Accounting Talk » Financial Accounting » KPMG sued over alleged tax scam
Unfortunately, magic 8-balls have too much personality to be corporate executives. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Most corporate executives are neither gifted nor talented; they just haven’t been indicted yet." "Most corporate executives can be replaced with a magic 8-ball". - Scott Adams, Dilbert creator
Tax advisers sued $18M tax-shelter plan was ‘disastrous’ By George Erb Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle) Jun. 23
Accounting Talk » Financial Accounting » Quicken 2003
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A warning: do *not* buy this product. If you’re using an earlier version of Quicken, *DO NOT* upgrade to it. I have a client who uses Quicken 2003. In order to do his taxes, I had to load Quicken 2003 on my computer at work. Not only is it cumbersome to use (why do software companies feel compelled to change things that aren’t wrong??????) because it now opens a new window to put reports into, and uses delete instead of close to close reports (you can’t close just one report by clicking on the x anymore, either, that closes all reports you haven open. I am still having trouble getting used to this "feature"), but it somehow interferes with the operating system. I have been unable to shut down my computer since I loaded this monstrosity. When I try to shut down in the normal way, it reboots. If I do control/alt/delete and click shut down…it reboots. If I wait until it goes dark, and shut off the power before it boots back up – boy does my computer not like that! Most of the time, it won’t boot back up, it freezes when it tries to load Explorer. What was really fun was today when I came back from lunch to find that it had somehow managed to crash my screen saver – something I have *never* seen before. This is a computer I have had almost no problems with, other than a difficulty in getting Microsoft Works to communicate with my printer. It very rarely freezes up, even though I’m still using Win 98. It almost never crashes (except when I try to multitask a few to many tasks 
. But now all of a sudden I can’t get through the day without it freezing up or crashing, and the only way to shut it down at night is to either shut it off, or do a control/alt/delete after windows starts to come up when it reboots, and I better have the timing right if I do the latter – too soon, and it just reboots again. What’s more, there are two other people in my office using Quickbooks 2003 for their clients – and having similar problems, especially with shutting down the computer – and one of them has the newest version of Windows, so I don’t think it’s the age of my operating system that’s at fault here. I can’t wait to finish this guy’s taxes and get that thing uninstalled. I just hope that solves the problem!
I’m using QB2003 Contractor’s edition on Windows Xp. I agree it is not worth the ‘upgrade’ price. But I do not experience the problems you have. My system works fine. I can close individual reports by clicking on the x. I have no software/hardware conflicts. I also do not recommend purchasing QB… or any Intuit product at this moment. Intuit has instituted a ’sunset’ policy wherein they cripple older versions of QB by removing the ability to do payroll. Currently, QB2001 will no longer be able to do payroll in April 2004. On the alt.comp.software.financial.quickbooks newsgroup there is an additional post from ‘ken’ in the UK, who was given notice that his version of QB2002 will not work after March 10, 2004. For purchasers who bought the software late in the release year, that is a use life of 15 months. If you are not already using QB, seriously consider a different accounting package! Frequent forced upgrades add up quickly if you are using multi-license and/or Pro/Premier versions. A $3000 – $5000 accounting package, specific to your business, could wind up being cheaper — especially if the package includes support and is not made obsolete in less than 3 years.
A warning: do *not* buy this product. If you’re using an earlier version of Quicken, *DO NOT* upgrade to it. I have a client who uses Quicken 2003. In order to do his taxes, I had to load Quicken 2003 on my computer at work. Not only is it cumbersome to use (why do software companies feel compelled to change things that aren’t wrong??????) because it now opens a new window to put reports into, and uses delete instead of close to close reports (you can’t close just one report by clicking on the x anymore, either, that closes all reports you haven open. I am still having trouble getting used to this "feature"), but it somehow interferes with the operating system. I have been unable to shut down my computer since I loaded this monstrosity. When I try to shut down in the normal way, it reboots. If I do control/alt/delete and click shut down…it reboots. If I wait until it goes dark, and shut off the power before it boots back up – boy does my computer not like that! Most of the time, it won’t boot back up, it freezes when it tries to load Explorer. What was really fun was today when I came back from lunch to find that it had somehow managed to crash my screen saver – something I have *never* seen before. This is a computer I have had almost no problems with, other than a difficulty in getting Microsoft Works to communicate with my printer. It very rarely freezes up, even though I’m still using Win 98. It almost never crashes (except when I try to multitask a few to many tasks . But now all of a sudden I can’t get through the day without it freezing up or crashing, and the only way to shut it down at night is to either shut it off, or do a control/alt/delete after windows starts to come up when it reboots, and I better have the timing right if I do the latter – too soon, and it just reboots again. What’s more, there are two other people in my office using Quickbooks 2003 for their clients – and having similar problems, especially with shutting down the computer – and one of them has the newest version of Windows, so I don’t think it’s the age of my operating system that’s at fault here. I can’t wait to finish this guy’s taxes and get that thing uninstalled. I just hope that solves the problem! — "Lord, when we are wrong, make us willing to change. And when we are right, make us easy to live with." Peter Marshall
if you do your own payroll you should consider the consequences of the quickbooks "sunset" policy, At one time peachtree allowed editing of the payroll tax tables so you didn’t have to upgrade every year but i don’t know if the current version still allows this. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I also do not recommend purchasing QB… or any Intuit product at this moment. Intuit has instituted a ’sunset’ policy wherein they cripple older versions of QB by removing the ability to do payroll. Currently, QB2001 will no longer be able to do payroll in April 2004. On the alt.comp.software.financial.quickbooks newsgroup there is an additional post from ‘ken’ in the UK, who was given notice that his version of QB2002 will not work after March 10, 2004. For purchasers who bought the software late in the release year, that is a use life of 15 months. If you are not already using QB, seriously consider a different accounting package! Frequent forced upgrades add up quickly if you are using multi-license and/or Pro/Premier versions. A $3000 – $5000 accounting package, specific to your business, could wind up being cheaper — especially if the package includes support and is not made obsolete in less than 3 years.
Accounting Talk » Management Accounting » Payroll Deduction Application Timing?
Hi, all. I’m not sure if this is the right place to find an answer to my question, but I think it is, so here goes…… The company I work for is deducting $100 per pay period to be deposited into my 403(b) account (this is the equivalent of a 401(k), but for non-profits) but they are sometimes not depositing the money for 3 to 6 weeks after they have held it out of my check. My question is……is there a law that states limits on deposit delays of employee withholdings? Thanks, Michelle
Here in Massachusetts, and depending on the details of how the plan is set up, employers must make deposits to the plan monthly, by the 15th of the month following. So in theory, yes, they can legally not deposit your withholdings for 6 weeks. Part of the problem is in all the reporting paperwork that goes along with administering these plans and in tracking all the eligibility requirements, dollars, percentages, etc., for the participants and potential participants. Some really big companies have programs in place that automatically track all this stuff and they send in deposits every pay period. Most companies are smaller, and there’s one overworked person in a corner somewhere tearing their hair out every month in an effort to get all the deposits credited properly, the check out, and the reports updated by the deadline of the 15th of the month following. Hope this helps. Catherine Grant – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, all. I’m not sure if this is the right place to find an answer to my question, but I think it is, so here goes…… The company I work for is deducting $100 per pay period to be deposited into my 403(b) account (this is the equivalent of a 401(k), but for non-profits) but they are sometimes not depositing the money for 3 to 6 weeks after they have held it out of my check. My question is……is there a law that states limits on deposit delays of employee withholdings? Thanks, Michelle
Most companies are smaller, and there’s one overworked person in a corner somewhere tearing their hair out every month in an effort to get all the deposits credited properly, the check out, and the reports updated by the deadline of the 15th of the month following.
Thanks, Catherine. I should have told y’all I’m in Texas. I didn’t think of different laws for different states before I sent the post. I wonder…..is the law about the 15th of the month a Federal law or state law? We are a small to medium non-profit but our deposits are delayed because they don’t have the money, or choose to pay vendors instead, not because the person responsible for making the deposits has to get it straightened out. Thanks again, Michelle
To the best of my knowledge, the requirements for the 15th of the month following are ERISA requirements — in other words, part of the Federal 401k/403b gaggle of rules and regulations regarding retirement plans. Many states add their own nuances to the lists….. Catherine – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Most companies are smaller, and there’s one overworked person in a corner somewhere tearing their hair out every month in an effort to get all the deposits credited properly, the check out, and the reports updated by the deadline of the 15th of the month following. Thanks, Catherine. I should have told y’all I’m in Texas. I didn’t think of different laws for different states before I sent the post. I wonder…..is the law about the 15th of the month a Federal law or state law? We are a small to medium non-profit but our deposits are delayed because they don’t have the money, or choose to pay vendors instead, not because the person responsible for making the deposits has to get it straightened out. Thanks again, Michelle
Thanks, Catherine. I should have told y’all I’m in Texas. I didn’t think of different laws for different states before I sent the post. I wonder…..is the law about the 15th of the month a Federal law or state law?
Federal. We are a small to medium non-profit but our deposits are delayed because they don’t have the money, or choose to pay vendors instead, not because the person responsible for making the deposits has to get it straightened out.
Well, unless you actually work with the numbers you most likely don’t know what the issues are. That being said, there isn’t any "pot of money" with your name on it that they are dipping into to pay other vendors. The General Funds of the organization are just that, and can be, and most likely will be, used for any number of things throughout the month. As long as the withheld (and any matching) amounts are paid by the due dates, then you have nothing to worry about and certainly nothing to complain about. — Paul A. Thomas, CPA Athens, Georgia http://www.pat-cpa.com
Well, unless you actually work with the numbers you most likely don’t know what the issues are. That being said, there isn’t any "pot of money" with your name on it that they are dipping into to pay other vendors. The General Funds of the organization are just that, and can be, and most likely will be, used for any number of things throughout the month.
Actually, I do know that the funds are not being transfered because they are not available, and that they are not available because they were spent paying vendors (I’m not a vendor). I know these things because I talked to the person responsible for making the deposits. Actually, the money withheld from my paycheck is my money and they would have to pony it up if I weren’t contributing it to a retirement account. Isn’t there some rule/law about setting aside undistributed monies, deducted from employee paychecks, until which time they are distributed? I mean, what if the company spent all the 403(b) money and then for whatever reason is not able to replace it (revenue ceases, etc.)? Wouldn’t there be legal ramifications? As long as the withheld (and any matching) amounts are paid by the due dates, then you have nothing to worry about and certainly nothing to complain about.
The due dates is what I was asking about. Since Catherine indicated things might be different from state to state, I asked if the laws regulating this are Federal. Nobody in our payroll or accounting department seems to know what the laws are so they also don’t know if they are following them. Of course, if they are within the law, then I wouldn’t complain, but that doesn’t mean I have nothing to worry about. I’m not earning interest on "my" money while the company is using it to pay their bills. Michelle
Hi again Michelle; First to clear up a misunderstanding — sorry if I was not clear. The due date is Federal and no state can change it. The nuances that states add are their _own_ requirements, on top of the Federal ones, for more information that needs to be tracked and kept as reports. That said, as long as the funds are being sent in by the due date, the company is well within it’s rights to use "your" withholdings for payments to vendors, as long as when they send out the check by the 15thof the following month, they include some of "their" money to replace what they used of "yours". (All the quotes are because this is still in the general funds and impoosible to differentiate — "your" withholdings are not tagged or highlighted in any way.) There is no requirement to pay you any interest in the time between the withholdings and the date the check is sent. Then why should you bother? Because you are still getting to invest this money of yours on a tax-deferred basis. So you are getting to invest more money more painlessley than any other way you can invest (unless they were gifting you with retirement funds — extremely rare these days!). Now, if the company does not send in the withholdings because they have no cash, they’re going under, whatever, yes there are legal ramifications. If this is a real concern of yours, watch your quarterly statements from the investment management company that holds your 403(b) like a hawk. Make sure you know exactly how much money was supposed to go in and that it got there. If something doesn’t seem right, call them first to make sure a last deposit didn’t make a statement because it was posted a day too late or something like that. If the payment never got there, ask the person in charge what happened. If you don’t like that answer (for example, "We didn’t have the funds" as opposed to "Ooops! Oh my God, thanks for telling me!!!") then you can talk legal. One other thing if you’re really concerned about all this — if/when you leave this employer, look into the possibility of rolling over this 403(b) into your own rollover IRA so the money is more in your control. This shouldn’t be a big thing, though — once the investment company has the funds, they are yours and in your name and your employer can’t touch them. Catherine – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well, unless you actually work with the numbers you most likely don’t know what the issues are. That being said, there isn’t any "pot of money" with your name on it that they are dipping into to pay other vendors. The General Funds of the organization are just that, and can be, and most likely will be, used for any number of things throughout the month. Actually, I do know that the funds are not being transfered because they are not available, and that they are not available because they were spent paying vendors (I’m not a vendor). I know these things because I talked to the person responsible for making the deposits. Actually, the money withheld from my paycheck is my money and they would have to pony it up if I weren’t contributing it to a retirement account. Isn’t there some rule/law about setting aside undistributed monies, deducted from employee paychecks, until which time they are distributed? I mean, what if the company spent all the 403(b) money and then for whatever reason is not able to replace it (revenue ceases, etc.)? Wouldn’t there be legal ramifications? As long as the withheld (and any matching) amounts are paid by the due dates, then you have nothing to worry about and certainly nothing to complain about. The due dates is what I was asking about. Since Catherine indicated things might be different from state to state, I asked if the laws regulating this are Federal. Nobody in our payroll or accounting department seems to know what the laws are so they also don’t know if they are following them. Of course, if they are within the law, then I wouldn’t complain, but that doesn’t mean I have nothing to worry about. I’m not earning interest on "my" money while the company is using it to pay their bills. Michelle
Thanks so much for the thorough explanation I am definitely watching the quarterlies, which is how I found that things didn’t seem quite right. The organization isn’t going under, it’s just a non-profit with cash-flow problems sometimes. We are in the process of being taken over by a more business oriented lot so maybe some of this will improve. Thanks again. Michelle
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi again Michelle; First to clear up a misunderstanding — sorry if I was not clear. The due date is Federal and no state can change it. The nuances that states add are their _own_ requirements, on top of the Federal ones, for more information that needs to be tracked and kept as reports. That said, as long as the funds are being sent in by the due date, the company is well within it’s rights to use "your" withholdings for payments to vendors, as long as when they send out the check by the 15thof the following month, they include some of "their" money to replace what they used of "yours". (All the quotes are because this is still in the general funds and impoosible to differentiate — "your" withholdings are not tagged or highlighted in any way.) There is no requirement to pay you any interest in the time between the withholdings and the date the check is sent. Then why should you bother? Because you are still getting to invest this money of yours on a tax-deferred basis. So you are getting to invest more money more painlessley than any other way you can invest (unless they were gifting you with retirement funds — extremely rare these days!). Now, if the company does not send in the withholdings because they have no cash, they’re going under, whatever, yes there are legal ramifications. If this is a real concern of yours, watch your quarterly statements from the investment management company that holds your 403(b) like a hawk. Make sure you know exactly how much money was supposed to go in and that it got there. If something doesn’t seem right, call them first to make sure a last deposit didn’t make a statement because it was posted a day too late or something like that. If the payment never got there, ask the person in charge what happened. If you don’t like that answer (for example, "We didn’t have the funds" as opposed to "Ooops! Oh my God, thanks for telling me!!!") then you can talk legal. One other thing if you’re really concerned about all this — if/when you leave this employer, look into the possibility of rolling over this 403(b) into your own rollover IRA so the money is more in your control. This shouldn’t be a big thing, though — once the investment company has the funds, they are yours and in your name and your employer can’t touch them. Catherine Well, unless you actually work with the numbers you most likely don’t know what the issues are. That being said, there isn’t any "pot of money" with your name on it that they are dipping into to pay other vendors. The General Funds of the organization are just that, and can be, and most likely will be, used for any number of things throughout the month. Actually, I do know that the funds are not being transfered because they are not available, and that they are not available because they were spent paying vendors (I’m not a vendor). I know these things because I talked to the person responsible for making the deposits. Actually, the money withheld from my paycheck is my money and they would have to pony it up if I weren’t contributing it to a retirement account. Isn’t there some rule/law about setting aside undistributed monies, deducted from employee paychecks, until which time they are distributed? I mean, what if the company spent all the 403(b) money and then for whatever reason is not able to replace it (revenue ceases, etc.)? Wouldn’t there be legal ramifications? As long as the withheld (and any matching) amounts are paid by the due dates, then you have nothing to worry about and certainly nothing to complain about. The due dates is what I was asking about. Since Catherine indicated things might be different from state to state, I asked if the laws regulating this are Federal. Nobody in our payroll or accounting department seems to know what the laws are so they also don’t know if they are following them. Of course, if they are within the law, then I wouldn’t complain, but that doesn’t mean I have nothing to worry about. I’m not earning interest on "my" money while the company is using it to pay their bills. Michelle
"Michelle Fulton" wrote Actually, the money withheld from my paycheck is my money
True. and they would have to pony it up if I weren’t contributing it to a retirement account.
Then don’t participate. Isn’t there some rule/law about setting aside undistributed monies, deducted from employee paychecks, until which time they are distributed?
Nope. I mean, what if the company spent all the 403(b) money and then for whatever reason is not able to replace it (revenue ceases, etc.)? Wouldn’t there be legal ramifications?
There certainly would. But that doesn’t mean they have to "set it aside" or otherwise account for it during the time it gets withheld and the time it gets deposited. I’m not earning interest on "my" money while the company is using it to pay their bills.
The stop participating in the 401K. It’s that simple. You have your money to invest as you see fit. Have you ever thought that they "use your money" from paycheck to paycheck? Just a thought. — Paul A. Thomas, CPA Athens, Georgia http://www.pat-cpa.com
Accounting Talk » Accounting » US a Seedy Imperialist State-Gore Vidal
But it is a shameful and opprobrious business if you ask me. Doug Grant (Tm)
But noone did, did they? Now go crawl back under your rock and wait for the unfortunate person who passes by and does ask your opinion.
But it is a shameful and opprobrious business if you ask me. Doug Grant (Tm) But noone did, did they? Now go crawl back under your rock and wait for the unfortunate person who passes by and does ask your opinion.
Doug Says: Speaking from under my rock to you under yours, obviously Gore Vidal did exactly what I expressed my distain for. Also, if you do not want opinions, then don’t post shameless solicitations for books on newsgroups. Especially pro-terrorist books. Doug Grant (Tm)
Newsmax is a slanted source also. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why do constantly quote the Guardian? It’s not even a newspaper… US a Seedy Imperialist State-Gore Vidal Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn’t Fit The Guardian – April 27, 2002 <SNIPPED FORCEFULLY
Why do constantly quote the Guardian? It’s not even a newspaper…
Then what exactly is it?
Doug Says: If Mr. Vidal knew anything about Terrorist tactics he would have known that defending all possible targets from terrorist attacks is impossible. The only way to defeat terrorism is to attack their strongholds and destroy them, their resources, and then control their political and police procedures until a government responsible to the civilized world can be created.
Rubbish. There are reasons, and many of the time they are justifiable for people becoming involved in so called "terrorism". It is sad when a sixteen year old girl in Palestine feels there is no longer anything worth living for in her world around that she feels the need tol blow herself and her oppressors to pieces. Do you simply dismiss these people as crazy? The solution as the British government in recent times has conceded with respect to "terrorism" in Northern Ireland is to talk to the "terrorists". After years of the British government trying its best to defeat terrorism using the method you suggest and promising NEVER to talk to terrorists it certainly did alot of back peddling in recent times resulting in the peace-process.
by Gore Vidal According to the Koran, it was on a Tuesday that Allah created darkness. Last September 11, when suicide pilots were crashing commercial airliners into crowded American buildings, I did not have to look at the calendar to see what day it was: Dark Tuesday was casting its long shadow across Manhattan and along the Potomac river.
http://www3.niu.edu/newsplace/time.jpg I remember this picture shortly after bush became elected. Notice how it says "Black Tuesday coverage" its almost prophetic.
Why do constantly quote the Guardian? It’s not even a newspaper… Then what exactly is it?
A garbage wrapper.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Doug Says: If Mr. Vidal knew anything about Terrorist tactics he would have known that defending all possible targets from terrorist attacks is impossible. The only way to defeat terrorism is to attack their strongholds and destroy them, their resources, and then control their political and police procedures until a government responsible to the civilized world can be created. Rubbish. There are reasons, and many of the time they are justifiable for people becoming involved in so called "terrorism". It is sad when a sixteen year old girl in Palestine feels there is no longer anything worth living for in her world around that she feels the need tol blow herself and her oppressors to pieces. Do you simply dismiss these people as crazy?
Yes, a pathetic brain-washed child with a brain full of crazy propaganda put there by people she trusted. Arabs are a mixed lot – a surplus of bad apples. The solution as the British government in recent times has conceded with respect to "terrorism" in Northern Ireland is to talk to the "terrorists". After years of the British government trying its best to defeat terrorism using the method you suggest and promising NEVER to talk to terrorists it certainly did alot of back peddling in recent times resulting in the peace-process.
Last I heard they were still talking to the bastards with no lasting peace in site – terrorists find terrorism is too lucrative a business to go back to growing potatoes. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
message – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – wrote in US a Seedy Imperialist State-Gore Vidal Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn’t Fit The Guardian – April 27, 2002 Since September 11 the US is in danger of turning into a ’seedy imperial state,’ argues Gore Vidal Taking liberties by Gore Vidal According to the Koran, it was on a Tuesday that Allah created darkness. Last September 11, when suicide pilots were crashing commercial airliners into crowded American buildings, I did not have to look at the calendar to see what day it was: Dark Tuesday was casting its long shadow across Manhattan and along the Potomac river. I was also not surprised that despite the seven or so trillion dollars the US has spent since 1950 on what is
euphemistically called "defence," there would have been no advance warning from the FBI or CIA or Defence Intelligence Agency.
Doug Says: If Mr. Vidal knew anything about Terrorist tactics he would have known that defending all possible targets from terrorist attacks is impossible. The only way to defeat terrorism is to attack their strongholds and destroy them, their resources, and then control their political and police procedures until a government responsible to the civilized world can be created. Terrorists are cowards that avoid attacks on military bases because they know those people can and will fight back. The Muslim terrorists pick the weak and unsuspecting to murder, children in their cribs and teenagers at a dance. What is the heroics in that? Where is the honor in butchering little children in their cribs or slaughtering unarmed teenagers in a Pizza parlor, or massacring unsuspecting office workers sitting at their desks? These terrorist attacks were acts of pure cowardice, typical of Bin Laden and his ilk. If Gore Vidal wants to glorify the murder of innocent children to make a buck with a book, then that is his business. But it is a shameful and opprobrious business if you ask me. Doug Grant (Tm)
Why do constantly quote the Guardian? It’s not even a newspaper… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – US a Seedy Imperialist State-Gore Vidal Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn’t Fit The Guardian – April 27, 2002 <SNIPPED FORCEFULLY
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why do constantly quote the Guardian? It’s not even a newspaper… wrote in US a Seedy Imperialist State-Gore Vidal Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn’t Fit The Guardian – April 27, 2002 <SNIPPED FORCEFULLY
Doug Says: They are trying their best to deceive readers into believing there is some credibility behind their obvious propaganda. Just another deception from terrorist posters…what a surprise…NOT! Doug Grant (Tm)
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – US a Seedy Imperialist State-Gore Vidal Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn’t Fit The Guardian – April 27, 2002 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4402268,00.html Since September 11 the US is in danger of turning into a ’seedy imperial state,’ argues Gore Vidal Taking liberties by Gore Vidal According to the Koran, it was on a Tuesday that Allah created darkness. Last September 11, when suicide pilots were crashing commercial airliners into crowded American buildings, I did not have to look at the calendar to see what day it was: Dark Tuesday was casting its long shadow across Manhattan and along the Potomac river. I was also not surprised that despite the seven or so trillion dollars the US has spent since 1950 on what is euphemistically called "defence," there would have been no advance warning from the FBI or CIA or Defence Intelligence Agency. While the Bushites have been eagerly preparing for the last war but two – missiles from North Korea, clearly marked with flags, would rain down on Portland, Oregon, only to be intercepted by our missile-shield balloons – the foxy Osama bin Laden knew that all he needed for his holy war on the infidel was a few flyers willing to kill themselves along with those passengers who happened to be aboard the hijacked airliners. Also, like so many of those born to wealth, Bin Laden is not one to throw money about. Apparently, the airline tickets of the 19 known dead hijackers were paid for by credit card. I suspect that United and American Airlines will never be reimbursed by American Express, whose New York offices Bin Laden – inadvertently? – hit.
Doug Says: If Mr. Vidal knew anything about Terrorist tactics he would have known that defending all possible targets from terrorist attacks is impossible. The only way to defeat terrorism is to attack their strongholds and destroy them, their resources, and then control their political and police procedures until a government responsible to the civilized world can be created. Terrorists are cowards that avoid attacks on military bases because they know those people can and will fight back. The Muslim terrorists pick the weak and unsuspecting to murder, children in their cribs and teenagers at a dance. What is the heroics in that? Where is the honor in butchering little children in their cribs or slaughtering unarmed teenagers in a Pizza parlor, or massacring unsuspecting office workers sitting at their desks? These terrorist attacks were acts of pure cowardice, typical of Bin Laden and his ilk. If Gore Vidal wants to glorify the murder of innocent children to make a buck with a book, then that is his business. But it is a shameful and opprobrious business if you ask me. Doug Grant (Tm)
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – US a Seedy Imperialist State-Gore Vidal Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn’t Fit The Guardian – April 27, 2002 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4402268,00.html Since September 11 the US is in danger of turning into a ’seedy imperial state,’ argues Gore Vidal Taking liberties by Gore Vidal According to the Koran, it was on a Tuesday that Allah created darkness. Last September 11, when suicide pilots were crashing commercial airliners into crowded American buildings, I did not have to look at the calendar to see what day it was: Dark Tuesday was casting its long shadow across Manhattan and along the Potomac river. I was also not surprised that despite the seven or so trillion dollars the US has spent since 1950 on what is euphemistically called "defence," there would have been no advance warning from the FBI or CIA or Defence Intelligence Agency. While the Bushites have been eagerly preparing for the last war but two – missiles from North Korea, clearly marked with flags, would rain down on Portland, Oregon, only to be intercepted by our missile-shield balloons – the foxy Osama bin Laden knew that all he needed for his holy war on the infidel was a few flyers willing to kill themselves along with those passengers who happened to be aboard the hijacked airliners. Also, like so many of those born to wealth, Bin Laden is not one to throw money about. Apparently, the airline tickets of the 19 known dead hijackers were paid for by credit card. I suspect that United and American Airlines will never be reimbursed by American Express, whose New York offices Bin Laden – inadvertently? – hit. The telephone keeps ringing. In summer I live south of Naples, in Italy. Italian newspapers, television and radio want comment. So do I. I have written lately about Pearl Harbor. I get the same question over and over: isn’t Dark Tuesday exactly like Sunday morning, December 7 1941? No, it’s not, I say. As far as we know, we had no warning of the September 11 attack. Of course, our government has many, many secrets which our enemies always seem to know about in advance but our people are not told of until years later, if at all. President Roosevelt provoked the Japanese to attack us at Pearl Harbor. I describe the various steps he took in a book, The Golden Age. We now know what was on his mind: coming to England’s aid against Japan’s ally, Hitler, a virtuous plot that ended triumphantly for the human race. But what was – is? – on Bin Laden’s mind? For several decades there has been an unrelenting demonisation of the Muslim world in the American media. Since I am a loyal American, I am not supposed to tell you why this has taken place, but then it is not usual for us to examine why anything happens other than to accuse others of motiveless malignity. "We are good," announced a deep thinker on American television, "they are evil," which wraps that one up in a neat package. But it was Bush himself who put, as it were, the bow on the package in an address to a joint session of Congress where he shared with them – as well as all of us somewhere over the Beltway – his profound knowledge of Islam’s wiles and ways: "They hate what they see right here in this chamber." A million Americans nodded in front of their TV sets. "Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." At this plangent moment what American’s gorge did not rise like a Florida chad to the bait? So why do Bin Laden and millions of other Muslims hate us? Bin Laden persuaded 4,000 Saudis to go to Afghanistan for military training by his group. In 1991, Bin Laden moved on to Sudan. In 1994, when the Saudis withdrew his citizenship, Bin Laden was already a legendary figure in the Islamic world and so, like Shakespeare’s Coriolanus, he could tell the royal Saudis, "I banish you. There is a world elsewhere." Unfortunately, that world is us. In a 12-page "declaration of war," Bin Laden presented himself as a potential liberator of the Muslim world from the great Satan of modern corruption, the US. When Clinton lobbed a missile at a Sudanese aspirin factory, Bin Laden blew up two US embassies in Africa, put a hole in the side of an American warship off Yemen, and so on to the events of Tuesday, September 11. Now President George W Bush, in retaliation, has promised us not only a "new war" but a secret war. That is, not secret to Bin Laden but to us – we who pay for and fight it. "This administration will not talk about any plans we may or may not have," said Bush. "We’re going to find these evil-doers… and we’re going to hold them accountable." Along with the other devils who have given Bin Laden shelter in order to teach them the one lesson that we ourselves have never been able to learn: in history, as in physics, there is no action without reaction. Or, as Edward Herman puts it, "One of the most durable features of the US culture is the inability or refusal to recognise US crimes." Bin Laden seemed, from all accounts, no more than a practising, as opposed to zealous, Muslim. Ironically, he was trained as an engineer. Understandably, he dislikes the United States as symbol and as fact. But when our clients, the Saudi royal family, allowed American troops to occupy the Prophet’s holy land, Bin Laden named the fundamental enemy "the Crusader-Zionist Alliance." Thus, in a phrase, he defined himself and reminded his critics that he is a Wahabi Muslim, a puritan activist not unlike our Falwell-Robertson [Christian fundamentalist] zanies, only serious. He would go to war against the US, "the head of the serpent." Even more ambitiously, he would rid all the Muslim states of their western-supported regimes, starting with that of his native land. The word "Crusader" was the giveaway. In the eyes of many Muslims, the Christian west, currently in alliance with Zionism, has for 1,000 years tried to dominate the lands of the Umma, the true believers. That is why Bin Laden is seen by so many simple folk as the true heir to Saladin, the great warrior king who defeated Richard of England and the western crusaders. Saladin (1138-1193) united and "purified" the Muslim world, and though Richard the Lionheart was the better general, in the end he gave up and went home. As one historian put it, Saladin "typified the Mohammedan utter self-surrender to a sacred cause." But he left no government behind him, no political system because, as he himself said: "My troops will do nothing save when I ride at their head…" Now his spirit has returned with a vengeance. The Bush administration, though eerily inept in all but its principal task, which is to exempt the rich from taxes, has casually torn up most of the treaties to which civilised nations subscribe – like the Kyoto accord or the nuclear missile agreement with Russia. As the Bushites go about their relentless plundering of the treasury and now, thanks to Bin Laden, social security (a supposedly untouchable trust fund) which has gone to the war, they have also allowed the FBI and CIA to either run amok or not budge at all – leaving us, the very first "indispensable" and, at popular request, last global empire; rather like the Wizard of Oz doing his odd pretend-magic tricks while hoping not to be found out. Though Bush’s predecessors have generally had rather higher IQs than his, they, too, assiduously served the 1% that owns the country while allowing everyone else to drift. Particularly culpable was Bill Clinton. Although the most able chief executive since FDR, Clinton, in his frantic pursuit of election victories, set in place the trigger for a police state which his successor is now happily squeezing. Police state? What’s that all about? There have been ominous signs that our fragile liberties have been dramatically at risk since the 1970s, when the white-shirt-and-tie FBI reinvented itself from a corps of "generalists" trained in law and accounting into a confrontational Special Weapons and Tactics (aka Swat) green beret-style army of warriors, who like to dress up in camouflage or black ninja clothing and, depending on the caper, the odd ski mask. In the early 80s, an FBI super-Swat team, the Hostage 270 Rescue Team, was formed. As so often happens in US-speak, this group specialised not in freeing hostages or saving lives but in murderous attacks on groups that offended them, like the Branch Davidians – evangelical Christians living peaceably in their own compound at Waco, Texas, until an FBI Swat team, illegally using army tanks, killed 82 of them, including 25 children. This was 1993. Post-September 11, Swat teams can now be used to go after suspect Arab-Americans or, indeed, anyone who might be guilty of terrorism, a word without legal definition (how can you fight terrorism by suspending habeas corpus, since those who want their corpuses released from prison are already locked up?). But in the post-Oklahoma City trauma, Clinton said that those who did not support his draconian legislation were terrorist co-conspirators who wanted to turn "America into a safe house for terrorists." If the cool Clinton could so froth, what are we to expect from the overheated Bush post-September 11? Incidentally, those who were shocked by Bush the Younger’s shout that we are now "at war" with Bin Laden and those parts of the Muslim world that support him should have put on their collective thinking caps quickly.
… read more »
US a Seedy Imperialist State-Gore Vidal Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn’t Fit The Guardian – April 27, 2002 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4402268,00.html Since September 11 the US is in danger of turning into a ’seedy imperial state,’ argues Gore Vidal Taking liberties by Gore Vidal According to the Koran, it was on a Tuesday that Allah created darkness. Last September 11, when suicide pilots were crashing commercial airliners into crowded American buildings, I did not have to look at the calendar to see what day it was: Dark Tuesday was casting its long shadow across Manhattan and along the Potomac river. I was also not surprised that despite the seven or so trillion dollars the US has spent since 1950 on what is euphemistically called "defence," there would have been no advance warning from the FBI or CIA or Defence Intelligence Agency. While the Bushites have been eagerly preparing for the last war but two – missiles from North Korea, clearly marked with flags, would rain down on Portland, Oregon, only to be intercepted by our missile-shield balloons – the foxy Osama bin Laden knew that all he needed for his holy war on the infidel was a few flyers willing to kill themselves along with those passengers who happened to be aboard the hijacked airliners. Also, like so many of those born to wealth, Bin Laden is not one to throw money about. Apparently, the airline tickets of the 19 known dead hijackers were paid for by credit card. I suspect that United and American Airlines will never be reimbursed by American Express, whose New York offices Bin Laden – inadvertently? – hit. The telephone keeps ringing. In summer I live south of Naples, in Italy. Italian newspapers, television and radio want comment. So do I. I have written lately about Pearl Harbor. I get the same question over and over: isn’t Dark Tuesday exactly like Sunday morning, December 7 1941? No, it’s not, I say. As far as we know, we had no warning of the September 11 attack. Of course, our government has many, many secrets which our enemies always seem to know about in advance but our people are not told of until years later, if at all. President Roosevelt provoked the Japanese to attack us at Pearl Harbor. I describe the various steps he took in a book, The Golden Age. We now know what was on his mind: coming to England’s aid against Japan’s ally, Hitler, a virtuous plot that ended triumphantly for the human race. But what was – is? – on Bin Laden’s mind? For several decades there has been an unrelenting demonisation of the Muslim world in the American media. Since I am a loyal American, I am not supposed to tell you why this has taken place, but then it is not usual for us to examine why anything happens other than to accuse others of motiveless malignity. "We are good," announced a deep thinker on American television, "they are evil," which wraps that one up in a neat package. But it was Bush himself who put, as it were, the bow on the package in an address to a joint session of Congress where he shared with them – as well as all of us somewhere over the Beltway – his profound knowledge of Islam’s wiles and ways: "They hate what they see right here in this chamber." A million Americans nodded in front of their TV sets. "Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." At this plangent moment what American’s gorge did not rise like a Florida chad to the bait? So why do Bin Laden and millions of other Muslims hate us? Bin Laden persuaded 4,000 Saudis to go to Afghanistan for military training by his group. In 1991, Bin Laden moved on to Sudan. In 1994, when the Saudis withdrew his citizenship, Bin Laden was already a legendary figure in the Islamic world and so, like Shakespeare’s Coriolanus, he could tell the royal Saudis, "I banish you. There is a world elsewhere." Unfortunately, that world is us. In a 12-page "declaration of war," Bin Laden presented himself as a potential liberator of the Muslim world from the great Satan of modern corruption, the US. When Clinton lobbed a missile at a Sudanese aspirin factory, Bin Laden blew up two US embassies in Africa, put a hole in the side of an American warship off Yemen, and so on to the events of Tuesday, September 11. Now President George W Bush, in retaliation, has promised us not only a "new war" but a secret war. That is, not secret to Bin Laden but to us – we who pay for and fight it. "This administration will not talk about any plans we may or may not have," said Bush. "We’re going to find these evil-doers… and we’re going to hold them accountable." Along with the other devils who have given Bin Laden shelter in order to teach them the one lesson that we ourselves have never been able to learn: in history, as in physics, there is no action without reaction. Or, as Edward Herman puts it, "One of the most durable features of the US culture is the inability or refusal to recognise US crimes." Bin Laden seemed, from all accounts, no more than a practising, as opposed to zealous, Muslim. Ironically, he was trained as an engineer. Understandably, he dislikes the United States as symbol and as fact. But when our clients, the Saudi royal family, allowed American troops to occupy the Prophet’s holy land, Bin Laden named the fundamental enemy "the Crusader-Zionist Alliance." Thus, in a phrase, he defined himself and reminded his critics that he is a Wahabi Muslim, a puritan activist not unlike our Falwell-Robertson [Christian fundamentalist] zanies, only serious. He would go to war against the US, "the head of the serpent." Even more ambitiously, he would rid all the Muslim states of their western-supported regimes, starting with that of his native land. The word "Crusader" was the giveaway. In the eyes of many Muslims, the Christian west, currently in alliance with Zionism, has for 1,000 years tried to dominate the lands of the Umma, the true believers. That is why Bin Laden is seen by so many simple folk as the true heir to Saladin, the great warrior king who defeated Richard of England and the western crusaders. Saladin (1138-1193) united and "purified" the Muslim world, and though Richard the Lionheart was the better general, in the end he gave up and went home. As one historian put it, Saladin "typified the Mohammedan utter self-surrender to a sacred cause." But he left no government behind him, no political system because, as he himself said: "My troops will do nothing save when I ride at their head…" Now his spirit has returned with a vengeance. The Bush administration, though eerily inept in all but its principal task, which is to exempt the rich from taxes, has casually torn up most of the treaties to which civilised nations subscribe – like the Kyoto accord or the nuclear missile agreement with Russia. As the Bushites go about their relentless plundering of the treasury and now, thanks to Bin Laden, social security (a supposedly untouchable trust fund) which has gone to the war, they have also allowed the FBI and CIA to either run amok or not budge at all – leaving us, the very first "indispensable" and, at popular request, last global empire; rather like the Wizard of Oz doing his odd pretend-magic tricks while hoping not to be found out. Though Bush’s predecessors have generally had rather higher IQs than his, they, too, assiduously served the 1% that owns the country while allowing everyone else to drift. Particularly culpable was Bill Clinton. Although the most able chief executive since FDR, Clinton, in his frantic pursuit of election victories, set in place the trigger for a police state which his successor is now happily squeezing. Police state? What’s that all about? There have been ominous signs that our fragile liberties have been dramatically at risk since the 1970s, when the white-shirt-and-tie FBI reinvented itself from a corps of "generalists" trained in law and accounting into a confrontational Special Weapons and Tactics (aka Swat) green beret-style army of warriors, who like to dress up in camouflage or black ninja clothing and, depending on the caper, the odd ski mask. In the early 80s, an FBI super-Swat team, the Hostage 270 Rescue Team, was formed. As so often happens in US-speak, this group specialised not in freeing hostages or saving lives but in murderous attacks on groups that offended them, like the Branch Davidians – evangelical Christians living peaceably in their own compound at Waco, Texas, until an FBI Swat team, illegally using army tanks, killed 82 of them, including 25 children. This was 1993. Post-September 11, Swat teams can now be used to go after suspect Arab-Americans or, indeed, anyone who might be guilty of terrorism, a word without legal definition (how can you fight terrorism by suspending habeas corpus, since those who want their corpuses released from prison are already locked up?). But in the post-Oklahoma City trauma, Clinton said that those who did not support his draconian legislation were terrorist co-conspirators who wanted to turn "America into a safe house for terrorists." If the cool Clinton could so froth, what are we to expect from the overheated Bush post-September 11? Incidentally, those who were shocked by Bush the Younger’s shout that we are now "at war" with Bin Laden and those parts of the Muslim world that support him should have put on their collective thinking caps quickly. Since a nation can only be at war with another nation state, why did our smouldering if not yet burning Bush come up with such a phrase? Think hard. Give up? Well, most insurance companies use a rider saying that damage done by "an act of war" need not be covered. Although the men and women around Bush know nothing of war and less of the US constitution, they understand fundraising. For this wartime exclusion, Hartford Life would soon be … read more »
Accounting Talk » Financial Accounting » Local Government Fund Accounting
What methods do (small) local governments use to implement fund accounting for assets that are shared by several funds or may be used by different funds at different times? An example might be a piece of construction equipment that is used to construct a road in the summer and a sewer in the fall. The financial statements are supposed to show expenses by fund, and the sewer and road costs are paid out of different funds. Transfering assets from one fund to another many times sounds like more trouble than it’s worth, but a fair allocation of the initial cost, depreciation, maintenance, proceeds of sale, etc, doesn’t appear easy either. Al
I work with the Federal government so I can not specifically address small local governments, but the issue you describe is common. From what I have seen, an approach could be to use a form of internal service fund which can have different names (working capital fund, internal enterprise fund, etc.). Assets, such as that piece of construction equipment, would be acquired under that fund. Different funds/projects would be charged for use of the equipment based on depreciation and other costs and using some systematic charging mechanism (e.g., per hour or per day charge for the equipment). That way your road and sewer funds would receive shares of the equipment and related expenses based on actual usage of the equipment. The recording of expenses for supplies by fund (when there is a supply inventory) is similar. By the way, until the pressures in the last few years to prepare auditable financial statements in the Federal government, systematic recognition of equpment expenses by different fund/project was frequently disregarded (particularly in cases similar to your example). The primary emphasis for management in the Federal government has usually been fund controls associated with obligation (encumbrance) authority and the reporting of obligations incurred by agency funds at the time of purchase of equipment. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -What methods do (small) local governments use to implement fund accounting for assets that are shared by several funds or may be used by different funds at different times? An example might be a piece of construction equipment that is used to construct a road in the summer and a sewer in the fall. The financial statements are supposed to show expenses by fund, and the sewer and road costs are paid out of different funds. Transfering assets from one fund to another many times sounds like more trouble than it’s worth, but a fair allocation of the initial cost, depreciation, maintenance, proceeds of sale, etc, doesn’t appear easy either. Al
Accounting Talk » Management Accounting » victimization -> comeupance
an explanation. my ocd manifest and entrenched because of a strong feeling of being victimized repeatedly without reason. sadly, I learned way after that victimization is the power game for many. including those (siblings, school authorities) who are *supposed* to be on your side!!! but the drive to exercise POWER is tooooo great for some, and the symbol and proof of power in their evil minds, is how much misery they can generate in the lives of those around them. this is a description of some of those events in my life, and the dreadful consequences ON THOSE DOING THE VICTIMIZATION. this is called comeupance. note some of the ‘comeupance’ was ‘helped along’ by me. this rendering of justice has contributed to my overcoming this ghastly disorder. comeupances I dished out were done with pristine clear conscience, aganst those who for their own selfish evil drives and motives care not a whit about the consequences of their hitlerist lust for domination and corruption. well, they are just the kind that need to get knocked REALLY HARD right square on their asses. some of the victimizers in my life have suffered career disasters, bankruptcy, imprisonment and death. and they all deserve what they got and got what they deserved. harsh talk, but it would none be necessary if these people had taken a kinder humanitarian approach instead of ruthless cuthroating. live by the sword, die by the sword. its most gratifying to see these filthy bastards suffer. and it sure keeps them from scheming and victimizing. heh heh heh. I name names and tell it like it is, and here it is: filename: virtual.wpd device/port: virtual printer @ lptspooltext.prn printer type: generic text only, typeface: roman 10cpi12pt (monospaced) margins t/b/l/r set to: 0 0 0 2.0" to ’save’ select ‘print’ (file is read only) then rename/move/etc text.prn in directory lptspool comeupances rendered (personal and confidential) a partial description of the fate of those parties who act against my interests, showing a trend of negative consequences that fall upon people and organizations (mostly individual people) who attempt to undercut, blame, bully, cheat, threaten or in any similar manner, take unwarranted aggressive or harmful actions or intentions against me. beaver lumber backstabbers: a part time job which supplements spending money and adds to familiarity with building materials and methods, is interrupted about 3 months when one day I happen to say in the lunch room that if I had my druthers, I would like to be an airline pilot. gee, what a shocking revelation. the comment is overheard and reported to the store manager , thus the layoff. at the end of the 3 months I finally find out why the layoff and let it be known that whoever finked might have done so to undermine ‘competition’ from another employee who works hard at helping customers. soon it is discovered who the backstabber is. fast forward about 6 months, I have quit the beaver lumber job in disgust at the politicking, and have tracked the backstabber to another lumber store. I relate to them his sabotage trick and suggest they should reconsider having someone like THAT on the payroll. they appear to believe my emphasis that it in their interests I make the disclosure and freely admit an element of revenge. fast forward another year or so, I’m in Welland on a programming job. Some idle time comes up and lo, flipping thru the phone book is the backstabber. mr grobb. even sounds like a pucker faced ass sucker. a phone call is placed telling him I know everything and the next time he tries that there will be much, much worse consequences. comeupance #1. meanwhile, fast forwarding again about 3 years to Burlington. who is this, but the old manager from beaver lumber, one j.epoch now with some one horse outfit on its last legs which, egad, gets a going out of business sign in front about 2 months later!! ha, ha, ha on YOU mr epoch for tolerating and ENCOURAGING such disgusting self interest in your subordinates. so, that outfit folds and he is out of a job again. comeupance #2. fast forward another couple years and the entire beaver lumber chain is in serious trouble. their Burlington outlet is turned into a future shop, and the st.catharines outlet may at any time enter oblivion if it hasn’t already, joining the one at the corner of highway 20 and merritville road which was utterly flattened (you know, a property tax thing), and the one in niagara falls which closed years ago. because their management practices include the tactics used by mr grobb. major comeupance there. tv or not tv, that is the question. an rca television is purchased from one of those flamboyant independent hi-fi shops. it was a piece of shit. after taking it back to the store about 15 times (not an exageration) and being told such crap as ‘its your house wiring’, a letter is sent to rca in montreal telling them how this store is ripping them off with warranty repairs.the letter goes unanswered. a vow is made to never ever buy any rca appliances. the vow continues to stand more than 20 years later. in the intervening 20 years, the retailer succumbs to a future shop across the street and rca is uprooted from its montreal address. goodie goodie for all of them. double comeuppance all ’round. e. a. manning, or, what goes up must come down: there used to be a toronto brokerage firm by the name of e.a. manning. it was run by crooks, the story being prominently featured in a book about fraud in Canada. they were not, it was revealed, brokers in the common meaning of the word. in fact, it was they who ‘owned’ the stock right from the start, they were not agents or ‘go- betweens’ to effect stock exchanges. the scam worked thusly: they pick a sham company and generate some quantity of stock, and then promote the hell out of it. the price rises and rises, and then suddenly, disaster: the assay was negative or some ‘accounting irregularities’ occurred and the stock price tanks. where did the money go? into the pockets of those selling at the high? no, the money went into the pockets of the manning crooks. they got about 700 dollars from me. then they got huge fines, jail, and a ban from ever dealing in Ontario. some victims lost their life savings, it was a lesson I learned about stock promotion and the precipitousness of it all, and that trust is always earned, never is it to be by default. a lesson costing a few hundred bucks and worth much much more. london free press: fast rewind to late 60s. a brother operates an auto repair shop about 20 miles outside of London. transportation is a problem. I attempt car pool type arrangements by placing an ad in the local paper. the newspaper balks on the grounds of ‘laibility’. the job ends sooner than otherwise because of the difficulties getting there each day. the refusal of the newspaper to cooperate is not forgotten. fast forward to about 5 years ago, or about 25 years after that first summer job. the same newspaper is chocked full of gay ads, arranging for homosexual intercourse dates. the newspaper is telephoned and sarcastically asked why someone looking for transportation to honest employment is scoffed at, but gays looking for an anal intercourse are accomodated. also the offices of various political and legal types are asked the same question in the same sarcastic and crude manner. fast forward to about 2 years ago, it is learned that the owner of that london newspaper, which devotes huge column space to the promotion of homosexual butt humping but refuses to make it possible for someone to have their first summer job, one ms blackburn, is dead of a stroke. an alternate interpretation of the autopsy results is that she died of comeuppance. st catharines standard: another newspaper balking at an ad. (see truck purchase below). the standard is asked to place an ad, the wording of which is detrimental to the crooked dealership that refused to honour a used vehicle warranty. years later, the dealership changes hands for some reason. but, another couple years later, the great st catharines standard becomes the victim of embezzlement. one of their own bigshots steals some 200,000 to 300,000 dollars buying expensive jewellery and such. the money isnt recovered. comeuppance doesnt allow it. ron worthless ford: a used (very very used as it turns out) truck is purchased from ron worth ford in st catharines. the battery (and a lot of other stuff) is no good in cold weather. the used vehicle warranty is supposed to cover it but the dealer service employees draw on a script of 100s of excuses to do nothing. the solution is to buy a new battery. some years later the dealership changes hands. the reason is unknown. perhaps mr worth went bankrupt or is dead. a possible comeuppance situation.likewise nemeth ford also in st c: refused to spend a few brief moments to provide an estimated price to advertise a vehicle (from the famous blue book), yet expects I shell 10s of thousands on a new one. not!!! it is most irritating because the proceeds of the sale were to act as down payment on a new vehicle. but the arrogant salesman balked at investing a few minutes of his time. this place likewise changes hands, and web commerce puts a huge stress on ALL arrogant car salesmen. good!! comeuppance comes in many forms. 20 cents for 2 sided? how much for zero copies?: a late in the day visit to the local photocopy shop is managed minutes before closing (not to worry, just 1 page to do, but its gotta be 2 sided…). alas, its a moot point. the manageress becomes some sort of bouncer and refuses me entry, so I spend the next 3/4 of an hour looking for alternative copy service, all the while vowing more stronglt to get even somehow. technology and the internet provide the means. periodically, price and service comparisons are made on this outlet versus others, to whit, … read more »
holy moly Louis, I hope getting all that off your chest is going to help you let go of this and leave it all behind so you can enjoy life. all the best to you, Compucat Louis Johnson <ad…@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
news:8nkov9$ak5$1@mohawk.hwcn.org… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> an explanation. > my ocd manifest and entrenched because of a strong feeling of being > victimized repeatedly without reason. > sadly, I learned way after that victimization is the power game for many. > including those (siblings, school authorities) who are *supposed* to be > on your side!!! but the drive to exercise POWER is tooooo great for some, > and the symbol and proof of power in their evil minds, is how much misery > they can generate in the lives of those around them. > this is a description of some of those events in my life, and the dreadful > consequences ON THOSE DOING THE VICTIMIZATION. this is called comeupance. > note some of the ‘comeupance’ was ‘helped along’ by me. this rendering of > justice has contributed to my overcoming this ghastly disorder. > comeupances I dished out were done with pristine clear conscience, aganst > those who for their own selfish evil drives and motives care not a whit > about the consequences of their hitlerist lust for domination and > corruption. well, they are just the kind that need to get knocked > REALLY HARD right square on their asses. > some of the victimizers in my life have suffered career disasters, > bankruptcy, imprisonment and death. and they all deserve what they got and > got what they deserved. harsh talk, but it would none be necessary if > these people had taken a kinder humanitarian approach instead of ruthless > cuthroating. live by the sword, die by the sword. > its most gratifying to see these filthy bastards suffer. and it sure keeps > them from scheming and victimizing. heh heh heh. > I name names and tell it like it is, and here it is: > filename: virtual.wpd > device/port: virtual printer @ lptspooltext.prn > printer type: generic text only, > typeface: roman 10cpi12pt (monospaced) > margins t/b/l/r set to: 0 0 0 2.0" > to ’save’ select ‘print’ (file is read only) > then rename/move/etc text.prn in directory lptspool > comeupances rendered > (personal and confidential) > a partial description of the fate of those parties who act > against my interests, > showing a trend of negative consequences that fall upon people > and organizations > (mostly individual people) who attempt to undercut, blame, bully, > cheat, threaten or > in any similar manner, > take unwarranted aggressive or harmful actions or intentions > against me. > beaver lumber backstabbers: a part time job which supplements > spending money and adds to familiarity with building materials > and methods, is interrupted about 3 months when one day I happen > to say in the lunch room that if I had my druthers, I would like > to be an airline pilot. gee, what a shocking revelation. the > comment is overheard and reported to the store manager , thus the > layoff. at the end of the 3 months I finally find out why the > layoff and let it be known that whoever finked might have done so > to undermine ‘competition’ from another employee who works hard > at helping customers. soon it is discovered who the backstabber > is. fast forward about 6 months, I have quit the beaver lumber > job in disgust at the politicking, and have tracked the > backstabber to another lumber store. I relate to them his > sabotage trick and suggest they should reconsider having someone > like THAT on the payroll. they appear to believe my emphasis that > it in their interests I make the disclosure and freely admit an > element of revenge. fast forward another year or so, I’m in > Welland on a programming job. Some idle time comes up and lo, > flipping thru the phone book is the backstabber. mr grobb. even > sounds like a pucker faced ass sucker. a phone call is placed > telling him I know everything and the next time he tries that > there will be much, much worse consequences. comeupance #1. > meanwhile, fast forwarding again about 3 years to Burlington. who > is this, but the old manager from beaver lumber, one j.epoch now > with some one horse outfit on its last legs which, egad, gets a > going out of business sign in front about 2 months later!! ha, > ha, ha on YOU mr epoch for tolerating and ENCOURAGING such > disgusting self interest in your subordinates. so, that outfit > folds and he is out of a job again. comeupance #2. fast forward > another couple years and the entire beaver lumber chain is in > serious trouble. their Burlington outlet is turned into a future > shop, and the st.catharines outlet may at any time enter oblivion > if it hasn’t already, joining the one at the corner of highway 20 > and merritville road which was utterly flattened (you know, a > property tax thing), and the one in niagara falls which closed > years ago. because their management practices include the tactics > used by mr grobb. major comeupance there. > tv or not tv, that is the question. an rca television is > purchased from one of those flamboyant independent hi-fi shops. > it was a piece of shit. after taking it back to the store about > 15 times (not an exageration) and being told such crap as ‘its > your house wiring’, a letter is sent to rca in montreal telling > them how this store is ripping them off with warranty repairs.the letter
goes unanswered. a vow is made to never ever buy any – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> rca appliances. the vow continues to stand more than 20 years > later. in the intervening 20 years, the retailer succumbs to a > future shop across the street and rca is uprooted from its > montreal address. goodie goodie for all of them. double > comeuppance all ’round. > e. a. manning, or, what goes up must come down: there used to be > a toronto brokerage firm by the name of e.a. manning. it was run > by crooks, the story being prominently featured in a book about > fraud in Canada. they were not, it was revealed, brokers in the > common meaning of the word. in fact, it was they who ‘owned’ the > stock right from the start, they were not agents or ‘go- > betweens’ to effect stock exchanges. the scam worked thusly: they > pick a sham company and generate some quantity of stock, and then > promote the hell out of it. the price rises and rises, and then > suddenly, disaster: the assay was negative or some ‘accounting > irregularities’ occurred and the stock price tanks. where did the > money go? into the pockets of those selling at the high? no, the > money went into the pockets of the manning crooks. they got about > 700 dollars from me. then they got huge fines, jail, and a ban > from ever dealing in Ontario. some victims lost their life > savings, it was a lesson I learned about stock promotion and the > precipitousness of it all, and that trust is always earned, never > is it to be by default. a lesson costing a few hundred bucks and > worth much much more. > london free press: fast rewind to late 60s. a brother operates an > auto repair shop about 20 miles outside of London. transportation > is a problem. I attempt car pool type arrangements by placing an > ad in the local paper. the newspaper balks on the grounds of > ‘laibility’. the job ends sooner than otherwise because of the > difficulties getting there each day. the refusal of the newspaper > to cooperate is not forgotten. fast forward to about 5 years ago, > or about 25 years after that first summer job. the same newspaper > is chocked full of gay ads, arranging for homosexual intercourse > dates. the newspaper is telephoned and sarcastically asked why > someone looking for transportation to honest employment is > scoffed at, but gays looking for an anal intercourse are > accomodated. also the offices of various political and legal > types are asked the same question in the same sarcastic and crude > manner. fast forward to about 2 years ago, it is learned that the > owner of that london newspaper, which devotes huge column space > to the promotion of homosexual butt humping but refuses to make > it possible for someone to have their first summer job, one ms > blackburn, is dead of a stroke. an alternate interpretation of > the autopsy results is that she died of comeuppance. > st catharines standard: another newspaper balking at an ad. (see > truck purchase below). the standard is asked to place an ad, the > wording of which is detrimental to the crooked dealership that > refused to honour a used vehicle warranty. years later, the > dealership changes hands for some reason. but, another couple > years later, the great st catharines standard becomes the victim > of embezzlement. one of their own bigshots steals some 200,000 to > 300,000 dollars buying expensive jewellery and such. the money > isnt recovered. comeuppance doesnt allow it. > ron worthless ford: a used (very very used as it turns out) truck > is purchased from ron worth ford in st catharines. the battery > (and a lot of other stuff) is no good in cold weather. the used > vehicle warranty is supposed to cover it but the dealer service > employees draw on a script of 100s of excuses to do nothing. the > solution is to buy a new battery. some years later the dealership > changes hands. the reason is unknown. perhaps mr worth went > bankrupt or is dead. a possible comeuppance situation.likewise nemeth ford
also in st c: refused to spend a few brief – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> moments to provide an estimated price to advertise a vehicle > (from the famous blue book), yet expects I shell 10s of thousands > on a new one. not!!! it is most irritating because the proceeds > of the sale were to act as down payment on a new vehicle. but the > arrogant salesman balked at investing a few minutes of his time. > this place likewise changes hands, and web commerce puts a huge > stress on ALL arrogant car salesmen. good!!
… read more »
Accounting Talk » Financial Accounting » Lack of Harmonisation
I am doing further research over the next 4 years which includes revisiting a previous thesis as to the lack of harmonisation (of Accounting Standards & Practise, Corporate and Taxation Law ) inhibiting Global/Cross Border Trade.
Check out the International Accounting Standards Committee http://www.iasc.org.uk You should be able to get a free leaflet from them [if the info isn’t already on their Web site) which may be relevant as it is entitled: "Harmonising Accounting Standards" They have completed work on a core set of 40 standards for large and international companies as requested by the International Organisation of Securities Commissions. HTH — Roger Barnett
Peter French wrote, "I am doing further research over the next 4 years which includes revisiting a previous thesis as to the lack of harmonisation (of Accounting Standards & Practise, Corporate and Taxation Law ) .." Good work Peter, keep at this. I think there is going to be a whole new level of interest in the topic of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and how they vary between the larger industrialized countries. This interest will arise from the implementation of XML vocabularies and semantic structures for US GAAP (the AICPA’s XFRML project) and for IAS’s (International Accounting Standards). These XML projects involve software people and accountants coming from a fundamentally different set of objectives: Where the boards and owners of enterprises (and the Big 5 who serve them) have as their primary objective the *noncommunication* and achieving the maximum degree of spindoctoring and recharacterization of results of business operations consistent with ethics and law, the software and machine semantics specialists have as their objective the simply to accurately tag and process that information through the application of clear and unambiguous rules. My advice to you is to tap into those XML projects for a rich vein of information. Those projects will be unable to capture GAAP in unambiguous rule sets without reconciliing every contradiction, and backfilling every omission. Furthermore the existence of these GAAP XML templates will likely enable XSLT transformations of financial statements into other GAAP templates. This will be reallllll intersting! You could do worse than just setting up a concession stand, to sell commentary on the issues turned up by those workgroups…. Todd Boyle CPA http://www.gldialtone.com xml accounting webledgers Before you buy.
I am doing further research over the next 4 years which includes revisiting a previous thesis as to the lack of harmonisation (of Accounting Standards & Practise, Corporate and Taxation Law ) inhibiting Global/Cross Border Trade. The purpose of this request is: (1) To determine if there is any interest in any on this NG in any aspect (2) To ascertain whether any practitioners would be interested in contributing at any stage, either by general comment, or completion of surveys (3) To ascertain if any corporations are interested in this area e.g. USA/Canadian operations. The research will cover NAFTA, EC and the Australian/New Zealand CER Peter French Melbourne, Australia Fax +61 (0) 3 9432 5304
Accounting Talk » Finance Accounting » JREF's $1M Challenge: negotiation of J. Benneth's homeopathic dilution protocol
Syd: I forgot to mention that the biochemist from NIST is also a card-carrying member of the Society for Scientific Exploration (a rabidly pro-paranormal group) and an associate member of the Parapsychological Association, but also a member of the JREF. He’s quite respected and very qualified, and has agreed to work with a homeopath in preparing the samples. Randi
Sounds good to me if JB and/or Alain can have a chance to talk with this fellow before committing. For those who were wondering, NIST stands for National Institute of Standards and Technology. Syd
homeopathic dilution protocol Message text written by "Syd Baumel" . . . if JB and/or Alain can have a chance to talk with this fellow
before committing. < I will not subject him to Benneth, who is compulsive about babbling on about theories. And Alain and Benneth don’t have to "commit " to anything. He’s a qualified biochemist. He will work with the homeopath to prepare the samples. That’s all there is to it. He’s the person who will do the preparation. Can Benneth meet his schedule? Randi
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Syd: I forgot to mention that the biochemist from NIST is also a card-carrying member of the Society for Scientific Exploration (a rabidly pro-paranormal group) and an associate member of the Parapsychological Association, but also a member of the JREF. He’s quite respected and very qualified, and has agreed to work with a homeopath in preparing the samples. Randi Sounds good to me if JB and/or Alain can have a chance to talk with this fellow before committing. For those who were wondering, NIST stands for National Institute of Standards and Technology. Syd
Well let’s have the fellow’s name, Syd, and put him to work on the yeast test. He can do it this weekend and then Randi can write me the check on Monday. But seriously, this is why out of the several tests we have come up with which to demonstrate the action of SADs, serially agitated dilutes (homeopathic remedies), we presented the yeast test as being a quick way to show the effect of SADs by another measure other than human beings. It can be done within 24 hours. Perhaps Uncle Randi will accept this as a preliminary and we could have the formal test done before your September deadline. Sound good? My only stipulation is that if Randi turns out to be broke, he get’s deported back to Canada to work on your ice cube farm.. Give me the biochemist’s e-mail address and I’ll e-mail him the yeast test. WHat the heck, I’ll send it to anyone who writes for it, then everyone can have a crack at winning Randi’s million . . . that is if I don’t get it first! jb
I’ve forwarded this to Randi: his message will be sent directly to all recipients, including Drs. Josephson, Benveniste, Park, Jean-Mairet, Vecchi and Syd Baumel of the Winnipeg Aquarian. John Benneth You can WIN $100 to Amazon.com! If you join ONElists FRIENDS & FAMILY program. For details, go to http://www.onelist.com/info/onereachsplash3.html http://www.marius.net
Because I received this from John Benneth last night or this morning but it didn’t show up on the newsgroups (to which it also was addressed), I’m forwarding it now, along with my comments: Syd: I’ve forwarded Benneth’s suggested protocol to the appropriate person, but I also told Benneth that he provides no aspect of double-blind assessment, so the protocol as he describes it is not satisfactory. Randi Zwinge isn’t taking his gingko. The objective of the protcol which I filed on January 26th, 1999 per his instructions www.marius.net/application.html states the objective clearly. Because he refuses to acknowledge what is the true protocol of my claim, I have presented studies that support it’s viability. He has confused one of these reports, in this case the Jones and Jenkins wheat and yeast test of 1983 from the British Homoeopathic Journal, to be my suggested protocol.
His attention was redirected to your protocol a few days ago and he’s been responding directly to it ever since. The suggestion, which apparently the MacArthur genius took to mean protocol, was that the yeast test described by Jenkins and Jones, would be an easy, inexpensive way to determine the validity of the claim, something cheap and easy he and his astrophysics could accomplish with assistance of any bright 10 year old. But now he’s confusing how we’re attempting to prove something with what it is that must be accomplished. He has said it can’t be done. We claim it can. How it’s done is an irrelevant part of this discussion. And he’s getting too old to try to run circles around us. If he wants keep up, he better get a wheelchair and a quantum physicist to push it for him.
Please, leave the Don Rickles act at the door. It’s counterproductive here. He’s also conceded to Alain and me (forwarded to you by me) that how it’s done is irrelevant. I’m sure that it can be adapted, and double-blind aspects applied. We submitted the double blind procedure to Randi way back in February, and he rejected it at that time as being ridiculous. http://www.marius.net/proof.html What’s more important and should be of discussion here is when he’s going to come around to see how important it is to correctly codify, index and double blind the samples that are to be tested.
I think he’s making a reasonable effort to do that. Reread the thread so far. Or consult Alain. What he’s pushing for is for him to be judge jury and executioner for the trial, or one of his paid shills, like he’s done in the past.
I don’t read it that way at all. He’s agreed to a) mutually trusted parties, or b) Price, Waterhouse or equivalent. We’ve suggested a common inquest panel to be randomly selected from among common people, and these people be the ones perform the task of double blinding the trial. We know tht it sounds complex, but having done it so many times we can assure you it is quite easy, reliable and much more foolproof and impartial than anything he’s come up with. I works with two people or a dozen, it doesn’t matter, and there’s no way for any one person to know what the true identity of all the samples are without collaboration with another inquisitor.
He’s already agreed to a two independent person serial coding procedure as an option. But Randi told us he didn’t want anything to do with it, that it was ridiculous. I presume taht’s because he wants to be the sole arbitrator.
He’s trying to arrive at a mutually agreeable procedure. Either that or he’s the Devil pretending to do so. Ask Alain if he thinks Randi wants to be "sole arbitrator." I told Benneth I would not consider — or even read — the lengthy tirades heputs out. I just don’t have the time for that, nor any interest in anything but the details of the actual test. This guy Randi has been spamming us with accusations, insults, threats and anything else it seems he can think of to keep from having a serious discussion of putting on a trial.
I’ve seen lots of insults, but I wasn’t aware of the spam. He has sent me several postings, but they were not appropriately headed, so I have not read them. He’s determined to be a loser. I’m not writing anything to him. But everytime he sees antyhing with my name on it, he has to send it to me marked RETURNED UNREAD. Why should I care if he reads it or not. I put my claim in seven months ago as instructed, if he’s not going to process it, then I guess I have to say that he hasn’t made a legitimate offer with his Psychic Challenge.
He publicly agreed on July 31 that you can email him directly under this subject line, and he’ll read and respond if what you write is focused on negotiating the test itself. If I accidentally didn’t forward that message to you, I did include it in the thread I posted to Usenet on Monday night. I think the "yeast" test sounds simple, direct, and probably proper — but my biochemist will decide that for me. The double-blind aspect, however, MUST be applied. Randi Well, good luck. Let me know when you want to test my protocol now tht it seems you’ve found yours, Mr.Hamilton Zwinge.
Syd
Syd: I forgot to mention that the biochemist from NIST is also a card-carrying member of the Society for Scientific Exploration (a rabidly pro-paranormal group) and an associate member of the Parapsychological Association, but also a member of the JREF. He’s quite respected and very qualified, and has agreed to work with a homeopath in preparing the samples. Randi
Using 50 samples, 35 or more out of 50 correct (70%) has a probability of 1/1,000. That would be acceptable for the preliminary test. Using 50 samples, 42 or more out of 50 correct (84%) has a probability of 1/1,000,000. That would be acceptable for the final test. Using 100 samples, 74 or more out of 100 correct (74%) also has a probability of 1/1,000,000. That would also be acceptable for the final test. Randi. My biochemist from NIST says he is available for the next few weeks, on weekends….. Randi
PART FIVE: Message text written by "Alain Jean-Mairet" Okay then, but a really qualified homeopathic pharmacist must be present or at least have thoroughly informed his colleague and assist to the process through video.< Agreed. However, it seems to me that the "potentizing" process is not all that difficult. A little like a religious ceremony, but not complicated and easily described and taught. Like how to perform a baptism.
I dont’ know how to perform a baptism but I sure would not perform one after having been just briefed about it. I see no religious aspect in all this. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Then we have to find that person. I have no suggestion, living on the bad side of the Atlantic.< Agreed. Not about the "bad side of the Atlantic," however! I’m working on this. Alain, you make sense. I am reconsidering the blinding process. Yes, let us have a serial blinding, but done only by two persons, not known to one another. (Correct my statement above to accomodate TWO trusted persons.) The process is simple. See if you agree:. (1) The samples are prepared and are individually placed into numbered envelopes. The numbering is clear and large, written boldly in black. A written record is kept of which numbers are "potentized" — perhaps 1 to 25, and which are not — perhaps 26 to 50. The samples are transferred to the first randomizer person, "A." (2) "A" shuffles envelopes with the samples thoroughly, then lays them out — under video surveillance — with the numbers clearly showing. (3) He/she then shuffles a second set of empty envelopes, these equally boldly numbered in red. These envelopes are then dealt out, one at a time, adjacent to the black-labeled envelopes. A written record is made of the numbers and how they correspond to each other. (The video records are only for future reference in case of dispute.) (4) The samples are individually transferred from each black-labeled envelope to the adjacent red-labeled envelope. All this under video surveillance. (5) The new set of envelopes is sealed and transferred by an appropriate individual to randomiser person "B." This person repeats (2), as above. (6) "B" has a new — third — set of envelopes, these boldly numbered in green. He/she repeats (3) and (4), as above, except that he/she is transferring the samples from the red-numbered envelopes to the green-numbered envelopes. This set of samples is the double-blind randomized set we will use. Agreed?
I have no real objection. But then what about the lists and what about the video tapes till John Benneth brings his results? My very first proposition was that we have them placed in a bank safe which can be opened only if two people ask for it together, here you and John Benneth. When John bring the results, originals and two copies, you and him go to the bank and ask the employees to make copies of the lists kept in the safe. Originals stay there or are given to some lawyer, both parties get a copy and publish the results as they want. Is that alright? We would need to also designate an "agent" who would transfer the samples from the preparing agency to "a" and then to "B," or possibly two or three different agents, also unknown to one another. The written records must be kept together with the corresponding video records, and all these records put in the hands of a secure agent until after the test is complete.
Yes. I guess they do that pretty much like that in an accountant firm. But they sure will accept to respect a given protocol. Or do you really intend to gather all those different people? How much does this cost if done by professionals? In the last posts, we were talking of 70%. With vegetal, it is impossible to have a 100% result, even with a total duplication.< Why is this impossible?
For example, some seeds will grow and some other won’t, and there is no way to tell which. There still is some ’secret’ or say imponderable in the way living matter does function. Do you agree that 70% of correct answers will win the trial?< Yes. I already stated that acceptance level.
And about the dates? Alain Until we have a basic agreement, we cannot name dates. Benneth may take months to object and squirm around. I thought this test was being done with yeast cells? Let’s get our basic facts straight here. You refer to "seeds." Randi I stated very clearly that the 70% level applies only in the case of the preliminary test(s) Randi I stated very clearly that the 70% level applies only in the case of the preliminary test(s) Randi
I’m not questioning that. My question is how high might that level go for the final test? Benneth needs to know that. If you say 100%, even he may feel that’s unachievable. Please respond. Syd Randi, Until we have a basic agreement, we cannot name dates. Benneth may take months to object and squirm around.
We do have a basic agreement. And it is based on Benneth’s protocol. We have have it for months now. Please give some dates. I thought this test was being done with yeast cells? Let’s get our basic facts straight here. You refer to "seeds."
I referred to seeds in order to explain why we cannot obtain a 100% sure result when experiencing with living matter. The way John intends to distinguish the dilutions from the controls is his business. If he wishes, he can lead several tests in the same times, with yeast, with seeds, with whole plants. For what concerns the Challenge, all he has to do is to accurately say which numbers correspond to the real dilutions. Okay? The rest is free discussion. Interesting maybe, but not really relevant. Alain Randi, Until we have a basic agreement, we cannot name dates. Benneth may take months to object and squirm around. We do have a basic agreement. And it is based on Benneth’s protocol. We have have it for months now. Please give some dates.
Alain, I have to disagree with you here. All we’ve had for months has been JB’s proposed protocol. Now Randi has finally gotten around to negotiating it; and you and he have made rapid headway in just a couple of days. But we don’t yet have an *agreement*, as in a rewritten protocol containing all the necessary operational details (including time[s] and [place[s]) that both John and Randi can (presumably) sign their names to. Specific dates should be the last of the details to be filled in. I thought this test was being done with yeast cells? Let’s get our basic facts straight here. You refer to "seeds." I referred to seeds in order to explain why we cannot obtain a 100% sure result when experiencing with living matter. The way John intends to distinguish the dilutions from the controls is his business. If he wishes, he can lead several tests in the same times, with yeast, with seeds, with whole plants. For what concerns the Challenge, all he has to do is to accurately say which numbers correspond to the real dilutions. Okay? The rest is free discussion. Interesting maybe, but not really relevant.
Here I emphatically agree with you, as I hope Randi will when he gives it a second thought. Alain
Syd Message text written by "Syd Baumel" The way John intends to distinguish the dilutions from the controls is
his business. If he wishes, he can lead several tests in the same times, with yeast, with seeds, with whole plants. For what concerns the Challenge, all he has to do is to accurately say which numbers correspond to the real dilutions. Okay? The rest is free discussion. Interesting maybe, but not really relevant.< Agreed! I don’t need to have any "second thought" here! Where did I say that we have to suspend everything just because I did not understand the "seed" reference? I’m amazed at how you folks read volumes into every inquiry I pose! I don’t give a damn how Benneth makes his decision, and I’m sure he will flounder all over the place stabbing out in all directions, using every means to get a result. But I really would like to avoid long objections by him that it worked on yeast, but not on oats, "because….." and get an endless dissertation from him. Judging by his obstinacy at not directing postings to me appropriately, and probably continuing to forward huge files to me with the "the proving" heading, he will not go along with any results, but will choose to deny the validity of the whole testing process, anyway. Remember, the man is a fanatic, and not rational. This is a mythology that is essential to him, and he will NEVER admit that he failed any test. It will be the test that failed, not his convictions. I will not entertain any such discussion. He either does differentiate, or
… read more »
Forward of a message from Randi and my response: Message text written by "Syd Baumel" Sounds reasonable to me; but a lot of work for JB.< I don’t follow…. JB still has to do only 50 — if he wants to — but his percentages have to be somewhat higher. It’s no more "work" at all. If he wants to do 100, the percentage will be less, and so on.
I understand that. But to get million to one odds, I expect he’d have to hit as high as 95 percent of 50. If he thinks he can, then you’re right. If his methods aren’t reliable enough to reliably score better than 80 percent, perhaps he’d need to test 100 or 200 samples. On second thought, maybe that’s not so much work for a $1 million paycheque. Anyway, I’m glad we’re getting all these details on the table. In hours, I’ll have the figures (percentages) for you.
Great. But, NOTHING happens before the preliminary test is done — successfully. I still can’t see how JB is going to finance having the samples prepared (my biochemist, with an "approved" homeopath presiding). The preliminary alone is going to be very expensive. I just don’t want this to be a shock to anyone. I’m sure I can persuade my biochemist to work for free, but the rest I can’t facilitate. JB doesn’t live in a real world, so I think this will be something he can’t handle. But, we’ll see. Randi
Another new post from Randi: Let Benneth suggest several dates, and I’ll try to co-ordinate them with my biochemist. It’s really up to Benneth, since he has to arrange the procedure with his chosen homeopath. I’ve no way of telling when — or even if — that can be done. Randi Randi, everybody: Randi’s post was e-mailed only to me, not even cc’ed to JB or Alain, and not posted to the newsgroups. I’m having to cc this reply (which contains all of R’s original) to the relevant parties (except for those who I know are following on Usenet). Again, I would really appreciate it if everyone made the minimal effort to "broadcast" their e-mails appropriately. Syd
PART FOUR: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My comments on Alain’s comments…. Source? Does this mean the tap from which the water is drawn? Clarify. Means the substance which will be ‘potentised’. The claimant is free to chose it and to keep it secret if he so wishes.< No problem. "Diluting substance"? Does this mean water? SAY what it is.<< A mix of water and alcohol routinely used in the process of diluting (potentising) the homeopathic preparations.< Agreed. (re the Hahnemann Lab being involved) . . . there is hardly any other way. The samples must be prepared by a specialist, and this must be very closely controlled< Again, not acceptable. The "other way" is as I described. I’m quite sure that we can find (I surely can) a chemist and/or biologist who can perform the process efficiently. It seems to have escaped your attention that I specified Benneth’s preliminary testing of a portion of the two preparations, and the need for his acceptance of the efficacy of the procedure. That gets around the problem that the preparations might not have been properly made up. I insist uopn the two preparations being made up by a qualified but totally neutral person. (re "JREF observes the potentization procedure and preparation of the placeboes [sic] at a time of mutual convenience to JREF and the applicant. The procedure is videotaped."
Okay then, but a really qualified homeopathic pharmacist must be present or at least have thoroughly informed his colleague and assist to the process through video. Not necessary. Besides, it provides a loophole for arguing that in some way, JREF interfered with the procedure. Not admissable. Once again, it was the very point that convinced Randi to accept the protocol during the first discussion.< Since that time, I’ve become much more aware of the fact that if I am even in the same building, the claim is made that I interfered in some way. I will not be present. The security will have to be in the hands of the person designated.
Then we have to find that person. I have no suggestion, living on the bad side of the Atlantic. I still do have some concern regarding the security aspect, though. Unlike what you say down there, two or several persons will be much less likely to become a source of problem as they will have to collaborate in order to rebuild the coding, which is less likely than one person remembering the code and giving it to some other people. That person could be led to cheat too, either for or against the claimant. That’s why I’m afraid it could be difficult to find someone both parties will agree upon. The ‘intricate’ procedure proposed by John Benneth at the beginning has the advantage of being fool proof and absolutely secure (almost) whoever uses it. In order to have the whole thing done in one day, we need several people doing it.< Utter nonsense. In France, one person, Walter Stewart of NIH, did the randomization within an hour — of more than 50 samples, and it was recorded on videotape. This is a VERY simple procedure. One person will be used, no more.
We have 150 samples. That would be three hours. And after? Who keeps the lists? Where? Who will make copies of them after a month? If you have a good suggestion, please go ahead, but consider that it could be some hard work and we could not accept that the ‘person’ gives eventually the job to his secretariat… Randi makes no proposition as who could this person be.< Suggestions? Certainly not someone off the street corner. Total madness. Someone trusted by everyone. Preferably a scientist or academic who will understand the need for security.
I have to disagree. Using a good procedure, the man of the street fits. But let’s forget about that ‘madness’. (re coding) We can let this detail to the courtesy of the accountant firm, where they are doing such things routinely, for contests etc.< Certainly, if Price Waterhouse are used. I again remind everyone of the costs involved.
Someone please could ask what this would cost? Again, all we want is a secure blinding of the samples. The detail should be let to people for who it is a mere routine and have no interest in the outcome. How they do it is really not our problem.< It MUST be "our problem." I want to know how the randomization process is intended to be done. But I will not allow a large number of persons to become involved. (my comment) The single coding will be retained by one trusted person. There are simple ways to ensure the security. Making the coding into a complex procedure is not the best way.
Which simple ways? It is for me an absolute certainty that one person cannot be secure enough.< How could two persons be more secure? Twice as much possibility of a security breach.
No, because it would need the knowledge of both persons to rebuild the coding. See John’s idea. One person cannot, just plain cannot blind the samples correctly.< How is this statement supported? I cannot see how.
Whoever that person will be, s/he will have during at least one whole month the possibility to break the secret in the benefit of one party. There must, absolutely, be several persons involved. One person could remember the whole thing.< If that one person is someone who is 100% trusted by both parties, no problem exists. But read on, as we see once more that we may not be in touch with reality.
I just doubt such a person does exist. And I’m sure not the only one. One million dollars is too much money for one person.< We are discussing a lower-security protocol here for the preliminary test. The million dollars is NOT involved at this point. Try to understand and accept that as a FACT. How can I make it any clearer? Please ask questions about this if you have any. If and when the preliminary test is passed successfully, another higher-security protocol will be entered into, with multiple levels of complexity — as many as you wish.
Still, the preliminary test will lead, so we hope, to the final challenge, and then to the million. The result does matter. For John Benneth. And for JREF. This is important as the way to distinguish the dilutions from the placebos will involve the growth of vegetal.< Okay, whatever "vegetal" may be. Do we also wear pointed caps and shake rattles? This is a clear indication of the medieval mindset involved. I really have to wonder…..
The idea of making this test with plants has actually come from Germany, where Anthroposophs has been experimenting for decades in order, for example, to produce better vegetal food, among other things with highly diluted substances. It is sure not exaggerate to say that the whole ‘organic’ movement is grounded on the research and deeds of the German ‘biologisch-dynamisch’ agriculture. The same people claim that the position and movement of the moon does influence the growth of plants. (re assessing the results) Simply opening up the coding will be sufficient. No "assessment" is needed. The results are evident. No, we need independent people again for assessing the results. They will probably not be evident.< In that case, we do not have a test. You are required to state, unequivocally, for EACH sample, yes or no, if it is an "active" sample or a control. (The word "placebo" is wrongly usedin this regard. The appropriate word is "control.") This is a yes-or-no situation. A simple binary test. No "judgements" or "assessments." If this is not so, I repeat, we have no test, and it is aborted.
In the last posts, we were talking of 70%. With vegetal, it is impossible to have a 100% result, even with a total duplication. Do you agree that 70% of correct answers will win the trial? If not, how much? Then, if we only have such tiny details to discuss, may I suggest that we put a bit of pressure on the whole thing in deciding of a date? Last time we were that far, I proposed that you give three possible dates within a week, and that John chose one within 48 hours. After all, we need to have that date in order to search for a ‘designated person’ willing to participate. Alain Message text written by "Alain Jean-Mairet" Okay then, but a really qualified homeopathic pharmacist must be present
or at least have thoroughly informed his colleague and assist to the process through video.< Agreed. However, it seems to me that the "potentizing" process is not all that difficult. A little like a religious ceremony, but not complicated and easily described and taught. Like how to perform a baptism. Then we have to find that person. I have no suggestion, living on the bad
side of the Atlantic.< Agreed. Not about the "bad side of the Atlantic," however! I’m working on this. Alain, you make sense. I am reconsidering the blinding process. Yes, let us have a serial blinding, but done only by two persons, not known to one another. (Correct my statement above to accomodate TWO trusted persons.) The process is simple. See if you agree:. (1) The samples are prepared and are individually placed into numbered envelopes. The numbering is clear and large, written boldly in black. A written record is kept of which numbers are "potentized" — perhaps 1 to 25, and which are not — perhaps 26 to 50. The samples are transferred to the first randomizer person, "A." (2) "A" shuffles envelopes with the samples thoroughly, then lays them out — under video surveillance — with the numbers clearly showing. (3)
… read more »
PART THREE: My comments on Alain’s comments…. Source? Does this mean the tap from which the water is drawn? Clarify. Means the substance which will be ‘potentised’. The claimant is free to
chose it and to keep it secret if he so wishes.< No problem. "Diluting substance"? Does this mean water? SAY what it is.<< A mix of water and alcohol routinely used in the process of diluting
(potentising) the homeopathic preparations.< Agreed. (re the Hahnemann Lab being involved) . . . there is hardly any other way. The samples must be prepared by a
specialist, and this must be very closely controlled< Again, not acceptable. The "other way" is as I described. I’m quite sure that we can find (I surely can) a chemist and/or biologist who can perform the process efficiently. It seems to have escaped your attention that I specified Benneth’s preliminary testing of a portion of the two preparations, and the need for his acceptance of the efficacy of the procedure. That gets around the problem that the preparations might not have been properly made up. I insist uopn the two preparations being made up by a qualified but totally neutral person. (re "JREF observes the potentization procedure and preparation of the placeboes [sic] at a time of mutual convenience to JREF and the applicant. The procedure is videotaped." Not necessary. Besides, it provides a loophole for arguing that in some
way, JREF interfered with the procedure. Not admissable. Once again, it was the very point that convinced Randi to accept the protocol during the first discussion.< Since that time, I’ve become much more aware of the fact that if I am even in the same building, the claim is made that I interfered in some way. I will not be present. The security will have to be in the hands of the person designated. In order to have the whole thing done in one day, we need several people
doing it.< Utter nonsense. In France, one person, Walter Stewart of NIH, did the randomization within an hour — of more than 50 samples, and it was recorded on videotape. This is a VERY simple procedure. One person will be used, no more. Randi makes no proposition as who could this person be.<
Suggestions? Certainly not someone off the street corner. Total madness. Someone trusted by everyone. Preferably a scientist or academic who will understand the need for security. (re coding) We can let this detail to the courtesy of the accountant firm, where they are doing such things routinely, for contests etc.< Certainly, if Price Waterhouse are used. I again remind everyone of the costs involved. Again, all we want is a secure blinding of the samples. The detail should
be let to people for who it is a mere routine and have no interest in the outcome. How they do it is really not our problem.< It MUST be "our problem." I want to know how the randomization process is intended to be done. But I will not allow a large number of persons to become involved. (my comment) The single coding will be retained by one trusted person. There are simple ways to ensure the security. Making the coding into a complex procedure is not the best way. It is for me an absolute certainty that one person cannot be secure
enough.< How could two persons be more secure? Twice as much possibility of a security breach. One person cannot, just plain cannot blind the samples correctly.<
How is this statement supported? I cannot see how. There must, absolutely, be several persons involved. One person could
remember the whole thing.< If that one person is someone who is 100% trusted by both parties, no problem exists. But read on, as we see once more that we may not be in touch with reality. One million dollars is too much money for one person.<
We are discussing a lower-security protocol here for the preliminary test. The million dollars is NOT involved at this point. Try to understand and accept that as a FACT. How can I make it any clearer? Please ask questions about this if you have any. If and when the preliminary test is passed successfully, another higher-security protocol will be entered into, with multiple levels of complexity — as many as you wish. This is important as the way to distinguish the dilutions from the
placebos will involve the growth of vegetal.< Okay, whatever "vegetal" may be. Do we also wear pointed caps and shake rattles? This is a clear indication of the medieval mindset involved. I really have to wonder….. (re assessing the results) Simply opening up the coding will be sufficient. No "assessment" is needed. The results are evident. No, we need independent people again for assessing the results. They will
probably not be evident.< In that case, we do not have a test. You are required to state, unequivocally, for EACH sample, yes or no, if it is an "active" sample or a control. (The word "placebo" is wrongly usedin this regard. The appropriate word is "control.") This is a yes-or-no situation. A simple binary test. No "judgements" or "assessments." If this is not so, I repeat, we have no test, and it is aborted. James Randi James Randi Educational Foundation 201 S.E. 12th Street (Davie Blvd.) Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815 phone: (954) 467 1112 fax: (954) 467 1660 http://www.randi.org – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – To: James Randi, JamesRandi RE: Re: Benneth protocol…. Message text written by Syd: I don’t see how one can get around the fact that this is what it is, and that, were Benneth to succeed, it would be perceived by many thinking people as a powerful piece of basic evidence for the credibility of homeopathy. Likewise for the Benvensite-APS test, were he successful.< Consider: IF either test were successful, that fact would be accepted as evidence in favor of homeopathy. If either or both test were to fail, it would "prove nothing," as the homeopaths would gladly point out. I can’t win anything at all in the way of points by testing Benneth. I can’t even hope to shut him up, because he’ll have endless excuses for failure, and he’ll go on making his claims until his last breath. As for Benveniste, his failure would have somewhat more effect, but the same scenario would still be followed. Only a proper clinical test of a series of qualified homeopathists would have any discernable effect, and even that would be rationalized away. People want to follow quackery, despite any and all evidence against it. This is a battle that I can’t really win, and I’m well aware of that fact. Yes, I can win on rational, logical, reality-based grounds, but the quackery will survive any contest — even though it has no validity, and can be deadly. Those last two sentences belong together. Depend on it, they will be quoted separately….. Can we just agree that his posts to the public negotiation thread — whatever we wind up naming it, and which would also be emailed to you and to me — would be considered properly addressed, and that you would respond to them, so long as they’re relevant to the business at hand?< I can trust you to discuss only the matter at hand, but Benneth is obsessed with doing the opposite. I will accept your communications. Whether the matter goes to "public negotiation" is another matter. I’m not negotiating with anyone. The rules are clear, and my stance re Benneth has been stated. My concern is that Benneth will string this matter out even longer by running on with every person "out there" who wants to hear him blather. I won’t enter into any of that. And I won’t spin my wheels denying his lies and errors — which he KNOWS are lies and errors, but persists in repeating. After all, he survives by NOT doing this test, but bitching about it. As always, I have no problem with my postings being circulated. I’ve nothing to hide. Benneth’s suggested protocol is still fuzzy, and unusable. Let’s clear that up, and move on. But I’ll not argue with Benneth on matters that real scientists can determine for both of us. Above all: remember that a test of Benneth’s claim is NOT a test of homeopathy. I predict that, if Benneth ever gets tested — and that’s HIS choice, not mine — he will fail. Others in the field will say, "I knew that would happen. I’m not at all surprised." And I’ll go on as before, sticking another finger in yet another hole in the dike…. Randi James Randi Educational Foundation 201 S.E. 12th Street (Davie Blvd.) Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815 phone: (954) 467 1112 fax: (954) 467 1660 http://www.randi.org I don’t see how one can get around the fact that this is what it is, and that, were Benneth to succeed, it would be perceived by many thinking people as a powerful piece of basic evidence for the credibility of homeopathy. Likewise for the Benvensite-APS test, were he successful.< Consider: IF either test were successful, that fact would be accepted as evidence in favor of homeopathy. If either or both test were to fail, it As it should, don’t you think? would "prove nothing," as the homeopaths would gladly point out. I can’t There are people sympathetic to homeopathy, like myself, who think in terms of *evidence*, short of absolute proof, and would rightly regard these failures as evidence against
… read more »
What follows in the next five posts is, I believe, a complete record of the latest round of negotiations on John Benneth’s protocol for the JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation) Challenge. The protocol was submitted to James Randi last April and simultaneously posted on JB’s website at http://www.marius.net/protocol.html . With the consent of all parties, I’m posting the negotiations — still in progress — here for reasons that I give a few posts down in the next post. The purpose of this thread is for *serious, focussed negotiation only*. Because it’s impossible for many of us to resist digressing, ranting, flaming, or seriously discussing related matters, I’m simultaneously opening another thread for that very purpose, entitled "JREF’s $1M Challenge: Benneth’s protocol – post your digressions HERE." I urge all e-mail participants to include these two newsgroups (misc.health.alternative and sci.skeptic) in their future posts so no one on Usenet will miss anything — and to follow the thread(s) on Usenet so *they* won’t miss any meaningful (or actionable) contributions that Usenet participants may make. I can’t promise that I’ll be able or willing to forward e-mails that aren’t cc’ed to the newsgroups to them myself. Syd Baumel
PART TWO: Syd: Please get one thing straight — Any test conducted with Benneth would NOT be a test of homeopathy. It would be a test of Benneth’s claims. He is not a homeopath. The same goes for Benveniste. Benneth has been silent. He has been instructed how to send postings to me, but he will not do so. He has consistently refused to stop sending me crap about theories and involved research on homeopathy. I’m not interested in all that — only in a test of B’s claim(s) and getting rid of him. I’m a busy man, and I have no time for such nonsense. I have rejected all his improperly-addressed postings because he insists on ignoring my specific instructions. He is obsessed with his own importance, and I’m not going to feed his ego. Until I get a direct posting from him, properly identified, it will all be rejected. Please keep me informed on what you think of my comments re the protocol. James Randi James Randi Educational Foundation 201 S.E. 12th Street (Davie Blvd.) Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815 phone: (954) 467 1112 fax: (954) 467 1660 http://www.randi.org Syd: Please get one thing straight — Any test conducted with Benneth would NOT be a test of homeopathy. It would be a test of Benneth’s claims. He is not a homeopath. The same goes for Benveniste.
If this is a problem for you, I certainly would have no objection to renaming it as, say, a test of John Benneth’sability to distinguish homeopathically potentized solutions from controls — obviously, it’s not a test of clinical homeopathy. The thread (you did get my last email to yourself and Benneth, I hope, in which I suggested a public negotiation? just in case, I’ve appended it to this message [NOTE: I've snipped it here]) could be called: JREF $1M Challenge: Benneth’s Homeopathic Dilution Protocol — we could even put homeopathic in quotes… Or is there another name you could suggest that would accurately reflect the nature of the subject (I’m not trying to give you a straight line)? Call it what you will, I don’t see how one can get around the fact that this is what it is, and that, were Benneth to succeed, it would be perceived by many thinking people as a powerful piece of basic evidence for the credibility of homeopathy. Likewise for the Benvensite-APS test, were he successful. So, do we have your agreement to proceed with a public negotiation, as I suggested in my email below? Benneth has been silent. He has been instructed how to send postings to
He immediately replied to my email and agreed to the idea of a public negotiation. I think his silence is a sign of restraint. He’s waiting for you to reply to it too. me, but he will not do so. He has consistently refused to stop sending me crap about theories and involved research on homeopathy. I’m not interested in all that — only in a test of B’s claim(s) and getting rid of him. I’m a busy man, and I have no time for such nonsense.
I understand, which is why I’ve made the suggestions I’ve made below. I have rejected all his improperly-addressed postings because he insists on ignoring my specific instructions. He is obsessed with his own importance, and I’m not going to feed his ego. Until I get a direct posting from him, properly identified, it will all be rejected.
Can we just agree that his posts to the public negotiation thread — whatever we wind up naming it, and which would also be emailed to you and to me — would be considered properly addressed, and that you would respond to them, so long as they’re relevant to the business at hand? Please keep me informed on what you think of my comments re the protocol.
I was hoping to reserve comment until all interested parties — including Benneth! (remember, you emailed your comment on his protocol only to me, and not to him) — were present, and to give Benneth a chance to respond first himself. There are more than a few intelligent, serious people on the relevant newsgroups and mailing lists who could play a constructive role by bearing witness, exerting a kind of peer pressure for all of us to behave, and helping to evaluate the validity and fairness of the protocol in the making. I’m also dealing with an increasingly demanding and scarey Sept. 1 deadline; so the presence of other would-be moderating influences to take the pressure off of me would be most welcome. So what do you say? Can we open this up to the public? You’ve told me before that you have no problem with having your posts on this matter made public, unles you sepcifically request otherwise. (In keeping with that, I’m cc’ing this to Benneth.) If you give me the green light, I’ll send the thread (starting with your comment on B’s protocol) to the relevant newsgroups, and we’ll be off to the races. Syd Baumel James Randi James Randi Educational Foundation 201 S.E. 12th Street (Davie Blvd.) Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815 phone: (954) 467 1112 fax: (954) 467 1660 http://www.randi.org
Randi, My apologies if Benneth has already forwarded this to you. I think this is the kind of constructive input we need: Hi John, I thought it would be better if I sent my comment to you privately. At your disposal. 1. The applicant chooses the source from which the potentized solutions are created. Source? Does this mean the tap from which the water is drawn? Clarify.
Means the substance which will be ‘potentised’. The claimant is free to chose it and to keep it secret if he so wishes. 2. The placeboes [sic] are made of the same diluting substance used to prepare the potencies so that all samples are chemically identical and diluted beyond Avogadro of the mother tincture. "Diluting substance"? Does this mean water? SAY what it is.
A mix of water and alcohol routinely used in the process of diluting (potentising) the homeopathic preparations. The ratio is to be defined by Hahnemann Labs (it can depend on the substance to be potentised). The point here is just to say that the very same substance must be used for both the placebo and the remedies, so that we can prove that a substance thus diluted beyong Avogadro’s limit keep some visible properties on living matter, which is eventually the claim of the claimant. Which substance exactly is of no relevance for the purpose of the Challenge. 3. Hahnemann Labs of Albany, California (1 888 4 ARNICA) prepares the 50 samples to be tested, 25 placebos and 25 homeopathically potentized, and their containers are labeled accordingly. Not admissable. That lab has a very heavy interest in seeing proof of homeopathy. I would insist that the materials be independently prepared, that portions of both the "potentized" and "non-potentized" material then be submitted to Benneth for his approval, and the test carried out only after his approval is obtained.
We have discussed this point long ago, and we came to an accord when I suggested that the remedies and placebo will be prepared under videotaping. Randi said that this was exactly what he wanted. Besides, there is hardly any other way. The samples must be prepared by a specialist, and this must be very closely controlled. There is the crux of the whole thing. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 3 — continued: Two copies are made of each sample, potentized and non, creating a total of 50 sample sets of three identical items each, making for a total of 150 items. After coding is completed, this makes one set of fifty samples for analysis by the claimant, one set of fifty identical samples kept by the referee in the event of a dispute and one set of fifty identical samples for JREF analysis. Overdone, but okay. But no provision is made here about the "referee." Who or what would that be? 4. JREF observes the potentization procedure and preparation of the placeboes at a time of mutual convenience to JREF and the applicant. The procedure is videotaped. Not necessary. Besides, it provides a loophole for arguing that in some way, JREF interfered with the procedure. Not admissable.
Once again, it was the very point that convinced Randi to accept the protocol during the first discussion. The whole point is to say that there IS a difference between homeopathic dilution and a placebo. The crux is thus in the preparation of the remedies and of the placebos. Randi is THE specialist of the different tricks one can use for creating some artificial difference, that is why he just have to control this very process. He won’t do anything there, he just will be there and film each and every gesture of the homeopathic pharmacist, so that we insure that according to the sceptics, there will be no difference between the ‘remedies’ and the placebos. 5. The coding of the samples is overseen by an independent accounting firm mutually agreed upon by the applicant and JREF. No. I have no reason to trust an "accounting firm." We can decide upon a better authority. Unless, that is, Benneth is prepared to pay a firm like Price, Waterhouse. In any case, only one person would be involved.
The suggestion of having this job done by accountants was made by happy dog, and Randi never raised any concern about it. One person could be a secure enough ‘device’? I strongly doubt it. If necessary, I would co-finance the cost of PriceWaterHouseCooper’s or some … read more »
PART ONE: Randi, Re Benneth’s challenge: have you had a chance to review his proposed protocol yet, and is there a time by which you expect to respond to it? http://www.marius.net/protocol.html Thanks. Syd Baumel Syd: I’ve forwarded Benneth’s suggested protocol to the appropriate person, but I also told Benneth that he provides no aspect of double-blind assessment, so the protocol as he describes it is not satisfactory. I’m sure that it can be adapted, and double-blind aspects applied. I told Benneth I would not consider — or even read — the lengthy tirades he puts out. I just don’t have the time for that, nor any interest in anything but the details of the actual test. He has sent me several postings, but they were not appropriately headed, so I have not read them. He’s determined to be a loser. I think the "yeast" test sounds simple, direct, and probably proper — but my biochemist will decide that for me. The double-blind aspect, however, MUST be applied. Randi Randi, Thanks for your prompt reply. I’ve just reread Benneth’s proposal (the one on his website: http://www.marius.net/protocol.html — I hope you aren’t confusing it with the report of the apparently unblinded Jenkins and Jones study he sent you as "collateral evidence"), and it seems to me that it’s as blind as a bat, or to put it another way, as blind as the trustworthiness of the accounting firm, provided that the two two-person teams of coders they appoint are kept blind to each others’ identities by the accountants (which shouldn’t be hard). As best as I can tell, under these conditions not even John’s hairdresser should know. If you could be more specific about any flaws you or your associates see in Benneth’s protocol, it would be helpful, so we all can truly "get on with it." John, May I suggest that you post this to the relevant homeopathy list(s) so the "group mind" can participate in facilitating the process that is now underway? Syd Baumel Editor, The Aquarian http://www.escape.ca/~sgb Dealing with Depression Naturally and other books by Syd Baumel. …and cool record reviews! This is my assessment of the Benneth protocol suggestions, which are contained in http://www.marius.net/protocol.html Benneth has not communicated with me on this matter, but prefers to send me massive postings, not properly identified, which are rejected, unread. I want to go on record with this response. The numbered sections are from Benneth, my comments follow each one. 1. The applicant chooses the source from which the potentized solutions are created. Source? Does this mean the tap from which the water is drawn? Clarify. 2. The placeboes [sic] are made of the same diluting substance used to prepare the potencies so that all samples are chemically identical and diluted beyond Avogadro of the mother tincture. "Diluting substance"? Does this mean water? SAY what it is. 3. Hahnemann Labs of Albany, California (1 888 4 ARNICA) prepares the 50 samples to be tested, 25 placebos and 25 homeopathically potentized, and their containers are labeled accordingly. Not admissable. That lab has a very heavy interest in seeing proof of homeopathy. I would insist that the materials be independently prepared, that portions of both the "potentized" and "non-potentized" material then be submitted to Benneth for his approval, and the test carried out only after his approval is obtained. 3 — continued: Two copies are made of each sample, potentized and non, creating a total of 50 sample sets of three identical items each, making for a total of 150 items. After coding is completed, this makes one set of fifty samples for analysis by the claimant, one set of fifty identical samples kept by the referee in the event of a dispute and one set of fifty identical samples for JREF analysis. Overdone, but okay. But no provision is made here about the "referee." Who or what would that be? 4. JREF observes the potentization procedure and preparation of the placeboes at a time of mutual convenience to JREF and the applicant. The procedure is videotaped. Not necessary. Besides, it provides a loophole for arguing that in some way, JREF interfered with the procedure. Not admissable. 5. The coding of the samples is overseen by an independent accounting firm mutually agreed upon by the applicant and JREF. No. I have no reason to trust an "accounting firm." We can decide upon a better authority. Unless, that is, Benneth is prepared to pay a firm like Price, Waterhouse. In any case, only one person would be involved. 6. The coding will be done by multiple teams so as the test is administered by a panel [sic] lay people who have been randomly chosen by the accountants. This is the best insurance that the test will be impartially and fairly administered. Nonsense. One person, and no more. The possibilities for breach of security are far too great with any more than one person. 7. Coding is done by several teams of two people each to insure that there are no mistakes or cheating. Again, no. Videotaping can insure against errors. 8. The first team of two people removes any identification of the samples and randomly codes and records the fifty sample sets using a numerical index, labeling the samples with numbers that correspond to the true identity of the samples.. There can be nothing to be "removed." That could leave traces. Containers can be retained in labeled envelopes. The replacement identifications can be labels. 9. The second team randomly assigns the numerically coded samples with alphabetical coding, records the numerical identity of the samples, removes the numerical labels and labels the samples alphabetically. In this way no one person will be able to know the true identity of a sample without conferring with a member from another indexing team. No "second team." Too many possibilities for error. If the previous process is carried out properly, it is secure. 10. The numerical and alphabetical indexes shall be kept in separate locations mutually agreed on by the applicant and JREF. No. The single coding will be retained by one trusted person. There are simple ways to ensure the security. Making the coding into a complex procedure is not the best way. 11. After one lunar cycle, from full moon to full moon, the applicant will produce to the accountants the results as to which are the potentized and which are not. Incredible. Sounds like a child’s fairy story. But acceptable. If it makes them feel better…. 12. The results will be assessed by the same accountants who managed the coding of the samples. No. Simply opening up the coding will be sufficient. No "assessment" is needed. The results are evident. 13. The Challenge shall be considered to have been won if the applicant has produced 70% correct results or better. For the preliminary test, yes. Odds are about one in one thousand not an acceptable level for the million-dollar prize, but okay for the preliminary test, which is what we’re discussing here. Benneth is fond of redefining the JREF test in his own terms. He’s welcome to his fantasies, but they do not relate to reality, which is where we’re located. The procedure above sounds to me to be expensive, but Benneth must be aware of this, and must be prepared to finance the operation. James Randi Gentlemen, Randi has made some concrete comments on Benneth’s proposal in his email to me, below. [NOTE: I've snipped it from this copy of my email, because it's reprinted above.] I’d like to make a few suggestions: Randi, please be sure to email correspondence, such as the one below [snipped], which should be read by Benneth *to Benneth* and not just me. As always, I appreciate being included in your correspondence as a very interested bystander and mediator. I strongly urge both of you to curb any impulses you may have to express yourselves in an inflammatory manner or to digress into lengthy monologues of no direct relevance to the negotiation of a mutually acceptable protocol for the JREF Challenge. In other words, "be nice" and stick to the business at hand, no matter how tempted or provoked you may be to do otherwise. Toward that end, I urge you both to metaphorically shake hands and bury your hatchets, with the option to unearth them *after* this process has been concluded. If you don’t, this negotiation is almost certain to quickly degenerate into a mire that will lead nowhere, and two propehcies will be self-fulfilled: Benneth’s that Randi will not negotiate civilly and in good faith, and Randi’s that Benneth is determined to provoke that very behaviour so he can declare moral victory without having to take the actual challenge. If either of you need to vent, you could perhaps do it separately on your websites or mailing lists and invite readers to go there to get the goods. Or we could initiate a separate thread for venting and digressing. The main thread could be titled: JREF’s $1M Challenge: … read more »
Accounting Talk » Accountants » NADA Prices Accurrate???
Geez Gould, Did you have a used car dealership combined with a life insurance office in a past life? Please tell me you don’t wear white shoes. In all honesty, the seller would probably reply "I’ve been offered $35K, I’ll accept that over your $33K" to all your closings. I agree, he probably doesn’t have a $35K offer out there, but my approach would be, "Hey, that’s a nice Carver alright. I wish I could offer you more, but it’s all I can afford. Here’s my number in case your other offer falls through." I think you have to let the seller arrive at the $33k offer with some dignity. In my experience, the hard closes only sets up an adverserial relationship. Then again, I’m not a salesperson. Chris – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Maybe its time to play a little hardball with the seller of the Carver you want to buy? You’ve got nothing to lose, the worst he can do is refuse to sell the you boat that you are so far unable to get together on anyway. He says he’ll drop to $35k in 2 weeks, but you want to buy for $33k today. He claims (possibly falsely) that he’s turned down an offer of better than 90 percent of his asking price. (ha ha ha ha ha ) Don’t know if this will work for you or not since I haven’t met the seller and nobody can assess the emotional motivations of strangers, but here’s a "logical" appeal that could conceivably work. (Appealing to logic is usually less effective in a negotiation because in the end it is how the seller feels more so than how the seller thinks that will determine if you have a deal or not……also, the seller is more likely to recognize a change in the way that he feels than to admit to any flaw in the way in which he has been thinking) Give the guy a chance to buy (sell, same thing) with a momentary pause after each point you make. Don’t talk past the close. "Gosh, Mr. Seller, I can sure appreciate why you feel you would consider dropping your price in 2 weeks, since it will be August by then and summer will be darn nearly over. Would be tough to have to spend the money to to hold the boat another winter, wouldn’t it? If you had any idea what a battle it’s been to get my wife to agree to let me offer you this $33k, you’d realize that I’m trying just as hard to buy the boat as you are trying to sell it. Wouldn’t it be a shame if 2 people trying as hard as we are to do business on the same boat couldn’t get together? The only tough aspect of waiting a couple of weeks is that by then it’s going to be August for me and my family, too. The season *will* be almost over. Maybe you could help me figure a way to keep my wife convinced that the boat is still worth $33k when we’ll only get a few weeks use out of it at most before *we* have to assume the expenses of putting the boat up for the winter? Funny thing is, it’s going to be August for everybody else, too. Your boat will never be worth more money than it is today. Who knows what somebody might pay for your boat someday? It could just turn out, though, that the same people who won’t buy it for 38.5 in July aren’t going to be beating your door down to pay 35 in August, either. If I found another boat "just like" yours and offered it to you this afternoon for $33k, would you buy it? (If he answers, ‘no, I’m trying to sell a boat not buy one’…) Then why are you buying your *own* boat for the same $33,000? Mr Seller, this is *your* money, right here in my pocket, and all you have to do is tell me you want it!" This stuff may sound a little brutal, but it has close to a 50% chance of working, and if tossing posies in his path hasn’t brought him ’round so far, whack him with a few thorns. You can’t lose a deal you never had. What if you ps him off? He’ll most likely *still* sell you the boat a few days later if you eat a little humble pie and meet his price. Not only will he be getting his money, but he’ll be celebrating his newly found status as a tough negotiator. You, on the other hand, will have the boat you want and not have to feel like a little effort might have brough the price down quite a bit. In any negotiation, the party will prevail that has the least emotional need. Good luck. Chuck Gould Float and let float.
Anyone else have any opinions about the NADA Estimated values for boats????
I have found that A.B.O.S. is a better reflection of boat prices in our area. N.A.D.A. is the only one that is online. I wouldn’t use B.U.C. for any estimates. Mark http://boatbasin.com
I’ve seen boats sell for half the NADA price and some sell for double. If someone is insulted by an offer he is a fool. I appreciate all offers. Keep looking, it seems like when I’m looking I can’t find what I want for the price, then I compromise and buy something, then I see twenty boats I want for a good price. — Regards, John G.
BUC is the more reliable pricing guide. Go to your local library (reference area) and you will find a copy to get prices from. Remember that it is only a guide and prices will vary depending on your location, the condition of the boat and the options on the boat. Good luck. yep i saw the same thing when I priced a cruisers 26′. there is a book called "buc" (?) that some folks used, but seems no one uses the NADA
values except banks when they want to figure out how much you overpaid – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -for the boat :-)
As for horror stories about selling enigneers and accountants? There are some around… but even the most apprently emotionally detached buyer has a chink in the armor, someplace. Are you calling me Chinky? :-}
Uh,,…..no! (Just well armored) :-) Chuck Gould Float and let float.
As for horror stories about selling enigneers and accountants? There are some around… but even the most apprently emotionally detached buyer has a chink in the armor, someplace. Chuck Gould Float and let float.
Are you calling me Chinky? :-} For better or worse, in today’s information age, most items are becoming commodities. When I went car shopping, I wanted a full size extended cab 4×4 pickup. Didn’t matter too much if it was the Ford, Dodge, Toyota or Chevy. I don’t see a whole lot of difference in between any of them. Even houses are becoming commodities. Look at any of the real estate web sites. I bet you can find ten houses matching given specs within 5 miles of your house. Because of this, commissioned salespeople find it increasingly difficult to differentiate their product from others. As you know, if you can’t differentiate, you can’t charge a premium. No premium, no premium commission. Just look at the difficulty most producers of a product or service have raising their prices. If you take into consideration quality gains in the past five years, the US economy has actually been experiencing deflation, not inflation. Chris – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Gould, I’m such a black and white, numbers guy that that emotional appeal stuff has never done anything but frustrate me. I’m sure you have horror stories about trying to sell to engineers and accountants. Last vehicle I bought, I did it through Autobytel.com. I’ll never buy another vehicle any other way. Placed my order, dealer calls the next day accepting my offer, I put down $100, and dealer calls me when vehicle arrives (four months later because of UAW strike.) No salesmen, no manager approval, no games. I’m ordering my wife a new car here in the next few days. I’ll let you know how it goes. Chris New car "selling" has pretty well devolved into mere order taking for most cars in most locations. There is no real selling done when a buyer walks in with a computer print out of the available options, a fairly accurate idea of wholesale cost, and says to the first salesperson that he encounters "I’ll give you a hundred up and split the holdback." There was once real good money to be made on the new car floor, but most of the guys there today are being paid for the work that they’re really reduced to; clerking. The guy at Mega Ford doesn’t sell a new Crown Vic these days much more than the kid at McD’s "sells" a big Mac. There’s a good chance you won’t run into a salesman when you buy a new car anywhere, today. Real salespeople aren’t willing to put in 80 hour weeks getting abused by the John Q Dumbasses of the world just to write up 25 cars a month at $50 minis. Selling is supposed to be the art of illustrating how the value received exceeds the price being paid, but with automobiles it has come ’round too often to simply reducing the price paid to an amount lower than the minimal value perceived. We buy cars because we need them, usually; but a pleasure boat is a purchase driven by passion and desire. Even a black and white numbers guy like your self description must have had at least a little emotion involved when you bought your boat; if not, you could have bought the wrong boat. Selling techniques work well when buying, because when buying one is still acutally selling…(selling the seller on the concept of taking the money rather than hanging on to the item for sale.)
Did you give the dealer the Autobytel quote to beat or did the dealer beat it out of the box? The vehicle I ordered was a Chevy k1500 ext. cab with the third door. At the time (summer ‘96), these were in pretty tight supply. I went to probably 6-7 dealerships with the best offer being $2,500 over invoice. When I told them I wanted it at invoice, they turned on their heels to find a more profitable customer. Autobytel got me the truck at $500 over invoice, probably pocketing the extra $500. Chris – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Gould, I’m such a black and white, numbers guy that that emotional appeal stuff has never done anything but frustrate me. I’m sure you have horror stories about trying to sell to engineers and accountants. Last vehicle I bought, I did it through Autobytel.com. I’ll never buy another vehicle any other way. Placed my order, dealer calls the next day accepting my offer, I put down $100, and dealer calls me when vehicle arrives (four months later because of UAW strike.) No salesmen, no manager approval, no games. I’m ordering my wife a new car here in the next few days. I’ll let you know how it goes. Last car I bought, I tried Autobytel.com. Their closest dealer was about an hour away. He was very nice and was willing to have the car delivered, etc. But when I went to a local dealer, they beat the autobytel.com price by about $500 and I got the whole thing done during lunch. This was in June, 1996. They may have gotten better since then. Steve — / / / / / /
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Gould, I’m such a black and white, numbers guy that that emotional appeal stuff has never done anything but frustrate me. I’m sure you have horror stories about trying to sell to engineers and accountants. Last vehicle I bought, I did it through Autobytel.com. I’ll never buy another vehicle any other way. Placed my order, dealer calls the next day accepting my offer, I put down $100, and dealer calls me when vehicle arrives (four months later because of UAW strike.) No salesmen, no manager approval, no games. I’m ordering my wife a new car here in the next few days. I’ll let you know how it goes. Chris
New car "selling" has pretty well devolved into mere order taking for most cars in most locations. There is no real selling done when a buyer walks in with a computer print out of the available options, a fairly accurate idea of wholesale cost, and says to the first salesperson that he encounters "I’ll give you a hundred up and split the holdback." There was once real good money to be made on the new car floor, but most of the guys there today are being paid for the work that they’re really reduced to; clerking. The guy at Mega Ford doesn’t sell a new Crown Vic these days much more than the kid at McD’s "sells" a big Mac. There’s a good chance you won’t run into a salesman when you buy a new car anywhere, today. Real salespeople aren’t willing to put in 80 hour weeks getting abused by the John Q Dumbasses of the world just to write up 25 cars a month at $50 minis. Selling is supposed to be the art of illustrating how the value received exceeds the price being paid, but with automobiles it has come ’round too often to simply reducing the price paid to an amount lower than the minimal value perceived. We buy cars because we need them, usually; but a pleasure boat is a purchase driven by passion and desire. Even a black and white numbers guy like your self description must have had at least a little emotion involved when you bought your boat; if not, you could have bought the wrong boat. Selling techniques work well when buying, because when buying one is still acutally selling…(selling the seller on the concept of taking the money rather than hanging on to the item for sale.) As for horror stories about selling enigneers and accountants? There are some around… but even the most apprently emotionally detached buyer has a chink in the armor, someplace. Chuck Gould Float and let float.
Gould, I’m such a black and white, numbers guy that that emotional appeal stuff has never done anything but frustrate me. I’m sure you have horror stories about trying to sell to engineers and accountants. Last vehicle I bought, I did it through Autobytel.com. I’ll never buy another vehicle any other way. Placed my order, dealer calls the next day accepting my offer, I put down $100, and dealer calls me when vehicle arrives (four months later because of UAW strike.) No salesmen, no manager approval, no games. I’m ordering my wife a new car here in the next few days. I’ll let you know how it goes.
Last car I bought, I tried Autobytel.com. Their closest dealer was about an hour away. He was very nice and was willing to have the car delivered, etc. But when I went to a local dealer, they beat the autobytel.com price by about $500 and I got the whole thing done during lunch. This was in June, 1996. They may have gotten better since then. Steve — / / / / / /
Gould, I’m such a black and white, numbers guy that that emotional appeal stuff has never done anything but frustrate me. I’m sure you have horror stories about trying to sell to engineers and accountants. Last vehicle I bought, I did it through Autobytel.com. I’ll never buy another vehicle any other way. Placed my order, dealer calls the next day accepting my offer, I put down $100, and dealer calls me when vehicle arrives (four months later because of UAW strike.) No salesmen, no manager approval, no games. I’m ordering my wife a new car here in the next few days. I’ll let you know how it goes. Chris
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Geez Gould, Did you have a used car dealership combined with a life insurance office in a past life? Please tell me you don’t wear white shoes. In all honesty, the seller would probably reply "I’ve been offered $35K, I’ll accept that over your $33K" to all your closings. I agree, he probably doesn’t have a $35K offer out there, but my approach would be, "Hey, that’s a nice Carver alright. I wish I could offer you more, but it’s all I can afford. Here’s my number in case your other offer falls through." I think you have to let the seller arrive at the $33k offer with some dignity. In my experience, the hard closes only sets up an adverserial relationship. Then again, I’m not a salesperson. Chris
Ex used-car dealer? Yup. Life Insurance? Nope. White shoes? Nope. (boat shoes) Seems like the dignity approach has been tried. It doesn’t hurt to start a little soft and see if a deal falls together naturally, but when it doesn’t the techniques I shared have proven to be successful, at least for me, over the last 25 years and have kept the wolf a reasonable distance from the family door. You normally don’t close a *buyer* that hard. You might not be showing a buyer a product that truly fits their needs or there may be some condition preventing the buyer from making a decision. A *seller* on the other hand is fair game for the whole arsenal. He has taken out an ad stating that he wants to sell a boat. A buyer has a moral right to use any legal device or technique to buy said boat becuase there is no risk that the other party is being manuevered into a position that they do not want to be in or would be hurtful to them. The seller wants to sell the boat; the amont of money changing hands is just a minor detail. If a seller doesn’t want to run the risk of dealing with people who will hit him that hard (and we’re out there), that’s what a broker is for. The NG is often graced with notes from people that have recently bought boats and figured that they pulled some sly trick to outsmart a boat dealer, or requests for information to help them do same. Not everybody buys a boat from a dealer. Is it ok to outslick the local boat dealer but somehow offensive to apply a little heat to a private party selling a boat? Remember, the post said the techniques "might work" and gave the probability at about 50/50, which is pretty well what the same techniques do for me. Nothing is surefire, there are no "magic words", but a lot of times any action is better than just sitting around waiting for the miracle wagon to rumble by and hoping something falls off. If the fellow buying the Carver doesn’t think the advice is appropriate to his situation (and he would be the better judge,having met the seller and knowing all the details) he surely won’t use it. If he finds some portion helpful, great! Maybe somebody else in the NG is buying a boat soon and would like another arrow in the quiver, too. The stuff suggested is pretty benign; there’s a whole ‘nother batch of stuff that’s pretty effective, but it’s sort of locked up under a label that says "Professional Use Only." Chuck Gould Float and let float.
<<he said:" ah that’s okay, I checked around and the guides show the boat selling for around $48K and I figure the dealers mark it up some so $38K seems pretty fair since there isn’t a dealer, and I don’t really need the money." I could have cried, we had just signed the papers on our boat less than a week before and had just taken delivery. To top it off, he lived only about 5 blocks away from me on the water. I think if there was that big a difference in price I woulda bought that one too. Sold whichever you choose. Mortgage the house, sell your wife whatever you need to do. hahaha
Maybe its time to play a little hardball with the seller of the Carver you want to buy? You’ve got nothing to lose, the worst he can do is refuse to sell the you boat that you are so far unable to get together on anyway. He says he’ll drop to $35k in 2 weeks, but you want to buy for $33k today. He claims (possibly falsely) that he’s turned down an offer of better than 90 percent of his asking price. (ha ha ha ha ha ) Don’t know if this will work for you or not since I haven’t met the seller and nobody can assess the emotional motivations of strangers, but here’s a "logical" appeal that could conceivably work. (Appealing to logic is usually less effective in a negotiation because in the end it is how the seller feels more so than how the seller thinks that will determine if you have a deal or not……also, the seller is more likely to recognize a change in the way that he feels than to admit to any flaw in the way in which he has been thinking) Give the guy a chance to buy (sell, same thing) with a momentary pause after each point you make. Don’t talk past the close. "Gosh, Mr. Seller, I can sure appreciate why you feel you would consider dropping your price in 2 weeks, since it will be August by then and summer will be darn nearly over. Would be tough to have to spend the money to to hold the boat another winter, wouldn’t it? If you had any idea what a battle it’s been to get my wife to agree to let me offer you this $33k, you’d realize that I’m trying just as hard to buy the boat as you are trying to sell it. Wouldn’t it be a shame if 2 people trying as hard as we are to do business on the same boat couldn’t get together? The only tough aspect of waiting a couple of weeks is that by then it’s going to be August for me and my family, too. The season *will* be almost over. Maybe you could help me figure a way to keep my wife convinced that the boat is still worth $33k when we’ll only get a few weeks use out of it at most before *we* have to assume the expenses of putting the boat up for the winter? Funny thing is, it’s going to be August for everybody else, too. Your boat will never be worth more money than it is today. Who knows what somebody might pay for your boat someday? It could just turn out, though, that the same people who won’t buy it for 38.5 in July aren’t going to be beating your door down to pay 35 in August, either. If I found another boat "just like" yours and offered it to you this afternoon for $33k, would you buy it? (If he answers, ‘no, I’m trying to sell a boat not buy one’…) Then why are you buying your *own* boat for the same $33,000? Mr Seller, this is *your* money, right here in my pocket, and all you have to do is tell me you want it!" This stuff may sound a little brutal, but it has close to a 50% chance of working, and if tossing posies in his path hasn’t brought him ’round so far, whack him with a few thorns. You can’t lose a deal you never had. What if you ps him off? He’ll most likely *still* sell you the boat a few days later if you eat a little humble pie and meet his price. Not only will he be getting his money, but he’ll be celebrating his newly found status as a tough negotiator. You, on the other hand, will have the boat you want and not have to feel like a little effort might have brough the price down quite a bit. In any negotiation, the party will prevail that has the least emotional need. Good luck. Chuck Gould Float and let float.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <<he said:" ah that’s okay, I checked around and the guides show the boat selling for around $48K and I figure the dealers mark it up some so $38K seems pretty fair since there isn’t a dealer, and I don’t really need the money." I could have cried, we had just signed the papers on our boat less than a week before and had just taken delivery. To top it off, he lived only about 5 blocks away from me on the water. I think if there was that big a difference in price I woulda bought that one too. Sold whichever you choose. Mortgage the house, sell your wife whatever you need to do. hahaha
Don’t think I didn’t propose that to the little missus. She told me emphatically I’d need both boats if I did, cuz I’d be living in one and all my shit would be stacked on the other just before she threw the lit match on. :-) Seriously though, I did think about buying it and turning a quick profit, but the idea of two payments didn’t thrill me and you just never know how long it’ll take to sell a boat
I’m in the process of buying a boat (Carver Mariner 28) and have consulted the NADA guides for prices. The prices for the boat I’m looking into, are much lower than the asking prices for ALL the Carver Mariner 28’s I’ve looked at. Every broker I approach, with NADA price, says that they go by some other guide (forgot the name). I offerred an owner NADA Average Retail (and the boat was just average in my mind) and the owner was so insulted, he refused to even counter-offer. Anyone else have any opinions about the NADA Estimated values for boats????
NADA may be dead on for some boats in some markets, but they are so grossly off on others that I could never trust them to reflect a boat’s actual worth. Send mail to: roegw at earthlink dot net
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – * I’m in the process of buying a boat (Carver Mariner 28) and have consulted * the NADA guides for prices. * * The prices for the boat I’m looking into, are much lower than the asking * prices for ALL the Carver Mariner 28’s I’ve looked at. Every broker I * approach, with NADA price, says that they go by some other guide (forgot the * name). * * I offerred an owner NADA Average Retail (and the boat was just average in my * mind) and the owner was so insulted, he refused to even counter-offer. * * Anyone else have any opinions about the NADA Estimated values for boats???? I found them reasonable. Do not forget to add all options — swim platform, trim tabs, tc etc. NADA guides list only the prices for the basic package.
actually they allow you, online, to add all the options that come with a particular model from the mfr. and these still result in low values.
Thanks to everyone who responded to my posting, for the valuable information. Tonite, I looked at another 1987 Carver Mariner 28, which was about 300% nicer than the one mentioned in my original posting. The NADA book has boat listed at: Low: 24K Avg: 27K High: 33K This owner, who’s boat was in magnificant shape – completely redone, was asking $38500, and said he had already refused $35K, but that if the boat hadn’t sold in 2 weeks, he would take the $35K. Well, it was nice, but this seems kinda steep. I’d give him NADA high retail, but not more than that. From what I’m seeing, these boats sell for about $33K in nice condition. Interestingly, the owned of the boat I mentioned in my original posting, came down from $35K to $29K today, but I’ve now realized how much nicer this boat could be after seeing the nice one. Maybe I’ll just wait it out until fall, when they’ll get a little more hungry ….. seems to be a sellers market in my area at the moment. I’m also wondering if the potential for an economic setback, due to Y2K issues, may bring down boat prices during the next year. Anyway, thanks again …..
NADA is a good starting point, but check your local ads to see what similar boats are selling for in your market. — Jim 1994 Regal 256 for sale – see ad at http://www.boattalk.com/cgi-bin/classified/search.pl?PrintAd_603 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve seen boats sell for half the NADA price and some sell for double. If someone is insulted by an offer he is a fool. I appreciate all offers. Keep looking, it seems like when I’m looking I can’t find what I want for the price, then I compromise and buy something, then I see twenty boats I want for a good price. — Regards, John G.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I’m in the process of buying a boat (Carver Mariner 28) and have consulted the NADA guides for prices. The prices for the boat I’m looking into, are much lower than the asking prices for ALL the Carver Mariner 28’s I’ve looked at. Every broker I approach, with NADA price, says that they go by some other guide (forgot the name). I offerred an owner NADA Average Retail (and the boat was just average in my mind) and the owner was so insulted, he refused to even counter-offer. Anyone else have any opinions about the NADA Estimated values for boats????
In my experience, I have found NADA prices to be 10-20% lower than what our local market, SF Bay Area, is getting. A more accurate value when we purchased was the BUC guide AFTER applying all the correction factors for condition, local area, accessories, etc. I’d check the papers and local brokers for comparable boats to determine what the boat should sell for. As an example, exactly one week after we purchased our 32 ft cruiser, I saw an ad in the local dollar saver rag for the same boat but for approximately 30% less than what we paid. I called the guy and asked him what was wrong with the boat. His reply was that nothing at all was wrong, they just weren’t using the boat as they had a much larger boat. We chatted a bit and I told him that in all reality he could probably get a much higher price for around and the guides show the boat selling for around $48K and I figure the dealers mark it up some so $38K seems pretty fair since there isn’t a dealer, and I don’t really need the money." I could have cried, we had just signed the papers on our boat less than a week before and had just taken delivery. To top it off, he lived only about 5 blocks away from me on the water. Blue Skies, Dave
My Boston Whaler dealer here in OK says that the NADA prices are usually 20% lower than the actual selling price. Don – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m in the process of buying a boat (Carver Mariner 28) and have consulted the NADA guides for prices. The prices for the boat I’m looking into, are much lower than the asking prices for ALL the Carver Mariner 28’s I’ve looked at. Every broker I approach, with NADA price, says that they go by some other guide (forgot the name). I offerred an owner NADA Average Retail (and the boat was just average in my mind) and the owner was so insulted, he refused to even counter-offer. Anyone else have any opinions about the NADA Estimated values for boats????
Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The prices for the boat I’m looking into, are much lower than the asking prices for ALL the Carver Mariner 28’s I’ve looked at. Every broker I approach, with NADA price, says that they go by some other guide (forgot the name). It’s funny this subject came up, because I ran into this yesterday. I called the dealer at my marina to inquire about the trade in value for my boat, and he quoted me $9K. I must have acted dumbfounded on the phone, because he then mentioned that’s what the NADA book listed the low retail as. I was quite shocked, as I’ve seen my boat selling all over the place for $16K-$17K. I don’t know what the NADA book bases its pricing on, but it seems awfully low to me.
You have probably seeing _asking_ prices of 16-17 which means the boat probably sells 12-14. The dealer wants to make his 30% profit so offers you $9,000. Makes sense to me. Never trust any published list of prices. Do your own research. It only takes about two or three months of reading the classifieds and trader mags, and going to visit one boat a week. Keep your data in a spreadsheet or database, and it won’t take long to see what the market is doing. I used to use access but now just use excell. BTW I have my eye on a particular type of boat. One ad that caught my eye a few months ago was asking $12,000. Today the same phone number and boat type popped up in the ads for $8,000. My guess is that $6,000 cash could buy it. DAVe
The prices for the boat I’m looking into, are much lower than the asking prices for ALL the Carver Mariner 28’s I’ve looked at. Every broker I approach, with NADA price, says that they go by some other guide (forgot the name).
It’s funny this subject came up, because I ran into this yesterday. I called the dealer at my marina to inquire about the trade in value for my boat, and he quoted me $9K. I must have acted dumbfounded on the phone, because he then mentioned that’s what the NADA book listed the low retail as. I was quite shocked, as I’ve seen my boat selling all over the place for $16K-$17K. I don’t know what the NADA book bases its pricing on, but it seems awfully low to me.
The local market sets the price for a used boat. The books just try to reflect that market. Since the books are national, they will be off in a lot of markets. In the NW, for example, Carvers tend to sell for less than BUC book prices. It has nothing to do with whether they are good, bad, or indifferent boats; it’s just what the general public is willing to pay. A super clean Carver, or a super clean boat of most any brand will break the bank and bring all the dough, of course. In this same region, Bayliners are changing hands at figures so far above BUC values it boggles the mind. Elsewhere around the country, people have reported that the same boat brand is "soft" in the resale market. No book will accurately reflect the inconsistencies of the regional markets. In addition to NADA, you might want to consult the ABOS book. It may be available in the reference section of your local library. The BUC Book is useful too. Checking the same boat in all of these publications will quickly illustrate that used boat prices aren’t all that accurately reflected in the books. To get a really good feel for it, do what you’re doing…Make low offers on a few of the nicer boats you come across and see how the sellers react. Theoretically, the boat you finally buy will be out of a "one boat market", and the price will depend a lot on just how desperate the seller is to unload it (or how badly upside down he is at the bank). Chuck Gould Float and let float.
I’m in the process of buying a boat (Carver Mariner 28) and have consulted the NADA guides for prices. The prices for the boat I’m looking into, are much lower than the asking prices for ALL the Carver Mariner 28’s I’ve looked at. Every broker I approach, with NADA price, says that they go by some other guide (forgot the name). I offerred an owner NADA Average Retail (and the boat was just average in my mind) and the owner was so insulted, he refused to even counter-offer.
yep i saw the same thing when I priced a cruisers 26′. there is a book called "buc" (?) that some folks used, but seems no one uses the NADA values except banks when they want to figure out how much you overpaid for the boat :-) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Anyone else have any opinions about the NADA Estimated values for boats????
I’m in the process of buying a boat (Carver Mariner 28) and have consulted the NADA guides for prices. The prices for the boat I’m looking into, are much lower than the asking prices for ALL the Carver Mariner 28’s I’ve looked at. Every broker I approach, with NADA price, says that they go by some other guide (forgot the name). I offerred an owner NADA Average Retail (and the boat was just average in my mind) and the owner was so insulted, he refused to even counter-offer. Anyone else have any opinions about the NADA Estimated values for boats????
Accounting Talk » Finance Accounting » What is best career in the Finance & Accounting?
BTW, what do you consider lucrative. I would say a partner in audit or tax gets paid about the same.
What can a manager in a tax department expect to make at a Big Five firm? It’s lucrative in my opinion when you can expect to make possibly a couple of hundred thousand a year if you’re good. I realize that partners in both audit, tax, or even advisory services at a big national cpa firm can potentially make close to or even in excess of a million dollars a year, but I realize that the odds of reaching this plateau are not very good. Everything I’ve been told or read suggests that a career in public accounting and specifically a Big Five CPA firm is an area that you cannot go wrong in. I’ve heard that experience at a big five firm is what a lot of corporations look for when they hire as well. I understand that a lot of people do jump out from the cpa firm into industry especially when they realize that partnership opportunities may not be in the future. That’s why I ask what can a manager in tax or even audit expect to make? My current situation is that at the end of the year I will have a master’s in accounting. I also have a bachelor’s in finance. I have no experience. I chose to complete my educational goals right away while I’m young. I have a very high grade point average and I’m sure I will be given ample consideration by the big five firms. But if you want to earn the big bucks, learn how to bring in business (i.e. networking). Remember, if you bring in business you can always hire someone to do the work. If you only do the work, you have to rely on someone to bring in business.
Are you saying that the Big Five tax staff people are expected to recruit clients? I’ve never heard anything like this before. Or are you insinuating if you are good at marketing i.e. "bringing in the business" that you can go into business for yourself and let other people "do the work"?
Insolvency practice is also a field you may consider.
What can a manager in a tax department expect to make at a Big Five firm? It’s lucrative in my opinion when you can expect to make possibly a couple of hundred thousand a year if you’re good.
Salary depends on the area of the country. The big city’s (NY, LA, Chicago) pay more than say Tampa or Little Rock) a first year manager makes about 45-65K. A senior manager with a couple years of experience can make between 90-150K. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I realize that partners in both audit, tax, or even advisory services at a big national cpa firm can potentially make close to or even in excess of a million dollars a year, but I realize that the odds of reaching this plateau are not very good. Everything I’ve been told or read suggests that a career in public accounting and specifically a Big Five CPA firm is an area that you cannot go wrong in. I’ve heard that experience at a big five firm is what a lot of corporations look for when they hire as well. I understand that a lot of people do jump out from the cpa firm into industry especially when they realize that partnership opportunities may not be in the future. That’s why I ask what can a manager in tax or even audit expect to make?
Very few partners make close to a million dollars a year, again depending on the area, new partners probably make about $150-200K. Experienced partners make between 250K-350K. Office managing partners make more; as well as regional partners. A partnership is not "Given" to any one. Once you make partner you must buy into the partnership. The partnership will arange a loan for you to buy into the partnership. They have it all figured how to do it since they make many partners each year. Are you saying that the Big Five tax staff people are expected to recruit clients? I’ve never heard anything like this before. Or are you insinuating if you are good at marketing i.e. "bringing in the business" that you can
go into business for yourself and let other people "do the work"?
No staff people are not expected to bring in clients and business, but partners are. If you start developing networking and selling skills while you are a staff then it will be easier to make and be partner. An easy way to start networking is to keep in touch with you college and work friends. Some day when you are partner, they will be CEO’s, controllers and CFO’s.
One should consider a career in public accounting. This will provide several opportunities and expose an individual to many different types of companies and industries. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I will wait for your answer.
One should consider a career in public accounting. This will provide several opportunities and expose an individual to many different types of companies and industries.
In terms of public accounting which is the potentially more lucrative? I have heard that tax accounting is considered a higher echelon profession than audit. I heard that tax accounting is generally much more lucrative than audit. Is this so? Does public tax accounting open more doors in terms of industry i.e. CFO etc. than a public accounting audit career?
In terms of public accounting which is the potentially more lucrative? I have heard that tax accounting is considered a higher echelon profession than audit. I heard that tax accounting is generally much more lucrative than audit. Is this so? Does public tax accounting open more doors in terms of industry i.e. CFO etc. than a public accounting audit career?
I would say more CFO’s come from audit than from tax. This is probably because in audit you are exposed to more accounting issues (and CFO’s) than in tax. My suggestion for a career path is to get a job with a big 5 firm in audit. After a couple of years try tax. If you do not like tax go back to audit. Why spend you career in something you do not like just because it may pay more (although, a CFO probably gets paid more than Director of Tax). Also, if you go into tax are you planning to get an advanced degree? Most tax people I deal with (including me) have either a masters in tax or a law degree. But if you want to earn the big bucks, learn how to bring in business (i.e. networking). Remember, if you bring in business you can always hire someone to do the work. If you only do the work, you have to rely on someone to bring in business. BTW, what do you consider lucrative. I would say a partner in audit or tax gets paid about the same.
I will wait for your answer.
I will wait for your answer.
The best career in Finance and Accounting is the career which allows you to mostly do the parts you enjoy. Decide which part of accounting you like the most, find out what career incorporates it, and go for it! If you like it, you will do it well. If you do it well, you will be rewarded. Unfortunately, if you do it too well, they put you in a position to guide everyone else who does what you do, and you never have time to do it yourself! There’s a catch to everything. 
Cary Hedrick, Accountant "You may soar with eagles, but weasles don’t get caught in jet engines." (