Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (49071)	6/4/2002 2:06:10 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"nor do I even know the real name of any SI poster for sure. I know a man who most people just call “Shorty.” He is over six feet tall but “Shorty” just the same. His wife calls him Shorty, as do his other relatives, friends, and work associates. His last name is Jacobs. Shorty is more than just a nick name as people refer to him as Shorty Jacobs as if it were his actual name. After knowing the man for thirty years I learned that the name on his birth certificate is Ralph Jacobs. No one who knows him can remember a time that he was referred to as Ralph. Most people know him as a mellow easy going corn farmer. I am aware that he has been seen drunk some years ago and that he has expressed raging hostility more than once in his life time. So, I can imagine that there are people who know Shorty in a different albeit a very limited scope of experience. The question becomes, is Shorty not the “Real” Ralph Jacobs? Is the man arguing over the price at the grain elevator not the real Ralph or the real Shorty? To what extent does the character or persona of Ralph need to be involved in my experience before I can say that I have had an encounter with the real guy? Does his drunkenness in 1956 count? What if it was just at the grain elevator in 1958? What if he is my beloved Uncle? Message 17462246 I must agree with Neocon here. Internet encounters are every bit as real and valid, regardless of the nomenclature, extent of involvement, or circumstances of discourse, as any other form of experience...and no more or less of an excuse for behavior, or attributions such as friendship, than other types of behavioral influences.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (49071)	6/5/2002 7:47:17 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

We have trouble accepting how people can have such different perceptions of things that are subjective, like this controversy. Yet people have different perceptions even of things that aren't subjective. I found this report interesting. Witnesses Disagree on Details of Plane Crash By a Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, June 5, 2002; Page A11 The National Transportation Safety Board said yesterday that 349 people reported seeing American Airlines Flight 587 fall from the sky over New York on Nov. 12 but that there is wide disagreement on what they saw. Investigators, law enforcement officers and others who interview witnesses have long known those reports are often unreliable, but a compilation of witness accounts of the crash, which killed 265 people, is striking in its contrasts. For instance, 52 percent of the witnesses said they saw a fire while the Airbus A300-600 was in the air. But their accounts conflict on what part of the plane was on fire, with 22 percent saying it was the fuselage while others placed the fire in the left engine, the right engine, the left wing or the right wing. Twenty percent said there was no fire, and 8 percent said there was an explosion. Also: • 22 percent reported seeing smoke; 20 percent saw none. • 18 percent said the plane turned right; 18 percent said the plane turned left; 13 percent said it was "wobbling" or "dipping" or in "side-to-side motion." • 57 percent reported seeing something separate from the airplane, but disagreed what it was, and 9 percent said nothing fell off the plane. Some of the witnesses earlier had accused the NTSB of ignoring their reports, suggesting a coverup of the real cause. Safety board Chairman Marion Blakey deflected questions about whether the statistics were released partly in response to those charges. The statistics were released as part of an update on the crash investigation, which has been painstakingly slow because the crash is the first in which composite material failure is being probed as a possible cause. <snip>