Why Clinton can spot a beaver from 5342 yds (O.T.)

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), February 09, 1999


No, Vronsky, in your title to this post, combined with the decoded content, you have fallen into a common logical error, as follows:

Affirming the Consequent

[For] The hypothetical syllogism "If A then B; A is true; Therefore B is true" is valid. It is called modus ponens meaning affirming the antecedent. A common error is to affirm the the consequent B instead of the antecedent A. This is the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. "If Bacon wrote Hamlet, then Bacon was a great writer; Bacon was a great writer; Therefore Bacon wrote Hamlet."

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), February 09, 1999.

Well shucks - I took my glasses off, it was clear as day from 3 feet.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 10, 1999.

Heh people, what's happening. I happened upon this thread and WHOA! What's wrong with my eyes? So I took another toke and I tried to focus on those big letters and I just don't get it! I guess that makes me one of those DGI's.

-- Refeer (Reefer@puffing.com), February 10, 1999.

Well, Count, it' ain['t Greek, it ain't Cyrillic, it ain't Hindi -- wot izzit?

Looks like something from the dashboard of a crashed UFO...

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), February 10, 1999.


Some claim that no sex causes bad eyes. How's your love life? :-)

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), February 10, 1999.

If you squinch your eyes, you start to see the positive, then the negative images separate. This could lead to a new religion. Damn.

-- Love Man B (thealtarof@themanisfestationof.love), February 10, 1999.

Blue, I believe you are mistaken. Vronsky's syllogism (title plus post) appears to run as follows:

IF no sex THEN bad eyes

Clinton has lots of sex

Therefore, Clinton has good eyes.

The fallacy here is denying the antecedent, not affirming the consequent.

This post, sophomoric in content though it is, illustrates the DGI/GI phenomenon, all faced with the same "facts".


-- Runway Cat (Runway_Cat@hotmail.com), February 10, 1999.

You are assuming there is an intended message there in the first place - for the sake of this discussion, let us assume there actually is a message hidden th estaggered blocks.

This is the difference between GI's and DGI's. With respect to Y2K, a GI will ask (will investigate) the possibility that there is a pattern that could be hidden between and through the scattered blocks, the light and dark patterns. He (or she) will then study the situation (and figuratively) or literally, follow the implied instructions and then set up to analyze the situation under the right circimstances: that is, "distance viewing required" (or, in my case, take off my glasses) to be able to re-interpret the same blocks and patterns of light and dark.

Once done, the GI will then get the message.

A DWGI will decide that the message isn't there, and everything is just a coincidence.

A DGI, on the other hand, will not be here to open th ethread an dread it. If he (or she) does, they may or may not follow the above steps. They (most likely) will then not get the joke, if they do follow the steps above.

More likely, a DGI (if they found the thread at all) wil listen to the government's latest "resident expert" who said, "There is no message here, go home and watch TV."

The government expert will then issue a news release stating: "There was no message here, but we will investigate who didn't put it here, and then make sure you are protected from the people who don't write nasty messages about your government that threaten you and your children."

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 10, 1999.

Robert, I must be a GI then.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 10, 1999.

Ah - but the process defined above - though well-hidden by my abysmal typing - reflects the various methods typically used by the three types.

The decision about the message - assuming that one is there in the first place - and the relative humor in the message, is in the mind and eye of the beholder. Two people can read the same advertisement of course, and decide differently about whether they wish to "buy" the product. Your remediation efforts (the ones your company is actually doing) indicate that you fully understand the need for remediation, and its importance. In that, yes, you are a "Get It."

However, you and I differ in our opinions about the effect and duration of the potential Year 2000 troubles from everything else being done, and not being done. To date, we don't know whether either opinion is most nearly correct.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 10, 1999.


-- StillDGI (Still DGI@DRGI.com), February 11, 1999.

Cup your hands around your eyes and squint looking at the letters, you will see what the message says. Now my eyes hurt!

-- farsighted (farsighted@eyes.com), February 11, 1999.

Thanks Robert, I always thought that to be a GI you need to believe in an 8 or higher on the scale. So I'm just a pollyanna GI?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 12, 1999.

The message jumped at my eyes from my regular sitting distance. When I first couldn't make out what the message said I then focused on the "negative exposure" view of it (camera film negative), which is a very common advertising method. Bet you Vronsky used his "Type Twister" type of program to write this (or whoever made it.)

Sophomoric indeed, but RC you're right in that it proves many people have problems thinking "outside the box". Was easy for me on this one because I've been exposed to this kind of font and games, but many times I have to rake my brain trying to think outside the box when someone presents a view that which to me at first glance is "bizarr".

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 12, 1999.

True, true - and we won't know whose opinion will be closest to the real world until this time next year.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), February 14, 1999.

Yet, there is still the cryptic meaning of this message, never mind its intent. It could be interpreted to mean "there is no form of sex that will cause bad eyes" or "not having enough sex will cause bad eyes". You see, these two interpretations, both contained within the message itself, can mean something quite different. I think it may be a metaphor for "compliant" vs "ready". On the other hand, it leads one to wonder just what is meant by "bad eyes". If bad eyes means poor vision, then this can be remediated. If bad eyes means defective imbedded ocular perceivers, then there is no hope and the hapless victim will be plunged into utter darkness!

-- Wanda (lonevoice@mailexcite.com), February 14, 1999.

I see your point Wanda. But you must look at the message from behind the sender's eyes. In this case, we have a male messenger saying "no sex causes bad eyes." As you and me know, most males think with their smaller head especially when the word "sex" is at issue, so we must come down to their level and refrain from exploring so deeply.

So here the message is very basic and communicated in the simplest form of language, as when hubby grunts and says "me hungry". The message would then be "no food causes bad temper".

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 14, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ