I had there stated: > > c) GSC did have a project running for OPMS at one > time, but he screwed that up because of disagreements > with his financiers. > OPMS is supposed to be an *effective* systems aid to problem solving and decision making in complex situations. How then did I manage to screw up by way of disagreements with my financiers? Why did I not use OPMS to ensure effective problem solving and decision making in that situation?
My responses to the above-noted questions would have been rather weak indeed (and are still weak):
After many years of pondering those questions, I can still only explain that - despite OPMS - it is still possible to make serious errors in judgement due to personal characteristics. My personal characteristics (and the personal characteristics of my financing partners) led me to make the errors of judgement that contributed to the parting of ways between us. Maybe - when I now get new financing partners for OPMS - I shall be able better to handle the differences in personal working characteristics between them and myself. That's only a "maybe", not yet a 'sure thing'!
GSC > Robert Hansen (RH) posted Feb 3, 2014 6:12 AM > (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=937842 > 4): > > > > On Feb 2, 2014, at 3:42 PM, GS Chandy > > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > > ENTIRELY untrue and incorrect (your claim about > > > human children)! A human child cannot (for > instance) > > > grow up to be an adult elephant (or an adult > frog, > > > for that matter): the human infant has only one > fate > > > in life: to grow up to be an adult human being - > just > > > as that elephant calf has only one fate: to grow > up > > > to become an adult elephant. > > > > The meaning was that a human child can grow up to > be > > an astronaut, a musician, a scientist, a poet, a > > president, etc. > > > > Bob Hansen > > > I knew fully well what the point of your message was > - but you had not put forward that point. > > The point of my message is that you think and write > very sloppily indeed - you do neither clearly enough > to make your point(s) correctly and succinctly. In > your original message, you could easily have made the > point you are now belatedly making instead of having > made a fool of yourself. > > Apart from that, you also have often (in fact, almost > invariably) lied in your posts about OPMS and about > GSC. > > You apparently do not know how to be straight and > honest in the arguments you put up against the OPMS. > For instance, about OPMS, it would have been > n perfectly acceptable to claim: > > - -- about OPMS: > > a) You are not convinced that OPMS would be useful as > GSC claims it is; > b) There are many weaknesses in OPMS; > c) You do not wish to try it out (for whatever > reason[s]). > > That would not have laid you open to the charges of > falsely and dishonestly arguing that "OPMS is trivial > list-making and nothing else!" (or words to that > effect). > > This is a false and untrue suggestion that you and > Haim (and for all I know other of your cohorts and > consorts) have argued over the past several years! > > The OPMS concept (and the OPMS software) do have > quite a few weaknesses and plenty of improvements are > indeed required. Had you pointed these out, I could > not have claimed that you are lying > > - -- about GSC: > a) You could easily have stated that GSC is freely > offering the OPMS software and guidance with using it > NOT out of the goodness of his heart - but because he > wishes, in the long run, to push it commercially to > commercial organisations. > > b) Before making a commercial success out of OPMS, he > needs to get hold of finance to further develop the > OPMS software, and much else about OPMS. > > c) GSC did have a project running for OPMS at one > time, but he screwed that up because of disagreements > with his financiers. > > None of the above claims could have led to the > charges I have made that you are lying about GSC and > how (and why) he is freely offering OPMS: all of the > above points (a,b and c) are true. > > You need not have come out with the false claims (and > implications) to the effect that GSC would suddenly > "solicit funds" from people who sought information > about OPMS. > > My suggestions to you: > > A: Learn how to make your arguments clearly and > correctly. > ============================== > OPMS could help quite significantly with this. All > one needs to do is to use OPMS to help construct > models for the worthy 'Mission': "To ensure that I > make my arguments clearly and correctly". > > Correctly interpreting and then implementing the > models you get may take a while. > > Please note: > > 1) There may well be other ways of working on the > above Mission. I personally don't know of anything > better than the OPMS for this purpose. > > 2) I may NOT wish to provide you with personal > guidance on applying the OPMS to Missions of your > choice. I generally do not provide such guidance to > people who lie in their arguments. > > B: In any case, DON'T lie in your arguments. > =================== > It really is not worth it. > > I don't know whether the OPMS can be effectively used > directly on such a Mission. However, success with > the Mission suggested at 'A' should obviate the urge > to put forth false and tendentious arguments. > > GSC > ("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING!! Not GOADING!!!") > > > Message was edited by: GS Chandy