Question:

That’s fantastic–if it’s true.

Another spiritual guy on the forum! It’s about time sombody besides this fellow talked about something spiritual around here. Apparently I’m the only fellow around here that’s been within a mile of a TM University or a Maharishi Golden Dome. In a previous message I described my recent visit to Fairfield to look for a house to buy and possibly take some courses at MUM; I was on campus as recently as two years ago and I can vouch for the computer graphics department – it’s a top-notch Mac lab. That said, most of the graduates from that department are unemployables, just like lot’s of other computer graphics schools – bottom fell out of the industry; most computer graphics designers can’t program a computer, so they can’t even get a job in Austin working on a computer gameer at $300 hour. Go figure. NewTek, established a new corporate headquarters in San Antonio, Texas, where it’s easier to attract leading programmers, sales people and technical support staff. NewTek’s new offices are on the edge of the Texas Hill Country and provides an engaging and challenging work environment. NewTek is just a few miles down the road from the best BBQ joint in Texas! http://www.newtek.com/ Boston and Austin, Texas are hotbeds for gaming companies. http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2005/01/17/focus2.html Top 5 Austin and Texas Board Games http://austin.about.com/cs/recreation/tp/txboardgames.htm

Response:

But he’s such a ’spiritual’ guy.

Name’s Taank!

Response:

Doesn’t really answer the question. Where’s the money coming from and why Ethiopians? It’s already been answered that these people will have jobs–albeit probably not "as advertised"–essentially this represent another type of "outsourcing" from what I am hearing. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – That’s fantastic–if it’s true. Another spiritual guy on the forum! It’s about time sombody besides this fellow talked about something spiritual around here. Apparently I’m the only fellow around here that’s been within a mile of a TM University or a Maharishi Golden Dome. In a previous message I described my recent visit to Fairfield to look for a house to buy and possibly take some courses at MUM; I was on campus as recently as two years ago and I can vouch for the computer graphics department – it’s a top-notch Mac lab. That said, most of the graduates from that department are unemployables, just like lot’s of other computer graphics schools – bottom fell out of the industry; most computer graphics designers can’t program a computer, so they can’t even get a job in Austin working on a computer gameer at $300 hour. Go figure. NewTek, established a new corporate headquarters in San Antonio, Texas, where it’s easier to attract leading programmers, sales people and technical support staff. NewTek’s new offices are on the edge of the Texas Hill Country and provides an engaging and challenging work environment. NewTek is just a few miles down the road from the best BBQ joint in Texas! http://www.newtek.com/ Boston and Austin, Texas are hotbeds for gaming companies. http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2005/01/17/focus2.html Top 5 Austin and Texas Board Games http://austin.about.com/cs/recreation/tp/txboardgames.htm

Response:

The TM university, MUM, has revamped its website. Lots of new and interesting stuff: http://www.mum.edu/

Response:

Now if only they could get someone to go there! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The TM university, MUM, has revamped its website. Lots of new and interesting stuff: http://www.mum.edu/

Response:

Now if only they could get someone to go there!

"The largest contingent of students enrolled at the Fairfield campus comes from the United States, with 167, followed by Ethiopia, with 137." http://www.mum.edu/TheReview/#2 [...] A majority of the new students on campus are enrolled in graduate programs. The Computer Professionals Program continues to attract students, with 52 new arrivals this fall. Also, two new co-op programs for professionals – in accounting and education – will enroll a group of students in October. Most of the 57 new undergraduate students are from the U.S., with a third of those learning the Transcendental Meditation

Question:

 AccountingWEB US – Jul-23-2003 – The Financial Accounting Standards Board has brought a midsummer’s gift to the accounting profession. The status, summary, and full text of all statements are now available online, and free of charge. For years, practitioners, educators and students have grumbled about the lack of free access to the rules and regulations governing the profession they are serving. FASB has responded accordingly. <snip To access the documents, go to the FASB Web site and click on FASB Statements, or click on the link to http://www.fasb.org/st. http://www.accountingweb.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=97867 While this is old news to the regulars here, it is worth a post if for no other reason than easy access. Jim Hudspeth

Response:

//snipped// For years, practitioners, educators and students have grumbled about the lack of free access to the rules and regulations governing the profession they are serving. FASB has responded accordingly. //snipped// To access the documents, go to the FASB Web site and click on FASB Statements, or click on the link to http://www.fasb.org/st. //snipped// Jim Hudspeth Now– if they would just make GASB documents free!

Probably not as much pressure.  It will probably happen though. Jim

Response:

Thank goodness they finally did this.  Now I have bedtime reading material that is sure to put me to sleep within the first paragraph. DGG "Why am I up this early on a Saturday morning?" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – AccountingWEB US – Jul-23-2003 – The Financial Accounting Standards Board has brought a midsummer’s gift to the accounting profession. The status, summary, and full text of all statements are now available online, and free of charge. For years, practitioners, educators and students have grumbled about the lack of free access to the rules and regulations governing the profession they are serving. FASB has responded accordingly. <snip To access the documents, go to the FASB Web site and click on FASB Statements, or click on the link to http://www.fasb.org/st. http://www.accountingweb.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=97867 While this is old news to the regulars here, it is worth a post if for no other reason than easy access. Jim Hudspeth

Response:

Thank goodness they finally did this.  Now I have bedtime reading material that is sure to put me to sleep within the first paragraph.

The real benefit is that we can now have informed public discussion about accounting matters with non-accountants.  Anyone with a PC (or a MAC) can now download and at least attempt to read them. DGG "Why am I up this early on a Saturday morning?"

Same reasons I am – we are just a bit crazy. Jim – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Now if we could only get the same for Canadian standards… — Stephanie Serba, AICIA Partner, Durham Business Outsource Accounting & Technology www.dbo.ca

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – //snipped// For years, practitioners, educators and students have grumbled about the lack of free access to the rules and regulations governing the profession they are serving. FASB has responded accordingly. //snipped// To access the documents, go to the FASB Web site and click on FASB Statements, or click on the link to http://www.fasb.org/st. //snipped// Jim Hudspeth Now– if they would just make GASB documents free! Tippy

Response:

Whew, I don’t envy you guys what with all your disharmonious harmony taxes and the contrarians in Quebec to deal with. DGG "CANADA:  Leading the world in being just north of the United States." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Now if we could only get the same for Canadian standards…

Response:

Not going there with EITHER of those topics… The GREAT STUPID TAX… Right. — Stephanie Serba, AICIA Partner, Durham Business Outsource Accounting & Technology www.dbo.ca

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Whew, I don’t envy you guys what with all your disharmonious harmony taxes and the contrarians in Quebec to deal with. DGG "CANADA:  Leading the world in being just north of the United States." Now if we could only get the same for Canadian standards…

Response:

Who is this FASB access and why does he/she need to be freed?  On what charges was he/she improperly imprisoned? DGG "Boycott DGG" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – AccountingWEB US – Jul-23-2003 – The Financial Accounting Standards Board has brought a midsummer’s gift to the accounting profession. The status, summary, and full text of all statements are now available online, and free of charge. For years, practitioners, educators and students have grumbled about the lack of free access to the rules and regulations governing the profession they are serving. FASB has responded accordingly. <snip To access the documents, go to the FASB Web site and click on FASB Statements, or click on the link to http://www.fasb.org/st. http://www.accountingweb.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=97867 While this is old news to the regulars here, it is worth a post if for no other reason than easy access. Jim Hudspeth

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  AccountingWEB US – Jul-23-2003 – The Financial Accounting Standards Board has brought a midsummer’s gift to the accounting profession. The status, summary, and full text of all statements are now available online, and free of charge. For years, practitioners, educators and students have grumbled about the lack of free access to the rules and regulations governing the profession they are serving. FASB has responded accordingly. <snip To access the documents, go to the FASB Web site and click on FASB Statements, or click on the link to http://www.fasb.org/st. http://www.accountingweb.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=97867 While this is old news to the regulars here, it is worth a post if for no other reason than easy access. Jim Hudspeth

I’ve been teaching summer school and grading exams so I just saw this. Glad to know I wasn’t the only one pissing and moaning about FASB’s previous policy. Regards, Bill

Response:

Question:

Note: Adaptation / mutation leads to the long bridge evolution from whats pre-existing as evolution is the result post after not pre before…..correctly put from a linear view looking back but? Now the pre-existing raw materials are composed of enuff,… "FIRST OFF"… too support the end result. As enuff was there too state B was planned before A started in the sequence A first B second (existing potential A-B). So one must rule out life started here a first time and only here a first time. If theres a way to beat this scheme i would appreciate learning it. Cause this makes the end result the basis of the existence before the existence occurs as sequensual picking up where it left off of course…..jd

Response:

‘The Second Law [of Thermodynamics] is one piece of technical bad news from science that has established itself ffirmly on the nonscientific culture [how sweet! Science is a cult] Everything tends toward disorder. Any process that converts energy from one form to another must lose some heat. Perfect efficiency is impossible. The universe is a one-way street. Entropy must always increase in the universe and in any hypothetical isolated system within it. However expressed, the Second Law is a rule from which there seems no appeal.’ The second law of thermodynamics does not make life impossible. Life always leads to a net increase of entropy.

Thats exactly what the problem is. Life decreases entropy. The only reason you can say that entropy only increases is because in creating life, more entropy byproducts were created in doing so than can be accounted for in the organism. Life is negative entropy. The increase in entropy is on the total system/universe. ‘Somehow, after all, as the universe ebbs toward its final equilibrium in the featureless heat bath of maximum entropy, it manges to create interesting structures. Yes. This already should tell you that life is not impossible (life works because of its structure after all).

No, it tells me that what we see is the result of nature finding itself having to acquire a more stable state in ways that result in what you call order. Water is heavier than air. It has a ‘need’ to release this potential energy stored against gravity, it falls out of the sky. That water freezes into geometric forms (no 2 of which being alike as another measure of disorder) is of no consequence. The sun is round too. The order of roundness is the result of nuclear explosions balancing gravitational force. The purpose of nature is to set us free. Nature has no purpose so this is its purpose as far as incarnations are concerned. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ‘But thermodynamic entropy fails miserably as a measure of the changing degree of form and formlessness in the creation of the amino acids, of microorganisms, of self-reproducing plants and animals, of complex information systems like the brain. Certainly these evolving islands of order must obey the Second Law. They obey it of course. The bottom line is that entropy can not explain life, yet all matter is subject to entropy. We are neither matter or energy. The bottom line is that replicators do not violate thermodynamical laws. Come out from the closet and reveal your views about replicators made out of matter? Are they impossible? Can they ‘animate’? Why? Why not? Have you got problems with the well-established fact of evolution?

These are all your dreams. The leap from an amino acid to a cell the equivalent of throwing a Pentium chip in a pile of electronics and finding a microprocessor. Further, I saw somewhere the odds of the minimum piece of DNA for ANY form of life – which has over 400 letters, has a probability of 1 in 10 exp 600. That is 1 to a 1 with 600 zeros behind it. A 1 with 12 zeros after it is a trillion. So that would be a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion to 1 odds against such a thing happening. But once if it did, it would be equally useless as cells are not simply DNA and are in fact vastly more complicated. You can take 570 measly million years of ocean and volcanos and lightning – whatever – the number of combinations over that period of time will not come anywhere near close to that number. It is likely there are not that many particles in the universe. Atoms do not strive for anything. No constructing of any mechanical contraption whether macroscopic or microscopic can ever amount to life. Until life animates it it is no more than a pile of junk (or atoms). There is nothing anymore special about replicators than any other chemical reaction. I don’t get excited about rust either. Or burning trash or digesting food. (enzymes/catalysts). If anything is being replicated it will require life to do it. Mike Dubbeld – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Marcus

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Matter can not animate matter. Are you saying self-replicating mechanisms are impossible? How and why? Atoms have no motivation. a) don’t project human qualities to matter and b) if you wish, atoms are ‘motivated’ to form molecules etc. They do not strive to achieve one condition or another unless acted upon by force. See above. Your argument is bogus. The 4 forces in nature/the universe acknowledged by science do not have motivation/strive for anything either. You are mixing up things.

Got to be a brain-dead biologist I am talking to. You would be real popular over on bionet.neuroscience. They also are under severe delusions. They are simply part of a deterministic chain of events. Atoms and forces do not strive to stay alive. They have no ‘reason’ to do so. Is it possible to build self-replicating structures or not? Those kind of structures clearly exist, don’t they?

Cells replicate. Cells are alive. That molecules replicate is no more significant than rust replicating. It is very significant. The oldest replicators on this planet are way older than any non-replicating thing. Replication can store order for very long times.

Replicating life does. I do not know what you are asking exactly. I mean I can not tell you what is necessary to entice life to animate something. ‘Build it and they will come’ seems doubtful to me. I see no reason why self-replicating mechanisms would be impossible. It also seems that life is based on self-replicating structures.

You see no reason. But you have no reason. Action requires energy. Before anything does anything it takes energy. Now how exactly is it that gravity, the strong/weak and electromagnetic force will act in such a way so as to replicate? What incentive do molecules have for doing this? It is not to achieve greater stability because life is negative entropic/is a higher order/ requires energy and more order. Not less. You are telling me that you can construct a ladder that is fancy enough so that when you jump of it you will fall upward. Not going to happen. Life is un-natural from the point of view of the FOUR total forces science acknowledges. Life is a force science has not yet been able to reckon with. Denying it does not make it go away. Molecules do not strive for anything. Nor do atoms. Nor do the 4 forces. They are at all times the results nature attempting to achieve equibrium. Once that state is achieved it remains that way forever after unless and until that balance is disturbed by a force acting on it. Life on the other hand is contradictory to equilbrium. To see this in physics, take a look at the Carnot Cycle. Then apply that same principle considering that ALL matter is part of a machine/mechanical contraption – physical human bodies and brains and minds as well. All subject to the same fate. Part of the universe. Ordered cells with ordered molecules. Life force animates matter for the same reason shoes fall to the earth. Life force is the cause/ordered matter from energy manipulated by that life force into bodies. Physical bodies are the result/effect of the cause of life-force. Life force like gravity also is a force. It behaves in a very determined way. It is science problem that they do not know the equation for karma/cause and effect relationship of lifeforce. But – hey, Newton needed an apple to fall on his head to identify gravity not that long ago. (just kidding) Another way of looking at it is rocks on a mountain have stored karma also. They await their chance to release the potential energy stored in them. So also life awaits to play out karma/causes in bodies. Thats not exactly a yoga way of describing this. Atman is Perfect at all times and never does anything/never has a need to do anything. But a bound soul/jiva is one that has karma stored and must have a body to release it. The cause is the stored desire. The body is the effect to accomplish it. This is equally true of one-celled creatures. All living things have desires/strive. Plants strive for sunlight to grow/stay alive. Self-preservation. Mike Dubbeld – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Marcus

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This is incorrect. Waves produce order by shuffling pebbles on the beach, snowflakes are very ordered compared with water etc. Non-living processes procude order all the time, your claim that only life can increase order is demonstrably incorrect. Waves errode shells. I was talking about how waves or wind create ordered patterns in sand. Life strives for order along with self-preservation and reproduction. Snowflakes and shells strive for nothing. Self-replication. Are self-replicating mechanisms impossible? Can they be constructed with sufficiently advanced technology? What do you think? Evolution of replicators is a pretty neat thing, isn’t it? So is rust. I would not compare rust with the method which created the biosphere. Or are you anti-evolutionist fro some peculiar reason? If you are replicating something it implies you are adding order to the universe. Only things that are already alive have this characteristic. Take piracetam for cross-hemisphere brain communication improvement. Be left-handed or gay for better cross-hemisphere communication, ok? Matter can not animate matter. Are you saying self-replicating mechanisms are impossible? How and

why? Atoms have no motivation. They do not strive to achieve one condition or another unless acted upon by force. The 4 forces in nature/the universe acknowledged by science do not have motivation/strive for anything either. They are simply part of a deterministic chain of events. Atoms and forces do not strive to stay alive. They have no ‘reason’ to do so. You can not say exactly what you will do tomarrow. Your actions are not a function of the 4 forces of nature (alone). Shoes don’t make choices about whether or not to fall to the ground or not. But you have many choices that are not strictly dependent on these forces. One does not teach a molecule to survive. That molecules replicate is no more significant than rust replicating. I do not know what you are asking exactly. I mean I can not tell you what is necessary to entice life to animate something. ‘Build it and they will come’ seems doubtful to me. Bodies in yoga are called into existence from a 1-cell creature to man. This calling is a result of past stored energy in karmic seed energy. How physical things are called into play by these energies no one knows. Matter is the vehicle/result. Not the cause. Life is not an accident. Matter was called into play to release this energy in the same way energy from shoes falling to earth release their energy. This stored energy is karmic causes. Things that die store energy that results in similar type of that life. Time and space have no meaning for such stored causes. The tiny 4-5 billion years of life on earth is the blink of an eye on a yogic timescale. It  at best constituets a Day of Brahma (but not a night of equal length of time). Nobody can expect someone else to believe such things on say so. Science has not told me yoga is wrong and if so how so. The life of Brahma is 311 Trillion years. The life of a 1000 Brahmas is I think a mere 20 minutes of the life of Vishnu who also lives 100 years. (311x 3 x 24 x 365 x 1000 trillion years) It goes much further with Ishvara. Yoga says seers produced these numbers. They are higly suspect but equally unimportant. There is also talk about the big bang itself happens so fast it appears like a frequency of explosions and implosions. Birth is the result of death. The energy cause stored at death calls a physical body into being. The genetic construction is what is called for/a soul for instance is born into a family with suitable genes for the causes it must work out. One cell creatures strive to survive/have desire – they also are subject to karmic forces/causes. That the universe comes and goes they are uneffected by it. Life is not part of the gross physical universe. Again, I certainly don’t expect anyone to believe all of this but it is a good bet that life is a force science has not accounted for yet. Mistakenly identifying the shells of life for life. The machine is not life. Mike Dubbeld – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Marcus

Response:

Grin, Theres "nothing honest" about the position of rebuttal you took as honesty would contrast to or lend too dishonesty. Then you go on to create paint your whatever just proving my estimate you can think have ideas but certainly black was never the absense of color just another color in itself found often as black. You think really its the absense of light but you dont say that you infer light is/as color yet you dont go to the next step correctly/fully/notice/have ever…. if you thought deeper also black is light….. blacklight not being slang for ultraviolet but simply black is a form of color a blacklight…….Too different to hard to see black as color and light for you i suspose cause you think……yet i notice your nuts bolts of thinking not your thoughts especially as your you. First its perfectly ok to estimate in any way anything as a basic done constantly ya know ? But if never having considered most recite from memory add aspect from applications other they might know or feel your no different in trying to qualify reinforce your memory……but i will give up something but with properties as all the other colors not an opposite to white . Then but removed or seperate from the object not the absense of light but another light is it not ? Sure it is the basic first removed seperate having seperated…….but yoga deals with light hence i am highly meditated in the tattwas dont expect someone with a highschool/college understanding of light to project any more than GUT REATIONS a safe commen mans intellect. I leave masterpieces ……hotta go……the artist… jd <snip of google thread no biggie **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com **** J.D. Campbell, It’s not correct to underestimate other people’s intelligence. Have you ever considered the possibility that people might not take interest replying to your post just because it might be unfounded or simply uninteresting? For example: about the example you posted. If you strike two objects they make a sound according to a number of factors. You have the unique atomic composition of the objects, the strengh of the strike, the point of impact, the density of the environment, etc. etc. So it proves nothing, neither materially nor spiritually. You just could have used a better example (or explanation). Regarding your previous post (which i quote at the end): Sounds like you made 4 dimensions out of 3. But even so, this is only space. You have also time. And the other universal laws and forces. You talk about colors. Actually, black is not the sum of color, but the absence of color. The sum of colors from the spectrum is white. And remember you also have infrared, ultraviolet, and others. The other things you write about have similar errors. I recommend you study before posting about any of these things, then people might take you seriously. Forgive me for being this honest, but it was you who asked for feedback. Best regards, Kriya Yogi

Response:

Sorry Marcus, I see I did not separate Entropy from enthalpy. Entropy seeks disorder/more degrees of freedom. Enthalpy is the property of nature to seek a more stable state. Other than that nothing has changed. Energy losses occur whenever energy is transformed from one state to another [entropy increases] this means heat death and more disorder are the fate of the univere assuming the universe does not implode before it happens. Also your snowflakes are on p307-317 (if you count the text that puts it in context) of Chaos Making a New Science by James Gleick. ‘The Second Law [of Thermodynamics] is one piece of technical bad news from science that has established itself ffirmly on the nonscientific culture [how sweet! Science is a cult] Everything tends toward disorder. Any process that converts energy from one form to another must lose some heat. Perfect efficiency is impossible. The universe is a one-way street. Entropy must always increase in the universe and in any hypothetical isolated system within it. However expressed, the Second Law is a rule from which there seems no appeal.’ p308 ‘Somehow, after all, as the universe ebbs toward its final equilibrium in the featureless heat bath of maximum entropy, it manges to create interesting structures. Thoughtful physicists concerned with the workings of thermodynamics realize how disturbing is the question of, as one put it, "how a purposeless flow of energy can wash life and consciousness into the world." Compounding the trouble is the slippery notion of entropy, reasonably defined for thermodynamic purposes in terms of heat and temperature, but devilishly hard to pin down as a measure of disorder. Physicists have trouble enough measuring the degree of order in water, forming crystalline structures in the transition to ice, energy bleeding away all the while.’ 308 ‘But thermodynamic entropy fails miserably as a measure of the changing degree of form and formlessness in the creation of the amino acids, of microorganisms, of self-reproducing plants and animals, of complex information systems like the brain. Certainly these evolving islands of order must obey the Second Law. The important laws, the creative laws, lie elsewhere.’ [of course he suggests Chaos] ‘It is a fair question now to ask a physicist, "Why are all snowflakes different?" Ice crystals form in the turbulent air with a famous blending of symmetry and chance, the special beauty of six-fold indeterminacy. As water freezes, crystals send out tips; the tips grow, their boundaries become unstable, and new tips shoot out from the sides. Snowflakes obey mathematical laws of surprising subtlety, and it was impossible to predict precisely how fast a tip would grow, how narrow it would be or how often it would branch. Generations of scientists sketched and cataloged the variegated patterns: plates and columns, crystals and polycrystals, needles and dendrites. The treatises treated crystal formation as a classification matter, for lack of a better approach.’ 309 ‘One difficulty ws in deciding which of the many physical forces involved are important and which can safely be ignored. Most important, as scientists have long known, is the diffusion of the heat released when water freezes. [gives up heat/energy] But the physics of heat diffusion cannot completely explain the patterns researchers observe when they look at snowflakes under microscopes or grow them in the laboratory.’ He then relates to Chaos as an explanation. The bottom line is that entropy can not explain life, yet all matter is subject to entropy. We are neither matter or energy. Mike Dubbeld – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What kind of double talk is that? There are atoms and molecules and forces and energy. Are you telling me there is something other than this? I told you already, the evolution of molecular replicators is life. We probably already know all the physical forces involved in the ‘life-process’. Shall I name my Xerox machine now. Boy or girl? You have a self-replicating Xerox machine? Cool. The replicators are mechanisms, they do not have to have motivation since thet do not make choices. Only life can decrease entropy and increase order/acquire a less stable state. This is incorrect. Waves produce order by shuffling pebbles on the beach, snowflakes are very ordered compared with water etc. Non-living processes procude order all the time, your claim that only life can increase order is demonstrably incorrect. Why should matter replicate itself unless it is seeking a more stable state? What do you mean ‘why’? They are mechanisms. Educate yourself on what entropy is. I suggest you do the same. Inanimate processes can and do produce order in nature. That’s a rather important fact, so I hope you don’t ofrget it. Life is the cause of  the exact opposite. Life strives for order. Evolution of replicators is a pretty neat thing, isn’t it? If you are replicating something it implies you are adding order to the universe. Only things that are already alive have this characteristic. Incorrect, see above. You may want to modify your conclusions about life and the universe now that this misunderstanding has been cleared out. To believe otherwise is like disbelief in the conservation of energy. When you start with incorrect assumptions, you end up with crap. Matter does not animate matter. Well, it does. There is no force in the univere that can account for life. Not the electromagnetic force, not the strong nuclear force, not the weak nuclear force and  not gravity. Life is not a ‘force’ goddammit, it is replication. Evolution of replicators explains the development of the biosphere beautifully. Which force would you say in your estimation it is that causes this replication? Gravity? electromagnetic waves? Strong nuclear force? Weak nuclear force? Guess what. Fresh out of forces. You only get 4 till you use life. See above. Life does not violate laws of thermodynamics. Those are your words – not mine. Thats exactly what this lesson is all about —– Do I need to repeat them in the hope that it might sink in? Your conclusions are based on incorrect assumptions, sorry. Let’s see if you are capable of changing your conclusions now that the holes in your assumptions have been pointed out. Marcus

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What kind of double talk is that? There are atoms and molecules and forces and energy. Are you telling me there is something other than this? I told you already, the evolution of molecular replicators is life. We probably already know all the physical forces involved in the ‘life-process’. Shall I name my Xerox machine now. Boy or girl? You have a self-replicating Xerox machine? Cool. The replicators are mechanisms, they do not have to have motivation since thet do not make choices. Only life can decrease entropy and increase order/acquire a less stable state. This is incorrect. Waves produce order by shuffling pebbles on the beach, snowflakes are very ordered compared with water etc. Non-living processes procude order all the time, your claim that only life can increase order is demonstrably incorrect.

Waves errode shells. No 2 snowflakes are the same. Order in nature is the result of entropy. Unlike Life. Nature strives higher stability. That crystals form in snowflakes is to remove potential energy of water in the clouds and this is again entropy. That snowflakes appear as patterns is no more significant than a seashell that spirals. Life strives for order along with self-preservation and reproduction. Snowflakes and shells strive for nothing. Why should matter replicate itself unless it is seeking a more stable state? What do you mean ‘why’? They are mechanisms. Educate yourself on what entropy is. I suggest you do the same. Inanimate processes can and do produce order in nature. That’s a rather important fact, so I hope you don’t ofrget it.

Brain dead people have to learn the hard way. Life is the cause of  the exact opposite. Life strives for order. Evolution of replicators is a pretty neat thing, isn’t it?

So is rust. If you are replicating something it implies you are adding order to the universe. Only things that are already alive have this characteristic.

Take piracetam for cross-hemisphere brain communication improvement. Matter can not animate matter. Maybe you will actually contribute something to a NG post someday too. Mike Dubbeld – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Incorrect, see above. You may want to modify your conclusions about life and the universe now that this misunderstanding has been cleared out. To believe otherwise is like disbelief in the conservation of energy. When you start with incorrect assumptions, you end up with crap. Matter does not animate matter. Well, it does. There is no force in the univere that can account for life. Not the electromagnetic force, not the strong nuclear force, not the weak nuclear force and  not gravity. Life is not a ‘force’ goddammit, it is replication. Evolution of replicators explains the development of the biosphere beautifully. Which force would you say in your estimation it is that causes this replication? Gravity? electromagnetic waves? Strong nuclear force? Weak nuclear force? Guess what. Fresh out of forces. You only get 4 till you use life. See above. Life does not violate laws of thermodynamics. Those are your words – not mine. Thats exactly what this lesson is all about —– Do I need to repeat them in the hope that it might sink in? Your conclusions are based on incorrect assumptions, sorry. Let’s see if you are capable of changing your conclusions now that the holes in your assumptions have been pointed out. Marcus

Response:

Grin, that junction where it cross’s over itself the present slightly seperate objects moving in 4D or measured as time/motion hence rated. temporary einstien jd is jd and got this from the vedas. Illusion as the present is created from two things the past & future both not as knowen but illusions find them only momentary fragments these only existing in the present created from two illusions once it’s past and future crossing over themselfs…. 1 hort one vert crossing intelligence required simple……1234 Now ive put it mystical the floor with no ceiling the ceiling with no floor again something that has to make use of this principle as thats lasted over 4500 years must be it…….j Samo samo……. <snip Height/Length/Width are the same dimensions yet only one creates the second then verrt/hort come into play so 1&2 switch position in the switch as crossing over themselfs at center is depth or the 4th 1&2+1&2 cross over themselfs at center is depth or the new 4th……actually the first point or 1D .

Response:

Greetings, Ive wrote this before and i kinda doubt the human mind is able to register or think this deeply in the vast majority of people. I dont know why but i never see feedback exclaiming oh i get it so once again. Actually i am the only one that ever writes anything i write nobody else usually has ever written it modern. If i take two objects both unique strike them the perfect only unique sound they can create is already held in potential before they strike……then from pre-existing in potential it errupts the only way it can. PREDICTABLE orderly etc hence music whatever just a tiny aspect of whats here so i am trying again to see if anyone is able to go umpteen levels deeper with this as as usual no one can go very far or deep into ordinary things as this which they have expeienced zazillions of times trillions of zazillions yet overlook it. The final bell in

Response:

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com **** J.D. Campbell, It’s not correct to underestimate other people’s intelligence. Have you ever considered the possibility that people might not take interest replying to your post just because it might be unfounded or simply uninteresting? For example: about the example you posted. If you strike two objects they make a sound according to a number of factors. You have the unique atomic composition of the objects, the strengh of the strike, the point of impact, the density of the environment, etc. etc. So it proves nothing, neither materially nor spiritually. You just could have used a better example (or explanation). Regarding your previous post (which i quote at the end): Sounds like you made 4 dimensions out of 3. But even so, this is only space. You have also time. And the other universal laws and forces. You talk about colors. Actually, black is not the sum of color, but the absence of color. The sum of colors from the spectrum is white. And remember you also have infrared, ultraviolet, and others. The other things you write about have similar errors. I recommend you study before posting about any of these things, then people might take you seriously. Forgive me for being this honest, but it was you who asked for feedback. Best regards, Kriya Yogi – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Greetings, Ive wrote this before and i kinda doubt the human mind is able to register or think this deeply in the vast majority of people. I dont know why but i never see feedback exclaiming oh i get it so once again. Actually i am the only one that ever writes anything i write nobody else usually has ever written it modern. If i take two objects both unique strike them the perfect only unique sound they can create is already held in potential before they strike……then from pre-existing in potential it errupts the only way it can. PREDICTABLE orderly etc hence music whatever just a tiny aspect of whats here so i am trying again to see if anyone is able to go umpteen levels deeper with this as as usual no one can go very far or deep into ordinary things as this which they have expeienced zazillions of times trillions of zazillions yet overlook it. The final bell in

<beginning of quote i believe kriya yogi is able to think still not so believing hence for his benefit i give up this thought. the first thing in physical manisfestion of actually anything are dimensional attributes and only 4 are required (h/w/l/depth). Without correctly accounting for these the next set of physical items atoms are unaccountable. now heres were you need to forget your masters your keepers and realize something. If atoms are light made solid they come from the particles colors are composed of red blue etc. So by laying these out the colors the particles in rows the next thoughts are how they snap into Black White Red Orange Blue Yellow Green Violet etc Black would be all colors combined to obtain a color black must be removed from. White would be certain colors that black was removed from and these would lay out to build atoms. Now brown is a product not found till later a potential as not in white nor black yet found exclusively in the physical world. There are only so many natural primary shapes from these rows of light made solid as atoms…….it is only possible that these exist as one of the primary shapes and combinations of……. Sound creates motion/heat which gives the by product form/light which then manifestated creates atoms as to the laws of dimensions and forms…..Height/Length/Width are the same dimensions yet only one creates the second then verrt/hort come into play so 1&2 switch position in the switch as crossing over themselfs at center is depth or the 4th 1&2+1&2 cross over themselfs at center is depth or the new 4th……actually the first point or 1D . So the subatomic particles inside atoms are accounted for as the finite particles of light and the different colors the different JD returns them too before 1900 ce…..potentials or how everything comes from something before itself…..jd <end of quote  *** Usenet.com – The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***                       http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download – 19 Seperate Servers – 90,000 groups – Uncensored

Response:

Greetings, i believe kriya yogi is able to think still not so believing hence for his benefit i give up this thought. the first thing in physical manisfestion of actually anything are dimensional attributes and only 4 are required (h/w/l/depth). Without correctly accounting for these the next set of physical items atoms are unaccountable. now heres were you need to forget your masters your keepers and realize something. If atoms are light made solid they come from the particles colors are composed of red blue etc. So by laying these out the colors the particles in rows the next thoughts are how they snap into Black White Red Orange Blue Yellow Green Violet etc Black would be all colors combined to obtain a color black must be removed from. White would be certain colors that black was removed from and these would lay out to build atoms. Now brown is a product not found till later a potential as not in white nor black yet found exclusively in the physical world. There are only so many natural primary shapes from these rows of light made solid as atoms…….it is only possible that these exist as one of the primary shapes and combinations of……. Sound creates motion/heat which gives the by product form/light which then manifestated creates atoms as to the laws of dimensions and forms…..Height/Length/Width are the same dimensions yet only one creates the second then verrt/hort come into play so 1&2 switch position in the switch as crossing over themselfs at center is depth or the 4th 1&2+1&2 cross over themselfs at center is depth or the new 4th……actually the first point or 1D . So the subatomic particles inside atoms are accounted for as the finite particles of light and the different colors the different JD returns them too before 1900 ce…..potentials or how everything comes from something before itself…..jd

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Do it then. Which force is it that defines life electromagnetic? strong? weak? gravitational? None of them. Life is based on the evolution of replicators What kind of double talk is that? There are atoms and molecules and forces and energy. Are you telling me there is something other than this? I told you already, the evolution of molecular replicators is life. We probably already know all the physical forces involved in the ‘life-process’.

Shall I name my Xerox machine now. Boy or girl? Rust is not a replicator. Why can’t we make replicators by sticking atoms together? Why can’t we copy a cell and make it work? Atoms and molecules and the 4 forces do not do this/do not have motivation/strive for nothing. The replicators are mechanisms, they do not have to have motivation since thet do not make choices.

Such is the case when iron combines with oxygen to release energy and acquire a more stable state/release energy. Much like a rock rolling down a hill releasing its stored energy. If your replicator is replicating something without releasing energy, it had to have had life to start with. Only life can decrease entropy and increase order/acquire a less stable state. My only requirement for life is having life to start with so you are simply rattling. Why should matter replicate itself unless it is seeking a more stable state? What do you mean ‘why’? They are mechanisms.

Educate yourself on what entropy is. An age old question when Aristotle invented science he required 4 questions to be answered to understand something. 1.) What is the things formal cause – how did it assume this form. 2.) What happened to make this happen – its efficient cause. The only remaining cause science today sees fit to answer. 3.) What is its material cause? What is it made of. 4.) What is its final cause? What purpose does it serve? This last question is called a teleological cause and was retained as a valid question until the Enlightenment in the West. It was applied to ‘What is the purpose of the universe?’ – a question that was a question for the Church before the Enlightenment. Naturally the Church came up with God answers for the purpose of the universe. Today modern science does not retain the question at all/does not see fit to answer this final cause of the universe question/this teleological question. However, the nearest answer science can provide to answer this question is entropy. Entropy means disorder or randomness. The fate of the universe per science is maximum entropy or disorder. The ‘heat death’ of the universe where all things in the universe are at equal potential energy with all the stars having exhausted their fuel and all black holes evaporated from Hawking "hair". All things in the universe seek to acquire a more stable state. When a piece of paper is set on fire, the chemical energy in the paper is released and carbon is formed – a more stable product/moloecular structure than paper. Stones falling down mountains, errosion of rain on mountains, nuclear fusion of suns – everything in the universe tends toward this single objective. It is the only universally accepted position in science on the fate of the universe. Life is the cause of  the exact opposite. Life strives for order. Life adds energy to things. That is the single most distinct difference in science between what is alive an not alive. If you are replicating something it implies you are adding order to the universe. Only things that are already alive have this characteristic. To believe otherwise is like disbelief in the conservation of energy. Matter does not animate matter. There is no force in the univere that can account for life. Not the electromagnetic force, not the strong nuclear force, not the weak nuclear force and  not gravity. Therefore, if you are able to animate matter by any other means, it means you are enlisting what science calls today for lack of any better defininition LIFE. You can piss in your pants and call it hockey also but thats your problem. Which force would you say in your estimation it is that causes this replication? Gravity? electromagnetic waves? Strong nuclear force? Weak nuclear force? Guess what. Fresh out of forces. You only get 4 till you use life. But when any life process is involved the reverse is true. Life represents order and less entropy. The universe strives for more entropy/greater stability. Why would nature reverse course and attempt less entropic states. Answer it wouldn’t and can not. You have fundamentally misunderstood entropy and thermodynamics. The life-process increases entropy,

No, entropy means greater disorder. A more stable state. even though it can decrease entropy locally. Life does not violate laws of thermodynamics.

Those are your words – not mine. Thats exactly what this lesson is all about —–  en.tro.py    (en,trf pZ)  n.1. Thermodynama.  (on a macroscopic scale) a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy. b.  (in statistical mechanics) a measure of the randomness of the microscopic constituents of a thermodynamic system Symbol:.  S.  2.  (in data transmission and information theory) a measure of the loss of information in a transmitted signal or message. 3.  (in cosmology) a hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature  (heat death). 4. a doctrine of inevitable social decline and degeneration. [< G Entropie (1865) ; see EN-2, -TROPY]- en.tro.pic  (en tr

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  CALLED TO ACCOUNT Citigroup to Expense Options, Improve Disclosure on Deals By PAUL BECKETT Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL NEW YORK — Citigroup Inc., which has been under fire for its dealings with Enron Corp., unveiled a raft of corporate-governance initiatives, including expensing all stock options and requiring companies for which it arranges financing to disclose more information to investors. <snip http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1028760527915079120,00.html?mod=ho… This is indeed a positive development as Citigroup is in the financial sector.  Now we need a big IT corporation to take the lead in this sector.  e. g. Sun Microsystems, whose customer satisfaction rating, at least here in Switzerland, is very high.  Perhaps they will do something for their shareholders as well, especially in view of the depressed share prices.  ;-) Ah, but isn’t the effect of expensing options to add expenses to the income statement, thus depressing reported income? If the result of making options expenses is to _eliminate_ Microsoft’s profits, and to seriously diminish other companys’ incomes, isn’t this going to have the opposite effect? If a whole lot of companys’ incomes are diminished, this will lead to lowered confidence in their values, and in stock prices falling. And if leaving options off the income statement was a mistake, causing companies to be wrongly over-valued, this _IS_ supposed to be the result. I can imagine people wanting options to get applied as expenses; to want that, and for share prices _not_ to be depressed as a result, seems pretty inconsistent.

I think you have summed up the problem pretty well.  As I said before, some of these folks like Buffet who are selling the expensing of options have another agenda.  {Then there are those that have a really nasty agenda, a political one, but the market will in the long run prevent that one.} I am pretty sure that the consequences of expensing options will be negative and have not discernible benefit.  You can get back to me in a couple of years and correct me if I’m wrong. — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * *  Unemployed for six years, mistake of being an accountant.  * *   Students, when someone tells you of your great future as  * *       an accountant, ask him to show you the job.           *

Response:

If the result of making options expenses is to _eliminate_ Microsoft’s profits, and to seriously diminish other companys’ incomes, isn’t this going to have the opposite effect? If a whole lot of companys’ incomes are diminished, this will lead to lowered confidence in their values, and in stock prices falling.

GM also announced it would do this. I suspect the powers that be will soon mandate it. If not, those that don’t do it should find that uncertainty causes the biggest stock market cuts. This will show that a few companies, like Microsoft and Cisco, reported wildly phony profits. Cisco is already way down so I am thinking of buying puts on M$. It might have the effect of initially lowering values to bring them more in line with earnings, but I don’t see the long-term effects changing much. Analysts will simply take into account the options when making their predictions about earnings.  If everyone were doing it, it would be expected and already figured into the prices.  When SFAS 142 did away with amortizing goodwill, stock prices did not go up simply because people though earnings would rise.  Analysts simply bumped up their estimates to reflect the "expense that never was".

   Mike Block, QuickBooks Tax Cut CPA, 954-566-7540 Lowest QB Prices   http://blocktax.com/lowest_QuickBooks_prices.htm Free 462p QB Book  http://blocktax.com/free-quickbooks-book.htm Error Codes/Fixes  http://blocktax.com/quickbooks-errors.htm Shortcuts Download http://blocktax.com/quickbooks_shortcuts.htm 200 QB Add-ons http://blocktax.com/quickbooks-addons/quickbooks-add-ons.htm

Response:

Christopher, that wasn’t the point I was trying to make, although, reading the post against, I understand your looking at it the way you did.  Nothing like such feedback to encourage clarity and precision. Sun Microsystems shareholders may doubt if the share price will rise significantly in the near future, especially compared to 2000 levels. However, Sun Microsystems could meanwhile improve shareholder trust in its management by recording personnal expenses – including the appropriate value of employee stock options, as has been explained repeatedly and exhaustively here in another thread – as incurred in the income statement. BTW the at the end of the previous post was supposed to underscore this meaning. A. Lucien Meyers, CIA, CMA — If you receive this by error, please delete it and inform the sender. PGP key fingerprint=F1C0 D9AE 1B18 1405 4DFA  B4CC 6DC7 FF78 C76E FB15 To Big Brother Echelon from "spook": Ortega genetic domestic disruption Libya Mossad Semtex Kandahar DES PLO

Response:

If the result of making options expenses is to _eliminate_ Microsoft’s profits, and to seriously diminish other companys’ incomes, isn’t this going to have the opposite effect? If a whole lot of companys’ incomes are diminished, this will lead to lowered confidence in their values, and in stock prices falling.

It might have the effect of initially lowering values to bring them more in line with earnings, but I don’t see the long-term effects changing much. Analysts will simply take into account the options when making their predictions about earnings.  If everyone were doing it, it would be expected and already figured into the prices.  When SFAS 142 did away with amortizing goodwill, stock prices did not go up simply because people though earnings would rise.  Analysts simply bumped up their estimates to reflect the "expense that never was". — Todd Stephens

Response:

I said what I said.  I think you are trying to force an issue that is really of no importance.  Microsoft’s equity price reflects current operations and future expectations.  The market is very efficient at discounting the real problems and potential of the company. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So you are in favor of keeping the present system under which half of Microsoft’s GAAP net income is contributions from taxpayers for the Federal and State income tax deductions Microsoft takes when options are exercised? But no expense in the income statement to shareholders? MICROSOFT Year Ended June 30      1999        2000        2001 Net income          $  7,785    $  9,421    $  7,346 Stock option income tax benefits           3,107       5,535       2,066  CALLED TO ACCOUNT Citigroup to Expense Options, Improve Disclosure on Deals By PAUL BECKETT Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL NEW YORK — Citigroup Inc., which has been under fire for its dealings with Enron Corp., unveiled a raft of corporate-governance initiatives, including expensing all stock options and requiring companies for which it arranges financing to disclose more information to investors. <snip http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1028760527915079120,00.html?mod=ho… This is indeed a positive development as Citigroup is in the financial sector.  Now we need a big IT corporation to take the lead in this sector.  e. g. Sun Microsystems, whose customer satisfaction rating, at least here in Switzerland, is very high.  Perhaps they will do something for their shareholders as well, especially in view of the depressed share prices.  ;-) Ah, but isn’t the effect of expensing options to add expenses to the income statement, thus depressing reported income? If the result of making options expenses is to _eliminate_ Microsoft’s profits, and to seriously diminish other companys’ incomes, isn’t this going to have the opposite effect? If a whole lot of companys’ incomes are diminished, this will lead to lowered confidence in their values, and in stock prices falling. And if leaving options off the income statement was a mistake, causing companies to be wrongly over-valued, this _IS_ supposed to be the result. I can imagine people wanting options to get applied as expenses; to want that, and for share prices _not_ to be depressed as a result, seems pretty inconsistent.

– *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * *  Unemployed for six years, mistake of being an accountant.  * *   Students, when someone tells you of your great future as  * *       an accountant, ask him to show you the job.           *

Response:

So you are in favor of keeping the present system under which half of Microsoft’s GAAP net income is contributions from taxpayers for the Federal and State income tax deductions Microsoft takes when options are exercised? But no expense in the income statement to shareholders? MICROSOFT Year Ended June 30      1999        2000        2001 Net income          $  7,785    $  9,421    $  7,346 Stock option income tax benefits           3,107       5,535       2,066

No, that would be a "strawman argument," where the arguer tries to put words into other peoples’ mouths with the intention of later ridiculing them for ’saying’ something that was intentionally constructed as a stupid statement. We were instead discussing the fact that there would be _further consequences_. — http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html Rules of the Evil Overlord #25.  "No matter how well it would perform, I  will never  construct any  sort  of machinery  which is  completely indestructible  except  for   one  small  and  virtually  inaccessible vulnerable spot." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/

Response:

So you are in favor of keeping the present system under which half of Microsoft’s GAAP net income is contributions from taxpayers for the Federal and State income tax deductions Microsoft takes when options are exercised? But no expense in the income statement to shareholders? MICROSOFT Year Ended June 30      1999        2000        2001 Net income          $  7,785    $  9,421    $  7,346 Stock option income tax benefits           3,107       5,535       2,066 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  CALLED TO ACCOUNT Citigroup to Expense Options, Improve Disclosure on Deals By PAUL BECKETT Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL NEW YORK — Citigroup Inc., which has been under fire for its dealings with Enron Corp., unveiled a raft of corporate-governance initiatives, including expensing all stock options and requiring companies for which it arranges financing to disclose more information to investors. <snip http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1028760527915079120,00.html?mod=ho… This is indeed a positive development as Citigroup is in the financial sector.  Now we need a big IT corporation to take the lead in this sector.  e. g. Sun Microsystems, whose customer satisfaction rating, at least here in Switzerland, is very high.  Perhaps they will do something for their shareholders as well, especially in view of the depressed share prices.  ;-) Ah, but isn’t the effect of expensing options to add expenses to the income statement, thus depressing reported income? If the result of making options expenses is to _eliminate_ Microsoft’s profits, and to seriously diminish other companys’ incomes, isn’t this going to have the opposite effect? If a whole lot of companys’ incomes are diminished, this will lead to lowered confidence in their values, and in stock prices falling. And if leaving options off the income statement was a mistake, causing companies to be wrongly over-valued, this _IS_ supposed to be the result. I can imagine people wanting options to get applied as expenses; to want that, and for share prices _not_ to be depressed as a result, seems pretty inconsistent.

Response:

Ah, but isn’t the effect of expensing options to add expenses to the income statement, thus depressing reported income? Sure.  And the fact that World Con actually didn’t make any money in years 1999 thru 2001 would have undoubtedly depressed its stock price. But the relevant point is stock prices should be based on ecoconomic reallity (or as close an aproximation as accounting will allow) not on accounting fiction. At present, companies like Microsoft pass options out like candy, becasue they are essentially free, from an accounting atand point. Actually they are BETTER than free under curent rules, since they get a tax benifit when excercized.

You want to expand on how the options issue ties into the outright fraudulent earnings reporting at WorldComm?  I don’t see the your logic.  Well options aren’t FREE and this economic fact should be reflceted on the income statement so investors know the score and managements don’t give away the store without the results of huge option grants hitting the bottom line where everybodys attention is focused.

I still think options should only be applied to fully diluted earnings per share.  Letting them get anywhere near operating income is, IMHO, a distorting practice.  OTOH, the folks doing the analysis know this and will take them out of the income statement.  So, as with most of these tempests in a teapot, nothing will be accomplished. — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * *  Unemployed for six years, mistake of being an accountant.  * *   Students, when someone tells you of your great future as  * *       an accountant, ask him to show you the job.           *

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Ah, but isn’t the effect of expensing options to add expenses to the income statement, thus depressing reported income? Sure.  And the fact that World Con actually didn’t make any money in years 1999 thru 2001 would have undoubtedly depressed its stock price. But the relevant point is stock prices should be based on ecoconomic reallity (or as close an aproximation as accounting will allow) not on accounting fiction. At present, companies like Microsoft pass options out like candy, becasue they are essentially free, from an accounting atand point. Actually they are BETTER than free under curent rules, since they get a tax benifit when excercized.  Well options aren’t FREE and this economic fact should be reflceted on the income statement so investors know the score and managements don’t give away the store without the results of huge option grants hitting the bottom line where everybodys attention is focused.

Whatever.  I wasn’t addressing that issue. I was addressing the issue that this would "… do something for their shareholders as well, especially in view of the depressed share prices…" The only thing I can see the change in reporting policy doing is to _further depress_ the already depressed share prices. If people are dismayed at depressed share prices, and don’t want them further depressed, then changing reporting policy to throw options into the income statement surely _isn’t_ what they’d want. You may think it’s the "necessary thing to do;" that presumably means that you find it necessary to see stock prices further depressed. — http://cbbrowne.com/info/internet.html "Java and C++ make you think that the new ideas are like the old ones. Java is the most distressing thing to hit computing since MS-DOS." — Alan Kay

Response:

Ah, but isn’t the effect of expensing options to add expenses to the income statement, thus depressing reported income?

Sure.  And the fact that World Con actually didn’t make any money in years 1999 thru 2001 would have undoubtedly depressed its stock price. But the relevant point is stock prices should be based on ecoconomic reallity (or as close an aproximation as accounting will allow) not on accounting fiction. At present, companies like Microsoft pass options out like candy, becasue they are essentially free, from an accounting atand point. Actually they are BETTER than free under curent rules, since they get a tax benifit when excercized.  Well options aren’t FREE and this economic fact should be reflceted on the income statement so investors know the score and managements don’t give away the store without the results of huge option grants hitting the bottom line where everybodys attention is focused.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  CALLED TO ACCOUNT Citigroup to Expense Options, Improve Disclosure on Deals By PAUL BECKETT Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL NEW YORK — Citigroup Inc., which has been under fire for its dealings with Enron Corp., unveiled a raft of corporate-governance initiatives, including expensing all stock options and requiring companies for which it arranges financing to disclose more information to investors. <snip http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1028760527915079120,00.html?mod=ho… This is indeed a positive development as Citigroup is in the financial sector.  Now we need a big IT corporation to take the lead in this sector.  e. g. Sun Microsystems, whose customer satisfaction rating, at least here in Switzerland, is very high.  Perhaps they will do something for their shareholders as well, especially in view of the depressed share prices.  ;-)

Ah, but isn’t the effect of expensing options to add expenses to the income statement, thus depressing reported income? If the result of making options expenses is to _eliminate_ Microsoft’s profits, and to seriously diminish other companys’ incomes, isn’t this going to have the opposite effect? If a whole lot of companys’ incomes are diminished, this will lead to lowered confidence in their values, and in stock prices falling. And if leaving options off the income statement was a mistake, causing companies to be wrongly over-valued, this _IS_ supposed to be the result. I can imagine people wanting options to get applied as expenses; to want that, and for share prices _not_ to be depressed as a result, seems pretty inconsistent. — http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/wp.html "In America,  we have   a  two-party system.    There  is the   stupid party. And there is the evil party.  I am proud to  be a member of the stupid   party.   Periodically, the two  parties   get together and do something   that   is  both stupid   and  evil.     This  is  called – bipartisanship."  – Republican congressional staffer

Response:

Now if they just get rid of Robert Ruben. Attempting to get the Bush Treasury to apply pressure to credit rating agencies to provide false ratings to investors.  If it isn’t a crime, it ought to be. You can just never get rid of the corruption of the Clinton administration; it will be following people around 20 years from now… It is laughable that, while the Bush Administration has been accused of all manner of malfeasance in connection with Enron, so far as I can see the only people who might be accused of fraud or other illegal activity would be the CPAs and former Clinton Administration officials. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  CALLED TO ACCOUNT Citigroup to Expense Options, Improve Disclosure on Deals By PAUL BECKETT Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL NEW YORK — Citigroup Inc., which has been under fire for its dealings with Enron Corp., unveiled a raft of corporate-governance initiatives, including expensing all stock options and requiring companies for which it arranges financing to disclose more information to investors. <snip

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1028760527915079120,00.html?mod=ho… ats%5Fnews%5Fus – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This is indeed a positive development as Citigroup is in the financial sector.  Now we need a big IT corporation to take the lead in this sector.  e. g. Sun Microsystems, whose customer satisfaction rating, at least here in Switzerland, is very high.  Perhaps they will do something for their shareholders as well, especially in view of the depressed share prices.  ;-) A. Lucien Meyers, CIA, CMA — If you receive this by error, please delete it and inform the sender. PGP key fingerprint=F1C0 D9AE 1B18 1405 4DFA  B4CC 6DC7 FF78 C76E FB15 To Big Brother Echelon from "spook": Qaddafi Treasury cryptographic Bin Ladin colonel domestic disruption NSA

Response:

Question:

I am working on a Bachelor’s Degree in Marketing and would eventually like to open my own PR firm.  I have about 2 years of school left.  What are some good places to start to gain some experience in this field.  Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, Laura L. Heidke

Laura: Find about about intern opportunities.  If one doesn’t exist, create one.   Find ANY advertising, marketing services firm in your area and offer to work part time for no monetary fee.   Explain this would be an exchange of your labor time for the opportunity to meet regularly – when mutually convenient – with various members of the staff to learn about what they do, to attend client meetings as an observer, and other meetings where marketing/advertising decisions are made – again as an observer.   It doesn’t have to be a PR firm specifically – any marketing services firm will do. Part of your deal for working for no monetary fee should be the right to ask questions – either during or after meetings – where key decisions are made. Also ask to use a recorder with the complete assurance any taping is "for your ears only" as a learning aide. Hope this helps.  Good luck. P.S. Find and read cover to cover all the latest "best sellers" on the subject of PR.  You’ll wind up knowing more than the "pros" do… — George Wehmann Direct Marketing Resources Group, Inc. Raleigh, NC, Voice: 919-231-2728 Nothing’s as devastating to a subjective opinion… as an actual result. — DMRG Website: http://www.improvedresults.com

Response:

Can anyone help with metrics regarding using traditional offline direct marketing (direct mail and telemarketing) to drive traffic to a web site? Should we include the 800#, reply card and/or information packet or will that take away from driving them online? We’ll test, test, test of course, but any help will be taken into account (baselines etc). Thank you. Greg Chambers

I’m not an accountant, so you should alway check with an accounting pro on any budgeting or accounting advice before DOING any thing. Business is made up of Revenue and Cost.  Subtract Cost From Revenue and you have Income.  Subtract Cost of Goods Sold, Overhead, etc to get to Marketing Costs or Cost of Sales.   Determine what your break even would be – ON AVERAGE – for a typical product sale.  ON AVERAGE is very important.  Don’t make assumptions on a "best" or "worse" case basis. Get familiar with Order Margin Per Unit of Sale and how to calculate it.  Order Margin is the per sale payback portion of your Income that tells you if you’re at marketing breakeven, profit or loss.  It’s a key number for marketing planning. Page 344 in Ed Burnett’s book "The Complete Direct Mail List Handbook" (Prentice Hall) offers one excellent explanation of Order Margin in the context of of Direct Marketing.  Don’t let Ed’s book title fool you. It’s an encyclopedia of knowledge on Direct Marketing and Marketing, not just Direct Mail Lists. Calculate cost of sales or marketing AT BREAKEVEN per unit and then by promotional activity.  This lets you determine how many market place contacts are required to achieve your net number of product sales.  This then dictates what your minimum required response rate needs to be to break even or to generate profit at whatever desirable level. Calculate the "in between numbers" as well – like lead conversion ratios. The key here is to assess the risk on a common sense basis.  If your breakeven calculations say you need a 5 or 10 percent response rate to break even, how realistic do you believe that would be?  At gut level, I wouldn’t bet too much.  On the other hand, if your calculations say your marketing breakeven requires only a fraction of a percent response – or some acceptable level – the level of risk is more acceptable. That’s what testing is all about.  Balancing risk and making trade off decisions using as much information as  you can find – especially about the resulting metrics of the strategies you eventually execute. Testing is all about finding the combination of strategic marketing variables, on an economic scale, that produce results at a level of risk that allows a payback and reinvestment to grow the business.  And direct marketing testing not only "discovers" success, it also discovers FAILURE – what doesn’t work.  You need to have a mindset that accepts financial loses – resulting from discovering failure – are an integral part of the "cost" of discovering success. Do all this in an assumptive model without worrying what the "real world" actuals are. Not yet.  Once your budgeting tool is in place – hopefully on a spreadsheet – you can begin to do "what if" planning trade off calculations on any number of the key variable "numbers" that make up your model’s revenue, cost and income assumptions, like response rate, conversion rate, cost of goods, cost of sales, etc. This assumptive tool will give you the ability to "couch" your marketing and testing decisions within a framework of projecting REAL costs and REAL revenues.  Doing the "what if" trade offs – and seeing their effect – can have a very sobering impact on your "planning versus doing" behavior.  Remember, "failing to plan is planning to fail". Should we include the 800#, reply card and/or information packet or will that take away from driving them online?

When you do direct marketing testing, you’ll know exactly what your testing objectives need to be as a result of the budget model you’ve built.  Then testing refinements can answer all the questions you have about 800#’s, reply cards, using info packets, etc since you can plug in assumptive numbers for their costs and potential revenue and income contribution effect and you can manage the risk of adding these variables accordingly. Once you have results from preliminary testing, if your results are favorable, you’ll need to refine, upgrade and repeat the testing on an ongoing basis so you can go from repeatable to predictable testing with a good P&L model to support you all the way. Using somebody else’s numbers for response and market potential is OK as a very general gauge of potental.  Substituting someone elses’ numbers to replace the unique set of numbers about your product, in your market, with your distribution and fulfillment circumstances, can often be worse than flying blind. For more methodology detail , see the URL for the testing article below. Good luck — George Wehmann Direct Marketing Resources Group, Inc. Raleigh, NC, Voice: 919-231-2728 Nothing’s as devastating to a subjective opinion… as an actual result. — DMRG Website: http://www.improvedresults.com — White Paper On Direct Marketing Testing: http://www.improvedresults.com/testing.htm

Response:

Question:

The DH’s Christmas party last night was pretty fun.  At the very last minute I ran up to Macy’s to buy some more pantyhose in case I ripped the pair I had (which I did!) and I saw this really pretty, very dressy, little black velvet dress with a swingy long jacket ensemble.  It was exactly what I had been looking for, so I tried it on and it fit, looked great and I bought it (size 12, yeah) And boy am I glad I did!  Everyone was dressed to the hilt! Long beaded gowns, academy award type clothes were everywhere.  I would have felt so out of place in my original outfit.  I was kind of apprehensive about going because I used to work for this company too and recently quit and kind of screwed them, wasn’t real sure how people would react to me, I screwed them but my hubby is one of the big wigs there too. First thing when I walked into the ballroom the vice president gives me the sign of the cross and whisks me away to meet one of the investors and introduces me as "the deserter".  Nice.  He was just playing around and being obnoxious though, he told me he was really hurt that I quit and that there will always be a job there whenever I want to come back.  Anyhoo, that out of the way and the fact that everyone else was being very nice. I relaxed and actually enjoyed myself.  Hardly saw the DH all night I was so social. I drank water all night except for a small coke with dinner.  I ate salad, veggies a (yes just one) new potato and some sirloin steak strip thingy.  I had one itty bitty

Question:

Uh…Oh!  Well, you crossed the line.  My guess is that if you ever want another answer out of this group, change your name. Perhaps you’ve confused bookkeeping with accounting, that’s why they call it "QuickBooks" not "QuickAccounting." The other posters have advised you to hire an accountant and I’m going to join the chorus and add that you need to find a "good" accountant.  And, pay attention to your accountant.  You’re attitude reflects a dangerously casual attitude. We’re in the process of cleaning up a three year old small business, with a very modest $150,000 in annual revenues, that cut the wrong corners and is facing, in addition to consulting and legal fees, a little over $10,000 in fines and penalties, as well as a host of back taxes, and fortunate not to be facing a criminal trial.  Around $1,000 a year in total accounting fees, included tax preparation, would have saved all this grief. Do your own bookkeeping, hire an accountant for your accounting. Wins Burke

Response:

Perhaps you’ve confused bookkeeping with accounting, Do your own bookkeeping, hire an accountant for your accounting.

I want to throw in a plug for bookkeepers here. In my opinion, quality accounting requires quality bookkeeping.   If I have a well prepared set of books to work with, my job is easy.  If I don’t have a well prepared set of books to work with, I may not be able to do my job at all. I rarely accept (or keep) clients who insist on doing their own books. Incidentally, most successful owners I know figure their time and focus is better spent in their area of competence than in doing books. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://jim.hudspeth.com

Response:

Thanks again for the numerous responses to my question.  Even though I did not get an answer to my specific question I did learn a lot about what accounting is, who accountants are, and what to look for when chosing an accountant. As some of you pointed out correctly, I am new in the business terminology and I confused bookkeeping with accounting.  Sorry for stepping on some sensitive toes.  However, even though I was half joking with my ‘how hard can it be’ remark, I hope and think that doing the bookkeeping of a simple home based massage business is doable without having to pay also an accountant.  Starting such a business with all the licenses and stuff is expensive enough. Gerard

Response:

As others have noted, sure, you should be able to do your own bookkeeping. But you are operating a BUSINESS, and the requirements of doing so include learning how to run a business.  There are liability and insurance implications, tax and bookkeeping implications, and perhaps licensing requirements, for example.  What many others have attempted (with varying degrees of somewhat strained politeness) to explain is that you seem unaware of several issues that may have significant tax/bookkeeping implications; that these issues are more complicated than you believe; that a large number of people who understand these issues believe it is unwise (and/or impractical and/or unprofessional) for you to attempt to learn these issues (and for them to attempt to teach you) in a few brief e-mail exchanges. AFTER you understand some of these issues you will be able to do your own bookkeeping.  And the consensus seems to be that the best way for you to learn is to consult a professional.  It’s a cost of doing business – just like getting the licenses. Vernon Paige.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks again for the numerous responses to my question.  Even though I did not get an answer to my specific question I did learn a lot about what accounting is, who accountants are, and what to look for when chosing an accountant. As some of you pointed out correctly, I am new in the business terminology and I confused bookkeeping with accounting.  Sorry for stepping on some sensitive toes.  However, even though I was half joking with my ‘how hard can it be’ remark, I hope and think that doing the bookkeeping of a simple home based massage business is doable without having to pay also an accountant.  Starting such a business with all the licenses and stuff is expensive enough. Gerard

Response:

Thanks again for the numerous responses to my question.  Even though I did not get an answer to my specific question I did learn a lot about what accounting is, who accountants are, and what to look for when chosing an accountant. As some of you pointed out correctly, I am new in the business terminology and I confused bookkeeping with accounting.  Sorry for stepping on some sensitive toes.  However, even though I was half joking with my ‘how hard can it be’ remark, I hope and think that doing the bookkeeping of a simple home based massage business is doable without having to pay also an accountant.  Starting such a business with all the licenses and stuff is expensive enough. Gerard

well, sooner or later, u’ll find out that an accountant is important to your business!

Response:

Jim, I’d like to thank you for the "plug" for bookkeepers like me.  Good accountants recognize good bookkeeping, and a good bookkeeper can recognize bad accounting.  I depend on our CPA to answer the questions about depreciation, tax laws, etc., and he counts on me to record things the right way, in the right place. I would advise any new business to get their books set up by a professional bookkeeper (in QuickBooks, Peachtree, whatever), so that they don’t have to fix things down the line. Paula

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Perhaps you’ve confused bookkeeping with accounting, Do your own bookkeeping, hire an accountant for your accounting. I want to throw in a plug for bookkeepers here. In my opinion, quality accounting requires quality bookkeeping.   If I have a well prepared set of books to work with, my job is easy.  If I don’t have a well prepared set of books to work with, I may not be able to do my job at all. I rarely accept (or keep) clients who insist on doing their own books. Incidentally, most successful owners I know figure their time and focus is better spent in their area of competence than in doing books. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://jim.hudspeth.com

Response:

Joyce / Gerard, An an accountant I was amazed at your generalization about how tough it can be.  I am not sure what or why you are posting such questions, tetious in nature, to this newsgroup. In addition, depreciation is basic accounting.  I agree with Jim. Professional liability is a big issue.  Some accountants, those that are not publicly insured are not to provide expertise on these easy topics. So the best advise I can provide, as did Jim, ask a professional.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello again, The question I have today is related to the previous ‘assets vs expense’ question.  Thanks for the many responses I received.  Many of you have recommended to get in contact with an accountant and I am sure we will do that after a while, but before that I would like to do as much as possible myself (How hard can accounting be?) Now, my question is about when to register a depreciation of an asset. In the books and the help function I found how to set a depreciation/expense account up in Quickbooks, but the information I am now missing is what date I should enter the depreciation.  For example: On 9-30-99 we bought a massage table of let’s say $750. Right now I depreciated the first year $750/5=$150 on 9-30-99.  This is in correspondence to the example file that is given in Quickbooks. However, it could well be that it is normal to write of the first year at the end of the year or maybe for tax-purposes it common to depreciate on a monthly bases, so the true depreciation is accounted for at the end of a fiscal year? Any help on this topic would again be highly appreciated. Gerard I am one of the people who responded to your prior post. While I frequently respond to questions of a general nature and requests for information that is essentially public, as I did with your prior post, I do not give accounting advice or do student’s homework in this or any other newsgroup.  In my opinion, both are unprofessional and foolish. That is particularly true with regards to "giving accounting advice".  Any professional who does so may very well create professional liability exposure for him / herself with no offsetting fee. Your request here is clearly a request for free accounting advice.  I suggest you retain a qualified professional. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://jim.hudspeth.com

Response:

Accounting is hard enough that we went to post secondary school for a good number of years to be able to say we’re ‘Accountants’.  Perhaps you’re confusing bookkeeping with accounting.  They are two very different disciplines.  Also, if you’re in Canada, there is something called the half-year rule that you need to take into account for your tax filing. Depreciation in bookkeeping is different from CCA in taxation.  Consult a professional. Barb

Yes, how hard can accounting be?  Apparently hard enough that you don’t have a clue.  It is in extremely poor taste to insult the people you are trying to beg free advice from.  Get a professional.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello again, The question I have today is related to the previous ‘assets vs expense’ question.  Thanks for the many responses I received.  Many of you have recommended to get in contact with an accountant and I am sure we will do that after a while, but before that I would like to do as much as possible myself (How hard can accounting be?) Now, my question is about when to register a depreciation of an asset. In the books and the help function I found how to set a depreciation/expense account up in Quickbooks, but the information I am now missing is what date I should enter the depreciation.  For example: On 9-30-99 we bought a massage table of let’s say $750. Right now I depreciated the first year $750/5=$150 on 9-30-99.  This is in correspondence to the example file that is given in Quickbooks. However, it could well be that it is normal to write of the first year at the end of the year or maybe for tax-purposes it common to depreciate on a monthly bases, so the true depreciation is accounted for at the end of a fiscal year? Any help on this topic would again be highly appreciated. Gerard

Response:

Yes, how hard can accounting be?  Apparently hard enough that you don’t have a clue.  It is in extremely poor taste to insult the people you are trying to beg free advice from.  Get a professional.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello again, The question I have today is related to the previous ‘assets vs expense’ question.  Thanks for the many responses I received.  Many of you have recommended to get in contact with an accountant and I am sure we will do that after a while, but before that I would like to do as much as possible myself (How hard can accounting be?) Now, my question is about when to register a depreciation of an asset. In the books and the help function I found how to set a depreciation/expense account up in Quickbooks, but the information I am now missing is what date I should enter the depreciation.  For example: On 9-30-99 we bought a massage table of let’s say $750. Right now I depreciated the first year $750/5=$150 on 9-30-99.  This is in correspondence to the example file that is given in Quickbooks. However, it could well be that it is normal to write of the first year at the end of the year or maybe for tax-purposes it common to depreciate on a monthly bases, so the true depreciation is accounted for at the end of a fiscal year? Any help on this topic would again be highly appreciated. Gerard

Response:

Hello again, The question I have today is related to the previous ‘assets vs expense’ question.  Thanks for the many responses I received.  Many of you have recommended to get in contact with an accountant and I am sure we will do that after a while, but before that I would like to do as much as possible myself (How hard can accounting be?) Now, my question is about when to register a depreciation of an asset. In the books and the help function I found how to set a depreciation/expense account up in Quickbooks, but the information I am now missing is what date I should enter the depreciation.  For example: On 9-30-99 we bought a massage table of let’s say $750. Right now I depreciated the first year $750/5=$150 on 9-30-99.  This is in correspondence to the example file that is given in Quickbooks. However, it could well be that it is normal to write of the first year at the end of the year or maybe for tax-purposes it common to depreciate on a monthly bases, so the true depreciation is accounted for at the end of a fiscal year? Any help on this topic would again be highly appreciated. Gerard

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello again, The question I have today is related to the previous ‘assets vs expense’ question.  Thanks for the many responses I received.  Many of you have recommended to get in contact with an accountant and I am sure we will do that after a while, but before that I would like to do as much as possible myself (How hard can accounting be?) Now, my question is about when to register a depreciation of an asset. In the books and the help function I found how to set a depreciation/expense account up in Quickbooks, but the information I am now missing is what date I should enter the depreciation.  For example: On 9-30-99 we bought a massage table of let’s say $750. Right now I depreciated the first year $750/5=$150 on 9-30-99.  This is in correspondence to the example file that is given in Quickbooks. However, it could well be that it is normal to write of the first year at the end of the year or maybe for tax-purposes it common to depreciate on a monthly bases, so the true depreciation is accounted for at the end of a fiscal year? Any help on this topic would again be highly appreciated. Gerard

I am one of the people who responded to your prior post. While I frequently respond to questions of a general nature and requests for information that is essentially public, as I did with your prior post, I do not give accounting advice or do student’s homework in this or any other newsgroup.  In my opinion, both are unprofessional and foolish. That is particularly true with regards to "giving accounting advice".  Any professional who does so may very well create professional liability exposure for him / herself with no offsetting fee. Your request here is clearly a request for free accounting advice.  I suggest you retain a qualified professional. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://jim.hudspeth.com

Response:

Question:

How I’ve managed to stand up to you and all your threats of humiliation, is because I know that reported science backs me up in the claim that I’ve made on this legendary Goldman Sachs account of yours for a million bucks and some; because I know that reported science is standing right behind me on my claim.     You spend most of your time DENYING the reports of scientists, such as Rolland Conte’s French team’s work and their THEORY OF HIGH DILUTIONS, of what it is that they have discovered. Conte claims homeopathy saved his life, and by validating it with advanced physics, as he has, is his way he says of returning to it something in the way of gratitude.      I don’t see how it is that caring intelligent people are ever content to sit by and cling solely to past notions of action against disease, UNLESS of course they have been browbeaten and quelled into silence by the type of obloquy that pours forth from Goldman Sachs, the American Physical Society, the MacArthur Foundation in the mouth of Hamilton Zwinge or hypnotized by your deceptions into believe that energy medicine is bunk despite it’s skyrocket growth.        I think its time for us to take your foot out of my mouth.        I wonder if John and Catherine MacArthur could see what their little genius has been doing, if he would still be a fellow. If the MacArthur Foundation does know, and allows their name and resources to be used in conjunction with this ugly campaign by the James Randi Educational Foundation against the promotion and use of energy medicine , the first thing that should be done is to raise a cry against these people and their organizations. It should be  carefully articulated how it is that the public suffers unknowingly from the denunciations the American Physical Society, the National Institute of Standards and Terms, Goldman Sachs and the MacArthur Foundation by trafficking with or by association and support of Zwinge. And they will see the accounting for it.        WHat’s the liability in hanging with Hamilton Zwinge? How much is the public health worth? How many billions of dollars are people pouring into the health industry every year? And how many of these illnesses could be handled efficiently and painlessly by energy medicine? How many lives instead have been doomed by mainstream medicine because people have been told not to trust in energy medicine?       And when your words are imitated, backed by your phony challenge, how many people die a slow painful death, like the little boy who died on a bedpost trying to be an escape artist . .  like the one he saw on TV . . . what was his real name, Mr. Zwinge? Who cared enough about him or was cognizant enough of the pitfalls of your instructions to warn him not to listen to you, Mr. Zwinge?        Do you think his death was the only death that was caused by the imitation of you?  And the MacArthur foundation thinks you’re a genius? And they give you money for this? I think you’re a public menace . . . and I think they are too for supporting you, as is GOldman Sachs a public menace for supporting, as is NIST, and the APS . . .       Your final argument and seemingly impregnable redoubt is that the promoters of energy medicine would have easily won this . . . phony as it turns out . . . psychic challenge if they were any validity to their claims.        If I’m wrong, then this has been your big chance, not to just bag one  little water witcher but an entire industry of what you say is fraud. If you truly believe it to be fraud, then why aren’t you prosecuting it to the full extent of the known law? You’re the genius, you’re the one who is supposed to have superior knowledge and know how, don’t you have a responsibility under U.S. Federal law Title 42 to take responsible action to prevent a crime from being committed? How many millions of dollars are spent every year on these homeopathic "medicines?"  This has been your BIG chance to show to the world how stupid everyone is in having believed in this fraudulent pseudo science of homeopathy. Look at all those Indians who have made it the second most popular medical modality in use today, second only to CHinese medicine in numbers of devotees. You can show them how gullible they are and how they’ve been tricked, and because of you, lives should be saved, shouldn’t they? What are you waiting for? Get on with it!  This has been your chance to show everyone the ultimate placebo effect. A chance to humiliate and silence the biggest loudmouth of them all! So why have you failed even to write your own signature to your own words unless YOU YOURSELF know that IF this trial was fairly put on you would lose.        Do you fear the humiliation? If your challenge isn’t a fraud, then how come you need all this angry polemic to hurl?        I’m telling you we have the tools to deal with anything, but we hesitate to use them. Why is that? Could it be that the medical energy practitioner is afraid to use the world’s greatest doctrine of medicine because of the criticism, censure and ridicule one receives when offering energy medicine to the public? And how is it that your tribe of denunciates can call serious professionals frauds, unless they get their rhetoric from you?        How many people do you know who have died of cancer? How many medical practitioners do you know who successfully treat cancer without chemotherapy? How many people do you know who would trust in the treatment of a serious life threatening disease by an alternative practitioner? How many cases of terminal disease have been cured by medical practitioners who offer alternative cures? Very few if any? Why is that?         I don’t see the denunciate’s position, such as that taken by Randal Zwinge, aka the Amazing Randi, a self confessed fraud who dropped out of high school to flee his country, as having little or no impact on our thinking. It guides us down a lonely path of separateness and sickness. It treats us as if are spiritless machines.     It’s time to put an end to all this madness so people can see an alternative way to heal their ills. This is not just a struggle against you and your co-conspirators for happiness, it’s a struggle for life. And you’ve been triangulated, we know who you are and who supports you, and I sense they are about to be bundled and exorcised with you. Unless of course you all would like to rethink your position, so we can all enter the new millennium embarked together in a new course for energy medicine. John Benneth http://www.marius.net/proof.html AUGUST 8th posting to sci.skeptic misc.health.alternative alt.magic.history

Response:

How I’ve managed to stand up to you and all your threats of humiliation, is because I know that reported science backs me up in the claim that I’ve made on this legendary Goldman Sachs account of yours for a million bucks and some; because I know that reported science is standing right behind me on my claim.

<etc Don’t panic, Mr. Benneth! I’ve called 911 and they are sending a unit right over to pry that idiot off your computer. Next time, try not to leave it on when you go out, okay? Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

Excellent application for KOTY. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How I’ve managed to stand up to you and all your threats of humiliation, is because I know that reported science backs me up in the claim that I’ve made on this legendary Goldman Sachs account of yours for a million bucks and some; because I know that reported science is standing right behind me on my claim.    You spend most of your time DENYING the reports of scientists, such as Rolland Conte’s French team’s work and their THEORY OF HIGH DILUTIONS, of what it is that they have discovered. Conte claims homeopathy saved his life, and by validating it with advanced physics, as he has, is his way he says of returning to it something in the way of gratitude.     I don’t see how it is that caring intelligent people are ever content to sit by and cling solely to past notions of action against disease, UNLESS of course they have been browbeaten and quelled into silence by the type of obloquy that pours forth from Goldman Sachs, the American Physical Society, the MacArthur Foundation in the mouth of Hamilton Zwinge or hypnotized by your deceptions into believe that energy medicine is bunk despite it’s skyrocket growth.       I think its time for us to take your foot out of my mouth.       I wonder if John and Catherine MacArthur could see what their little genius has been doing, if he would still be a fellow. If the MacArthur Foundation does know, and allows their name and resources to be used in conjunction with this ugly campaign by the James Randi Educational Foundation against the promotion and use of energy medicine , the first thing that should be done is to raise a cry against these people and their organizations. It should be  carefully articulated how it is that the public suffers unknowingly from the denunciations the American Physical Society, the National Institute of Standards and Terms, Goldman Sachs and the MacArthur Foundation by trafficking with or by association and support of Zwinge. And they will see the accounting for it.       WHat’s the liability in hanging with Hamilton Zwinge? How much is the public health worth? How many billions of dollars are people pouring into the health industry every year? And how many of these illnesses could be handled efficiently and painlessly by energy medicine? How many lives instead have been doomed by mainstream medicine because people have been told not to trust in energy medicine?      And when your words are imitated, backed by your phony challenge, how many people die a slow painful death, like the little boy who died on a bedpost trying to be an escape artist . .  like the one he saw on TV . . . what was his real name, Mr. Zwinge? Who cared enough about him or was cognizant enough of the pitfalls of your instructions to warn him not to listen to you, Mr. Zwinge?       Do you think his death was the only death that was caused by the imitation of you?  And the MacArthur foundation thinks you’re a genius? And they give you money for this? I think you’re a public menace . . . and I think they are too for supporting you, as is GOldman Sachs a public menace for supporting, as is NIST, and the APS . . .      Your final argument and seemingly impregnable redoubt is that the promoters of energy medicine would have easily won this . . . phony as it turns out . . . psychic challenge if they were any validity to their claims.       If I’m wrong, then this has been your big chance, not to just bag one  little water witcher but an entire industry of what you say is fraud. If you truly believe it to be fraud, then why aren’t you prosecuting it to the full extent of the known law? You’re the genius, you’re the one who is supposed to have superior knowledge and know how, don’t you have a responsibility under U.S. Federal law Title 42 to take responsible action to prevent a crime from being committed? How many millions of dollars are spent every year on these homeopathic "medicines?"  This has been your BIG chance to show to the world how stupid everyone is in having believed in this fraudulent pseudo science of homeopathy. Look at all those Indians who have made it the second most popular medical modality in use today, second only to CHinese medicine in numbers of devotees. You can show them how gullible they are and how they’ve been tricked, and because of you, lives should be saved, shouldn’t they? What are you waiting for? Get on with it!  This has been your chance to show everyone the ultimate placebo effect. A chance to humiliate and silence the biggest loudmouth of them all! So why have you failed even to write your own signature to your own words unless YOU YOURSELF know that IF this trial was fairly put on you would lose.       Do you fear the humiliation? If your challenge isn’t a fraud, then how come you need all this angry polemic to hurl?       I’m telling you we have the tools to deal with anything, but we hesitate to use them. Why is that? Could it be that the medical energy practitioner is afraid to use the world’s greatest doctrine of medicine because of the criticism, censure and ridicule one receives when offering energy medicine to the public? And how is it that your tribe of denunciates can call serious professionals frauds, unless they get their rhetoric from you?       How many people do you know who have died of cancer? How many medical practitioners do you know who successfully treat cancer without chemotherapy? How many people do you know who would trust in the treatment of a serious life threatening disease by an alternative practitioner? How many cases of terminal disease have been cured by medical practitioners who offer alternative cures? Very few if any? Why is that?        I don’t see the denunciate’s position, such as that taken by Randal Zwinge, aka the Amazing Randi, a self confessed fraud who dropped out of high school to flee his country, as having little or no impact on our thinking. It guides us down a lonely path of separateness and sickness. It treats us as if are spiritless machines.    It’s time to put an end to all this madness so people can see an alternative way to heal their ills. This is not just a struggle against you and your co-conspirators for happiness, it’s a struggle for life. And you’ve been triangulated, we know who you are and who supports you, and I sense they are about to be bundled and exorcised with you. Unless of course you all would like to rethink your position, so we can all enter the new millennium embarked together in a new course for energy medicine. John Benneth http://www.marius.net/proof.html AUGUST 8th posting to sci.skeptic misc.health.alternative alt.magic.history

Response:

Question:

Hi group! I’m interested in advice/suggestions/resources on designing workpapers for analysis and audit protection/insurance purposes.  Do you find a particular process or approach useful in determining and developing readable meaningful workpapers? Thanks in advance for sharing your views

Response:

I’m interested in advice/suggestions/resources on designing workpapers for analysis and audit protection/insurance purposes.  Do you find a particular process or approach useful in determining and developing readable meaningful workpapers?

        IMHO, the most important thing is to make sure that someone else reviewing workpapers can easily understand them (e.g. why and how you are making certain calculations). Accountants tend to be busy people, so we occasionally forget that what seems obvious to us (the ones who created the working papers) might not be obvious to someone who has never seen them.         When I used to work for a CPA firm, our working papers were always reviewed by another accountant at the firm (someone who had "fresh eyes"). "Only two things are infinite, the universe  and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about  the former."                                 – Albert Einstein      

Response:

Question:

In article <4scao5$…@news.usit.net> Joe Belk, bel…@usit.net writes: >Now the connection has been made between the NEA’s sex education >preferences and the possibly criminal, possibly fraudulent research of >Alfred Kinsey fifty years ago. This research appears under scrutiny to >be akin to research conducted by German Nazis on Jewish subjects in >the 1940’s, ……..

You must read a lot of nazi research……… Have any improvements been made lately??? Just wondering, you seem like the one who would know!!! Member NEA/VEA/VBEA and proud to teach!!