From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Idiotic Japan Bashing
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:16:48 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <727584544snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au> gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:

>In article <1993Jan20.002834.27142@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp writes:

> > One of the really interesting things about this argument is that Gil
> > is very comfortable arging about generalities, but as soon as I ask
> > for an illustrative example he gets totally flustered.  I contend that
> > this is because Gil's position is nonsense and any attempt to produce
> > examples will reveal this fact.

>Ah, Michael, both you and Mr Tobis feel that you can trap me with
>specifics within a frame of reference *you* seek to control, and when
>I repudiate such an arrogation of discourse by turning back to you with
>my own (albeit constantly shifting) frame of reference, you then accuse
>me of getting flustered.

Hey, Gil, if you want to choose the frame of reference, that's fine
with me.  Pick one and then give an example.

YOU CAN'T, BUT YOU WON'T ADMIT IT.

> > Now, Gil, if a plan does not describe various courses of action
> > (sometimes called "action items") then what does it do?  Perhaps you
> > will give us your definition of a "plan" because you certainly don't
> > seem to be using the one that is used in standard English.

>Yes, that is exactly what I have previously stated you are after: a
>definition of "plan". Your entire argument has done no more than swing
>back and forth in confusion around this particular item right from the
>beginning.

>But since you specifically request standard English:

>    plan  n  an assessment of what must be done to achieve an aim;
>             project, scheme; large-scale detailed map; diagram of a
>             structure projected on a flat surface; detailed scale
>             drawing -- plan (pres/part planning, p/t and p/part
>             planned) v/t and i make a plan of or for; devise methods
>             of doing; regulate by a central authority.

>(Surely grade-school stuff, isn't it, you could easily have found in
>your own dictionary by searching down the column under "P"?)

Great.  Now, I think we are talking about line 1 of the definition,
correct?


> > >How about a little less bullshit, 

> > That's my line.

>Please demonstrate that's the case if you expect to be believed.

It's easy.  Just read your verbiage above.

> > No.  I feel irritated by the kind of whining incompetents who can't
> > stand up to world class competition and have to find something else to
> > blame besides their own inability to produce quality product at a
> > decent price.

>Thanks for this further information on your agenda. But it appears
>to me that you Americans are presently in that situation, yes? 

Depends on the American.  GM sure as heck is.  Microsoft isn't.

Doesn't Autralia have similar problems?

> > >Let me commend to you Sun Tzu's, The Art of War, that you might tap
> > >into a bit of that oriental way of thinking, yes?

> > I've already read it.  Your point?

>Sorry, you have failed to demonstrate in any way that you comprehend
>the techniques he discusses and I thought you might benefit from reading
>the book. Indeed, you open your argument here by suggesting that I am
>the one who gets flustered!

Once more, your point?


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.