In 1948, Milton Eisenhower was president of Kansas State University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_S._Eisenhower) and prominent in educational circles. A Columbia University search committee had been looking for a replacement for Nicholas Murray Butler who had retired in 1945 finally settled on him and asked a secretary to "contact Eisenhower". To her, as to most Americans, "Eisenhower" meant D.D.E., Supreme Allied commander of the European Theater of Operations during WWII and at the time, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army. The secretary phoned Dwight Eisenhower, and he accepted. Without that screw-up, Eisenhower would likely not have been drafted for President. History would have been different. I may be one of the last people who knows these events. Nobody wanted Eisenhower to know them. My wife and that secretary were friends. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
State all assumptions explicitly (or else)
Started by ●January 23, 2009
Reply by ●January 23, 20092009-01-23
Am Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:38:28 -0500 schrieb Jerry Avins:> > [State all assumptions explicitly (or else)] >Of course you are right (as almost always), but the problem arises with assumptions that are so basic for you, that they are like a drill for you (e.g. always looking to the left and the right before crossing the street). How to get conscious again of such assumptions and state them to a third party who may not yet be aware of these (like e.g. a new supplier)? Regards Martin
Reply by ●January 23, 20092009-01-23
Am Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:07:03 +0000 schrieb mblume:>> >> [State all assumptions explicitly (or else)] >>An example of these basic assumptions: http://kcbx.net/~tellswor/navaleff.htm :-) Martin
Reply by ●January 23, 20092009-01-23
On Jan 23, 4:02�am, mblume <mbl...@socha.net> wrote:> Am Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:07:03 +0000 schrieb mblume: > > >> [State all assumptions explicitly (or else)] > > An example of these basic assumptions:http://kcbx.net/~tellswor/navaleff.htm > > :-) > MartinI seem to remember this from a Reader's Digest Humor In Uniform. If so, that would put its first publication sometime in the late 1940's or early to mid 1950's. Regards, Ken
Reply by ●January 23, 20092009-01-23
Jerry Avins wrote:> In 1948, Milton Eisenhower was president of Kansas State > University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_S._Eisenhower) > and prominent in educational circles. A Columbia University > search committee had been looking for a replacement for Nicholas > Murray Butler who had retired in 1945 finally settled on him and > asked a secretary to "contact Eisenhower". To her, as to most > Americans, "Eisenhower" meant D.D.E., Supreme Allied commander > of the European Theater of Operations during WWII and at the > time, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army. > > The secretary phoned Dwight Eisenhower, and he accepted. Without > that screw-up, Eisenhower would likely not have been drafted for > President.Interesting, but I don't understand the causality in that final bit. Was DDE compensated that way, one presidency for another? Martin -- Quidquid latine scriptum est, altum videtur.
Reply by ●January 23, 20092009-01-23
Martin Eisenberg wrote:> Jerry Avins wrote: > >> In 1948, Milton Eisenhower was president of Kansas State >> University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_S._Eisenhower) >> and prominent in educational circles. A Columbia University >> search committee had been looking for a replacement for Nicholas >> Murray Butler who had retired in 1945 finally settled on him and >> asked a secretary to "contact Eisenhower". To her, as to most >> Americans, "Eisenhower" meant D.D.E., Supreme Allied commander >> of the European Theater of Operations during WWII and at the >> time, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army. >> >> The secretary phoned Dwight Eisenhower, and he accepted. Without >> that screw-up, Eisenhower would likely not have been drafted for >> President. > > Interesting, but I don't understand the causality in that final bit. > Was DDE compensated that way, one presidency for another?Before assuming the presidency of Columbia U., Eisenhower's career had been entirely military. Columbia gave him stature in the civilian world. (He took a leave of absence in 1950 to serve as the Supreme Commander of NATO, returning to Columbia two years later.) I believe that had he not been so constantly and recently in the public consciousness, the "draft Eisenhower" movement -- he was an apparently reluctant candidate -- would not have happened. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●January 24, 20092009-01-24
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:07:03 +0000, mblume wrote:> Am Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:38:28 -0500 schrieb Jerry Avins: >> >> [State all assumptions explicitly (or else)] >> > Of course you are right (as almost always), but the problem arises with > assumptions that are so basic for you, that they are like a drill for > you (e.g. always looking to the left and the right before crossing the > street). > > How to get conscious again of such assumptions and state them to a third > party who may not yet be aware of these (like e.g. a new supplier)? > > Regards > MartinFunny you should mention that. D'ya know how you tell kids to "look both ways before you cross the street"? Well, we went from "look both ways" to "look both ways and go if you don't see cars" to "look both ways and don't go until you SEE EMPTY ROAD". If they survive to adulthood, both my boys will be engineers. -- http://www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●January 24, 20092009-01-24
Am Sat, 24 Jan 2009 02:07:37 -0600 schrieb Tim Wescott:>>> >>> [State all assumptions explicitly (or else)] >>> > > Funny you should mention that. D'ya know how you tell kids to "look > both ways before you cross the street"? > > Well, we went from "look both ways" to "look both ways and go if you > don't see cars" to "look both ways and don't go until you SEE EMPTY > ROAD". >Our young kids are taught in school "look both ways and wait until the cars have stopped", the rationale being that kids can't judge the speed of the cars and thus can't judge whether to cross or not before the car comes near the crossing. The net effect is that they see a car far far away and wait until it is at the crossing. The other problem is that drivers are not being taught the same. Most are probably wondering why the youngsters are patiently waiting at an empty crossing. As for teachig it to the kids the rule is "wait, look, listen, cross" with the underlying assumption that "crossing" only happens if the "look" and "listen" phases have indicated a free road. Regards Martin
Reply by ●January 24, 20092009-01-24
Tim Wescott wrote:> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:07:03 +0000, mblume wrote: > >> Am Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:38:28 -0500 schrieb Jerry Avins: >>> [State all assumptions explicitly (or else)] >>> >> Of course you are right (as almost always), but the problem arises with >> assumptions that are so basic for you, that they are like a drill for >> you (e.g. always looking to the left and the right before crossing the >> street). >> >> How to get conscious again of such assumptions and state them to a third >> party who may not yet be aware of these (like e.g. a new supplier)? >> >> Regards >> Martin > > Funny you should mention that. D'ya know how you tell kids to "look both > ways before you cross the street"? > > Well, we went from "look both ways" to "look both ways and go if you > don't see cars" to "look both ways and don't go until you SEE EMPTY ROAD". > > If they survive to adulthood, both my boys will be engineers.Maybe opening a topic like this one sensitizes me to instances of it. I try to avoid using terms I know only by implication and not by actual definition. "I assume I know" can sometimes be embarrassing. Someone dismissed another's idea last night with, "That's just bubkas." (Hard 's' as in "sun", but plural none the less.) Her dismissive attitude annoyed me enough to induce me to ask, "When was the last time you saw a bubka?" Of course, she had no idea what I was talking about. As far as she knew, "bubkas" was a synonym for "worthless". She sneered, "What the hell is a bubka?" I explained. It was fun! For the benefit of those who don't speak gutter Yiddish, I'll explain again here. Constipated turds often seem to be made up of compacted balls. That is the natural state for some animals; with horses we have road apples, with sheep the balls often separate, but not always. I even see it cleaning up after my dog. The balls are bubkas; each is a bubka. Bubkas are about as worthless as something can be, but "worthless" is a secondary meaning. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Reply by ●January 24, 20092009-01-24
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:39:21 -0500, Jerry Avins wrote:> Tim Wescott wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:07:03 +0000, mblume wrote: >> >>> Am Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:38:28 -0500 schrieb Jerry Avins: >>>> [State all assumptions explicitly (or else)] >>>> >>> Of course you are right (as almost always), but the problem arises >>> with assumptions that are so basic for you, that they are like a drill >>> for you (e.g. always looking to the left and the right before crossing >>> the street). >>> >>> How to get conscious again of such assumptions and state them to a >>> third party who may not yet be aware of these (like e.g. a new >>> supplier)? >>> >>> Regards >>> Martin >> >> Funny you should mention that. D'ya know how you tell kids to "look >> both ways before you cross the street"? >> >> Well, we went from "look both ways" to "look both ways and go if you >> don't see cars" to "look both ways and don't go until you SEE EMPTY >> ROAD". >> >> If they survive to adulthood, both my boys will be engineers. > > Maybe opening a topic like this one sensitizes me to instances of it. I > try to avoid using terms I know only by implication and not by actual > definition. "I assume I know" can sometimes be embarrassing. Someone > dismissed another's idea last night with, "That's just bubkas." (Hard > 's' as in "sun", but plural none the less.) Her dismissive attitude > annoyed me enough to induce me to ask, "When was the last time you saw a > bubka?" Of course, she had no idea what I was talking about. As far as > she knew, "bubkas" was a synonym for "worthless". She sneered, "What the > hell is a bubka?" I explained. It was fun! > > For the benefit of those who don't speak gutter Yiddish, I'll explain > again here. Constipated turds often seem to be made up of compacted > balls. That is the natural state for some animals; with horses we have > road apples, with sheep the balls often separate, but not always. I even > see it cleaning up after my dog. The balls are bubkas; each is a bubka. > Bubkas are about as worthless as something can be, but "worthless" is a > secondary meaning. > > JerryActually, out on the steppes I believe that they burn dried horse apples for fuel. It must lend a certain savor to the roast, but when that's all that you have to make a fire over.... Thanks for the explanation. Now I, too, can say "That's just bubkas", and if challenged I can prove my knowledge. (and speaking of this, my cousin and I invented a game that can be incredibly tedious or incredibly hilarious, depending largely on the group of people involved and the quantity of beer available. Here's how it works: the challenger grabs a dictionary, and finds a word (like 'bubkas', or 'quintessential' or 'ineffable') that everyone kinda knows, or uses, but which no one _really_ knows what it's supposed to mean. Then the crowd tries to define it. You need a group that's all fairly well matched in vocabulary, because it's as tedious to know all the definitions as it is to know none -- but when it works, it's fun as hell). -- http://www.wescottdesign.com
