Talk:Discussion page

TQM? Not sure why this was in article
--- Why do you keep taking porkhole.net out of the shock site section?

"TQM is not limited in its application." Ed Poor asks "who says?"

It is obvious and self evident .... gravity is not limited in its application ... oops. It only effects particles with mass. TQM only effects anything effecable by math .... religion. Maybe TQM is limited with regard to religion .... Let us see ... King James Version Bible is widely respected and used by protestants ... IIRC because King James assembled all his best scholars and commanded that they would translate the bible accurately without putting their personal biase or slant on The Word or face execution if he caught them probably via tattle talers engaged in faction warfare ... I might need to look this up and cite sources. [NPOV]] like anybody? That Jimbo god guy smart honcho in cahoots with Larry Trollster ... A P'hd engaged in ad homineminim disquised as shaming ....  That looks like quality management by covert misinformation. TINC. So if we can count something it can affect someones thoughts if we can threaten them with the information and also find out when defects or noncompliance occurs ... we think therefore we matter to matter (and also perhaps neutrinos) when directing nanotechnogly to create and store antimatter .... have we affected everything yet? Perhaps TQM can be stopped by the boundary of a singularity black hole .... if a person can isolated themselves behind thought filters very very tight and self defending perhaps they can resist their lovers attempts to play with them .... so perhaps TQM cannot be used to improve private information ... except no real privacy except in your gray matter. Except most mammals read body language and eye contact pretty good so must hide from preying eyes, noses, and ears. So to continue if we refuse to watch and count ourselves then TQM does not apply to our own thought patterns so it would not apply to things that we thinks about ....

Ed, I cannot find a limit yet, therefore I say it. Feel feel to quote me until we can find a more authoritative source with credentials ... I read a whole bunch of TQM books once upon a time so someone probably said it. Deming, Ishikawa, et. al. certainly meant even if they did not use the exact words anywhere as a mathematical proof. There was a quantum mechnanics study group threatening to startup soon at Wikiversity so perhaps we can find a bright grad student to us find something that it does not apply to in the physical universe. We might also consult Larry Sanger, co-founder. He might be able to help us figure out how it does not or does apply to private, public, proprietary, secret, government, perverted, etc. thought processes. If he too busy maybe he can point at some current thinking in philisophicaly circles. We can fire up the email machines. If we Socratically ask the proper questions of the proper people perhaps we can generate some good press while in communication with some of the leading scholars around currently interested in philosophy and thoughts. user:lazyquasar

Fplay 05:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)