Bonehead Policy of the Day page 3

Since when? I don’t try to be rude, it’s just so damn frustrating that you argue something again and again until either teh other person gives up or dies of old age.

The first post I disagree with you in an argument usually leads to the attitude, not repetitiveness, though it does get worse with time.

Seeing as this is my own thread and it has completely degraded into a little battle that isn’t going to accomplish anything and isn’t even remotely on topic, I’m just going to lock it.

Thanks for the discussion – it was at least an interesting two-sided debate on the topic.

So you are trying to say a net savings of, if my calculations are correct, roughly 4% (which, with a 15% increase being 50 cents, probably about 12 cents) is the same as being charged 8 times the normal price? No, it is very much in the numbers, arcane. And the city does need the money to get the water out, which nobody seems to want to address.

No, I’m not even remotely trying to say that. Does anyone even understand the concept of a hyperbole?

You again are entirely missing the point of what I even said, focusing on the wrong thing (this is why I’m not interested in even looking at what you write much anymore, since you convolute the point that’s being made). Most of my comments have to do with public relations, management, policies and rewarding consumers. Get your mind off the numbers. Making calculations and comparisons on numbers is hardly the point I was making and is not going to change a thing about what I said.

In fact, if some of you even read all of what I stated instead of looking for something to disagree with, you’d have noticed:

On the flip side, if they are doing it just to stay afloat and the hike is relatively low, then it’s more understandable.

Sometimes I think people don’t even understand the point of a hypothetical illustrations and hyperboles anymore. If I said ‘it took forever to make a game’ would you argue with me that I was wrong and explain to me how taking forever was impossible? Come on people, I feel like I’m in an episode of Family guy sometimes… O.o

I changed my mind – I’m a big proponent of communication, and if you guys can air out some of your differences in a civilized manner, then great, go for it.

Mils – perhaps I over-reacted a little, but I don’t think by much. This is not a topic I’m passionate about, this is something I thought was stupid and wanted to share. I’m not mad that you’re arguing against me, I’m mad about your condescending attitude. I honestly didn’t understand how you weren’t seeing my point. I was not trying to be an ass, it was an honest statement. Yours on the other hand had no purpose but to demean, and following your claim about me being short-sighted it pissed me off.

Additionally, mils, they were going to raise the cost of water as a way of forcing people to conserve, not because of any revenue problems (at least they didn’t mention them when they were talking about the rate increase).

>No, I’m not even remotely trying to say that. Does anyone even understand the concept of a hyperbole?

Yes. I always found that when you had to use a hyperbole the basic amount wasn’t enough to actually merit concern, so you had to exaggerate. Isn’t that the point of them, to make things seem worse than they are?

>You again are entirely missing the point of what I even said, focusing on the wrong thing (this is why I’m not interested in even looking at what you write much anymore, since you convolute the point that’s being made). Most of my comments have to do with public relations, management, policies and rewarding consumers. Get your mind off the numbers. Making calculations and comparisons on numbers is hardly the point I was making and is not going to change a thing about what I said.

If it had to do with PR, then why was your post using such insane numbers? It seemed like you focused on the numbers a lot, and you could have easily made your point about PR without using numbers, as Phoenix has done. So why were the numbers mentioned at all, besides to confuse me or make it seem more outrageous (the second one, of course, being what I criticized you for). And yes, it does change what you said. If things are unfair for an 800% increase, a small inrease in price isn’t necessarily unfair.

>On the flip side, if they are doing it just to stay afloat and the hike is relatively low, then it’s more understandable.

So the numbers are important if it is small, but not when you use your hyperbola? Hmm. Anyway, you further went on to say it was bad management, which Phoenix disproved by saying they had been planning the increase.

>Sometimes I think people don’t even understand the point of a hypothetical illustrations and hyperboles anymore. If I said ‘it took forever to make a game’ would you argue with me that I was wrong and explain to me how taking forever was impossible? Come on people, I feel like I’m in an episode of Family guy sometimes… O.o

No, but if you tried to argue that it was absurd to give Kongai a release date 6 months from now by saying how many fans we would lose if it was released 8 years from now, I would argue against it. See? You even hyperbole’d the extent to which I would argue your hyperboles.

>I changed my mind – I’m a big proponent of communication, and if you guys can air out some of your differences in a civilized manner, then great, go for it.

Thank you. Also, it gave me a chance to actually argue against aC’s post “while locked.” ;-)

>Mils – perhaps I over-reacted a little, but I don’t think by much. This is not a topic I’m passionate about, this is something I thought was stupid and wanted to share. I’m not mad that you’re arguing against me, I’m mad about your condescending attitude. I honestly didn’t understand how you weren’t seeing my point. I was not trying to be an ass, it was an honest statement. Yours on the other hand had no purpose but to demean, and following your claim about me being short-sighted it pissed me off.

First off: OK, fair enough about the not seeing your point thing. Secondly: I was only reaping what I beleived you had sowed. I thought, at the time, you had tried to demean me, so I was angry and posted against you. Third, the short sighted comment was because you admitted you were looking at the short term increase instead of the long term decrease and the effects against your city.

>Additionally, mils, they were going to raise the cost of water as a way of forcing people to conserve, not because of any revenue problems (at least they didn’t mention them when they were talking about the rate increase).

In the article, it stated that they had 800 million dollars to pay off in 10 years. I am pretty sure a 20% cut in revenue would hurt their payment plan, so it must have been on their minds. Or else they are even more short sighted than your theoretical consumers. ;-)

Frankly I’m just going to try and ignore a lot of what he says. I honestly never see any fruit in it, it only results in getting stuck on the same issue and debating something that isn’t even relevant with the point being missed entirely. It’s sometimes seems this forum is only a place for individuals to try and look more intelligent than others or find things to correct, instead of actually having constructive discussions. Everyone acts as if everyone else is wrong, which is obviously not the case. We need more ‘that makes sense’ or ’that’s reasonable, however’ constructive comments instead of ‘let me tell you how you are wrong’ comments.

Regarding the topic, I’m interested in general in hearing constructive comments about what alternate choices management could have taken. I didn’t post to argue with people, but to try and visualize both sides of the issue so I can expand my understanding of what is the most beneficial choice in situations like these. Obviously the choice they made seem to be upsetting in a way. As a businessman (self employed since some of those debating here had recently joined Kindergarten I imagine) I understand a lot more about the logistics of price regulation for maintaining profitability than some of our more high-minded debaters; but I’m trying to look at both standpoints – vendor and consumer – instead of just siding with one or saying there is one and only solution. One thing I do understand is public relations is often simply about how you handle things and how they are presented. Forgive me if I’ve missed some good comments on these points, it’s hard to pick them out over the muck at times.

It sends the message that in the future we should ignore the government’s requests and that conservation is not supported by the government.

Except that you operate as an individual, not as a collective. If you HADN’T conserved water, and everyone else did, you’d end up paying even MORE money, right? So regardless of what everyone else does, and regardless of whether prices are raised, it’s still in your financial best interest to conserve.

>Frankly I’m just going to try and ignore a lot of what he says. I honestly never see any fruit in it, it only results in getting stuck on the same issue and debating something that isn’t even relevant with the point being missed entirely. It’s sometimes seems this forum is only a place for individuals to try and look more intelligent than others or find things to correct, instead of actually having constructive discussions. Everyone acts as if everyone else is wrong, which is obviously not the case. We need more ‘that makes sense’ or ‘that’s reasonable, however’ constructive comments instead of ‘let me tell you how you are wrong’ comments.

It started with a debate topic, and I’d bet 500 bucks it will end with debate topics. And I have learned some things here and actually had reasonable discussion, but to quote you from later on, you probably didn’t find it in the muck. ;)

As for the only place to prove yourself better things: As I and you would know best, any time I try to argue in another forum, it ends badly for me. It has to end up somewhere. Once again, ;)

As for the ignoring me for the most part thing, I can only sigh. It always seems like this happens just when things start to get into the interesting part of the arguments. Ah well.

EDIT: And ignoring me also isn’t a good way to get me to want to be productive in a topic, as well. Ignoring people in a forum typically leads to even more flaming, or those awkward discussions where two people refuse to speak to each other and it gets really weird trying to argue against somebody.

>Regarding the topic, I’m interested in general in hearing constructive comments about what alternate choices management could have taken. I didn’t post to argue with people, but to try and visualize both sides of the issue so I can expand my understanding of what is the most beneficial choice in situations like these. Obviously the choice they made seem to be upsetting in a way. As a businessman (self employed since some of those debating here had recently joined Kindergarten I imagine) I understand a lot more about the logistics of price regulation for maintaining profitability than some of our more high-minded debaters; but I’m trying to look at both standpoints – vendor and consumer – instead of just siding with one or saying there is one and only solution. One thing I do understand is public relations is often simply about how you handle things and how they are presented. Forgive me if I’ve missed some good comments on these points, it’s hard to pick them out over the muck at times.

I’ve looked at both viewpoints. If I was a consumer, I really wouldn’t give damn about 50 extra cents. I would actually be far more angry at forcibly limiting our water use, but I still wouldn’t care that much about that, considering the fact that from the vendor’s viewpoint, they can’t handle having water used at full capacity in the drought. I can’t really think of many alternative solutions that wouldn’t wind up being much worse for one side. If they didn’t increase the prices, the city would fall behind on payments. If they increased the prices and limited use at the same time, customer outrage would be much more. The only thing I can see is the fact that the city got screwed over by the (generally) negative news report that generated bad press. It would have been much better if they could have gotten better (or no) press on the raise.

it’s still in your financial best interest to conserve.

On a semi-unrelated note regarding best interests of conservation and water, my landlord is so cheap that the back house on our property shares the same water heater with us (3 people in our house, 2 in that one). If everyone here conserved hot water a little better, I wouldn’t get so annoyed at cold showers when I’m getting ready to go somewhere. :P

How moronic is that? Just be glad he’s not in charge of your water policy (or maybe he is, since ironically I believe he works for the water department).