Oh lovely: More squirming, *and* it's in gibberish.

Post #381,280 by CRConrad 9/24/13 5:10:09 PM Reply	Oh lovely: More squirming, and it's in gibberish.
Post #381,310 by boxley 9/26/13 8:56:26 AM Reply	Oh, the english speaker wh has never gone fishing? neat Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,316 by CRConrad 9/26/13 4:25:10 PM Reply	What's it now, six days?
Post #381,317 by boxley 9/26/13 4:46:17 PM Reply	don't hold your breath Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,327 by CRConrad 9/27/13 2:19:13 AM 9/27/13 9:14:57 AM Reply	Right you are, Greg; thanks, fixed. So, after EIGHT days now, you still haven't answered these four little questions, Bill: * Do you, or do you not, know that fat-cat capitalists like to cut down on wages to increase their own profits? * Have you, or have you not, often opined to that effect here? * Are American entrepreneurs and CxO-level executives, or are they not, just as prone to lie as you or I, or for that matter as President Obama? * So is "Their Own Quote!", or is it not, fucking useless as an argument when it comes to establishing the _truth_ of that quote? I mean, come on: It's one thing to be slow-witted, but this is on another scale entirely... Answers on a postcard, please. (And no, we won't be blaming the evil gubmint-run US Mail for how late they are, now will we...?) EIGHT days. Why won't you answer? What's _wrong_ with these questions?!? And no, they're NOT unanswerable logical fallacies like "Have you quit beating your wife yet?". They're each and every one of them open to perfectly valid "Yes" answers, and equally open to perfectly valid "No" answers (only not if one at the same time wants to make other and logically opposed claims). In fact, I think I know what's wrong: If you answer them honestly, in the affirmative on all four as we all know to be the case, they logically demonstrate that your argument was bad, wrong, invalid. SO WHAT!? Are you REALLY not man enough to say "Yup, got me there, I was wrong.", even when it's so obvious to everyone anyway that you were? Why not? Do you think your obstinacy makes you look bigger, or more in the right? One would think you'd realise it only makes you look worse the longer it goes on; that the best thing would be to get it over with and ADMIT YOU _W_E_R_E_ _W_R_O_N_G_. Or do you have yet another reason to defend your silly "Their quote!" argument? Stay tuned, folks, for another exciting week of BOxlish squirm-dancing! To be continued...(?) Edited by CRConrad Sept. 27, 2013, 09:14:57 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #381,332 by folkert 9/27/13 8:28:56 AM 9/28/13 3:25:08 PM Reply	Thanks for fixing it. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec Edited by folkert Sept. 28, 2013, 03:25:08 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #381,372 by Ashton 9/28/13 2:57:22 PM Reply	Stubborn is as stubborn does (rocks are ... like that, too)
Post #381,379 by boxley 9/28/13 5:47:02 PM Reply	Re: Right you are, Greg; thanks, fixed. * Do you, or do you not, know that fat-cat capitalists like to cut down on wages to increase their own profits? * Do you, iclude AFLCIO SEIU and other Unions who dislike the law as well? * Have you, or have you not, often opined to that effect here? * I have expressed an opinion on many things both pro and con on corporate governance in the market place. * Are American entrepreneurs and CxO-level executives, or are they not, just as prone to lie as you or I, or for that matter as President Obama? * Preident Obama does in fact lie as much to the American people as CxO level executives, why should I answer a question that is immaterial to the discussion? * So is "Their Own Quote!", or is it not, fucking useless as an argument when it comes to establishing the _truth_ of that quote? * If Obama and his minions lie as much as corporate exec's then quoting the government's opinion of the law is just as fucking useless as quoting chief execs on the effect of the law. So anythig you opine from the side of the impositioner in Chief is a fucking lie and useless in advancing your argument. Anything else I can help you understand today? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,380 by Ashton 9/28/13 6:42:01 PM Reply	Ah.. the Everything-depends<-on->everything-Else.. ploy.
Post #381,381 by boxley 9/28/13 7:08:42 PM 9/28/13 7:09:46 PM Reply	that depends Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep Edited by boxley Sept. 28, 2013, 07:09:46 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #381,384 by Another Scott 9/28/13 7:34:25 PM Reply	rofl.
Post #381,385 by CRConrad 9/28/13 8:06:13 PM Reply	Is the concept "yes or no" really that difficult?
Post #381,387 by boxley 9/28/13 8:32:07 PM Reply	: Is the concept "not using a logical fallacy" hard for you? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,395 by CRConrad 9/29/13 11:18:05 AM Reply	Reading is apparently too hard for you: NOT a fallacy. As I explained several days ago. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,441 by boxley 9/30/13 8:58:19 PM Reply	deductive fallacy is the formal name for your questions Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,446 by CRConrad 10/1/13 1:13:37 AM Reply	Explain as if I were ten: How, exactly, are they so? When you try to explain it in simple terms you'll probably see that they aren't. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,451 by boxley 10/1/13 7:51:38 AM Reply	Re: Explain as if I were ten: How, exactly, are they so? you started with It's not like they'd love to have somebody else to shift the blame onto when they cut down on staff, now is it? Oh, sorry, I forgot -- they're not Obama, and of course everyone but him always tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! Holy shee-ittt, man, are you REALLY so stupid that you believe "their quote" is in any way a valid argument?!? lets see, assertion followed by invalidation of any argument but your own, classic definition Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,457 by CRConrad 10/1/13 9:53:15 AM Reply	That's not the argument we were arguing about, now is it? That's the short version, and since you didn't seem to understand that, I expanded it into the more-easily-followed four questions you've been avoiding -- in this thread that is directly descended from them -- for eight days now. Explain slowly how THEY are "a logical fallacy" and akin to "have you quit beating your wife yet", and then maybe we'll be able to get back to this more compact version. You don't get to skip any steps; you're too much of a squirmer for that, you'd only try to take advantage. (Now surely you can't deny that THAT is a reasonable caution, given how long this has taken and we've STILL not got any answers from you?) -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,461 by pwhysall 10/1/13 10:30:34 AM Reply	Right, timeout This is doing my head in. Can you two please restate your positions, preferably in a new thread, because I'm fucking lost, here.
Post #381,475 by boxley 10/1/13 11:57:33 AM Reply	no, we are still right shifting and there is no argument Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,476 by boxley 10/1/13 12:01:01 PM Reply	Re: That's not the argument we were arguing about, now is it * Do you, or do you not, know that fat-cat capitalists like to cut down on wages to increase their own profits? assertion followed by logical fsllacy * Have you, or have you not, often opined to that effect here? not to you logical fallacy * Are American entrepreneurs and CxO-level executives, or are they not, just as prone to lie as you or I, or for that matter as President Obama? answered several posts up * So is "Their Own Quote!", or is it not, fucking useless as an argument when it comes to establishing the _truth_ of that quote? assertion followed by logical fallacy from the assertion Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,478 by drook 10/1/13 12:13:35 PM Reply	Dude ... The first you have the slightest bit of a point. Yes, as phrased it assumes that "fat-cat capitalists like to cut down on wages to increase their own profits". Instead of criticizing the form of the question you could say whether you believe that assumption is true or false. The second, okay, someone would have to dig through your posts for an example. Won't change the outcome though. The third, your answer seems to be, "If politicians and business leaders are equally guilty of lying, you can't call business leaders on it." Which doesn't address the specific question of whether you believe business leaders do, in fact, lie as much as politicians. The fourth, that's not an assertion it's a question. Yes, it clearly is based on the belief that the answer is obvious, but if you think it's not you could say "no". Then of course you can explain why their quote is useful in establishing the truth of their position. -- Drew
Post #381,479 by folkert 10/1/13 12:38:05 PM Reply	You are doing his work for him! -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #381,490 by CRConrad 10/1/13 3:03:52 PM Reply	Naah, relax, Greg -- DrooK's doing my job for me.
Post #381,491 by boxley 10/1/13 3:52:04 PM Reply	why should I support his logical fallacies? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,492 by drook 10/1/13 3:54:16 PM Reply	Which ones? I don't see any, as I just explained. Repeating yourself doesn't clarify anything. -- Drew
Post #381,496 by Ashton 10/1/13 4:37:42 PM Reply	A learning experience is one of those things that says, "You know that thing you just did? Don't do that." -- Douglas Adams
Post #381,501 by boxley 10/1/13 6:40:38 PM Reply	Re: Which ones? I don't see any, as I just explained. The first you have the slightest bit of a point. Yes, as phrased it assumes that "fat-cat capitalists like to cut down on wages to increase their own profits". Instead of criticizing the form of the question you could say whether you believe that assumption is true or false. Why should I answer a construct based on an assuption followed by a forced conclusion? You claim you cant see that. No issues The second, okay, someone would have to dig through your posts for an example. Won't change the outcome though. Out of scope The third, your answer seems to be, "If politicians and business leaders are equally guilty of lying, you can't call business leaders on it." Which doesn't address the specific question of whether you believe business leaders do, in fact, lie as much as politicians. Why, in the above statement you don't accept that there is an assertion but insist I either support or explain why I don't support the assertion. The fourth, that's not an assertion it's a question. Yes, it clearly is based on the belief that the answer is obvious, but if you think it's not you could say "no". Then of course you can explain why their quote is useful in establishing the truth of their position. bolded part is a classic forced conclution such as "when did you stop beating your wife" Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,503 by drook 10/1/13 7:54:13 PM Reply	Fine You want to focus on the form of the questions. Maybe if I restate them we can address the content: 1. Would you say business leaders never/rarely/sometimes/frequently/always reduce salaries if they believe it will boost profits? 2. Would you say business leaders in general are more or less truthful than politicians? If "about the same", are the two groups in general more often honest or more often dishonest? 3. Would you say official statements of a company's position made by their executives and/or official spokespeople are more likely to be an accurate reflection of their behind-closed-doors position, calculated to portray the company in the most positive light, or something else? I'm trying really hard to put these as neutrally as I can. If you think I'm still assuming the conclusion, please show how you would ask those questions without assuming the answer. -- Drew
Post #381,505 by boxley 10/1/13 9:36:49 PM Reply	Re: Fine 1. Would you say business leaders never/rarely/sometimes/frequently/always reduce salaries if they believe it will boost profits? only if it will keep production and quality of the product at the same or better than before staff cuts. Assuming that they understand the business process. 2. Would you say business leaders in general are more or less truthful than politicians? If "about the same", are the two groups in general more often honest or more often dishonest? about the same when it comes to defending their own interests. 3. Would you say official statements of a company's position made by their executives and/or official spokespeople are more likely to be an accurate reflection of their behind-closed-doors position, calculated to portray the company in the most positive light, or something else? Any public statement of a publically traded company has to accurately portray what can be proved to public oversight such as the SEC FCC etc. They are also beholden to their stockholders who are inclined to sue if false statements are made by senior management. In the case of a privately held label they need to take care of their brand so also must be careful when they are making public statements. The same measures of veracity do not apply to government officials to whom their supporters will believe any thing they say, they opponants will always believe that they are being facile in their statements. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,516 by drook 10/2/13 7:11:54 AM Reply	Finally Twelve days of pulling teeth and you finally deign to address the content of the questions. And guess what? It's not just about you opposing the other side because they're on the other side, you actually have a position that I can disagree with. (Two of them, actually.) only if it will keep production and quality of the product at the same or better than before staff cuts. Assuming that they understand the business process. First, I've seen plenty of examples where CEOs don't seem to understand the business process of the companies they're running. But beyond that, I suspect most of them don't give a shit about the quality of the product, so long as it keeps selling. And both driving your competition out of business and a good ad campaign can be cheaper than improving your quality. Any public statement of a publically traded company has to accurately portray what can be proved to public oversight such as the SEC FCC etc. More like what can't be disproved. And when it comes to the SEC, the difference between those two is HUGE. They are also beholden to their stockholders who are inclined to sue if false statements are made by senior management. [snip] The same measures of veracity do not apply to government officials to whom their supporters will believe any thing they say, they opponants will always believe that they are being facile in their statements. So it's not that business leaders are more or less honest than politicians, it's that voters are more gullible than stockholders? The only way to make any sense of that is if you believe that having enough money to be a stockholder proves you are smarter than people who don't invest in stocks. So, your two positions seem to be: 1. Corporate executives and spokespeople must be telling the truth about why they do what they do because the SEC tells them to. 2. Stockholders are smarter than voters. -- Drew
Post #381,520 by boxley 10/2/13 8:12:02 AM Reply	not finally at all you did not demand yes or no answers and I note you immediately used my answers to construct 2 positions you know damn well are not mine and assign them to me Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,521 by drook 10/2/13 8:29:45 AM 10/2/13 11:24:07 AM Reply	No, I don't know that That's what you said. If that's not what you meant, say something else. [edit] Longer: A sense of the sacred makes effective action easier, by simplifying all decision-making. When there is a healthy sense of the sacred around work being done, ideas tend to be evaluated based first on whether they come from people in the tribe (those who share your sense of the sacred and can therefore be trusted completely) and next by whether or not they understand and respect operating distinctions between the sacred and profane. People who pass the Âone of usÂ and sacred/profane tests get a free pass to argue informally with a lowered level of rigor, while those who donÂt face unreasonable burdens of proof before being heard. To use Daniel KahnemannÂs terms, insiders can get away with System 1 thinking (loose, fast and associative/narrative), while outsiders are required to prove their points with System 2 thinking (tight, slow and deliberative). http://www.ribbonfar...th-in-consulting/ This just came up in my feed reader today, and seems relevant to this thread. It's clear that we're arguing from different premises, and I've been trying to figure out what you hold sacred. At first glance it seems like your premise is that business leaders are more trustworthy than politicians, or at least no worse. When challenged on that you (eventually) say that it's not that they're inherently more honest, they are simply acting rationally within an environment where they have more constraints on what they can say. That's the "sacred" idea that I disagree with. I don't think that the SEC is an effective counterweight to the extraordinary financial gain available via gaming the system. And I don't think that stockholders are generally better-informed or more willing (or able) to vote out a CEO than voters are to vote out a politician. Further, I believe business leaders also don't think the SEC is a viable thread. But you could show me that I'm wrong. There are 535 members of Congress and 500 Fortune 500 CEOs. In the last 25 years, how many CEOs have been voted out of power by stockholders? How many congressmen lost reelection bids? How many CEOs sanctioned or imprisoned for SEC violations? How many congressmen expelled or imprisoned for impropriety? -- Drew Edited by drook Oct. 2, 2013, 11:24:07 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #381,529 by Ashton 10/2/13 3:44:42 PM Reply	Beyond the Call of Duty: +11 Nice metaphor.. better than Nice, actually.. This thread has been Boehner/profane -VS- every attempt to find out W.T.F. Box [thinks? he..] Stands for/against. (Hell, on damn-near Every topic: that.) As in: In all those years ... ... I never/Ever got a reply from Beep, to the simple (but not simplistic) Question: Er, just what Is It that (you) 'Want to Conserve' ?? Will take Sacred over gaming-the-System-of-Language.. every time:-/ Punctiliousness in small details of Boolean: belongs in *nix script-writing, not in clear expository writing-composition.
Post #381,535 by boxley 10/2/13 8:53:53 PM 10/3/13 1:19:42 AM Reply	late but will try to answer This just came up in my feed reader today, and seems relevant to this thread. It's clear that we're arguing from different premises, and I've been trying to figure out what you hold sacred. At first glance it seems like your premise is that business leaders are more trustworthy than politicians, or at least no worse. When challenged on that you (eventually) say that it's not that they're inherently more honest, they are simply acting rationally within an environment where they have more constraints on what they can say. That's the "sacred" idea that I disagree with. I don't think that the SEC is an effective counterweight to the extraordinary financial gain available via gaming the system. And I don't think that stockholders are generally better-informed or more willing (or able) to vote out a CEO than voters are to vote out a politician. Further, I believe business leaders also don't think the SEC is a viable thread. But you could show me that I'm wrong. There are 535 members of Congress and 500 Fortune 500 CEOs. In the last 25 years, how many CEOs have been voted out of power by stockholders? How many congressmen lost reelection bids? How many CEOs sanctioned or imprisoned for SEC violations? How many congressmen expelled or imprisoned for impropriety? fully agree that the SEC is an effective counterweight. Many stckholders are also corporations, unions, government entities, and other groups of people banded together to increase their investments. Voters are individual humans. As opined by many here, the tea party are sub humans, to others the Obama phone, Obama pays my mortgage and car payment crew, and those who think that a democratic Ohio poll worker who voted for 6 other people didn't commit voter fraud are individuals. Balmer screaming that apple sucks doesn't rattle apple shareholders. Shareholders who quietly state that bill gates needs to be replaced rattles microsoft shareholders. We are talking two different dynamics here. Shareholders are not individuals, voters are.It's not who is more sacred, I have been eating sacred cows for years, its not a tribal thing, its a "ware all who claim to be YOUR advocate, and check your wallet and count your fingers when shaking hands" Now you may firmly believe that the affordable care act is business neutral and any moves by business to use that ruse to cut worker pay and benefits to better the bottom line is fine, you are entitled to that opinion. Your opinion is not a fact. The historical record in the last century has lots of examples where declaring two classes of workers one of whom is protected by all kinds of law and one who is not being disasterous for the working class. The democratic party insisted that the law go forth as is, in that fashion. Now a few years later you declare "republicansdidit" not really, it was passed by a democratically controlled house and a democratically controlled senate. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep Edited by boxley Oct. 3, 2013, 01:19:42 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #381,696 by CRConrad 10/5/13 4:25:50 PM Reply	Could you try that in the day-time, and in English, please?
Post #381,498 by CRConrad 10/1/13 5:26:42 PM Reply	You sound just as brilliant as a stuck record
Post #381,391 by drook 9/29/13 8:32:54 AM Reply	"I know you are but what am I?" Guess we've found your level of argument: 8-year-old. -- Drew
Post #381,392 by folkert 9/29/13 10:06:24 AM Reply	Ha! -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec

Welcome to IWETHEY!