Final 4 Bound???

[AtHomeInTheDahlbergDen]

not if it drastically diluted the point i was trying to make.

What if it was the only way to spell things out for people like Swilly? Strengthen? Yes. Dilute? Hardly, for anyone with over about 95 IQ and basic comprehension of the English Language.

And...ignored

No, it's diluted. Don't confuse unreadable and poorly structured with intelligent.

Sorry Den, had to see that one...

If something is unreadable, it implies an inability to read that something. If that something is written in English, it implies an inability to read/comprehend English. If the person proclaiming such a piece unreadable is YOU, what are you saying about yourself?

if A -> B
if B -> C

how's that for structure?

So if an some idiot scribbled indecipherable [english] jargon on a bathroom wall, and i ask you to read it, and you say you can't make any sense of it... that makes you dumb?

let's go back to the original watered down argument... something about integrity. You backed off your argument when i mentioned perceived integrity. Integrity is not a measurable trait. No one can physically take out a device and tell, scientifically, how much integrity a certain object/team/person has. Thus, the only kind of integrity is perceived and therefore, there's no need to tack "perceived" on there because that's all there is. You tried to split the two and make it all wishy washy. How is that not diluting the argument?

 

[AtHomeInTheDahlbergDen]

Yes, two, and that was in the last three days. It's also two more than you've accomplished in the last 1658 posts. Pretty good percentage for me I think. And this one counts as well!!

Thanks for ignoring me by the way!!!

Found it

http://guboards.spokesmanreview.com/

 

[CDAGRIZ]

What if it was the only way to spell things out for people like Swilly? Strengthen? Yes. Dilute? Hardly, for anyone with over about 95 IQ and basic comprehension of the English Language.

And...ignored

No, it's diluted. Don't confuse unreadable and poorly structured with intelligent.

Sorry Den, had to see that one...

If something is unreadable, it implies an inability to read that something. If that something is written in English, it implies an inability to read/comprehend English. If the person proclaiming such a piece unreadable is YOU, what are you saying about yourself?

if A -> B
if B -> C

how's that for structure?

So if an some idiot scribbled indecipherable [english] jargon on a bathroom wall, and i ask you to read it, and you say you can't make any sense of it... that makes you dumb?

let's go back to the original watered down argument... something about integrity. You backed off your argument when i mentioned perceived integrity. Integrity is not a measurable trait. No one can physically take out a device and tell, scientifically, how much integrity a certain object/team/person has. Thus, the only kind of integrity is perceived and therefore, there's no need to tack "perceived" on there because that's all there is. You tried to split the two and make it all wishy washy. How is that not diluting the argument?

First: you are making a flawed analogy. Scribbled, indecipherable English is much different than perfect Arial font. I wrote in perfect Arial font; you couldn't understand it. Every sentence was expressed in perfect grammar. It was not indecipherable.

Second: Thanks for taking three days to construct a comeback on the integrity thing. You are flat-out wrong though. Real integrity and perceived integrity are two different things.

Consider this: I have a choice to do the right thing or the wrong thing without anybody knowing I made the decision. If I choose to do the right thing, I retain my real integrity. If I choose to do the wrong thing, I lose some real integrity. But my perceived integrity is unchanged due to the fact that nobody knows I made the decision.

An example usually helps someone like you:
Suppose I was a teacher and made the decision to speed in a schoolzone and did not get caught; nobody saw me. However, I consciously ran the risk of klilling a child or other pedestrian. My perceived integrity is unchanged; my real integrity goes down.

Examples abound. You are out of your league.

 

[AtHomeInTheDahlbergDen]

No, it's diluted. Don't confuse unreadable and poorly structured with intelligent.

Sorry Den, had to see that one...

If something is unreadable, it implies an inability to read that something. If that something is written in English, it implies an inability to read/comprehend English. If the person proclaiming such a piece unreadable is YOU, what are you saying about yourself?

if A -> B
if B -> C

how's that for structure?

So if an some idiot scribbled indecipherable [english] jargon on a bathroom wall, and i ask you to read it, and you say you can't make any sense of it... that makes you dumb?

let's go back to the original watered down argument... something about integrity. You backed off your argument when i mentioned perceived integrity. Integrity is not a measurable trait. No one can physically take out a device and tell, scientifically, how much integrity a certain object/team/person has. Thus, the only kind of integrity is perceived and therefore, there's no need to tack "perceived" on there because that's all there is. You tried to split the two and make it all wishy washy. How is that not diluting the argument?

First: you are making a flawed analogy. Scribbled, indecipherable English is much different than perfect Arial font. I wrote in perfect Arial font; you couldn't understand it. Every sentence was expressed in perfect grammar. It was not indecipherable.

Second: Thanks for taking three days to construct a comeback on the integrity thing. You are flat-out wrong though. Real integrity and perceived integrity are two different things.

Consider this: I have a choice to do the right thing or the wrong thing without anybody knowing I made the decision. If I choose to do the right thing, I retain my real integrity. If I choose to do the wrong thing, I lose some real integrity. But my perceived integrity is unchanged due to the fact that nobody knows I made the decision.

An example usually helps someone like you:
Suppose I was a teacher and made the decision to speed in a schoolzone and did not get caught; nobody saw me. However, I consciously ran the risk of klilling a child or other pedestrian. My perceived integrity is unchanged; my real integrity goes down.

Examples abound. You are out of your league.

I came back with the perceived thing and you sat on it.

The integrity thing is flawed again. You draw examples where only the person who acts can make judgements on real integrity. The University of Gonzaga or the basketball program cannot, as one, make a judgement on their "real" integrity. Their are only individuals, none of whom can judge the integrity of the program because they are not, by themselves, the program. They can only perceive what they believe the integrity level to be. A university or program cannot make decisions or believe anything, only individuals can do that. And what is that? perception.

 

[Lou]

WOW! Denny:

in·teg·ri·ty (ĭn-těg'rĭ-tē) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.

And, I saved you the trouble:

stead·fast also sted·fast (stěd'fāst', -fəst) Pronunciation Key
adj.
1. Firmly loyal or constant; unswerving. See Synonyms at faithful.

It seems to me that a person with integrity (or a program for that matter) would do the right thing even when its perceived integrity is not at stake.

I don't think you know who you are arguing with.

I don't think you are in any position to say a CDAGRIZ argument is flawed.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Um... what he said. That...that was pretty much perfect. Thanks Lou. Hey Den? I'm glad you've committed yourself to the belief in real integrity by citing that my examples leave the judgment thereof to the persons making the decisions. That is, I'm glad you see it my way.

Why don't we go back to basketball, because I don't think you're making any progress with this.

 

[AtHomeInTheDahlbergDen]

Wow. I put it simply. Programs (the ones, who according to you, have integrity) cannot make decisions. Programs are ideas. Not a physical, thinking entity. Does it not make sense to you that an individual, operating for a program with perceived or real integrity, could make a decision that hurts a program's "Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code?" By the way, no one was arguing over the definition of integrity. Types, but not definition. Thanks for the insight.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Wow. I put it simply. Programs (the ones, who according to you, have integrity) cannot make decisions. Programs are ideas. Not a physical, thinking entity. Does it not make sense to you that an individual, operating for a program with perceived or real integrity, could make a decision that hurts a program's "Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code?" By the way, no one was arguing over the definition of integrity. Types, but not definition. Thanks for the insight.

Been reading Kant? Nietzsche? Hopefully next unit you'll get into some Stout. Agency theory, my boy. You are hanging on by the thread that a prgram cannot act as a single being, and thus, cannot have real integrity (which you have now three times admitted the existence of, post denying it). Am example of how a program acts as a single entity; and your argument is in shambles.

Imagine a program made up of many people. This program's decisions are made by agents (individuals). Surely you do not believe that a "program" is an autonomous entity. It is being controlled by an individual, or panel of individuals. In this way, programs are thinking entities being spoken though by their respective agents. In the event that a decision is to be made, a vote by the panel is almost always employed. The resulting decision becomes the decision of the program as a whole. In other words, the program has one voice comprised of the individual, or individuals, who control the program.

Another example to drive it home (people pay top dollar for this kind of education):

When the UM AD resigned in the face of allegations of shady conduct (namely, not being able to account for $1 million). The program lost some perceived integrity. Had nobody found out about the missing money, would the program still retain all of its actual integrity? You are saying, "yes" since, stragely enough, it is not a single individual. I am saying, "no" since someone made the decisions to "mislocate" the money.

Obviously, the program's perceived integrity would not have changed had nobody found out.

Thank you for attending class, and I'll never cover this material again. So you had better take notes for the final.

 

[AtHomeInTheDahlbergDen]

Wow. I put it simply. Programs (the ones, who according to you, have integrity) cannot make decisions. Programs are ideas. Not a physical, thinking entity. Does it not make sense to you that an individual, operating for a program with perceived or real integrity, could make a decision that hurts a program's "Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code?" By the way, no one was arguing over the definition of integrity. Types, but not definition. Thanks for the insight.

Been reading Kant? Nietzsche? Hopefully next unit you'll get into some Stout. Agency theory, my boy. You are hanging on by the thread that a prgram cannot act as a single being, and thus, cannot have real integrity (which you have now three times admitted the existence of, post denying it).

Imagine program made up of many people. This program's decisions are made by agents (individuals). Surely you do not believe that a "program" is an autonomous entity. It is being controlled by an individual, or panel of individuals. In this way, programs are thinking entities being spoken though by their respective agents. In the event that a decision is to be made, a vote by the panel is almost always employed. The resulting decision becomes the decision of the program as a whole. In other words, the program has one voice comprised of the individual, or individuals, who control the program.

Another example to drive it home (people pay top dollar for this kind of education):

When the UM AD resigned in the face of allegations of shady conduct (namely, not being able to account for $1 million). The program lost some perceived integrity. Had nobody found out about the missing money, would the program still retain all of its actual integrity? You are saying, "yes" since, stragely enough, it is not a single individual. I am saying, "no" since someone made the decisions to "mislocate" the money.

Obviously, the program's perceived integrity would not have changed had nobody found out.

Thank you for attending class, and I'll never cover this material again. So you had better take notes for the final.

You can't break the argument I've made and do a poor job of countering it. Think what you want by diluting whatever point you're make by spreading it out over a committee or whatever you are doing. Take this nonsensical bloated debate elsewhere and try to convince them that Heytveldt and those who brought him back did not hurt Gonzaga's integrity. It's that fucking simple.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Wow. I put it simply. Programs (the ones, who according to you, have integrity) cannot make decisions. Programs are ideas. Not a physical, thinking entity. Does it not make sense to you that an individual, operating for a program with perceived or real integrity, could make a decision that hurts a program's "Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code?" By the way, no one was arguing over the definition of integrity. Types, but not definition. Thanks for the insight.

Been reading Kant? Nietzsche? Hopefully next unit you'll get into some Stout. Agency theory, my boy. You are hanging on by the thread that a prgram cannot act as a single being, and thus, cannot have real integrity (which you have now three times admitted the existence of, post denying it).

Imagine program made up of many people. This program's decisions are made by agents (individuals). Surely you do not believe that a "program" is an autonomous entity. It is being controlled by an individual, or panel of individuals. In this way, programs are thinking entities being spoken though by their respective agents. In the event that a decision is to be made, a vote by the panel is almost always employed. The resulting decision becomes the decision of the program as a whole. In other words, the program has one voice comprised of the individual, or individuals, who control the program.

Another example to drive it home (people pay top dollar for this kind of education):

When the UM AD resigned in the face of allegations of shady conduct (namely, not being able to account for $1 million). The program lost some perceived integrity. Had nobody found out about the missing money, would the program still retain all of its actual integrity? You are saying, "yes" since, stragely enough, it is not a single individual. I am saying, "no" since someone made the decisions to "mislocate" the money.

Obviously, the program's perceived integrity would not have changed had nobody found out.

Thank you for attending class, and I'll never cover this material again. So you had better take notes for the final.

You can't break the argument I've made and do a poor job of countering it. Think what you want by diluting whatever point you're make by spreading it out over a committee or whatever you are doing. Take this nonsensical bloated debate elsewhere and try to convince them that Heytveldt and those who brought him back did not hurt Gonzaga's integrity. It's that f*****g simple.

Dude! I agreed that it hurt GU's integrity! My point was that he did not have to play well to make it "worth it" because that would mean that GU had no integrity to begin with. No program with integrity would say, "if he averages a double-double, it was worth reinstating him." That's it, that's all I said. Now that I've made my point for the nth time, maybe we can ge past this.

PS: I'm glad you believe in real integrity.

 

[AtHomeInTheDahlbergDen]

On top of that, you take my words and turn them into something they are certainly not. Key to a losing argument. I said "Does it not make sense to you that an individual, operating for a program with perceived or real integrity, could make a decision that hurts a program's 'Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code?'" inferring exactly what the question is acting. Where the hell do you get me saying that a program losing money, or an individual losing money, does not hurt integrity because it is done by an individual?

 

[AtHomeInTheDahlbergDen]

Wow. I put it simply. Programs (the ones, who according to you, have integrity) cannot make decisions. Programs are ideas. Not a physical, thinking entity. Does it not make sense to you that an individual, operating for a program with perceived or real integrity, could make a decision that hurts a program's "Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code?" By the way, no one was arguing over the definition of integrity. Types, but not definition. Thanks for the insight.

Been reading Kant? Nietzsche? Hopefully next unit you'll get into some Stout. Agency theory, my boy. You are hanging on by the thread that a prgram cannot act as a single being, and thus, cannot have real integrity (which you have now three times admitted the existence of, post denying it).

Imagine program made up of many people. This program's decisions are made by agents (individuals). Surely you do not believe that a "program" is an autonomous entity. It is being controlled by an individual, or panel of individuals. In this way, programs are thinking entities being spoken though by their respective agents. In the event that a decision is to be made, a vote by the panel is almost always employed. The resulting decision becomes the decision of the program as a whole. In other words, the program has one voice comprised of the individual, or individuals, who control the program.

Another example to drive it home (people pay top dollar for this kind of education):

When the UM AD resigned in the face of allegations of shady conduct (namely, not being able to account for $1 million). The program lost some perceived integrity. Had nobody found out about the missing money, would the program still retain all of its actual integrity? You are saying, "yes" since, stragely enough, it is not a single individual. I am saying, "no" since someone made the decisions to "mislocate" the money.

Obviously, the program's perceived integrity would not have changed had nobody found out.

Thank you for attending class, and I'll never cover this material again. So you had better take notes for the final.

You can't break the argument I've made and do a poor job of countering it. Think what you want by diluting whatever point you're make by spreading it out over a committee or whatever you are doing. Take this nonsensical bloated debate elsewhere and try to convince them that Heytveldt and those who brought him back did not hurt Gonzaga's integrity. It's that f*****g simple.

Dude! I agreed that it hurt GU's integrity! My point was that he did not have to play well to make it "worth it" because that would mean that GU had no integrity to begin with. No program with integrity would say, "if he averages a double-double, it was worth reinstating him." That's it, that's all I said. Now that I've made my point for the nth time, maybe we can ge past this.

PS: I'm glad you believe in real integrity.

What i'm trying to say is that they would've been much more apt to dump the kid if he wasn't as talented as he is. If that means I'm saying GU doesn't have a shred of integrity, so be it.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

On top of that, you take my words and turn them into something they are certainly not. Key to a losing argument. I said "Does it not make sense to you that an individual, operating for a program with perceived or real integrity, could make a decision that hurts a program's 'Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code?'" inferring exactly what the question is acting. Where the hell do you get me saying that a program losing money, or an individual losing money, does not hurt integrity because it is done by an individual?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe it was when you said that since a program is not a single thinking entity, it can only have perceived integrity. I think, "perceived integrity is all there is" was the exact quote.

Face it, man. You lose. You cannot win this one coming from so far behind. You don't realize when you are making points that back you into a corner logically. I wish you the best; keep studying.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

What i'm trying to say is that they would've been much more apt to dump the kid if he wasn't as talented as he is. If that means I'm saying GU doesn't have a shred of integrity, so be it.

And that is exactly what I said three days ago! You are more than free to believe that GU had no integrity before the decision. But if you think that it hurt GU's integrity to reinstate, you are committed to believing that GU DID have integrity beforehand. See what I mean?

 

[AtHomeInTheDahlbergDen]

On top of that, you take my words and turn them into something they are certainly not. Key to a losing argument. I said "Does it not make sense to you that an individual, operating for a program with perceived or real integrity, could make a decision that hurts a program's 'Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code?'" inferring exactly what the question is acting. Where the hell do you get me saying that a program losing money, or an individual losing money, does not hurt integrity because it is done by an individual?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe it was when you said that since a program is not a single thinking entity, it can only have perceived integrity. I think, "perceived integrity is all there is" was the exact quote.

Face it, man. You lose. You cannot win this one coming from so far behind. You don't realize when you are making points that back you into a corner logically. I wish you the best; keep studying.

Why would you ever go back a couple posts when you could look at the one i made previously, where i say an individual can make a decision that affects someone or something's integrity? It doesn't make sense. Me saying perceived integrity is all their is has nothing to do with you capping off your argument with something i didn't say. The points you make in that last post have 0 logic. You infer that me saying there is only perceived logic somehow means that an individual cannot make a decision that affects a program's integrity? How the hell are those linked?

 

[CDAGRIZ]

On top of that, you take my words and turn them into something they are certainly not. Key to a losing argument. I said "Does it not make sense to you that an individual, operating for a program with perceived or real integrity, could make a decision that hurts a program's 'Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code?'" inferring exactly what the question is acting. Where the hell do you get me saying that a program losing money, or an individual losing money, does not hurt integrity because it is done by an individual?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe it was when you said that since a program is not a single thinking entity, it can only have perceived integrity. I think, "perceived integrity is all there is" was the exact quote.

Face it, man. You lose. You cannot win this one coming from so far behind. You don't realize when you are making points that back you into a corner logically. I wish you the best; keep studying.

Why would you ever go back a couple posts when you could look at the one i made previously, where i say an individual can make a decision that affects someone or something's integrity? It doesn't make sense. Me saying perceived integrity is all their is has nothing to do with you capping off your argument with something i didn't say. The points you make in that last post have 0 logic. You infer that me saying there is only perceived logic somehow means that an individual cannot make a decision that affects a program's integrity? How the hell are those linked?

I am guessing that the bolded are typos?

Anyway, I'm gonna make this as simple as I can:
You said that there is only perceived integrity in this world. Real and perceived integrity are the same thing in your eyes. I made a point proving the existing of both distinct types of integrity. You said that since a program is not a single thinking individual, it cannot have real integrity. I said, yes it can. I gave an example or two. Your head exploded from all the thought and you started speaking nonsense.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I'm seriously done, Den. I think you're a great fan of UM and I wish you the best of luck. Maybe you did not mean to post what you did earlier....I don't know.

the only kind of integrity is perceived and therefore, there's no need to tack "perceived" on there because that's all there is. You tried to split the two...

There are two, or more, kinds of integrity. THE END

 

[AtHomeInTheDahlbergDen]

What i'm trying to say is that they would've been much more apt to dump the kid if he wasn't as talented as he is. If that means I'm saying GU doesn't have a shred of integrity, so be it.

There are two kinds, GU doesn't have either and an individual can make a decision that affects the integrity of an entity. done.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

What i'm trying to say is that they would've been much more apt to dump the kid if he wasn't as talented as he is. If that means I'm saying GU doesn't have a shred of integrity, so be it.

There are two kinds, GU doesn't have either and an individual can make a decision that affects the integrity of an entity. done.

My posts seem to agree with your first and third points. Maybe I just misunderstood you when you said that percieved is all there is and since a program is not an individual, it cannot judge its real integrity. Misunderstanding, Fair enough?

 

[Lou]

As boring as this argument was (can't believe I read the whole thing) I think my favorite part was when CDA made Den totally change his tune.
Example:

Start of the argument:

the only kind of integrity is perceived and therefore, there's no need to tack "perceived" on there because that's all there is. You tried to split the two....

End of the argument:

There are two kinds, GU doesn't have either and an individual can make a decision that affects the integrity of an entity. done.

Funny sh*t