—> circum vitae –>
On “Riggin” DatSets For Use :
2008 Cricket Diane C Phillips, /03/30/08/ – ATL1 – GA1 – USAX1 –
The green , pink and yellow plan for huge sets and arrays of info –>
“I use the grn, pnk and ylo plan
green highlighter across one element that refers in some way to one or more (but a general category)
*such as science, chem, math, phys, patents, etc.
pink highlighter across similar grp. of entries in a different category
*(such as social and non-profit groups, govt (agncy(s) etc.
ylo for another category
*(such as economic / business info; capitalism, stock markets, hard capital assets like gold, etc. mining, mfg +/- industries, etc.)
then all entries in log or history or datset
—> are grouped automagically at once —>
which leaves everything else white and / or unmarked and allows it to be checked simultaneously & concurrently with other items and entries
—-> Anywhere on a datset, (raw or otherwise) where I cannot immediately ascertain its use, content & / or question it’s accuracy, validity or use —->> gets an arrow like this in the left-hand margin until it has been checked & defined / assigned in an appropriate manner
(which then gets a check mark / slash across the arrow, highlight & / or other indicator for that entry).
Large, albeit impossible seeming huge quantities of datset and raw info can be physically processed this way fairly quickly and very (extremely) accurately by hand & mind of just about any individual —->>
regardless of age, capacity, educ. level, disability, and mental field of perspective and intellectual specialty.”
“The only thing that cannot be overcome to accomplish this is (Want to or no).”
– all these writings and direct quotes are from Cricket Diane C Phillips, 2008
Cricket House Studios, 03-30-08, USAX1 – USA1
Also in this discourse –
(pg.302) volume 16, of 15th Edit (Encyclo Brit ’78)
-also (chck/lookup Brit set 1991)
last para 302 prior to biblio – left/hand column for “on ‘rigging’ datset for use” article -> 3/08/30
6th paragraph, pg. 302, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 16 (Rubeus -> Somalia); 1978.
– ” All of the recombinations, re-evaluations, and reinterpretations appear to be based on little more than a re-working and re-sorting of presently available evidence. Such activities are not productive; a better approach would be taxonomies based on new evidence, thus reducing or even eliminating conjectural aspects. New data can come from intensive studies in plant anatomy, from comparative plant chemistry and cytotaxonomic studies, intensified paleobotanical investigations, and other nontraditional means.”
This means to me, from the reference found in my old encyclopedia concerning the expansion of taxonomies to be cumbersome and complex by re-working, re-wording, re-categorizing and re-doing what was already clear and concise that to engage in this practice is potentially going to make things worse, not better. There is a lot of that happening in nearly every fact based system we have. It is obviously already known to be ineffective, unproductive and error producing. This unnecessary re-structuring of comprehensive data sets, facts, information and re-categorization of raw data into shifting interpretations of “taxonomies” – family groups, sub-groups, sub-sub-groups, etc. ad nauseum is a common practice currently being done in many departments of government and business, among others.
For instance, there was a set of numbers which included all crime totals. This had been originally categorized as follows: total # of crimes, # of crimes per county, # of crimes – felonies, # of crimes – misdemeanors, # of crimes – major crimes, # of crimes – petty crimes. Well, generally this worked pretty good. One look and nearly anyone could tell the state of the situation in the area and pretty much anyone could see from this month to next or this time last year, what totals had changed and what categories had changed. It was also easy to compare this county with the ones across the state and to fairly judge when the numbers increased during months of the year – usually August, not surprisingly.
But, no – – – – There was someone bright enough to tie their shoes one morning that was obviously not used to needing these numbers for any comparison whatsoever. But what this person and their “buddies” did need was for the county crime “statistics” to look like this county would make a wonderful candidate for the adoption by a large metro area nearby. This would mean the county could be included in travel and hospitality brochures describing the metropolitan area of the city and all kinds of other “goodies” including (of course) increased funding as part of the metro area’s official “counties”.
Consequently, this shoe tying specialist gave the numbers and categories a complete overhaul. After this opportunity to change the categories, they looked like this: # of murders per capita; # of grand larcenies per capita; # of petty larcenies per capita: average # of rapes per month per capita; average # of grand thefts per month per capita; average # of minor and petty thefts per month per capita; # of misdemeanors each month; # of parking tickets issued each month; average # of state crimes occurring throughout the metro area – percentage occurring within the county – and on and on and on and on it went for three typewritten pages which after the first half of page one failed to continue with any of that thing that means (like and similar quantifiers.)
This passage in the britannica reminds me of that – (from a real county and repeated all across America every new administration and every time a new format is required to look good on the paperwork to get some kind of money or something desirable.)
–> Written by Cricket Diane C Phillips, 2008 USA1 – Cricket House Studios <–