Yea my last few entries have been depressing. I figured while I sit here tonight I could come up with a post made up of just stuff on my mind
( Read more... )
Re: BETTER COPY (READ THIS ONE!!) (READ THIS ONE!!)
anonymous
February 8 2007, 05:36:52 UTC
You: I would guess most people (including yourself) wouldn’t tell me you’d be a better engineer because you don’t know much (thank you for saying it) about …ummm…electromagnetic antenna theory. Or some other piece of engineering minutia. That would just be silly (and here once again, I agree).
Me: Ever hear about classes of stock? Who are these people we call company/stock analysts? Do you know what a finance, income statement or balance sheet is? Do you know their functions? Can you read one? What do you know about EPS? P/E ratio/ROE/ROS/Avg. ITR/Acc.Deprec/Calculating Mkt share/The difference between revenues and profits/the importance of MC to MB?(Is this like the claim made above? This is not a trick question).
You: Similarly you can’t expect everyone else to take your word that everything you state is a fact and the truth. (What discipline is best equipped to give you facts on the console war? Who commands the most knowledge of it in our group? If I ask you about Engineering will you give me the facts with respect to it? Yet if you ask me about economics (directly or indirectly), I apparently can’t expect everyone else to take your (my) word that everything you (I) state is a fact and the truth. Perhaps this helps you see the irony).
Me using your words for point illustration: I couldn’t say I know a damn thing about reading a stock report. That’s one of many reasons I wouldn’t be a better economist. ...you don’t know much about…ummm…electromagnetic antenna theory. Or some other piece of engineering minutia. That would just be silly. (Do you think that would that change if I Wiki’ed it? What if I typed it in Google? The irony persists¡)
You: And no I don’t feel harmed or distressed. I feel disrespected. All I’m saying is that I think you’re deliberately disrespectful.
Me: Your feelings are subjectively objective and as such, if you say you feel disrespected then it must be so and I cannot prove you wrong. In fact, your feelings are like my intentions and I can say that my intent was not to disrespect you. If then you happen to feel disrespected, the source of said disrespect lies with how you translate my message. That is fact. Unless you define being disrespected as “being told you are wrong” then I have not disrespected you. Is this not right? If not please prove it wrong. What I will say though is show me where and how I disrespected you or anyone else and I will point you to factual claims and an incorrect belief that resides within you that I am here to cause you or anyone else harm. Prove me wrong.
Re: BETTER COPY (READ THIS ONE!!) (READ THIS ONE!!)
anonymous
February 8 2007, 05:37:58 UTC
You: So to me yes when you say that I (or my friends): don’t have any idea what we’re talking about, get to the right conclusion through sheer luck, or that we’re not aware of any facts I feel you’re being intentionally disrespectful (i.e. insulting).
Me: I just spoke to this above. What I am being is intentionally correct. You (and friends with the exception of myself and Mizz) have little to no working knowledge of this matter. Prove this wrong. Go ahead, tell me how much previous sales matter instead of why they matter, or how badly a particular system is fucking up.
You: Things I said in that last argument were disrespectful some of yours were (in my mind and in the mind of several others) much more than that. I’ll refrain from bringing up old quotes. I don’t want to dredge up bad blood. Since we’re talking about it now though you should know that I thought you crossed a line last time. That’s why I stopped replying.
Me: Oh? Here I was thinking you stopped replying because there was nothing else you could say. Every single claim you made against me turned out to be false. I can understand using the “I crossed the line” as a reason for backing out though. Bad blood? Again, it must be on your end. The last line of my response to your other arguments represents my feelings on this matter exceptionally well. Prove this wrong.
You: But you’re absolutely right. I flung some shit in the last talk. It was disrespectful and I never apologized for it. I’m sorry for short changing your potential and any other slights I might have made.
Me: Don’t be, I’m not. You meant every single word of it and I meant every single word of my reply.
Re: BETTER COPY (READ THIS ONE!!) (READ THIS ONE!!)
anonymous
February 8 2007, 05:39:18 UTC
You: I believe I have taken my own advice though. Since that argument I haven’t once attacked you verbally to get my point across. Nor have I intentionally thrown barbs at anyone else.
Me: The above statement cannot be refuted in its entirety because of its nature. The second line is true. The first and third again, cannot be refuted.
You: No I don’t see the irony of my statement. It seemed to me that you thought I was referring to stock holders (which wasn’t my intention). When you made your reply was that not what you were basing your comments on?
Me: no, it was not. I knew that when you said stock you had a very specific definition in mind. Stockholders, agents and stakeholders are the three terms you are looking for and of these three you should have chosen stakeholders/agents. Since I knew this, I spoke about all of them at once. By the way, if Sony tanks, you lose more than just $600. Please see the definition of stakeholder. If you choose not to, then if I drop a brick in a puddle of water how far out do the ripples extend? Weight, velocity and any other factors you attempt to throw in here to complicate the message should all be based relative to Sony’s place in the global economy (large brick, large pond).
You: Personally I never get into arguments that deal with things like light. Something that has both particle properties and wave properties is too much physics to deal with.
Me: This would probably work on anyone intimidated by physics. I explain below how particles and wave properties affect color. Funny thing is, guys were writing about color and how it works since B.C. Surely they had no idea of particle properties and wave properties back then and they dealt with it.
Re: BETTER COPY (READ THIS ONE!!) (READ THIS ONE!!)
anonymous
February 8 2007, 05:41:22 UTC
You: As for the PS3 dominating or not dominating the market I don’t think I misunderstood what you were trying to say (about basing things on the short run). I believe I agreed with that. There are too many outstanding factors to call it this early. If I did misunderstand then you should explain why. I can’t fault you for that.
Me: Yes, there are too many outstanding factors for you to call it this early. That is a fact. For people like me, this is child’s play. You did not misunderstand me; I was referencing my frequent conversations with D on this issue. He promptly gave up once he realized that for my Bus: 661 class, I had to thoroughly analyze the gaming industry and correctly predict the winner of the console wars. I made an A in the class.
You: Again though I don’t think you should just decide on whether something is factual or not. If someone says something that you believe to be incorrect you should point it out and ask them what they based the statement on.
Me: This is what I have been saying for years. Now compare my posts to your posts and tell me which one is the best fit for the mold you described above. If you can disprove anything I have ever said I will be amazed. I am currently disproving things you have already said.
You: Similarly you can’t expect everyone else to take your word that everything you state is a fact and the truth. I think people should have just as much right to question you as you do them. Is that not reasonable?
Me: yes, it is so question away. When have I ever stated something without adequate factual backing? Here’s your chance to say “well you said that you were going to change the world.” Well, my fact for why that is so is my very being and all that it encompasses. That is not enough? Then what is? Something more than me perhaps? Prove me wrong.
You: Yea I only agreed with your last paragraph. The first (of four) you were disregarding our posts. The second and third you were discussing a topic that I don’t agree or disagree with (because you were talking about something unrelated to my comment). The last I agreed with. I never disagreed with anything you said in your second paragraph. That’s just not what I was talking about.
Me: Actually, that is wrong and here is why. Yes, I disregarded them because you were trying to form conclusions based on just about nothing. What you know is not enough. How is this wrong? The second and third were central to your argument, you probably did not know what a stakeholder/agent was. You are a stakeholder in Sony. I am an agent and stakeholder of Sony. The CEO of Sony is a stakeholder/agent and stockholder of Sony. For any of us to have a conclusive conversation about the console wars, you need to know, on top of a ton of other information, those few things I listed out for you in the third paragraph. Do you know the things I listed out in the third paragraph and what they do? No, you do not. So based on that, you cannot conclude anything. Have you concluded? Well, actually you have. You said “It's too early to pass judgment on any system. You just throw your lot with the one you want to be a part of.” That happens to be wrong. Prove how it is not so.
You: I have (and have constantly) made most of my personal thoughts without using absolutes. So when I say I think something it’s because that is my opinion. If you would like to know the reasoning behind any of my opinions then just ask.
Me: well, the modifier most can make anything I say become incorrect. I only know about my encounters with you in text but I may just be a small percentage of your personal thoughts. Though of all the times I have dealt with you in text, you toss around absolutes pretty hard. Here’s one to jog your memory. You said “Of all the reasons I can think of that you could never get these things I think I’ll settle on the one I think you could understand the best: you don’t have anything that anyone else wants. No one wants your crazy ideas on education or life in general. Hate to break it to you but every idea you’ve ever had? Chances are that they were already had by someone else that had more effort, intelligence, resources, and power than you ever will.” You can choose to deny this or say that I misunderstood what you were saying; either of those is fact.
Re: BETTER COPY (READ THIS ONE!!) (READ THIS ONE!!)
anonymous
February 8 2007, 05:42:44 UTC
You: You say you live outside of pride and ignorance¡ which may be the case. Never allowing for the possibility of fallacy in your statements is arrogant though. To state that all of your claims are facts while others are not and then not allowing investigation for either side is well I think its plain inconsiderate. Bad practice at least.
Me: My business here is with the second line onwards. Of course I do not allow for fallacy in my statements because I am actually well informed just about every time I speak. I tend to say “I don’t know so I cannot comment” any other time. It is a very helpful practice. I can state that my claims are facts because they are always supported not only by authorities but also by reason. If you are not with me then you are either an opinionated believer, someone who has not thought it through enough, or you lack any factual information to back up your claims. Basically, if anyone wishes to find answers to any questions that they and I may have, they and I will always end up with the same outcome or they are wrong. That is how I look at it. I never short change or half ass thinking about any situation I wish to find answers for. Again, what you see is not arrogance, though I understand how you could say that. If someone walked up to you and asked you about circuits, could you speak factually on the matter? If they (the other person) had no formal education in the matter but held opposing beliefs or formed alternate conclusions that you knew were wrong, would you not object? Who is more likely to be wrong in that situation? I have never stopped anyone from investigating anything. Go ahead and learn the necessary information required to predict economic outcomes and then tell me how I am wrong when you end up with the same answer. If you are wrong, you are wrong, just as if I was wrong, I would be wrong. There is nothing inconsiderate about that.
You: If I ever said I was a better economist than you I can’t recall. If it was in an offhanded comment I suppose I could have. You’re right about everything being tied to economics. It’s hard to escape it in human society. The engineering industry is rife with it. Most of the subject matter I learn in school though is not. Not that I can tell anyway.
Me: There are several times you have made that claim though it is not entirely your fault because you do not understand the scope of Economics. I will settle on one of many examples. You said “Sony has fucked up a lot recently (at least in the eyes of the press which has a direct influence on the public). Reason if you read this then you should post that site on Sony’s blunders just to point out their existence. I say Sony has yet to fuck up even one bit rather; it is constrained and its knowledge of these constraints surpasses yours. You be the judge on whether or not you made the claim. You have to die to escape Economics. It is one of the very few things that rules absolute for as long as life continues.
You: I couldn’t say I know a damn thing about reading a stock report. That’s one of many reasons I wouldn’t be a better economist. I would guess most people (including yourself) wouldn’t tell me you’d be a better engineer because you don’t know much about…ummm…electromagnetic antenna theory. Or some other piece of engineering minutia. That would just be silly.
Me: A stock report reports on the performance of the stock of a company and has little weight on this discussion. It is different from an income, financial statement or balance sheet. To paraphrase your words “You don’t know much about…ummm…the market. To claim you do would just be silly.”
Re: BETTER COPY (READ THIS ONE!!) (READ THIS ONE!!)
anonymous
February 8 2007, 05:44:01 UTC
You: Several paragraphs later it all comes down to respect. I think you should make more of an effort to respect the thoughts of others. Disregarding them before they have been proven incorrect isn’t the way to go about things. The definition of truth is “a fact that has been verified.” Until you have verified a claim there’s no reason that anyone should have to take it as fact. The same goes for anyone talking to you. Verification isn’t always easy but it’s the only way to truly settle any matter.
Me: you are entitled to thinking that I do not respect you. I did not disregard any thought that was not already wrong. I have shown you time and time again how in fact, you are wrong. You know what, if you can show me why you support Sony’s PS3 without it being primarily based on luck and beliefs I will say that everything I have done here was wrong.
You: So if there’s anything I ever say that you feel is false ask me how I can verify it. That way I can claim if it was from a scientific journal, a tv program, an article I read on the internet, a feeling I have, etc etc
Me: I believe I have responded to this already. By the way, most journalists or tv reporters know ziddly squat about Economics. Why the hell is an Economist reporting news or giving you good information that it could be using? That’s because it is in fact, not an economist. Go onto the internet and see if the American economy is ‘struggling’ and behind the rest of the world economies. When you do, construct an argument for why that is the case and then we will discuss why that is wrong. Feel free to discuss our declining GDP, poor global image and restrictive laws. Here is a list of sources that you may find useful: Google, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Bill O’ Reily, Bloomburg and any quack economist.
You: Otherwise it’s just throwing around the words “wrong” and “right…”
Re: BETTER COPY (READ THIS ONE!!) (READ THIS ONE!!)
anonymous
February 8 2007, 05:46:38 UTC
This situation is truly unfortunate. Here is the point as bluntly as I can put it, the job and education of an economist makes me an agent of or someone who holds “stock” in the economy. That means that everything that goes on in the economy (Sony is part of the economy) has a direct effect on me, the economist. Yet, you still claim that I "misunderstood" what you meant by saying "someone who holds stock in a company." I hold stock in all companies. At the end of the day, it is what I was trained to do. If you build a bridge then everything that happens to it or because of it directly affects you. The principle is the same in both cases; it is just the scope that is extremely varied. When I spoke about actual stock holders, it was to show you what was necessary to know about a company and to compare their knowledge base to yours, not anything else. I did not misunderstand you, period.
To escape Economics you would have to kill every other living creature on the face of the planet thereby hastening your inevitable demise. In a nutshell, it cannot be done. Its like gravity, you cannot get rid of it. As for particles of light and arguments concerning it, to know how light works takes a vast knowledge of physics. To know how color works takes about thirty minutes of your time and the ability to read and comprehend on the college level. In short, light is only important to color where its (light’s) frequency and angles of contact on surfaces are concerned. Outside of that, it is all up to sensing and the process by which color is produced (reflection/refraction/mind’s analysis of sensory input/rods/cones et cetera). I would prefer not to waste your time on this though because it has already been resolved.
You show me a time when I have not stated a fact relative to the information we have available and I will apologize and retract my statements. Unfortunately for you, I know that I have not done so at any point during any of our conversations. I said that the PS3 will dominate the console gaming war. Market Quantitative Analysis is the granddaddy of Business Quantitative Analysis and it would be a struggle for me to teach you the basic concepts of Business Quant with your current knowledge base let alone Market Quant. I hate to make comparisons because they are entirely subjective but I find this to be a necessary case. The best example is probably what you teaching me thermo looks like. Neither of us lack the ability, be we damn sure don’t give a shit about the other’s discipline and thus, we are unable to direct our abilities in a constructive manner. Anyways, Market Quant is a tool economists use to analyze all industries including the gaming industry. This is much like you would use your knowledge of engineering to build a hybrid car or what have you. Sony's PS3 is slated to destroy its competitors at an 87% CI. Ideally, you want a 95% or better CI but as you said, it is much too soon for that. At 95% CI or better, nothing short of divine intervention makes the analysis incorrect. Between 86.3 and 94.9, a shock could send it down the wrong path.
Re: BETTER COPY (READ THIS ONE!!) (READ THIS ONE!!)
anonymous
February 8 2007, 05:48:31 UTC
Example of a shock: Nintendo comes out with some hardware that makes the Wii a much more powerful system that is somehow comparable to the PS3 for about $50. Yea...not likely. That's why we call it a "shock."
The lowest the CI has ever been was 53% and that was nearing the Christmas break when Microsoft put nearly 65million into increased product awareness and of course, Wii-mania. This placed increased weights on both Nintendo and Microsoft variables in the analysis, which lowered the overall CI for Sony. I have compiled data on Sony from the initial launch of the PS2. What do you know almost everything looks the same. Everyone keeps claiming, “oh they fucked up here and they screwed up there” and none of it is backed by anything. Sony does not lose a single cent on any PS3 made. Accounting practices say that you state the net worth of all parts going into the PS3. At the margin, a sensor and the disc player cost nearly $900. People look at this information and go, “wth, they are losing money like mad if they sell it for the current prices.” When produced and bought in bulk that is Economies of scale, they cost about $23 dollars at the margin. Does anyone still care to make the claim that Sony is fucking up? Sony “halted” production on the PS3’s on purpose. It purposefully publicly announced a shortage because shortages do what, drives price up. More importantly, it also assess the elasticity of demand for Sony’s product. A man was shot over a PS3 and countless others were robbed. Its safe to say that the demand for the PS3 is pretty inelastic. What was the price of the PS2 when it came out? What about a year later? It did EXACTLY this with the PS2. If I tell you I have a piece of hardware worth $1.5k and promise to sell it to you for $499-599 would you think that a steal? However, if once you bought the hardware there was nothing to do with it, would that create an unhappy customer? Unhappy customers don’t come back. Sony did their research and their analysis is fabulous to see. Sony launched a predicted number of PS3’s to appease the most avid fans of its franchise. For all the others, they will find that the system becomes readily available and at a “magically” lower price when the time is right. Notice the “economy” versions were hard to find? Now you know why. Every single turn is an effort to ensure the stability of the company and the success of the PS3 in the long run. In the short run, everything done for the sake of the long run looks like complete nonsense. This is common knowledge to an economist and necessary information for the discussion you and reason were having. Everything that has happened and that will eventually occur I had to predict. I am well aware of why I hold my position on why the PS3 will dominate and I am also well aware that the information I have is far from common knowledge. I just like seeing Sony operate. Economists think this kind of stuff is cool.
The point I have tried to get through to you and many others is that it is not as simple as "looking it up on Google." Imagine knowing what it takes to understand thermodynamics and then having me recite to you a definition I read in the dictionary (I would say Wiki but you get the picture). When you wish to discuss something, do so. In a discussion, you cannot bash the other side. You cannot sling any shit because you have nothing more than your opinion and a few beliefs. You are and admittedly so, guilty of both of these. I said cannot but really that is more of a "should not" since it gets done anyway. Again, since you have relatively little information on the console war and just as much of an idea on how to analyze that information, you remain in the realm of opinion. You continue to argue against this idea believing that somehow, the fineries of economic analysis are available for the untrained public. Come on now, not even I could get any crazier. Perhaps this is why you believe the Business track to be so easy. Do you really think you can Wiki what a Business major knows? You claim that I deliberately attack you yet nothing I have said is false and to disrespect you was never my intention…I need a prayer.
Re: BETTER COPY (READ THIS ONE!!) (READ THIS ONE!!)
anonymous
February 8 2007, 05:49:56 UTC
I deal in absolutes because anything else is irrelevant. I say that because living in a constant state of "I don't know" means just that, you don't know. I find that to be pointless at best and that mentality seems to involve a rather meaningless existence. Those who know do, and I want to do so I must know. Maybe I will go home and do my homework. Maybe I will take a sip of water when I can. I think that 2+2=4. None of those works for me but perhaps that is just me. I prefer to put "I will" or "I know" in place of those maybes and that think. If in fact I end up being wrong, I pick myself up, dust myself off and keep on going. Anything is possible which makes the only viable question to ask, what is likely? Whenever I get an answer to that bad boy, I run with it because almost all the time, it will be correct.
I always allow for the possibility that I could be incorrect because time, not me, is the only measure of truth. Until time says otherwise, and luckily for me it rarely does, I will be content with my current methods. What I do not do is approach any conversation without being well informed. It is a practice that you are all for the most part, still learning to master. That means that if I join in on a particular side, chances are, it is the correct side to be on. Instead of asking me for facts and then disproving them bit by bit, I just get told "you are wrong." That never works for me. I can always list off facts that support my beliefs and can therefore always show flaws in opposing arguments. The same cannot be said for those who are generally opposed to me.
I crossed the line eh? What did you expect me to do, chuckle and agree? Humans are reactionary beings Phil. I will let you interpret that one. After you said what you had to say, I reacted. Of course I crossed the line that was my intention. Let it be known that I was out for blood. I will never apologize for my actions and refuse to accept your apologies because we both meant it. There is enough "oh I'm sorry, I didn't mean it" bullshit going on in this world already. What we did has consequences but it also had benefits. I took from it what I needed to take from it and suggest you do the same. All I thought about when I read it was that this is how one of the closest people to me sees me. It was constructive criticism, the closest I could ever get to truth. I knew that if it were not for the level of our friendship, what you said could have been much worse. Remember that when and if you ever re-read my response to it. I am not saying that I was ignorant of how you viewed me but I was definitely appalled by your reaction as I would never have chosen that route. I am always the one exploded upon and when I react, I am always remembered as the bad guy. I am not "deliberately anything" other than telling it like it is. “There are better ways to get your point across” is a nice sentiment but it only works when others are willing to listen. Since that is rarely ever the case, I pursue a different course of action, one that lacks tact but oozes truth. To this day, no one has asked me why I think Sony’s PS3 will win. All I get are “well, this is happening and that is happening and I believe I have a clue what it means but really I don’t, anyways, here’s my conclusion.” Why can I not say that this is wrong and not be seen as disrespectful?
Re: BETTER COPY (READ THIS ONE!!) (READ THIS ONE!!)
anonymous
February 8 2007, 05:50:30 UTC
For me, tact has its place and it resides somewhere below truth on the totem pole. If it is necessary to use it, I always will. If I am not using it, it is safe to assume that I do not believe it to be necessary. Besides, from my perspective, I prefer to be hated by you all than to see you go around spreading what I would call nonsense. Any of you hating me is a small cost for making you all more aware of your deficiencies just as you have made me aware of mine. I would prefer to be destroyed at the hands of friends with respect to being incorrect than venturing into the public and being owned by strangers.
This is how I choose to live and I realize that everything has a cost. I am more than willing and able to bare them all. This mentality of mine will no doubt make me many enemies in the short run but people always come around. Professors who ran from me ask me to help them discuss a new model or concept they are thinking about. Students who thought me arrogant find me at lunch and spend hours discussing past conversations. It is my hope that my friends understand my aim and my intentions and assess me on that basis. I have never been out to hurt anyone unless they have caused harm to me. I am who I am and no one can change that. What they can do is change my environment which will in fact, cause me to change. Other than that, I have goals that must be accomplished. It takes awhile for anything I say to sink in and I have already discussed why that is so. Once again I have responded in such a way that you are left with only three options: to run away for any given reason, to stand and accept that you are wrong or to prove that you are right by proving me wrong. My care does not reside in any of these outcomes regardless of how you may feel. I do not like being wrong but that is only because I like being right. This is of course contrary to the belief that I like being right because I like making other people feel inferior. If anyone in this world truly believes in the equality of men at birth barring significant retardation or psychological disorder, that person would probably be me.
Yes, my P.S. is true of everyone but the broader implication is that some of us have shown much more of ourselves than others. You will no doubt address the subjectivity of this claim and at that point, you will have missed the point once again.
Eventually I will get my shit together. I still need to take Brett to dinner as congratulations for his promotion and I am sure I have a lot of catching up to do. It would be nice to be able to keep a phone for longer than a day or two, it really would.
be a better engineer because you don’t know much (thank you for saying it) about …ummm…electromagnetic antenna theory. Or some other piece of engineering minutia. That would just be silly (and here once again, I agree).
Me: Ever hear about classes of stock? Who are these people we call
company/stock analysts? Do you know what a finance, income statement or
balance sheet is? Do you know their functions? Can you read one? What do you
know about EPS? P/E ratio/ROE/ROS/Avg. ITR/Acc.Deprec/Calculating Mkt
share/The difference between revenues and profits/the importance of MC to MB?(Is this like the claim made above? This is not a trick question).
You: Similarly you can’t expect everyone else to take your word that
everything you state is a fact and the truth. (What discipline is best
equipped to give you facts on the console war? Who commands the most knowledge of it in our group? If I ask you about Engineering will you give me the facts with respect to it? Yet if you ask me about economics (directly or indirectly), I apparently can’t expect everyone else to take your (my) word that everything you (I) state is a fact and the truth. Perhaps this helps you see the irony).
Me using your words for point illustration: I couldn’t say I know a
damn thing about reading a stock report. That’s one of many reasons I wouldn’t be a better economist. ...you don’t know much about…ummm…electromagnetic antenna theory. Or some other piece of engineering minutia. That would just be silly. (Do you think that would that change if I Wiki’ed it? What if I typed it in Google? The irony persists¡)
You: And no I don’t feel harmed or distressed. I feel disrespected. All I’m
saying is that I think you’re deliberately disrespectful.
Me: Your feelings are subjectively objective and as such, if you say you feel disrespected then it must be so and I cannot prove you wrong. In fact, your feelings are like my intentions and I can say that my intent was not to
disrespect you. If then you happen to feel disrespected, the source of said
disrespect lies with how you translate my message. That is fact. Unless you define being disrespected as “being told you are wrong” then I have not disrespected you. Is this not right? If not please prove it wrong. What I will say though is show me where and how I disrespected you or anyone else and I will point you to factual claims and an incorrect belief that resides within you that I am here to cause you or anyone else harm. Prove
me wrong.
Reply
what we’re talking about, get to the right conclusion through sheer luck, or
that we’re not aware of any facts I feel you’re being intentionally
disrespectful (i.e. insulting).
Me: I just spoke to this above. What I am being is intentionally correct. You (and friends with the exception of myself and Mizz) have little to no working knowledge of this matter. Prove this wrong. Go ahead, tell me how much previous sales matter instead of why they matter, or how badly a particular system is fucking up.
You: Things I said in that last argument were disrespectful some of yours
were (in my mind and in the mind of several others) much more than that. I’ll refrain from bringing up old quotes. I don’t want to dredge up bad blood. Since we’re talking about it now though you should know that I thought you crossed a line last time. That’s why I stopped replying.
Me: Oh? Here I was thinking you stopped replying because there was nothing
else you could say. Every single claim you made against me turned out to be
false. I can understand using the “I crossed the line” as a reason for
backing out though. Bad blood? Again, it must be on your end. The last line of my response to your other arguments represents my feelings on this matter
exceptionally well. Prove this wrong.
You: But you’re absolutely right. I flung some shit in the last talk. It was
disrespectful and I never apologized for it. I’m sorry for short changing
your potential and any other slights I might have made.
Me: Don’t be, I’m not. You meant every single word of it and I meant every
single word of my reply.
Reply
Me: The above statement cannot be refuted in its entirety because of its
nature. The second line is true. The first and third again, cannot be refuted.
You: No I don’t see the irony of my statement. It seemed to me that you
thought I was referring to stock holders (which wasn’t my intention). When
you made your reply was that not what you were basing your comments on?
Me: no, it was not. I knew that when you said stock you had a very
specific definition in mind. Stockholders, agents and stakeholders are the
three terms you are looking for and of these three you should have chosen
stakeholders/agents. Since I knew this, I spoke about all of them at once. By the way, if Sony tanks, you lose more than just $600. Please see the
definition of stakeholder. If you choose not to, then if I drop a brick in a
puddle of water how far out do the ripples extend? Weight, velocity and any
other factors you attempt to throw in here to complicate the message should
all be based relative to Sony’s place in the global economy (large brick,
large pond).
You: Personally I never get into arguments that deal with things like light.
Something that has both particle properties and wave properties is too much
physics to deal with.
Me: This would probably work on anyone intimidated by physics. I explain below how particles and wave properties affect color. Funny thing is, guys were writing about color and how it works since B.C. Surely they had no idea of particle properties and wave properties back then and they dealt with it.
Reply
misunderstood what you were trying to say (about basing things on the short
run). I believe I agreed with that. There are too many outstanding factors to call it this early. If I did misunderstand then you should explain why. I can’t fault you for that.
Me: Yes, there are too many outstanding factors for you to call it this early. That is a fact. For people like me, this is child’s play. You did not
misunderstand me; I was referencing my frequent conversations with D on this
issue. He promptly gave up once he realized that for my Bus: 661 class, I had to thoroughly analyze the gaming industry and correctly predict the winner of the console wars. I made an A in the class.
You: Again though I don’t think you should just decide on whether something
is factual or not. If someone says something that you believe to be incorrect you should point it out and ask them what they based the statement on.
Me: This is what I have been saying for years. Now compare my posts to your
posts and tell me which one is the best fit for the mold you described above. If you can disprove anything I have ever said I will be amazed. I am currently disproving things you have already said.
You: Similarly you can’t expect everyone else to take your word that
everything you state is a fact and the truth. I think people should have just as much right to question you as you do them. Is that not reasonable?
Me: yes, it is so question away. When have I ever stated something without
adequate factual backing? Here’s your chance to say “well you said that you
were going to change the world.” Well, my fact for why that is so is my very
being and all that it encompasses. That is not enough? Then what is? Something more than me perhaps? Prove me wrong.
You: Yea I only agreed with your last paragraph. The first (of four) you were disregarding our posts. The second and third you were discussing a topic that I don’t agree or disagree with (because you were talking about something unrelated to my comment). The last I agreed with. I never disagreed with anything you said in your second paragraph. That’s just not what I was talking about.
Me: Actually, that is wrong and here is why. Yes, I disregarded them because
you were trying to form conclusions based on just about nothing. What you know is not enough. How is this wrong? The second and third were central to your argument, you probably did not know what a stakeholder/agent was. You are a stakeholder in Sony. I am an agent and stakeholder of Sony. The CEO of Sony is a stakeholder/agent and stockholder of Sony. For any of us to have a
conclusive conversation about the console wars, you need to know, on top of a ton of other information, those few things I listed out for you in the third paragraph. Do you know the things I listed out in the third paragraph and what they do? No, you do not. So based on that, you cannot conclude anything. Have you concluded? Well, actually you have. You said “It's too early to pass judgment on any system. You just throw your lot with the one you want to be a part of.” That happens to be wrong. Prove how it is not so.
You: I have (and have constantly) made most of my personal thoughts without
using absolutes. So when I say I think something it’s because that is my
opinion. If you would like to know the reasoning behind any of my opinions
then just ask.
Me: well, the modifier most can make anything I say become incorrect. I
only know about my encounters with you in text but I may just be a small
percentage of your personal thoughts. Though of all the times I have dealt
with you in text, you toss around absolutes pretty hard. Here’s one to jog
your memory. You said “Of all the reasons I can think of that you could never get these things I think I’ll settle on the one I think you could understand the best: you don’t have anything that anyone else wants. No one wants your crazy ideas on education or life in general. Hate to break it to you but every idea you’ve ever had? Chances are that they were already had by someone else that had more effort, intelligence, resources, and power than you ever will.” You can choose to deny this or say that I misunderstood what you were saying; either of those is fact.
Reply
Never allowing for the possibility of fallacy in your statements is arrogant
though. To state that all of your claims are facts while others are not and
then not allowing investigation for either side is well I think its plain
inconsiderate. Bad practice at least.
Me: My business here is with the second line onwards. Of course I do not allow for fallacy in my statements because I am actually well informed just about every time I speak. I tend to say “I don’t know so I cannot comment” any other time. It is a very helpful practice. I can state that my claims are facts because they are always supported not only by authorities but also by reason. If you are not with me then you are either an opinionated believer, someone who has not thought it through enough, or you lack any factual information to back up your claims. Basically, if anyone wishes to find answers to any questions that they and I may have, they and I will always end up with the same outcome or they are wrong. That is how I look at it. I never short change or half ass thinking about any situation I wish to find answers for. Again, what you see is not arrogance, though I understand how you could say that. If someone walked up to you and asked you about circuits, could you speak factually on the matter? If they (the other person) had no formal education in the matter but held opposing beliefs or formed alternate conclusions that you knew were wrong, would you not object? Who is more likely to be wrong in that situation? I have never stopped anyone from investigating anything. Go ahead and learn the necessary information required to predict economic outcomes and then tell me how I am wrong when you end up with the same answer. If you are wrong, you are wrong, just as if I was wrong, I would be wrong. There is nothing inconsiderate about that.
You: If I ever said I was a better economist than you I can’t recall. If it
was in an offhanded comment I suppose I could have. You’re right about
everything being tied to economics. It’s hard to escape it in human society.
The engineering industry is rife with it. Most of the subject matter I learn
in school though is not. Not that I can tell anyway.
Me: There are several times you have made that claim though it is not entirely your fault because you do not understand the scope of Economics. I will settle on one of many examples. You said “Sony has fucked up a lot recently (at least in the eyes of the press which has a direct influence on the public). Reason if you read this then you should post that site on Sony’s blunders just to point out their existence. I say Sony has yet to fuck up even one bit rather; it is constrained and its knowledge of these constraints surpasses yours. You be the judge on whether or not you made the claim. You have to die to escape Economics. It is one of the very few things that rules absolute for as long as life continues.
You: I couldn’t say I know a damn thing about reading a stock report. That’s
one of many reasons I wouldn’t be a better economist. I would guess most
people (including yourself) wouldn’t tell me you’d be a better engineer
because you don’t know much about…ummm…electromagnetic antenna theory. Or
some other piece of engineering minutia. That would just be silly.
Me: A stock report reports on the performance of the stock of a company and
has little weight on this discussion. It is different from an income,
financial statement or balance sheet. To paraphrase your words “You don’t
know much about…ummm…the market. To claim you do would just be silly.”
Reply
Me: you are entitled to thinking that I do not respect you. I did not
disregard any thought that was not already wrong. I have shown you time and
time again how in fact, you are wrong. You know what, if you can show me why
you support Sony’s PS3 without it being primarily based on luck and beliefs I will say that everything I have done here was wrong.
You: So if there’s anything I ever say that you feel is false ask me how I
can verify it. That way I can claim if it was from a scientific journal, a tv program, an article I read on the internet, a feeling I have, etc etc
Me: I believe I have responded to this already. By the way, most journalists or tv reporters know ziddly squat about Economics. Why the hell is an Economist reporting news or giving you good information that it could be using? That’s because it is in fact, not an economist. Go onto the internet and see if the American economy is ‘struggling’ and behind the rest of the world economies. When you do, construct an argument for why that is the case and then we will discuss why that is wrong. Feel free to discuss our declining GDP, poor global image and restrictive laws. Here is a list of sources that you may find useful: Google, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Bill O’ Reily, Bloomburg and any quack economist.
You: Otherwise it’s just throwing around the words “wrong” and “right…”
Me: Ain’t that the truth.
Reply
To escape Economics you would have to kill every other living creature on the face of the planet thereby hastening your inevitable demise. In a nutshell, it cannot be done. Its like gravity, you cannot get rid of it. As for particles of light and arguments concerning it, to know how light works takes a vast knowledge of physics. To know how color works takes about thirty minutes of your time and the ability to read and comprehend on the college level. In short, light is only important to color where its (light’s) frequency and angles of contact on surfaces are concerned. Outside of that, it is all up to sensing and the process by which color is produced (reflection/refraction/mind’s analysis of sensory input/rods/cones et cetera). I would prefer not to waste your time on this though because it has already been resolved.
You show me a time when I have not stated a fact relative to the information we have available and I will apologize and retract my statements. Unfortunately for you, I know that I have not done so at any point during any of our conversations. I said that the PS3 will dominate the console gaming war. Market Quantitative Analysis is the granddaddy of Business Quantitative Analysis and it would be a struggle for me to teach you the basic concepts of Business Quant with your current knowledge base let alone Market Quant. I hate to make comparisons because they are entirely subjective but I find this to be a necessary case. The best example is probably what you teaching me thermo looks like. Neither of us lack the ability, be we damn sure don’t give a shit about the other’s discipline and thus, we are unable to direct our abilities in a constructive manner. Anyways, Market Quant is a tool economists use to analyze all industries including the gaming industry. This is much like you would use your knowledge of engineering to build a hybrid car or what have you. Sony's PS3 is slated to destroy its competitors at an 87% CI. Ideally, you want a 95% or better CI but as you said, it is much too soon for that. At 95% CI or better, nothing short of divine intervention makes the analysis incorrect. Between 86.3 and 94.9, a shock could send it down the wrong path.
Reply
The lowest the CI has ever been was 53% and that was nearing the Christmas break when Microsoft put nearly 65million into increased product awareness and of course, Wii-mania. This placed increased weights on both Nintendo and Microsoft variables in the analysis, which lowered the overall CI for Sony. I have compiled data on Sony from the initial launch of the PS2. What do you know almost everything looks the same. Everyone keeps claiming, “oh they fucked up here and they screwed up there” and none of it is backed by anything. Sony does not lose a single cent on any PS3 made. Accounting practices say that you state the net worth of all parts going into the PS3. At the margin, a sensor and the disc player cost nearly $900. People look at this information and go, “wth, they are losing money like mad if they sell it for the current prices.” When produced and bought in bulk that is Economies of scale, they cost about $23 dollars at the margin. Does anyone still care to make the claim that Sony is fucking up? Sony “halted” production on the PS3’s on purpose. It purposefully publicly announced a shortage because shortages do what, drives price up. More importantly, it also assess the elasticity of demand for Sony’s product. A man was shot over a PS3 and countless others were robbed. Its safe to say that the demand for the PS3 is pretty inelastic. What was the price of the PS2 when it came out? What about a year later? It did EXACTLY this with the PS2. If I tell you I have a piece of hardware worth $1.5k and promise to sell it to you for $499-599 would you think that a steal? However, if once you bought the hardware there was nothing to do with it, would that create an unhappy customer? Unhappy customers don’t come back. Sony did their research and their analysis is fabulous to see. Sony launched a predicted number of PS3’s to appease the most avid fans of its franchise. For all the others, they will find that the system becomes readily available and at a “magically” lower price when the time is right. Notice the “economy” versions were hard to find? Now you know why. Every single turn is an effort to ensure the stability of the company and the success of the PS3 in the long run. In the short run, everything done for the sake of the long run looks like complete nonsense. This is common knowledge to an economist and necessary information for the discussion you and reason were having. Everything that has happened and that will eventually occur I had to predict. I am well aware of why I hold my position on why the PS3 will dominate and I am also well aware that the information I have is far from common knowledge. I just like seeing Sony operate. Economists think this kind of stuff is cool.
The point I have tried to get through to you and many others is that it is not as simple as "looking it up on Google." Imagine knowing what it takes to
understand thermodynamics and then having me recite to you a definition I read in the dictionary (I would say Wiki but you get the picture). When you wish to discuss something, do so. In a discussion, you cannot bash the other side. You cannot sling any shit because you have nothing more than your opinion and a few beliefs. You are and admittedly so, guilty of both of these. I said cannot but really that is more of a "should not" since it gets done anyway. Again, since you have relatively little information on the console war and just as much of an idea on how to analyze that information, you remain in the realm of opinion. You continue to argue against this idea believing that somehow, the fineries of economic analysis are available for the untrained public. Come on now, not even I could get any crazier. Perhaps this is why you believe the Business track to be so easy. Do you really think you can Wiki what a Business major knows? You claim that I deliberately attack you yet nothing I have said is false and to disrespect you was never my intention…I need a prayer.
Reply
living in a constant state of "I don't know" means just that, you don't know. I find that to be pointless at best and that mentality seems to involve a rather meaningless existence. Those who know do, and I want to do so I must know. Maybe I will go home and do my homework. Maybe I will take a sip of water when I can. I think that 2+2=4. None of those works for me but perhaps that is just me. I prefer to put "I will" or "I know" in place of those maybes and that think. If in fact I end up being wrong, I pick myself up, dust myself off and keep on going. Anything is possible which makes the only viable question to ask, what is likely? Whenever I get an answer to that bad boy, I run with it because almost all the time, it will be correct.
I always allow for the possibility that I could be incorrect because time, not me, is the only measure of truth. Until time says otherwise, and luckily for me it rarely does, I will be content with my current methods. What I do not do is approach any conversation without being well informed. It is a practice that you are all for the most part, still learning to master. That means that if I join in on a particular side, chances are, it is the correct side to be on. Instead of asking me for facts and then disproving them bit by bit, I just get told "you are wrong." That never works for me. I can always list off facts that support my beliefs and can therefore always show flaws in opposing arguments. The same cannot be said for those who are generally opposed to me.
I crossed the line eh? What did you expect me to do, chuckle and agree? Humans are reactionary beings Phil. I will let you interpret that one. After you said what you had to say, I reacted. Of course I crossed the line that was my intention. Let it be known that I was out for blood. I will never apologize for my actions and refuse to accept your apologies because we both meant it. There is enough "oh I'm sorry, I didn't mean it" bullshit going on in this world already. What we did has consequences but it also had benefits. I took from it what I needed to take from it and suggest you do the same. All I thought about when I read it was that this is how one of the closest people to me sees me. It was constructive criticism, the closest I could ever get to truth. I knew that if it were not for the level of our friendship, what you said could have been much worse. Remember that when and if you ever re-read my response to it. I am not saying that I was ignorant of how you viewed me but I was definitely appalled by your reaction as I would never have chosen that route. I am always the one exploded upon and when I react, I am always remembered as the bad guy. I am not "deliberately anything" other than telling it like it is. “There are better
ways to get your point across” is a nice sentiment but it only works when
others are willing to listen. Since that is rarely ever the case, I pursue a
different course of action, one that lacks tact but oozes truth. To this day, no one has asked me why I think Sony’s PS3 will win. All I get are “well, this is happening and that is happening and I believe I have a clue what it means but really I don’t, anyways, here’s my conclusion.” Why can I not say that this is wrong and not be seen as disrespectful?
Reply
This is how I choose to live and I realize that everything has a cost. I am more than willing and able to bare them all. This mentality of mine will no doubt make me many enemies in the short run but people always come around. Professors who ran from me ask me to help them discuss a new model or concept they are thinking about. Students who thought me arrogant find me at lunch and spend hours discussing past conversations. It is my hope that my friends understand my aim and my intentions and assess me on that basis. I have never been out to hurt anyone unless they have caused harm to me. I am who I am and no one can change that. What they can do is change my environment which will in fact, cause me to change. Other than that, I have goals that must be accomplished. It takes awhile for anything I say to sink in and I have already discussed why that is so. Once again I have responded in such a way that you are left with only three options: to run away for any given reason, to stand and accept that you are wrong or to prove that you are right by proving me wrong. My care does not reside in any of these outcomes regardless of how you may feel. I do not like being wrong but that is only because I like being right. This is of course contrary to the belief that I like being right because I like making other people feel inferior. If anyone in this world truly believes in the equality of men at birth barring significant retardation or psychological disorder, that person would probably be me.
Yes, my P.S. is true of everyone but the broader implication is that some
of us have shown much more of ourselves than others. You will no doubt address the subjectivity of this claim and at that point, you will have missed the point once again.
Eventually I will get my shit together. I still need to take Brett to dinner as congratulations for his promotion and I am sure I have a lot of catching up to do. It would be nice to be able to keep a phone for longer than a day or two, it really would.
Reply
Leave a comment