PM CST]

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.16.1721]

  > Bill Williams says another cannot be an enemy if he presently has no

  power to hurt me. I say he can,

OK. If you want to define enemy this way it makes sense in terms of
the way you are considering the issue. What I was concerned with was
the tendency that people sometimes have of attributing intentions to
others where it is doubtful such intentions exist-- the result
sometimes being a self-confirming prediction. Thus hostilities can
arrise out of over active immaginations.

Yes, to point that out was my original intention in mentioning "You
are not the target".

We do tend to perceive that another has bad intentions towards us
when actually the adverse results of their actions are a side effect
of their controlling some perception unrelated to us. If we try to
control that perception, the result may well be that the other
perceives us as being their enemy (in the sense I suggested). And
then they may start controlling perceptions relating to us, becoming
our enemy in fact instead of in imagination.

Martin

[Martin_Taylor2]

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.16 2027 EST]

From [Marc Abrams (2003.12.16.1834)]

> [Martin Taylor 2003.12.16.1721]

>... I regard it as literally
> impossible to determine that one's perceptions

are an accurate reflection of teh real outer
world (assuming it exists).

There are _many_ 'real' worlds. Our perceptions are one of them.

(a) How do you know there are _many_ 'real' worlds? Are you asserting
the literal truth of the Copenhagen interpretation? (b) If not, what
ARE you trying to say? What I am trying to say is that the only world
we know is our perceptions.

> > > Bill Williams says another cannot be an enemy if he presently has no

>> power to hurt me. I say he can, because he may gain that power, and
>> if he has a reference level to see me hurt (rather than to achieve
>> some other end that incidentally causes me hurt as a side-effect),
>> then he is an enemy. Also I cannot agree that "hurt" just means
>> physical damage. I think it means any restriction on my ability to
>> control, and that can happen through symbolic manipulation.
>
>Martin, this is why I said it makes no difference what the 'intent' is.

What

>is critical here is if a threat is perceived and acted upon.

You can be under threat from somebody that isn't
an enemy. Anyone with whom you are in conflict
can be a threat. So can an inanimate object such
as an overhanging snow wall. It is intent that
makes an enemy. And then it does not matter
whether that enemy has presently the power to
hurt me (i.e. reduce my ability to control). One
can be an enemy without being a threat, and one
can be in conflict without being an enemy.

Martin, this is all a play on words.

Very far from it. It's crucial.

No matter how you slice it and dice it,
it all comes down to what we perceive to be the truth.

As I have tried to emphasise.

For each of us our perceptions _are_ our world
and our reality. Whether I consider somebody an enemy, threat, friend,
buddy, rival, etc. depends on how _I_ perceive that person.

I can't fathom why you write as if you were contradicting me, when
you are emphasising the same point I tried to emphasise.

I think that the problem lies elsewhere. There is a big difference in
whether I perceive John Smith is doing something that accidentally
poses a threat to me or whether I perceive him doing the same thing
in order to harm me. In the first case, he is not an enemy, and is
likely to try to stop if I warn him of the threat to me. In the other
case I may well try to hide the fact that I perceive a threat,
because to let him know I perceive the threat is to let him know he
is bringing his perception closer to its reference (to see me harmed).

An intermediate condition occurs if John Smith and I are in conflict.
Either "winning" the conflict harms the other in the sense that the
loser's ability to control is reduced. But I don't see John Smith as
an enemy, in that I don't perceive his intention to be to harm me. I
assume that if he had another way to control his perception without
harming me, he would be as happy to use that other means. It's when I
don't make that assumption, then I begin to see him as an enemy.

> One I perceive as an enemy is one I perceive as

having a reference for a controlled perception
that intrinsically involves the reduction of my
ability to control (i.e. not for a perception
whose satisfactory control has a side-effect of
reducing my ability to control).

_This_ I believe may very well be true. It may also be a bit presumptuous.

What's presumptuous about that? Surely it's central to the whole idea?

Martin

[Marc_Abrams1]

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.16.2232)]

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.16 2027 EST]

What I am trying to say is that the only world we know is our perceptions.

Me too.

I think that the problem lies elsewhere. There is a big difference in
whether I perceive John Smith is doing something that accidentally
poses a threat to me or whether I perceive him doing the same thing
in order to harm me. In the first case, he is not an enemy, and is
likely to try to stop if I warn him of the threat to me. In the other
case I may well try to hide the fact that I perceive a threat,
because to let him know I perceive the threat is to let him know he
is bringing his perception closer to its reference (to see me harmed).

A) How do you know it's accidental? I said it was a play on words before
_not_ to minimize the importance, but to shorthandedly say it doesn't matter
_what_ the scenario is. Your perceptions will be formed by your sensory
inputs, imagination and emotions and in a combination thta may or may not be
effective for you. I don't think we disagree on this. One of my points was
that _many_ times we imagine things to be a in a way that are not in
accordance with what actually happened.

> > One I perceive as an enemy is one I perceive as
>> having a reference for a controlled perception
>> that intrinsically involves the reduction of my
>> ability to control (i.e. not for a perception
>> whose satisfactory control has a side-effect of
>> reducing my ability to control).
>
>_This_ I believe may very well be true. It may also be a bit

presumptuous.

What's presumptuous about that? Surely it's central to the whole idea?

It might be presumptuous to think that his intent is/was to 'reduce your
ability to control'.

Marc

···

Martin

[Bill_Williams1]

[From Bill Williams 16 December 2003 10:00 PM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.16.1700)]

Bill Williams (16 December 2003 5:24 PM CST) --

What I was concerned with was the tendency that people sometimes
have of attributing intentions to others where it is doubtful such intentions
exist-- the result sometimes being a self-confirming prediction.

I thought that what you were initially concerned with was having a reference for a person being an "enemy". I think this was a very legitimate concern. People do develop references for people (or groups) being their enemy and this, of course, leads these people to act to bring their perception of that person (or group) to the reference.

Right. And, when you consider the combined effects from both sides, the slippery slope is very steep. So you have two very real enemies in almost no time.

If you want (have a reference for) a person to be your enemy you control for perceiving them this way. In extreme cases this is called paranoia and it's certainly not a good basis for communication. But sometimes people really _are_ your enemy and it's wise to take some precautions to protect yourself from them. This is clearly true of bin Laden. He is my enemy, not because I
want him to be but because _he_ wants himself to be. This is clearly not true of Saddam Hussain. He was not my enemy or America's enemy; indeed, he was our ally for quite some time. I think this administration did set a reference for Saddam being the enemy and went after him, possibly because he was easier to get than bin Laden. This strikes me as somewhat crazy.

Reminds me of looking for the key under the streetlight.

What the administration should have done (I think, but of course, the White House didn't call me either) is try to catch bin Laden and the people who support him. At the same time they should have done things to get at the root cause of Islamic terrorism, which, I believe, is a pervasive feeling on the part of many Arabs of humiliation at the hands of the West, including
Israel.

This certainly part of it. It wouldn't cost us anything outside of the effort of reorganization to stop doing unnecessary things that they consider humiliating.

I think the Bush administration could have done these things -- for the same reasons that Nixon was able to patch up US relations with China -- but they didn't.

Presidents tend to follow the opinion polls, and there has been a lot of anti-Arab feeling.

So now I would at least like to them to protect me from our real rather than our imagined enemies.

Dollar for dollar I would bet that Arabic cultural studies, and exchanges might be one of the most effective ways to protect ourselves from these enemies people who consider themselves our enemies.

Best

Bill Williams

[Martin_Taylor2]

[Martin taylor 2003.12.17.0200 EST]

From [Marc Abrams (2003.12.16.2232)]

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.16 2027 EST]

What I am trying to say is that the only world we know is our perceptions.

Me too.

I think that the problem lies elsewhere. There is a big difference in
whether I perceive John Smith is doing something that accidentally
poses a threat to me or whether I perceive him doing the same thing
in order to harm me. In the first case, he is not an enemy, and is
likely to try to stop if I warn him of the threat to me. In the other
case I may well try to hide the fact that I perceive a threat,
because to let him know I perceive the threat is to let him know he
is bringing his perception closer to its reference (to see me harmed).

A) How do you know it's accidental?

You don't, but you can perceive it as such, which is what I said.

> > > One I perceive as an enemy is one I perceive as

>> having a reference for a controlled perception
>> that intrinsically involves the reduction of my
>> ability to control (i.e. not for a perception
>> whose satisfactory control has a side-effect of
>> reducing my ability to control).
>
>_This_ I believe may very well be true. It may also be a bit

presumptuous.

What's presumptuous about that? Surely it's central to the whole idea?

It might be presumptuous to think that his intent is/was to 'reduce your
ability to control'.

Yes, but if you do think that, then you are perceiving him as your
enemy, presumptuous or not.

It's all in what you perceive to be the other's intentions.

Martin

[Marc_Abrams1]

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.17.0906)]

[Martin taylor 2003.12.17.0200 EST]

It's all in what you perceive to be the other's intentions.

_That_ has been my only point. I don't see how we disagree on any of this
stuff. I'm going to review this thread and get back to you on it. This
thread might be an interesting case in point of 'mis-perceptions'

Marc

[Martin_Taylor2]

[Martin Taylor 2003.12.17.1001 EST]

From [Marc Abrams (2003.12.17.0906)]

[Martin taylor 2003.12.17.0200 EST]

It's all in what you perceive to be the other's intentions.

_That_ has been my only point. I don't see how we disagree on any of this
stuff. I'm going to review this thread and get back to you on it. This
thread might be an interesting case in point of 'mis-perceptions'

And on the Layered Protocol Theory, which was what led me to PCT when
I realized that LPT actually formed a subset of PCT.

I'm sure you will find lots of places where a missed or poorly chosen
word or two, along with preconceptions (imagined perceptions) led to
unintended interpetations that would have been quickly resolved in
face-to-face communication.

Martin

[Bill_Powers]

[From Bill Powers (2003.12.17.0908 MST)]

Marc Abrams (2003.12.16.2232)--

Your perceptions will be formed by your sensory
inputs, imagination and emotions and in a combination that may or may not be
effective for you.

This doesn't tell us much unless you're ready to propose a model explaining
how this interaction works. I don't mean that you have to run it on a
computer or write the equations, just that you need to say what you mean by
all these terms and spell out the relationships among the phenomena to
which they refer.. What do you mean by the words perception, sensory
inputs, imagination, and emotion? And from those definitions, how are you
proposing that perception is formed from the other three? For example, I
can see my glasses case lying on the table next to the monitor screen. How
does sensory input help to produce that perception? In what way does
emotion influence it, and by what proposed mechanism? By what means does
imagination (taking into account your definition of it) contribute to my
perception of that glasses case -- and again, by what mechanism?

It would help if you could draw diagrams showing the relationships between
these elements -- where they come from, and what other things they
influence. So far you've described how these things seem to come together
in your experience, but that's only the first step toward a model. The next
step is to lay out the details of the relationships you're talking about,
to the extent possible.

You once asked what is required of a good model. The above questions and
comments are a partial answer. Modeling is not just describing how the
world appears to you; it's trying to explain, in terms of underlying
mechanisms, why it appears that way . You may have to guess at most of the
mechanisms, but you can make the guesses plausible in terms of what is
known about neurophysiology, and you can at least put together a proposed
structure of mechanisms as a starting point, a structure that would produce
the effects you're describing if everything worked as you propose. Then of
course, begins the long process of making predictions from the model,
comparing them with what actually happens, and modifying the model as
differences show up.

I certainly agree that sensory inputs, memory, and imagination all
contribute to the world we perceive. But that is only a beginning sketch.
If you want to get beyond that point you have to take a chance and make
specific proposals about mechanisms. That means you risk being wrong, but
that's the name of the game. Turtle progesses by sticking neck out (Charlie
Chan).

Best,

Bill P.

[Bill_Williams1]

[From Bill Williams 17 December 2003 11:35 AM CST]

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.17.0906)]

[Martin taylor 2003.12.17.0200 EST]

It's all in what you perceive to be the other's intentions.

_That_ has been my only point. I don't see how we disagree on any of this
stuff. I'm going to review this thread and get back to you on it. This
thread might be an interesting case in point of 'mis-perceptions'

View from the side lines it has certainly looked that way.

Bill Williams

[Marc_Abrams1]

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.17.1538)]

[From Bill Powers (2003.12.17.0908 MST)]

This doesn't tell us much unless you're ready to propose a model

explaining

how this interaction works.

Fair questions and a good proposal, thanks. Give me a day ot two to put this
together. I feel like the guy who has a pile of stuff on his desk a mile
high and to any outsider, it looks like a _mess_, but I know where _every_
piece is. Now I need to organize it in a fashion that is both more useful
and more productive. Thanks for providing the impetus to clean up my desk.

Marc