Big Head Press Forum

Online Comics => Escape From Terra => Topic started by: SandySandfort on January 30, 2011, 10:54:06 am

Title: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: SandySandfort on January 30, 2011, 10:54:06 am
My recent interactions with ContraryGuy have made me realize something about myself; I suffer fools way more than I should. I need to follow Heinlein's dictum when trying to enlighten fools, trolls and intellectual lightweights. “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”

So, realize, I will neither read nor respond to your posts if:

* You clearly intend to be confrontational rather than reasonable.
* You do not use proper English grammar and spelling. Sloppy writing is indicative of sloppy thinking. (If your first language was not English, you get a pass.)
* You are too verbose or otherwise cannot express yourself cogently and succinctly. Wandering all around Robin Hood's barn does not indicate clarity of thought.
* You create increasingly bizarre scenarios to support your failed arguments. E.g., "Yeah, but how would an AnCap society deal with vampire leprechauns, Huh?"
* Your comments have little or no relevance to the EFT universe. That is what the Forum is about.
* Your handle is ContraryGuy.  ;D

  
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: wdg3rd on January 30, 2011, 11:09:14 am
But Sandy, how would an AnCap society deal with vampire leprechauns?  They can teleport and they're immune to bullets.

Of course, how a statist society would deal with them is probably by employing them in the bureaucracy or  in the mass media.  As far as I can tell, that's where most of the other vampires are.
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: Corydon on January 30, 2011, 12:01:24 pm
* You do not use proper English grammar and spelling. Sloppy writing is indicative of sloppy thinking. (If your first language was not English, you get a pass.)
* You are too verbose or otherwise cannot express yourself cogently and succinctly. Wandering all around Robin Hood's bare does not indicate clarity of thought.

*Robin Hood's barn

Cf. the internet axiom: if you criticize somebody else's spelling and/or grammar, it's guaranteed that you will make a mistake yourself.
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: SandySandfort on January 30, 2011, 12:01:38 pm
But Sandy, how would an AnCap society deal with vampire leprechauns?  They can teleport and they're immune to bullets.

DAMN! I knew I shouldn't have used that example! You got me. AnCaps will just have to suffer the consequences of not having a government to protect them from those dangers (though adorable) monster. (Though, maybe they could use silver bullets and the... tangle-net....) <insert groan here>
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: SandySandfort on January 30, 2011, 12:05:25 pm
*Robin Hood's barn

Cf. the internet axiom: if you criticize somebody else's spelling and/or grammar, it's guaranteed that you will make a mistake yourself.

Sir, I made neither a spelling nor grammar error. That is a typo. :D

(DOH!)
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: SandySandfort on January 30, 2011, 12:09:50 pm

Uh, what error? I see no error... (now). ::)

* You do not use proper English grammar and spelling. Sloppy writing is indicative of sloppy thinking. (If your first language was not English, you get a pass.)
* You are too verbose or otherwise cannot express yourself cogently and succinctly. Wandering all around Robin Hood's bare does not indicate clarity of thought.

*Robin Hood's barn

Cf. the internet axiom: if you criticize somebody else's spelling and/or grammar, it's guaranteed that you will make a mistake yourself.
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: J Thomas on January 30, 2011, 01:34:36 pm
But Sandy, how would an AnCap society deal with vampire leprechauns?  They can teleport and they're immune to bullets.

Of course, how a statist society would deal with them is probably by employing them in the bureaucracy or  in the mass media.  As far as I can tell, that's where most of the other vampires are.

Persuade them of the Zero-Aggression Principle. Then hire them for well-paying jobs where teleportation and immunity to bullets is useful. Then they can buy as much blood as they want on the free market.
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: SandySandfort on January 30, 2011, 02:05:15 pm
But Sandy, how would an AnCap society deal with vampire leprechauns?  They can teleport and they're immune to bullets.

Of course, how a statist society would deal with them is probably by employing them in the bureaucracy or  in the mass media.  As far as I can tell, that's where most of the other vampires are.

Persuade them of the Zero-Aggression Principle. Then hire them for well-paying jobs where teleportation and immunity to bullets is useful. Then they can buy as much blood as they want on the free market.

Excellent! Well thought out, relevant, concise and funny. There may be hope for you yet.  :)
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: J Thomas on January 30, 2011, 02:27:02 pm
But Sandy, how would an AnCap society deal with vampire leprechauns?  They can teleport and they're immune to bullets.

Of course, how a statist society would deal with them is probably by employing them in the bureaucracy or  in the mass media.  As far as I can tell, that's where most of the other vampires are.

Persuade them of the Zero-Aggression Principle. Then hire them for well-paying jobs where teleportation and immunity to bullets is useful. Then they can buy as much blood as they want on the free market.

Excellent! Well thought out, relevant, concise and funny. There may be hope for you yet.  :)

Or if they refuse to be persuaded, you could call them fools and trolls and refuse to respond to them.  ;)

More practically, if some of them are persuaded they might provide a lot of support for dealing with the rest, both information and direct actions.
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: ContraryGuy on January 30, 2011, 03:49:02 pm
My recent interactions with ContraryGuy have made me realize something about myself; I suffer fools way more than I should. I need to follow Heinlein's dictum when trying to enlighten fools, trolls and intellectual lightweights. “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”

So, realize, I will neither read nor respond to your posts if:

* You clearly intend to be confrontational rather than reasonable.
* You do not use proper English grammar and spelling. Sloppy writing is indicative of sloppy thinking. (If your first language was not English, you get a pass.)
* You are too verbose or otherwise cannot express yourself cogently and succinctly. Wandering all around Robin Hood's barn does not indicate clarity of thought.
* You create increasingly bizarre scenarios to support your failed arguments. E.g., "Yeah, but how would an AnCap society deal with vampire leprechauns, Huh?"
* Your comments have little or no relevance to the EFT universe. That is what the Forum is about.
* Your handle is ContraryGuy.  ;D 

I have never asked about vampire leprechauns.  I guess that was my first (thirty-third?) mistake.

So, is Sandy telling me I should re-register under a different name?
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: SandySandfort on January 30, 2011, 07:20:31 pm
Or if they refuse to be persuaded, you could call them fools and trolls and refuse to respond to them.  ;)

I see the smiley, but you really should have a serious answer. Yes I could do that, but it would be intellectually dishonest. I aspire to a higher degree of integrity than that. I call them as I see them. If I think you are too long winded, I will say so. If you say something wise or witty, I will recognize that too. Remember, I get on your case a lot, but when you wrote your last post, I applauded it.

More practically, if some of them are persuaded they might provide a lot of support for dealing with the rest, both information and direct actions.

See the Heinlein quote about singing pigs, elsewhere. For some people, such as yourself, their is hope, so will continue to engage with you (as long as you keep it short and sweet). But there are other sad little characters, who can build nothing themselves, so their only pleasure is to annoy and insult others. While there may be theoretical hope for ContraryGuy. He really is not worth the candle to bring him back to humanity.
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: J Thomas on January 30, 2011, 11:09:13 pm
More practically, if some of them are persuaded they might provide a lot of support for dealing with the rest, both information and direct actions.

See the Heinlein quote about singing pigs, elsewhere. For some people, such as yourself, their is hope, so will continue to engage with you (as long as you keep it short and sweet). But there are other sad little characters, who can build nothing themselves, so their only pleasure is to annoy and insult others. While there may be theoretical hope for ContraryGuy. He really is not worth the candle to bring him back to humanity.

I was thinking about the vampire leprechauns. If some of them get converted to AnCap and some don't, the ones on your side could be a giant help for fighting the others. They know about weak points  you can exploit (if they trust you enough to tell you) and they can fight against the statist(?) vampire leprechauns themselves.
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: Plane on February 01, 2011, 04:30:39 am
This is an old Southern saying.


"If you are arguing with a fool , what is he doing?"
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: ContraryGuy on February 01, 2011, 11:18:33 am
Or if they refuse to be persuaded, you could call them fools and trolls and refuse to respond to them.  ;)

Quote
While there may be theoretical hope for ContraryGuy. He really is not worth the candle to bring him back to humanity.

Aha, so thats how youre little anarchist society will be run...  I think you need a better name than "anarchist" capitalism.

Some would argue (like those whose lives were destroyed) that that is what led to the financial panic.

Living in a fantasy world, or Costa Rica, allows one to say "well, if they had only looked after themselves, they wouldnt have been destroyed by the panic".

Unfortunately, life in the real world is far more complicated than that.  Bad things, after all, can happen to good people.

I would love to live in the socialist utopia of AnCap, but I dont.  *I* have to live in the real world.
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: ContraryGuy on February 01, 2011, 11:19:38 am
This is an old Southern saying.


"If you are arguing with a fool , what is he doing?"

Obviously, he must be posting on this forum.  Right, Sandy?
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on February 01, 2011, 02:57:22 pm
Or if they refuse to be persuaded, you could call them fools and trolls and refuse to respond to them.  ;)

Quote
While there may be theoretical hope for ContraryGuy. He really is not worth the candle to bring him back to humanity.

Aha, so thats how youre little anarchist society will be run...  I think you need a better name than "anarchist" capitalism.

Some would argue (like those whose lives were destroyed) that that is what led to the financial panic.

Living in a fantasy world, or Costa Rica, allows one to say "well, if they had only looked after themselves, they wouldnt have been destroyed by the panic".

Unfortunately, life in the real world is far more complicated than that.  Bad things, after all, can happen to good people.

I would love to live in the socialist utopia of AnCap, but I dont.  *I* have to live in the real world.

Attributing words to Sandy that he did not himself generate will not advance whatever cause you think you may have.

Edit:  Apparently the forum software continues quotation boxes to the end if there is a missing  /quote tag.
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: spudit on February 01, 2011, 03:26:16 pm
To all concerned.

I am interested in the strip and the thought experiment it represents. The what would it be like question, that is why we are here.

I have seen hundreds of lines about BS that has nothing to do with AnCap life on Ceres. A while back a few of the gang went on and on about something regarding World War Two, I can't remember what exactly and don't care. I stopped reading that thread. Was the battle of Kursk mismanaged or was Truman right to drop the bomb, some such irrelevant foolishness. I don't care.

Those are not our questions, not here in this venue.

The circular oh yeah but what if stuff is a turn off too. Enough already.

So, what would life be like on Ceres in an AnCap future?

Oh, and where do we catch the interplanetary time bus there?
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: GlennWatson on February 01, 2011, 06:21:45 pm
Mr Sandfort, I have read this strip for a year and enjoy it.  I even read the message board.  One thing I have not noticed is your ability to disagree 'gladly' with those you find inadequate.  You probably have very few faults but suffering fools gladly is hardly one of them.

Your post reminds me of the guy who during a job interview was asked what his worst fault was.  He responded that he tended to put work above all else.

(God, I hope I spelled everything right.)
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: ContraryGuy on February 01, 2011, 07:19:58 pm
Mr Sandfort, I have read this strip for a year and enjoy it.  I even read the message board.  One thing I have not noticed is your ability to disagree 'gladly' with those you find inadequate.  You probably have very few faults but suffering fools gladly is hardly one of them.

Your post reminds me of the guy who during a job interview was asked what his worst fault was.  He responded that he tended to put work above all else.

(God, I hope I spelled everything right.)

If you didnt, I'm sure Sandy will correct you.  Gladly.
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: SandySandfort on February 01, 2011, 08:34:46 pm
So, what would life be like on Ceres in an AnCap future?

Oh, and where do we catch the interplanetary time bus there?

Thanks for bringing us back to the raison d'ętre of this Forum.

I waiting for that bus too. It can not come too soon.
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: SandySandfort on February 01, 2011, 08:42:27 pm
Mr Sandfort, I have read this strip for a year and enjoy it. 

Thanks. You know, you could just stop with that...

One thing I have not noticed is your ability to disagree 'gladly' with those you find inadequate.  You probably have very few faults but suffering fools gladly is hardly one of them.

It depends on whether you see it as a fault or not. I don't. My only regret is that I have given fools as much attention as I have. If you think it's a fault, well, you haven't seen anything yet. Mostly I will ignore them, but if necessary I will metaphorically drop kick their lame asses to Ceres.   ;D
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: GlennWatson on February 02, 2011, 05:05:57 pm
You are not anyone on this board until you have been drop-kicked by Mr. Sandfort.
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: SandySandfort on February 02, 2011, 07:14:16 pm
You are not anyone on this board until you have been drop-kicked by Mr. Sandfort.

Wow! How many forums have you been kicked off? I count three, but my guess is there have been others. I'm impressed. I see you start slow, then dial it up. And what is it with the various superhero images? I have a guess, but no matter; you will really have to work hard to get banned here. The list hosts are very tolerant people. If you do, though, I guess that would be a self-inflicted drop-kick.  ;D

Welcome and good luck!
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: spudit on February 02, 2011, 10:42:55 pm
Maybe we can restrict the bickering to this thread, you know who you are, and leave the others open for the stated topics.

Really gang how many perfectly good threads degenerate into not much more than name calling? And why is that?  Why are we all here anyway?
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: macsnafu on February 03, 2011, 10:32:23 am
You are not anyone on this board until you have been drop-kicked by Mr. Sandfort.

Darn!  So much for my reputation, then.   :P
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: GlennWatson on February 03, 2011, 04:25:07 pm
Just out of curiosity how did you arrive at a count of three?  Is there somewhere one can go to find out this information about others. 

To satisfy your curiosity, its a lot more than three.  But I am trying to be good.  My problem is I just can't resist poking when I should be quiet.
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: SandySandfort on February 03, 2011, 06:13:29 pm
Just out of curiosity how did you arrive at a count of three?  Is there somewhere one can go to find out this information about others. 

Mostly Google searches with name variations and such. I'm good at it; Google is my bitch.

To satisfy your curiosity, its a lot more than three.  But I am trying to be good.  My problem is I just can't resist poking when I should be quiet.

I just counted superheros (Superman, Batman and Captain America), so that might not match the lists from which you were banned. Anyway, have fun, say what you want, disagree if you want, but hopefully try not to be Contrary.  ;)

Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: GlennWatson on February 04, 2011, 11:13:07 pm
You Googled me?  Ick.

What did they say?
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: SandySandfort on February 05, 2011, 06:10:46 am
You Googled me?  Ick.

It was an iterative process, though surprisingly quick. The handle variation came up due to the way I wrote the query.

What did they say?

If you mean the other lists, you should already know that. However I will say the words "troll" and "banned" came up a lot.   :D
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: GlennWatson on February 05, 2011, 08:22:14 am
I don't know what iterative means but now that your curiosity is satisfied it must feel nice to find out the truth.
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: ContraryGuy on February 06, 2011, 09:53:41 am
Just out of curiosity how did you arrive at a count of three?  Is there somewhere one can go to find out this information about others. 

Mostly Google searches with name variations and such. I'm good at it; Google is my bitch.

To satisfy your curiosity, its a lot more than three.  But I am trying to be good.  My problem is I just can't resist poking when I should be quiet.

I just counted superheros (Superman, Batman and Captain America), so that might not match the lists from which you were banned. Anyway, have fun, say what you want, disagree if you want, but hopefully try not to be Contrary.  ;)




Its so nice to be recognized for my work.  :-)
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: Holt on February 08, 2011, 09:40:31 pm
I can sum up OP's post in one sentence.

"If you do not share my ideological beliefs do not talk to me."
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: GlennWatson on February 09, 2011, 08:26:57 pm
Who is OP?
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: KBCraig on February 10, 2011, 02:42:34 am
Who is OP?

A common forum shorthand reference to the "original poster", the one who started the current thread. In this case, Sandy.
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: quadibloc on February 10, 2011, 07:26:24 am
A common forum shorthand reference to the "original poster", the one who started the current thread. In this case, Sandy.
Still, confusion was understandable. OP is not a name; it is a noun that takes the definite article. "I can sum up the OP's post..." is the normal form, and might have been more likely to be recognized.

Still, for people not familiar with the abbreviations like LOL, IANAL, HTH, and the like, this one could easily be mistaken for, say, "operator".
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: SandySandfort on February 10, 2011, 05:58:37 pm
I can sum up OP's post in one sentence.

"If you do not share my ideological beliefs do not talk to me."

No you can't; failed again! I guess this is the leitmotif of your life--failure and frustration. Here, let me tell you what my post actually meant, in one sentence:

"If you only have bald opinions without evidentiary or reasoned argument, talking to me is a waste of both our times."

So, since you have never put forth a well reasoned and documented argument, yes, don't talk to me or rather, talk all you want, I won't waste my time listening. I am plonking you with CG. Of course, just as with CG, I will happily read anything you have written that a more thoughtful poster has quoted and undoubted demolished with facts and reasoning. Live in darkness.
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: ContraryGuy on February 12, 2011, 12:25:45 pm
I can sum up OP's post in one sentence.

"If you do not share my ideological beliefs do not talk to me."

No you can't; failed again! I guess this is the leitmotif of your life--failure and frustration. Here, let me tell you what my post actually meant, in one sentence:

"If you only have bald opinions without evidentiary or reasoned argument, talking to me is a waste of both our times."

So, since you have never put forth a well reasoned and documented argument, yes, don't talk to me or rather, talk all you want, I won't waste my time listening. I am plonking you with CG. Of course, just as with CG, I will happily read anything you have written that a more thoughtful poster has quoted and undoubted demolished with facts and reasoning. Live in darkness.

Is it really Holt and I who are in darkness?  Or are we the ones being pilloried for lighting candles?

"For it is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness"
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: ContraryGuy on February 12, 2011, 12:29:02 pm
I can sum up OP's post in one sentence.

"If you do not share my ideological beliefs do not talk to me."

Hi Holt, welcome to Reality.  While I agree with you, trying to convince Sandy that his Utopian society only works in small doses is a Sisyphean task.

But, since am a helpful guy, I do want to help Sandy et al. succeed.  So just call me Sisyphus.
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: Plane on February 12, 2011, 10:01:35 pm
I can sum up OP's post in one sentence.

"If you do not share my ideological beliefs do not talk to me."

Hi Holt, welcome to Reality.  While I agree with you, trying to convince Sandy that his Utopian society only works in small doses is a Sisyphean task.

But, since am a helpful guy, I do want to help Sandy et al. succeed.  So just call me Sisyphus.

Thought experiments can be important , because they can lead to real experiments.

If AnCap is thouroughly thought out and its principals well laid out for participants before the start this might help the chances of success, quibbleing is in service to the goal .

Once the real experience is undertaken the guide of the thought experiments will loose relivance and corrections from learing the results of real experiments will matter more.

I kinda hope that a frounteir in space is not totally necessacery to the success of an AnCap society, I would like it better if the comics prediction of a worldwide dictatorship does not come to pass.

If the general population of the Earth becomes gradually more sophisticated will we reach a point at which most of us can be self governed?

I like the idea , it is worth a try.
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: J Thomas on February 12, 2011, 10:53:21 pm
I can sum up OP's post in one sentence.

"If you do not share my ideological beliefs do not talk to me."

Hi Holt, welcome to Reality.  While I agree with you, trying to convince Sandy that his Utopian society only works in small doses is a Sisyphean task.

Reality?

It looks to me like Sandy has basicly an axiomatic system. If everything works the way he says it ought to, it cannot fail because he has it defined to succeed. So say there's a real attempt at an AnCap society that does fail. He could point to something about its failure to show it was not a real AnCap society, a No True Scotsman situation.

This false certainty gives him the strength to push toward what he wants. Can there be a real society that approximates his ideals? I don't know. How would anybody know? Three hundred years ago a lot of people believed that democracy was impossible, but they were wrong. Does democracy solve all the problems its early proponents claimed it would? No. But it does better than kings.

He thinks he knows. You think you know. Why would anybody think you have a handle on Reality, on the Truth? Sandy's beliefs give him hope and the conviction that a better day is coming. If he stopped believing what he believes and accepted your beliefs instead, what would it get him? I'm not ready to choose a religion, but if it was a choice between Sandy's religion and your religion, I'd pick his. The hope of something better, versus the belief that we're stuck -- what benefit is there to believing your way? Because it's the Truth? That has not been demonstrated.

Some AnCap believers' ideas seem naive to me. Like I think I've seen a claim that AnCap societies will be composed of people who individually choose to avoid banks and Ponzi schemes because they will be individually smart enough to know better, and therefore those things will not cause business cycles. Maybe I made up that interpretation from other things people say and nobody actually made that claim. But still I can imagine an AnCap society might be workable, and if it winds up with banks and business cycles it can still be workable. Or they might find a way to avoid that. I can't expect AnCap enthusiasts to solve every problem ahead of time. That would be like expecting a computer programmer to come up with a paper description of a program that worked perfectly without testing. You start with a vision of what you want, and you build specs, and you revise the specs when you see they don't work. That's where AnCap is now, they're building preliminary specs.

If you have an argument why the program can't work, you could explain it. "The final user will have to make ten thousand choices through the user interface for each transaction." "Your algorithm requires a division by zero right here, and here's why it has to be zero." "The problem is NP-hard and on current hardware can be solved only for N=20 but you require a solution for N=200,000."

Sometimes it's possible to find gotchas that prove the program cannot ever work. And sometimes in that case it's still possible to get a program that does something worthwhile. But I don't see that you've described a gotcha. Your objections so far have been yes-buts. You might be right that large AnCap societies are impossible, but you haven't given any indication that you can back up that opinion.
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: mellyrn on February 13, 2011, 07:27:08 am
I can sum up Holt and CG's position in one sentence:

"I can't be bothered to mount a real argument when it's so much easier to skewer a straw-man version spun out of the straw of my own uninformed imagination."
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: terry_freeman on February 13, 2011, 06:50:07 pm
What Mellyrn said; nail on the head.

It is the statists who are dreamers. After thousands of years of failure, they still claim that the State can better manage a) the money supply ( in spite of evidence showing that State interventions cause and exacerbate "business" cycles. ), b) better manage defense - in spite of obviously having caused more wholesale carnage than could ever be attributed to private actors, and c) better education, in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary. I could go on at great length.

What are the recent experiments in removal of "traffic controls" but an admission that the State has failed to provide traffic safety? No State in all the world, until these removal-of-controls experiments, managed to create roads which are as safe and effective as those which are not controlled by the State.

Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: ShireSilver on February 15, 2011, 08:01:02 am
What are the recent experiments in removal of "traffic controls" but an admission that the State has failed to provide traffic safety? No State in all the world, until these removal-of-controls experiments, managed to create roads which are as safe and effective as those which are not controlled by the State.

[This is from memory from a few years ago.]

In the Twin Cities (Minnesota), they have a traffic management system that attempts to reduce traffic jams by using stoplights on entrance ramps. They are pretty universally reviled, and a state legislator managed to get a law passed requiring a study be done. They planned a two week study where the lights would be turned off.

On the first day, traffic was way worse than normal. There were more accidents.

On the second day, traffic was about like it normally was under the control of the lights.

On the third day, the traffic was better than it had been in a long time.

On the fourth day, the traffic management center realized they needed to end the study as quickly as possible. It was becoming very apparent that they would all lose their jobs.

In the end, a few of the lights were removed permanently, and the management was "modified". They reduced it a little bit, but managed to keep their jobs by convincing enough legislators that they were still needed somehow.
Title: Re: SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY
Post by: spudit on February 23, 2011, 01:07:50 pm
Mel Brooks as the governor in Blazing Saddles,

"Gentlemen this is serious, we have to protect our phoney-baloney jobs here."