Ukridge
Senior
- Aug 27, 2002
- 354
- 0
As I have been away for a few days, I have capitalized on a few moments of indolence to regain a footing as to what is occurring in the world of United. Though I have no proclivity to frequent the board of USAirways, I have found on occasion that in a rather oblique manner it serves as a source of information that directly concerns United. So with a few keystrokes I was to learn that there has been irrefutable (though non-stated) evidence found that United shall indeed be exchanging nuptials (or the common law equivalent) with its erstwhile suitor USAirways.
Yes, indeed. This is stated as “fact.†Unequivocal. Not open to dispute, digestion, or discourse. Inevitable. Unavoidable. Sources, though unnamed, unsworn, unknown, and of unverifiable portfolio have made known to junior staff members that this is indeed the destiny of United.
Many of you are perhaps though familiar with some serious doubters throughout history. Doubting Thomas, Augustine, and even Werner Karl Heisenberg. As you remember it was Heisenberg who said: “This uncertainty leads to many strange things. For example, in a Quantum Mechanical world, I cannot predict where a particle will be with 100 % certainty. I can only speak in terms of probabilities. For example, I can say that an atom will be at some location with a 99 % probability, but there will be a 1 % probability it will be somewhere else (in fact, there will be a small but finite probability that it will be found across the Universe). Whoa! This is pretty heady stuff. Of course physics is not the fate of United but it is interesting to note that whatever field of endeavor it seems as if throughout the course of time there have been moments when even the most ardent adherents of a belief have wrestled with a twinge of doubt or two. (Yes, I admit the Heisenberg example is not really apt, but I tought I would throw it in for fun)
Yet, here we are faced with a conviction of United’s future matrimonial bliss that burns so hotly that it would make the Swiss theologians of ages past look to be of irresolute belief.
For those of us in the camp of doubt however, we are plagued by various issues. Issues of course that are readily and haughtily dismissed by those of a more perfect knowledge, but troubling to those of us with a more plebian and tyro grasp of the case. I for example, know the primacy of primary and secondary sourcing is in the academic world (though not in this world myself). Scholars argue passionately and deeply about source issues. Financial institutions are bound by rules and laws that govern sources and when and to whom they may impart precious information. I noticed a member of the bar on the forum. Perhaps he could lend voice to the rules in the courtroom as to how one backs up claims. Sources are important and must be verified and cross-checked. It is the balance that is demanded in all walks of professional life.
Although I am sure that this forum is not the exhaustive font of United’s business plan, I have neither seen nor heard mention of any creditor or banking house (particularly the two that are desirous of backing the exit) that has dropped hint of a merger.
Also interesting is that those who challenge this ardency of belief in the merger of United are excoriated as those worthy of the outer darkness. Yet, these “facts†are never borne out, the sources never open for review, and no retraction made when in error. Hmmm.
Yes, indeed. This is stated as “fact.†Unequivocal. Not open to dispute, digestion, or discourse. Inevitable. Unavoidable. Sources, though unnamed, unsworn, unknown, and of unverifiable portfolio have made known to junior staff members that this is indeed the destiny of United.
Many of you are perhaps though familiar with some serious doubters throughout history. Doubting Thomas, Augustine, and even Werner Karl Heisenberg. As you remember it was Heisenberg who said: “This uncertainty leads to many strange things. For example, in a Quantum Mechanical world, I cannot predict where a particle will be with 100 % certainty. I can only speak in terms of probabilities. For example, I can say that an atom will be at some location with a 99 % probability, but there will be a 1 % probability it will be somewhere else (in fact, there will be a small but finite probability that it will be found across the Universe). Whoa! This is pretty heady stuff. Of course physics is not the fate of United but it is interesting to note that whatever field of endeavor it seems as if throughout the course of time there have been moments when even the most ardent adherents of a belief have wrestled with a twinge of doubt or two. (Yes, I admit the Heisenberg example is not really apt, but I tought I would throw it in for fun)
Yet, here we are faced with a conviction of United’s future matrimonial bliss that burns so hotly that it would make the Swiss theologians of ages past look to be of irresolute belief.
For those of us in the camp of doubt however, we are plagued by various issues. Issues of course that are readily and haughtily dismissed by those of a more perfect knowledge, but troubling to those of us with a more plebian and tyro grasp of the case. I for example, know the primacy of primary and secondary sourcing is in the academic world (though not in this world myself). Scholars argue passionately and deeply about source issues. Financial institutions are bound by rules and laws that govern sources and when and to whom they may impart precious information. I noticed a member of the bar on the forum. Perhaps he could lend voice to the rules in the courtroom as to how one backs up claims. Sources are important and must be verified and cross-checked. It is the balance that is demanded in all walks of professional life.
Although I am sure that this forum is not the exhaustive font of United’s business plan, I have neither seen nor heard mention of any creditor or banking house (particularly the two that are desirous of backing the exit) that has dropped hint of a merger.
Also interesting is that those who challenge this ardency of belief in the merger of United are excoriated as those worthy of the outer darkness. Yet, these “facts†are never borne out, the sources never open for review, and no retraction made when in error. Hmmm.
