Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

keith · 07-03-2008, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Please present your case demonstrating that civility is not profitable.

Not my case dear sir, any valid economic choice can only be made by the individual. Since Heretic has made a personal choice for verbal economy you must accept it as valid; or dismiss the concept of the value of individual choice.

HDG · 07-03-2008, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keith

Not my case dear sir, any valid economic choice can only be made by the individual. Since Heretic has made a personal choice for verbal economy you must accept it as valid; or dismiss the concept of the value of individual choice.

Is it economical to change Dilworth (8 letters) to Butterworth (11 letters)?

Inquartata · 07-03-2008, 05:13 PM

No. Profit in this case would translate to convincing people. Thus far I can see no evidence that his verbal tactics have had any such effect; indeed there is some indication that it has done the opposite.

Also note, it is not "verbal economy". Civility could be maintained with the same or fewer total words...

keith · 07-03-2008, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HDG

Is it economical to change Dilworth (8 letters) to Butterworth (11 letters)?

Well with the energy generated by those two letters we may have found a solution to the fuel crisis. So, yes, a clear economic benefit.

Inquartata · 07-03-2008, 05:16 PM

Perhaps, but it's sure to cause a net increase in greehouse gas, and therefore---

jkdjeff · 07-03-2008, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inquartata

No. Profit in this case would translate to convincing people.

It may be considered belaboring the obvious, but I don't think that's heretic's intent.

heretic · 07-03-2008, 05:17 PM

Nothing like a dose of sophistry to set the world in order.

keith · 07-03-2008, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inquartata

No. Profit in this case would translate to convincing people.

Not sure applying your definition of profit is valid. Perhaps not all share your world view?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Also note, it is not "verbal economy". Civility could be maintained with the same or fewer total words...

Ah my mistake of phrasing "verbal economic benefit" might have been clearer.

tchwojko · 07-03-2008, 05:21 PM

I'm trying to figure out if bringing economic theory into this is adding or subtracting value. I think it would fall into the negative value if any of the theorists took themselves seriously.

Inquartata · 07-03-2008, 05:25 PM

Er...what do you advance as his goal, if not the "profit" of influencing opinion? IOW, what coin is it that you think he is counting?

Inquartata · 07-03-2008, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heretic

Nothing like a dose of sophistry to set the world in order.

Is that what you were trying to do with the name-twisting?

How's that going for you?

stillchris · 07-03-2008, 05:32 PM

Ah, the current American way, attack the style not the substance. By the way is that financial report really 11 months late?

keith · 07-03-2008, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Er...what do you advance as his goal, if not the "profit" of influencing opinion? IOW, what coin is it that you think he is counting?

It does not matter what we advance as his goal. Surely it is enough to accept that as an individual protagonist his economic decisions must be rational. After all, once we start claiming that individuals act non rationally it can't be long before people begin to treat economists with the respect they deserve. And what will happen to the world then?

seak · 07-03-2008, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stillchris

Ah, the current American way, attack the style not the substance. By the way is that financial report really 11 months late?

I have no clue, but heretic is attacking a specific person about the report. The problem is that the person heretic is attacking wasn't in charge of the audit report 11 months ago.

HDG · 07-03-2008, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stillchris

Ah, the current American way, attack the style not the substance.

Yeah, we've got a monopoly on that…

stillchris · 07-03-2008, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heretic

Dilworth is co-chair of the budget and finance committee established at the 2008 JO BOD meeting that was charged with reviewing the USFA finances and reporting back. He personally told me the mandatory audited financial report would be made available ASAP; back in March. I also repeated my request by phone and email to USFA lawyer-in-chief Donald Alperstein. This report is now 11 months overdue.

...clipped...

Quote:

Originally Posted by seak

I have no clue, but heretic is attacking a specific person about the report. The problem is that the person heretic is attacking wasn't in charge of the audit report 11 months ago.

According to Heretic he was, at least partially being a co-chair, responsible for the financial report. I suppose this is an attack, but at least an attack of substance and not style. He, Dilworth, was responsible for a report and the report was not delivered. These charges, attacks to you, may or may not be true. I have given a cursory look and couldn't find anything. If true, they are pertinent to many present discussions about finances and the USFA. If not the charge can be discounted.

Quite honestly it seems most discussions critical of the USFA are sidelined by vague thread drift about the style, or lack there of, of the original poster or the posters motives, or entreaties that everything is fine, just don't look behind that curtain. It really doesn't matter that much to me what motivates Heretic, I am interested in the charges he has brought up and I have not read much pertinent rebuttal to those charges.

tchwojko · 07-03-2008, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stillchris

It really doesn't matter that much to me what motivates Heretic, I am interested in the charges he has brought up and I have not read much pertinent rebuttal to those charges.

If someone starts off with name calling, I tend to be skeptical of the claims made in the first place. First show me some proof that you're not just taking out some grudge.

It's hard to weed the facts from the perceptions in the vitriol.

If you want something, it would be rational to do the simple things to get you towards your goal, instead of actively and insistently putting barriers in your own way. It's like keeping the parking brake on all the time and wondering why it's so difficult to get anywhere. It must be the road's fault!

epeemike81 · 07-03-2008, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stillchris

According to Heretic he was, at least partially being a co-chair, responsible for the financial report.

re-read what you quoted... According to heretic (and the public record), Greg was made chair of the audit committee at 2008 JO's, which was 4 months (and more importantly, one Board meeting) ago.

Thus, holding him accountable for a report being overdue by 11 months is a wee bit disingenuous, especially since he got the report to the board at the very next meeting after he was put on the committee.

-m

seak · 07-03-2008, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stillchris

According to Heretic he was, at least partially being a co-chair, responsible for the financial report.

The committee wasn't created until February 2008. Heretic claims that the report is 11 months overdue hence it can't be the fault of that committee.

stillchris · 07-03-2008, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seak

The committee wasn't created until February 2008. Heretic claims that the report is 11 months overdue hence it can't be the fault of that committee.

A bit of substance, finally. So it sounds like he is not responsible for the 11 month delay. Though the report is 11 months overdue? So when is this report going to be presented and is Greg currently responsible for this report? Maybe at the board meeting? I guess we will see. The shadowy world of USFA finance, what will finally be revealed? And when?