In a message dated 10/18/2005 6:26:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, r-robertson@NEIU.EDU writes:
“We’ve got a new product and we don’t support our old ones anymore, and the new product has the [indicated] slipouts for us.” What then?
Reorganize.
Kenny
[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.18)]
<Bill Powers (2005.10.18.0712 MDT)>
<Kenny, you’re forgetting something. The government is us. You and me, and everyone else who lives here.>
I completely disagree. I, and as far as I know you too Bill, are the governed! If we can’t agree on that, trying to address any other of your perceptions is probably a waste of our time.
[From Dick Robertson, 2005.10.19/1210CDT]
Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems wrote:
In a message dated 10/18/2005 6:26:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
writes:
“We’ve got a new product and we don’t support our old
ones anymore, and the new product has the [indicated] slipouts for
us.” What then?
Reorganize.
Hey wait a minute. The issue I raised was: Doesn’t Borland really have
a monopoly, at least in regard to anyone who has used their products
previously and has a stake in them, if they want to consider buying
Borland’s upgrades so they can continue to work with what they have ?
Then if Borland says, "you can buy our upgrades, but if you end up
wasting your money(because our product turns out to be defective) we
will not stand behind the claims we made for it-- isn’t that what the
original issue was about?
What does reorganize mean here? Learn a new programming language and
throw your previous work in the trash? Or what?
Best,
Dick R
···
r-robertson@NEIU.EDU
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.19.1336 CDT)]
Hi Dick,
I have been following this one for a few days. And gotten clobbered. But another reason for me being clobbered here is my suggestion that:
"Reorganize" in this context means "tough noogees, tough cheese, get used to it. That is the way the world is. Works for me. We deserve what we get. Mister, YOU have an attitude...."
Now, I am not trying to suggest what Kenny, Marc or anyone else is really asserting about economics, but you can see by the terse response of "reorganize", that the subtext is not far below the surface.
This is a discussion about the differences between community and individualism. Community is what Bill, Rick, myself, and perhaps you are advocating. That is, we are all in this together.
Individualism is the new "right." Have a look at the callous way that ENRON, Worldcom, and maybe even Borland treat their customers. What they are saying about our patriotic assertions of one country for all, equality, and interdependence (not dependence, as some pundits might twist that), is that we have no right to ask to be interdependent on an equal basis with them.
Reorganize means get used to being treated as an object. I would say that is a virtue these days. At least they are not working us for slave wages. Oh wait, then there is Walmart... That is what we were objecting to, by saying that customers (and employees) are flesh and blood people.
Here we go.... 
--Bryan
···
[Dick Robertson, 2005.10.19/1210CDT]
Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems wrote:
In a message dated 10/18/2005 6:26:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, r-robertson@NEIU.EDU writes:
"We've got a new product and we don't support our old ones
anymore, and the new product has the [indicated] slipouts for
us." What then?Reorganize.
Hey wait a minute. ...
What does reorganize mean here? Learn a new programming language and throw your previous work in the trash? Or what?
Best,
Dick R
Kenny
From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.19.1513)]
In a message dated 10/19/2005 1:23:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, r-robertson@NEIU.EDU writes:
[From Dick Robertson, 2005.10.19/1210CDT]
Hey wait a minute. The issue I raised was: Doesn’t Borland really have a monopoly, at least in regard to anyone who has used their products previously and has a stake in them, if they want to consider buying Borland’s upgrades so they can continue to work with what they have ?
An interesting perspective and an accurate one.
If I sell you the razor you must buy my blades.
Anyone with a proprietary product or service will by your definition hold a ‘monopoly’ until a suitable alternative arrives.
This is one reason why Apple computer lags far behind PC compatibles.
Then if Borland says, "you can buy our upgrades, but if you end up wasting your money(because our product turns out to be defective) we will not stand behind the claims we made for it-- isn’t that what the original issue was about?
Isn’t this true for any piece of software?
There is more profit to be made in upgrades than in the original sale of a piece of software for a number of reasons
What does reorganize mean here? Learn a new programming language and throw your previous work in the trash? Or what?
I think Ken was being a bit flippant here and tried a bit of humor. I read it to mean you are in trouble and all bets are off.
Regards,
Marc
[From Dick Robertson,2005.10.20.1256CDT]
Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems wrote:
[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.19)]
<Dick Robertson, 2005.10.19/1210CDT>
<Hey wait a minute. The issue I raised was: Doesn’t Borland
really have a monopoly, what the original issue was about?>
<What does reorganize mean here? Learn a new programming
language and throw your previous work in the trash? Or what?>
Reorganize was meant as a quip in the PCT sense. When there is
no way to counter a disturbance, you do need to reorganize or go crazy
or die, no?
OK, I agree with what you are saying, but…
I recognize that under commercial law, a company has the right
to leave its customers out on a limb except for its express warranties.
I’m possibly confused here. Was Borland’s original announcement about a
new product an express warranty, "or did it have to be in the form of a
contract with individual signatures, etc?
It is a legal producer business strategy. Caveat emptor.
Knowing this, about all you can do is “reorganize” in some way
(possibly trashing your old work and starting over) and learn a
valuable lesson: don’t let yourself get into such a dependent position
again. Wise consumers plan ahead and have Plan B’s. What should those
who chose to live below sea level in New Orleans who lost their homes
and had no flood insurance get from government? Should customers of
Borland expect it to make their products useful forever?
Wait , wait, I thought we were talking about new products.
Life is not fair and no one ever said it would be. All you can
do is control your perceptions as best you can despite unfair
disturbances from the environment (hurricanes or evil people or greedy
profit-oriented companies, or the IRS). And, when you just can’t
control your perceptions, it is time to reorganize. Have I been more
clear?
Sure, and I agreed , in advance, with most of what you are saying here.
But, as I remember Bill’s first message about this wasn’t it to the
effect that Borland was getting away with something slimey and unfair,
and that the relevant laws (written by industry-obligated reps, of
course) enabled this type of behavior? The implication I read in it
was a question, "Does Borland (or other co’s in similar positions) have
all the power in a case like this, or couldn’t we “little people”
reorganize our perception of the law, such as to take back a bunth of
that power ourselves? (They have managed to do a much better job of
that in the Nordic countries (Skandan. & Finland) and not only does
their industry not seem to be suffering but surveys about “best
places in the world to live” seem to feature them consistently at the
top.
My interest in this whole argument was strengthene as I read a book by
David Cay Johnston, Perfectly Legal: the covert compaign to rig our
tax system to benefit the super rich–and cheat everybody else. That
idea didn’t seem so surprising, but one of his conclusions was, Namely
that, if you follow it out to its logical conclusion, the ones who
design such contrivances ultimately shoot themselves in the foot. Their
own investments suffer as their destruction of the underpinnings
devalues the whole economy.
Best,
Dick R
From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.19.1526)]
In a message dated 10/19/2005 2:41:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.19.1336 CDT)]
“Reorganize” in this context means “tough noogees, tough cheese,
get used to it. That is the way the world is. Works for me. We
deserve what we get. Mister, YOU have an attitude…”
An interesting read and one I disagree with. First, you make assertions about what Kenny’s intent was, yet you have not checked with Kenny to see if these assertions are warranted or accurate.
Knowing how fair minded you are, do you think this just?
Second, this is your interpretation of what you think you heard Ken say based on what you might say and mean by his words.
You are inferring here that this statement by Ken shows he is selfish and unconcerned about others. Quite a bit to read into one word, don’t you think?
Now, I am not trying to suggest what Kenny, Marc or anyone else
is really asserting about economics, but you can see by the terse
response of “reorganize”, that the subtext is not far below the
surface.
No, you are asserting far worse motives than a simple disagreement on the definition of what zero-sum means in economics.
But more importantly you are making these assertions based on one word. You are also making these assertions without testing them with Kenny.
You seem to think that your perceptions are obvious and they are the truth so there is no need to question them and I disagree with that notion.
This is a discussion about the differences between community and
individualism.
No, this was a thread started by Bill on what he felt was some unjust legislation and his reasons for why it was unjust, which not everyone agreed with. My read on Bill’s reasons which I think he expanded on later was that money = power, and power corrupts, or something to that effect.
Community is what Bill, Rick, myself, and perhaps
you are advocating. That is, we are all in this together.
Even being “altogether” we still stand alone as controllers., and it’s interesting that you seem to using Ken’s statement to make another untested assertion.
How do you know my feelings and ideas about ‘community’ and ‘individualism’? Could you possibly be mistaken about me regardless of what your assertion is? How would you ever know, and do you really care?
If we are all in this together, as you say, why does it not include me, Kenny, and anyone else who might disagree with you on any point?
What do you mean by “all of us”? If your concern supposedly is for everyone, why am I not part of everyone?
Do you see any possible contradictions in what you seem to be espousing and what you are actually saying and implying?
Individualism is the new “right.”
Actually I know many on the left and far left who espouse this.
Perhaps, defining what you mean by individualism may help.
My notion is that individualism is captured in the “do your own thing” phrase. An example being the hippie of the 60’s
Have a look at the callous way that ENRON, Worldcom, and maybe even Borland treat their customers.
Enron treating their customers? First of all, how many folks who worked at Enron lost their jobs, saw their retirement plans wiped out and face certain ruin due to a few bad people.
These companies you named have people just like you and me working in them, and just like you an me, and everyone
else as in “all of us” (your words) there are ‘good’ folks and there are ‘bad’ ones.
Care to get into the political scandals in Louisiana where they used government money to build casino’s to generate revenue instead of strengthening the Levee’s. How about eh UN and Food for oil program that allowed Saddam to skim a cool 10 billion off the top for himself?
How about the millions lost to fraud in a variety of local government scandals here in the NY/NJ area?
Yes Bryan, we are in fact in this together but you imply that somehow you are morally superior to others because of your view of the world and I think that’s not only erroneous, but extremely dangerous.
What they are saying about our patriotic assertions of
Who is ‘they’? The ‘new right’? Can you point one out to me on the street or is this just someone who has a different world view than you?
I guess tolerance is not one of your long suits, at least with folks who don’t share your views.
one country for all, equality, and interdependence (not
dependence, as some pundits might twist that), is that we have no
right to ask to be interdependent on an equal basis with them.
What does it mean to be ‘interdependent’? Let’s start with some respect. How do you plan on being interdependent when you can’t seem to respect differing views? How does your philosophy differ from the Islamofasciscts who insist that everyone become a Muslim and in your case ‘one of us’?
Do you think coming on the net and telling me I crossed the line and then remaining quiet while Rick wrote a nasty post in response to Dag is ok?
Where is your supposed sense of fairness & justice? Where is the ‘equal playing field’ you like talking about?
Reorganize means get used to being treated as an object.
I must say, your imagination is absolutely wonderful. I have never seen so much different meaning attached to one word in my life
I would say that is a virtue these days. At least they are not working us
for slave wages.
Yes, thank god for small favors.
Oh wait, then there is Walmart…
Yes, the nerve of them to actually provide you with affordable goods and many people with jobs. A real evil empire if there was one.
That is what we were objecting to, by saying that customers (and employees)
are flesh and blood people.
And exactly when do you stop becoming a ‘flesh and blood’ person? When you make to much money? How much is too much Bryan? When its more than you make or you think someone else should make? And who determines that limit and for what reasons?
I now understand what you mean by “interdependent”. That is when everyone lives according to your set of values.
No thanks.
Regards,
Marc
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.19.1545 CDT)]
No marc, forget it. I put my statement along with "Now, I am not trying to suggest what Kenny, Marc or anyone else is really...".
Ho hum.
--B.
Marc Abrams wrote:
···
From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.19.1526)]
In a message dated 10/19/2005 2:41:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.19.1336 CDT)]
"Reorganize" in this context means "tough noogees, tough cheese,
get used to it. That is the way the world is. Works for me. We
deserve what we get. Mister, YOU have an attitude...."An interesting read and one I disagree with. First, you make assertions about what Kenny's intent was, yet you have not checked with Kenny to see if these assertions are warranted or accurate.
Knowing how fair minded you are...........
From [marc Abrams (2005.10.19.1650)
In a message dated 10/19/2005 4:47:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.19.1545 CDT)]
No marc, forget it. I put my statement along with “Now, I am not
trying to suggest what Kenny, Marc or anyone else is really…”.
Yes, this was said long after you made your nasty assertions.
I’m surprised that you had no comments about the rest of the post. But the fact that you responded indicates I got your attention.
Try practicing what you preach. I really don’t think you are a two faced slime ball, I think you just might not be aware of how you continuously contradict yourself by what you espouse and what you actually wind up doing.
Ho hum and stay happy.
Lunch at Walmart’s perhaps some day?
Why am I being flippant here? Because I don’t think there is ever going to be a chance to have a real conversation with you. What do I mean by real?
By real I mean the ability to be influenced based on the evidence provided. That means having an open mind to new ideas but much more importantly it means being able to put yourself at some risk by admitting that you might be walking around with nonsense in your head, instead of feeling you need to ‘win’.
I don’t think you, Rick and Bill have the ability to be ‘real’, and that is truly unfortunate because while you are puffing out your chest, so is everyone else, and no one walks away learning anything.
And in the future, please don’t waste your time coming on the net and asking me to leave. You have three choices;
-
Don’t read my mail if it upsets you.
-
You leave CSGnet
-
Try to engage in a ‘real’ conversation.
Regards,
Marc
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.191630)]
Marc,
This is the same game you played with us before when you got vicious and aggressive in the group. I am not buying it this time, and I challenge you to be an mensch.
Your comments appear to me to be just poking my shoulder, testing me to see if I will step down to your level. Nah. I choose not to address any but the false accusation you made and to show what you have said about others lately.
Again, I assert, because of your consistently aggressive and childish behavior, and the way you treat members of the forum in their times of sorrow, you appear not to be a mensch. You seem rather to choose to make this forum difficult (but not impossible) to read. I wish you would unsubscribe because you don't add value, and certainly are a motivation to be cross.
Marc's most recent inexcusable behavior:
Marc [Marc Abrams (2005.10.19.0612)] wrote:
"Rick has no inner courage.."
"Rick was not open to be influenced. He was only interested in 'winning' an argument."
"Rick has no respect..."
"...Rick had a difficult time trying to 'win' an argument instead of trying to learn something."
There are things you have said about others in the past, but I don't keep a journal, except for the most recent snipes.
But do go.
--B.
···
From [marc Abrams (2005.10.19.1650)
In a message dated 10/19/2005 4:47:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.19.1545 CDT)]
No marc, forget it. I put my statement along with "Now, I am not
trying to suggest what Kenny, Marc or anyone else is really...".
I'm surprised that you had no comments about the rest of the post. But the fact that you responded indicates I got your attention.
Try practicing what you preach. I really don't think you are a two faced slime ball, I think you just might not be aware of how you continuously contradict yourself by what you espouse and what you actually wind up doing.
Ho hum and stay happy.
Lunch at Walmart's perhaps some day?
Why am I being flippant here? Because I don't think there is ever going to be a chance to have a real conversation with you. What do I mean by real?
By real I mean the ability to be influenced based on the evidence provided. That means having an open mind to new ideas but much more importantly it means being able to put yourself at some risk by admitting that you might be walking around with nonsense in your head, instead of feeling you need to 'win'.
I don't think you, Rick and Bill have the ability to be 'real', and that is truly unfortunate because while you are puffing out your chest, so is everyone else, and no one walks away learning anything.
And in the future, please don't waste your time coming on the net and asking me to leave. You have three choices;
1) Don't read my mail if it upsets you.
2) You leave CSGnet
3) Try to engage in a 'real' conversation.
Regards,
Marc
[From Rick Marken (2005.10.19.1515)]
Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.191630)
Marc's most recent inexcusable behavior:
Marc [Marc Abrams (2005.10.19.0612)] wrote:
"Rick has no inner courage.."
"Rick was not open to be influenced. He was only interested in
'winning' an argument."
"Rick has no respect..."
"...Rick had a difficult time trying to 'win' an argument instead
of trying to learn something."
That's not inexcusable behavior, Bryan, that's just Marc reporting the
facts. If you don't believe me, ask Dag
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400
--------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.
From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.19.1820)]
In responding to this post I obviously had a number of routes I could take. I hope to explain the logic I am taking here for this reply.
I told Bryan in my last post to please not come on the net and ask me to leave. I told him he had three choices.
-
Don’t read my posts
-
He should leave CSGnet
-
Engage me in a ‘real’ conversation as I defined ‘real’
So I am assuming here that since he
replied to me that he was interested in a real discussion.
If not, I assume he has no respect for me and as such I will reciprocate in kind. I have no tolerance for folks who feel they must control my life.
There are others on this net that would simply walk away, but by doing so you miss a great opportunity to learn a great deal about yourself and others.
I am not interested in ‘winning’ anything here, nor am I interested in making Bryan look bad. We all unfortunately do a good enough job of that on our own. What I am interested in and is the reason I started posting again, is to try and find out about myself and how I cause the defensiveness in others and then how others distort the truth, and do fancy footwork to save face. This experience over the last few days has been invaluable.
In a message dated 10/19/2005 5:27:41 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.191630)]
Marc,
This is the same game you played with us before when you got
vicious and aggressive in the group.
Is this a question or a statement of ‘fact’?
First, in using “us” when and how do you presume to speak for “us”? I am part of us and you certainly don’t speak for me. I challenge any other person on this net to provide me with an illustration of my “aggressive and viscous” behavior.
Maybe you are referring to this;
“Yes, poor little Ricky has a very difficult time leading his own
life without your supportive concern.”
…
“Yep Rick, I really suckered you into responding to me. Now go
listen to papa and go have your milk and cookies.”
“Viscious and aggressive”? Hardly, but thank you any way because you shined a light on what you really don’t like and that is my aggressiveness.
You see Bryan, it doesn’t much matter what I say. It is in your head that I am aggressive, and being aggressive is ‘bad’ so I am usually a ‘bad’ person according to you. But you don’t know me at all. You have no clue as to who I am as a person, but that does not stop you from taking one word or phrase someone says like reorganization, and you make a whole load of assertions about that persons character.
You might want to look at why you have problems with aggressive people?
What threat do I pose to you?
Second, you use the word “vicious” without illustrating you claim. If you want to talk with me about something that bothers you about me it might be helpful not to make me defensive.
But I don’t think you really give a hoot about me or anyone else you don’t ‘respect’ so you are not concerned with offending me, nor do you care.
Please tell me why I should give a hoot about you?
Where is the justice or level playing field in that?
Why should I respect you or anything you say or stand for?
I am not buying it this time, and I challenge you to be an mensch.
You don’t have to “buy” anything, and I’m not selling anything. As I just said, why do you think this statement has any meaning for me?
You like using the word mensch as if you have any real understanding of what that word means anymore than you do ad hominem, and reorganization. I am a mensch, and I’m a very king hearted one for even spending this time trying to explain to you why what you espouse is not congruent with how you act.
So why don’t you start acting like a mensch.
Your comments appear to me to be just poking my shoulder, testing
me to see if I will step down to your level.
Yes, and that is truly unfortunate because what if you are wrong? Even in attempting to test you still seem to have the need to be offensive with the “stepping down to my level” remark.
How did you think I would react to that? Again, I don’t think you cared because you have no respect and you show it. Are you unaware that you show it?
What put you on a ‘higher’ level to begin with? You’d be making a few steps up my friend in testing some of your assertions
Nah. I choose not to address any but the false accusation you made and to show what you have said about others lately.
Good, so everything I said was true. Glad we agree on that. The 'false ’ statement you claim I made was not false.
Again, I assert,
Yes, you are very good at asserting. You are a great deal less capable of establishing those assertions as anything other than folly.
because of your consistently aggressive and childish behavior, and the way you treat members of the forum in their times of sorrow, you appear not to be a mensch.
And so I hereby sentence you to… Kiss my ass. See, I can show you an equal amount of a lack of respect. But I’m honest enough to admit I have no respect for you and that I think you are a piece of garbage, and will continue to think so until you stop with your phoniness, and start dealing from the top of the deck.
You seem rather to choose to make this forum difficult (but not impossible) to read.
Don’t kill the messenger, and as I said, DON"T READ MY E_MAIL.
BTW, have you heard the definition of an insane person? It is someone who does the same thing over and over and expects different results.
What does that say about you reading my posts?
I wish you would unsubscribe because you don’t add value, and certainly are a motivation to be cross.
Why don’t you? I try to make contributions. You may disagree with my points of view but at least I have some. Aggressive and all.
What compels you to engage me now? The same as Rick. You feel threatened by what I say, and if you felt my words were horsrshit you would know others would as wll, but like Rick, one thing you did not ralk about was honesty, and for those who do read my posts they know it comes straight.
So the reason you respond to me is too save face, and like Rick, people are not stupid. Regardless of what you, Bill, and Rick might think. Everyone can judge for themselves who is full of shit and who isn’t.
Marc’s most recent inexcusable behavior:
Marc [Marc Abrams (2005.10.19.0612)] wrote:
“Rick has no inner courage…”
“Rick was not open to be influenced. He was only interested in
‘winning’ an argument.”
“Rick has no respect…”
“…Rick had a difficult time trying to ‘win’ an argument instead
of trying to learn something.”
Yeah, the truth is very often difficult and painful to swallow, but inexcusable? I don’t think so.
But thanks, I can see where getting personal
There are things you have said about others in the past, but I
don’t keep a journal, except for the most recent snipes.
Wow, I better check to see if my phone line is tapped.
Do you really think I can take this seriously? Do you really think I care what kind of log you keep?
But do go.
I very non aggressive, non visciuos, but non-the-less most inexcusable;
Fuck off
From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.19.1941
In a message dated 10/19/2005 6:20:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, marken@MINDREADINGS.COM writes:
[From Rick Marken (2005.10.19.1515)]
Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.191630)
Marc’s most recent inexcusable behavior:
Marc [Marc Abrams (2005.10.19.0612)] wrote:
“Rick has no inner courage…”
“Rick was not open to be influenced. He was only interested in
‘winning’ an argument.”
“Rick has no respect…”
“…Rick had a difficult time trying to ‘win’ an argument instead
of trying to learn something.”That’s not inexcusable behavior, Bryan, that’s just Marc reporting the
facts. If you don’t believe me, ask Dag
Glad you acknowledge it.
BTW, I didn’t see you answering those assertions when I posted them with the examples of why I said those things.
Rick, do you really believe people are as blind and stupid as you make them out to be?
Dag just came on and said what everyone who has ever been on CSGnet and left would say.
I hope for the sake of you and your family you do a better job consulting privately than you did ‘teaching’ folks PCT on CSGnet.
BTW, what happened to the hypercomplex cells? Suddenly lost your appetite for talking about them? Gee, I wonder why?
But you really shouldn’t. Sure it might put a temporary dent in the notion of the current hierarchy, but what about getting at the truth?
Fondly,
Marc
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.19.1850)]
Marc wrote:
"Fuck off ;-)"
"What I am interested in and is the reason I started posting again, is to try and find out about myself and how I cause the defensiveness in others and then how others distort the truth, and do fancy footwork to save face...."
"Why should I respect you or anything you say or stand for?"
"And so I hereby sentence you to... Kiss my ass. See, I can show you an equal amount of a lack of respect. But I'm honest enough to admit I have no respect for you and that I think you are a piece of garbage, and will continue to think so until you stop with your phoniness, and start dealing from the top of the deck."
"You feel threatened by what I say, and if you felt my words were horsrshit you would know others would as wll, but like Rick, one thing you did not ralk about was honesty, and for those who do read my posts they know it comes straight.
"So the reason you respond to me is too save face, and like Rick, people are not stupid. Regardless of what you, Bill, and Rick might think. Everyone can judge for themselves who is full of shit and who isn't.."
"Yeah, the truth is very often difficult and painful to swallow, but inexcusable? I don't think so."
"But thanks, I can see where getting personal [sic]"
"Do you really think I can take this seriously? Do you really think I care what kind of log you keep?"
"I very non aggressive, non visciuos, but non-the-less most inexcusable; [sic]"
"Fuck off ;-)"
Marc, the truth couldn't be plainer.
--Bryan
From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.19.2008)]
In a message dated 10/19/2005 7:58:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.19.1850)]
Marc wrote:
“Fuck off ;-)”
Yes, and when you actually deal with what is, rather than whhat you think is you might be better off.
What you saw as the ‘truth’:
“Fuck off ;-)”
Yes, but I wonder how many other people actually saw this;
I very non aggressive, non vicious, but non-the-less most inexcusable;
Fuck off
Why did you leave out my qualifier?
Because you were trying to make a point and show something that was never there nor never intended.
So, I have to say you are both dishonest and manipulative, as well as a two year old.
You wouldn’t know the truth if it came up and hit you upside the head.
Get a life
Fondly,
Marc
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.19.1920 CDT)]
Marc wrote:
From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.19.2008)]
"Yes, and when you actually deal with what is, rather than whhat you think is you might be better off. [sic]"
"What you saw as the 'truth': "Fuck off ;-)""
"Yes, but I wonder how many other people */_actually_/* saw this;"
"I very non aggressive, non vicious, but non-the-less most inexcusable;"
"Fuck off ;-)"
"Why did you leave out my qualifier?"
"So, I have to say you are both dishonest and manipulative, as well as a two year old."
"You wouldn't know the truth if it came up and hit you upside [sic] the head."
Marc, what all do you mean about this? Qualifier? Upside?
--Bryan
[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.10.19.2051 CDT)]
From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.19.2031)]
Marc wrote:
"Sometimes in [sic] pays to be persistent. Maybe this is the beginning of
something positive."
...
"I[n] [a] very non aggressive, non vicious, but non-the-less most
inexcusable; Fuck off ;-)"
Marc, so then the above is what you were trying to say? Dang, I see! Non-agressive, you say? But that is not the best way to express oneself in a professional forum. By that do you mean you don't have to behave as a professional when you post on a professional forum? Are you a professional then?
With regard to the rest of your post, I will consider it and perhaps reply at some later time. I too am persistent.
However, it is still my opinion that the anti-social discourse you exhibit is the thing that is objected to on this forum, not you yourself, regardless of the examples of other more generous behaviors you offered. But when your bad behavior (as aggressive and childish as it often become) overshadows the positive things you wrote that you hoped to achieve, perhaps a bit of reorganization may have to take place before your behavior is more aligned with the type of behaviors most others here are all controlling for.
--Bryan
[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.19)]
<Dick Robertson, 2005.10.19/1210CDT>
<Hey wait a minute. The issue I raised was: Doesn’t Borland really have a monopoly, at least in regard to anyone who has used their products previously and has a stake in them, if they want to consider buying Borland’s upgrades so they can continue to work with what they have ? Then if Borland says, "you can buy our upgrades, but if you end up wasting your money(because our product turns out to be defective) we will not stand behind the claims we made for it-- isn’t that what the original issue was about?>
I agreed with Bill Powers that the denials by Borland about what their product would do was slimy. I do not know anything about Borland. But any producer should have a legal obligation to ensure its product is “fit for its intended purpose.” But the remedy is typically limited to the price of the product and excludes indirect, special or consequential damages, unless there is gross negligence.
I agree that no company should be liable to investors for “forward looking statements” about their future financial performance (unless they are made dishonestly).
<What does reorganize mean here? Learn a new programming language and throw your previous work in the trash? Or what?>
Reorganize was meant as a quip in the PCT sense. When there is no way to counter a disturbance, you do need to reorganize or go crazy or die, no?
I recognize that under commercial law, a company has the right to leave its customers out on a limb except for its express warranties. For example, I can no longer buy replacement parts for my chain saw. That angers me. It does not seem just or fair. But, I know they can do it legally. So, I have to buy a new one. You can bet I’ll buy a different brand with a better track record. You do understand “planned obsolecence?” It is a legal producer business strategy. Caveat emptor.
Knowing this, about all you can do is “reorganize” in some way (possibly trashing your old work and starting over) and learn a valuable lesson: don’t let yourself get into such a dependent position again. Wise consumers plan ahead and have Plan B’s. What should those who chose to live below sea level in New Orleans who lost their homes and had no flood insurance get from government? Should customers of Borland expect it to make their products useful forever?
Life is not fair and no one ever said it would be. All you can do is control your perceptions as best you can despite unfair disturbances from the environment (hurricanes or evil people or greedy profit-oriented companies, or the IRS). And, when you just can’t control your perceptions, it is time to reorganize. Have I been more clear?
[From Bill Powers (2005.10.20.0911 MDT)]
Kenny Kitzke (2005.10.19) –
I agreed with Bill Powers that
the denials by Borland about what their product would do was
slimy. I do not know anything about Borland. But any producer
should have a legal obligation to ensure its product is “fit for its
intended purpose.”
Have you read the disclaimers that come with any software product you buy
from any large company? They say that the software is not warranteed to
be useful for any purpose, and that the user, by opening the package,
agrees to hold the provider of the product harmless with regard to any
damage or loss caused by the software or by its failure to operate as
described. It goes on and on.
I agree that no company should
be liable to investors for “forward looking statements” about
their future financial performance (unless they are made
dishonestly).
The latin for “forward-looking statement” is
“prospectus.” pro = forward, spectus = look. I’m sure that term
has a very specific legal meaning, in that a prospectus must contain full
information to permit a wise investment decision to be made. Without that
legal requirement, that government regulation, how do you think
“forward-looking statements” would read?
Why do we see large display ads touting the rosy performance of various
investment vehicles, with disclaimers in small print over a patterned
background saying “Offerings made by prospectus only” and
“Past performance is not an indicator of future returns,”
statements which cancel the message of the ad (if you’re paying
attention)? If there were no regulation of advertising, do you think
those disclaimers would be voluntarily included?
Life is not fair and no one ever
said it would be. All you can do is control your perceptions as
best you can despite unfair disturbances from the environment (hurricanes
or evil people or greedy profit-oriented companies, or the IRS).
And, when you just can’t control your perceptions, it is time to
reorganize.
That’s what I’m trying to promote here: some reorganization. Only why
should you and I reorganize ourselves, and let the greedy and callous
have their way? I want life to be fair, and I want people to be able to
expect it to be fair. It’s not life that is unfair, but unfair people,
people who do not value the rights or welfare of others, and simply try
to grab as much for themselves as they can. This is not
“natural” or “human nature” or “just the way
things are.” It’s a crime against humanity, not simply an expression
of humanity. That is how I propose we perceive such things, and the
people who do such things. I propose that we stop speaking of them as if
they’re clever or successful or admirable or worthy of praise and
emulation or somehow better than the people they take advantage of. I
propose that we stop teaching children to admire the rich or powerful and
want to be like them. I want children to grow up realizing that
“behind every great fortune there is a great crime.” I want
them to see the desire for power over others as a danger, as a disgusting
disease, as a stupid misunderstanding of what people are and how they
work.
If we can get a lot of people to reorganize the way they think about
richness and power, there will be far fewer people who want them, because
rich people and powerful people want to be admired just as everyone else
does – they think what they’re doing is admirable and right. If they
find that the general reaction is one of disgust or pity instead of
admiration, they might decide to look for other things through which to
gain social approval.
You don’t have to point out that I am an impractical idealist.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Rick Marken (2005.10.20.1025)]
Bill Powers (2005.10.20.0911 MDT)
It's not life that is unfair, but unfair people, people who do not value the
rights or welfare of others, and simply try to grab as much for themselves as
they can. This is not "natural" or "human nature" or "just the way things
are." It's a crime against humanity, not simply an expression of humanity.
That is how I propose we perceive such things, and the people who do such
things. I propose that we stop speaking of them as if they're clever or
successful or admirable or worthy of praise and emulation or somehow better
than the people they take advantage of. I propose that we stop teaching
children to admire the rich or powerful and want to be like them. I want
children to grow up realizing that "behind every great fortune there is a
great crime." I want them to see the desire for power over others as a danger,
as a disgusting disease, as a stupid misunderstanding of what people are and
how they work.If we can get a lot of people to reorganize the way they think about richness
and power, there will be far fewer people who want them, because rich people
and powerful people want to be admired just as everyone else does -- they
think what they're doing is admirable and right. If they find that the general
reaction is one of disgust or pity instead of admiration, they might decide to
look for other things through which to gain social approval.
Very nice sentiments. I hope this goes a ways toward convincing people (who
think otherwise) that the PCT model of human nature does not inevitably lead
one to an anti-government, "free-market" (every man for himself) capitalist
stance. Linda and I have the joy of having raised two extraordinarily
generous children who know that the desire for power (which often shows up
as a demand for "respect") is a disease and who admire (and respect) people,
like themselves, who value the welfare of others.
Thanks for the post (and for PCT).
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400
--------------------
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.