From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: REPOST: experience, department of energy
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:35:23 GMT


I posted this a week ago in response to numerous postings from Greg Hennessy.  It is
my opinion that the given objective facts and positions show that virtually
every opinion and position stated by Greg are objectively inaccurate and/or
situationally irrelevant.  Since this posting, I have not seen anything on the
topic from Greg.  I would appreciate an acknowledgement.

In article <1992Dec31.135617.12868@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}Amazing what one can come up with when you reset your NNTPSERVER to sites
}where the evidence has not been expired yet...
}Let's try this again...
}
}Topic I - Fact vs opinion
}=========================
}
}In article <1992Dec30.161147.14583@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}}I beleive your stating of facts. I don't believe your opinions.
}
}Excellent.  I hope that you will not be guilty of hypocrisy and extend the same
}to me.  Now, what is a "fact" and what is an "opinion"?
}
}fact \'fakt\ n
}  1: DEED; esp : CRIME <accessory after the fact>
}  2: the quality of being actual
}  3: something that exists or occurs : ACTUALITY, EVENT; also : a
}     piece of information about such a fact
}
}opin.ion \*-'pin-y*n\ n
}  1: a belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive
}     knowledge
}  2: JUDGMENT
}  3: a formal statement by an expert after careful study
}
}  Hence, a fact is something which exists or occurs or a piece of information
}  about such an item.  An opinion is a judgement or belief.
}
}Past and present items:
}	These may be fact or opinion, they are ultimately theoretically verifiable.
}future items:
}	These may onlt be opinion (with associated probabilities), they cannot
}	be fact since they have not yet occurred.  They can only be verified
}	once they are no longer future items.
}
}
}Do you agree or disagree with these requirements and definitions.  If so, fine.
}If not, why?
}
}If so, we may conclude that your OPINIONS on the future state of the DoE and what Clinton
}may (or may not) do is that and not automatically acceptable as a truth.
}
}Topic II - rational debate:
}==========================
}
}In article <1992Dec29.210220.21888@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}}I also think that you simply want to slam Clinton over this issue,
}}accusing him of appointing inexperienced people, and will continue
}}your pedantry no matter what logic is presented, using as your
}}fallback position  "But you don't know what WILL happen, you can only
}}guess", which means no rational discourse can come of this.
}
}In article <1992Dec30.161147.14583@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}}#That is nice.  However, what you think may be debated but is not verifiable
}}#as an actuality.  You may be wrong.
}}
}}Gee, and that is why I was debating it.
}
}Let us establish what a "Rational discourse" used in the debating consists of:
}
}1. correct reasoning applied appropriately to correct (verified) facts yield correct
}fact-conclusions.
}2. correct reasoning applied appropriately to opinion yields opinion-conclusions.
}3. When a opinion-conclusion conflicts with a fact-conclusion, the opinion is incorrect.
}
}Do you agree or disagree with these methods for rational discourse or not.  If so, fine.
}If not, why?
}
}If so, we may conclude that your OPINIONS on current actions are irrelevant when
}verifiable facts indicate otherwise.
}
}Topic III - qualification vs experience
}=======================================
}
}In article <1992Dec28.193551.25763@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}}err, what? This thread started when you complained that Clinton
}}appointed someone unqualified to be in charge of the DoE, because
}}Clinton's appointee didn't have experiance with nuclear weapons.
}
}and
}In article <1992Dec28.224208.27279@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}}James Meritt writes:
}}#Not quite.  I stated that the candidate appeared to be chosen for reasons
}}#other than expertise in the position in which she was selected.  And you
}}#have managed to say such yourself.  See?
}}
}}I'm not sure I agree with this summary. Your origional article, which
}}has expired on my system, seemed to imply that the head of DoE needs
}}to be qualified in nuclear weapons, as does your summary above
}}("expertise in the position she was selected"). I disagree with the
}}fact that the DoE *needs* to be headed by such a person, and I don't
}}think that Clinton's appointee is unqualified to be head of DoE.
}
}and
}In article <1992Dec29.151615.18125@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}}FOR THE SECOND TIME: Your posts seem (to me at least) to be implying
}}that Clintons nominee is not qualified for the position of DoE.
}
}and
}In article <1992Dec29.210220.21888@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}}#Why do you keep saying that I am wrong, then use the word "qualified"
}}#that I didn't use?  If you disagree with me, disagree with what _I_
}}#say, don't disagree with what YOU say then claim that I said it.
}}
}}Well, since you agree that there is no difference between the use of
}}the two words, does it matter? It was a minor mistake to use
}}"qualified" instead of "experience".
}
}I differentiate between "experience" and "qualified"
}1 ex.pe.ri.ence \ik-'spir-e_--*ns\ n
}  1: observation or practice resulting in or tending toward
}     knowledge; also : the resulting state of enhanced comprehension
}     and efficiency
}  2: a state of being affected from without (as by events); also : an
}     affecting event <a startling experience>
}  3: something or the totality experienced (as by a person or
}     community) <human experience>
}
}2 experience vb
}  1: to know as an experience : SUFFER, UNDERGO <experience hunger>
}     <experience conversion>
}  2: to find out : DISCOVER
}
}
}qual.i.fy \'kwa_:l-*-.fi_-\ vb
}  1: to reduce from a general to a particular form : MODIFY
}  2: to make less harsh
}  3: to fit by skill or training for some purpose
}  4: to give or have a legal right to do something
}  5: to demonstrate the necessary ability (as in a preliminary race)
}  6: to limit the meaning of (as a noun)
}     SYN: moderate, temper
}  -- qual.i.fied adj
}
}  In this usage, I use "experience" to mean primarily definition 1, and "qualified" to
}  mean primarily definition 3.  Please not that there does not exist a ambiguity
}  between these terms using any definition set. 
}
}  qualified and experienced:
}  The person has the skill and/or training to perform the job, and has performed
}  it for a period and thus experienced the tasks.  Look around for competent, long-term
}  employees for examples.
}
}  qualified and unexperienced:
}  The person has the skill and/or training to perform the job, but has not actually
}  performed it.  A student recently graduated from training that is applying for a job
}  for which he is trained is an example.
}
}  unqualified and inexperienced:
}  The person does not have the skill to perform the job, and has not had to do it.  An
}  example of this is anyone who knows nothing, and cares less, about something they are
}  not doing.  There is no shortage of these people.
}
}  unqualified and experienced:
}  The person does not have the skill to perform the job, but has done it.  Please note
}  that I did NOT say "done it well".  An example of this would be someone filling an
}  opening while the search for an appropriate person for the job is made.  Another
}  example would be someone who has been doing the same job, poorely, for an extended
}  period.  Look around and you should be able to point to some where you are.
}
}Hence I do, and always have, differentiated between "experience" and "qualified" and have
}made no claims as to the qualifications for any candidate.  Do you, or do you not,
}acknowledge that these are two separate concepts and that I have NOT, at any time,
}addressed qualifications?
}
}Hence, your entire argument about the qualifications for the candidate for the secretary
}to the Department of Energy is irrelevant to my initial presentation.
}
}Topic IV - priorities of the Department of Energy
}=================================================
}
}In article <1992Dec22.191826.14174@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
}}>1. Rank the budget of DOE in decreasing order, with the biggest line item
}}>first.  Now, by a sizeable fraction, what is the #1 item in the budget of the
}}>Department of Energy?
}}As it happens, one of the biggest, if not the biggest, 'line items'
}}in the DOE budget has historically been the management of the facilities
}}which produce nuclear weapons.
}
}I do not disagreee with Mr. Pajerek.  If you do, take it up with him.
}
}In article <1992Dec22.225052.11034@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}}James Meritt writes:
}}#Pop test two:  When was the last nuke made (by DoE)?
}}
}}Bout two years from what I remember.
}
}Conclusion on resource allocation (using general systems reasoning):
}A lot of money goes into the DOE for the management of the facilities to produce nuclear
}weapons.  It has not gone into the production of nuclear weapons.  It has not
}accumulated, hence it is being spent on something pertaining to nuclear weapon facilities
}other than nuclear weapon production.  Do you agree or disagree?  If not, why?
}
}Assumption 1: DoE is a rational organization.  If it is not, the entire question is
}irrelevant.  Do you agree of disagree?
}
}Assumption 2: A rational organization will allocate it resources relative to its
}priorities.  Note that these priorities may be self or externally imposed.  Do you agree
}or disagree?  If not, why?  Please furnish an example, if so.
}
}Conclusion based on resource allocation conclusion and assumptions 1 & 2:
}The DoE's current highest priority is with its facilities that produce nuclear weapons,
}and is not the actual production of nuclear weapons or anything else.
}
}Hence, your OPINION on what the priorities of the DoE which do not agree are irrelevant
}and currently incorrect.
}
}
}========================================================================================
}BTW:
}In article <1992Dec29.210220.21888@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}}I also know you must have the last word in, so go ahead. I'm done
}}replying. Have the last word to your hearts content.
}
}but
}In article <1992Dec30.161147.14583@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
} [again]
} In article <1992Dec30.185541.16334@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
} [again]
}
} Guess an example of "promise" not matching "action" easily presents itself...


--
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.