theman23
Active Member
Sure, I'll agree to that. As long as you promise to cover all the legal costs.
|
|
|
Star: T.O. debt balloons $497M in 2007
- Thread starter AlvinofDiaspar
- Start date
Sure, I'll agree to that. As long as you promise to cover all the legal costs.
Dichotomy
Banned
I am with you 100%. We should adopt Brazil and England's system. A lot of lawyers would be out of a job.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I suggest you go out in the field instead of focusing on justifying your worth to us (or was that more to yourself?), if your intent is to "shake things up". I would advise toning the narcissism down a notch though, for your benefit.
AoD
AoD
Glen
Senior Member
On an Internet forum, without supplying proof, his knowledge is just as valuable and accurate as yours. Unless supplied with proof, neither assertion can be viewed as more or less valid than the others.
Would you care to offer up some of your research, and let us decide its worth?
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Glen:
I would love to, actually, but I am afraid the work I have done is in the private domain and it is not for me to share in any formal way. That said, if we crosses path in real life, I am sure I can tell you of what I've learned anonymously AND informally
Besides, since the two of you were the first to quote what you've learned from your sister and in-laws in this thread, shouldn't the rest of us be provided the evidence so that we can make our judgement as to whether what you've learned from the experiences of others is valid? It's only fair, no? Of course, I can understand that demanding evidence of this nature can be horribly, horribly intrusive ones' privacy...
Oh and here is the quote from Dicotomy:
I await you to pursue proof to his assertion that his knowledge is superior to what's been reported in the media with equal zeal.
AoD
I would love to, actually, but I am afraid the work I have done is in the private domain and it is not for me to share in any formal way. That said, if we crosses path in real life, I am sure I can tell you of what I've learned anonymously AND informally
Besides, since the two of you were the first to quote what you've learned from your sister and in-laws in this thread, shouldn't the rest of us be provided the evidence so that we can make our judgement as to whether what you've learned from the experiences of others is valid? It's only fair, no? Of course, I can understand that demanding evidence of this nature can be horribly, horribly intrusive ones' privacy...
Oh and here is the quote from Dicotomy:
I await you to pursue proof to his assertion that his knowledge is superior to what's been reported in the media with equal zeal.
AoD
Glen
Senior Member
Glen:
I would love to, actually, but I am afraid the work I have done is in the private domain and it is not for me to share in any formal way. That said, if we crosses path in real life, I am sure I can tell you of what I've learned anonymously AND informally
Besides, since the two of you were the first to quote what you've learned from your sister and in-laws in this thread, shouldn't the rest of us be provided the evidence so that we can make our judgement as to whether what you've learned from the experiences of others is valid? It's only fair, no? Of course, I can understand that demanding evidence of this nature can be horribly, horribly intrusive ones' privacy...
AoD
I appreciate that you are unable to share it, and was expecting as much. In my In-Laws anecdote was meant to be taken exactly as presented. You know very well that I cannot offer proof of a conversation. It is up to each reader to whether believe it. That is different from what you did. You suggested that your first hand experience trumps Dichotomy's second information. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. From a third party perspective positing that your first hand information is more valid than his second hand information without offering proof (either of you) is no better. For readers of this thread it is two people making unsubstantiated claims. Nothing more, nothing less. Neither more valid than the other.
That being said, I do believe both of you have relevant information. I trust you when you say that you have done private research in this area. That does not mean that I necessarily agree or disagree with any subjective interpretation of data that you made.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Glen:
Here is what I've said:
I haven't communicated what I have learned - for all you know it supports your observations; thus I never presented anything as superior - in fact, my response is a critique to his use of second hand knowledge as superior to news reports.
Actually, even if I offer material proof, it is probably not going to be vigorous enough if you a) don't know my identity and b) don't know whether the research I have done is peer-reviewed and c) when you don't have access to the primary data. Don't say I haven't offered to communicate what I've learned in person!
Interestingly though, you did not address the quote I've posted - why is there such a lack of zeal in pursing his fallacy which started this debate in the first place (i.e. the knowledge from his sister vs. news reports), if your intent was to critique such errorenous use of logic?
AoD
Here is what I've said:
I haven't communicated what I have learned - for all you know it supports your observations; thus I never presented anything as superior - in fact, my response is a critique to his use of second hand knowledge as superior to news reports.
Actually, even if I offer material proof, it is probably not going to be vigorous enough if you a) don't know my identity and b) don't know whether the research I have done is peer-reviewed and c) when you don't have access to the primary data. Don't say I haven't offered to communicate what I've learned in person!
Interestingly though, you did not address the quote I've posted - why is there such a lack of zeal in pursing his fallacy which started this debate in the first place (i.e. the knowledge from his sister vs. news reports), if your intent was to critique such errorenous use of logic?
AoD
Glen
Senior Member
You seem to be missing my point. I have not critiqued any logic. You, in effect told him that you know better than him based on your first hand information and that he should put his aside. I merely mentioned that for us thread readers, unless you offer proof, your knowledge is just as much hearsay. You are posting on an Internet forum under a pseudonym telling someone what amounts to "trust me, I know better than you" with no substance to back it up. If you would have simply said that your experience contradicts what he is saying and that you disagree, that would be fine. But telling someone that they are wrong, and to "put aside" their opinions while offering little to no proof of your position is arrogant.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Glen:
If you read my posting, which I have quoted - did I say what he said was wrong? No. Nor did I say my experience in the matter contradicted him one way or another. What I did suggest is that what he consider knowledge that is "special" (i.e. special understanding, sage knowledge) really isn't so - and that it is knowledge that's gathered from others , just like media reports, which he condemned as inferior:
AoD
If you read my posting, which I have quoted - did I say what he said was wrong? No. Nor did I say my experience in the matter contradicted him one way or another. What I did suggest is that what he consider knowledge that is "special" (i.e. special understanding, sage knowledge) really isn't so - and that it is knowledge that's gathered from others , just like media reports, which he condemned as inferior:
AoD
Dichotomy
Banned
I spent a lot of time on one particular American blogger site that has recently degenerated into pissing matches day and night. Their traffic is down about 50% in the past few months as member after member got fed up with people yanking out their resumes to try and impress the other. Frankly, after spending 3 years on that forum, I got to know quite a few people very well. After a while, it became very apparent who was full of crap and who knew their stuff.
I try with all my might to a) not condescend and b) to keep the debate lively. My sense of humor is sometimes not appreciated; other times, yes.
There are different levels of anecdotal 'evidence.' For example, if I see 3 rusty Toyotas on the same street over a period of time, am I to conclude all Toyotas rust? Maybe 20 years ago I would have said that. Life has taught me differently, though. If, however, I see 20 rusty Toyotas out of 50 that go by, then on a business trip to Chicago I see the same thing, well, then that anecdotal 'evidence' is probably (in the literally, mathematical sense) more solid. I am also sage enough to know the difference between seeing what one wants to see and seeing it all. Any of my business colleagues will certainly attest to that! LOL
My natural skepticism over the statistics and assertions of 'experts' is based on 25 years of keen observation. Having worked for 3 different unions, and having many unionized friends and associates over the years has given me a rather dim view of the union movement. The same can be said for many politicians I have met over the years. My wariness of lawyers and accountants is nothing person, just that their profession in general is pretty shabby. I am sure lots of decent people go into those fields and think the will make a difference, but then get swallowed up by the black hole that is their profession.
I have also seen the way the media distorts and completely fabricates things. I have witnessed it first hand.
We put way too much faith in 'studies' and 'experts.' Politicians in particular like to fall back on those. That way they don't have to make a decision and can lay the blame elsewhere should the course of action turn out to be wrong. Canada was great when decisions were arrived at and then stuck to. We are stuck in 'cover your ass' mode at all levels of governance and business these days.
At some point we have to learn to trust each other as human beings. I will eventually earn that trust. I am prone to 'exuberance,' just like the next person.
Perhaps it is because I am trying to play catch up for not being involved these past 20 years.
I try with all my might to a) not condescend and b) to keep the debate lively. My sense of humor is sometimes not appreciated; other times, yes.
There are different levels of anecdotal 'evidence.' For example, if I see 3 rusty Toyotas on the same street over a period of time, am I to conclude all Toyotas rust? Maybe 20 years ago I would have said that. Life has taught me differently, though. If, however, I see 20 rusty Toyotas out of 50 that go by, then on a business trip to Chicago I see the same thing, well, then that anecdotal 'evidence' is probably (in the literally, mathematical sense) more solid. I am also sage enough to know the difference between seeing what one wants to see and seeing it all. Any of my business colleagues will certainly attest to that! LOL
My natural skepticism over the statistics and assertions of 'experts' is based on 25 years of keen observation. Having worked for 3 different unions, and having many unionized friends and associates over the years has given me a rather dim view of the union movement. The same can be said for many politicians I have met over the years. My wariness of lawyers and accountants is nothing person, just that their profession in general is pretty shabby. I am sure lots of decent people go into those fields and think the will make a difference, but then get swallowed up by the black hole that is their profession.
I have also seen the way the media distorts and completely fabricates things. I have witnessed it first hand.
We put way too much faith in 'studies' and 'experts.' Politicians in particular like to fall back on those. That way they don't have to make a decision and can lay the blame elsewhere should the course of action turn out to be wrong. Canada was great when decisions were arrived at and then stuck to. We are stuck in 'cover your ass' mode at all levels of governance and business these days.
At some point we have to learn to trust each other as human beings. I will eventually earn that trust. I am prone to 'exuberance,' just like the next person.
Perhaps it is because I am trying to play catch up for not being involved these past 20 years.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Such anecdotal "evidence" would also be amenable to be demonstrated scientifically/statistically. What you have suggested is characterization and hypothesis, not prediction or experimentation. Using your example - you don't know, for example, whether the all the Toyotas in Toronto and Chicago are comparable (age of vehicle, model, vehicle use, etc, etc.) - any difference in which can potentially throw your hypothesis completely off.
Abuse in the use of statistics, or sloppy gathering of it is one thing; it doesn't negate the validity and the value of such, above and beyond observations or "gut feelings".
So do individuals, for their own motives, reasons, biases and point of views.
AoD
Dichotomy
Banned
Then how else does the human brain make a decision?
In my example of the rusty Toyotas, could we 'trust' the observer to know the age of most of those passing vehicles? He probably could not know the mileage or the abuse dished out by the owners, but assuming this person was inquisitive enough that their curiousity was piqued by the sudden realization that there were a lot of rusty cars around, would that person have the intelligence to start observing other vehicles for the same type of problem to determine if the likelihood the the trouble was local or perhaps with Toyota?
Certainly, this person could rush out and consult with all the 'trusted' studies and empiracle magazines, but does this person not have enough brains to formulate an opinion - even a (gasp!) valid opinion without consulting the 'experts?'
Or have we become a civilization of dimwits that have to be told what to think and led to the water to drink?
In my example of the rusty Toyotas, could we 'trust' the observer to know the age of most of those passing vehicles? He probably could not know the mileage or the abuse dished out by the owners, but assuming this person was inquisitive enough that their curiousity was piqued by the sudden realization that there were a lot of rusty cars around, would that person have the intelligence to start observing other vehicles for the same type of problem to determine if the likelihood the the trouble was local or perhaps with Toyota?
Certainly, this person could rush out and consult with all the 'trusted' studies and empiracle magazines, but does this person not have enough brains to formulate an opinion - even a (gasp!) valid opinion without consulting the 'experts?'
Or have we become a civilization of dimwits that have to be told what to think and led to the water to drink?
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Oh we do it all the time, but buying a Toyota for oneself is one thing, making government policy, with long-term and potentially extremely grave consequences on the basis of hunches is another. Change the scale a little bit - say you're in charge of a $500 million contract for vehicles for oh, say the TTC. Would you want to make the purchase on the basis of what you managed to observe on an afternoon day, or would you play it safe and consult a multitude of experts, a wide variety of statistics and talk to a number of operators and end-users?
Actually, even with purchases like a car or a house, people still consult experts and statistics - for a reason - one can rarely observe something enough to make judgements without fail (that's on top of the bigger assumption that they have the necessarily skills and critical thinking abilities required). So yes, you see all these rusty Toyotas - what happens if these Toyotas are still on the road because of some well-constructed part (say the engine), while other auto-makers might have nice body construction, but poor engineering or safety? Would you know that from causal observation?
It might sound heroic to not be reliant on the expertise of others, but the very fact that you can turn on the tap, drink from it without worrying where it came from and whether it is safe suggest to me you're already being dependent on being told by others what to do.
AoD
Dichotomy
Banned
It depends on whether that consultation was just for lip service, or if the person in charge of the $500 million dollar contract actually knew what they were doing.
Governments of all levels are famous for shelving studies they didn't like the results of.
If the facts don't conform to the theory, then the facts must be altered, or something like that.
Part of the problem is letting lawyers and accountants run things. Everyone is afraid to make a decision any more. Millions are blown on 'studies' when, in truth, most true decisions are black or white. It's only selfishness that makes them grey.
I would certainly hope that someone running something as big as the TTC would have an engineering background - fat chance of that, though. Just like somone running General Motors or Toyota should have a car background, and not be a farmer or plumber. No?
If I were going to make a large purchase of an item I didn't know a lot about then I would seek out the advice of as many sources as possible - on forums like this, for example, rather than trusting one or two sources. Who is to know whether those sources are biased or not?
As I am sure you have observed, the greatest thing about the internet is the discourse of differing opinons. One posted article can spawn a plethora of ideas - and for free.
Of course, if all differing opinions are stamped out, then one is merely masturbating.
Governments of all levels are famous for shelving studies they didn't like the results of.
If the facts don't conform to the theory, then the facts must be altered, or something like that.
Part of the problem is letting lawyers and accountants run things. Everyone is afraid to make a decision any more. Millions are blown on 'studies' when, in truth, most true decisions are black or white. It's only selfishness that makes them grey.
I would certainly hope that someone running something as big as the TTC would have an engineering background - fat chance of that, though. Just like somone running General Motors or Toyota should have a car background, and not be a farmer or plumber. No?
If I were going to make a large purchase of an item I didn't know a lot about then I would seek out the advice of as many sources as possible - on forums like this, for example, rather than trusting one or two sources. Who is to know whether those sources are biased or not?
As I am sure you have observed, the greatest thing about the internet is the discourse of differing opinons. One posted article can spawn a plethora of ideas - and for free.
Of course, if all differing opinions are stamped out, then one is merely masturbating.
adma
Superstar
Dichotomy--if you're into making a political difference, this seems your cup of tea
http://www.thetorontoparty.com/
http://www.thetorontoparty.com/