Dear "Mary",

The great thing about online systems is that there's no "he said, she
said" disagreement, since everyone can read what happens on their
own. If you want to see the evidence for yourself, then read through
this thread.

Yes, my real name is John J. Xenakis, and it's been my name since
birth. You can google me if you want and find out just about
everything about me. I'm a completely open person with no secrets
from anyone.

If you don't believe my web site is a public service, then I'd be
curious to know what you think "public service" means, and what you
think my "real" motivation is. If you'd prefer, just call it one of
the 20 zillion blogs on the internet these days where people post
their wild crazy opinions for other people to read. Is that better?
At any rate, I'm not "mooching" off anyone.

I'm not sure what to make of being called "soothsayer," but in the
spirit of friendship, I'll take it as a compliment.

And thanks for pointing out that I need help, but I already knew
that.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

John,

For the record, I strongly disagree with your "stalking" accusation. It is clear we are done here. You win. Pick up your chips and go home.

I reserve the right to answer and counter your arguments in other threads, but I will no longer peruse this thread.

Peace.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

John,

For the record, I strongly disagree with your "stalking" accusation. It is clear we are done here. You win. Pick up your chips and go home.

I reserve the right to answer and counter your arguments in other threads, but I will no longer peruse this thread.

Peace.

What's funny is that he accuses *you* of long-winded, rambling posts.

John, I challenge you to go back to the beginning of this thread and really try to look objectively at your posts and see if you adequately answered each objection. After all, you're the one who asked to hear objections.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear "Mary",

The great thing about online systems is that there's no "he said, she
said" disagreement, since everyone can read what happens on their
own. If you want to see the evidence for yourself, then read through
this thread.

He asserteth, then back-pedaleth.

If you don't believe my web site is a public service, then I'd be
curious to know what you think "public service" means, and what you
think my "real" motivation is. If you'd prefer, just call it one of
the 20 zillion blogs on the internet these days where people post
their wild crazy opinions for other people to read. Is that better?
At any rate, I'm not "mooching" off anyone.

It's not *your* website. It's Strauss & Howe's, squatter. It's not a blog. It's a discussion forum about a book that *isn't* yours.

What? Am I missing something?

Peter Gibbons,

I'm just going back to see why John did not like your questions since apparently he feels you are just trying to make a fool out of him.

I don't think that is the case, but whatever.

http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/...=145810#145810

#1,

This really isn't a question that has to do with the core of GD. John was explaining problems people had with the book. TFT doesn't go into detail about why WWII is a crisis and WWI wasn't.

#2,

He works off S&H's theory, and although you might think he leaves them behind, he believes he doesn't. Who cares?

#3,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Strauss and Howe called these anomalies.

#4,

This is nothing.

#5,

I don't know what this is.

#6,

You were just repeating what John had said. They were "heroes" because they fought in the war. They weren't heroes because they didn't have hero personalities. You misunderstood here.

#7,

Moving the end of a crisis up a little bit is different then what S&H did, but it doesn't "leave them behind." You mention the depression, and since John equates economic troubles to 4Ts, that is a valid question.

If the crisis ended in 1782, then there must be a 5T. If it ended later, then there isn't one.

#8,

this isn't a question.

---

The problem is John thinks that he hasn't left TFT behind and you think he has. Peter thinks in order to "stay with" TFT theory, your definition of the crisis must be the same. John thinks otherwise. If this is your only objection, then simply say it. This isn't "a problem" with GD, and you aren't exposing him.

It seems that your question is: Why do you think you haven't left TFT behind when your definition of the crisis is completely different?

Maybe he can answer that.

Dear Sean,

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

> For the record, I strongly disagree with your "stalking"
> accusation. It is clear we are done here. You win. Pick up your
> chips and go home.

> I reserve the right to answer and counter your arguments in other
> threads, but I will no longer peruse this thread.

> Peace.

I'm sorry all this happened, but there's just one important thing I
have to add.

Back in the 1980s when the feminists were formulating all this sexual
harassment stuff, they said that, since women were obviously too weak
and feeble to actually confront men that harass them, the law should
read that any woman should be able to say at any time that some guy
had harassed her at some time in the past and, even if the man had no
idea he was harassing her, he should immediately be hung by his balls
from the ceiling under such circumstances, and that he should have no
defense whatsoever. That was the argument presented by feminists in
the Clarence Thomas case.

Well, this was too much even in those feminist-happy times, and so a
compromise rule has been arrived at: The accused person is entitled
to a warning. After that, if the behavior continues, then a
harassment suit may ensue.

I only mention this because I've mentioned stalking several times
before this week, the first time on September 26. You really should
have backed off. And I was REALLY shocked when you started the
behavior again a few days ago.

Look, Sean, despite any "tirades," I really have nothing against you,
I don't mind you asking questions, and I don't mind answering them.
But just back off a little. If you're going to accuse someone of
something then take your shot and then leave it alone. (An example
might be my recent "Mr. Pretzel" remark in Mike's thread; I said it
once, but I don't come back every day and say the same thing over and
over and over. And I didn't post a message saying, "Does anyone else
notice that Mike isn't answering my questions?" I just took one shot
and left it at that. I know that he got the message.) And if you're
not getting the answers you want, then drop the subject and go on to
some other discussion with someone else. Or, give the guy a little
slack - maybe he doesn't have time to answer every question right
now.

There was absolutely no need for all of this to have happened. At
some level, online debates are supposed to be fun, even when the
subject matter is deadly serious. Let's just try to keep it that
way and try to enjoy it.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

> There's a good chance that this bird flu pandemic never will
> happen. In the meantime, I'd rather deal with issues that are a
> bit more immediate.

I wish this were true.

I first started writing articles on bird flu a year ago after reading
a bunch of articles and came to the conclusion that the politicians
were avoiding saying anything, but the experts thought that there was
a good chance of a human flu pandemic this year.



( Avian Influenza (AI) outbreaks in Vietnam in 2004 and 2005.
Source: World Health Organization (WHO) through iflu.org )

The above graph, which depicts bird flu outbreaks in Vietnam for
the last two years, shows that major bird flu outbreaks occur with
the Tet holiday.

The World Health Organization (WHO) feared that a human-to-human bird
flu pandemic might start with last season's lunar new year (Tet)
celebrations, when many people would be travelling, and more poultry
would be transported, slaughtered and consumed.

A pandemic didn't occur at that time, but the concern is renewed as
the new Tet holiday approaches in 2006. The Chinese New Year
celebrations raise similar concerns, and that will occur around the
same time, on January 29, 2006.

Bird flu virus mutation is basically a numbers game. A human to human
transmissible virus will be formed when somebody simultaneously gets
the ordinary human flu and the pathogenic H5N1 bird flu at the same
time. At that time, the genes from the two forms of the virus can
recombine to form an H5N1 virus that can move easily from human to
human.

It's the far greater numbers of recombination opportunities that make
a pandemic much more likely this year than last year. Bird flu has
been spreading so rapidly (among birds) in China, that China has
mobilized its 2.3 million man army to fight bird flu. In fact, H5N1
bird flu has been dramatically changing, expanding its reach both
geographically and genetically. Thus, the opportunities for
recombination to form a human to human virus are exponentially greater
this year than last.

I've been watching bird flu spread all year.



( Bird flu outbreaks as of November 21, 2005.
http://www.recombinomics.com/H5N1_Ma..._QinghaiL.html )

The above map had only a couple of circles and squares on it in May.
Over the summer, bird flu spread across Asia. It finally spread into
Europe in the fall with the fall bird migration. The Western world
pretty much ignored bird flu until it appeared in Europe.

At the end of October, Canada's Public Health Agency issued a press
release saying that bird flu had been found in Canada, and that tests
were ongoing to determine whether it was the highly pathenogenic H5N1
strain. According to the press release, these tests would "take up to
a week." It's now been three weeks, and we haven't heard anything.

Just a couple of weeks ago, high-level officials that manage all of
Hong Kong's hospitals said they're planning for "an explosion of bird
flu cases in the city early next year."

Currently bird flu is spreading through China so quickly that there's
a new outbreak in a different place practically every day. A couple
of weeks ago, China mobilized its 2.3 million man army to fight bird
flu as the flu season approaches. China has also announced that it
plans to vaccinate 14 billion chickens with bird flu vaccine. (Yes,
that's billion with a B.)

New research indicates why H5N1 bird flu is more dangerous to young
people than it is to older people. Influenza is generally far more
dangerous to older people, because they have weakened immune systems
to fight off the disease than younger people. But the stronger immune
systems of younger people actually make H5N1 more dangerous to young
people than to older people.

The new research shows that when a human contracts H5N1 virus, the
person's lungs overreact by generating a "storm" of cytokines,
chemicals that are produced by the immune system. The stronger the
immune system, the greater the overreaction, and the more cytokines
that are produced, filling the lungs with liquid. The result is that
young and healthy victims are more likely to die, because the
cytokines flood the lungs and make breathing impossible.

A pandemic could start at any time this winter. When it does,
airports, schools and many stores and businesses will immediately
close. Like New Orleans after Katrina, panic and looting will spread
quickly, and store shelves will quickly become bare. People will be
worried about themselves, not their neighbors. Outside of medicine
type things, the best thing that you could do is to stock up in
advance on 2-3 months of food and other supplies.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

[[Edited 22-Nov-2005 to correct numerous typos.]]

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

> The problem is John thinks that he hasn't left TFT behind and you
> think he has. Peter thinks in order to "stay with" TFT theory,
> your definition of the crisis must be the same. John thinks
> otherwise. If this is your only objection, then simply say it.
> This isn't "a problem" with GD, and you aren't exposing him.

> It seems that your question is: Why do you think you haven't left
> TFT behind when your definition of the crisis is completely
> different?

I separated Generations and TFT into two parts: data and model. I
assumed that Strauss and Howe's data, collected by reading histories
and diaries, to be correct. I assumed that if they made any errors at
all, it was in defining their generational model, based on the data.
I hope that makes sense? I always assume that their data is correct,
but when there's an inconsistency or contradiction in their model,
it's the model rather than the data that needs to be corrected.

This is different from what some other people do. For example, some
people in this forum have suggested that Strauss and Howe didn't look
at enough data when didn't find a hero generation during the civil
war, even though their model calls for a hero in every crisis. I look
at it differently. I assume that they found "something" different in
the Civil War than in other crises; I re-define "hero" in the
Generational Dynamics model so that there's always a hero generation,
and then I try to define other elements in the model to identify and
model the "something" that Strauss and Howe found different. So their
data is always correct, but it's reinterpreted in the abstract model.

Now the reason that I claim that I haven't left TFT behind is because
I've accepted all their data. All I'm doing is reinterpreting their
data in an abstract model that removes the inconsistencies of their
model, and I believe that's the right way to look at it.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

A human to human
transmissible virus will be formed when somebody simultaneously gets
the ordinary human flu and the pathogenic H5N1 bird flu at the same
time. At that time, the genes from the two forms of the virus can
recombine to form an H5N1 virus that can move easily from human to
human.

You say that this new virus will be formed in such a manner. Sounds pretty definite. Is that the consensus of the scientific community?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

A pandemic could start at any time this winter. When it does,
airports, schools and many stores and businesses will immediately
close. Like New Orleans after Katrina, panic and looting will spread
quickly, and store shelves will quickly become bare. People will be
worried about themselves, not their neighbors. Outside of medicine
type things, the best thing that you could do is to stock up in
advance on 2-3 months of food and other supplies.

Sincerely,

John

Well, I could also get hit by a truck the next time I cross the street, or struck by lightning the next time I venture out into a thunderstorm, or struck by a meteor, or have a building fall down on me.

In any event, none of us gets out of here alive. So how do we occupy our time between panic attacks?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I only mention this because I've mentioned stalking several times
before this week, the first time on September 26. You really should
have backed off. And I was REALLY shocked when you started the
behavior again a few days ago.

Are you threatening me, Mr. Xenakis? I was going to stay off this thread but this is too much.

First, I am not stalking you. I am asking questions that you are not answering.

Second, if you want to take this to Craig Cheslog or to William Strauss, let's do that. I dare you. Go ahead John. Put up or shut up. What do you think their impression would be of you pushing your book on their website claiming to have "improved" on their theory with a glorified War Cycle? And what would they think of your claim that your theory is "based" on theirs yet you change around or omit some of it's most crucial insights? (And, you know what?, I may be wrong about those conclusions but you refuse to explain to me how it's not so.)

Third, how many of the regulars here are going to back you up in your assertions? You are known by just about all of them as, and I quote, a "pompous ass". You are not here to discuss "objections" to Generational Dynamics. You are here to push your book and ridicule anyone who disagrees with you.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

But just back off a little. If you're going to accuse someone of
something then take your shot and then leave it alone. (An example
might be my recent "Mr. Pretzel" remark in Mike's thread; I said it
once, but I don't come back every day and say the same thing over and
over and over. And I didn't post a message saying, "Does anyone else
notice that Mike isn't answering my questions?" I just took one shot
and left it at that. I know that he got the message.) And if you're
not getting the answers you want, then drop the subject and go on to
some other discussion with someone else. Or, give the guy a little
slack - maybe he doesn't have time to answer every question right
now.

Who made you the authority on this site? Are you speaking with the authority of Craig or Bill or Neil? Who the heck do you think you are? I will ask whatever the heck I damn well please if it's about your theory and our discussion of it. And as for giving you a "little slack", you have had months to answer my questions. And you did give answers in between time, but rarely to the questions I actually asked.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

There was absolutely no need for all of this to have happened. At
some level, online debates are supposed to be fun, even when the
subject matter is deadly serious. Let's just try to keep it that
way and try to enjoy it.

You know what, John? I'd love that. How about you answer the questions put to you. Now that would be enjoyable. And I don't mean tangents and non sequiturs and providing countering questions while not answering mine. I mean a two-way, direct communication.

Or, if you just want to catagorically say that you don't want to answer me, that's your right and that's also fine. But then I have a right to say that you are afraid to answer my questions. This is America, John. Land of the Free, remember?

Also, you are free to say that your theory is vastly different from Strauss & Howes', a departure from their ideas, and that it is basically a War Cycle. How does that sound? You are also free to explain otherwise. Isn't freedom great?!?

I will await the e-mail from Bill Strauss telling me it's okay for you to squat and or plagerize his work. And if I do get that e-mail, rest assured my friend that I will give top priority to making a case to him and Neil about what you are doing, and I'll get regulars here, some who know them, to back me up.

Good day, sir.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Peter Gibbons,

I'm just going back to see why John did not like your questions since apparently he feels you are just trying to make a fool out of him.

I don't think that is the case, but whatever.

http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/...=145810#145810

#1,

This really isn't a question that has to do with the core of GD. John was explaining problems people had with the book. TFT doesn't go into detail about why WWII is a crisis and WWI wasn't.

#2,

He works off S&H's theory, and although you might think he leaves them behind, he believes he doesn't. Who cares?

#3,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Strauss and Howe called these anomalies.

#4,

This is nothing.

#5,

I don't know what this is.

#6,

You were just repeating what John had said. They were "heroes" because they fought in the war. They weren't heroes because they didn't have hero personalities. You misunderstood here.

#7,

Moving the end of a crisis up a little bit is different then what S&H did, but it doesn't "leave them behind." You mention the depression, and since John equates economic troubles to 4Ts, that is a valid question.

If the crisis ended in 1782, then there must be a 5T. If it ended later, then there isn't one.

#8,

this isn't a question.

---

The problem is John thinks that he hasn't left TFT behind and you think he has. Peter thinks in order to "stay with" TFT theory, your definition of the crisis must be the same. John thinks otherwise. If this is your only objection, then simply say it. This isn't "a problem" with GD, and you aren't exposing him.

It seems that your question is: Why do you think you haven't left TFT behind when your definition of the crisis is completely different?

Maybe he can answer that.

Michael, I will reply to you soon.

:shock: :shock: :? :?

This is getting too weird for me. All this legal mumbo jumbo and accusations of plagiarism aren't fun. I'm taking a break from this stuff for a short while.

John, Here's my question. Why do you have to mooch off the Fourthturning.com message boards when you can just make your own phpbb community for your book?

Have you received permission from Strauss & Howe to use their board to promote your book and your ideas?

It seems like you should be paying rent to Craig Cheslog if you ask me...

This is as a ridiculous and silly assertion, whereas the serious charge of plagiarism ought to be backed up with strong evidence by the accuser.

And sooner rather than later.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

John, Here's my question. Why do you have to mooch off the Fourthturning.com message boards when you can just make your own phpbb community for your book?

Have you received permission from Strauss & Howe to use their board to promote your book and your ideas?

It seems like you should be paying rent to Craig Cheslog if you ask me...

This is as a ridiculous and silly assertion, whereas the serious charge of plagiarism ought to be backed up with strong evidence by the accuser.

And sooner rather than later.

I didn't see an accusation of plagiarism in that post.

Originally Posted by Of John Xenakis, Sean Love

I will await the e-mail from Bill Strauss telling me it's okay for you to squat and or plagerize his work.

Like I said, the charge of plagiarism needs to be backed up with strong evidence by the accuser. Otherwise, the accuser is a slanderer, and should be noted as such.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Of John Xenakis, Sean Love

I will await the e-mail from Bill Strauss telling me it's okay for you to squat and or plagerize his work.

Like I said, the charge of plagiarism needs to be backed up with strong evidence by the accuser. Otherwise, the accuser is a slanderer, and should be noted as such.

And accusations of being a "third-generation apologist" for Uncle Joe and Mao and Pol Pot should also be backed up by strong evidence, shouldn't they?

And could you at least explain what "third generation" means?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Of John Xenakis, Sean Love

I will await the e-mail from
Bill Strauss telling me it's okay for you to squat and or
plagerize his work.

> Like I said, the charge of plagiarism needs to be backed up with
> strong evidence by the accuser. Otherwise, the accuser is a
> slanderer, and should be noted as such.

Dear Marc,

There's no way I plagiarized anything. I'm meticulous about
sourcing.

Sincerely,

John

Dear Kiff,

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

A human to human transmissible virus will be formed when
somebody simultaneously gets the ordinary human flu and the
pathogenic H5N1 bird flu at the same time. At that time, the genes
from the two forms of the virus can recombine to form an H5N1
virus that can move easily from human to human.

> You say that this new virus will be formed in such a manner.
> Sounds pretty definite. Is that the consensus of the scientific
> community?

I'm certainly no expert on molecular biology, but I've seen
"recombination" and "reassortment" described dozens of times in the
last year, and I haven't seen any experts contradict it. A human
being can serve as a "mixing vessel," mixing together H5N1 and
ordinary human flu to get a version of H5N1 that's transmissible. As
I understand it, it's also possible for pigs to act as "mixing
vessels."

Is all of this just hype? It's a question that I ask myself every
day, as the news appears to be getting worse and worse. Here's an
article that came out a couple of days ago that says it is all hype:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...zwhbe.asp?pg=1

If all I knew about the situation was this article, I'd assume bird
flu was all hype too. But what bothers me about this article is that
it leaves important things out. (When you're listening to a story,
any story, don't just listen to what it says, but look for holes, the
things it leaves out.)

As I've been following this issue for over a year, the thing that's
convinced me of the danger is the trend lines. H5N1 has been
dramatically spreading in three different ways in the last year: (1)
Its geographical reach has increased enormously; (2) its range of
bird species has increased; (3) its efficiency has increased, allowing
it to spread more quickly.

For example, the article dismisses recombination with this
paragraph:

> "Another scenario is that somebody with human flu could contract
> avian flu at the same time and the two flus could "reassort" into
> a hybrid avian-human flu. The latter two epidemics in the 20th
> century were such hybrids. The World Health Organization has just
> reported that there is no evidence this has occurred with H5N1.
> The best means of reducing this likelihood is to vaccinate as many
> people as possible (especially in Southeast Asia) against human
> flu, thus reducing the potential number of "mixing
> vessels.""

But as far as I can tell, few experts believe that a vaccination
program will contain the virus. He acknowledges the danger of a
large number of "mixing vessels," but fails to mention the enormously
expanded geographical reach of H5N1, and the fact that the number of
potential "mixing vessels" this year will be orders of magnitude
larger than last year. Since he didn't address this important fact,
one has to question his credibility.

He also claims that there is little possibility for human infection
from birds:

> "We do know, however, that there are millions of Asian farmers in
> constant contact with the saliva and feces of countless birds
> where the virus has been prevalent. Indeed, blood samples
> collected from rural Chinese in 1992 indicate that millions had
> already been infected with [a low-pathenogenic version of] H5N1,
> yet there was no reported outbreak of human disease. An analysis
> was also conducted after an H7N7 avian flu outbreak in the
> Netherlands two years ago. It found infections among half of
> persons who either had contact with the birds or were family
> members. Were something like that rate to hold true for Southeast
> Asia, H5N1's mortality rate among infected humans would turn out
> to be no higher than for human flu."

Here he admits that infections can occur, but he says they occur
slowly. He leaves out the fact that the number of infections has
been growing.

And he leaves out the fact that bird flu is spreading through eastern
China like wildfire, and the number of human infections is growing as
well.

What the article leaves out is the dynamics -- that there's been an
orders of magnitude growth in potential for mixing vessels and
infections. He's leaving out the trend lines, and I believe in trend
lines.

But you know, none of this is definite. As the article says, maybe a
pandemic won't happen, or if it does, maybe the mutated virus won't
be any more pathenogenic than ordinary human flu. There are no
guarantees either way. But of course that's true of everything in
the "fourth turning" world, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

> Well, I could also get hit by a truck the next time I cross the
> street, or struck by lightning the next time I venture out into a
> thunderstorm, or struck by a meteor, or have a building fall down
> on me.

> In any event, none of us gets out of here alive. So how do we
> occupy our time between panic attacks?

All I'm saying is that I think it's a good idea to spend a few
hundred bucks to stock up on some canned food, and water if possible.
If the bird flu disappears, you can always eat the stocked up food
next year.

Here are a couple of "emergency supply" web sites that someone
recommended to me: http://www.nitro-pak.com/ and
http://martensurvival.com/ . I don't know much about either of them,
though they both seem to have nice web sites.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by Michael Eaton

Peter Gibbons,

I'm just going back to see why John did not like your questions since apparently he feels you are just trying to make a fool out of him.

I don't think that is the case, but whatever.

http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/...=145810#145810

#1,

This really isn't a question that has to do with the core of GD. John was explaining problems people had with the book. TFT doesn't go into detail about why WWII is a crisis and WWI wasn't.

Huh? T4T explains that WWI is clearly a 3T war: Lots of moral fervor, but no follow through. What did WWI solve in the “outer world”? Nothing. We had to wait for WWII for there to be a fundamental restructuring of Europe. The results of 1945 still loom large in the institutional order.

And it has everything to do with GD. He claims GD is an “improvement” and claims that people had all of these “problems” with the theory and specifically used WWI as an example of this alleged improvement. What are the problems? What did he improve? He has never told me. His answer has a lot to do with his theory’s relationship to S&H’s.

Originally Posted by Michael Eaton

#2,

He works off S&H's theory, and although you might think he leaves them behind, he believes he doesn't. Who cares?

Because he claims to be an improvement but never supplies reasons. What’s more he claims to be based off their theory but largely ignores their fundamental concepts. I am fine with him deviating from S&H as far as it goes. In that sense, yes, who cares? More power to him. But it’s interesting that he never answers me on these things. What does he have to hide?

If there is no problem, then answering me shouldn’t be a problem either. He makes all of these claims, doesn’t back them up, and then has the gall to call himself a professional, and worse, use S&H’s site to push this un-reviewed stuff, his website, and his book. Then he has the balls to name someone who calls him on it a “stalker” so he doesn’t have to deal with it.

Maybe you don’t care, and that’s fine too. But I am sick and tired of his combination of unproven claims, evasions, and arrogance. But hey, I was willing to leave it alone when it became clear a few days ago that he wasn’t going to answer anything no matter what. I was going to leave it at that, leave him alone on his squatter’s thread, and just take him to task if popped up somewhere else pushing his stuff.

But then he threatens me. After calling me all sorts of childish names, pushing a theory (and a book) that criticizes and competes with T4T on S&H’s own website, making claims he will not back-up under questioning, and in general being a pompous ass, he has the AUDACITY to threaten me? No, Michael, I care a lot.

Originally Posted by Michael Eaton

#3,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Strauss and Howe called these anomalies.

Yes, you’re wrong. They only call the Civil War 4T an anomaly. If he is solving all of these other “anomalies” I’d like to know how they are so. GD is alleged great because of this. So a lot hinges on his answers.

Originally Posted by Michael Eaton

#4,

This is nothing.

This is HUGE, Michael. This is tied into his claim that the English Civil War was a 4T in England, when S&H have told us here that they think it was in a 2T. This goes to a fundamental level about what S&H’s theory is about. A war does not a 4T automatically make, in S&H’s view.

Now Xenakis has his own view on what a 4T is, but it is completely different from T4T. That’s fine. But he claims that he is not different. Then he does not answer on how S&H are wrong about their definition of a 4T: To them it is a certain generational constellation of archetypes that creates a crisis mood, and during that turning there is a profound, comprehensive, and fundamental rearrangement of the “outer-world” institutional order. Xenakis’ definition is: A major genocidal war.

Why doesn’t he just come out and say “GD is very much different from Strauss and Howe and is in essence a war cycle with generational focus”. Why all of the evasion and upset? Indeed, why? I was going to drop it, but his effrontery calls for continuation.

Originally Posted by Michael Eaton

#5,

I don't know what this is.

Again, he is questioning S&H’s dates for turnings in the late 17th century. And his criticisms reveal that same fundamental difference I mentioned before about what turnings are all about. I find it strange that he seems to completely change fundamental definitions and concepts, criticizes S&H as a result, and then claims he is not different from them. Huh?!? He also refuses to explain how his changes are an “improvement”. The combination of this cognitive dissonance and his arrogance compels me to ask what this is all about.

Originally Posted by Michael Eaton

#6,

You were just repeating what John had said. They were "heroes" because they fought in the war. They weren't heroes because they didn't have hero personalities. You misunderstood here.

You are partially correct. I did misunderstand his post on this, but his “super-nomad” thing is nevertheless totally out of S&H’s orbit. And again, that’s fine, but why doesn’t he say that?!?

Originally Posted by Michael Eaton

#7,

Moving the end of a crisis up a little bit is different then what S&H did, but it doesn't "leave them behind." You mention the depression, and since John equates economic troubles to 4Ts, that is a valid question.

Again Michael, it goes to a continuing theme here. He ends it in 1782 because the war had ended. He is obsessed with wars. Why? Because his is a war cycle and this is a complete departure from S&H. And he, BTW, uses this 1782 date to justify some point he’s trying to make about how he improved on explaining the Civil War anomaly. If he ended it in 1794 like S&H his precious claim of “improvement” wouldn’t work so well.

Originally Posted by Michael Eaton

If the crisis ended in 1782, then there must be a 5T. If it ended later, then there isn't one.

It must be a “5T” if you accept Xenakis’ war cycle. If you accept S&H, then it is nothing of the kind. He is indeed leaving them behind, Michael. And that’s fine, but he won’t admit it.

Originally Posted by Michael Eaton

#8,

this isn't a question.

I didn’t phrase it as a question because this is one thing he did largely answer. And it goes completely against the fundamentals of S&H’s theory.

Originally Posted by Michael Eaton

The problem is John thinks that he hasn't left TFT behind and you think he has. Peter thinks in order to "stay with" TFT theory, your definition of the crisis must be the same. John thinks otherwise. If this is your only objection, then simply say it. This isn't "a problem" with GD, and you aren't exposing him.

It seems that your question is: Why do you think you haven't left TFT behind when your definition of the crisis is completely different?

Maybe he can answer that.

Do you agree that John has changed the definition of a crisis from S&H? It sounds like you agree. Okay, going with that assumption, let’s see what change he made: A crisis must almost always have a genocidal war, and if a genocidal war occurs, it MUST be in a crisis. Does that sound about right? Is that an accurate summary of his change?

If you agree then one must ignore S&H’s concept of inner-world versus outer-world and generational constellations. His problem with S&H’s date for turnings in 17th century Britain says it all. Yes, the English Civil War was very nasty. And yes, the Glorious Revolution was bloodless. But S&H see the former as being in a 2T and the latter as being in a 4T.

Why do S&H see it this way? Because the ECW took place in a time of inner-world upheaval and challenge to the established value system. Also, it ultimately solved nothing in the outer-world. By 1660 England was back to almost the exact same political problems they before the civil war. Furthermore, the generational constellation was such that a 4T was impossible, by S&H’s definitions.

The Glorious Revolution took place at a time of profound institutional transformation in England, and the generational constellation was nowhere near that of a 2T.

To John, this all seems like total nonsense, and he has made that very clear. And that’s fine. But by changing the aforementioned definition of a 4T, he has cast aside crucial aspects of S&H’s theory. The theory, as S&H have defined it, cannot work without these concepts. Therefore, he has left them behind.

Now you were very adept at summarizing one of my objections, and I thank you for that. But I have one more of that magnitude. His “improvement” claim. Without those concepts he eliminated, his theory is essentially a war cycle, as I have said. But isn’t this a step backward? S&H studied not just many cyclical theories and theorists, but different categories of cycles. One category was war cycles. Their theory combined the best of all of these (plus some interesting additions of their own).

He may disagree, but I would like to know how. Why is he so reluctant to deal directly with these issues?

And why isn’t he answering this? I mean, I’m glad you’re interested, but I think it strange that he can’t answer seven or eight questions over a month or two on “his” thread. And the only reason it’s that many questions is that he refuses to answer questions so they pile up.

He claims he does answer me and I just “don’t like his answers”. Uh, yeah, because he doesn’t answer the questions. More often than not he evades, answers a question I didn’t ask, goes off on some tangent, and then asks me a question without ever having directly answering mine. I then go out of my way to answer his questions, but there is little reciprocity. Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to debate with such a person?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Of John Xenakis, Sean Love

I will await the e-mail from Bill Strauss telling me it's okay for you to squat and or plagerize his work.

Like I said, the charge of plagiarism needs to be backed up with strong evidence by the accuser. Otherwise, the accuser is a slanderer, and should be noted as such.

Pot :arrow: Kettle :arrow: Black

I said I am waiting for an e-mail from Strauss saying that's okay, I didn't accuse him of plagerizing. That's a spin that would be worthy of you.

However, you do have a point. It is unfortunate that I used that term and I retract it as such because of how it could be perceived. I apologize to John for using that word. Justin's "mooch" is much more accurate. It was meant in the sense that John claims to be building on S&H when he is doing no such thing, and has the cajones to use their site and intimidate other posters and push his books.

But as for actually taking their work verbatim, I have no knowledge of him doing any such thing.

Hi, everyone.

I would appreciate it if the tone of this argument could be taken down several notches.

I don't mind a good, robust debate. But recent posts in this thread from several posters go beyond my comfort zone.

Please try to remember that this is a community, and it should be open to all sorts of viewpoints.

If you have a specific concern about a post or series of posts or with the activities of a particular poster, please private message or e-mail me.

I can't read every post on this site, but I am more than happy to try to resolve problems before they get to this uncomfortable point.

Thanks,

-- Craig

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Of John Xenakis, Sean Love

I will await the e-mail from Bill Strauss telling me it's okay for you to squat and or plagerize his work.

Like I said, the charge of plagiarism needs to be backed up with strong evidence by the accuser. Otherwise, the accuser is a slanderer, and should be noted as such.

Pot :arrow: Kettle :arrow: Black
I said I am waiting for an e-mail from Strauss saying that's okay, I didn't accuse him of plagerizing. That's a spin that would be worthy of you.

I apologize to John for using that word.

This is a perfect example of a notapology. It's a simple three step program, and goes something like this:

• 1. First, note a much darker force at work in the affair -- a, um, "vast right-wing conspiracy" (ie., me) -- to draw some attention away from the real issue.
  
  2. Then state emphatically that you didn't falsely, or intentionally, accuse Xenakis of plagiarism.
  
  3. And, finally, do apologize for a careless misunderstanding.

Bravo! The Clintons would be quite proud of Mr. Love's response.

sheesh

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

It's a simple three step program . . .

Thank you for your concern. May I recommend a 12 step program for you?