My neighbour (she is a top public servant with several degrees and very
smart in most things) told me that she bought a power drill and used it for
a year or so, never very happy with its cutting speed. Surgeon husband tiook
a look at it and couldnt see anything wrong.
Then a friend pointed out the problem.
She had it in reverse.
Mekon
In article <[email protected]>, Mekon
<[email protected]> wrote:
> My neighbour (she is a top public servant with several degrees and very
> smart in most things) told me that she bought a power drill and used it for
> a year or so, never very happy with its cutting speed. Surgeon husband tiook
> a look at it and couldnt see anything wrong.
> Then a friend pointed out the problem.
> She had it in reverse.
Confession:
last year I bought a Jonsered chainsaw to take down a tree in the front
yard that was dying. Good excuse to buy a $400 tool.
It cut like crap the first time I tried it, even on 2" branches.
The blade had been installed backwards at the shop, and I hadn't
checked before firing it up.
In article <[email protected]>,
KB8QLR <[email protected]> wrote:
> That reminds me of the first time I put a chain on a saw...you guessed it, I
> put it on backward. It wouldn't cut sh*t. I laugh everytime I think of it.
You can be sure I double check every time I put the chain back on the
saw...
;-D
In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ...and then the guy at the shop started it up, and the owner said
> "What's that noise??!?!?!"
They're supposed to make noise?
--
WOMD?
<http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000140.html>
In article <[email protected]>, Edwin
Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't know, we have a couple of brain surgeons in the maintenance
> department at work. One of them did the same thing. He at least sharpened
> the bit because it was not going in fast enough.
Just goes to show that brain surgeons aren't rocket scientists...
In article <[email protected]>, Robert Galloway <[email protected]> wrote:
>I've knows a number of very bright people who recite to themselved
>"righty tighty, lefty loosy" every time they approach a screw or bolt.
>The reason is that they didn't grow up playing with mechanical things,
>they seldom encounter them now and it hasn't become "second nature". I
>know a number of people who don't have the problem whose IQ is probably
>not over 85.
>
"Didn't grow up playing with mechanical things." That's it in a nutshell.
I know a lawyer, very bright guy, who decided to redo his kitchen himself. He
actually did a decent job of laying linoleum and installing cabinets from the
Borg, but when he did the plumbing.... well, he somehow managed to miss the
concept that fittings on PVC pipe needed to be glued, and thought that a press
fit was adequate. The results were entirely predictable (except to him).
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm not sure I see your point. Yes, there are consequences. So what?
> Nobody has denied that there are consequences nor has anybody argued that
> there should not be consequences.
>
> I fail to see what this has to do with the issue of blind obedience to the
> law.
>
I thought we were talking about picking and choosing which laws you would
obey, and the effect that has on society.
> I see. From this one may conclude that you were stating a totally
uninformed
> opinion, and that calls into question the validity of your other
> statements.
>
Or, one could conclude that you can as easily look it up as can I, or that I
have actual experience in dealing with a district attorney and his approach
to the situation. Again, you are free to choose to do what you want.
> Again, so what? How does this bear on the question of whether one should
> always blindly obey the law no matter what the consequences of such
> obedience or whether there are circumstances under which it is appropriate
> to do other than obey the law?
>
I didn't realize we were talking about blindly obeying the law. I thought
we were talking about picking and choosing which laws will apply to you at
any moment, and ignoring those that don't seem expedient, or fun, regardless
of the consequences.
> That's why one exercises judgment.
>
By "judgment" you mean "ignoring the law that doesn't suit you", or does it
now carry some other meaning?
> A neurotypical at that point would have recognized that I had changed the
> subject and was no longer talking specifically about the auto theft
> scenario.
>
Ah, I see. A clairvoyant may have noticed that you changed the subject, but
us mere mortals are having trouble following what exists only in your mind.
We're stuck with the difficult task of deciphering what you actually write.
Keep it up; it's very entertaining.
> Please identify an individual who has advocated such in this discussion
and
> quote the statements in which he advocated it.
>
You may recognize this, in which you dodged the anarchy indictment, and went
on to say that "sometimes violating the rules is the right decision", which
I, too, interpreted as advocating anarchy:
George wrote:
> Change it, don't violate it.
>
> Fabric of society, its manners, customs and laws. Alternative is called
> anarchy. Not to mention the confusion as you are confronted with an
> endless number of decisions. Is this the day to steal my neighbor's car?
> Was yesterday really retail fraud amnesty day, or can I get the money back
> for the two radios that kid stole? Should I blindly comply with that
> stupid yield sign when I need to get to my tennis lesson, and that truck
> has all day ....
It's not that clearcut.
"Is this the day to steal my neighbor's car"? Well, let's see, you kid got
into your shop and managed to cut his hand off with the circular saw. You
try to stop the bleeding and you only succeed in slowing it. You went to
call 911 and found out that the phones were out. You tried to rush him to
the hospital and your car wouldn't start. Your neighbor's car is sitting
in the driveway but your neighbor is not home. What do you do? Do you let
your kid bleed to death or do you steal the neighbor's car and rush him to
the emergency room?
See the problem with blind obedience and zero-tolerance enforcement?
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> The problem is not with rules, precedents, and policies, it's the blind
>> adherence and zero-tolerance parts that are the issue. Sometimes
> violating
>> the rules is the right decision and zero tolerance wastes everybody's
>> time on trivia.
>>
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Kevin
David Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
huge snip
>because their little
> hellion couldn't possibly have been the bad guy...
Oh, man is this ever the truth. My wife is a teacher, and one night she
was calling parents to talk about bad behavior. One parent actually told
her "my kid can do what he wants, you leave him alone"! I don't remember
if the call was about a zero-tolerance issue, but the response would
have been the same. She has also heard the phrase "I taught my kid to
not take any crap from anyone " a few too many times, too, knowing that
"anyone" included her, the principal, and the police. The limits of
acceptable behavior have been stretched way beyond reason.
I <thought> I raised a little hell in school 50 years ago, but ... wow!
David
(Sorry to take this thread even further off topic)
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 01:55:29 GMT, KB8QLR <[email protected]> wrote:
> That reminds me of the first time I put a chain on a saw...you guessed it, I
> put it on backward. It wouldn't cut sh*t. I laugh everytime I think of it.
> Thanks.
...and then the guy at the shop started it up, and the owner said
"What's that noise??!?!?!"
Dave "Sorry, I'll come in again..." Hinz
I've knows a number of very bright people who recite to themselved
"righty tighty, lefty loosy" every time they approach a screw or bolt.
The reason is that they didn't grow up playing with mechanical things,
they seldom encounter them now and it hasn't become "second nature". I
know a number of people who don't have the problem whose IQ is probably
not over 85.
rhg
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:04:51 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
> stated, with eyes & arms akimbo:
>
>
>>On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 01:33:07 GMT, "Mekon" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My neighbour (she is a top public servant with several degrees and very
>>>smart in most things) told me that she bought a power drill and used it for
>>>a year or so, never very happy with its cutting speed. Surgeon husband tiook
>>>a look at it and couldnt see anything wrong.
>>>Then a friend pointed out the problem.
>>>She had it in reverse.
>
>
> Is this a Darwin Moment, or merely proof that PHD stands for "Piled
> Higher and Deeper"?
>
>
>
>>Damn, that thought stands all on its own.
>
>
> Scary, wot? Intelligence is ever dependent upon one's perspective.
>
>
> ----------------------------------
> VIRTUE...is its own punishment
> http://www.diversify.com Website Applications
> ==================================================
>
I've knows a number of very bright people who recite to themselved
"righty tighty, lefty loosy" every time they approach a screw or bolt.
The reason is that they didn't grow up playing with mechanical things,
they seldom encounter them now and it hasn't become "second nature". I
know a number of people who don't have the problem whose IQ is probably
not over 85.
rhg
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:04:51 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
> stated, with eyes & arms akimbo:
>
>
>>On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 01:33:07 GMT, "Mekon" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My neighbour (she is a top public servant with several degrees and very
>>>smart in most things) told me that she bought a power drill and used it for
>>>a year or so, never very happy with its cutting speed. Surgeon husband tiook
>>>a look at it and couldnt see anything wrong.
>>>Then a friend pointed out the problem.
>>>She had it in reverse.
>
>
> Is this a Darwin Moment, or merely proof that PHD stands for "Piled
> Higher and Deeper"?
>
>
>
>>Damn, that thought stands all on its own.
>
>
> Scary, wot? Intelligence is ever dependent upon one's perspective.
>
>
> ----------------------------------
> VIRTUE...is its own punishment
> http://www.diversify.com Website Applications
> ==================================================
>
Undoubtedly he would look with disdain on a plumber who tried to
practice law.
RB
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Robert Galloway <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I've knows a number of very bright people who recite to themselved
>>"righty tighty, lefty loosy" every time they approach a screw or bolt.
>>The reason is that they didn't grow up playing with mechanical things,
>>they seldom encounter them now and it hasn't become "second nature". I
>>know a number of people who don't have the problem whose IQ is probably
>>not over 85.
>>
>
>
> "Didn't grow up playing with mechanical things." That's it in a nutshell.
>
> I know a lawyer, very bright guy, who decided to redo his kitchen himself. He
> actually did a decent job of laying linoleum and installing cabinets from the
> Borg, but when he did the plumbing.... well, he somehow managed to miss the
> concept that fittings on PVC pipe needed to be glued, and thought that a press
> fit was adequate. The results were entirely predictable (except to him).
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>
>
George, why don't you give an e-mail address so this non woodworking
discussion can be taken out of the newsgroup? It doesn't belong here.
bob g.
George wrote:
> Change it or abide by it.
>
> By all means do not teach your child that it's all right to define the law
> in personal terms, or demean the teachers/administrators for following the
> rules that _you_ through your representatives, the board, have given them to
> follow.
>
> I'm in EMS, and when one of the kids had an allergic reaction in class, I
> took the reprimand for giving Benadryl rather than waiting for the ambulance
> to arrive. Broke the rules, but was willing to take the consequences.
> That's what "civil disobedience," should be about.
>
> "Chris Richmond - MD6-FDC ~" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
>
>>I don't think anyone would argue with these rules being valid. Its
>>the stupid ones that need to be fixed. My kid's high school has a
>>zero tolerance drug policy. That includes asprin, cough drops, etc.
>>All this does is piss intelligent people off and remove any responsibility
>>and decision making from school administrators. It effectively neuters
>>them and reduces their value. Maybe we should now pay them less because
>>those kinds of decisions are made for them? Is that "the right thing?"
>
>
>
Intelligence is the ability to assimilate, associate, and retain
information. It is enhanced by education. That there was an option to the
switch is a piece of information, which is no substitute for education.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 01:33:07 GMT, "Mekon" <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>My neighbour (she is a top public servant with several degrees and very
> >>smart in most things) told me that she bought a power drill and used it
for
> >>a year or so, never very happy with its cutting speed. Surgeon husband
tiook
> >>a look at it and couldnt see anything wrong.
> >>Then a friend pointed out the problem.
> >>She had it in reverse.
>
> Is this a Darwin Moment, or merely proof that PHD stands for "Piled
> Higher and Deeper"?
>
>
> >Damn, that thought stands all on its own.
>
> Scary, wot? Intelligence is ever dependent upon one's perspective.
>
Greetings and salutations...
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 19:38:16 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Mekon
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> My neighbour (she is a top public servant with several degrees and very
>> smart in most things) told me that she bought a power drill and used it for
>> a year or so, never very happy with its cutting speed. Surgeon husband tiook
>> a look at it and couldnt see anything wrong.
>> Then a friend pointed out the problem.
>> She had it in reverse.
>
>Confession:
>
>last year I bought a Jonsered chainsaw to take down a tree in the front
>yard that was dying. Good excuse to buy a $400 tool.
>
>It cut like crap the first time I tried it, even on 2" branches.
>
>The blade had been installed backwards at the shop, and I hadn't
>checked before firing it up.
Funny you should mention this. Just this last weekend,
I was going to try and progress some of the cleanup around the house,
so, after "PM"ing the chainsaw sharpener, I pulled the chain off the
Stihl, and got it all tweaked up. Needless to say, I was pretty
puzzled as to why it only produced fine dust and smoke when I tried
cutting into the Maple trunk on the front lawn. I thought, since I
had adjusted the grind a bit, that I had screwed something up, and
ruined the teeth. However, of course, when I looked at it, I saw
that *I* had put it on backwards! After a quick shot to the forehead
with the Klown Hammer, I hiked up to the workshop, swapped the chain
around, and, was quite pleased with the way it chewed through the
thick maple, producing a nice spray of chips...
Sigh.
Measure twice, cut once.
Dave Mundt
Except, of course, others' expectation is that you will obey the rules.
Their health and life often depend on it. Society is founded on it.
Consider the case of "value neutral" driving....
"Tom Veatch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:13:45 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've always considered "common sense" to simply be the ability to use
reason and logic to draw the "proper" conclusions from a set
> of observations. Which leads me to the conclusion that blind adherence to
rules, precedents, and "zero-tolerance" policies is both
> illogical and unreasonable.
>
Change it, don't violate it.
Fabric of society, its manners, customs and laws. Alternative is called
anarchy. Not to mention the confusion as you are confronted with an
endless number of decisions. Is this the day to steal my neighbor's car?
Was yesterday really retail fraud amnesty day, or can I get the money back
for the two radios that kid stole? Should I blindly comply with that stupid
yield sign when I need to get to my tennis lesson, and that truck has all
day ....
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The problem is not with rules, precedents, and policies, it's the blind
> adherence and zero-tolerance parts that are the issue. Sometimes
violating
> the rules is the right decision and zero tolerance wastes everybody's time
> on trivia.
>
Change it or abide by it.
By all means do not teach your child that it's all right to define the law
in personal terms, or demean the teachers/administrators for following the
rules that _you_ through your representatives, the board, have given them to
follow.
I'm in EMS, and when one of the kids had an allergic reaction in class, I
took the reprimand for giving Benadryl rather than waiting for the ambulance
to arrive. Broke the rules, but was willing to take the consequences.
That's what "civil disobedience," should be about.
"Chris Richmond - MD6-FDC ~" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> I don't think anyone would argue with these rules being valid. Its
> the stupid ones that need to be fixed. My kid's high school has a
> zero tolerance drug policy. That includes asprin, cough drops, etc.
> All this does is piss intelligent people off and remove any responsibility
> and decision making from school administrators. It effectively neuters
> them and reduces their value. Maybe we should now pay them less because
> those kinds of decisions are made for them? Is that "the right thing?"
You need to read as if your mind were not already made up.
I knew the rules, knew the consequences, took action based on the perceived
greater good, then took my lumps, in obedience to the rule, which is a good
one. That's what you have to do if you choose to break
laws/customs/regulations - be prepared for the consequences, not belittle
the rule and its enforcement.
Though you, and a couple others may be experts in the formulation of white
pills, and thus capable of discerning from a distance what's changing hands,
going down the throat, or into someone else's soda, I'm not. Zero
tolerance makes perfect sense to me. I even have real experience, not
theory, to back my opinion, though in one case it was a reverse. Momma
sent the kids Ritalin to school to be given at the office, and it seemed to
have lost its effect. Only after a week did we discover that an OTC
antihistamine had been substituted for the stimulant mom had received free
and sold on the sly.
If you think she was mad when confronted, you should have seen the parents
of the kid who was given aspirin at school without their permission.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George wrote:
>
> > Change it or abide by it.
> >
Broke the rules, but was willing to take the consequences.
> > That's what "civil disobedience," should be about.
>
> I'm sorry, but you neither changed the law nor abided by it, so why do you
> advocate that others behave differently? Is it "do as I say, not as I
do"?
Are you really ignorant of a fine point of one of those zero-tolerance
stupidities known as "probable cause?"
You can't read, won't learn. Hope someone driving on the "what the hell,
it's empty now and they'll see me coming head on" side of the road doesn't
wipe you out before you do.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
".
>
> > Though you, and a couple others may be experts in the formulation of
white
> > pills, and thus capable of discerning from a distance what's changing
> > hands,
> > going down the throat, or into someone else's soda, I'm not.
>
> So? Find out what it is and then make a judgment call about whether to
get
> the police involved. Zero tolerance removes that judgment.
>
> Very honestly, if you're in a position of authority, you need to be
replaced
> by someone who is actually capable of making a decision without looking in
> a book.
Sadly, it's true. Catering to the lowest, or making intelligence
unnecessary by rules which allow for no interpretation seems the only way to
avoid parents/kids and their lawyers. Given many of them today, I'd rather
not serve in loco parentis, because they're loco!
When _all_ pills are illegal, they may be seized when seen, and their
holders detained. To wait might still net a user, providing subsequent
actions of same gave probable cause, but immediate action can get the
seller, too. Sorting them out then becomes a law enforcement job. Since
medications are sometimes needed during school hours, they are given, with
_signed_ parental permission only by a designated staff member. It's not
an education function, but it's unavoidable, given the legal climate.
I mention 9-11 and boxcutters to those who quibble about a zero-tolerance
policy on knives versus the old blade length criterion.
Same thing with tobacco, even though some kids in HS are 18 - don't have to
worry about distinguishing one hand-rolled from another.
"David Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
. Folks you get
> exactly what you ask for and silly zero tolerance rules are directly
> due to our collective inability to accept reasoned decisions since
> "I've never met a school administrator that I believed was capable of
> making a reasoned, fair, intelligent decision." Sheesh!
>
> Dave Hall
> Who happens to be a school administrator - thank god not on the
> academic side of operations where most zero tolerance rules are
> applied, but I get my share of goofs like Singleton on bus issues, tax
> issues, and other operational and financial areas.
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:16:29 -0400, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>Change it or abide by it.
>
>By all means do not teach your child that it's all right to define the law
>in personal terms, or demean the teachers/administrators for following the
>rules that _you_ through your representatives, the board, have given them to
>follow.
>
>I'm in EMS, and when one of the kids had an allergic reaction in class, I
>took the reprimand for giving Benadryl rather than waiting for the ambulance
>to arrive. Broke the rules, but was willing to take the consequences.
>That's what "civil disobedience," should be about.
>
George, your first paragraph and the third paragraph seem to be in conflict with each other. Which are you advocating?
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA
You're right. But... we got too much of that disdain stuff. If you
want to be your own lawyer, more power to you. If you get bad results,
those are the breaks. (I'm not a lawyer, by the way). A lot of us get
a great deal of enjoyment out of mechanical work around the house,
maintaining the car, doing our own plumbing and wiring. I overhauled my
first one cylinder engine when I was about twelve. I overhauled a Model
"T" engine in high school shop and used it to run a hammer mill to grind
alfalfa. I don't do plumbing and wiring to beat the professional out of
a buck. I do it for recreation. I don't golf. I don't watch football
on TV. There have to be a lot of folks enjoying the mechanical trades
judging by the number of mags and TV shows aimed at helping them along.
bob g.
got to go now, the Reagan Memorial stuff is on the TV
RB wrote:
> Undoubtedly he would look with disdain on a plumber who tried to
> practice law.
>
> RB
>
>
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Robert Galloway
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I've knows a number of very bright people who recite to themselved
>>> "righty tighty, lefty loosy" every time they approach a screw or
>>> bolt. The reason is that they didn't grow up playing with mechanical
>>> things, they seldom encounter them now and it hasn't become "second
>>> nature". I know a number of people who don't have the problem whose
>>> IQ is probably not over 85.
>>>
>>
>>
>> "Didn't grow up playing with mechanical things." That's it in a nutshell.
>>
>> I know a lawyer, very bright guy, who decided to redo his kitchen
>> himself. He actually did a decent job of laying linoleum and
>> installing cabinets from the Borg, but when he did the plumbing....
>> well, he somehow managed to miss the concept that fittings on PVC pipe
>> needed to be glued, and thought that a press fit was adequate. The
>> results were entirely predictable (except to him).
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>>
>> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
>> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
>> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>>
>>
>
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:13:45 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Having that degree, and fully realizing its "potential", I was impressed by
>the new cleaning person on our floor. He admits to being a recovering
>addict of some sort, but confiding in me that "common sense" wasn't really
>all that common.
>
>I couldn't agree more, especially now that common sense has been abandoned
>as a guiding principle, and we are left with following rules and
>documenting whatever we do, without regard to that old-fashioned "coomon
>sense".
I've always considered "common sense" to simply be the ability to use reason and logic to draw the "proper" conclusions from a set
of observations. Which leads me to the conclusion that blind adherence to rules, precedents, and "zero-tolerance" policies is both
illogical and unreasonable.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA
"Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I've never met a school administrator that I believed was capable of making
> a reasoned, fair, intelligent decision. He's a school district employee,
> not Solomon.
>
> Kevin
.....and therin lies the reason for zero tolerance rules. There are
always jokers who think they can make better decisions than the people
educated, trained and hired to make those decisions. These are also
the folks who will cry to every newspaper and Board Member in the
world with statements like the above idiot. They won't let
administrators make rational reasoned decisions because their little
hellion couldn't possibly have been the bad guy that brought qualudes
to school and besides, you didn't give this kind of punishment to Mrs.
Smith's kid who was caught with Mydol. As long as you elect Board
Members who will listen to and give creedence to blathering Singletons
why would you expect administrators to make judgement calls. As long
as such fools can drag you into court for every decision you make why
would you expect school districts to not cover their asses by
implementing "fair" rules that are unequivical, since any reasoned
equivication is immediatelly jumped on as proof that the damned
administrator was prejudiced against my little angel. Folks you get
exactly what you ask for and silly zero tolerance rules are directly
due to our collective inability to accept reasoned decisions since
"I've never met a school administrator that I believed was capable of
making a reasoned, fair, intelligent decision." Sheesh!
Dave Hall
Who happens to be a school administrator - thank god not on the
academic side of operations where most zero tolerance rules are
applied, but I get my share of goofs like Singleton on bus issues, tax
issues, and other operational and financial areas.
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 01:33:07 GMT, "Mekon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>My neighbour (she is a top public servant with several degrees and very
>smart in most things) told me that she bought a power drill and used it for
>a year or so, never very happy with its cutting speed. Surgeon husband tiook
>a look at it and couldnt see anything wrong.
>Then a friend pointed out the problem.
>She had it in reverse.
>
>Mekon
>
========================
My gosh...I can understand that BUT I kind of doubt that any surgeon
would lack the ability to really notice that she had it in reverse
UNLESS he knew his wife was flakey ... as a "general" rule I find
most surgeons have a pretty good bit of mechanical knowledge...
Bob Griffiths
"Bob G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > My gosh...I can understand that BUT I kind of doubt that any surgeon
> > would lack the ability to really notice that she had it in reverse
> > UNLESS he knew his wife was flakey ... as a "general" rule I find
> > most surgeons have a pretty good bit of mechanical knowledge...
> >
> > Bob Griffiths
I don't know, we have a couple of brain surgeons in the maintenance
department at work. One of them did the same thing. He at least sharpened
the bit because it was not going in fast enough.
Ed
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Kevin Singleton wrote:
>
> What's ridiculous about it? And why hot-wire when you know where the
> neighbor's key is hanging and just have to kick in the door to get it?
>
Same difference. You can justify breaking the law to suit your purpose.
What if I just wanted the neighbor's car to go get some cigarettes? In my
tiny little mind, the need is just as great. Is that sufficient cause to
break the door down and take the keys (which, by the way, doesn't constitute
auto theft in most states)? Who decides when the need rises to the level
that exceeds your duty under the law?
> That's because there are such situations.
>
No, there are no situations in which it is "right" to violate the law. It
may be expedient, but your nieghbor, who now has a bloody back seat, a
broken front door, and a very, very shaken spouse, doesn't believe it was
the right thing to do.
> So in your mind one should just let somebody get hurt or die if saving him
> would mean risking a $10 fine?
>
Breaking and entering only garners a $10 fine in your locality? Can you
reveal your general location, so I can be certain never to move or visit,
there?
Thanks.
Kevin
Maybe, but, what's the alternative, and is it really any better?
Kevin
--
=====
"Tom Veatch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Which leads me to the conclusion that blind adherence to rules,
precedents, and "zero-tolerance" policies is both
> illogical and unreasonable.
>
"Mekon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bob G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 01:33:07 GMT, "Mekon" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >My neighbour (she is a top public servant with several degrees and very
> > >smart in most things) told me that she bought a power drill and used it
> for
> > >a year or so, never very happy with its cutting speed. Surgeon husband
> tiook
> > >a look at it and couldnt see anything wrong.
> > >Then a friend pointed out the problem.
> > >She had it in reverse.
> > >
> > >Mekon
> > >
> > ========================
> > My gosh...I can understand that BUT I kind of doubt that any surgeon
> > would lack the ability to really notice that she had it in reverse
> > UNLESS he knew his wife was flakey ... as a "general" rule I find
> > most surgeons have a pretty good bit of mechanical knowledge...
> >
> > Bob Griffiths
>
> Why would you doubt it? The only way this would not be a true story would
be
> if she lied to me or I lied to the group.
> She told this story against herself and that to me gives it an air of
> verisimilitude. And I can't think of a reason that I would lie to the
group
> about something like this - what would I gain?
> She isn't flakey, she just didn't know that modern power drills have both
a
> forward and reverse action.
> Mechanical aptitude isn't inate, we learn it. While working as a
carpenter's
> labourer many years ago I was helping to build a deck for a guy that
> programs computers. In those days that was akin to being a rocket
scientist.
> Under the house my boss noticed a new looking vacuum cleaner he asked the
> owner about it and was told that he threw it down there when it stopped
> sucking. My boss took it home and changed the bag.
>
> Mekon
>
> >
> >
>
>
Maybe she's actually very clever and was just pulling your leg; and you fel
l for it.
Gary
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
>
> Just goes to show that brain surgeons aren't rocket scientists...
Yep, I've got one of them in the shipping department. Oh, the stories I
could tell you. Like the time they were loading a TL of product in bags, 2'
x 2' x 4'. Rocket scientist says "these (one is laying at his feet) must
be at least 8' long." Co-worker says "they can't be, you are about 6" tall
and they are not as high as you". Rocket Scientist replies "I'm not talking
how tall they are, but how WIDE they are."
At least one event a day like that.
Ed
That's just ridiculous, and your kid died while you were trying to hot wire
the neighbor's car, so you ended up in the state penitentiary for child
abuse, neglect, and grand theft auto.
I'm sure we can all fabricate situations in which we can justify in our own
minds the breaking of rules. It's still not a good idea to start acting on
these poorly-considered ideas.
Kevin
--
=====
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It's not that clearcut.
>
> "Is this the day to steal my neighbor's car"? Well, let's see, you kid
got
> into your shop and managed to cut his hand off with the circular saw. You
> try to stop the bleeding and you only succeed in slowing it. You went to
> call 911 and found out that the phones were out. You tried to rush him to
> the hospital and your car wouldn't start. Your neighbor's car is sitting
> in the driveway but your neighbor is not home. What do you do? Do you
let
> your kid bleed to death or do you steal the neighbor's car and rush him to
> the emergency room?
>
> See the problem with blind obedience and zero-tolerance enforcement?
Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Is this a Darwin Moment, or merely proof that PHD stands for "Piled
> Higher and Deeper"?
>
Having that degree, and fully realizing its "potential", I was impressed by
the new cleaning person on our floor. He admits to being a recovering
addict of some sort, but confiding in me that "common sense" wasn't really
all that common.
I couldn't agree more, especially now that common sense has been abandoned
as a guiding principle, and we are left with following rules and
documenting whatever we do, without regard to that old-fashioned "coomon
sense".
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Bob G. <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> My gosh...I can understand that BUT I kind of doubt that any surgeon
> would lack the ability to really notice that she had it in reverse
> UNLESS he knew his wife was flakey ... as a "general" rule I find
> most surgeons have a pretty good bit of mechanical knowledge...
>
> Bob Griffiths
>
I had to have a piece of my uvula removed by an ENT specialist (it cleared
up my snoring problem, and my wife sleeps again in the same room). He used
a suction device to clear away the blood before I would choke. However,
the suction thing clogged up, and I had to ask whether he had the filter in
correctly ... After he switched it around, it worked fine.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:04:51 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
> stated, with eyes & arms akimbo:
>
>>On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 01:33:07 GMT, "Mekon" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>My neighbour (she is a top public servant with several degrees and very
>>>smart in most things) told me that she bought a power drill and used it
>>>for a year or so, never very happy with its cutting speed. Surgeon
>>>husband tiook a look at it and couldnt see anything wrong.
>>>Then a friend pointed out the problem.
>>>She had it in reverse.
>
> Is this a Darwin Moment, or merely proof that PHD stands for "Piled
> Higher and Deeper"?
Specialization. Fellow named Wolfgang Pauli was one of the great
theoretical physicists, won the Nobel Prize in 1945. People who knew him
tell me that while he is known to history for the Pauli Exclusion Principle
and his work on Relativity, among his friends and acquaintances, he was
known by the "Pauli Effect", by which he could be located in a building.
One just followed the trail of blown fuses, burnt out light bulbs, smoking
equipment, and so on and eventually you found him at the end of it.
>>Damn, that thought stands all on its own.
>
> Scary, wot? Intelligence is ever dependent upon one's perspective.
>
>
> ----------------------------------
> VIRTUE...is its own punishment
> http://www.diversify.com Website Applications
> ==================================================
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Bob G. wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 01:33:07 GMT, "Mekon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>My neighbour (she is a top public servant with several degrees and very
>>smart in most things) told me that she bought a power drill and used it
>>for a year or so, never very happy with its cutting speed. Surgeon husband
>>tiook a look at it and couldnt see anything wrong.
>>Then a friend pointed out the problem.
>>She had it in reverse.
>>
>>Mekon
>>
> ========================
> My gosh...I can understand that BUT I kind of doubt that any surgeon
> would lack the ability to really notice that she had it in reverse
> UNLESS he knew his wife was flakey ... as a "general" rule I find
> most surgeons have a pretty good bit of mechanical knowledge...
Not to mention that they work with power tools regularly--at one time it was
ordinary carpenter's tools but since the '60s a variety of tools
specifically designed for surgical use have been developed. On the other
hand I suspect the controls on the tools he's used to are probably arranged
a bit differently from those on a commonplace electric drill.
Regardless, the expression "RTFM" comes to mind.
> Bob Griffiths
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Robert Galloway
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I know a lawyer, very bright guy, who decided to redo his kitchen himself.
He
> actually did a decent job of laying linoleum and installing cabinets from
the
> Borg, but when he did the plumbing.... well, he somehow managed to miss
the
> concept that fittings on PVC pipe needed to be glued, and thought that a
press
> fit was adequate. The results were entirely predictable (except to him).
's alright, I've seen some *plumbers* who couldn't seem to get the joints
right either!
--
Nahmie
The first myth of management is that management exists.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 6/4/2004
George wrote:
> Except, of course, others' expectation is that you will obey the rules.
> Their health and life often depend on it. Society is founded on it.
>
> Consider the case of "value neutral" driving....
>
> "Tom Veatch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:13:45 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I've always considered "common sense" to simply be the ability to use
> reason and logic to draw the "proper" conclusions from a set
>> of observations. Which leads me to the conclusion that blind adherence to
> rules, precedents, and "zero-tolerance" policies is both
>> illogical and unreasonable.
The problem is not with rules, precedents, and policies, it's the blind
adherence and zero-tolerance parts that are the issue. Sometimes violating
the rules is the right decision and zero tolerance wastes everybody's time
on trivia.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
In article <[email protected]>,
"George" <george@least> writes:
>Change it, don't violate it.
Agreed, but...
>Fabric of society, its manners, customs and laws. Alternative is called
>anarchy. Not to mention the confusion as you are confronted with an
>endless number of decisions. Is this the day to steal my neighbor's car?
>Was yesterday really retail fraud amnesty day, or can I get the money back
>for the two radios that kid stole? Should I blindly comply with that stupid
>yield sign when I need to get to my tennis lesson, and that truck has all
>day ....
I don't think anyone would argue with these rules being valid. Its
the stupid ones that need to be fixed. My kid's high school has a
zero tolerance drug policy. That includes asprin, cough drops, etc.
All this does is piss intelligent people off and remove any responsibility
and decision making from school administrators. It effectively neuters
them and reduces their value. Maybe we should now pay them less because
those kinds of decisions are made for them? Is that "the right thing?"
Chris
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> The problem is not with rules, precedents, and policies, it's the blind
>> adherence and zero-tolerance parts that are the issue. Sometimes
>violating
>> the rules is the right decision and zero tolerance wastes everybody's time
>> on trivia.
>>
>
>
--
Chris Richmond | I don't speak for Intel & vise versa
George wrote:
> Change it or abide by it.
>
> By all means do not teach your child that it's all right to define the law
> in personal terms, or demean the teachers/administrators for following the
> rules that _you_ through your representatives, the board, have given them
> to follow.
>
> I'm in EMS, and when one of the kids had an allergic reaction in class, I
> took the reprimand for giving Benadryl rather than waiting for the
> ambulance
> to arrive. Broke the rules, but was willing to take the consequences.
> That's what "civil disobedience," should be about.
I'm sorry, but you neither changed the law nor abided by it, so why do you
advocate that others behave differently? Is it "do as I say, not as I do"?
> "Chris Richmond - MD6-FDC ~" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
>> I don't think anyone would argue with these rules being valid. Its
>> the stupid ones that need to be fixed. My kid's high school has a
>> zero tolerance drug policy. That includes asprin, cough drops, etc.
>> All this does is piss intelligent people off and remove any
>> responsibility
>> and decision making from school administrators. It effectively neuters
>> them and reduces their value. Maybe we should now pay them less because
>> those kinds of decisions are made for them? Is that "the right thing?"
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
George wrote:
> Change it, don't violate it.
>
> Fabric of society, its manners, customs and laws. Alternative is called
> anarchy. Not to mention the confusion as you are confronted with an
> endless number of decisions. Is this the day to steal my neighbor's car?
> Was yesterday really retail fraud amnesty day, or can I get the money back
> for the two radios that kid stole? Should I blindly comply with that
> stupid yield sign when I need to get to my tennis lesson, and that truck
> has all day ....
It's not that clearcut.
"Is this the day to steal my neighbor's car"? Well, let's see, you kid got
into your shop and managed to cut his hand off with the circular saw. You
try to stop the bleeding and you only succeed in slowing it. You went to
call 911 and found out that the phones were out. You tried to rush him to
the hospital and your car wouldn't start. Your neighbor's car is sitting
in the driveway but your neighbor is not home. What do you do? Do you let
your kid bleed to death or do you steal the neighbor's car and rush him to
the emergency room?
See the problem with blind obedience and zero-tolerance enforcement?
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> The problem is not with rules, precedents, and policies, it's the blind
>> adherence and zero-tolerance parts that are the issue. Sometimes
> violating
>> the rules is the right decision and zero tolerance wastes everybody's
>> time on trivia.
>>
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Kevin Singleton wrote:
> That's just ridiculous, and your kid died while you were trying to hot
> wire the neighbor's car, so you ended up in the state penitentiary for
> child abuse, neglect, and grand theft auto.
What's ridiculous about it? And why hot-wire when you know where the
neighbor's key is hanging and just have to kick in the door to get it?
> I'm sure we can all fabricate situations in which we can justify in our
> own
> minds the breaking of rules.
That's because there are such situations.
> It's still not a good idea to start acting
> on these poorly-considered ideas.
So in your mind one should just let somebody get hurt or die if saving him
would mean risking a $10 fine?
> Kevin
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
George wrote:
> You need to read as if your mind were not already made up.
>
> I knew the rules, knew the consequences, took action based on the
> perceived greater good, then took my lumps, in obedience to the rule,
> which is a good one. That's what you have to do if you choose to break
> laws/customs/regulations - be prepared for the consequences, not belittle
> the rule and its enforcement.
Please quote the post in which I "belittled the rule and its enforcement".
> Though you, and a couple others may be experts in the formulation of white
> pills, and thus capable of discerning from a distance what's changing
> hands,
> going down the throat, or into someone else's soda, I'm not.
So? Find out what it is and then make a judgment call about whether to get
the police involved. Zero tolerance removes that judgment.
> Zero
> tolerance makes perfect sense to me. I even have real experience, not
> theory, to back my opinion, though in one case it was a reverse. Momma
> sent the kids Ritalin to school to be given at the office, and it seemed
> to
> have lost its effect. Only after a week did we discover that an OTC
> antihistamine had been substituted for the stimulant mom had received free
> and sold on the sly.
You mean the school nurse was selling Ritalin? Or are you saying that the
mother was selling it? How does "zero tolerance" alter that?
> If you think she was mad when confronted, you should have seen the parents
> of the kid who was given aspirin at school without their permission.
I'm desolated to admit that I cannot figure out how the administration of
medication by the school relates to "zero tolerance".
Very honestly, if you're in a position of authority, you need to be replaced
by someone who is actually capable of making a decision without looking in
a book.
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> George wrote:
>>
>> > Change it or abide by it.
>> >
>
> Broke the rules, but was willing to take the consequences.
>> > That's what "civil disobedience," should be about.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but you neither changed the law nor abided by it, so why do
>> you
>> advocate that others behave differently? Is it "do as I say, not as I
> do"?
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Kevin Singleton wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Kevin Singleton wrote:
>>
>> What's ridiculous about it? And why hot-wire when you know where the
>> neighbor's key is hanging and just have to kick in the door to get it?
>>
> Same difference. You can justify breaking the law to suit your purpose.
> What if I just wanted the neighbor's car to go get some cigarettes? In my
> tiny little mind, the need is just as great. Is that sufficient cause to
> break the door down and take the keys (which, by the way, doesn't
> constitute
> auto theft in most states)? Who decides when the need rises to the level
> that exceeds your duty under the law?
You decide. It's called "judgment". If you think stealing a car to get
some cigarettes is justifiable tell it to the judge. I doubt he'll have
much sympathy.
As for taking the keys to steal the car rather than hot-wiring it, please
quote the statute which makes the distinction.
>> That's because there are such situations.
>>
> No, there are no situations in which it is "right" to violate the law.
That's for the courts to decide. You are familiar with the concept of
"justifiable homicide" for example are you not?
> It
> may be expedient, but your nieghbor, who now has a bloody back seat, a
> broken front door, and a very, very shaken spouse, doesn't believe it was
> the right thing to do.
That depends on your relationship with the neighbor, now, doesn't it.
Personally if my neighbor stole my car to save the life of his kid I
wouldn't be particularly angry at him.
>> So in your mind one should just let somebody get hurt or die if saving
>> him would mean risking a $10 fine?
>>
> Breaking and entering only garners a $10 fine in your locality?
I am going to say something that is going to come across as a slam and is
not intended as such. There's a medical condition called "Asperger's
Syndrome". Overliteral interpretation of others words is one of the
characteristics. You might want to get checked for it.
I was not saying anything about breaking and entering, I was addressing
legal vs physical risk.
> Can you
> reveal your general location, so I can be certain never to move or visit,
> there?
I'm sure you can find it and since I'd rather not deal with someone who
anal-retentively obeys _every_ law and gets distressed when others do not
I'm just as happy to not have to deal with you.
> Thanks.
>
> Kevin
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
George wrote:
> Are you really ignorant of a fine point of one of those zero-tolerance
> stupidities known as "probable cause?"
Huh? What does justification for police to detain somebody have to do with
anything?
> You can't read, won't learn. Hope someone driving on the "what the hell,
> it's empty now and they'll see me coming head on" side of the road doesn't
> wipe you out before you do.
So someone's driving on the wrong side of the road and comes at you head on
while you're driving down the road that goes through the middle of the
prison which is posted "no stopping". So what do you do, do you violate the
law by pulling off the road and stopping until he passes (there is no
shoulder--once you're in that particular ditch you're there until the
tow-truck arrives unless you're driving an SUV) or do you violate the law
by going into the other lane, or do you just die? Note that this was a
real incident in which I had to make that decision--no particular is made
up.
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> ".
>>
>> > Though you, and a couple others may be experts in the formulation of
> white
>> > pills, and thus capable of discerning from a distance what's changing
>> > hands,
>> > going down the throat, or into someone else's soda, I'm not.
>>
>> So? Find out what it is and then make a judgment call about whether to
> get
>> the police involved. Zero tolerance removes that judgment.
>>
>> Very honestly, if you're in a position of authority, you need to be
> replaced
>> by someone who is actually capable of making a decision without looking
>> in a book.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Kevin Singleton wrote:
>
> =====
> Where are those Iraqi WMDs, NOW?
>
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> You decide. It's called "judgment". If you think stealing a car to get
>> some cigarettes is justifiable tell it to the judge. I doubt he'll have
>> much sympathy.
>>
> You can decide to do anything you want, but there will almost always be
> consequences. You're free to do whatever you want, but that doesn't
> alleviate your responsibility under the law. The judge won't have much
> sympathy for stealing a car to take your kid to the hospital, when you
> could just as easily have called 911 from your neighbor's phone, after you
> broke into his house.
I'm not sure I see your point. Yes, there are consequences. So what?
Nobody has denied that there are consequences nor has anybody argued that
there should not be consequences.
I fail to see what this has to do with the issue of blind obedience to the
law.
>> As for taking the keys to steal the car rather than hot-wiring it, please
>> quote the statute which makes the distinction.
>>
> No.
I see. From this one may conclude that you were stating a totally uninformed
opinion, and that calls into question the validity of your other
statements.
>> That's for the courts to decide. You are familiar with the concept of
>> "justifiable homicide" for example are you not?
>>
> That's exactly my point. You can make the decision to perform any act
> that you desire, but the society will deal with you as the law dictates.
> There are consequences, and the consequences are in place to guide your
> judgment.
Again, so what? How does this bear on the question of whether one should
always blindly obey the law no matter what the consequences of such
obedience or whether there are circumstances under which it is appropriate
to do other than obey the law?
>> That depends on your relationship with the neighbor, now, doesn't it.
>> Personally if my neighbor stole my car to save the life of his kid I
>> wouldn't be particularly angry at him.
>>
> Well, of course, everything depends on everything. We'll just have to
> wait until it happens to see how everyone feels about it.
That's why one exercises judgment.
>> I am going to say something that is going to come across as a slam and is
>> not intended as such. There's a medical condition called "Asperger's
>> Syndrome". Overliteral interpretation of others words is one of the
>> characteristics. You might want to get checked for it.
>>
> There's probably a medical condition for which writing things you don't
> mean is a symptom. I'm afraid I'm too thick to try to interepret what you
> meant to say, so I'm stuck trying to decipher what you actually say.
> Please, forgive me.
>
>> I was not saying anything about breaking and entering, I was addressing
>> legal vs physical risk.
>>
> I could have sworn that you said you would break into your neighbor's
> house and take the keys to his car. Despite that, all we are talking
> about is legal risk. I think you might be losing me, here.
A neurotypical at that point would have recognized that I had changed the
subject and was no longer talking specifically about the auto theft
scenario.
>> I'm sure you can find it and since I'd rather not deal with someone who
>> anal-retentively obeys every law and gets distressed when others do not
>> I'm just as happy to not have to deal with you.
>>
> I don't get distressed when others do not obey the law, but I do get a
> little annoyed by those who advocate anarchy in populated areas.
Please identify an individual who has advocated such in this discussion and
quote the statements in which he advocated it.
> Kevin
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Kevin Singleton wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> I'm not sure I see your point. Yes, there are consequences. So what?
>> Nobody has denied that there are consequences nor has anybody argued that
>> there should not be consequences.
>>
>> I fail to see what this has to do with the issue of blind obedience to
>> the law.
>>
> I thought we were talking about picking and choosing which laws you would
> obey, and the effect that has on society.
I still fail to see that you have made any kind of point. Yes there are
consequences. What of it?
>> I see. From this one may conclude that you were stating a totally
> uninformed
>> opinion, and that calls into question the validity of your other
>> statements.
>>
> Or, one could conclude that you can as easily look it up as can I, or that
> I have actual experience in dealing with a district attorney and his
> approach
> to the situation. Again, you are free to choose to do what you want.
There's a rhetorical technique called "shifting the burden of proof". That
is what you appear to be attempting. You made the claim, you back it up.
>> Again, so what? How does this bear on the question of whether one should
>> always blindly obey the law no matter what the consequences of such
>> obedience or whether there are circumstances under which it is
>> appropriate to do other than obey the law?
>>
> I didn't realize we were talking about blindly obeying the law. I thought
> we were talking about picking and choosing which laws will apply to you at
> any moment, and ignoring those that don't seem expedient, or fun,
> regardless of the consequences.
What led you to believe this? All laws apply all the time. That does not
mean that one should always obey all of them regardless of the consequences
of such obedience. And nobody said anything about "fun" except you.
>> That's why one exercises judgment.
>>
> By "judgment" you mean "ignoring the law that doesn't suit you", or does
> it now carry some other meaning?
In what dictionary is "judgment" defined as "ignoring the law that doesn't
suit you"?
>> A neurotypical at that point would have recognized that I had changed the
>> subject and was no longer talking specifically about the auto theft
>> scenario.
>>
> Ah, I see. A clairvoyant may have noticed that you changed the subject,
> but us mere mortals are having trouble following what exists only in your
> mind. We're stuck with the difficult task of deciphering what you actually
> write. Keep it up; it's very entertaining.
No, a normal person would have noticed. No clairvoyance needed. There is
something called "context" that you seem to be having a lot of trouble
with.
>> Please identify an individual who has advocated such in this discussion
> and
>> quote the statements in which he advocated it.
>>
> You may recognize this, in which you dodged the anarchy indictment, and
> went on to say that "sometimes violating the rules is the right decision",
> which I, too, interpreted as advocating anarchy:
>
> George wrote:
>
>> Change it, don't violate it.
>>
>> Fabric of society, its manners, customs and laws. Alternative is called
>> anarchy. Not to mention the confusion as you are confronted with an
>> endless number of decisions. Is this the day to steal my neighbor's car?
>> Was yesterday really retail fraud amnesty day, or can I get the money
>> back
>> for the two radios that kid stole? Should I blindly comply with that
>> stupid yield sign when I need to get to my tennis lesson, and that truck
>> has all day ....
>
> It's not that clearcut.
>
> "Is this the day to steal my neighbor's car"? Well, let's see, you kid
> got
> into your shop and managed to cut his hand off with the circular saw. You
> try to stop the bleeding and you only succeed in slowing it. You went to
> call 911 and found out that the phones were out. You tried to rush him to
> the hospital and your car wouldn't start. Your neighbor's car is sitting
> in the driveway but your neighbor is not home. What do you do? Do you
> let your kid bleed to death or do you steal the neighbor's car and rush
> him to the emergency room?
>
> See the problem with blind obedience and zero-tolerance enforcement?
>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> The problem is not with rules, precedents, and policies, it's the blind
>>> adherence and zero-tolerance parts that are the issue. Sometimes
>> violating
>>> the rules is the right decision and zero tolerance wastes everybody's
>>> time on trivia.
I see. Please be kind enough to define "anarchy", as nothing in any of the
material you quoted constitutes advocacy of "anarchy" by any definition
that I have ever seen. Perhaps your definition comes from the same
dictionary in which "judgment" is defined as "ignoring the law that doesn't
suit you"?
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:00:55 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>The problem is not with rules, precedents, and policies, it's the blind
>adherence and zero-tolerance parts that are the issue. Sometimes violating
>the rules is the right decision and zero tolerance wastes everybody's time
>on trivia.
Thank you, John. I was beginning to think that the point was going to sneak by the "blind" side.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA
George wrote:
> Change it, don't violate it.
Give me a break. Don't enact it in the first place. Most of us don't
have the time and resources to change everything some putz bureaucrat
sees fit to inflict on us. Most of us have to content ourselves with
ignoring them and trying to stay below the radar.
>
> Fabric of society, its manners, customs and laws. Alternative is called
> anarchy.
Big difference between anarchy and being choked by regulations. The
nature of the human, put in a position of authority is to try to dictate
every aspect of his fellow human's life. This must be guarded against
at all cost. When guarding has failed, a little civil disobedience is
bound to occur.
Not to mention the confusion as you are confronted with an
> endless number of decisions.
Be reasonable. Steal your neighbor's car? Do we have to make a big
decision every day as to whether this is a good idea or not? The ten
commandments kind of follow the golden rule. Most OSHA regulations are
a lot more opaque and in my opinion, obtuse.
>Is this the day to steal my neighbor's car?
> Was yesterday really retail fraud amnesty day, or can I get the money
back
> for the two radios that kid stole? Should I blindly comply with that
stupid
> yield sign when I need to get to my tennis lesson, and that truck has all
> day ....
>
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>The problem is not with rules, precedents, and policies, it's the blind
>>adherence and zero-tolerance parts that are the issue. Sometimes
>
> violating
>
>>the rules is the right decision and zero tolerance wastes everybody's
time
>>on trivia.
>>
>
>
>
George wrote:
> Change it, don't violate it.
>
> Fabric of society, its manners, customs and laws. Alternative is called
> anarchy. Not to mention the confusion as you are confronted with an
> endless number of decisions. Is this the day to steal my neighbor's car?
> Was yesterday really retail fraud amnesty day, or can I get the money back
> for the two radios that kid stole? Should I blindly comply with that stupid
> yield sign when I need to get to my tennis lesson, and that truck has all
> day ....
>
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>The problem is not with rules, precedents, and policies, it's the blind
>>adherence and zero-tolerance parts that are the issue. Sometimes
>
> violating
>
>>the rules is the right decision and zero tolerance wastes everybody's time
>>on trivia.
>>
>
>
>
In a Fluids lab the instructor asked a student to turn off the water
valve and as he tryied turning it counterclockwise several tiems his
lips moved as he told himself "Clockwise" and he was a mechanical
engineering major. Some learn earlier than others.
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 22:41:29 GMT, "Mekon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Mechanical aptitude isn't inate, we learn it.
I was going to respond to this, but I just can't stop laughing!
Here, have some more of my tax dollars, Dave! Good boy!
Kevin
--
=====
"David Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Dave Hall
> Who happens to be a school administrator - thank god not on the
> academic side of operations where most zero tolerance rules are
> applied, but I get my share of goofs like Singleton on bus issues, tax
> issues, and other operational and financial areas.
That reminds me of the first time I put a chain on a saw...you guessed it, I
put it on backward. It wouldn't cut sh*t. I laugh everytime I think of it.
Thanks.
Joe
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:040620041938169607%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
> In article <[email protected]>, Mekon
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > My neighbour (she is a top public servant with several degrees and very
> > smart in most things) told me that she bought a power drill and used it
for
> > a year or so, never very happy with its cutting speed. Surgeon husband
tiook
> > a look at it and couldnt see anything wrong.
> > Then a friend pointed out the problem.
> > She had it in reverse.
>
> Confession:
>
> last year I bought a Jonsered chainsaw to take down a tree in the front
> yard that was dying. Good excuse to buy a $400 tool.
>
> It cut like crap the first time I tried it, even on 2" branches.
>
> The blade had been installed backwards at the shop, and I hadn't
> checked before firing it up.
I've never met a school administrator that I believed was capable of making
a reasoned, fair, intelligent decision. He's a school district employee,
not Solomon.
Kevin
--
=====
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The problem is not with rules, precedents, and policies, it's the blind
> adherence and zero-tolerance parts that are the issue. Sometimes
violating
> the rules is the right decision and zero tolerance wastes everybody's time
> on trivia.
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 01:33:07 GMT, "Mekon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>My neighbour (she is a top public servant with several degrees and very
>smart in most things) told me that she bought a power drill and used it for
>a year or so, never very happy with its cutting speed. Surgeon husband tiook
>a look at it and couldnt see anything wrong.
>Then a friend pointed out the problem.
>She had it in reverse.
>
>Mekon
>
Damn, that thought stands all on its own.
Regards,
Tom.
Thomas J. Watson - Cabinetmaker, ret.
tjwatson1atcomcastdotnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 22:04:51 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
stated, with eyes & arms akimbo:
>On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 01:33:07 GMT, "Mekon" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>My neighbour (she is a top public servant with several degrees and very
>>smart in most things) told me that she bought a power drill and used it for
>>a year or so, never very happy with its cutting speed. Surgeon husband tiook
>>a look at it and couldnt see anything wrong.
>>Then a friend pointed out the problem.
>>She had it in reverse.
Is this a Darwin Moment, or merely proof that PHD stands for "Piled
Higher and Deeper"?
>Damn, that thought stands all on its own.
Scary, wot? Intelligence is ever dependent upon one's perspective.
----------------------------------
VIRTUE...is its own punishment
http://www.diversify.com Website Applications
==================================================
"Termite" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mekon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Bob G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 01:33:07 GMT, "Mekon" <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >My neighbour (she is a top public servant with several degrees and
very
> > > >smart in most things) told me that she bought a power drill and used
it
> > for
> > > >a year or so, never very happy with its cutting speed. Surgeon
husband
> > tiook
> > > >a look at it and couldnt see anything wrong.
> > > >Then a friend pointed out the problem.
> > > >She had it in reverse.
> > > >
> > > >Mekon
> > > >
> > > ========================
> > > My gosh...I can understand that BUT I kind of doubt that any surgeon
> > > would lack the ability to really notice that she had it in reverse
> > > UNLESS he knew his wife was flakey ... as a "general" rule I find
> > > most surgeons have a pretty good bit of mechanical knowledge...
> > >
> > > Bob Griffiths
> >
> > Why would you doubt it? The only way this would not be a true story
would
> be
> > if she lied to me or I lied to the group.
> > She told this story against herself and that to me gives it an air of
> > verisimilitude. And I can't think of a reason that I would lie to the
> group
> > about something like this - what would I gain?
> > She isn't flakey, she just didn't know that modern power drills have
both
> a
> > forward and reverse action.
> > Mechanical aptitude isn't inate, we learn it. While working as a
> carpenter's
> > labourer many years ago I was helping to build a deck for a guy that
> > programs computers. In those days that was akin to being a rocket
> scientist.
> > Under the house my boss noticed a new looking vacuum cleaner he asked
the
> > owner about it and was told that he threw it down there when it stopped
> > sucking. My boss took it home and changed the bag.
> >
> > Mekon
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> Maybe she's actually very clever and was just pulling your leg; and you
fel
> l for it.
>
> Gary
So my mistake was taking him at his word?
Mekon
>
--
=====
Where are those Iraqi WMDs, NOW?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You decide. It's called "judgment". If you think stealing a car to get
> some cigarettes is justifiable tell it to the judge. I doubt he'll have
> much sympathy.
>
You can decide to do anything you want, but there will almost always be
consequences. You're free to do whatever you want, but that doesn't
alleviate your responsibility under the law. The judge won't have much
sympathy for stealing a car to take your kid to the hospital, when you could
just as easily have called 911 from your neighbor's phone, after you broke
into his house.
> As for taking the keys to steal the car rather than hot-wiring it, please
> quote the statute which makes the distinction.
>
No.
> That's for the courts to decide. You are familiar with the concept of
> "justifiable homicide" for example are you not?
>
That's exactly my point. You can make the decision to perform any act that
you desire, but the society will deal with you as the law dictates. There
are consequences, and the consequences are in place to guide your judgment.
> That depends on your relationship with the neighbor, now, doesn't it.
> Personally if my neighbor stole my car to save the life of his kid I
> wouldn't be particularly angry at him.
>
Well, of course, everything depends on everything. We'll just have to wait
until it happens to see how everyone feels about it.
> I am going to say something that is going to come across as a slam and is
> not intended as such. There's a medical condition called "Asperger's
> Syndrome". Overliteral interpretation of others words is one of the
> characteristics. You might want to get checked for it.
>
There's probably a medical condition for which writing things you don't mean
is a symptom. I'm afraid I'm too thick to try to interepret what you meant
to say, so I'm stuck trying to decipher what you actually say. Please,
forgive me.
> I was not saying anything about breaking and entering, I was addressing
> legal vs physical risk.
>
I could have sworn that you said you would break into your neighbor's house
and take the keys to his car. Despite that, all we are talking about is
legal risk. I think you might be losing me, here.
> I'm sure you can find it and since I'd rather not deal with someone who
> anal-retentively obeys _every_ law and gets distressed when others do not
> I'm just as happy to not have to deal with you.
>
I don't get distressed when others do not obey the law, but I do get a
little annoyed by those who advocate anarchy in populated areas.
Kevin
"Bob G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 01:33:07 GMT, "Mekon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >My neighbour (she is a top public servant with several degrees and very
> >smart in most things) told me that she bought a power drill and used it
for
> >a year or so, never very happy with its cutting speed. Surgeon husband
tiook
> >a look at it and couldnt see anything wrong.
> >Then a friend pointed out the problem.
> >She had it in reverse.
> >
> >Mekon
> >
> ========================
> My gosh...I can understand that BUT I kind of doubt that any surgeon
> would lack the ability to really notice that she had it in reverse
> UNLESS he knew his wife was flakey ... as a "general" rule I find
> most surgeons have a pretty good bit of mechanical knowledge...
>
> Bob Griffiths
Why would you doubt it? The only way this would not be a true story would be
if she lied to me or I lied to the group.
She told this story against herself and that to me gives it an air of
verisimilitude. And I can't think of a reason that I would lie to the group
about something like this - what would I gain?
She isn't flakey, she just didn't know that modern power drills have both a
forward and reverse action.
Mechanical aptitude isn't inate, we learn it. While working as a carpenter's
labourer many years ago I was helping to build a deck for a guy that
programs computers. In those days that was akin to being a rocket scientist.
Under the house my boss noticed a new looking vacuum cleaner he asked the
owner about it and was told that he threw it down there when it stopped
sucking. My boss took it home and changed the bag.
Mekon
>
>