From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: "experience" ( was Re: Department of Energy nominee
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:49:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.161147.14583@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}James Meritt writes:
}#As you pointed out, the candidate has no experience in the primary
}#task of the DoE.  Q.E.D.
}
}False. 
}
}I pointed out that the candidate has no experience in building nukes.
}If YOU want to claim that the "primary" task of the DoE  is building
}nukes, but I never made that claim. What the primary task of what the
}DoE was in the past is not necesarily the primary task of the DoE
}TODAY.

I don't think so.  The article expired here, but I asked specifically
what it did, and I can't see "building nukes" as being an answer, because
it has not done that for years.  You have made the "building nukes"
claim many times since, though.  And I have disagreed every time.

}#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. The arguments have been

Not much of a debate, if the only "right" answer doesn't live anyplace
but in your wishes and dreams.  Sorry, but not interested.

}You: Point 1.
}Me: yes, but you are making error A in point 1.
}You: repeat Point 1
      You left off "state why 'error A' is irrelevant to point 1"
}Me: yes, but you are making this error.
}You: repeat point 1.

The funny part is, I ask a question, you answer, then you disagree with me
on something that was not part of either.  Very odd...
Watch closely:  
	1. The DoE does not, and has not for years, "built nukes" (you said 2)
	1.a It has, however, for those years had the facilities as the
	    primary item in its budget. (your answer to my first question)
	2. There is no hard data on what "may be". (I do not count campaign
	   promises for a person trying to get elected against an incumbent
	   as a very reassuring verification.)
	If those are the sole topics you wish to debate, find someone interested.
	It is not I.

}Are you aware you are repeating yourself without adressing my
}arguments? 

Why?  Because I asked waht IS, and you want to debate on what you wish?
Since you cannot verify the truth of your wishes, why should we
enter into a debate that has no termination?

}#}Oh? Why can't I listen to the public statements of Clinton and the
}#}nominee? 
}#
}#For one, have you checked upon the historic correlation between the
}#public statements of candidates and their subsequent actions?
}
}Yes. And I have found that Clinton expects his subordiantes to do the
}job he tells them to do.

Unfortunately, he does not appear to constrain himself to his words.
Ask the citizens of Arkansas.  I gave you a specific example (which you deleted).

}#You also claim to know what they do NOT do i.e. have not "built nukes" for,
}#to your information, approximately two years.  Yet, that is still the #1 budget
}#item.  The obvious conclusion is that the $ is spent for something
}#else, right?
}
}You are the one making the conclusion, not me. I note that you STILL
}HAVE NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION. How about it, for the third time. What
}is the #1 budget item? I doubt it says "building nukes". I would like
}you to answer this question.

Heck, there was a 1/3 page article in the Washington Post a few days ago.
You are claiming that things exist.  OK, what?  YOU answered the
question "What is the #1 budget item?".  Interesting, though, that while
you say that the $ goes to the facilities and that they don't build
nukes you will not agree to the conclusion that the money is being spent.
What is you conclusion?  Mattress stuffing?

}#So you would rather discuss what you think rather than what you acknowledge 
}#was what I said.
}
}The issue is what the DoE is going to do in the future, where as what
}you said was in regard to its past. Yes, I would rather talk about the
}future. 

No.  YOUR issue may be that.  I never mentioned it, nor do I see a
way to debate something now for which there is no evidence obtainable.
If you want to talk "wishes", I recomment that you find someone who
cares to.  I don't. Is is.  Isn't isn't.  Is isn't isn't.  Isn't isn't is.

}#When I see the documentation of the actions, then it will be a fact
}#worth discussing.  Until then, it is, at best, a campaign promise
}#suitably cataloged.
}
}Err, you don't consider appointing a candidate with experience in the
}areas under discussion to be something to be discussed?

Except for the minor detail that the person nominated does not have
any experience with the primary task of the department for which she was
appointed...

}Oh, yea, you don't. You'd rather accuse Clinton of appointing
}inexperienced people rather than admit that the experience needed for
}the job changes.

And if it changes to "has to wear purple tights", there would be no
termination for that, either.

}#}But that is not relavent when the job is changing.
}#
}#And how do you show that?
}
}Jim, pick up a copy of the Post this morning. It has a nice story
}about the Start 2 treaty that will probably be signed. We are cutting
}the number of warheads bye about 2/3rds. That doesn't count the Start
}1 treaty, or the IMF treaty, all of which cut the number of warheads
}we need. 

Oh goody.  Since you reference the Post you probably have a copy of the
article I mentioned.  Go read it.

BTW:  And what criteria did you use to determine "need"?  I'd like
to know.  As would the other members of the military operations 
research society.  Last I heard, this was a big debate, and one of the
topics in the treaties you mentioned.

}#Simply consider the term
}#}modified. My arguements don't change.
}#
}#Ah, but they do.  In your case, they make you wrong.
}
}No, they don't. Since we both agree that either word will suffice,
}changing words can't change the argument.

Ah, but I do NOT agree.  And as I said, since they change your argument...

}#And I propose that that difference is why they should be treated differently.
}
}Well, then, demonstrate that these differences are enough to continue
}to treat them differently, since the stated reason for the origional
}different treatment does not hold any longer.

Hows about this one:  you can put an aircraft carrier in Japan or
australia, but you cannot put a nuclear bomb there (overtly).
And last I checked, chile a nuclear bomb can destroy a city without a
aircraft carrier, that is a difference (an aircraft carrier is a
delivery system.  I can't imagine using one as a warhead).  A
nuclear bomb is a warhead, not a delivery system.

}#Oh, really?   When the President says something, you believe it 100%?
}
}Nope. I rarely beleive anyone 100 percent. 95 percent though in this
}instance. 
}
}#That is a little, but not much, better than when a candidate campaigning
}#says it.  BTW:  Clinton isn't President yet.
}
}Did I say that he was? No.  

You said "When the President says..." following a statement about what Clinton said.
These are (obviously) two different things.  Hence, what Clinton
said does not fit into the rest of your paragraph.  Were you attempting a
misdirection?

}#You state "stop making" AND you state "hasn't made for years".
}#You did not say "geared up to make".
}
}And you are being pedantic to the point of being annoying.

Excuse me for wanting accuracy.  I am sorry that you find reality annoying.

}#And why would you believe me?  You haven't for anything else. 
}
}I beleive your stating of facts. I don't believe your opinions.

Which is why I have done neither, but asked you for YOU statement
of facts.  BTW:  "qualifications" for an indeterminate task is an opinion.

}# Tell you
}#what.  If you think something else is so important, post its relative
}#position.
}
}Why should I, when you won't answer my requests?

Because you brought it up.  I will acknowledge you statement that the
nuclear facilities are #1 on the DoE budget (you did say that).  You
then claimed there were other important things.  I ask what, and now
you want me to find your answer?  Wrong.

}#Aristotle would have been very frustrated with you.  Why not look into
}#how you should get someone ELSE to reach a conclusion.  Assume that
}#they will dispute anything that you say, hence you must get THEM to
}#state the relevant facts and arrive at the conclusions independently.
}
}Why not? Because I consider that a silly little game, and that there
}are easier methods of acheiving the same goals. Like you making a good
}faith effort to answer my questions, something you haven't done.

When you want to use opinion rather than verifiables?  No thank you.
I am not going to read your mind to give you your answers.

}#Excuse me for having reality intrude.  Fact:  it isn't happening.
}
}What isn't happening? Reality isn't intruding? :^)

Not in your position, apparently.

}#Right.  There is, of course, a 100% correlation between what he has
}#said and what he has done, and what he has not said and what he has
}#not done.  NOT.
}
}There is never a 100 percent correlation between what anyone says and
}what they do. Does that mean you trust nobody about anything?

For a matter of life or death?  No.  Why are you "he will because he said"?

}#Interesting.  "Rational discourse" does not include observable facts
}#independently verified but does include candidate campaign promises
}#and private wishes.  Odd.
 
}Also, I consider the past behaviour
}of an agency to be of less importance than how the new administration
}wants to deal with the department. 

Suprise suprise.  Think so, huh?  For fun, why not check how many GS
and SES actually change.  And then check how closely what a campaign promise
statement correlates with "wants" and how little it has to do with
"accomplishes".  Especially, I might add, the campaign promises of a
candidate elected by a minority of voters...

}#I much prefer objectively verifiables.
}
}Hmm, since neither of us can objectively verify what the DoE will be
}doing in the future, how do you tell what experience is necessary to
}do that job?

Beats me.  I didn't ask aboiut experience for somnething that doesn't exist now.
I was talking about the Department of Energy, not La-La land.



I'll be glad to talk about reality.  I am not interested in trying to read
your mind to get the right answers for your wishes of the future.  If
you care for a reality check, I'll reply.  If not, so it goes.  ta ta


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex