Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sorry for any confusion, I am a newbie, remember? "Wages" below is the cash expense I was referring to.  Wages are no different from wages that are actually paid.  The vacation time is not paid out, but would appear on cash-based reports as the wages form the journal entry below, or am  wrong?  If it would, that is my problem. Thanks to all who responded. This probably won’t help clear things up, but cash basis folks would not accrue vacation. It cleared it up for me! That’s what I was thinking. If you’re accruing vacation, then you’re not really "cash-based." That’s probably why QB doesn’t do it. A true cash system would pay out the extra vacation money with each paycheck, leaving it up to the employee to save that money for their time off. I can’t imagine that ever happening, but a recent post here suggested that it is done at least in one company out there

You may want to think about the above again. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – somewhere… Angela

Response:

My understanding was that QB allows you to store all transactions, liabilities, etc, and report on either cash or accrual basis.  If you run reports on cash basis, you do not see accrued vacation; on accrual basis you do.  What would be wrong with this?  Would not it be nice to track your actual expenses and liabilities, even if not all of them are visible on all reports? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – David is right. There are two types of accounting methods; 1) cash-basis and 2) accrual. In the text book world of accounting you cannot have receivables, payables, or accruals under the cash-basis accounting method, although many businesses try to do it that way. Jan "Wages" below is the cash expense I was referring to.  Wages are no different from wages that are actually paid.  The vacation time is not paid out, but would appear on cash-based reports as the wages form the journal entry below, or am  wrong?  If it would, that is my problem. This probably won’t help clear things up, but cash basis folks would not accrue vacation.

Response:

David is right. There are two types of accounting methods; 1) cash-basis and 2) accrual. In the text book world of accounting you cannot have receivables, payables, or accruals under the cash-basis accounting method, although many businesses try to do it that way. Jan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Wages" below is the cash expense I was referring to.  Wages are no different from wages that are actually paid.  The vacation time is not paid out, but would appear on cash-based reports as the wages form the journal entry below, or am  wrong?  If it would, that is my problem. This probably won’t help clear things up, but cash basis folks would not accrue vacation.

Response:

Sorry for any confusion, I am a newbie, remember? "Wages" below is the cash expense I was referring to.  Wages are no different from wages that are actually paid.  The vacation time is not paid out, but would appear on cash-based reports as the wages form the journal entry below, or am  wrong?  If it would, that is my problem. Thanks to all who responded. This probably won’t help clear things up, but cash basis folks would not accrue vacation.

It cleared it up for me! That’s what I was thinking. If you’re accruing vacation, then you’re not really "cash-based." That’s probably why QB doesn’t do it. A true cash system would pay out the extra vacation money with each paycheck, leaving it up to the employee to save that money for their time off. I can’t imagine that ever happening, but a recent post here suggested that it is done at least in one company out there somewhere… Angela

Response:

Sorry for any confusion, I am a newbie, remember? "Wages" below is the cash expense I was referring to.  Wages are no different from wages that are actually paid.  The vacation time is not paid out, but would appear on cash-based reports as the wages form the journal entry below, or am  wrong?  If it would, that is my problem. Thanks to all who responded.

This probably won’t help clear things up, but cash basis folks would not accrue vacation. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – QB tracks vacation time, but to my understanding does not show it as a liability on, say, profit and loss reports. You can create a liability account and track accrued vacation there, in dollars; however, to increase the liability you need to record a cash expense. You need to record a journal entry not a cash expense. The entry is something like: Wages              xxxxxxx Accrued vacation                 xxxxxxxxx In this case, the expense would show on cash-basis reports, even though no cash has been paid.  This seems like a problem. Ideally, the liability should reflect the accrued vacation (on accrual based reports) but not on cash based reports Also ideally when the employees receive their vaction pay the accrual is automatically reversed. I’m quite certain the Canadian edition has tracked accrued vacation pay for at least the last 3-4 years. Don’t expect to see this mid-range feature in QB for a long time if ever. The answer is no. You will have to record the accrual via journal entry. QuickBooks 2004 Thanks Do you think it would be helpful if you told us what software you were using? I wonder if it is possible to tack accrued vacation so that company liability increases with every pay period (or every month, etc.), and reports on accrual basis show this liability, but reports on cash basis only show the vacation time actually taken and paid. TIA —

Response:

Sorry for any confusion, I am a newbie, remember? "Wages" below is the cash expense I was referring to.  Wages are no different from wages that are actually paid.  The vacation time is not paid out, but would appear on cash-based reports as the wages form the journal entry below, or am  wrong?  If it would, that is my problem. Thanks to all who responded.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – QB tracks vacation time, but to my understanding does not show it as a liability on, say, profit and loss reports. You can create a liability account and track accrued vacation there, in dollars; however, to increase the liability you need to record a cash expense. You need to record a journal entry not a cash expense. The entry is something like: Wages              xxxxxxx Accrued vacation                 xxxxxxxxx In this case, the expense would show on cash-basis reports, even though no cash has been paid.  This seems like a problem. Ideally, the liability should reflect the accrued vacation (on accrual based reports) but not on cash based reports Also ideally when the employees receive their vaction pay the accrual is automatically reversed. I’m quite certain the Canadian edition has tracked accrued vacation pay for at least the last 3-4 years. Don’t expect to see this mid-range feature in QB for a long time if ever. The answer is no. You will have to record the accrual via journal entry. QuickBooks 2004 Thanks Do you think it would be helpful if you told us what software you were using? I wonder if it is possible to tack accrued vacation so that company liability increases with every pay period (or every month, etc.), and reports on accrual basis show this liability, but reports on cash basis only show the vacation time actually taken and paid. TIA —

Response:

QB tracks vacation time, but to my understanding does not show it as a liability on, say, profit and loss reports. You can create a liability account and track accrued vacation there, in dollars; however, to increase the liability you need to record a cash expense.

You need to record a journal entry not a cash expense. The entry is something like: Wages              xxxxxxx Accrued vacation                 xxxxxxxxx In this case, the expense would show on cash-basis reports, even though no cash has been paid.  This seems like a problem. Ideally, the liability should reflect the accrued vacation (on accrual based reports) but not on cash based reports

Also ideally when the employees receive their vaction pay the accrual is automatically reversed. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m quite certain the Canadian edition has tracked accrued vacation pay for at least the last 3-4 years. Don’t expect to see this mid-range feature in QB for a long time if ever. The answer is no. You will have to record the accrual via journal entry. QuickBooks 2004 Thanks Do you think it would be helpful if you told us what software you were using? I wonder if it is possible to tack accrued vacation so that company liability increases with every pay period (or every month, etc.), and reports on accrual basis show this liability, but reports on cash basis only show the vacation time actually taken and paid. TIA —

Response:

Yes, I checked again. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Quite certain sort of leaves room for doubt. Do you know for a fact that it actually books the liability in the general ledger? I’m quite certain the Canadian edition has tracked accrued vacation pay for at least the last 3-4 years. Don’t expect to see this mid-range feature in QB for a long time if ever. The answer is no. You will have to record the accrual via journal entry. QuickBooks 2004 Thanks Do you think it would be helpful if you told us what software you were using? I wonder if it is possible to tack accrued vacation so that company liability increases with every pay period (or every month, etc.), and reports on accrual basis show this liability, but reports on cash basis only show the vacation time actually taken and paid. TIA —

Response:

Liabilities are included on the balance sheet, not Profit and Loss. Payroll expense for my clients (in Canada) includes the vacation pay accrual, and the liability is included in payroll liabilities on the balance sheet.  Apparently this is not the case in other countries. I’m confused by MG’s advice that you must record a "cash expense" to increase a liability.  It seems to me that a "cash expense" reduces cash (asset) and increases an expense but does not affect a liability account. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – QB tracks vacation time, but to my understanding does not show it as a liability on, say, profit and loss reports. You can create a liability account and track accrued vacation there, in dollars; however, to increase the liability you need to record a cash expense.  In this case, the expense would show on cash-basis reports, even though no cash has been paid.  This seems like a problem. Ideally, the liability should reflect the accrued vacation (on accrual based reports) but not on cash based reports I’m quite certain the Canadian edition has tracked accrued vacation pay for at least the last 3-4 years. Don’t expect to see this mid-range feature in QB for a long time if ever. The answer is no. You will have to record the accrual via journal entry. QuickBooks 2004 Thanks Do you think it would be helpful if you told us what software you were using? I wonder if it is possible to tack accrued vacation so that company liability increases with every pay period (or every month, etc.), and reports on accrual basis show this liability, but reports on cash basis only show the vacation time actually taken and paid. TIA —

Response:

Quite certain sort of leaves room for doubt. Do you know for a fact that it actually books the liability in the general ledger?

I’m quite certain the Canadian edition has tracked accrued vacation pay for at least the last 3-4 years.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don’t expect to see this mid-range feature in QB for a long time if ever. The answer is no. You will have to record the accrual via journal entry. QuickBooks 2004 Thanks Do you think it would be helpful if you told us what software you were using? I wonder if it is possible to tack accrued vacation so that company liability increases with every pay period (or every month, etc.), and reports on accrual basis show this liability, but reports on cash basis only show the vacation time actually taken and paid. TIA —

Response:

QB tracks vacation time, but to my understanding does not show it as a liability on, say, profit and loss reports. You can create a liability account and track accrued vacation there, in dollars; however, to increase the liability you need to record a cash expense.  In this case, the expense would show on cash-basis reports, even though no cash has been paid.  This seems like a problem. Ideally, the liability should reflect the accrued vacation (on accrual based reports) but not on cash based reports

I’m quite certain the Canadian edition has tracked accrued vacation pay for at least the last 3-4 years.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don’t expect to see this mid-range feature in QB for a long time if ever. The answer is no. You will have to record the accrual via journal entry. QuickBooks 2004 Thanks Do you think it would be helpful if you told us what software you were using? I wonder if it is possible to tack accrued vacation so that company liability increases with every pay period (or every month, etc.), and reports on accrual basis show this liability, but reports on cash basis only show the vacation time actually taken and paid. TIA —

Response:

Don’t expect to see this mid-range feature in QB for a long time if ever. The answer is no. You will have to record the accrual via journal entry.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – QuickBooks 2004 Thanks Do you think it would be helpful if you told us what software you were using? I wonder if it is possible to tack accrued vacation so that company liability increases with every pay period (or every month, etc.), and reports on accrual basis show this liability, but reports on cash basis only show the vacation time actually taken and paid. TIA —

Response:

I’m quite certain the Canadian edition has tracked accrued vacation pay for at least the last 3-4 years. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don’t expect to see this mid-range feature in QB for a long time if ever. The answer is no. You will have to record the accrual via journal entry. QuickBooks 2004 Thanks Do you think it would be helpful if you told us what software you were using? I wonder if it is possible to tack accrued vacation so that company liability increases with every pay period (or every month, etc.), and reports on accrual basis show this liability, but reports on cash basis only show the vacation time actually taken and paid. TIA —

Response:

Do you think it would be helpful if you told us what software you were using?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I wonder if it is possible to tack accrued vacation so that company liability increases with every pay period (or every month, etc.), and reports on accrual basis show this liability, but reports on cash basis only show the vacation time actually taken and paid. TIA —

Response:

QuickBooks 2004 Thanks

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Do you think it would be helpful if you told us what software you were using? I wonder if it is possible to tack accrued vacation so that company liability increases with every pay period (or every month, etc.), and reports on accrual basis show this liability, but reports on cash basis only show the vacation time actually taken and paid. TIA —

Response:

I wonder if it is possible to tack accrued vacation so that company liability increases with every pay period (or every month, etc.), and reports on accrual basis show this liability, but reports on cash basis only show the vacation time actually taken and paid. TIA —

Response:

I wonder if it is possible to tack accrued vacation so that company liability increases with every pay period (or every month, etc.), and reports on accrual basis show this liability, but reports on cash basis only show the vacation time actually taken and paid. TIA

Yes.

Response:

Question:

Now, it’s correct to debit accumulated depreciation (per my professor). My GROUP was wrong. Figures. I’m the only one with any sense. —

Response:

Do you mean to say that you were questioning our input based on the "knowledge" of a group of students? Ken Russell

| Now, it’s correct to debit accumulated depreciation (per my professor). My | GROUP was wrong. Figures. I’m the only one with any sense. | | — | | | | — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

No, I was questioning it because my professor seemed to say that you didn’t need it when we were asking him questions. There’s a real bad example in the book about exchanging similar assets, with baseball players, and it’s throwing a lot of people off. The book is incomplete and doesn’t have enough examples by far. In my mind I knew you needed it, it’s obvious. I underestimate myself too much. I’m the best student in the class, but admittedly we’re way behind in class and the class is unfortunately filled with idiots who aren’t serious about accounting like I am. Also keep in mind i’m juggling cost accounting and income tax accounting too. The Thanksgiving break can’t come soon enough.

Do you mean to say that you were questioning our input based on the "knowledge" of a group of students? Ken Russell

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – | Now, it’s correct to debit accumulated depreciation (per my professor). My | GROUP was wrong. Figures. I’m the only one with any sense. | | — | | | | — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

Hey this is Janice. I guess now, seeing as I am also a student, I do have a pretty good understanding of intermediate. The answers I gave you were correct as per my instructor and GAAP. The thing you need to remember about this whole thing of exchange of assets of similar or dissimilar items is that you are making JOURNAL ENTRIES. Forget about the math and think about the ledgers. This will really help sort out the confusion. As I mentioned a week or so ago, it really helps to draw T accounts and place the appropriate numbers as given in the exercises. It really helps to clear up how you should prepare the entries. As my instructor says the biggest problem students have is that they can’t read. Janice – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Now, it’s correct to debit accumulated depreciation (per my professor). My GROUP was wrong. Figures. I’m the only one with any sense. —

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hey this is Janice. I guess now, seeing as I am also a student, I do have a pretty good understanding of intermediate. The answers I gave you were correct as per my instructor and GAAP. The thing you need to remember about this whole thing of exchange of assets of similar or dissimilar items is that you are making JOURNAL ENTRIES. Forget about the math and think about the ledgers. This will really help sort out the confusion. As I mentioned a week or so ago, it really helps to draw T accounts and place the appropriate numbers as given in the exercises. It really helps to clear up how you should prepare the entries. As my instructor says the biggest problem students have is that they can’t read. Janice

Now, it’s correct to debit accumulated depreciation (per my professor). My GROUP was wrong. Figures. I’m the only one with any sense. —

Janice, I dont’t think that the problem is that students can’t read.  The problem is that they don’t read! Wayne Brasch, CPA, M. S. Taxation

Response:

Janice, I dont’t think that the problem is that students can’t read.  The problem is that they don’t read! Wayne Brasch, CPA, M. S. Taxation

<chuckling Right you are!

Response:

And it’s obvious your prof knows it all!!! Accounting is a science and an art…. if you’re a good accountant you can use GAAP to produce any results.   Textbook accounting is not the real thing, just the start of the art which is acquired through a lifelong career.   Something your Prof has not likely acquired if s/he is drilling into you the ‘musts’ and the ‘always’. Ask any good accountant… they can use GAAP to make a loss a profit or a profit a loss.   GAAP is not set in stone and can be easily interpretated into what is required of it.   P.S. I plonked this hi’s address from my usenet downloading and missed out on all the hilarious conversation… it wasn’t until I saw the posting of his ‘depression’ and ‘urinary concerns’, that I thought I unplonk him to see his dumb comments…. I’m enjoying everyone of his dumb thoughts now… very entertaining. Why do you question why you may not get correct answers here???  Why would you think we would want to do your homework for you???  DUH! And the more you make yourself look dumb, the more we want to help you out with answers, but since your Prof knows the ‘correct’ answers and those provided here are incorrect, you might want to ask yourself why accountants are giving you the answers they are… that is the start to understanding and learning the art of accounting! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No, I was questioning it because my professor seemed to say that you didn’t need it when we were asking him questions. There’s a real bad example in the book about exchanging similar assets, with baseball players, and it’s throwing a lot of people off. The book is incomplete and doesn’t have enough examples by far. In my mind I knew you needed it, it’s obvious. I underestimate myself too much. I’m the best student in the class, but admittedly we’re way behind in class and the class is unfortunately filled with idiots who aren’t serious about accounting like I am. Also keep in mind i’m juggling cost accounting and income tax accounting too. The Thanksgiving break can’t come soon enough. Do you mean to say that you were questioning our input based on the "knowledge" of a group of students? Ken Russell | Now, it’s correct to debit accumulated depreciation (per my professor). My | GROUP was wrong. Figures. I’m the only one with any sense. | | — | | | | — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

Question:

Response:

google   "Homeowner association budgeting and accounting course" by Int’l City/County Management association –  usaid.gov It’s free !!

Response:

Is the question how to do homeowners association accounting or what software to use? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – google   "Homeowner association budgeting and accounting course" by Int’l City/County Management association –  usaid.gov It’s free !!

– Affordable Support Services .. No waiting for help. 660-949-2416 Northeastern Missouri

Response:

Question:

Hi, I’m doing a cost-volume-profit analysis for a fictional business as part of my first year accounting studies. The text and the tutor’s notes are a little unclear on a particular matter. In calculating the fixed costs for this business do I include the $2000 a month the owner intends to draw from the business for his personal use? The business has already budgeted a certain amount for salaries and the $2000 is in addition to this amount. Would this be classed as a salary (fixed cost) or should it be left out of the equation altogether. Thanks in advance.

Response:

Hi, I’m doing a cost-volume-profit analysis for a fictional business as part of my first year accounting studies. The text and the tutor’s notes are a little unclear on a particular matter. In calculating the fixed costs for this business do I include the $2000 a month the owner intends to draw from the business for his personal use? The business has already budgeted a certain amount for salaries and the $2000 is in addition to this amount. Would this be classed as a salary (fixed cost) or should it be left out of the equation altogether. Thanks in advance.

 include it in fixed costs

Response:

Hi, I’m doing a cost-volume-profit analysis for a fictional business as part of my first year accounting studies. The text and the tutor’s notes are a little unclear on a particular matter. In calculating the fixed costs for this business do I include the $2000 a month the owner intends to draw from the business for his personal use? The business has already budgeted a certain amount for salaries and the $2000 is in addition to this amount. Would this be classed as a salary (fixed cost) or should it be left out of the equation altogether. Thanks in advance.

I beg to differ with John slightly.  If it’s a salary for work done, as an employee of the business and at a reasonable level, it’s a fixed cost.  Ditto if it’s rent.  If it’s anything over that it’s a drawing out of profit. The point to consider is the word ‘fixed’.  If he ceases working for the business, then somebody else has to do that work for an equivalent amount.  Hence it’s a fixed cost to the business – it can’t do without it.  The proprietor doesn’t have to draw out excess amounts (unless he’s broke!), so that’s not a fixed cost to the business. So, with two different answers you may have preferred not to have asked the question in the first place.  Sorry about that! Regards Mike

Response:

I agree with Mike on this one. Depends on the treatment of the director’s drawing, if it is P/L item or not…… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, I’m doing a cost-volume-profit analysis for a fictional business as part of my first year accounting studies. The text and the tutor’s notes are a little unclear on a particular matter. In calculating the fixed costs for this business do I include the $2000 a month the owner intends to draw from the business for his personal use? The business has already budgeted a certain amount for salaries and the $2000 is in addition to this amount. Would this be classed as a salary (fixed cost) or should it be left out of the equation altogether. Thanks in advance. I beg to differ with John slightly.  If it’s a salary for work done, as an employee of the business and at a reasonable level, it’s a fixed cost.  Ditto if it’s rent.  If it’s anything over that it’s a drawing out of profit. The point to consider is the word ‘fixed’.  If he ceases working for the business, then somebody else has to do that work for an equivalent amount.  Hence it’s a fixed cost to the business – it can’t do without it.  The proprietor doesn’t have to draw out excess amounts (unless he’s broke!), so that’s not a fixed cost to the business. So, with two different answers you may have preferred not to have asked the question in the first place.  Sorry about that! Regards Mike

Response:

It sounds to me like the $2000/mth is a direct drawing on capital and wouldn’t be deemed an expense.  Personally I would regard this as a red herring and document an assumption that this is irrelevant to the cost-volume-profit analysis as it’s in addition to budgeted salaries. As Mike says below, even if the drawing is personally necessary for the proprietor, it’s unnecessary for the business.  Even though there may be a legal relationship between the proprietor and the business, the GAAP Entity convention assumes that they are completely separate from an accounting perspective. Hope this helps. Regards, Ian. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I agree with Mike on this one. Depends on the treatment of the director’s drawing, if it is P/L item or not…… Hi, I’m doing a cost-volume-profit analysis for a fictional business as  part of my first year accounting studies. The text and the tutor’s notes are  a little unclear on a particular matter. In calculating the fixed costs  for this business do I include the $2000 a month the owner intends to draw  from the business for his personal use? The business has already budgeted a certain amount for salaries and the $2000 is in addition to this amount. Would this be classed as a salary (fixed cost) or should it be left out  of the equation altogether. Thanks in advance. I beg to differ with John slightly.  If it’s a salary for work done, as an employee of the business and at a reasonable level, it’s a fixed cost.  Ditto if it’s rent.  If it’s anything over that it’s a drawing out of profit. The point to consider is the word ‘fixed’.  If he ceases working for the business, then somebody else has to do that work for an equivalent amount.  Hence it’s a fixed cost to the business – it can’t do without it.  The proprietor doesn’t have to draw out excess amounts (unless he’s broke!), so that’s not a fixed cost to the business. So, with two different answers you may have preferred not to have asked the question in the first place.  Sorry about that! Regards Mike

Response:

Question:

http://accounting.smartpros.com/x36188.xml Anyone here agree with Pitt (required forensic audit)?

I agree that it’s a good idea. Will Pitt’s successor? For that matter, will Pitt ever have a successor? Regards, Bill

Response:

<snip http://accounting.smartpros.com/x36188.xml Anyone here agree with Pitt (required forensic audit)?

Not if they are from the certifying audit firm.  Even forensic auditors are humans and as such subject to temptations like the rest of us. To me Pitt means just "money for the boys". 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": Kennedy Qaddafi genetic Bin Ladin heroine CIA Soviet assassination Iraq

Response:

<snip ]Anyone here agree with Pitt (required forensic audit)? The idea has merit. My concerns would be the cost – both for the forensic audit, and the interruption to business. If it can be done in a sensible way, then I am for it. If such an audit an pick up false invoices, non-existant "returns" etc it could have saved a friends life. IF… —  ,-,_|  George Dau.                     /    * gedau at isa dot mim dot com         _,–_/ I live in .au, you need to add that       v  to the end of my e-mail address above.

Response:

How High-tech Fraud Squads Dig for Corporate Dirt Dec. 3, 2002 (International Herald Tribune) — Andrew Durant divides corporate fraudsters into a few unflattering categories: the "bullies, the stupid ones who get caught, the lovable rogues and the quiet ones who stay in the background." Durant, a partner at the accounting firm BDO Stoy Hayward, has a knack for knowing the typical varieties of white-collar criminals seemingly lurking behind water coolers everywhere in the wake of the Enron scandal. He is a forensic auditor, a formerly obscure profession that has gained prominence amid a series of high-profile cases of corporate malfeasance over the last year. Fraud squads for hire such as the one Durant runs are experts in rooting out everything from the accounting irregularities that brought down Enron to more run-of- the-mill cases when, say, a hotel worker inflates the dry-cleaning expenses and takes a kickback. Harvey Pitt, the departing head of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, proposed last week that U.S. companies be required to employ forensic auditors from time to time, giving them a second line of defense against fraud when ordinary auditors fail. The proposal, which will be put out for public comment before any decision on whether to adopt it, was floated along with other plans for implementing accounting reform measures adopted by Congress. Under the plan, U.S. companies would have to hire forensic teams independent from their regular auditors even when there is no suspicion of fraud. <snip Auditing teams also try to look at parts of a business where productivity and morale are low, and where staff turnover is high. But sometimes those who seem like eager beavers, at their desks from dawn to dusk, are the most likely fraudsters. From 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. they do their normal jobs, but at 7 in the morning or 9 at night, they may be cooking the books or erasing their trails. Typically, fraudsters are male, though whistle-blowers are often female. In one case handled by Kerr, a managing director of the British subsidiary of a multinational company used false invoices and expense claims to bilk his employer of nearly l1 million. Payments of more than l200,000 to himself and family members were disguised as consulting fees, for example. A l50,000-sports car was expensed as a mobile work site. But he had made the mistake of leaving false invoice templates on his computer along with the digital pornography that investigators say most fraudsters also seem to enjoy. The invoices were compared with the company’s accounting records, and many of the listed "suppliers" turned out to be false. <snip http://accounting.smartpros.com/x36188.xml Anyone here agree with Pitt (required forensic audit)? Jim Hudspeth

Response:

Question:

http://www.aquarianonline.com/Wellness/quackwatch.html I believe Quackwatch needs to be held as accountable as the "quacks" they seek to expose.

In my experience, it is the wilful and hypocritical inattention to accuracy at Dr. Barrett’s website that is a disgrace.

Yep, totally agree. Jan

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In my experience, it is the wilful and hypocritical inattention to accuracy at Dr. Barrett’s website that is a disgrace. In his long article on homeopathy, Barrett’s accounting of the clinical research is compromised by omissions that would be unthinkable for any impartial scholar or journalist. In recent years, two major meta- analyses of homeopathic clinical trials have dominated the English medical literature on the subject. Both – one in 1991 in the British Medical Journal, Which concluded: CONCLUSIONS–At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.

I suspect your only source of information on these studies are the abstracts. Abstracts sometimes "spin" contents in a conservative way. Recently, on a private mailing list where this very same subject (Barrett/Quackwatch’s less than objective portrayal of the evidence) was being debated, I wrote this, referring to the 1991 BMJ review in question: Kleijnen et al. – in reviewing nearly 100 controlled trials of h. circa 1991 – concluded "The amount of positive evidence even among the best studies came as  a surprise to us….The evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications. There is no reason to believe that the influence of publication bias, data massage, bad methodology, and so on is much less in conventional medicine, and the financial interests for regular pharmaceutical companies are many times greater." K et al., it should be noted, are Dutch epidemiologists who have reviewed several CAM treatments/practices, and they have been about as likely to give a thumbs down as a thumbs up. In fact, I can’t resist pointing out that while Barrett completely ignores their favorable review of homeopathy at Quackwatch, he is more than happy to cite at least one of their pans elsewhere on his site. the other in 1997 in TheLancet Which concluded: INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.

Again, this is a selective, "glass half empty" spin. Recently, another positive (in large part) and highly rigourous trial of homeopathy was published in The British Medical Journal. It prompted many e-letters, including one from me (http://www.bmj.org/cgi/eletters/321/7259/471#EL16) in which I cited Linde et al.’s answer (in the paper whose abstract you’ve just quoted) to the publication bias question raised by Kleijnen et al. several years earlier: As for "attacking publication bias," Linde et al. (1) have attempted to do just that in their meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy. Their mathematical model predicts that either 923 or 4511 null effect trials would need to be buried in file drawers to reduce to statistical insignificance (p .05) the odds ratio (1.78, already controlled for publication bias) of the 89 studies that qualified for their meta-analysis. End of quote. So, between the qualitative "meta-analysis" of K et al. and the quantitative one of Linde et al., there is – as I pointed out in my unpublished letter to Salon.com – a body of evidence that no credible reviewer – much less self-styled public educator – can credibly disregard. YES – one can find fault with this evidence; and people of a skeptical turn of mind are under no conscientious obligation to accept it as "proof" of homeopathy. But to ignore it? As John Stoessel (himself a strong skeptic) would say, "give me a break." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – - have independently documented a highly significant trend for homeopathic remedies to be superior to placebos or no worse than standard medical treatments in roughly 100 controlled clinical trials. Barrett ignores both of these studies. Instead, he cites comparatively obscure, negative (as Barrett presents them, even when they’re really equivocal) critiques and reviews and just one fundamentally supportive review (commissioned by the European Union), but then again only to selectively present the negative, "glass half empty" side of its findings. The European review being ‘a study group with the aim to answer the question: "Is Homoeopathy researchable?"’, not "Does homoeopathy work?" So, in summary, we have one study which says that homeopathy might work but you can’t tell from the research that has already been done and so more should be done, another which says the same thing in different words, and a third paper which says that it is possible to do good research. All papers agree that further research should be carried out properly. Well, I’m convinced.

I’m not convinced myself. But what am I to think of the integrity of Quackwatch? And what do you honestly think? Syd Baumel http://www.escape.ca/~sgb Mad – Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon Bad – The Millenium Project    http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Sad – Full Canvas Jacket       http://www.ratbags.com/ranters

Before you buy.

Response:

In my experience, it is the wilful and hypocritical inattention to accuracy at Dr. Barrett’s website that is a disgrace. In his long article on homeopathy, Barrett’s accounting of the clinical research is compromised by omissions that would be unthinkable for any impartial scholar or journalist. In recent years, two major meta-analyses of homeopathic clinical trials have dominated the English medical literature on the subject. Both – one in 1991 in the British Medical Journal,

Which concluded: CONCLUSIONS–At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials. the other in 1997 in TheLancet

Which concluded: INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic. – have independently documented a highly significant trend for homeopathic remedies to be superior to placebos or no worse than standard medical treatments in roughly 100 controlled clinical trials. Barrett ignores both of these studies. Instead, he cites comparatively obscure, negative (as Barrett presents them, even when they’re really equivocal) critiques and reviews and just one fundamentally supportive review (commissioned by the European Union), but then again only to selectively present the negative, "glass half empty" side of its findings.

The European review being ‘a study group with the aim to answer the question: "Is Homoeopathy researchable?"’, not "Does homoeopathy work?" So, in summary, we have one study which says that homeopathy might work but you can’t tell from the research that has already been done and so more should be done, another which says the same thing in different words, and a third paper which says that it is possible to do good research. All papers agree that further research should be carried out properly. Well, I’m convinced. Mad – Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon Bad – The Millenium Project    http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Sad – Full Canvas Jacket       http://www.ratbags.com/ranters

Response:

http://www.aquarianonline.com/Wellness/quackwatch.html

Question:

Speaking of actors, tonight on TV: The AFI salutes Ron Jeremy, with your host …            …ah-Rickeeeeeeeee  DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. — Ian

Okay, here’s another question:  Do you think Ron Jeremy has ADD?   I saw him in a movie where he was with 12 girls and he kept going back and forth between each one, so I thought to myself, "This guy keeps going from one unfinished task to another, maybe HE has ADD!!!"   Just kidding of course.   – Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -New to the group? www.cyber-mall.com/asad/ Actually my original answer was to the dear departed R_D, so I might not have been completely objective. Hence the "real life" remark. Even with 36 "completely different" takes, an actor still has to hit his/her marks, stay within the lighting parameters, and not intrude on the space or light parameters of anyone else in the scene. And if you’re shooting reversals or close-ups, the actor has to match the master shot. ALso, I can think of lots of things I enjoy doing, but I still can’t give my complete attention to without being wildly distracted, unless I can hyperfocus which I’m not able to switch on and off at will. Anyway, this thread had more to do with R_D than with actors. Kate Coe It’s very common to attribute various actors and entertainers with ADD. But, in reality, most ADD’ers have trouble sustaining anything– a state of mind, an action, an emotion for very long.  And so to do the same thing, in pretty much the same way, over and over again,  say,  for 36 takes, is very hard. Yes AND no.  This statement is true when referring to things which ADD’ers don’t enjoy doing.  On the other hand, when an ADD’er is doing something that he or she enjoys and has the ability to hyperfocus on it, they can sustain that activity for a lengthy period of time. In film school I acted in several films.  I was the lead in two of them.  Despite having numerous takes done on several shots my mind kept focused through each one of them.  I was able to do that because I enjoy acting.  I mentioned in one of my first posts about how it is not uncommon for me to edit (film) for 16 hours straight with my attention focused like a laser the whole time because I enjoy editing and can hyperfocus on it. I once saw a Dustin Hoffman interview on TV where he talked about having ADD.  He talked of how his parents pushed him into playing the piano and how he never excelled at it because he couldn’t concentrate on studying.  He then spoke of how he discovered his love for acting and how he was able to dedicate his focus to it. BTW – Mike Myers does a lot of improvising so if he does 36 takes on a shot chances are most of them are completely different. Let’s not confuse film with real life. Or posting with real life. If you re-read the original post you will see that my question was formed from an article/interview about Mike Myers, not from film. – Mike Rick, "Pumpkin" Troll Operations: Where did you hear that Mike Myers is not ADD? Mike’s question was speculative and my answers are speculation. I didn’t say I heard anything rather I used my brain to speculate. It is ok to use the brain? Or does that come under Troll Operations? No, The airport without controller is just a cool thing he heard. Some people actually like to give the impression they have ADD. Why do you feel that folks would WANT to appear to have ADD? Now let’s use the english language – giving the impression (impressed) is different than appearing to (detect the weakness of). Ask a good question and I’ll answer. After all Troll operations should be kept busy too. They are sort of saying they think of a bunch of things at once. But more pronounced is hyperactivity or deflatedness, I think. My guess: he is normal and very intelligent. He seems quite composed in Wayne’s World I – not inclined to be hyperactive. I am not sure but I think I heard about some "deflated" periods for him. If he is ADD, he is a treated inattentive. You go on to say if he is ADD he is treated inattentive.  Why do you say that. Answer: I can use my ability to observe and remember and analyze something according to the semantics of the english language. Is this a matter for Troll operations, too? Please answer the question. Troll Operations should have to defend their questions – not just ask them. I haven’t seen Austin Powers. Judging from some of the Austin Power’s scenes which gush with confidence – he is either very happy and confident a lot – like me – or perhaps dabbling in some marijuana and/or cocaine. Either way it seems unreal or at least another level. Rick said: "Mike Myers describes his brain as an airport without air-traffic controllers." Think he might have ADD?  Hmmmm…… Great question, Mike. No, The airport without controller is just a cool thing he heard. Some people actually like to give the impression they have ADD. Pumpkin —- Patience is a virtue, I’m not a virtuous woman

Response:

Actually my original answer was to the dear departed R_D, so I might not have been completely objective. Hence the "real life" remark.

Sorry, my mistake.   Even with 36 "completely different" takes, an actor still has to hit his/her marks, stay within the lighting parameters, and not intrude on the space or light parameters of anyone else in the scene. And if you’re shooting reversals or close-ups, the actor has to match the master shot.

Thank god for script supervisors! ALso, I can think of lots of things I enjoy doing, but I still can’t give my complete attention to without being wildly distracted, unless I can hyperfocus which I’m not able to switch on and off at will.

I’m that way as well with a lot of the things I enjoy doing.  With the things I enjoy the absolute most though, I can easily hyperfocus and it can be almost impossible to distract me.  I wonder if there are major differences in hyperfocus among people with ADD.  For example, I wonder if some people can’t, what differing levels people have, how long it can last, etc.  I think I’ll have to post a question to the group about that.             Anyway, this thread had more to do with R_D than with actors.

I apologize once again.  I misinterpreted your post as being aimed at me (along with R_D).       Cheers,  Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s very common to attribute various actors and entertainers with ADD. But, in reality, most ADD’ers have trouble sustaining anything– a state of mind, an action, an emotion for very long.  And so to do the same thing, in pretty much the same way, over and over again,  say,  for 36 takes, is very hard. Yes AND no.  This statement is true when referring to things which ADD’ers don’t enjoy doing.  On the other hand, when an ADD’er is doing something that he or she enjoys and has the ability to hyperfocus on it, they can sustain that activity for a lengthy period of time. In film school I acted in several films.  I was the lead in two of them.  Despite having numerous takes done on several shots my mind kept focused through each one of them.  I was able to do that because I enjoy acting.  I mentioned in one of my first posts about how it is not uncommon for me to edit (film) for 16 hours straight with my attention focused like a laser the whole time because I enjoy editing and can hyperfocus on it. I once saw a Dustin Hoffman interview on TV where he talked about having ADD.  He talked of how his parents pushed him into playing the piano and how he never excelled at it because he couldn’t concentrate on studying.  He then spoke of how he discovered his love for acting and how he was able to dedicate his focus to it. BTW – Mike Myers does a lot of improvising so if he does 36 takes on a shot chances are most of them are completely different. Let’s not confuse film with real life. Or posting with real life. If you re-read the original post you will see that my question was formed from an article/interview about Mike Myers, not from film. – Mike Rick, "Pumpkin" Troll Operations: Where did you hear that Mike Myers is not ADD? Mike’s question was speculative and my answers are speculation. I didn’t say I heard anything rather I used my brain to speculate. It is ok to use the brain? Or does that come under Troll Operations? No, The airport without controller is just a cool thing he heard. Some people actually like to give the impression they have ADD. Why do you feel that folks would WANT to appear to have ADD? Now let’s use the english language – giving the impression (impressed) is different than appearing to (detect the weakness of). Ask a good question and I’ll answer. After all Troll operations should be kept busy too. They are sort of saying they think of a bunch of things at once. But more pronounced is hyperactivity or deflatedness, I think. My guess: he is normal and very intelligent. He seems quite composed in Wayne’s World I – not inclined to be hyperactive. I am not sure but I think I heard about some "deflated" periods for him. If he is ADD, he is a treated inattentive. You go on to say if he is ADD he is treated inattentive.  Why do you say that. Answer: I can use my ability to observe and remember and analyze something according to the semantics of the english language. Is this a matter for Troll operations, too? Please answer the question. Troll Operations should have to defend their questions – not just ask them. I haven’t seen Austin Powers. Judging from some of the Austin Power’s scenes which gush with confidence – he is either very happy and confident a lot – like me – or perhaps dabbling in some marijuana and/or cocaine. Either way it seems unreal or at least another level. Rick said: "Mike Myers describes his brain as an airport without air-traffic controllers." Think he might have ADD?  Hmmmm…… Great question, Mike. No, The airport without controller is just a cool thing he heard. Some people actually like to give the impression they have ADD. Pumpkin —- Patience is a virtue, I’m not a virtuous woman

Response:

Speaking of actors, tonight on TV: The AFI salutes Ron Jeremy, with your host …             …ah-Rickeeeeeeeee  DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. — Ian New to the group? www.cyber-mall.com/asad/ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Actually my original answer was to the dear departed R_D, so I might not have been completely objective. Hence the "real life" remark. Even with 36 "completely different" takes, an actor still has to hit his/her marks, stay within the lighting parameters, and not intrude on the space or light parameters of anyone else in the scene. And if you’re shooting reversals or close-ups, the actor has to match the master shot. ALso, I can think of lots of things I enjoy doing, but I still can’t give my complete attention to without being wildly distracted, unless I can hyperfocus which I’m not able to switch on and off at will. Anyway, this thread had more to do with R_D than with actors. Kate Coe It’s very common to attribute various actors and entertainers with ADD. But, in reality, most ADD’ers have trouble sustaining anything– a state of mind, an action, an emotion for very long.  And so to do the same thing, in pretty much the same way, over and over again,  say,  for 36 takes, is very hard. Yes AND no.  This statement is true when referring to things which ADD’ers don’t enjoy doing.  On the other hand, when an ADD’er is doing something that he or she enjoys and has the ability to hyperfocus on it, they can sustain that activity for a lengthy period of time. In film school I acted in several films.  I was the lead in two of them.  Despite having numerous takes done on several shots my mind kept focused through each one of them.  I was able to do that because I enjoy acting.  I mentioned in one of my first posts about how it is not uncommon for me to edit (film) for 16 hours straight with my attention focused like a laser the whole time because I enjoy editing and can hyperfocus on it. I once saw a Dustin Hoffman interview on TV where he talked about having ADD.  He talked of how his parents pushed him into playing the piano and how he never excelled at it because he couldn’t concentrate on studying.  He then spoke of how he discovered his love for acting and how he was able to dedicate his focus to it. BTW – Mike Myers does a lot of improvising so if he does 36 takes on a shot chances are most of them are completely different. Let’s not confuse film with real life. Or posting with real life. If you re-read the original post you will see that my question was formed from an article/interview about Mike Myers, not from film. – Mike Rick, "Pumpkin" Troll Operations: Where did you hear that Mike Myers is not ADD? Mike’s question was speculative and my answers are speculation. I didn’t say I heard anything rather I used my brain to speculate. It is ok to use the brain? Or does that come under Troll Operations? No, The airport without controller is just a cool thing he heard. Some people actually like to give the impression they have ADD. Why do you feel that folks would WANT to appear to have ADD? Now let’s use the english language – giving the impression (impressed) is different than appearing to (detect the weakness of). Ask a good question and I’ll answer. After all Troll operations should be kept busy too. They are sort of saying they think of a bunch of things at once. But more pronounced is hyperactivity or deflatedness, I think. My guess: he is normal and very intelligent. He seems quite composed in Wayne’s World I – not inclined to be hyperactive. I am not sure but I think I heard about some "deflated" periods for him. If he is ADD, he is a treated inattentive. You go on to say if he is ADD he is treated inattentive.  Why do you say that. Answer: I can use my ability to observe and remember and analyze something according to the semantics of the english language. Is this a matter for Troll operations, too? Please answer the question. Troll Operations should have to defend their questions – not just ask them. I haven’t seen Austin Powers. Judging from some of the Austin Power’s scenes which gush with confidence – he is either very happy and confident a lot – like me – or perhaps dabbling in some marijuana and/or cocaine. Either way it seems unreal or at least another level. Rick said: "Mike Myers describes his brain as an airport without air-traffic controllers." Think he might have ADD?  Hmmmm…… Great question, Mike. No, The airport without controller is just a cool thing he heard. Some people actually like to give the impression they have ADD. Pumpkin —- Patience is a virtue, I’m not a virtuous woman

Response:

Mike Myers is featured in November’s Personal Glimpses section of Reader’s Digest.  The first sentence reads: "Mike Myers describes his brain as an airport without air-traffic controllers." Think he might have ADD?  Hmmmm…… – Mike  

Response:

Mike Myers is featured in November’s Personal Glimpses section of Reader’s Digest.  The first sentence reads: "Mike Myers describes his brain as an airport without air-traffic controllers." Think he might have ADD?  Hmmmm…… – Mike

Great question, Mike. No, The airport without controller is just a cool thing he heard. Some people actually like to give the impression they have ADD. They are sort of saying they think of a bunch of things at once. But more pronounced is hyperactivity or deflatedness, I think. My guess: he is normal and very intelligent. He seems quite composed in Wayne’s World I – not inclined to be hyperactive. I am not sure but I think I heard about some "deflated" periods for him. If he is ADD, he is a treated inattentive. I haven’t seen Austin Powers. Judging from some of the Austin Power’s scenes which gush with confidence – he is either very happy and confident a lot – like me – or perhaps dabbling in some marijuana and/or cocaine. Either way it seems unreal or at least another level. Rick D

Response:

Rick, Where did you hear that Mike Myers is not ADD? You go on to say if he is ADD he is treated inattentive.  Why do you say that. Why do you feel that folks would WANT to appear to have ADD? Rick said: "Mike Myers describes his brain as an airport without air-traffic controllers." Think he might have ADD?  Hmmmm…… Great question, Mike. No, The airport without controller is just a cool thing he heard. Some people actually like to give the impression they have ADD.

Pumpkin —- Patience is a virtue, I’m not a virtuous woman

Response:

Rick,

"Pumpkin" Troll Operations: Where did you hear that Mike Myers is not ADD?

Mike’s question was speculative and my answers are speculation. I didn’t say I heard anything rather I used my brain to speculate. It is ok to use the brain? Or does that come under Troll Operations? No, The airport without controller is just a cool thing he heard. Some people actually like to give the impression they have ADD. Why do you feel that folks would WANT to appear to have ADD?

Now let’s use the english language – giving the impression (impressed) is different than appearing to (detect the weakness of). Ask a good question and I’ll answer. After all Troll operations should be kept busy too. They are sort of saying they think of a bunch of things at once. But more pronounced is hyperactivity or deflatedness, I think. My guess: he is normal and very intelligent. He seems quite composed in Wayne’s World I – not inclined to be hyperactive. I am not sure but I think I heard about some "deflated" periods for him. If he is ADD, he is a treated inattentive. You go on to say if he is ADD he is treated inattentive.  Why do you say

that. Answer: I can use my ability to observe and remember and analyze something according to the semantics of the english language. Is this a matter for Troll operations, too? Please answer the question. Troll Operations should have to defend their questions – not just ask them. I haven’t seen Austin Powers. Judging from some of the Austin Power’s scenes which gush with confidence – he is either very happy and confident a lot – like me – or perhaps dabbling in some marijuana and/or cocaine. Either way it seems unreal or at least another level. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Rick said: "Mike Myers describes his brain as an airport without air-traffic controllers." Think he might have ADD?  Hmmmm…… Great question, Mike. No, The airport without controller is just a cool thing he heard. Some people actually like to give the impression they have ADD. Pumpkin —- Patience is a virtue, I’m not a virtuous woman

Response:

It’s very common to attribute various actors and entertainers with ADD. But, in reality, most ADD’ers have trouble sustaining anything– a state of mind, an action, an emotion for very long.  And so to do the same thing, in pretty much the same way, over and over again,  say,  for 36 takes, is very hard. And if the character on screen seems calm and composed and confident: that’s ONE take, selected by the editor and director.   Let’s not confuse film with real life. Or posting with real life. kate Coe – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Rick, "Pumpkin" Troll Operations: Where did you hear that Mike Myers is not ADD? Mike’s question was speculative and my answers are speculation. I didn’t say I heard anything rather I used my brain to speculate. It is ok to use the brain? Or does that come under Troll Operations? No, The airport without controller is just a cool thing he heard. Some people actually like to give the impression they have ADD. Why do you feel that folks would WANT to appear to have ADD? Now let’s use the english language – giving the impression (impressed) is different than appearing to (detect the weakness of). Ask a good question and I’ll answer. After all Troll operations should be kept busy too. They are sort of saying they think of a bunch of things at once. But more pronounced is hyperactivity or deflatedness, I think. My guess: he is normal and very intelligent. He seems quite composed in Wayne’s World I – not inclined to be hyperactive. I am not sure but I think I heard about some "deflated" periods for him. If he is ADD, he is a treated inattentive. You go on to say if he is ADD he is treated inattentive.  Why do you say that. Answer: I can use my ability to observe and remember and analyze something according to the semantics of the english language. Is this a matter for Troll operations, too? Please answer the question. Troll Operations should have to defend their questions – not just ask them. I haven’t seen Austin Powers. Judging from some of the Austin Power’s scenes which gush with confidence – he is either very happy and confident a lot – like me – or perhaps dabbling in some marijuana and/or cocaine. Either way it seems unreal or at least another level. Rick said: "Mike Myers describes his brain as an airport without air-traffic controllers." Think he might have ADD?  Hmmmm…… Great question, Mike. No, The airport without controller is just a cool thing he heard. Some people actually like to give the impression they have ADD. Pumpkin —- Patience is a virtue, I’m not a virtuous woman

Response:

Exactly what I was attempting to convey. Thanks Kate – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s very common to attribute various actors and entertainers with ADD. But, in reality, most ADD’ers have trouble sustaining anything– a state of mind, an action, an emotion for very long.  And so to do the same thing, in pretty much the same way, over and over again,  say,  for 36 takes, is very hard. And if the character on screen seems calm and composed and confident: that’s ONE take, selected by the editor and director. Let’s not confuse film with real life. Or posting with real life. kate Coe Rick, "Pumpkin" Troll Operations: Where did you hear that Mike Myers is not ADD? Mike’s question was speculative and my answers are speculation. I didn’t say I heard anything rather I used my brain to speculate. It is ok to use the brain? Or does that come under Troll Operations? No, The airport without controller is just a cool thing he heard. Some people actually like to give the impression they have ADD. Why do you feel that folks would WANT to appear to have ADD? Now let’s use the english language – giving the impression (impressed) is different than appearing to (detect the weakness of). Ask a good question and I’ll answer. After all Troll operations should be kept busy too. They are sort of saying they think of a bunch of things at once. But more pronounced is hyperactivity or deflatedness, I think. My guess: he is normal and very intelligent. He seems quite composed in Wayne’s World I – not inclined to be hyperactive. I am not sure but I think I heard about some "deflated" periods for him. If he is ADD, he is a treated inattentive. You go on to say if he is ADD he is treated inattentive.  Why do you say that. Answer: I can use my ability to observe and remember and analyze something according to the semantics of the english language. Is this a matter for Troll operations, too? Please answer the question. Troll Operations should have to defend their questions – not just ask them. I haven’t seen Austin Powers. Judging from some of the Austin Power’s scenes which gush with confidence – he is either very happy and confident a lot – like me – or perhaps dabbling in some marijuana and/or cocaine. Either way it seems unreal or at least another level. Rick said: "Mike Myers describes his brain as an airport without air-traffic controllers." Think he might have ADD?  Hmmmm…… Great question, Mike. No, The airport without controller is just a cool thing he heard. Some people actually like to give the impression they have ADD. Pumpkin —- Patience is a virtue, I’m not a virtuous woman

Response:

It’s very common to attribute various actors and entertainers with ADD. But, in reality, most ADD’ers have trouble sustaining anything– a state of mind, an action, an emotion for very long.  And so to do the same thing, in pretty much the same way, over and over again,  say,  for 36 takes, is very hard. And if the character on screen seems calm and composed and confident: that’s ONE take, selected by the editor and director.   Let’s not confuse film with real life. Or posting with real life. kate Coe

Don’t discount Mike Myers just because he can do all those takes. He may just be hyperfocusing on something he likes. For some people, repetitive work is like a cure. Let’s be realistic here. We know very little about how he is off camera, or away from work. The only possible answer is "insufficient data". —   /   Marc Etienne Lachance, KSC, LMAA  /<  Danubist, Ateist, and, well, /____ *you* figure it out. Fnord.

Response:

Iachance said: "Don’t discount Mike Myers just because he can do all those takes. He may just be hyperfocusing on something he likes. For some people, repetitive work is like a cure." Yes. I was a music major in undergraduate school. I could go into a practice room and pound out scales in octives on a piano over and over. I could shut the door and vocalize my brains out. I was working to my strengths. I had tremendous diligence when it came to practicing, but very little staying power in some other areas. Actors don’t have to do the same take over EXACTLY THE SAME WAY each time. One reason to do it over is to try it differently. It’s part of the creative process. Also, when we’re doing something we truly love (and are truly good at) we can sometimes do the boring stuff to get to the good stuff.

Response:

In accounting there are days when all I want to do is ten-key. Very repetitious. I tend to over-analysis, so shutting down is restful and repetition is restful. Last year, I made & sold 700 paper-mache Christmas ornaments. The design was the fun part, but hand making 700 is boring.  I used hyper-focussed for about 3 weeks.   I think it is an error to underestimate the power of an ADDer hyper-focussing. Charlie Iachance said: "Don’t discount Mike Myers just because he can do all those takes. He may just be hyperfocusing on something he likes. For some people, repetitive work is like a cure."

Susan said – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Yes. I was a music major in undergraduate school. I could go into a practice room and pound out scales in octives on a piano over and over. I could shut the door and vocalize my brains out. I was working to my strengths. I had tremendous diligence when it came to practicing, but very little staying power in some other areas. Actors don’t have to do the same take over EXACTLY THE SAME WAY each time. One reason to do it over is to try it differently. It’s part of the creative process. Also, when we’re doing something we truly love (and are truly good at) we can sometimes do the boring stuff to get to the good stuff.

Response:

It’s very common to attribute various actors and entertainers with ADD. But, in reality, most ADD’ers have trouble sustaining anything– a state of mind, an action, an emotion for very long.  And so to do the same thing, in pretty much the same way, over and over again,  say,  for 36 takes, is very hard.

Yes AND no.  This statement is true when referring to things which ADD’ers don’t enjoy doing.  On the other hand, when an ADD’er is doing something that he or she enjoys and has the ability to hyperfocus on it, they can sustain that activity for a lengthy period of time.   In film school I acted in several films.  I was the lead in two of them.  Despite having numerous takes done on several shots my mind kept focused through each one of them.  I was able to do that because I enjoy acting.  I mentioned in one of my first posts about how it is not uncommon for me to edit (film) for 16 hours straight with my attention focused like a laser the whole time because I enjoy editing and can hyperfocus on it. I once saw a Dustin Hoffman interview on TV where he talked about having ADD.  He talked of how his parents pushed him into playing the piano and how he never excelled at it because he couldn’t concentrate on studying.  He then spoke of how he discovered his love for acting and how he was able to dedicate his focus to it. BTW – Mike Myers does a lot of improvising so if he does 36 takes on a shot chances are most of them are completely different. Let’s not confuse film with real life. Or posting with real life.

If you re-read the original post you will see that my question was formed from an article/interview about Mike Myers, not from film. – Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Rick, "Pumpkin" Troll Operations: Where did you hear that Mike Myers is not ADD? Mike’s question was speculative and my answers are speculation. I didn’t say I heard anything rather I used my brain to speculate. It is ok to use the brain? Or does that come under Troll Operations? No, The airport without controller is just a cool thing he heard. Some people actually like to give the impression they have ADD. Why do you feel that folks would WANT to appear to have ADD? Now let’s use the english language – giving the impression (impressed) is different than appearing to (detect the weakness of). Ask a good question and I’ll answer. After all Troll operations should be kept busy too. They are sort of saying they think of a bunch of things at once. But more pronounced is hyperactivity or deflatedness, I think. My guess: he is normal and very intelligent. He seems quite composed in Wayne’s World I – not inclined to be hyperactive. I am not sure but I think I heard about some "deflated" periods for him. If he is ADD, he is a treated inattentive. You go on to say if he is ADD he is treated inattentive.  Why do you say that. Answer: I can use my ability to observe and remember and analyze something according to the semantics of the english language. Is this a matter for Troll operations, too? Please answer the question. Troll Operations should have to defend their questions – not just ask them. I haven’t seen Austin Powers. Judging from some of the Austin Power’s scenes which gush with confidence – he is either very happy and confident a lot – like me – or perhaps dabbling in some marijuana and/or cocaine. Either way it seems unreal or at least another level. Rick said: "Mike Myers describes his brain as an airport without air-traffic controllers." Think he might have ADD?  Hmmmm…… Great question, Mike. No, The airport without controller is just a cool thing he heard. Some people actually like to give the impression they have ADD. Pumpkin —- Patience is a virtue, I’m not a virtuous woman

Response:

Actually my original answer was to the dear departed R_D, so I might not have been completely objective. Hence the "real life" remark. Even with 36 "completely different" takes, an actor still has to hit his/her marks, stay within the lighting parameters, and not intrude on the space or light parameters of anyone else in the scene. And if you’re shooting reversals or close-ups, the actor has to match the master shot. ALso, I can think of lots of things I enjoy doing, but I still can’t give my complete attention to without being wildly distracted, unless I can hyperfocus which I’m not able to switch on and off at will. Anyway, this thread had more to do with R_D than with actors. Kate Coe – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s very common to attribute various actors and entertainers with ADD. But, in reality, most ADD’ers have trouble sustaining anything– a state of mind, an action, an emotion for very long.  And so to do the same thing, in pretty much the same way, over and over again,  say,  for 36 takes, is very hard. Yes AND no.  This statement is true when referring to things which ADD’ers don’t enjoy doing.  On the other hand, when an ADD’er is doing something that he or she enjoys and has the ability to hyperfocus on it, they can sustain that activity for a lengthy period of time. In film school I acted in several films.  I was the lead in two of them.  Despite having numerous takes done on several shots my mind kept focused through each one of them.  I was able to do that because I enjoy acting.  I mentioned in one of my first posts about how it is not uncommon for me to edit (film) for 16 hours straight with my attention focused like a laser the whole time because I enjoy editing and can hyperfocus on it. I once saw a Dustin Hoffman interview on TV where he talked about having ADD.  He talked of how his parents pushed him into playing the piano and how he never excelled at it because he couldn’t concentrate on studying.  He then spoke of how he discovered his love for acting and how he was able to dedicate his focus to it. BTW – Mike Myers does a lot of improvising so if he does 36 takes on a shot chances are most of them are completely different. Let’s not confuse film with real life. Or posting with real life. If you re-read the original post you will see that my question was formed from an article/interview about Mike Myers, not from film. – Mike Rick, "Pumpkin" Troll Operations: Where did you hear that Mike Myers is not ADD? Mike’s question was speculative and my answers are speculation. I didn’t say I heard anything rather I used my brain to speculate. It is ok to use the brain? Or does that come under Troll Operations? No, The airport without controller is just a cool thing he heard. Some people actually like to give the impression they have ADD. Why do you feel that folks would WANT to appear to have ADD? Now let’s use the english language – giving the impression (impressed) is different than appearing to (detect the weakness of). Ask a good question and I’ll answer. After all Troll operations should be kept busy too. They are sort of saying they think of a bunch of things at once. But more pronounced is hyperactivity or deflatedness, I think. My guess: he is normal and very intelligent. He seems quite composed in Wayne’s World I – not inclined to be hyperactive. I am not sure but I think I heard about some "deflated" periods for him. If he is ADD, he is a treated inattentive. You go on to say if he is ADD he is treated inattentive.  Why do you say that. Answer: I can use my ability to observe and remember and analyze something according to the semantics of the english language. Is this a matter for Troll operations, too? Please answer the question. Troll Operations should have to defend their questions – not just ask them. I haven’t seen Austin Powers. Judging from some of the Austin Power’s scenes which gush with confidence – he is either very happy and confident a lot – like me – or perhaps dabbling in some marijuana and/or cocaine. Either way it seems unreal or at least another level. Rick said: "Mike Myers describes his brain as an airport without air-traffic controllers." Think he might have ADD?  Hmmmm…… Great question, Mike. No, The airport without controller is just a cool thing he heard. Some people actually like to give the impression they have ADD. Pumpkin —- Patience is a virtue, I’m not a virtuous woman

Response:

Question:

ON-LINE HELP FOR BUSINESS OWNERS Life can be lonely for the small business owner.

And the ripoff artist too.

Response:

ON-LINE HELP FOR BUSINESS OWNERS Life can be lonely for the small business owner. From start-up to day-to-day operations, there are questions and situations that exceed the expertise & experience of the average businessperson. From Accounting through Zoning, there are times when the small business owner needs a room full of sales managers, marketing pro

Question:

joe

Response:

Choice Group Bulletin on-line Web quotes  - Web History, Web do and don

Question:

Once we have admitted to the necessity of having some form of government, we are faced with the problem of financing this organization. The standard solution has been taxation. We’ll attempt to understand what happens and how it could be avoided, in a real world situation. In the current model, there are two major tax families: income, or direct tax, and consumption, or indirect tax. Ideally, income taxes are perceived at the source, which is to say directly from employers. Indirect taxes are taken out of the till of retail businesses. Value added taxes (VAT, GST) are merely variations on the latter. The collection of this revenue involves a large number of people using uncounted control and verification measures, in general, with hugely invasive powers in the case of direct taxation. This being the life and blood of government, tax laws are  applied with the full power of the State, with little compassion, no tolerance, few motivations to be rational, and hardly any of the normal restraints expected in a democracy.  Because taxation levels are so easy to raise, and so hard to challenge, efficiency is never a concern. In the name of taxation, complex and inefficient systems must be put in place, lawyers and accountants must be consulted, and a lot of time will be spent conforming or in the futile hope of saving a few dollars. The greatest part of the income is spent by the State in the exercise of collecting, administering, and managing it. Out of control bureaucrats impose enormous frustrations on people who don’t know enough to protect themselves, or are not rich enough to get proper advice. Bookkeeping is the single largest activity of business and government, timewise. In Canada, the largest bureaucracy, by far, is concerned with the finances of government. It is bigger even than the next two largest agencies combined. If you think that’s bad, think about what happens next. The money so collected by governments is spent. Without getting into the details of how well it is spent, let’s consider that those who get paid with this money must then pay taxes on it, which taxes are spent again, after going once more through the system, inefficiencies and all. Wait, it is getting worse. Once the average citizen cashes his or her paycheck, the remaining money (after tax witholdings) is spent on goods and services on which indirect taxes are collected. So, if you earned $100 out of which $30 were taken out in taxes, you can spend $70, out of which you will pay around 15% in sales taxes of some sort, which comes to about $10. It means you are being taxed at $40 for every $100 you earn. The $60 income left for the merchant is in turn taxed, at around $20 for every $100, which means another $12 goes into the pot. Your $100 has so far generated roughly $52 for the bureaucrats. And every iteration through the tax system makes each dollar skinnier and skinnier because of the (high) cost of its accounting and inefficient administration. But the highest price for society and for individual citizens is paid in freedom. Because they are judge and party, politicians and bureaucrats give themselves dictatorial powers in the name of tax equity. Our privacy is invaded, our business is spied upon, our life is scrutinized, and we must spend time and money in the service of the State, just so we can satisfy their ever increasing demands for reporting. The survival of the State has become much too onerous for its  citizens. "So, what we you do about it?" you may well ask. The answer is not obvious, but it is not new: inflation. The State has the power to print money, as well as to spend it. Let the State print the money it needs when it needs it. The current system lowers our purchasing power, and our freedom. Inflation would only lower our purchasing power, and more of the money so raised would be available for spending, as opposed to bureaucratic costs of collection and administration. It would also be a lot easier to assess the true cost of government than it is now, with the endless loop of tax and spend, in which the actual level of taxation at any given time is hard to track. Inflation is the path of lesser evil, which is as good a definition of the art of government as any. Since we can’t seem to be able to put a damper on the greed, and spending habits of the State, we may as well remove the gross inefficiencies, stupidities, indignities, abuses, and the threats on our individual freedoms from the equation. But this raises the next question: "aren’t the bureaucrats and politicians glad to have this excuse (taxes) to invade our privacy and exercise growing controls on citizens?". Their reaction to the idea of inflation as a substitute to taxation will tell us a good part of the answer. — Virtually me, really… http://w3.e-sense.net/Alain   PGP public key (FingerPrinted: 13EF7332C45976D729569FDD7D84FF19)   available on usual servers   Slogan of the day: Liberalize breathing!

Response:

In the current model, there are two major tax families: income, or direct tax, and consumption, or indirect tax.

The only other type of tax capable of raising the quantity of revenue expended  by modern states is an asset tax.  It is very revealing that few people seem to be aware even of the existence of this alternative, and that discussion of it is rarely permitted in fora where the agenda can be easily controlled. [Accurate description of the evils of income taxation snipped] In its ease of administration and compliance, its effect on the economy and people’s behaviour, and its fundamental morality, asset taxation would be far, _far_ superior to income taxation. [Proposal of inflation snipped] Bzzzzzzt. Inflation as an alternative to taxation has been tried, many times.  It generally destroys the economy, by destroying people’s ability to make time-value economic calculations. — Roy Langston

Response:

Once we have admitted to the necessity of having some form of government, we are faced with the problem of financing this organization. The standard solution has been taxation. We’ll attempt to understand what happens and how it could be avoided, in a real world situation. In the current model, there are two major tax families: income, or direct tax, and consumption, or indirect tax. Ideally, income taxes are perceived at the source, which is to say directly from employers. Indirect taxes are taken out of the till of retail businesses. Value added taxes (VAT, GST) are merely variations on the latter. The collection of this revenue involves a large number of people using uncounted control and verification measures, in general, with hugely invasive powers in the case of direct taxation. This being the life and blood of government, tax laws are  applied with the full power of the State, with little compassion, no tolerance, few motivations to be rational, and hardly any of the normal restraints expected in a democracy.  Because taxation levels are so easy to raise, and so hard to challenge, efficiency is never a concern. In the name of taxation, complex and inefficient systems must be put in place, lawyers and accountants must be consulted, and a lot of time will be spent conforming or in the futile hope of saving a few dollars. The greatest part of the income is spent by the State in the exercise of collecting, administering, and managing it. Out of control bureaucrats impose enormous frustrations on people who don’t know enough to protect themselves, or are not rich enough to get proper advice. Bookkeeping is the single largest activity of business and government, timewise. In Canada, the largest bureaucracy, by far, is concerned with the finances of government. It is bigger even than the next two largest agencies combined. If you think that’s bad, think about what happens next. The money so collected by governments is spent. Without getting into the details of how well it is spent, let’s consider that those who get paid with this money must then pay taxes on it, which taxes are spent again, after going once more through the system, inefficiencies and all. Wait, it is getting worse. Once the average citizen cashes his or her paycheck, the remaining money (after tax witholdings) is spent on goods and services on which indirect taxes are collected. So, if you earned $100 out of which $30 were taken out in taxes, you can spend $70, out of which you will pay around 15% in sales taxes of some sort, which comes to about $10. It means you are being taxed at $40 for every $100 you earn. The $60 income left for the merchant is in turn taxed, at around $20 for every $100, which means another $12 goes into the pot. Your $100 has so far generated roughly $52 for the bureaucrats. And every iteration through the tax system makes each dollar skinnier and skinnier because of the (high) cost of its accounting and inefficient administration. But the highest price for society and for individual citizens is paid in freedom. Because they are judge and party, politicians and bureaucrats give themselves dictatorial powers in the name of tax equity. Our privacy is invaded, our business is spied upon, our life is scrutinized, and we must spend time and money in the service of the State, just so we can satisfy their ever increasing demands for reporting. The survival of the State has become much too onerous for its  citizens. "So, what we you do about it?" you may well ask. The answer is not obvious, but it is not new: inflation. The State has the power to print money, as well as to spend it. Let the State print the money it needs when it needs it. The current system lowers our purchasing power, and our freedom. Inflation would only lower our purchasing power, and more of the money so raised would be available for spending, as opposed to bureaucratic costs of collection and administration. It would also be a lot easier to assess the true cost of government than it is now, with the endless loop of tax and spend, in which the actual level of taxation at any given time is hard to track. Inflation is the path of lesser evil, which is as good a definition of the art of government as any. Since we can’t seem to be able to put a damper on the greed, and spending habits of the State, we may as well remove the gross inefficiencies, stupidities, indignities, abuses, and the threats on our individual freedoms from the equation. But this raises the next question: "aren’t the bureaucrats and politicians glad to have this excuse (taxes) to invade our privacy and exercise growing controls on citizens?". Their reaction to the idea of inflation as a substitute to taxation will tell us a good part of the answer. — Virtually me, really… http://w3.e-sense.net/Alain   PGP public key (FingerPrinted: 13EF7332C45976D729569FDD7D84FF19)   available on usual servers   Slogan of the day: Liberalize breathing!

Response: