Robert Hansen (RH) posted Mar 15, 2014 12:48 PM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9412871): > > On Mar 15, 2014, at 1:13 AM, GS Chandy > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > I'd suggest you examine your 'intentions' in > >writing that ridiculous paragraph above. It certainly > >does impute, to Nathan who was seeking 'a route to > >learning' that I would "solicit funds" from him. It > >is, however, clever in its 'lawyerly phrasing?. > > Lawyerly phrasing? > Examine your post referred in that thread started by Nathan, and you will find it is ALL 'lawyerly phrasing'! Would you like to take a small 'challenge' on that? > > "Yes, do review the past postings here and you will > find this this empty to-do list theory has been > unanimously rejected." > > This is absolutely true. No one here has bought your > claim that this idea is worth anything. > Name ONE person - besides Robert Hansen and his cohorts and consorts) - who has tried OPMS and rejected it. There are several who did not 'continue to use the OPMS process, mainly because a 'working framework' was not adquately in place - but no one ever 'rejected' it, as FALSELY claimed by you.
Ny example of Robert Hansen above does not really work. For Robert Hansen has himself not looked at the OPMS documentation; he is one who has not downloaded the OPMS s/w; and has NEVER tried out even a single, simple Mission with OPMS. And presumably Robert Hansen's cohorts and consorts have done likewise.
This is a manifestation of the extreme 'laziness' that RH is subject to (that was, I believe Lou Talman's description. GSC's term for it is 'intellectual laziness'). I know that none of your cohorts/ cons orts has ever downloaded the prototype OPMS s/w, so I know they haven't made any OPMS models.
(Had Robert Hansen ever tried out the OPMS process, he would surely have found many weaknesses and deficiencies. And I would have been very glad to discuss those and remove them. But as Robert Hansen has been too lazy to look at the OPMS doocumentation and to try out the OPMS process at all, he is left with no optese ion to come out with these lies that almost refute themselves).
Though I've taught freshmen college and high-school students to do the needed OPMS modeling without benefit of computer, I wouldn't expect that of Robert Hansen or his cohorts/ consorts would ever attempt to do that - they have already demonstrated that they're too lazy even to look at the OPMS documentation that has been presented!
The YahooGroups "Towards Democracy" has around 150 members, practically all of whom are keenly awaiting the OPMS website (which will hopefully be launched later this year) and quite a number of them have FREELY downloaded and used the prototype OPMS s/w. Some of them have even learned how to use the OPMS pretty well. (As I recall, only 4 or 5 people have ever left the group after joining it - and that only because it was taking too long to get a website in place, launch the 'market-version of the OPMS s/w - no one left the group because he/she 'rejected OPMS. > > "And finally, be aware that he has solicited funds in > the past and has stated his intent to do so in the > future. If such an occasion arises, before you part > with any of your money, demand a full accounting, > with verifiable references, of his past failures with > regard to his business dealings and this empty to-do > list product. I doubt you will have any luck in this > regard as we have not had any luck in this regard." > > This is absolutely true as well and has nothing to do > with a trial version of OPMS. > The imputation you had made to Nathan (who was seeking a route to math teaching, if I remember rightly) is ABSOLUTELY FALSE - and you know it is false. And all of that is precisely the 'lawyerly phrasing' I had written about earlier. > > Why would I bother with > a trial fee, if even there was one, > What is this "trial fee" that you have now newly invented? Where did you get that from? There is NO trial fee: there never has been any trial fee.
It appears that, apart from being an expert at 'lawyerly phrasing', Robert Hansen is also a leading expert on 'inventive language'. > >when the real > issue is the losses that you have incurred, that your > family have probably incurred, and that others have > incurred in getting this idea, that apparently no one > wants, to market? Did you see me produce any thing > related to some fee you charged for trial uses? No! > There is NO trial fee! Whatever the 'inventive language' you create, Robert Hansen, the fact of the matter is that the OPMS prototype s/w is ABSOLUTELY FREE for users to download and keep. (As stated in an earlier post, the OPMS software is not available to Robert Hansen and his cohorts/consorts for ANY price).
The initial download of the FREE OPMS s/w is valid for 30 'work days' (not calender days} - and when the user has used up around 20=25 days, he or she simply has to write in to me and I provide a 'life-time' extension. Further, the user will be also enabled to FREEELY download the 'market version' of the OPMS software whenever that is released. (The free users will not get the 'commercial version' of the OPMS s/w developed for specific clients, which would be designed to their specific requirements).
Do tell us, Robert Hansen, which are the courses you attended where you learned to do this 'lawyerly phrasing' and this wonderful 'inventive language'? Were those very expensive courses? I notice they did not teach you there to read anything correctly. > > You saw me produce evidence that your previous > attempt at this was unsuccessful and the backers lost > money. That was the point of my warning, just that. > What evidence did you provide? This is evidently more of Robert Hansen's 'inventive language'!.
By the way, the previous backers have just visited me last week, at Bangalore (they came from Hyderabad), to propose a fresh tranche of investment. I shall be taking them on as 'secondary' investors' after I have tied up a 'primary' investor. Talks are under way with a couple of parties. > > And seriously, in a normal conversation, if you were > really interested in what my point was, you would > have simply asked. And I would have explained. > When you are telling lies all round, why should anyone with the least bit of sense ask you to explain "what your point was" in those lies? As far as I'm concerned, they were lies - and I do not seek explanations about lies told. (I may, however, point out the lies told and try to refute them). Strange as it may appear to you, I absolutely have no desire to consort with liars. I only seek to refute those lies. > > > I comment mainly to correct this further falsehood > >from RH > > to the effect that I have "the notion that people > >need ps&g to understand what they are saying". That > >has NEVER > > been a claim I've made! (Yes, I HAVE suggested > >that > > people would be able to communicate with each other > > more effectively if they were to apply > >'prose+structural > > graphics' (p+sg, NOT "ps&g" which is evidently a > > further invention of RH's). > > This is what I wrote? > > "And now you, and this absurd notion that people need > ps&g to understand what they are saying. They > understand just fine. It is you that don?t > understand. And naturally, because > of you don?t understand, you don?t realize this.? > > How is that different from what you just said? Just > because I wrote ?ps&g? rather than ?p+sg?? > There's a WORLD of difference, though you evidently are incapable of seeing the difference.
"Needing 'prose+structural graphics' to understand what one is saying" [Robert Hansen's astonishing claim 'A']
IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM
the possibility of "communicating with each other more effectively if people were to apply 'prose+structural graphics' (p+sg)" [GSC's claim - 'B'].
Shall we put this particular claim of yours up for 'challenge'?
I guess that at this stage you will come out with some 'lawyerly phrasing' to claim that what you meant was 'different'? (See below). > > This is what I meant about having a technical grasp > of the language but not a functional grasp. You don?t > get the gist of what people are saying to you, and > picking at punctuation is a sign of that. You have as > many trivial mistakes in what you post here, but > people, including me, don?t point them out because > that isn?t the gist and it?s just a forum. Part of it > is that you don?t want to listen to what people are > saying to you and part of it is that you don?t > understand what people are saying to you. The former > can also cause the latter. Reading more English > literature and poetry will help with the latter, but > the attitude issue is up to you. > Check out with ANYONE who knows how to read correctly, and he/she will confirm that your above argument is just so much nonsense.
Go back to your middle or high school English teacher and ask him/her to explain the difference between Robert Hansen's claim 'A' and GSC's claim 'B'.
Even ask your pre-teen or teenager son if he believes 'A' and 'B' are claiming the same thing!
May I sincerely suggest that a course in 'remedial English' would be most useful for Robert Hansen?
And what on earth was that you said about 'technical English'???!!! > > As far as a challenge, try to be more forthcoming and > honest. You have to admit that you led us on with > quite the yarn about multiple flats and successes > with OPMS, while here you are flat broke, which we > knew anyways considering that you live on your son?s > farm and lack a decent internet connection. > My son's farm is on a plot of land that my brother and I had gifted him. (It was earlier gifted to my brother and myself by our parents). I stay with my elder son at his farm because he and my daughter-in-law take care of all the basics that I would find it difficult or irksome to do/get done if I were to live in the flat in Bangalore.
We lack a decent Internet connection at the farm because we are 'out of range'. That may well change in the near future.
Any more 'inventive language' from Robert Hansen?
However, as the OPMS Project now seems to demand that I regularly meet people in Bangalore (once or sometimes even twice a day), it is possible that I may have to move into the town flat and, perhaps, open a small office nearby. On the other hand, I may well decide to open the office in Hyderabad (and live there) as several members of my old ILW s/w design team are located there. We'll be taking take the necessary decisions and taking appropriate action during the course of 2014, I guess. However, I am now not as fit to live alone as I was even a few years ago, so there are several issues to be handled. > > I only addressed your issue with the above statements > and phrases because you insisted, over and over that > I do so. I have done so. So on this topic, we are now > done. > > Bob Hansen > Your "above statements and phrases" were - and are - 'lawyerly phrasing' and 'inventive language', at which you have evidently taken a "Master's Degree".
It would be delicious indeed if you were done with your lies at last.
GSC ("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING!! Not GOADING!!!")