November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
August 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
May 18, 2004
If we fry, we all fry together
Why the longest wording isn't always the best wording. A humorous email I received today (name and email addresses withheld, but nothing else altered). Particularly humorous if you tend to laugh at word problems in pre-algebra books. Especially ones in which are solved in an unwieldy and illogical manner but still manage to arrive at the (more or less) correct conclusion. Answer the questions posed by Long-winded Guy with a Thesaurus and I will email your answers to him. Preferably in fragmented but official-sounding sentences; spice liberally with terms such as "Irregardless" (an eatingbark favorite), "Ergo", and "Furtherthereforemore". Also, answer this ponderance:
Is ponderance a synonym for question?
-----Original Message-----
From: Long-winded Guy with a Thesaurus
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 10:42 AM
To: Julian Moses; Amber Elder; Andy Hawkins; Carrie McCleese; Charles Townsend; Christy Pass; Diane Walvick; Emily Heikkila; Erik Peterson; Gabriel Ceballos; Heather McCoy; Illona Stewart; Jeff Kures; Jessica Walker; Marc Lucier; Melanie Cimino; Melody Dominguez; Nathan Allen; Nina Oliver; Pam Rakestraw; Rachel Grimes; Rob Holmes; Showyn Walton; Stephanie Johnson; Steve Kennedy; Tami Frye; Ute Holman
Cc: Long-winded Guy with a Thesaurus
Subject: RE: Fwd: FW: Gasoline
My friends, I have received these Gasoline emails for long enough. Please do not send them to me. Fathom this thought for a moment if you would:
If I am to go without purchasing gasoline for one day and on the same day as the rest of the world's participants, I would have prior need to have the appropriate amount of fuel needed for transportation on that day. Ergo, the other participants in this fuel boycott and myself would need to purchase our needed fuel within the necessary days preceding the designated boycott. If one-half of the participants commute one-half of the distance that I do for work five days per week, that would still amount to an average of over 60 miles per day. I drive a '99 Honda Accord, which received an excellent rating for fuel economy prior to the release of hybrid cars into the public sector. If one-half of the participants have the exact or lesser actual fuel economy that my vehicle has under normal traffic circumstance and absent other exigent circumstances including vehicular accident, and if driver operation deviation is nominal and does not sway the result irregularly, the resulting amount of gasoline needed to be purchased within two days of the assigned boycott date would put several billion dollars of unplanned gasoline purchases into the hands of your chosen adversary and at a point in the week which would signal the front lines of gasoline marketing to increase the cost of gasoline for that coming weekend (above and beyond what they already mandate as a weekend increase).
Sound far-fetched? Answer these ponderances as closely as possible:
1. How does the controlling entity for oil refining companies set its target price for gasoline?
2. If your answer to question 1 is per "textbook", why did this controlling entity declare in the first quarter of 2004, as covered in the Wall Street Journal, that it would not decrease the price of gasoline?
3. Do you want to kick your economics professor in the butt for deducting points from your final exam for answering the supply and demand question based upon "reality"?
Long-winded Guy with a Thesaurus
Ext. 334
-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Moses
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 9:24 AM
To: Amber Elder; Andy Hawkins; Carrie McCleese; Charles Townsend; Christy Pass; Diane Walvick; Emily Heikkila; Erik Peterson; Gabriel Ceballos; Heather McCoy; Illona Stewart; Jeff Kures; Jessica Walker; Marc Lucier; Melanie Cimino; Melody Dominguez; Nathan Allen; Nina Oliver; Pam Rakestraw; Rachel Grimes; Rob Holmes; Showyn Walton; Stephanie Johnson; Steve Kennedy; Tami Frye; Long-winded Guy with a Thesaurus; Ute Holman
Subject: FW: Fwd: FW: Gasoline
Julian C. Moses
ext 349
-----Original Message-----
From: Jamie Creppel
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 4:59 PM
To: Julian Moses; Emily Heikkila; Tamika Bryant; Carmen Gomez; Elizabeth Hunter; Christy Pass; Alicia Mahoney; Carolyn Jones; Caroline Walsh
Subject: FW: Fwd: FW: Gasoline
-----Original Message-----
From: GA Dolphin [mailto:y@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 3:56 PM
To: y@mktresponse.com
Subject: FW: Fwd: FW: Gasoline
Jamie
>From: TEENA
May 13, 2004
Or else you'll be funkee
I picked up this book in the bookstore the other day called "The Okinawa Diet: Live Forever" or something like that, and read a couple pages out of curiosity (what do Okinawans eat? Do they really live forever? Could I live forever if I ate lots of funny sounding melons, imported Central American root vegetables and obscure Japanese variants of cabbage?)... turns out they eat lots of fruit, vegetables, fish, rice, and pasta, with the occasional red meat, frying oil and dairy. Revolutionary, isn't it? (OK, so they do eat a lot of obscure fruits and vegetables, including daikon, which I find interesting because I bought one at the grocery store a couple months ago because it looked fresh and edible, but I couldn't find any recipes suggesting what to do with it, so it rotted in the produce drawer... turns out it is a "watery root vegetable" that likes to be simmered in its own juices.)
Back to the beef fat and pig fat diet:
I'm a little worried (and when I say a little, I mean, a little -- this doesn't exactly weigh on my mind all day, except perhaps when I'm looking at health insurance rates or busy finding things to do at work that don't involve telemarketing) that we're permitting the profit-driven low-carb industry to convince us (as a society -- personally, I'd rather eat fried earthworms than any of those processed low-carb substances they're marketing as "Atkins-friendly" "food") to eat even worse than we already do.
Side Note: I find it intolerable when people throw out terms like "profit driven" and "corporate" as if that proved the evil of everyone and anyone involved with the noun thereby modified, a la Michael Moore. When I tack profit-driven onto the noun industry, I use it to indicate that the profit motive will be brought back up later on, not to indicate that all things profitable are bad. Profit motives produce lots of great things. Like electricity. But sometimes they make bad things. Like NASCAR.
Useless Analogy: It's like convincing a man who's smoked a pack a day his whole life that switching to abusing alcohol will keep him from getting lung cancer. First off, its not very likely too ward off lung cancer and, second, its likely to get him into a completely different set of problems. Like adding even more heart diseased patients to our already-strained healthcare system's burdens. So well-intentioned people are getting sucked into this, by the rather unproven assertion that Atkins is healthy, and will be the victims: people who just wanted to be a little healthier, to lose a bit of extra weight. There's nothing wrong with that desire, either -- let's just hope it doesn't get us into a lot of financial trouble (when all the beef fat dieters start dying of heart disease), courtesy of some large food manufacturers.
Lesson Learned: Companies aren't asking "Is low-carb food good for people?" Companies are asking "Will low-carb foods make us a lot of money?" The answer is yes to the second, which unfortunately compels them to try and convince people that the answer to the first question is yes, irregardless of whether the answer to that question is actually yes or no. Enter lobbyists and corporately-funded scientists stage right.
And that's why I think the market must be regulated. Where, by whom, how much, etc. will not be resolved at this time.
May 12, 2004
Women and children first
Sometimes you wonder who to believe. Some dieticians and physicians say the pig fat and beef fat diet is terrible for your health. But then other dieticians and physicians say that it is good for you, and carbohydrates are what are really terrible for your health. And then the first group counters by mentioning that the second group is in the employ of the corporations promoting the pig fat and beef fat diet. Of course, the second group strikes back with the revelation that the first group is closely linked to, if not a front for, those crazies in PETA.
Fortunately, the doctors have solved it.
May 3, 2004
I lost the first volley of the war on the courts
Thesis: The market assigns a dollar value to many functions in society that is lower than what would be assigned if values were assigned on the basis of contribution to the overall function of society.
Examples: Grade school teachers, social workers, military reservists.
Conclusion: The market is not an effective distributor of wealth.
Example: Michael Eisner.
Additional Thesis: The market economy is the most effective creator of wealth.
Vastly Over-simplified Examples: USSR, USA.
Further Conclusion: The market economy ought to be retained but modified, most likely by the government, so as to provide for a more equitable distribution of wealth.
Major Problem: Two-party system; people who might vote Democratic on the basis of their economic interest will more often than not vote Republican because they value social concerns (abortion, firearms, etc.) over economic concerns (and perhaps rightly so). Vice versa; the electoral landscape is distorted.
Caveat: I neither recommend nor oppose the adoption of a multi-party system.
Example: Italy
Additional Problem: Restricting the freedom of the market economy decreases the size of the pie, resulting in potentially smaller slices for everyone.
Final Conclusion(s): Plato was right. A vote for Nader is a vote against Bush and Kerry. See if the British will take us back, given that we'll permit them to become an island of governors and administrators. Don't take economic thoughts written while telemarketing too seriously.
Example: Isaac Newton.
Note: Example may be too obtuse; it may not be clear how the example modifies the progression of thoughts.
Offer: I'll buy an ice cream treat for anyone who can show what the point of the example is and how it modifies the progression. (I already owe Ryan and Aaron half an ice cream each so maybe they can work together and each earn a whole ice cream treat).
Postscript:
Thesis: Telemarketers are overvalued by the American economy.
Note: I benefit from this.
Conclusion: I am an oppressor. Teachers, social workers, firemen, part-time reservists: Rise up against me!
Airoots
Archidose
Archinect
Bldgblog
candyland
City of Sound
concrete ammonite
core.form-ula
The Cultural Landscape Foundation
Death by Architecture
The Dirt
elseplace
Fantastic Journal
InfraNet Lab
Kosmograd
Lebbeus Woods
lewism
Magical Urbanism
Movement of Existence
The Necessity for Ruins
The Next American City
Paleofuture
Progressive Reactionary
Pruned
the Sesquipedalist
Supercolossal
SuperSpatial
Strange Maps
theverymany
Things Magazine
_urb_
varnelis.net
Where