I'm posting this as a new thread because the original thread not too far below is turning into a flame war and my rebuttal would be lost deep in the thread.

Cherri, your Gary North quotes are in italics, and my answers follow each of your quotes.

1. "Months before January 1, 2000, the world's stock markets will have crashed."

"Months" may be as few as two months. So we still have until the end of October, a historically bumpy month for markets, to see if this pans out.

2. "The exodus of programmers will begin no later than 1999."

The year isn't over yet, honey.

3. "The GPS rollover (to Jan. 6, 1980) on August 22, 1999, may create big problems for banks and bank wire transfers... My view: the banking system will be gone before y2k arrives."

North said, "may create..." so he's off the hook there. And Y2K hasn't arrived yet, so let's wait and see on that one.

4. "The Euro conversion is doomed. The deadline for stage one is January 1, 1999, and nobody has made it."

There are three parts to North's statement: A) "conversion is doomed," B) stage one deadline is 1/1/99, and C) "nobody has made it." Cherri, as far as part A goes, the Euro conversion is a multiyear process. We will not know if it is doomed until the end of the conversion process. One stage successfully implemented doesn't necessarily rescue the project from doom. There are several more stages. Judging North a failure on this point is premature. Part B is not disputed. The grammar of part C ("has made") tells us that North was discussing the status as of the moment he made the statement. His entire statement is true. You have not refuted it.

5. "Month by month, my former critics are moving my way. I'll be mainstream in a year."

He certainly did miss it on this one!

6. "In January, 1999, the Jo Anne effect will begin to take its toll. That's when corporate fiscal years start rolling into 2000."

A perfectly true statment. The Jo Anne Effect did begin to take its toll. The JAE will not be fully known until all the accounting software closes out fiscal 2000, and maybe not even then. Notice that North does not specify what that toll will be, just that there will be a toll.

7. "If the Jo Anne effect begins to create panic in the corridors of the corporate world, think of April 1, 1999, when the three major trading partners of the United States roll into fiscal 2000: Canada, Japan, and New York State."

North begins his statement with the word "if." It's not a prediction, just an if/then statment. Sorry, Cherri. Read a bit more closely.

8. Some major computer problems will begin in early 1999, growing worse in the fall of 1999. This gives us even less time to prepare.

Cherri, some major computer problems did begin in early 1999, and as far as "growing worse in the fall", we're not into the fall until the autumnal equinox on September 21. Again, a premature analysis.

-- Prometheus (fire@for.man), September 10, 1999

Answers

Gary North has always couched his predictions very carefully, leaving weasel room of someone is so inclined. Prometheus is so inclined. Shall we say that while his predictions are for the most part not technically wrong, they are deliberately misleading?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 10, 1999.

Correct analysis Flint. The 'GI's' will be playing the same semantical games after Gary's predictions fail in January.

-- Stinky (smells@likeA.shill), September 10, 1999.

LOL! LOL! LOL! Prometheus, you-the-man! Even Herr Hoffmeister could not do better!

Flint, you are getting lame. Your posts have become nothing more than faint echoes of what once was. Time has a way of doing that, I guess. Especially when the time is getting short.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 10, 1999.

It looks like King Spain is trying to start a flame war on this thread as well.

-- King of France (zoo@animals.con), September 10, 1999.

Don't even talk about deliberately misleading. Indian Point nuke came a hair away from a real FUBAR two weeks ago due to a battery drain after an EDG malfunctioned. This was NEVER reported in mainstream press.

Let's hope all the EDG's work next year.

Not to mention that bullshit about the Fed not allowing Y2K to impact monetary decisions.....see my response to that LIE. That's right LIE.

PS what agency do you work for DIA, CIA, NSA, DOD, DOJ or SNAFU.

-- Gordon (g_gecko_69@hotmail.com), September 10, 1999.

I work for the HHA (The Hillbilly Hairdresser Association).

HeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeHawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! Y2K is our salvation!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- Felicious Hillbilly (no@bad.predictions), September 10, 1999.

I thought the name of the agency was BOHICA.

Bend Over, Here It Comes Again.

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), September 10, 1999.

Stinky,

"after Gary's predictions fail in January"

So is this your prediction? How do you know? I understand that it's called the Y2K problem. Y2K is short for year 2000. Should I remember this, so that if you are wrong, I can come here and make fun of you?

Grow up. The problem is real. Billions have been spent. Things will break.

I can guarantee it. Your prediction will fail.

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 10, 1999.

I sure hope Mike Admas is paying these shills well.

-- Profiteer (selling@people.fear), September 10, 1999.

The Friday Night Fights. This is So funny; better than mudwrestling is Thoughtwrestling.

-- Duke of Earl (I'm readyfor@january.com), September 10, 1999.

ROFL Prometheus, you've taken the Bill Clinton course of TruthSpeak I see....Nonsense. North predicted disaster THIS year, and it hasn't happened, and it won't...

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), September 10, 1999.

Flint, you seem critical of Gary North for putting qualifiers in his statements. Yet if he were bolder, you might well criticize him for making predictions that could not be verified, and I wouldn't necessarily blame you. That doesn't appear to leave much that you might be receptive to. I infer also that you would find more credibility in published concerns about Y2K if they were expressed by someone who didn't have a vested interest in generating concern. But one can claim that merely having an opinion constitutes a vested interest, so it seems to me that this is asking for the impossible.

IMHO, the quest for verifiable evidence that Y2K will be disruptive is a red herring. Andy, you requested such evidence on embedded chips. How can more than a handful of people on earth independently verify this evidence, which by my definition requires at least the knowledge of that particular chip's design and a killer microscope.

Our society has long been too specialized to permit most of us the ability to verify anything about technology without relying on someone else's expertise. Yes it is frustrating, but it is also why I would suggest that focusing on the fundamentals is apt to be more fruitful.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), September 10, 1999.

FactFinder, I challenge you to examine ANY of Hoffmeister's polly arguments about why the FAA really is NOT lying, why IBM mainframe computers that will not have Y2K software patch fixes applied will NOT be a problem, etc., etc. This is the same level of reasoning.

Of course, the big difference though is that all of Gary North's "failed" 1999 predictions all have the common denominator of 1999 -- which is not over yet, last I checked. And its interesting that nobody is trying to refute the actual predictions per se, only the TIMING of when they are supposed to occur.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 10, 1999.

Right, Your Highness.

Here's a challenge: point me to a statement where the FAA did lie.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 10, 1999.

The Most Important Prediction, and the one which actually persuaded me to "get the picture", is of course that the majority of the World would be way behind, and many areas would not even be close to compliance. I wasn't worried about the technical aspects of the problem as much as the individuals responsible for fixing them (I'm speaking of bureaucrats and executives, not programmers).

I think most on this forum will agree that we are fairly blown away by the fact that this aspect is currently in a much more critical status than we had guessed.

-- @ (@@@.@), September 11, 1999.

Sir Hoff,

Funny, I just tried to go to faa.gov, to do a little copy & paste, and they seem to be down. Also getting server busy alot here, and don't have time to review your comments on Primeon, but I did locate this from your favorite site:

"Data verifying that all FAA systems were implemented as Y2K compliant have been examined and approved by Science Applications International Corp."

As I understand it, SAI was the FAA IV&V vendor. However, as we learned a few days ago, Primeon is now doing the work. Why are we wasting tax payer dollars on Primeon, if everything, 100% across the board is "done"?

I also remember a thread where a search for supporting documentation from SAI, turned up empty.

What was up with SAI? Is it possible that they got "fired" for not doing the job? You can ignore that, just a far fetched idea on my part. But, please, do explain Primeon to me, in 500 words or less, without too much copy & paste. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 11, 1999.

FAA and Primeon: Doombrood Drumbeat Goes On...

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 11, 1999.

Flint --- Hate to clue you in, but a prediction cannot be "deliberately misleading" last I checked. It can be correct or it can be wrong. Statements about issues of assumed fact can be deliberately misleading and North has made some at times. I consider those to be "lies". Just like when the FAA does it.

Does North do that all the time? Does the FAA do that all the time? No in both cases. On the whole, North's site has been invaluable. That doesn't justify lying, when it occurs.

But do YOU consider "deliberately misleading" statement to be "lies", Flint? You still haven't answered that? That's not a trick question, but a sincere one. I do and, as I've stated elsewhere, believe that the refusal to name lying as lying is a profoundly corrupting element in our culture, not to mention one of the prime reasons that I felt compelled to prepare as I have for Y2K. I'll bet if you look deeply enough, it is one of the prime reasons you prepared for Y2K in the days when you believed it might have a major impact. But whether that is the case or not, could you answer this question,

"Is 'deliberate misleading', 'lying'?"

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 11, 1999.

[exasperation expression ON]

Following David L and BD:

What's the POINT of arguing whether a predictor of y2k events is right or wrong?

We're all looking at the same facts, such as are available, it is a one-time event with no "past performance", there are few experts in enough correlated areas to be relevant to any issue of "credibility".

We're all riding out this Fun House ride more or less together, and we'll see when we see. For now, why not relax (a bit) and enjoy it together?

Gary North is an OT (Old Testament) prophet, Jeremiah-like warning us to "straighten the ways". Technically correct or not, he is speaking from, and to, different levels of crisis and values. There had to be at least one such Jean Baptiste, and it's not surprising that some want his head for speaking as he does.

He and others speak more directly to the level of conscience (whether we agree or not with his theocratic vision) than the usual public pablum dished out, and so we respond, even us "secular" types.

I appreciate the consistency of people here, real people speaking their minds -- it shows up in the humor of those like KOS and Dieter, but you all do it to such a generous extent. I realize that your bit of stability helps reassure me while I contemplate chaos ahead. It is a lonely world without such true companions, and I have found the best, however new or unlikely the means (Internet). I hope we will be able to communicate for many many months to come.

Winter's coming. Thank Chuck & sysops for cleaning out the garbage, and let's kick out the jammies!

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.uni), September 11, 1999.

[exasperation expression went OFF about halfway through that last, OK?]

(always wondered how these cutesie programmer thingies came through on Greenspun. Curly brackets don't, eh?)

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.uni), September 11, 1999.

Big Dog:

I am not trained in casuistry. I'll take a crack at this, however

I doubt this is the place to start a longwinded philosophical and/or religious discussion. My inclination is that truth/lies is not a binary situation at all. It's a spectrum. When you try to subdivide a spectrum into a moral taxonomy with only two pigeonholes, you run into trouble. And this trouble shows up (among other ways) in the form of the "have you stopped beating your wife" question you keep asking me.

It seems likely you explored this spectrum in your education. To provide just a few examples: Is it a lie if you tell a falsehood believing it to be true? Is it a lie if you tell a falsehood not knowing if it's true but hoping it is? Is it a lie if you tell the truth but your audience misunderstands you? In that case, does it become a lie if you notice you've been misinterpreted but make no effort to correct this? If you *do* make an effort to correct it, how much effort is required (or how much success must you have) before your truth that became a lie because it was misinterpreted becomes the truth again? If you tell the truth but it's misinterpreted, does it become a lie if you are pleased, rather than upset, by this misinterpretation?

Is it a lie if you make a factually accurate answer to the wrong question, without correcting the question? Gary North is an expert at asking questions based on false assumptions, so that any direct answer must accept those assumptions. Therefore, no direct answer can be correct or accurate. Is it a lie to ask such questions? Is it a lie to give direct answers, knowing that any such answer must be misinterpreted because the questions are based on false assumptions and you know it?

With respect to the FAA: It seems clear that their original statement was technically accurate, but widely misinterpreted. As I understand the TB2K viewpoint, this FAA statement, while accurate, nonetheless became a "lie" NOT so much because it was misinterpreted, but because of our suspicion that the FAA *intended* that it be misinterpreted. As I wrote earlier, God has not whispered the intentions of the FAA in my ear. I surmise that this was deliberate on their part, but I'm guessing. My guess is NOT a fact.

This is a subtle but important distinction. A good deal of what I've posted here has been misinterpreted. Some of that (I admit) was intentional on my part, but very little. Most of the misinterpretation, I believe, has been due to deliberate twisting of my words on the part of those who view me as an enemy, whose views must be distorted to be discredited. Apparently my views, while generally rational, haven't sufficiently inspired the urge to prepare (at least in the eyes of some), and that's a sin so serious as to justify deliberate misinterpretation to shoot the messenger.

And by now, I must place you in this category. I honestly think you're well aware that my efforts to dig into what we read rather than force it all to fit preconceptions has been sincere, even if not always well expressed or thought through. Given your education, I believe that you *know* that your question is based on a false assumption (of binary simplicity when reality is a spectrum), and any direct answer on my part (a simple yes or no) forces me to accept this false assumption, therefore condemning me either way. I believe you are well aware that this is essentially dishonest, but you think the end justifies the means.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 11, 1999.

Flint --- I'm running off to get some fencing for goats so can't answer at moment. But I've always thought you sincere, that's never an issue. And my question IS also sincere. This matter of "deliberate misleading" goes to the core of stuff with Y2K pre-impact. Will answer this evening or tomorrow morning.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 11, 1999.

Tempest in a teapot, I will wait until June of 2000 to relax.

Until then Flint, you are not a Jedi yet.

-- Will (sibola@hotmail.com), September 12, 1999.

Y2K really annoys the insiders, the establishment, the Tri Lats-- because it's the only thing they can't control, & it threatens to cripple or destroy all their controls. They firmly control the mega- banks, global money system, mega-media, all major political parties (on both sides in every nation), & the multi-nationals. But Y2K snuck up on them, & they're mad & scared. They're desperately spending billions to try to "fix" it but they know it can't be totally fixed, perhaps not ever. It will also be a major setback for Big Brother, in all its aspects, from tax collection to bank rule to centralized bureaucracy & monitoring. As a result, the average person will get a lot of unexpected benefits from Y2K. Some are hoping for a worst-case scenario. "However painful, it's a worthwhile cost to regain individual freedom" they say, in essence. Freedom has never been free.

If U don't really feel Y2K is going to be a BIG DEAL, & if therefore it annoys or upsets U to read data reports from people who say it probably IS going to be a big deal, then don't bother to read this article. Skip on to the next one. Mostly, people aren't changing their minds, are decided re Y2K. If U are a new subscriber, U should read this so U see what we consider the critical/updated facts. Unless U get heavy/daily Y2K updated hard data (as we do) then it would be puzzling how U can decide either way--without all the new daily facts. But most people are deciding emotionally, not objectively, not factually. That's their option, even if subconscious. So, read on or not, as U choose.

For those few who are still reading (:-), here's the latest: Many are comforted to hear that govt & biz have Y2K "contingency plans." Instead, that glib phrase should scare them. Think about it! If all govt depts, banks, biz, military, airports, hospitals who claim they are Y2K- compliant (as most now claim) were really bug-resistant, why would they need vast contingency plans? "Contingency" isn't just a throwaway word; it means something, ie, what we'll do if our individual company/bureau/system breaks down.

They're spending massive money on contingency plans, which means they've little confidence in their claims they're fully Y2K- compliant. Some have thrown in the towel, admit they can't get compliant in time, & will rely mainly on contingency plans. At least they're honest. That can't be said for the blowhard bluffers who are hoping to con people they're foolproof. Fools, yes. Foolproof: unlikely. Only a minority submit to audits of their repair/test/compliance claims.

Many insiders admit they're far behind schedule & will be on a "fix- on-fault" basis in 2000, ie they'll fix/repair embedded chip/computer/system breakdowns if/as they occur. That means after trouble. The catch is: how do they get back up if the whole system is down? Bottom line: the world is one big web of contingency plans & fix-on-fault. Nobody is 100% safe/compliant, because it's impossible to attain. And that is fact, spoken by the world's leading engineering group. US Senate Y2K Report: "Y2K is not going to be just another 'bump in the road.' No, it's going to be one of the most serious & potentially devastating events the US has ever encountered." Govts tend to soft-pedal bad news, so that statement should be a wake-up call to many. Turn up your hearing aid!

The BIS (Bank for Int'l Settlements, Basel, Switzerland) is the central bank for all other central banks. Their Y2K view is not cheerful. In a fat report they say "some problems will be missed; new problems will be inadvertently introduced via the remediation process; even the best test programs may not detect all potential errors; uncertainty will remain up to & after Jan 1. In other words, it is inevitable there will be Y2K disruption, athough it's not possible to predict how serious or widespread this disruption will be."

So there U have it. Central banks will go into 2000 not knowing if these systems are fixed. They know most are not fixed, worldwide. Compare BIS language to your local bank's PR rubbish. The BIS report goes on in great detail. If U read it all U lose any shred of optimism. The general threat is a breakdown of the inter-bank payments system. And once down, how to get it back up? BIS says: Y2K is "unlike any other disruption problem where identical backup sites can be activated. But any uncorrected Y2K problem is likely to affect both sites so the backup would not be a contingency."

It gets worse. BIS, who says what neither private banks nor govt banks dare to say, reveals: "The inability of a major payment & settlement system to function smoothly, or have procedures for isolating problems, will intensify uncertainty/concern. In the extreme case, this could have repercussions throughout the global & domestic systems." Conclusion: the world economy is at acute risk. This is not some "doom/gloom" offbeat writer's view; it's the bluest of the blue chip banks. If your hair hasn't turned grey so far, read the following:

The BIS advises banks to get the home phone numbers of regulators & govt officials so they can be contacted at night or on weekends to discuss the prudence of "closing markets & declaring an emergency financial bank holiday." This is scarier than any Y2K newsletter writer (except Gary North) has dared to say. And it's the real thing! U see, if banks go down, there can be no stock/bond/property mkt, or any other mkt, except black mkts of course, using cash. And all this is separate from equal risks from no power, oil, water, & no phones/fax/e-mail. U don't like this? Does that mean it can't happen? Or can it happen even if U don't like it? Try to separate wish from reality. Author Dr.Edward Yardeni, chief economist/global investmnt strategist at Deutsche Banc-Alex Brown has come back from Y2K retirement & says: "Y2K summary: Most have eyes wide shut....My prediction for a global recession in 2000, at 70% odds remains...Stock mkt down 10-30% (that's 1-3000 DJIA pts). Recession major causes: breakdown in just-in-time manufacturing system, & in global oil industry. Y2K could cause another energy crisis." (I'm virtually sure of it--HS)

EY notes Y2K press coverage is childish, reports the good news press releases, make no comment, ask no questions. "Some frame Y2K as an all-or-nothing story. Either planes fall out of sky or nothing happens. None consider in between. Anyone who talks in between is lumped into the doomsday category & dismissed as far-fetched..Public is led to believe the casual assurances of the few means everyone will be ready. EY says: "Y2K will turn out to be the greatest story never told--- properly." Reporters squeeze answers out of politicians thought to be in hanky-panky, but never ask ONE question about any Y2K report by anyone in banks/govt/biz.

Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers, US Inspector General,testified in Senate: Half of 161 nations assessed are reported at medium-to high- risk re Y2K failures in telecommunications, energy &/or transport. Her strong conclusion: "The global community is likely to experience varying degrees of Y2K-related failures in every sector, in every region, & at every economic level. The risk of disruption will likely extend to int'l trade, where a breakdown in any part of the global supply chain would have a serious impact on the US & world economies." Now, tell me dear readers, WHY doesn't TV & the press tell U this? My answer: the banks won't let them. Maybe U have a different answer?

As I reported before, the US State Dept will issue Y2K travel advice in Sept. 3 cheers to USSD for integrity in this regard. But it will shock a lot of people. The penny will finally drop. US govt Y2K topdog Koskinen says the US is considering evacuating US citizens from nations with widespread Y2K failures. Each ambassador will make that decision. More than a penny is dropping now. More like a silver dollar. I've only scratched the surface of all there is to report. What bothers me most is the nuclear power plant risks, a global risk, at least in the northern hemisphere. But I can't cover it all. And most people don't even want to hear it.

I'm optimistic that Y2K will paralyze most tax collecting computer systems to such an extent that govts will quickly switch from the income tax to a sales tax (the only fair system), which isn't computer complex & will allow govt to function, ie, bring in money, their 1st concern, 1 of the Holy Trinity of govts (the other 2: power & control).

Every credible Y2K writer accuses govts/banks/biz of lying about the problem & their readiness. But it is left to humourist Art Buchwald to wrap it up in a recent column that concluded: "Fibbing is what Y2K is all about." Many a sober truth is spoken in jest. If U don't take my Y2K advice, take advice from cartoon character Dennis the Menace, who recently told his mother: "We should be stocking up on cookies for Y2K." Make mine ginger snaps! :-)

Harry Schultz

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 12, 1999.

Andy:

Why are you spamming the forum?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 12, 1999.

Will, why 'June of 2000 to relax'? What magical dates will we have passed that will make it O.k.? IOW, what *CAN* happen before June that *CANNOT* happen after June?

-- lurker2473826 (shmi@theforce.org), September 12, 1999.

yes Andy, that same message is stuffed into how many threads? are you trying to bury dialogue between people? why not start a new thread for discussion of your post?

Will, do you have an answer?

-- lurker2473826 (shmi@theforce.org), September 12, 1999.

lurker2473826:

Like everything y2k, it's guesswork. My premise is that most computer problems (y2k) will have manifested themselves and any negative consequences will be working their way through the marketplace. June 2000 is just a personal date that *I* think is useful for gauging the damage.

-- Will (sibola@hotmail.com), September 12, 1999.

Flint said [I respond]

Big Dog: I am not trained in casuistry.

[Nor I]

I'll take a crack at this, however.

I doubt this is the place to start a longwinded philosophical and/or religious discussion. My inclination is that truth/lies is not a binary situation at all. It's a spectrum. When you try to subdivide a spectrum into a moral taxonomy with only two pigeonholes, you run into trouble. And this trouble shows up (among other ways) in the form of the "have you stopped beating your wife" question you keep asking me.

[Truth/falsehood are binary, by definition and age-long philosophical grounding. Mapping them to existing situations is indeed difficult at times.]

It seems likely you explored this spectrum in your education. To provide just a few examples: Is it a lie if you tell a falsehood believing it to be true?

[No]

Is it a lie if you tell a falsehood not knowing if it's true but hoping it is?

[Depends on how it is told]

Is it a lie if you tell the truth but your audience misunderstands you?

[No]

In that case, does it become a lie if you notice you've been misinterpreted but make no effort to correct this?

[No]

If you *do* make an effort to correct it, how much effort is required (or how much success must you have) before your truth that became a lie because it was misinterpreted becomes the truth again? If you tell the truth but it's misinterpreted, does it become a lie if you are pleased, rather than upset, by this misinterpretation?

[N/A]

Is it a lie if you make a factually accurate answer to the wrong question, without correcting the question? Gary North is an expert at asking questions based on false assumptions, so that any direct answer must accept those assumptions. Therefore, no direct answer can be correct or accurate. Is it a lie to ask such questions? Is it a lie to give direct answers, knowing that any such answer must be misinterpreted because the questions are based on false assumptions and you know it?

[Depends but can be a lie]

With respect to the FAA: It seems clear that their original statement was technically accurate, but widely misinterpreted.

[Clear to you, not to others]

As I understand the TB2K viewpoint, this FAA statement, while accurate, nonetheless became a "lie" NOT so much because it was misinterpreted, but because of our suspicion that the FAA *intended* that it be misinterpreted. As I wrote earlier, God has not whispered the intentions of the FAA in my ear. I surmise that this was deliberate on their part, but I'm guessing. My guess is NOT a fact.

[That isn't the way your English read but I will accept this statement. In any case, the issue is whether they, in fact, deliberately misled. IF they did, it was a lie. That it may be difficult to determine whether they did is no surprise: I have been arguing for months that this is one of the reasons this forum is "suspicious" and why many OT topics are on-topic.]

This is a subtle but important distinction. A good deal of what I've posted here has been misinterpreted. Some of that (I admit) was intentional on my part, but very little. Most of the misinterpretation, I believe, has been due to deliberate twisting of my words on the part of those who view me as an enemy, whose views must be distorted to be discredited.

[I DO NOT view you as an enemy!]

Apparently my views, while generally rational, haven't sufficiently inspired the urge to prepare (at least in the eyes of some), and that's a sin so serious as to justify deliberate misinterpretation to shoot the messenger.

And by now, I must place you in this category.

[You can place me there but it is completely untrue. The end does not justify the means. If preparation is not warranted by the actual situation (I obviously believe it is), it should NOT be whipped up by "deliberate misinterpretation". That is vile and it is lying. If I have done so, it has NOT been deliberate. My disagreements with you stem from other roots which I won't go into here because it would blur this particular issue.]

I honestly think you're well aware that my efforts to dig into what we read rather than force it all to fit preconceptions has been sincere, even if not always well expressed or thought through.

[Agree]

Given your education, I believe that you *know* that your question is based on a false assumption (of binary simplicity when reality is a spectrum), and any direct answer on my part (a simple yes or no) forces me to accept this false assumption, therefore condemning me either way. I believe you are well aware that this is essentially dishonest, but you think the end justifies the means.

[This is a difference of world view and a very profound one, I might add, but has nothing to do with trying to trap you. Nothing. I don't know what the word "reality" means here but "truth" itself is binary.]

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 13, 1999.

Big Dog:

I composed a long and thoughtful reply, and Windows hung the computer before I could submit it. And once I did the forced reboot, I got Server Too Busy for the first 100 reloads! I'll try again. Patience isn't my strong suit lately, you realize [grin].

I think we're making progress, and that we do live in profoundly different worlds.

I live in a world of ambiguity, of probabilities, uncertainties, insufficient data, predictions and expectations, hypotheses, educated guesses, and close-enoughs. A world where all information comes with an implicit weight for completeness and accuracy and reliability.

In this world, anyone who believes they have solid answers is a fool. What's solid today will be wrong tomorrow. Even you admit to changing your mind over time.

So if I understand you correctly, what makes a statement a lie isn't the accuracy of the statement, but the intent. You said that if you say something inaccurate believing it otherwise, it's not a lie. So I imagine you'd hold the converse to be true -- that if I said something true believing it false, it would be a lie because I *intended* a falsehood. Similarly, if I said something true intending that you misinterpret it, it doesn't matter whether or not you do misinterpret, all that matters is whether I intend to deceive. Is this right so far?

Because if that's right, what's binary about it is my state of mind. If I intend to deceive or not, yes or no. But back in my world, people are profoundly ambivalent. They just don't have binary states of mind, nor do they have binary intentions, are they quite sure what they want. The 'binary mental state' might be a useful fiction for the purpose of moral taxonomy, allowing philosophers to impose simple truth tables onto complex, multidimensional realities, but I have no personal pigeonhole for this simplified morality.

And once you start projecting individual intent onto a large organization like the FAA, it gets beyond comprehension. Some of the FAA people probably intended to deceive. Some of them intended even greater detail (completion by phases). Jane Garvey herself might not have even understood exactly what she was reading, which was a statement prepared by someone else anyway. Multiple personalities each with multiple purposes and ideas is the kind of world I live in.

I'm willing to give "the FAA" (whoever that is) the benefit of the doubt, since we haven't ever established that what they said, understood in the context they've described, was in any way inaccurate. Yes, it was reported outside this context, and therefore misrepresented. And there is without question a very strong desire on the part of some here to call the FAA liars just on general principle, the poster child of a generically dishonest government.

As I wrote earlier, I've watched a few here distort what I've written with thumping regularity. At what point am I justified in concluding they're dishonest? Where is this binary line between the intent to deceive and the determination to misinterpret?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 13, 1999.

Flint said [I reply]

I think we're making progress, and that we do live in profoundly different worlds.

[Yes. I would add that Christians live in profoundly different worlds than non-Christians (though our time wants to fuzz that over). Yes, so do Muslims and self-aware Hindus, etc. That is, "world-views" are not mush. This applies to the world-view of those who submit themselves to the U.S. Constitution as well, but that is another of those subjects not for this thread.]

I live in a world of ambiguity, of probabilities, uncertainties, insufficient data, predictions and expectations, hypotheses, educated guesses, and close-enoughs. A world where all information comes with an implicit weight for completeness and accuracy and reliability.

[I guess, but keep in mind that I myself said that binary truth/falsehood is very hard to map to many actual situations (cf Y2K) because of ambiguity, etc. Don't be so sure my world doesn't "include" or account for that world.]

In this world, anyone who believes they have solid answers is a fool. What's solid today will be wrong tomorrow. Even you admit to changing your mind over time.

["Even you"! Holding a strong view of truth is not incompatible with many changes of mind.]

So if I understand you correctly, what makes a statement a lie isn't the accuracy of the statement, but the intent. You said that if you say something inaccurate believing it otherwise, it's not a lie.

[I realized that was too vague after I clicked, "submit". "Lies" have ontological reality as well as point-of-view. However, intent is certainly basic to the determination that SOMEONE is "deliberately" misleading. That presumes an agent who has an objective.]

So I imagine you'd hold the converse to be true -- that if I said something true believing it false, it would be a lie because I *intended* a falsehood.

[That is true.]

Similarly, if I said something true intending that you misinterpret it, it doesn't matter whether or not you do misinterpret, all that matters is whether I intend to deceive. Is this right so far?

[Yes. BTW, this is why someone could well judge that Gary North deceives at times based on your former analysis (n.b., I don't personally believe he does this very often).]

Because if that's right, what's binary about it is my state of mind. If I intend to deceive or not, yes or no. But back in my world, people are profoundly ambivalent. They just don't have binary states of mind, nor do they have binary intentions, are they quite sure what they want. The 'binary mental state' might be a useful fiction for the purpose of moral taxonomy, allowing philosophers to impose simple truth tables onto complex, multidimensional realities, but I have no personal pigeonhole for this simplified morality.

[So there are no "lies" or "deceit" in your world?]

And once you start projecting individual intent onto a large organization like the FAA, it gets beyond comprehension. Some of the FAA people probably intended to deceive. Some of them intended even greater detail (completion by phases). Jane Garvey herself might not have even understood exactly what she was reading, which was a statement prepared by someone else anyway. Multiple personalities each with multiple purposes and ideas is the kind of world I live in.

[Determining the intent of an organization is obviously difficult but it is not always impossible (viz, Nixon and his gang). Sometimes it can be determined at the time (investigative journalism), sometimes in retrospect (history). The forum is engaged in ersatz investigative journalism.]

I'm willing to give "the FAA" (whoever that is) the benefit of the doubt, since we haven't ever established that what they said, understood in the context they've described, was in any way inaccurate.

[Since, on other threads, you seem to propose the notion of governments lying as a matter of course, why do you give them the benefit of the doubt?]

Yes, it was reported outside this context, and therefore misrepresented. And there is without question a very strong desire on the part of some here to call the FAA liars just on general principle, the poster child of a generically dishonest government.

[Not germane to this thread, IMO.]

As I wrote earlier, I've watched a few here distort what I've written with thumping regularity. At what point am I justified in concluding they're dishonest? Where is this binary line between the intent to deceive and the determination to misinterpret?

[Ironically, in your world, you should NEVER conclude they are dishonest! I notice, though, that you do. This seems like rather a thumping contradiction. Your conclusion that they are dishonest, should you reach it, places you into the binary world (I would say, the REAL world). I'll tell you where the line is providing you acknowledge that binary judgments are inevitable AND appropriate.]

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 13, 1999.

----------

As I wrote earlier, I've watched a few here distort what I've written with thumping regularity. At what point am I justified in concluding they're dishonest? Where is this binary line between the intent to deceive and the determination to misinterpret?

[Ironically, in your world, you should NEVER conclude they are dishonest! I notice, though, that you do. This seems like rather a thumping contradiction. Your conclusion that they are dishonest, should you reach it, places you into the binary world (I would say, the REAL world). I'll tell you where the line is providing you acknowledge that binary judgments are inevitable AND appropriate.]

----------

Interesting disparity between words and meanings here. Certainly I'll grant that if you draw any arbitrary line through a spectrum, you have created a binary system where one didn't exist before. The underlying reality remains a spectrum, of course. So the "deal" that I agree that honesty is binary and you agree to draw the line that imposes this false dichotomy is disingenuous to me.

The problem once again lies with this artificial imposition. You continue to think in terms of black and white -- they are either honest or they are not. And since I see an infinity of shades of gray, therefore they are never totally black, therefore they must be totally white (or at least I can NEVER conclude they're dishonest). The entire point that there are endless *degrees* of honesty, effectively prohibiting the useful drawing of such a line, continues to escape you.

I tried to be clear, I really did. I asked where (perhaps I should have asked *how*) you draw an arbitrary line between intent to deceive on the one side (which I see as variable and contingent), and the inclination to misinterpret on the other side (which is also variable and contingent).

So the less I intend to deceive, and the more clearly I express myself, the more reprehensible an effort to misinterpret. At the extreme, maybe this approaches 100 on a scale of 1 to 100. Or if I expressed my thoughts less clearly, leaving more room for misinterpretation, then the "dishonesty level" might only be about 85, yes? And if I was exaggerating to clarify, or using words more easily found offensive, this level might drop nearer to 70 (because the intent to misinterpret is still there, but perhaps more justifiable).

Now, I'll admit to expressing things simplisticly at times, to make my points clearer. And when I oversimplify, I create more nearly binary images than reality supports. So I'm knowingly sacrificing accuracy for illustration. This is a dangerous tradeoff, and it's in general uncool to oversimplify. So this might reduce my efforts to an honesty level of only 90.

Why would I accept this reduction? First, to present many points in all their rainbow ambiguity would require large books I lack the time to write and most people here lack the time to read. Second, I am *anticipating* that my audience will make all deliberate attempts at distortion of what I write. They will take small quotes out of context, they will pick at illustrations while ignoring the point being illustrated. And knowing this, I reduce my honesty level a little bit in an attempt to forestall or impede efforts at obvious distortion, emphasizing distinctions to make them clearer. And when the responses are empty personal attacks, I know that it was worth this small sacrifice, because I succeeded.

The moralist, like the proverbial mathematician, lives in a world of ideals and absolutes (the real mathematician does not). But the programmer lives in a world of mush. Programs have outright bugs, they have design flaws, they make assumptions not quite true, they suffer from obsolescence and performance issues (speed). They have all different degrees of readability, maintainability, extensibility, modifiability, debuggability, learnability (on the part of new programmers), clarity of documentation. I'm not even sure that you could take the nominative position that there is in theory such a thing as the "perfect" program, even though we wouldn't be able to recognize it if we saw it. It might not exist in theory.

But a program is simply a logical thought process committed to its simplest form. Yes, all the unique decisions are binary. The program itself is a long way from binary. It's not hard to make the jump from complex programs to real life, where we deal with imperfect information.

So in my world, nobody is 100% honest or 100% dishonest about anything. People simply don't process information that way. People are bundles of emotions, movivations, confusions, incomplete understandings. They aren't sure exactly what they're trying to do, nor would they know exactly how to do it even if they were.

But unless I haven't made myself clear (it's hard), this does NOT mean I think we're cast adrift and anchorless in a world without morality or definition. That would be yet another artificial binary conclusion I'm afraid you might draw. Instead, I think we ought to strive to maximize honesty much like we strive to maximize income. The more the better. To the degree that we cannot rely on what we're told, we become less efficient, less productive, and indeed less comfortable. Our lives are poorer as a result, in many ways.

Footnote: As for government, I wasn't even thinking about intent. When I speak of amoral government, I'm talking about doing what needs to be done in a very practical sense. If that means giving out false information, then that's what government does. I'm not a trained moralist, but I know how important airplanes are. I care that they fly at current traffic levels, not how the FAA managed opinions.

Let's say the FAA *did* try to deliberately create the wrong impression, and their motivation for doing so was to fix their problems in peace, without an upset public pressuring politicians to start pissing in the soup for grandstanding (vote-soliciting) purposes, without any understanding of what they were doing (pretty typical of what happens when politicians are under pressure to DO something, anything, by an upset public).

And let's say that *because* of this tactic, the FAA *did* buy the time they needed to do it right without hobbling interference, and planes continue to fly at current levels as a result. To me, this was a solidly practical decision. I suppose the amoralist (is there such a term?) views life as a kind of war, whose only rule is "don't lose." The goal is practical efficiency.

Underlying this, of course, is the sense of which goals are worth accomplishing, above and beyond questions of effectiveness and efficiency. But that's a different ballgame.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 14, 1999.

Flint said [I reply]

Interesting disparity between words and meanings here. Certainly I'll grant that if you draw any arbitrary line through a spectrum, you have created a binary system where one didn't exist before.

[I don't agree that all lines are arbitrary.]

The underlying reality remains a spectrum, of course. So the "deal" that I agree that honesty is binary and you agree to draw the line that imposes this false dichotomy is disingenuous to me.

[No. The underlying reality is binary. Our difficulty is that we are too "bent" (remember, I am a Christian) to make accurate judgments in most cases about that reality as it is expressed by human actors in this world. I note that one of the reasons that Jesus is confessed as God's Son is that He was able to do this perfectly and at all times.]

The problem once again lies with this artificial imposition. You continue to think in terms of black and white -- they are either honest or they are not.

[No. I have repeatedly said and will repeat once more that it is precisely because we CAN'T easily discern this that the forum is cautious and suspicious about the motives of, say, the government. If it were easy to tell one way or the other, this wouldn't be the case.]

And since I see an infinity of shades of gray, therefore they are never totally black, therefore they must be totally white (or at least I can NEVER conclude they're dishonest). The entire point that there are endless *degrees* of honesty, effectively prohibiting the useful drawing of such a line, continues to escape you.

I tried to be clear, I really did. I asked where (perhaps I should have asked *how*) you draw an arbitrary line between intent to deceive on the one side (which I see as variable and contingent), and the inclination to misinterpret on the other side (which is also variable and contingent).

[Again, I have never said it is easy to draw that line. What I have said is that "a deliberate attempt to deceive is lying". You keep trying to decide how much evidence would get us there. Take as much as you'd like, providing you are in agreement with that simple statement. It appears that you are?]

So the less I intend to deceive, and the more clearly I express myself, the more reprehensible an effort to misinterpret.

[I'm sorry, are you saying I am reprehensibly trying to misinterpret you? If so, that is simply not true. It is the farthest thing from my mind. I am sincerely trying to understand your point while, understandably, trying to help you understand mine. That we may not agree is another issue altogether.]

At the extreme, maybe this approaches 100 on a scale of 1 to 100. Or if I expressed my thoughts less clearly, leaving more room for misinterpretation, then the "dishonesty level" might only be about 85, yes? And if I was exaggerating to clarify, or using words more easily found offensive, this level might drop nearer to 70 (because the intent to misinterpret is still there, but perhaps more justifiable).

Now, I'll admit to expressing things simplisticly at times, to make my points clearer. And when I oversimplify, I create more nearly binary images than reality supports. So I'm knowingly sacrificing accuracy for illustration. This is a dangerous tradeoff, and it's in general uncool to oversimplify. So this might reduce my efforts to an honesty level of only 90.

[This seems like a tortured way to approach truth and lies, but okay.]

Why would I accept this reduction? First, to present many points in all their rainbow ambiguity would require large books I lack the time to write and most people here lack the time to read. Second, I am *anticipating* that my audience will make all deliberate attempts at distortion of what I write. They will take small quotes out of context, they will pick at illustrations while ignoring the point being illustrated.

[It is very hard on the Internet to avoid this. I have noticed you also do it quite often. I believe it is a problem of trying to squeeze large-bandwidth ideas into tiny-bandwidth space and time.]

And knowing this, I reduce my honesty level a little bit in an attempt to forestall or impede efforts at obvious distortion, emphasizing distinctions to make them clearer. And when the responses are empty personal attacks, I know that it was worth this small sacrifice, because I succeeded.

[If you say so. I would much rather spend my life on other things than take such an approach.]

The moralist, like the proverbial mathematician, lives in a world of ideals and absolutes (the real mathematician does not).

[I assume you're placing a demeaning label on me, explicitly or implicitly? And describing where I "live"? I don't recognize that "world" as mine, FWIW.]

But the programmer lives in a world of mush. Programs have outright bugs, they have design flaws, they make assumptions not quite true, they suffer from obsolescence and performance issues (speed). They have all different degrees of readability, maintainability, extensibility, modifiability, debuggability, learnability (on the part of new programmers), clarity of documentation. I'm not even sure that you could take the nominative position that there is in theory such a thing as the "perfect" program, even though we wouldn't be able to recognize it if we saw it. It might not exist in theory.

[Yeah, I know. I've been there, done that and am still managing people who do that.]

But a program is simply a logical thought process committed to its simplest form. Yes, all the unique decisions are binary. The program itself is a long way from binary. It's not hard to make the jump from complex programs to real life, where we deal with imperfect information.

So in my world, nobody is 100% honest or 100% dishonest about anything. People simply don't process information that way. People are bundles of emotions, movivations, confusions, incomplete understandings. They aren't sure exactly what they're trying to do, nor would they know exactly how to do it even if they were.

[I agree. The question is, "if someone is deliberately misleading, are they lying?" This seems extraordinarily simple to me still. "Yes." Discovering whether they are appears to be nearly impossible for you, but I'll bet there are many people on this forum for whom you already have made that judgment, so it seems you ALSO agree with this, but just won't say so.]

But unless I haven't made myself clear (it's hard), this does NOT mean I think we're cast adrift and anchorless in a world without morality or definition. That would be yet another artificial binary conclusion I'm afraid you might draw. Instead, I think we ought to strive to maximize honesty much like we strive to maximize income.

[Why? The government shouldn't do this, according to your political theory. Why should I as an individual do this? Actually, it would do me far better pragmatically to maximize honesty or lying or anything in between that would appear to benefit me, correct?]

The more the better. To the degree that we cannot rely on what we're told, we become less efficient, less productive, and indeed less comfortable. Our lives are poorer as a result, in many ways.

[Not necessarily from a purely PRAGMATIC point of view.]

Footnote: As for government, I wasn't even thinking about intent. When I speak of amoral government, I'm talking about doing what needs to be done in a very practical sense. If that means giving out false information, then that's what government does. I'm not a trained moralist, but I know how important airplanes are. I care that they fly at current traffic levels, not how the FAA managed opinions.

[Yes, and Mussolini believed that what mattered to the Italians was ensuring that the trains ran on time.]

Let's say the FAA *did* try to deliberately create the wrong impression, and their motivation for doing so was to fix their problems in peace, without an upset public pressuring politicians to start pissing in the soup for grandstanding (vote-soliciting) purposes, without any understanding of what they were doing (pretty typical of what happens when politicians are under pressure to DO something, anything, by an upset public).

And let's say that *because* of this tactic, the FAA *did* buy the time they needed to do it right without hobbling interference, and planes continue to fly at current levels as a result. To me, this was a solidly practical decision. I suppose the amoralist (is there such a term?) views life as a kind of war, whose only rule is "don't lose." The goal is practical efficiency.

[And I repeat, if this is so, why should individuals maximize honesty?]

Underlying this, of course, is the sense of which goals are worth accomplishing, above and beyond questions of effectiveness and efficiency. But that's a different ballgame.

[Agreed.]

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 14, 1999.