|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 20:49:13 [Permalink]
|
By the way, I'm calling bullshit on that being the first link you got to with the phrase in question. A google search of "predictive programming" has this as coming in first.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/24/2007 : 20:54:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
What? Find me the words "predictive programming" in there somewhere, will you? Also, find me in the above quote anything that has to do with how you used the term...
|
This link came up as a search for the term:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8157
You might get a kick out of this!
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 20:56:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
By the way, I'm calling bullshit on that being the first link you got to with the phrase in question. A google search of "predictive programming" has this as coming in first.
|
My search listed books at the top.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 20:59:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Kil
By the way, I'm calling bullshit on that being the first link you got to with the phrase in question. A google search of "predictive programming" has this as coming in first.
|
My search listed books at the top.
|
So, you looked for books first? Why? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 21:02:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Kil
By the way, I'm calling bullshit on that being the first link you got to with the phrase in question. A google search of "predictive programming" has this as coming in first.
|
My search listed books at the top.
|
So, you looked for books first? Why?
|
No; my Google lists books at the top, I do not know why. Does yours not?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 21:13:35 [Permalink]
|
If you put the term in quotes, "predictive programming," Google will look for it as a phrase. And when you do, it'll tell you that it appears in that book on page 397, in a chart about programming music for the Altanta Symphony Orchestra. In other words, it has nothing to do with what you mean by "predictive programming," Jerome.
You should, instead, have cited The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship: An Examination of Epistemic Autocracy, From the 19th to the 21st Century, by Paul and Philip Collins. Of the five substantive Amazon reviews, three of them explicity mention the alleged "New World Order," and another says this:Reading "The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship" is to embark on an intellectual journey of the highest order. The Collins brothers effortlessly discuss a wide range of philosophical concepts, all of which are integral to understanding the thinking and development of those behind the formation of a would-be technocracy. There simply isn't any other book that is even in the same league. "The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship" penetrates the core concepts of Gnosticism, Rosicrucian mythos, Baconian utopianism, Freemasonry and the Royal Society of London; from Darwinism to scientism, population control, eugenics and Malthusian propaganda; Jung, Hegel, Wells and Huxley; Fabian socialism, world government, evolutionary pantheism, and the deification of man. The reader is privy to the fact that there is genuine continuity between Illuminism, Jacobinism, Socialism, and Marxism; that the dialectical manipulation of society is symptomatic of "the Hegelian nexus where Darwin, Marx, and Hitler intersect." The Collins brothers are equally at ease with diverse concepts such as Bentham's Panopticon, sociocracy, semiotic manipulation, "sci-fi predictive programming," transhumanism and the techno-eugenic movement - and the implications thereof. The book is quite obviously full of serious woo.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 21:22:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
If you put the term in quotes, "predictive programming," Google will look for it as a phrase. And when you do, it'll tell you that it appears in that book on page 397, in a chart about programming music for the Altanta Symphony Orchestra. In other words, it has nothing to do with what you mean by "predictive programming," Jerome.
You should, instead, have cited The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship: An Examination of Epistemic Autocracy, From the 19th to the 21st Century, by Paul and Philip Collins. Of the five substantive Amazon reviews, three of them explicity mention the alleged "New World Order," and another says this:Reading "The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship" is to embark on an intellectual journey of the highest order. The Collins brothers effortlessly discuss a wide range of philosophical concepts, all of which are integral to understanding the thinking and development of those behind the formation of a would-be technocracy. There simply isn't any other book that is even in the same league. "The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship" penetrates the core concepts of Gnosticism, Rosicrucian mythos, Baconian utopianism, Freemasonry and the Royal Society of London; from Darwinism to scientism, population control, eugenics and Malthusian propaganda; Jung, Hegel, Wells and Huxley; Fabian socialism, world government, evolutionary pantheism, and the deification of man. The reader is privy to the fact that there is genuine continuity between Illuminism, Jacobinism, Socialism, and Marxism; that the dialectical manipulation of society is symptomatic of "the Hegelian nexus where Darwin, Marx, and Hitler intersect." The Collins brothers are equally at ease with diverse concepts such as Bentham's Panopticon, sociocracy, semiotic manipulation, "sci-fi predictive programming," transhumanism and the techno-eugenic movement - and the implications thereof. The book is quite obviously full of serious woo.
|
The first listing I found was a book on management, not the Orchestra.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 21:29:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The first listing I found was a book on management, not the Orchestra. |
Your reply is evidence that you did not follow the links. Page 397 of Cases In Operations Management uses the phrase "predictive programming" in reference to "the ASO's predictive programming model," which apparently tells the Orchestra's management how many of what type of show to program in a year. That's why Google hits on the book in the search. Not because "predictive programming" as you use the phrase is of interest to people who'd read a management book. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 21:33:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The first listing I found was a book on management, not the Orchestra. |
Your reply is evidence that you did not follow the links. Page 397 of Cases In Operations Management uses the phrase "predictive programming" in reference to "the ASO's predictive programming model," which apparently tells the Orchestra's management how many of what type of show to program in a year. That's why Google hits on the book in the search. Not because "predictive programming" as you use the phrase is of interest to people who'd read a management book.
|
I do not know why or how it hit. I do not care.
I have already stated that I know not where or if I have read or heard the phrase before. I have used it for as long as I can remember.
Now this is certainly off topic.
I changed the phrase to advertising several posts back.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 21:44:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I do not know why or how it hit. I do not care. |
Of course you don't care, that's the problem. You bolded your excited utterance about a book on management using the phrase because it fit in with the meaning that you attribute to the phrase. Now that it's been shown that the book did not use the phrase that way, you downplay your obvious joy (complete with exclamation point) into not caring, rather than admit you jumped to an unwarranted conclusion about the book.
And how could this be off-topic if the topic is advertising? You advertise yourself to the world every time you post something (as does everyone else). And now you're advertising that you don't care when you obviously did. What is it that your intended audience is supposed to get from the mixed signals your advertisements are sending us, Jerome? Did I get it right, above? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2007 : 23:00:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
He is advertising to his base. He is undermining his own base with these comments.
Think about it from the stand point of a GOP voter:
| Why should I vote if my own party leader thinks Hillary is going to win? |
|
Vote when, in the primary? Why would a Republican voter be voting in the Democratic primary anyway? Or are you now suggesting Bush is "predicting" Hilliary will win the Presidency? Why would Bush want Hilliary to win that? Seriously, what the hell are you even trying to suggest here?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2007 : 00:38:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
He is advertising to his base. He is undermining his own base with these comments.
Think about it from the stand point of a GOP voter:
| Why should I vote if my own party leader thinks Hillary is going to win? |
|
Vote when, in the primary? Why would a Republican voter be voting in the Democratic primary anyway? Or are you now suggesting Bush is "predicting" Hilliary will win the Presidency? Why would Bush want Hilliary to win that? Seriously, what the hell are you even trying to suggest here?
|
No, no no. You're missing the point! The original purpose of this thread was (insert something almost entirely unrelated here).
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 09/25/2007 00:38:35 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2007 : 19:38:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
BUZZZZZZZ!!!!!! Tacky buzzer. Go to your room and eat a booger.
|
I like the booger comment. Very funny.
Point posited was that advertizing from a source which evokes distrust and animosity is ineffective. Not that advertizing does not work.
|
He is advertising to his base. He is undermining his own base with these comments.
Think about it from the stand point of a GOP voter:
| Why should I vote if my own party leader thinks Hillary is going to win? |
|
Illogical point concerning GOP voters.
If this advertising is aimed at GOP base, then the more logical reasoning is that GOP voters should turn out in force. Hillary is considered the biggest threat to the GOP base as is evidenced by the GOP hate-machine. With highly charged emotional issues like universal healthcare and rumblings of a more liberal direction for the White House, GOP is trying to energize their base to get out and vote. One great way they have used in the past was to terrorize their base. "You guys don't turn out and the Demoncrats will win and then Al-Qeida will attack us and everybody's gonna die, but not before the gun-grabbing pansy liberals outlaw your SUV".
Been invloved in political campaigns since 72'. I've seen the beast from within. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/25/2007 : 19:54:02 [Permalink]
|
One wonders why with the GOP front runner being a Mormon, we have for the last several months had high profile news about the pedophilia bigamist Mormons.
When Hillary wins; in the back of all your minds will be:
Damn, was Jerome right?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2007 : 21:04:24 [Permalink]
|
When Hillary wins; in the back of all your minds will be:
Damn, was Jerome right? |
No, it won't, trust me. |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
BUSH DECLARES: HILLARY WILL WIN
