Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

I'm a realist. And the most simple explanation is usually the most likely. Besides, the government can't run **** and you're telling me that they can control this massive scandal? Please.

---

Cthepack told me that 90% of most companies is pure waste. Sounds like the free market can't run **** either.

---

Not once did I say 90% of most companies (activities I assume you mean) is pure waste. 90% of most companies activities are waste.

There is a difference and honestly you are out of you league on this one.

I do work with governement contracts and the waste level is the same. The difference is that public companies can not go to the government and ask for more money when they need it. Lots of governement contracts have been structured this way so if they do not meet the plan they just go get more money from the tax payers.

---

Sorry, in my league they define pure waste like this:

Quote:

---

Pure waste, also known as non-value-added waste, represents activities within a process that do not contribute to the final product or service that the customer is willing to pay for.

---

You're right, "waste" sounds totally different. Maybe someday I'll learn how math works and then I can finally figure out all of your sorcery.

Anyway, sorry... I had said "lol, never mind", and here I am trolling you again.

---

You really do not know what you are talking about.

For information, around 50% of all activities are pure waste. And yes 90% of all activities are waste. Go figure.

Use those numbers to google a little more and you may find out what the other 40% is.

---

Sigh... here's literally the first sentence of the Lean Six Sigma manual:

Quote:

---

In 2025, the brutal truth is that value still hides in the shadows: across industries, fewer than one in ten minutes of process-cycle time actually creates something a customer would pay forthe other 90 % is consumed by waiting, hand-offs, rework and other silent drains on profit. Even organisations already running Lean Six Sigma seldom push process-cycle efficiency beyond 15 %, which means at least 85 % of effort is still pure waste.

---

Lol, never mind.

---

And it is wrong. Google non-value added but needed. And you may start to understand a bit more.

---

Uh huh. As I said, you guys are so lost in semantic b.s. even your guides can't keep it straight.

Like I said at the outset, "Necessary NVA activities" are exactly the part of this system that make all of these percentages suspect. Considering a legally required safety inspection "waste" is a stupid waste of management's bandwidth, and has more to do with creating stressful "waste" numbers that keep consultants employed.

---

Not at all lost on semantics and you continue to demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. The percentages are very valid. There is a clear definition of what non value added but needed versus pure waste.

You are really struggling to understand what you google because it is very clear you are getting all this information from searches. Keep digging! I like watching someone errogant taking a hit.

---

Lol, "errogant". I'm just reading your manuals trying to understand your self-evidently ridiculous percentages, like you asked me to.

So you're saying a legally required safety inspection isn't considered an NNVA? You sure you shouldn't read these manuals again?

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

I'm a realist. And the most simple explanation is usually the most likely. Besides, the government can't run **** and you're telling me that they can control this massive scandal? Please.

---

Cthepack told me that 90% of most companies is pure waste. Sounds like the free market can't run **** either.

---

Not once did I say 90% of most companies (activities I assume you mean) is pure waste. 90% of most companies activities are waste.

There is a difference and honestly you are out of you league on this one.

I do work with governement contracts and the waste level is the same. The difference is that public companies can not go to the government and ask for more money when they need it. Lots of governement contracts have been structured this way so if they do not meet the plan they just go get more money from the tax payers.

---

Sorry, in my league they define pure waste like this:

Quote:

---

Pure waste, also known as non-value-added waste, represents activities within a process that do not contribute to the final product or service that the customer is willing to pay for.

---

You're right, "waste" sounds totally different. Maybe someday I'll learn how math works and then I can finally figure out all of your sorcery.

Anyway, sorry... I had said "lol, never mind", and here I am trolling you again.

---

You really do not know what you are talking about.

For information, around 50% of all activities are pure waste. And yes 90% of all activities are waste. Go figure.

Use those numbers to google a little more and you may find out what the other 40% is.

---

Sigh... here's literally the first sentence of the Lean Six Sigma manual:

Quote:

---

In 2025, the brutal truth is that value still hides in the shadows: across industries, fewer than one in ten minutes of process-cycle time actually creates something a customer would pay forthe other 90 % is consumed by waiting, hand-offs, rework and other silent drains on profit. Even organisations already running Lean Six Sigma seldom push process-cycle efficiency beyond 15 %, which means at least 85 % of effort is still pure waste.

---

Lol, never mind.

---

And it is wrong. Google non-value added but needed. And you may start to understand a bit more.

---

Uh huh. As I said, you guys are so lost in semantic b.s. even your guides can't keep it straight.

Like I said at the outset, "Necessary NVA activities" are exactly the part of this system that make all of these percentages suspect. Considering a legally required safety inspection "waste" is a stupid waste of management's bandwidth, and has more to do with creating stressful "waste" numbers that keep consultants employed.

---

Not at all lost on semantics and you continue to demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. The percentages are very valid. There is a clear definition of what non value added but needed versus pure waste.

You are really struggling to understand what you google because it is very clear you are getting all this information from searches. Keep digging! I like watching someone errogant taking a hit.

---

Lol, "errogant". I'm just reading your manuals trying to understand your self-evidently ridiculous percentages, like you asked me to.

So you're saying a legally required safety inspection isn't considered an NNVA? You sure you shouldn't read these manuals again?

---

You are reading some six sigma site. Not my manuals. You have not come across my publications yet.

The percentages have been around for decades and are 100% valid.

I have not made any comment on a safety inspection.

You may want to start with what value is and who defines it.

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

I'm a realist. And the most simple explanation is usually the most likely. Besides, the government can't run **** and you're telling me that they can control this massive scandal? Please.

---

Cthepack told me that 90% of most companies is pure waste. Sounds like the free market can't run **** either.

---

Not once did I say 90% of most companies (activities I assume you mean) is pure waste. 90% of most companies activities are waste.

There is a difference and honestly you are out of you league on this one.

I do work with governement contracts and the waste level is the same. The difference is that public companies can not go to the government and ask for more money when they need it. Lots of governement contracts have been structured this way so if they do not meet the plan they just go get more money from the tax payers.

---

Sorry, in my league they define pure waste like this:

Quote:

---

Pure waste, also known as non-value-added waste, represents activities within a process that do not contribute to the final product or service that the customer is willing to pay for.

---

You're right, "waste" sounds totally different. Maybe someday I'll learn how math works and then I can finally figure out all of your sorcery.

Anyway, sorry... I had said "lol, never mind", and here I am trolling you again.

---

You really do not know what you are talking about.

For information, around 50% of all activities are pure waste. And yes 90% of all activities are waste. Go figure.

Use those numbers to google a little more and you may find out what the other 40% is.

---

Sigh... here's literally the first sentence of the Lean Six Sigma manual:

Quote:

---

In 2025, the brutal truth is that value still hides in the shadows: across industries, fewer than one in ten minutes of process-cycle time actually creates something a customer would pay forthe other 90 % is consumed by waiting, hand-offs, rework and other silent drains on profit. Even organisations already running Lean Six Sigma seldom push process-cycle efficiency beyond 15 %, which means at least 85 % of effort is still pure waste.

---

Lol, never mind.

---

And it is wrong. Google non-value added but needed. And you may start to understand a bit more.

---

Uh huh. As I said, you guys are so lost in semantic b.s. even your guides can't keep it straight.

Like I said at the outset, "Necessary NVA activities" are exactly the part of this system that make all of these percentages suspect. Considering a legally required safety inspection "waste" is a stupid waste of management's bandwidth, and has more to do with creating stressful "waste" numbers that keep consultants employed.

---

Not at all lost on semantics and you continue to demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. The percentages are very valid. There is a clear definition of what non value added but needed versus pure waste.

You are really struggling to understand what you google because it is very clear you are getting all this information from searches. Keep digging! I like watching someone errogant taking a hit.

---

Lol, "errogant". I'm just reading your manuals trying to understand your self-evidently ridiculous percentages, like you asked me to.

So you're saying a legally required safety inspection isn't considered an NNVA? You sure you shouldn't read these manuals again?

---

You are reading some six sigma site. Not my manuals. You have not come across my publications yet.

The percentages have been around for decades and are 100% valid.

I have not made any comment on a safety inspection.

You may want to start with what value is and who defines it.

---

Yes, the way you define value is the root of the problem, that is way too cute and allows obviously necessary activities to be considered "waste".

How about instead of strutting around insisting that I google terms I'm already familiar with, which definitely isn't "errogant", why not just address the questions. Or provide a link to your mystical manual that diverts from Lean Six Sigma orthodoxy.

Do you consider a legally required safety inspection "waste" in the context of your cute definition of value?

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

I'm a realist. And the most simple explanation is usually the most likely. Besides, the government can't run **** and you're telling me that they can control this massive scandal? Please.

---

Cthepack told me that 90% of most companies is pure waste. Sounds like the free market can't run **** either.

---

Not once did I say 90% of most companies (activities I assume you mean) is pure waste. 90% of most companies activities are waste.

There is a difference and honestly you are out of you league on this one.

I do work with governement contracts and the waste level is the same. The difference is that public companies can not go to the government and ask for more money when they need it. Lots of governement contracts have been structured this way so if they do not meet the plan they just go get more money from the tax payers.

---

Sorry, in my league they define pure waste like this:

Quote:

---

Pure waste, also known as non-value-added waste, represents activities within a process that do not contribute to the final product or service that the customer is willing to pay for.

---

You're right, "waste" sounds totally different. Maybe someday I'll learn how math works and then I can finally figure out all of your sorcery.

Anyway, sorry... I had said "lol, never mind", and here I am trolling you again.

---

You really do not know what you are talking about.

For information, around 50% of all activities are pure waste. And yes 90% of all activities are waste. Go figure.

Use those numbers to google a little more and you may find out what the other 40% is.

---

Sigh... here's literally the first sentence of the Lean Six Sigma manual:

Quote:

---

In 2025, the brutal truth is that value still hides in the shadows: across industries, fewer than one in ten minutes of process-cycle time actually creates something a customer would pay forthe other 90 % is consumed by waiting, hand-offs, rework and other silent drains on profit. Even organisations already running Lean Six Sigma seldom push process-cycle efficiency beyond 15 %, which means at least 85 % of effort is still pure waste.

---

Lol, never mind.

---

And it is wrong. Google non-value added but needed. And you may start to understand a bit more.

---

Uh huh. As I said, you guys are so lost in semantic b.s. even your guides can't keep it straight.

Like I said at the outset, "Necessary NVA activities" are exactly the part of this system that make all of these percentages suspect. Considering a legally required safety inspection "waste" is a stupid waste of management's bandwidth, and has more to do with creating stressful "waste" numbers that keep consultants employed.

---

Not at all lost on semantics and you continue to demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. The percentages are very valid. There is a clear definition of what non value added but needed versus pure waste.

You are really struggling to understand what you google because it is very clear you are getting all this information from searches. Keep digging! I like watching someone errogant taking a hit.

---

Lol, "errogant". I'm just reading your manuals trying to understand your self-evidently ridiculous percentages, like you asked me to.

So you're saying a legally required safety inspection isn't considered an NNVA? You sure you shouldn't read these manuals again?

---

You are reading some six sigma site. Not my manuals. You have not come across my publications yet.

The percentages have been around for decades and are 100% valid.

I have not made any comment on a safety inspection.

You may want to start with what value is and who defines it.

---

Yes, the way you define value is the root of the problem, that is way too cute and allows obviously necessary activities to be considered "waste".

How about instead of strutting around insisting that I google terms I'm already familiar with, which definitely isn't "errogant", why not just address the questions. Or provide a link to your mystical manual that diverts from Lean Six Sigma orthodoxy.

Do you consider a legally required safety inspection "waste" in the context of your cute definition of value?

---

So you have been familiar with all these terms? The book "Lean Thinking" was where I believe I first read about value add, non-value added, and non-value added but necessary.

The definition of value is very straightforward. Of course you know this right? Or should I ask how do you define value?

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

I'm a realist. And the most simple explanation is usually the most likely. Besides, the government can't run **** and you're telling me that they can control this massive scandal? Please.

---

Cthepack told me that 90% of most companies is pure waste. Sounds like the free market can't run **** either.

---

Not once did I say 90% of most companies (activities I assume you mean) is pure waste. 90% of most companies activities are waste.

There is a difference and honestly you are out of you league on this one.

I do work with governement contracts and the waste level is the same. The difference is that public companies can not go to the government and ask for more money when they need it. Lots of governement contracts have been structured this way so if they do not meet the plan they just go get more money from the tax payers.

---

Sorry, in my league they define pure waste like this:

Quote:

---

Pure waste, also known as non-value-added waste, represents activities within a process that do not contribute to the final product or service that the customer is willing to pay for.

---

You're right, "waste" sounds totally different. Maybe someday I'll learn how math works and then I can finally figure out all of your sorcery.

Anyway, sorry... I had said "lol, never mind", and here I am trolling you again.

---

You really do not know what you are talking about.

For information, around 50% of all activities are pure waste. And yes 90% of all activities are waste. Go figure.

Use those numbers to google a little more and you may find out what the other 40% is.

---

Sigh... here's literally the first sentence of the Lean Six Sigma manual:

Quote:

---

In 2025, the brutal truth is that value still hides in the shadows: across industries, fewer than one in ten minutes of process-cycle time actually creates something a customer would pay forthe other 90 % is consumed by waiting, hand-offs, rework and other silent drains on profit. Even organisations already running Lean Six Sigma seldom push process-cycle efficiency beyond 15 %, which means at least 85 % of effort is still pure waste.

---

Lol, never mind.

---

And it is wrong. Google non-value added but needed. And you may start to understand a bit more.

---

Uh huh. As I said, you guys are so lost in semantic b.s. even your guides can't keep it straight.

Like I said at the outset, "Necessary NVA activities" are exactly the part of this system that make all of these percentages suspect. Considering a legally required safety inspection "waste" is a stupid waste of management's bandwidth, and has more to do with creating stressful "waste" numbers that keep consultants employed.

---

Not at all lost on semantics and you continue to demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. The percentages are very valid. There is a clear definition of what non value added but needed versus pure waste.

You are really struggling to understand what you google because it is very clear you are getting all this information from searches. Keep digging! I like watching someone errogant taking a hit.

---

Lol, "errogant". I'm just reading your manuals trying to understand your self-evidently ridiculous percentages, like you asked me to.

So you're saying a legally required safety inspection isn't considered an NNVA? You sure you shouldn't read these manuals again?

---

You are reading some six sigma site. Not my manuals. You have not come across my publications yet.

The percentages have been around for decades and are 100% valid.

I have not made any comment on a safety inspection.

You may want to start with what value is and who defines it.

---

Yes, the way you define value is the root of the problem, that is way too cute and allows obviously necessary activities to be considered "waste".

How about instead of strutting around insisting that I google terms I'm already familiar with, which definitely isn't "errogant", why not just address the questions. Or provide a link to your mystical manual that diverts from Lean Six Sigma orthodoxy.

Do you consider a legally required safety inspection "waste" in the context of your cute definition of value?

---

So you have been familiar with all these terms? The book "Lean Thinking" was where I believe I first read about value add, non-value added, and non-value added but necessary.

The definition of value is very straightforward. Of course you know this right? Or should I ask how do you define value?

---

You two should take the Six Sigma peeing contest to DM's.

We got on this topic because of your subjective judgment that companies are lazy and that "good" companies will find efficiencies, lower costs, eat margin, or whatever it takes to avoid cost increases, when faced with tariffs.

The broader point is that it doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks makes a "good" company or a lazy company; the only thing that matters is whether there are enough companies out there willing and able to do whatever it takes to not pass along increases to consumers.

There is no historic precedent for what you're saying should happen. What always HAS happened is that tariffs increase the cost of delivering products to consumers, and prices rise as a result.

You may not like that. You may think it's an indication of most companies being lazy. You may see a business opportunity for yourself to help companies gain a competitive advantage by increasing their efficiencies and figuring out ways to bring products to market less expensively and undercut their competition.

None of that matters. The only thing that matters is whether enough companies can and will do what you're describing to ward off tariff-driven inflation.

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

I'm a realist. And the most simple explanation is usually the most likely. Besides, the government can't run **** and you're telling me that they can control this massive scandal? Please.

---

Cthepack told me that 90% of most companies is pure waste. Sounds like the free market can't run **** either.

---

Not once did I say 90% of most companies (activities I assume you mean) is pure waste. 90% of most companies activities are waste.

There is a difference and honestly you are out of you league on this one.

I do work with governement contracts and the waste level is the same. The difference is that public companies can not go to the government and ask for more money when they need it. Lots of governement contracts have been structured this way so if they do not meet the plan they just go get more money from the tax payers.

---

Sorry, in my league they define pure waste like this:

Quote:

---

Pure waste, also known as non-value-added waste, represents activities within a process that do not contribute to the final product or service that the customer is willing to pay for.

---

You're right, "waste" sounds totally different. Maybe someday I'll learn how math works and then I can finally figure out all of your sorcery.

Anyway, sorry... I had said "lol, never mind", and here I am trolling you again.

---

You really do not know what you are talking about.

For information, around 50% of all activities are pure waste. And yes 90% of all activities are waste. Go figure.

Use those numbers to google a little more and you may find out what the other 40% is.

---

Sigh... here's literally the first sentence of the Lean Six Sigma manual:

Quote:

---

In 2025, the brutal truth is that value still hides in the shadows: across industries, fewer than one in ten minutes of process-cycle time actually creates something a customer would pay forthe other 90 % is consumed by waiting, hand-offs, rework and other silent drains on profit. Even organisations already running Lean Six Sigma seldom push process-cycle efficiency beyond 15 %, which means at least 85 % of effort is still pure waste.

---

Lol, never mind.

---

And it is wrong. Google non-value added but needed. And you may start to understand a bit more.

---

Uh huh. As I said, you guys are so lost in semantic b.s. even your guides can't keep it straight.

Like I said at the outset, "Necessary NVA activities" are exactly the part of this system that make all of these percentages suspect. Considering a legally required safety inspection "waste" is a stupid waste of management's bandwidth, and has more to do with creating stressful "waste" numbers that keep consultants employed.

---

Not at all lost on semantics and you continue to demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. The percentages are very valid. There is a clear definition of what non value added but needed versus pure waste.

You are really struggling to understand what you google because it is very clear you are getting all this information from searches. Keep digging! I like watching someone errogant taking a hit.

---

Lol, "errogant". I'm just reading your manuals trying to understand your self-evidently ridiculous percentages, like you asked me to.

So you're saying a legally required safety inspection isn't considered an NNVA? You sure you shouldn't read these manuals again?

---

You are reading some six sigma site. Not my manuals. You have not come across my publications yet.

The percentages have been around for decades and are 100% valid.

I have not made any comment on a safety inspection.

You may want to start with what value is and who defines it.

---

Yes, the way you define value is the root of the problem, that is way too cute and allows obviously necessary activities to be considered "waste".

How about instead of strutting around insisting that I google terms I'm already familiar with, which definitely isn't "errogant", why not just address the questions. Or provide a link to your mystical manual that diverts from Lean Six Sigma orthodoxy.

Do you consider a legally required safety inspection "waste" in the context of your cute definition of value?

---

So you have been familiar with all these terms? The book "Lean Thinking" was where I believe I first read about value add, non-value added, and non-value added but necessary.

The definition of value is very straightforward. Of course you know this right? Or should I ask how do you define value?

---

In the context of this excruciating conversation, and in general, using a simplistic customer-centric view of value that allows you to label huge swaths of necessary activities as "waste" is deeply semantic and dishonest.

Saying that companies activities are "OMG 90% waste" is clearly meant to suggest that there is MASSIVE room for cost cutting, when in reality there isn't.

All you've done with this definitely not "errogant" nonsense is try to obfuscate just how damaging tariffs will be for many good companies.

So thanks! Another enlightening Cthepack conversation in the books.

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

I'm a realist. And the most simple explanation is usually the most likely. Besides, the government can't run **** and you're telling me that they can control this massive scandal? Please.

---

Cthepack told me that 90% of most companies is pure waste. Sounds like the free market can't run **** either.

---

Not once did I say 90% of most companies (activities I assume you mean) is pure waste. 90% of most companies activities are waste.

There is a difference and honestly you are out of you league on this one.

I do work with governement contracts and the waste level is the same. The difference is that public companies can not go to the government and ask for more money when they need it. Lots of governement contracts have been structured this way so if they do not meet the plan they just go get more money from the tax payers.

---

Sorry, in my league they define pure waste like this:

Quote:

---

Pure waste, also known as non-value-added waste, represents activities within a process that do not contribute to the final product or service that the customer is willing to pay for.

---

You're right, "waste" sounds totally different. Maybe someday I'll learn how math works and then I can finally figure out all of your sorcery.

Anyway, sorry... I had said "lol, never mind", and here I am trolling you again.

---

You really do not know what you are talking about.

For information, around 50% of all activities are pure waste. And yes 90% of all activities are waste. Go figure.

Use those numbers to google a little more and you may find out what the other 40% is.

---

Sigh... here's literally the first sentence of the Lean Six Sigma manual:

Quote:

---

In 2025, the brutal truth is that value still hides in the shadows: across industries, fewer than one in ten minutes of process-cycle time actually creates something a customer would pay forthe other 90 % is consumed by waiting, hand-offs, rework and other silent drains on profit. Even organisations already running Lean Six Sigma seldom push process-cycle efficiency beyond 15 %, which means at least 85 % of effort is still pure waste.

---

Lol, never mind.

---

And it is wrong. Google non-value added but needed. And you may start to understand a bit more.

---

Uh huh. As I said, you guys are so lost in semantic b.s. even your guides can't keep it straight.

Like I said at the outset, "Necessary NVA activities" are exactly the part of this system that make all of these percentages suspect. Considering a legally required safety inspection "waste" is a stupid waste of management's bandwidth, and has more to do with creating stressful "waste" numbers that keep consultants employed.

---

Not at all lost on semantics and you continue to demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. The percentages are very valid. There is a clear definition of what non value added but needed versus pure waste.

You are really struggling to understand what you google because it is very clear you are getting all this information from searches. Keep digging! I like watching someone errogant taking a hit.

---

Lol, "errogant". I'm just reading your manuals trying to understand your self-evidently ridiculous percentages, like you asked me to.

So you're saying a legally required safety inspection isn't considered an NNVA? You sure you shouldn't read these manuals again?

---

You are reading some six sigma site. Not my manuals. You have not come across my publications yet.

The percentages have been around for decades and are 100% valid.

I have not made any comment on a safety inspection.

You may want to start with what value is and who defines it.

---

Yes, the way you define value is the root of the problem, that is way too cute and allows obviously necessary activities to be considered "waste".

How about instead of strutting around insisting that I google terms I'm already familiar with, which definitely isn't "errogant", why not just address the questions. Or provide a link to your mystical manual that diverts from Lean Six Sigma orthodoxy.

Do you consider a legally required safety inspection "waste" in the context of your cute definition of value?

---

So you have been familiar with all these terms? The book "Lean Thinking" was where I believe I first read about value add, non-value added, and non-value added but necessary.

The definition of value is very straightforward. Of course you know this right? Or should I ask how do you define value?

---

In the context of this excruciating conversation, and in general, using a simplistic customer-centric view of value that allows you to label huge swaths of necessary activities as "waste" is deeply semantic and dishonest.

Saying that companies activities are "OMG 90% waste" is clearly meant to suggest that there is MASSIVE room for cost cutting, when in reality there isn't.

All you've done with this definitely not "errogant" nonsense is try to obfuscate just how damaging tariffs will be for many good companies.

So thanks! Another enlightening Cthepack conversation in the books.

---

So you could not define value and/or you know I am correct.

Value is what the customer is willing to pay for: 5-10% of all activities. The rest is waste.

Of the 90% waste:. 50% of the 90% is pure waste (what you said six sigma said was 85 or 90%, this is not the case) , 40 to 45 % is non value added but needed (can be things more than your safety audit question). You defined it today as pure waste. I corrected you and said I never said it was pure waste but it is waste just necessary to do business.

I will be sending you a bill for this!

Civilized said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

I'm a realist. And the most simple explanation is usually the most likely. Besides, the government can't run **** and you're telling me that they can control this massive scandal? Please.

---

Cthepack told me that 90% of most companies is pure waste. Sounds like the free market can't run **** either.

---

Not once did I say 90% of most companies (activities I assume you mean) is pure waste. 90% of most companies activities are waste.

There is a difference and honestly you are out of you league on this one.

I do work with governement contracts and the waste level is the same. The difference is that public companies can not go to the government and ask for more money when they need it. Lots of governement contracts have been structured this way so if they do not meet the plan they just go get more money from the tax payers.

---

Sorry, in my league they define pure waste like this:

Quote:

---

Pure waste, also known as non-value-added waste, represents activities within a process that do not contribute to the final product or service that the customer is willing to pay for.

---

You're right, "waste" sounds totally different. Maybe someday I'll learn how math works and then I can finally figure out all of your sorcery.

Anyway, sorry... I had said "lol, never mind", and here I am trolling you again.

---

You really do not know what you are talking about.

For information, around 50% of all activities are pure waste. And yes 90% of all activities are waste. Go figure.

Use those numbers to google a little more and you may find out what the other 40% is.

---

Sigh... here's literally the first sentence of the Lean Six Sigma manual:

Quote:

---

In 2025, the brutal truth is that value still hides in the shadows: across industries, fewer than one in ten minutes of process-cycle time actually creates something a customer would pay forthe other 90 % is consumed by waiting, hand-offs, rework and other silent drains on profit. Even organisations already running Lean Six Sigma seldom push process-cycle efficiency beyond 15 %, which means at least 85 % of effort is still pure waste.

---

Lol, never mind.

---

And it is wrong. Google non-value added but needed. And you may start to understand a bit more.

---

Uh huh. As I said, you guys are so lost in semantic b.s. even your guides can't keep it straight.

Like I said at the outset, "Necessary NVA activities" are exactly the part of this system that make all of these percentages suspect. Considering a legally required safety inspection "waste" is a stupid waste of management's bandwidth, and has more to do with creating stressful "waste" numbers that keep consultants employed.

---

Not at all lost on semantics and you continue to demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. The percentages are very valid. There is a clear definition of what non value added but needed versus pure waste.

You are really struggling to understand what you google because it is very clear you are getting all this information from searches. Keep digging! I like watching someone errogant taking a hit.

---

Lol, "errogant". I'm just reading your manuals trying to understand your self-evidently ridiculous percentages, like you asked me to.

So you're saying a legally required safety inspection isn't considered an NNVA? You sure you shouldn't read these manuals again?

---

You are reading some six sigma site. Not my manuals. You have not come across my publications yet.

The percentages have been around for decades and are 100% valid.

I have not made any comment on a safety inspection.

You may want to start with what value is and who defines it.

---

Yes, the way you define value is the root of the problem, that is way too cute and allows obviously necessary activities to be considered "waste".

How about instead of strutting around insisting that I google terms I'm already familiar with, which definitely isn't "errogant", why not just address the questions. Or provide a link to your mystical manual that diverts from Lean Six Sigma orthodoxy.

Do you consider a legally required safety inspection "waste" in the context of your cute definition of value?

---

So you have been familiar with all these terms? The book "Lean Thinking" was where I believe I first read about value add, non-value added, and non-value added but necessary.

The definition of value is very straightforward. Of course you know this right? Or should I ask how do you define value?

---

You two should take the Six Sigma peeing contest to DM's.

We got on this topic because of your subjective judgment that companies are lazy and that "good" companies will find efficiencies, lower costs, eat margin, or whatever it takes to avoid cost increases, when faced with tariffs.

The broader point is that it doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks makes a "good" company or a lazy company; the only thing that matters is whether there are enough companies out there willing and able to do whatever it takes to not pass along increases to consumers.

There is no historic precedent for what you're saying should happen. What always HAS happened is that tariffs increase the cost of delivering products to consumers, and prices rise as a result.

You may not like that. You may think it's an indication of most companies being lazy. You may see a business opportunity for yourself to help companies gain a competitive advantage by increasing their efficiencies and figuring out ways to bring products to market less expensively and undercut their competition.

None of that matters. The only thing that matters is whether enough companies can and will do what you're describing to ward off tariff-driven inflation.

---

I am not arguing it has not happened in the past and it has nothing to do with what I like or dislike, I just know a lot of companies are taking a different approach than they took in the past. There is more information out there, there is a president calling out companies that raise prices, etc... I do think looking back 100 years is a bit out of touch. We shall see what happens.

I do stand by lazy companies but they do require lazy consumers in order to get away with it. Buying a car today is significantly different than even 10 years ago due to information and a less lazy consumer.

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

I'm a realist. And the most simple explanation is usually the most likely. Besides, the government can't run **** and you're telling me that they can control this massive scandal? Please.

---

Cthepack told me that 90% of most companies is pure waste. Sounds like the free market can't run **** either.

---

Not once did I say 90% of most companies (activities I assume you mean) is pure waste. 90% of most companies activities are waste.

There is a difference and honestly you are out of you league on this one.

I do work with governement contracts and the waste level is the same. The difference is that public companies can not go to the government and ask for more money when they need it. Lots of governement contracts have been structured this way so if they do not meet the plan they just go get more money from the tax payers.

---

Sorry, in my league they define pure waste like this:

Quote:

---

Pure waste, also known as non-value-added waste, represents activities within a process that do not contribute to the final product or service that the customer is willing to pay for.

---

You're right, "waste" sounds totally different. Maybe someday I'll learn how math works and then I can finally figure out all of your sorcery.

Anyway, sorry... I had said "lol, never mind", and here I am trolling you again.

---

You really do not know what you are talking about.

For information, around 50% of all activities are pure waste. And yes 90% of all activities are waste. Go figure.

Use those numbers to google a little more and you may find out what the other 40% is.

---

Sigh... here's literally the first sentence of the Lean Six Sigma manual:

Quote:

---

In 2025, the brutal truth is that value still hides in the shadows: across industries, fewer than one in ten minutes of process-cycle time actually creates something a customer would pay forthe other 90 % is consumed by waiting, hand-offs, rework and other silent drains on profit. Even organisations already running Lean Six Sigma seldom push process-cycle efficiency beyond 15 %, which means at least 85 % of effort is still pure waste.

---

Lol, never mind.

---

And it is wrong. Google non-value added but needed. And you may start to understand a bit more.

---

Uh huh. As I said, you guys are so lost in semantic b.s. even your guides can't keep it straight.

Like I said at the outset, "Necessary NVA activities" are exactly the part of this system that make all of these percentages suspect. Considering a legally required safety inspection "waste" is a stupid waste of management's bandwidth, and has more to do with creating stressful "waste" numbers that keep consultants employed.

---

Not at all lost on semantics and you continue to demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. The percentages are very valid. There is a clear definition of what non value added but needed versus pure waste.

You are really struggling to understand what you google because it is very clear you are getting all this information from searches. Keep digging! I like watching someone errogant taking a hit.

---

Lol, "errogant". I'm just reading your manuals trying to understand your self-evidently ridiculous percentages, like you asked me to.

So you're saying a legally required safety inspection isn't considered an NNVA? You sure you shouldn't read these manuals again?

---

You are reading some six sigma site. Not my manuals. You have not come across my publications yet.

The percentages have been around for decades and are 100% valid.

I have not made any comment on a safety inspection.

You may want to start with what value is and who defines it.

---

Yes, the way you define value is the root of the problem, that is way too cute and allows obviously necessary activities to be considered "waste".

How about instead of strutting around insisting that I google terms I'm already familiar with, which definitely isn't "errogant", why not just address the questions. Or provide a link to your mystical manual that diverts from Lean Six Sigma orthodoxy.

Do you consider a legally required safety inspection "waste" in the context of your cute definition of value?

---

So you have been familiar with all these terms? The book "Lean Thinking" was where I believe I first read about value add, non-value added, and non-value added but necessary.

The definition of value is very straightforward. Of course you know this right? Or should I ask how do you define value?

---

In the context of this excruciating conversation, and in general, using a simplistic customer-centric view of value that allows you to label huge swaths of necessary activities as "waste" is deeply semantic and dishonest.

Saying that companies activities are "OMG 90% waste" is clearly meant to suggest that there is MASSIVE room for cost cutting, when in reality there isn't.

All you've done with this definitely not "errogant" nonsense is try to obfuscate just how damaging tariffs will be for many good companies.

So thanks! Another enlightening Cthepack conversation in the books.

---

So you could not define value and/or you know I am correct.

Value is what the customer is willing to pay for: 5-10% of all activities. The rest is waste.

Of the 90% waste:. 50% of the 90% is pure waste (what you said six sigma said was 85 or 90%, this is not the case) , 40 to 45 % is non value added but needed (can be things more than your safety audit question). You defined it today as pure waste. I corrected you and said I never said it was pure waste but it is waste just necessary to do business.

I will be sending you a bill for this!

---

I'll pay you for the value that you're providing to the customer, which is zero.

In fact, shouldn't you be counseling your clients not to hire you? Waste!

It's not the Presidents job to "call out companies who raise prices". Nor is it his job to apply tariffs unilaterally.

Picking winners and losers in the market and centralized industrial policy doesn't work. Look at Intel as your most recent example.

Buying a car is a lot more different today and more expensive because of union protectionism and not letting the free market dictate where things are made because people are nostalgic for the car industry in the 50s and 60s when there are better things that can replace those jobs at higher wages.

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

I'm a realist. And the most simple explanation is usually the most likely. Besides, the government can't run **** and you're telling me that they can control this massive scandal? Please.

---

Cthepack told me that 90% of most companies is pure waste. Sounds like the free market can't run **** either.

---

Not once did I say 90% of most companies (activities I assume you mean) is pure waste. 90% of most companies activities are waste.

There is a difference and honestly you are out of you league on this one.

I do work with governement contracts and the waste level is the same. The difference is that public companies can not go to the government and ask for more money when they need it. Lots of governement contracts have been structured this way so if they do not meet the plan they just go get more money from the tax payers.

---

Sorry, in my league they define pure waste like this:

Quote:

---

Pure waste, also known as non-value-added waste, represents activities within a process that do not contribute to the final product or service that the customer is willing to pay for.

---

You're right, "waste" sounds totally different. Maybe someday I'll learn how math works and then I can finally figure out all of your sorcery.

Anyway, sorry... I had said "lol, never mind", and here I am trolling you again.

---

You really do not know what you are talking about.

For information, around 50% of all activities are pure waste. And yes 90% of all activities are waste. Go figure.

Use those numbers to google a little more and you may find out what the other 40% is.

---

Sigh... here's literally the first sentence of the Lean Six Sigma manual:

Quote:

---

In 2025, the brutal truth is that value still hides in the shadows: across industries, fewer than one in ten minutes of process-cycle time actually creates something a customer would pay forthe other 90 % is consumed by waiting, hand-offs, rework and other silent drains on profit. Even organisations already running Lean Six Sigma seldom push process-cycle efficiency beyond 15 %, which means at least 85 % of effort is still pure waste.

---

Lol, never mind.

---

And it is wrong. Google non-value added but needed. And you may start to understand a bit more.

---

Uh huh. As I said, you guys are so lost in semantic b.s. even your guides can't keep it straight.

Like I said at the outset, "Necessary NVA activities" are exactly the part of this system that make all of these percentages suspect. Considering a legally required safety inspection "waste" is a stupid waste of management's bandwidth, and has more to do with creating stressful "waste" numbers that keep consultants employed.

---

Not at all lost on semantics and you continue to demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. The percentages are very valid. There is a clear definition of what non value added but needed versus pure waste.

You are really struggling to understand what you google because it is very clear you are getting all this information from searches. Keep digging! I like watching someone errogant taking a hit.

---

Lol, "errogant". I'm just reading your manuals trying to understand your self-evidently ridiculous percentages, like you asked me to.

So you're saying a legally required safety inspection isn't considered an NNVA? You sure you shouldn't read these manuals again?

---

You are reading some six sigma site. Not my manuals. You have not come across my publications yet.

The percentages have been around for decades and are 100% valid.

I have not made any comment on a safety inspection.

You may want to start with what value is and who defines it.

---

Yes, the way you define value is the root of the problem, that is way too cute and allows obviously necessary activities to be considered "waste".

How about instead of strutting around insisting that I google terms I'm already familiar with, which definitely isn't "errogant", why not just address the questions. Or provide a link to your mystical manual that diverts from Lean Six Sigma orthodoxy.

Do you consider a legally required safety inspection "waste" in the context of your cute definition of value?

---

So you have been familiar with all these terms? The book "Lean Thinking" was where I believe I first read about value add, non-value added, and non-value added but necessary.

The definition of value is very straightforward. Of course you know this right? Or should I ask how do you define value?

---

In the context of this excruciating conversation, and in general, using a simplistic customer-centric view of value that allows you to label huge swaths of necessary activities as "waste" is deeply semantic and dishonest.

Saying that companies activities are "OMG 90% waste" is clearly meant to suggest that there is MASSIVE room for cost cutting, when in reality there isn't.

All you've done with this definitely not "errogant" nonsense is try to obfuscate just how damaging tariffs will be for many good companies.

So thanks! Another enlightening Cthepack conversation in the books.

---

So you could not define value and/or you know I am correct.

Value is what the customer is willing to pay for: 5-10% of all activities. The rest is waste.

Of the 90% waste:. 50% of the 90% is pure waste (what you said six sigma said was 85 or 90%, this is not the case) , 40 to 45 % is non value added but needed (can be things more than your safety audit question). You defined it today as pure waste. I corrected you and said I never said it was pure waste but it is waste just necessary to do business.

I will be sending you a bill for this!

---

I'll pay you for the value that you're providing to the customer, which is zero.

In fact, shouldn't you be counseling your clients not to hire you? Waste!

---

Need to invest to get better!

My model is to teach clients to do what I do. I want them to fire me and the sooner the better. My clients love this approach. I leave them with something tangible.

hokiewolf said:

---

It's not the Presidents job to "call out companies who raise prices". Nor is it his job to apply tariffs unilaterally.

Picking winners and losers in the market and centralized industrial policy doesn't work. Look at Intel as your most recent example.

Buying a car is a lot more different today and more expensive because of union protectionism and not letting the free market dictate where things are made because people are nostalgic for the car industry in the 50s and 60s when there are better things that can replace those jobs at higher wages.

---

I agree it is not the Presidents job.

The unions were in place 10 years ago. A lot of the reason the car industry moved south. I use to love negotiating for a car, now there is very little negotiating as I can pull up prices on my phone and the dealer can on his computer.

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

I'm a realist. And the most simple explanation is usually the most likely. Besides, the government can't run **** and you're telling me that they can control this massive scandal? Please.

---

Cthepack told me that 90% of most companies is pure waste. Sounds like the free market can't run **** either.

---

Not once did I say 90% of most companies (activities I assume you mean) is pure waste. 90% of most companies activities are waste.

There is a difference and honestly you are out of you league on this one.

I do work with governement contracts and the waste level is the same. The difference is that public companies can not go to the government and ask for more money when they need it. Lots of governement contracts have been structured this way so if they do not meet the plan they just go get more money from the tax payers.

---

Sorry, in my league they define pure waste like this:

Quote:

---

Pure waste, also known as non-value-added waste, represents activities within a process that do not contribute to the final product or service that the customer is willing to pay for.

---

You're right, "waste" sounds totally different. Maybe someday I'll learn how math works and then I can finally figure out all of your sorcery.

Anyway, sorry... I had said "lol, never mind", and here I am trolling you again.

---

You really do not know what you are talking about.

For information, around 50% of all activities are pure waste. And yes 90% of all activities are waste. Go figure.

Use those numbers to google a little more and you may find out what the other 40% is.

---

Sigh... here's literally the first sentence of the Lean Six Sigma manual:

Quote:

---

In 2025, the brutal truth is that value still hides in the shadows: across industries, fewer than one in ten minutes of process-cycle time actually creates something a customer would pay forthe other 90 % is consumed by waiting, hand-offs, rework and other silent drains on profit. Even organisations already running Lean Six Sigma seldom push process-cycle efficiency beyond 15 %, which means at least 85 % of effort is still pure waste.

---

Lol, never mind.

---

And it is wrong. Google non-value added but needed. And you may start to understand a bit more.

---

Uh huh. As I said, you guys are so lost in semantic b.s. even your guides can't keep it straight.

Like I said at the outset, "Necessary NVA activities" are exactly the part of this system that make all of these percentages suspect. Considering a legally required safety inspection "waste" is a stupid waste of management's bandwidth, and has more to do with creating stressful "waste" numbers that keep consultants employed.

---

Not at all lost on semantics and you continue to demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. The percentages are very valid. There is a clear definition of what non value added but needed versus pure waste.

You are really struggling to understand what you google because it is very clear you are getting all this information from searches. Keep digging! I like watching someone errogant taking a hit.

---

Lol, "errogant". I'm just reading your manuals trying to understand your self-evidently ridiculous percentages, like you asked me to.

So you're saying a legally required safety inspection isn't considered an NNVA? You sure you shouldn't read these manuals again?

---

You are reading some six sigma site. Not my manuals. You have not come across my publications yet.

The percentages have been around for decades and are 100% valid.

I have not made any comment on a safety inspection.

You may want to start with what value is and who defines it.

---

Yes, the way you define value is the root of the problem, that is way too cute and allows obviously necessary activities to be considered "waste".

How about instead of strutting around insisting that I google terms I'm already familiar with, which definitely isn't "errogant", why not just address the questions. Or provide a link to your mystical manual that diverts from Lean Six Sigma orthodoxy.

Do you consider a legally required safety inspection "waste" in the context of your cute definition of value?

---

So you have been familiar with all these terms? The book "Lean Thinking" was where I believe I first read about value add, non-value added, and non-value added but necessary.

The definition of value is very straightforward. Of course you know this right? Or should I ask how do you define value?

---

In the context of this excruciating conversation, and in general, using a simplistic customer-centric view of value that allows you to label huge swaths of necessary activities as "waste" is deeply semantic and dishonest.

Saying that companies activities are "OMG 90% waste" is clearly meant to suggest that there is MASSIVE room for cost cutting, when in reality there isn't.

All you've done with this definitely not "errogant" nonsense is try to obfuscate just how damaging tariffs will be for many good companies.

So thanks! Another enlightening Cthepack conversation in the books.

---

So you could not define value and/or you know I am correct.

Value is what the customer is willing to pay for: 5-10% of all activities. The rest is waste.

Of the 90% waste:. 50% of the 90% is pure waste (what you said six sigma said was 85 or 90%, this is not the case) , 40 to 45 % is non value added but needed (can be things more than your safety audit question). You defined it today as pure waste. I corrected you and said I never said it was pure waste but it is waste just necessary to do business.

I will be sending you a bill for this!

---

I'll pay you for the value that you're providing to the customer, which is zero.

In fact, shouldn't you be counseling your clients not to hire you? Waste!

---

Need to invest to get better!

My model is to teach clients to do what I do. I want them to fire me and the sooner the better. My clients love this approach. I leave them with something tangible.

---

Lol, oooooh, so your existence depends on "value" to a company being far more complicated than just what a customer will pay for! Got it!

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

I'm a realist. And the most simple explanation is usually the most likely. Besides, the government can't run **** and you're telling me that they can control this massive scandal? Please.

---

Cthepack told me that 90% of most companies is pure waste. Sounds like the free market can't run **** either.

---

Not once did I say 90% of most companies (activities I assume you mean) is pure waste. 90% of most companies activities are waste.

There is a difference and honestly you are out of you league on this one.

I do work with governement contracts and the waste level is the same. The difference is that public companies can not go to the government and ask for more money when they need it. Lots of governement contracts have been structured this way so if they do not meet the plan they just go get more money from the tax payers.

---

Sorry, in my league they define pure waste like this:

Quote:

---

Pure waste, also known as non-value-added waste, represents activities within a process that do not contribute to the final product or service that the customer is willing to pay for.

---

You're right, "waste" sounds totally different. Maybe someday I'll learn how math works and then I can finally figure out all of your sorcery.

Anyway, sorry... I had said "lol, never mind", and here I am trolling you again.

---

You really do not know what you are talking about.

For information, around 50% of all activities are pure waste. And yes 90% of all activities are waste. Go figure.

Use those numbers to google a little more and you may find out what the other 40% is.

---

Sigh... here's literally the first sentence of the Lean Six Sigma manual:

Quote:

---

In 2025, the brutal truth is that value still hides in the shadows: across industries, fewer than one in ten minutes of process-cycle time actually creates something a customer would pay forthe other 90 % is consumed by waiting, hand-offs, rework and other silent drains on profit. Even organisations already running Lean Six Sigma seldom push process-cycle efficiency beyond 15 %, which means at least 85 % of effort is still pure waste.

---

Lol, never mind.

---

And it is wrong. Google non-value added but needed. And you may start to understand a bit more.

---

Uh huh. As I said, you guys are so lost in semantic b.s. even your guides can't keep it straight.

Like I said at the outset, "Necessary NVA activities" are exactly the part of this system that make all of these percentages suspect. Considering a legally required safety inspection "waste" is a stupid waste of management's bandwidth, and has more to do with creating stressful "waste" numbers that keep consultants employed.

---

Not at all lost on semantics and you continue to demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. The percentages are very valid. There is a clear definition of what non value added but needed versus pure waste.

You are really struggling to understand what you google because it is very clear you are getting all this information from searches. Keep digging! I like watching someone errogant taking a hit.

---

Lol, "errogant". I'm just reading your manuals trying to understand your self-evidently ridiculous percentages, like you asked me to.

So you're saying a legally required safety inspection isn't considered an NNVA? You sure you shouldn't read these manuals again?

---

You are reading some six sigma site. Not my manuals. You have not come across my publications yet.

The percentages have been around for decades and are 100% valid.

I have not made any comment on a safety inspection.

You may want to start with what value is and who defines it.

---

Yes, the way you define value is the root of the problem, that is way too cute and allows obviously necessary activities to be considered "waste".

How about instead of strutting around insisting that I google terms I'm already familiar with, which definitely isn't "errogant", why not just address the questions. Or provide a link to your mystical manual that diverts from Lean Six Sigma orthodoxy.

Do you consider a legally required safety inspection "waste" in the context of your cute definition of value?

---

So you have been familiar with all these terms? The book "Lean Thinking" was where I believe I first read about value add, non-value added, and non-value added but necessary.

The definition of value is very straightforward. Of course you know this right? Or should I ask how do you define value?

---

In the context of this excruciating conversation, and in general, using a simplistic customer-centric view of value that allows you to label huge swaths of necessary activities as "waste" is deeply semantic and dishonest.

Saying that companies activities are "OMG 90% waste" is clearly meant to suggest that there is MASSIVE room for cost cutting, when in reality there isn't.

All you've done with this definitely not "errogant" nonsense is try to obfuscate just how damaging tariffs will be for many good companies.

So thanks! Another enlightening Cthepack conversation in the books.

---

So you could not define value and/or you know I am correct.

Value is what the customer is willing to pay for: 5-10% of all activities. The rest is waste.

Of the 90% waste:. 50% of the 90% is pure waste (what you said six sigma said was 85 or 90%, this is not the case) , 40 to 45 % is non value added but needed (can be things more than your safety audit question). You defined it today as pure waste. I corrected you and said I never said it was pure waste but it is waste just necessary to do business.

I will be sending you a bill for this!

---

I'll pay you for the value that you're providing to the customer, which is zero.

In fact, shouldn't you be counseling your clients not to hire you? Waste!

---

Need to invest to get better!

My model is to teach clients to do what I do. I want them to fire me and the sooner the better. My clients love this approach. I leave them with something tangible.

---

Lol, oooooh, so your existence depends on "value" to a company being far more complicated than just what a customer will pay for! Got it!

---

Honestly, you said you have worked with 1000s of consultants, there was a reason your company or you were looking for them. Or working with them, right?

I am better value for a client as I am not a full time employee and I can get results very quick. The company avoids having to hire someone to either attempt to do what I do or to educate people on what I do.

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

I'm a realist. And the most simple explanation is usually the most likely. Besides, the government can't run **** and you're telling me that they can control this massive scandal? Please.

---

Cthepack told me that 90% of most companies is pure waste. Sounds like the free market can't run **** either.

---

Not once did I say 90% of most companies (activities I assume you mean) is pure waste. 90% of most companies activities are waste.

There is a difference and honestly you are out of you league on this one.

I do work with governement contracts and the waste level is the same. The difference is that public companies can not go to the government and ask for more money when they need it. Lots of governement contracts have been structured this way so if they do not meet the plan they just go get more money from the tax payers.

---

Sorry, in my league they define pure waste like this:

Quote:

---

Pure waste, also known as non-value-added waste, represents activities within a process that do not contribute to the final product or service that the customer is willing to pay for.

---

You're right, "waste" sounds totally different. Maybe someday I'll learn how math works and then I can finally figure out all of your sorcery.

Anyway, sorry... I had said "lol, never mind", and here I am trolling you again.

---

You really do not know what you are talking about.

For information, around 50% of all activities are pure waste. And yes 90% of all activities are waste. Go figure.

Use those numbers to google a little more and you may find out what the other 40% is.

---

Sigh... here's literally the first sentence of the Lean Six Sigma manual:

Quote:

---

In 2025, the brutal truth is that value still hides in the shadows: across industries, fewer than one in ten minutes of process-cycle time actually creates something a customer would pay forthe other 90 % is consumed by waiting, hand-offs, rework and other silent drains on profit. Even organisations already running Lean Six Sigma seldom push process-cycle efficiency beyond 15 %, which means at least 85 % of effort is still pure waste.

---

Lol, never mind.

---

And it is wrong. Google non-value added but needed. And you may start to understand a bit more.

---

Uh huh. As I said, you guys are so lost in semantic b.s. even your guides can't keep it straight.

Like I said at the outset, "Necessary NVA activities" are exactly the part of this system that make all of these percentages suspect. Considering a legally required safety inspection "waste" is a stupid waste of management's bandwidth, and has more to do with creating stressful "waste" numbers that keep consultants employed.

---

Not at all lost on semantics and you continue to demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. The percentages are very valid. There is a clear definition of what non value added but needed versus pure waste.

You are really struggling to understand what you google because it is very clear you are getting all this information from searches. Keep digging! I like watching someone errogant taking a hit.

---

Lol, "errogant". I'm just reading your manuals trying to understand your self-evidently ridiculous percentages, like you asked me to.

So you're saying a legally required safety inspection isn't considered an NNVA? You sure you shouldn't read these manuals again?

---

You are reading some six sigma site. Not my manuals. You have not come across my publications yet.

The percentages have been around for decades and are 100% valid.

I have not made any comment on a safety inspection.

You may want to start with what value is and who defines it.

---

Yes, the way you define value is the root of the problem, that is way too cute and allows obviously necessary activities to be considered "waste".

How about instead of strutting around insisting that I google terms I'm already familiar with, which definitely isn't "errogant", why not just address the questions. Or provide a link to your mystical manual that diverts from Lean Six Sigma orthodoxy.

Do you consider a legally required safety inspection "waste" in the context of your cute definition of value?

---

So you have been familiar with all these terms? The book "Lean Thinking" was where I believe I first read about value add, non-value added, and non-value added but necessary.

The definition of value is very straightforward. Of course you know this right? Or should I ask how do you define value?

---

In the context of this excruciating conversation, and in general, using a simplistic customer-centric view of value that allows you to label huge swaths of necessary activities as "waste" is deeply semantic and dishonest.

Saying that companies activities are "OMG 90% waste" is clearly meant to suggest that there is MASSIVE room for cost cutting, when in reality there isn't.

All you've done with this definitely not "errogant" nonsense is try to obfuscate just how damaging tariffs will be for many good companies.

So thanks! Another enlightening Cthepack conversation in the books.

---

So you could not define value and/or you know I am correct.

Value is what the customer is willing to pay for: 5-10% of all activities. The rest is waste.

Of the 90% waste:. 50% of the 90% is pure waste (what you said six sigma said was 85 or 90%, this is not the case) , 40 to 45 % is non value added but needed (can be things more than your safety audit question). You defined it today as pure waste. I corrected you and said I never said it was pure waste but it is waste just necessary to do business.

I will be sending you a bill for this!

---

I'll pay you for the value that you're providing to the customer, which is zero.

In fact, shouldn't you be counseling your clients not to hire you? Waste!

---

Need to invest to get better!

My model is to teach clients to do what I do. I want them to fire me and the sooner the better. My clients love this approach. I leave them with something tangible.

---

Lol, oooooh, so your existence depends on "value" to a company being far more complicated than just what a customer will pay for! Got it!

---

Honestly, you said you have worked with 1000s of consultants, there was a reason your company or you were looking for them. Or working with them, right?

I am better value for a client as I am not a full time employee and I can get results very quick. The company avoids having to hire someone to either attempt to do what I do or to educate people on what I do.

---

Yes, consultants can be extremely helpful, as long as you learn to wade through consultant speak and find their value. I'm also confident that there is tons of strategic value in a lot of company activities that customers would never pay for.

The entire point of this eye rolling exercise was to point out that you should stick to the valuable cost savings you can provide and not get caught up in semantics that way oversell the value of your system. And derail political conversations.

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

I'm a realist. And the most simple explanation is usually the most likely. Besides, the government can't run **** and you're telling me that they can control this massive scandal? Please.

---

Cthepack told me that 90% of most companies is pure waste. Sounds like the free market can't run **** either.

---

Not once did I say 90% of most companies (activities I assume you mean) is pure waste. 90% of most companies activities are waste.

There is a difference and honestly you are out of you league on this one.

I do work with governement contracts and the waste level is the same. The difference is that public companies can not go to the government and ask for more money when they need it. Lots of governement contracts have been structured this way so if they do not meet the plan they just go get more money from the tax payers.

---

Sorry, in my league they define pure waste like this:

Quote:

---

Pure waste, also known as non-value-added waste, represents activities within a process that do not contribute to the final product or service that the customer is willing to pay for.

---

You're right, "waste" sounds totally different. Maybe someday I'll learn how math works and then I can finally figure out all of your sorcery.

Anyway, sorry... I had said "lol, never mind", and here I am trolling you again.

---

You really do not know what you are talking about.

For information, around 50% of all activities are pure waste. And yes 90% of all activities are waste. Go figure.

Use those numbers to google a little more and you may find out what the other 40% is.

---

Sigh... here's literally the first sentence of the Lean Six Sigma manual:

Quote:

---

In 2025, the brutal truth is that value still hides in the shadows: across industries, fewer than one in ten minutes of process-cycle time actually creates something a customer would pay forthe other 90 % is consumed by waiting, hand-offs, rework and other silent drains on profit. Even organisations already running Lean Six Sigma seldom push process-cycle efficiency beyond 15 %, which means at least 85 % of effort is still pure waste.

---

Lol, never mind.

---

And it is wrong. Google non-value added but needed. And you may start to understand a bit more.

---

Uh huh. As I said, you guys are so lost in semantic b.s. even your guides can't keep it straight.

Like I said at the outset, "Necessary NVA activities" are exactly the part of this system that make all of these percentages suspect. Considering a legally required safety inspection "waste" is a stupid waste of management's bandwidth, and has more to do with creating stressful "waste" numbers that keep consultants employed.

---

Not at all lost on semantics and you continue to demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. The percentages are very valid. There is a clear definition of what non value added but needed versus pure waste.

You are really struggling to understand what you google because it is very clear you are getting all this information from searches. Keep digging! I like watching someone errogant taking a hit.

---

Lol, "errogant". I'm just reading your manuals trying to understand your self-evidently ridiculous percentages, like you asked me to.

So you're saying a legally required safety inspection isn't considered an NNVA? You sure you shouldn't read these manuals again?

---

You are reading some six sigma site. Not my manuals. You have not come across my publications yet.

The percentages have been around for decades and are 100% valid.

I have not made any comment on a safety inspection.

You may want to start with what value is and who defines it.

---

Yes, the way you define value is the root of the problem, that is way too cute and allows obviously necessary activities to be considered "waste".

How about instead of strutting around insisting that I google terms I'm already familiar with, which definitely isn't "errogant", why not just address the questions. Or provide a link to your mystical manual that diverts from Lean Six Sigma orthodoxy.

Do you consider a legally required safety inspection "waste" in the context of your cute definition of value?

---

So you have been familiar with all these terms? The book "Lean Thinking" was where I believe I first read about value add, non-value added, and non-value added but necessary.

The definition of value is very straightforward. Of course you know this right? Or should I ask how do you define value?

---

In the context of this excruciating conversation, and in general, using a simplistic customer-centric view of value that allows you to label huge swaths of necessary activities as "waste" is deeply semantic and dishonest.

Saying that companies activities are "OMG 90% waste" is clearly meant to suggest that there is MASSIVE room for cost cutting, when in reality there isn't.

All you've done with this definitely not "errogant" nonsense is try to obfuscate just how damaging tariffs will be for many good companies.

So thanks! Another enlightening Cthepack conversation in the books.

---

So you could not define value and/or you know I am correct.

Value is what the customer is willing to pay for: 5-10% of all activities. The rest is waste.

Of the 90% waste:. 50% of the 90% is pure waste (what you said six sigma said was 85 or 90%, this is not the case) , 40 to 45 % is non value added but needed (can be things more than your safety audit question). You defined it today as pure waste. I corrected you and said I never said it was pure waste but it is waste just necessary to do business.

I will be sending you a bill for this!

---

I'll pay you for the value that you're providing to the customer, which is zero.

In fact, shouldn't you be counseling your clients not to hire you? Waste!

---

Need to invest to get better!

My model is to teach clients to do what I do. I want them to fire me and the sooner the better. My clients love this approach. I leave them with something tangible.

---

Lol, oooooh, so your existence depends on "value" to a company being far more complicated than just what a customer will pay for! Got it!

---

Honestly, you said you have worked with 1000s of consultants, there was a reason your company or you were looking for them. Or working with them, right?

I am better value for a client as I am not a full time employee and I can get results very quick. The company avoids having to hire someone to either attempt to do what I do or to educate people on what I do.

---

Yes, consultants can be extremely helpful, as long as you learn to wade through consultant speak and find their value. I'm also confident that there is tons of strategic value in a lot of company activities that a customers would never pay for.

The entire point of this eye rolling exercise was to point out that you should stick to the valuable cost savings you can provide and not get caught up in semantics that way oversell the value of your system. And derail political conversations.

---

So you were coaching me. Thanks! Good news is I can quanitfy my value.

BTW what do you do for a living?

And this is:

The damning email obtained by King Solomon.

In a stunning exchange, CIA Director Mike Morell turns to fellow Director John Brennan and asks if he would join in toppling the United States government during the November 3, 2020 election. Brennan not only agrees—but… https://t.co/7c7oesujeo pic.twitter.com/wsfj2zsrUH

— 🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸 (@Real_RobN) July 16, 2025

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

I'm a realist. And the most simple explanation is usually the most likely. Besides, the government can't run **** and you're telling me that they can control this massive scandal? Please.

---

Cthepack told me that 90% of most companies is pure waste. Sounds like the free market can't run **** either.

---

Not once did I say 90% of most companies (activities I assume you mean) is pure waste. 90% of most companies activities are waste.

There is a difference and honestly you are out of you league on this one.

I do work with governement contracts and the waste level is the same. The difference is that public companies can not go to the government and ask for more money when they need it. Lots of governement contracts have been structured this way so if they do not meet the plan they just go get more money from the tax payers.

---

Sorry, in my league they define pure waste like this:

Quote:

---

Pure waste, also known as non-value-added waste, represents activities within a process that do not contribute to the final product or service that the customer is willing to pay for.

---

You're right, "waste" sounds totally different. Maybe someday I'll learn how math works and then I can finally figure out all of your sorcery.

Anyway, sorry... I had said "lol, never mind", and here I am trolling you again.

---

You really do not know what you are talking about.

For information, around 50% of all activities are pure waste. And yes 90% of all activities are waste. Go figure.

Use those numbers to google a little more and you may find out what the other 40% is.

---

Sigh... here's literally the first sentence of the Lean Six Sigma manual:

Quote:

---

In 2025, the brutal truth is that value still hides in the shadows: across industries, fewer than one in ten minutes of process-cycle time actually creates something a customer would pay forthe other 90 % is consumed by waiting, hand-offs, rework and other silent drains on profit. Even organisations already running Lean Six Sigma seldom push process-cycle efficiency beyond 15 %, which means at least 85 % of effort is still pure waste.

---

Lol, never mind.

---

And it is wrong. Google non-value added but needed. And you may start to understand a bit more.

---

Uh huh. As I said, you guys are so lost in semantic b.s. even your guides can't keep it straight.

Like I said at the outset, "Necessary NVA activities" are exactly the part of this system that make all of these percentages suspect. Considering a legally required safety inspection "waste" is a stupid waste of management's bandwidth, and has more to do with creating stressful "waste" numbers that keep consultants employed.

---

Not at all lost on semantics and you continue to demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. The percentages are very valid. There is a clear definition of what non value added but needed versus pure waste.

You are really struggling to understand what you google because it is very clear you are getting all this information from searches. Keep digging! I like watching someone errogant taking a hit.

---

Lol, "errogant". I'm just reading your manuals trying to understand your self-evidently ridiculous percentages, like you asked me to.

So you're saying a legally required safety inspection isn't considered an NNVA? You sure you shouldn't read these manuals again?

---

You are reading some six sigma site. Not my manuals. You have not come across my publications yet.

The percentages have been around for decades and are 100% valid.

I have not made any comment on a safety inspection.

You may want to start with what value is and who defines it.

---

Yes, the way you define value is the root of the problem, that is way too cute and allows obviously necessary activities to be considered "waste".

How about instead of strutting around insisting that I google terms I'm already familiar with, which definitely isn't "errogant", why not just address the questions. Or provide a link to your mystical manual that diverts from Lean Six Sigma orthodoxy.

Do you consider a legally required safety inspection "waste" in the context of your cute definition of value?

---

So you have been familiar with all these terms? The book "Lean Thinking" was where I believe I first read about value add, non-value added, and non-value added but necessary.

The definition of value is very straightforward. Of course you know this right? Or should I ask how do you define value?

---

In the context of this excruciating conversation, and in general, using a simplistic customer-centric view of value that allows you to label huge swaths of necessary activities as "waste" is deeply semantic and dishonest.

Saying that companies activities are "OMG 90% waste" is clearly meant to suggest that there is MASSIVE room for cost cutting, when in reality there isn't.

All you've done with this definitely not "errogant" nonsense is try to obfuscate just how damaging tariffs will be for many good companies.

So thanks! Another enlightening Cthepack conversation in the books.

---

So you could not define value and/or you know I am correct.

Value is what the customer is willing to pay for: 5-10% of all activities. The rest is waste.

Of the 90% waste:. 50% of the 90% is pure waste (what you said six sigma said was 85 or 90%, this is not the case) , 40 to 45 % is non value added but needed (can be things more than your safety audit question). You defined it today as pure waste. I corrected you and said I never said it was pure waste but it is waste just necessary to do business.

I will be sending you a bill for this!

---

I'll pay you for the value that you're providing to the customer, which is zero.

In fact, shouldn't you be counseling your clients not to hire you? Waste!

---

Need to invest to get better!

My model is to teach clients to do what I do. I want them to fire me and the sooner the better. My clients love this approach. I leave them with something tangible.

---

Lol, oooooh, so your existence depends on "value" to a company being far more complicated than just what a customer will pay for! Got it!

---

Honestly, you said you have worked with 1000s of consultants, there was a reason your company or you were looking for them. Or working with them, right?

I am better value for a client as I am not a full time employee and I can get results very quick. The company avoids having to hire someone to either attempt to do what I do or to educate people on what I do.

---

Yes, consultants can be extremely helpful, as long as you learn to wade through consultant speak and find their value. I'm also confident that there is tons of strategic value in a lot of company activities that a customers would never pay for.

The entire point of this eye rolling exercise was to point out that you should stick to the valuable cost savings you can provide and not get caught up in semantics that way oversell the value of your system. And derail political conversations.

---

So you were coaching me. Thanks! Good news is I can quanitfy my value.

BTW what do you do for a living?

---

Software engineer by trade. As Cary would love to tell you, I used to work at Lehman Brothers. Got out a couple years before Wall Street imploded in 2008. Most recently was CTO of an analytics startup.

Full text of above X URL:

Today, the DOJ FIRED Maurene Comey from the United States Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York.

She is the daughter of former disgraced FBI Director James @Comey
.

This comes 2 months after my pressure campaign on Pam Blondi to fire Comey's daughter and Comey's son in law from the DOJ.

Maurene Comey's husband is Lucas Issacharoff. As I previously reported, he works at the current Trump DOJ, despite a long history being a Trump hater.

He is the Assistant U.S. Attorney in SDNY, working in the Civil Division since 2019.

No word yet on whether or not he was also fired today, but he should be!

+1 for Blondi today!

🚨BREAKING: Massive Fire Breaks Out Inside Area 51

"A fire has broken out inside the boundaries of Area 51 and our cameras are capturing it in real time.
This livestream is operated from private property overlooking the Area 51 perimeter near Rachel, NV. Watch day and night as… pic.twitter.com/HfL16SED8w

— Skywatch Signal (@UAPWatchers) July 16, 2025

caryking said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

jkpackfan said:

---

caryking said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Well that's weird. House Dems just tried to add an amendment to a bill to force the full release of the Epstein files, and the House Republicans blocked it. Why would they do that?

Just kidding. Obviously it's a lose/lose for Trump. Either there's something in the files and he goes to jail for diddling a 15 year old, or there's nothing in the files and MAGA suddenly realizes that their entire world is a lie.

https://www.axios.com/2025/07/15/trump-epstein-khanna-doj-democrats-republicans

---

Or maybe hold that card for when we might need it?

---

Lol, so that's the talking point they came up with? You really will gobble up anything they fling at the wall.

Even though Trump finally has a puppet running the Justice Department, now isn't a good time? Lol, when you "might need it"? What are you even talking about?

---

I'll give a take on this…

the Epstein issue could tank Trump, from getting more of his agenda done. I just listened to Mark Mitchell, from Rasmussen Polling. The cross-tabs on his polling is pounding Trumps approval rating. People from both parties are not buying that latest debacle the administration has done.

one of the key cross-tabs was about elites getting away with a perceived crime. Both parties are at about the same percentage with their frustration.

People don't like the way this has been handled. This has appeared to be handled like any other recent president, so, in general Trumps polling is plummeting.

Now, Smapty, please don't take your shots at me or Trump. I'm here saying that this has been an unforced error by the administration. So, what do they do about this?

Just this past week Dan Bongino has threatened to leave the administration, based on how this has been handled, it appears. It appears as if Bongino was trotted out to talk about this issue, only to come out, with Kash, and say…. There isn't anything there. Then, that memo was released, not signed by anyone (imagine that).

So, yes!!! This admin has fumbled this one big time, in my opinion!

---

IF there was any evidence that Trump had been on that island and was on the "list" (if there even is one) democrats would've used this years ago to prevent him from being president again. We're supposed to believe they would sit on something like this? Zero chance.

---

Unless prominent Democrat(s) are on it too.

Both Presidents/parties could be opting for something other than mutually assured destruction.

But yeah I agree the far more likely scenario is either there is no list or if there is one it's far less salacious than the conspiracy sharks have been hoping for.

---

I listened to a guy last night saying: the DOJ might not have much more information. He thinks, because of the supposed understanding, that Epstein was an asset for another country, the CIA will have all the information. Meaning Tulsi Gabbard has the real information that will tell us everything.

---

how about there just isn't any more information? Again, criminals usually don't make records of their criminal activities.

Also, do you guys ever think that Epstein just wanted to use these folks as cover, rather than everyone who is rich and everyone in government is a pedophile? What sounds most likely?

Same with Epstein being a Mossad agent. All Jews are Mossad agents! If you're going to have a honey pot sting, there are far easier ways to do such things than trying to lure really smart people into pedophilia.

Here's what I think, the two perpetrators of these horrific crimes were convicted and one is dead and one is in jail. Is there a possibility of someone else being involved? Maybe maybe not. But I find it hard to believe that all these people coming to his island and flying on his plane and Wu h pilots, stewardesses, caterers, housekeepers, gardeners, the pool guy, none of them have come forward with anyone doing something nefarious with Epstein.

Reality is you guys were snookers by grifters who live off your clicks to get wealthy and you have fallen for it over and over and over and over again.

Epstein and that lady are evil, they paid for their heinous acts. Trump is right this is all a big nothing.

---

You're lazy...

---

Trump told a reporter the other day:

Quote:

---

"I don't understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody, it's pretty boring stuff. It's sordid, but it's boring, and I don't understand why it keeps going. I think really only pretty bad people, including fake news, want to keep something like that going."

---

Sorry man... Trump just tossed you, Werewolf, and the rest of MAGA under the garbage truck!

---

There're lazy and you're just dumb as ****!!!

Trump didn't do anything but want to move the conversation somewhere else, which I get. I would too…

That said, and as I've said…. They fumbled this one big time. Now, whether there is more information or not, and none of you stupid asses know, including me, the admin handled this poorly!

That's all I said in my initial reply.

Unfortunately, for the world, in general, people like you have a tendency to **** up a good society. Go back to NYC with your ilk and potential new mayor. You belong with those people.

---

Apparently you didn't read today's Truth where Trump just disowned any MAGA people who think there is "more information" and called you weaklings.

---

Again, this shows how dumb as **** you are…

As I said above was, you and no one else knows what information the DOJ and/or the FBI has. All I said is that the Trump Admin fumbled the hell out of this. Nothing about what Trump tweeted/thruthed changes my opinion.

Now, is this going to be the first time "You" believe what Trump is saying?

---

I mean, aside from how wild it is that he's going completely alpha dog on his base, you have to admit it's a little weird that Trump's Justice Department is insisting that there's nothing there and he keeps interrupting them them to insist that he was framed.

Dear Leader works in mysterious ways!

Biden admin and NGOs.

Clay Higgins…. NGO’s and their employees be prepared to find yourselves in orange jumpsuits…

I certainly hope so. The Trump
admin has already rescued 35,000 trafficked children who are being interviewed and recorded for future charges against their traffickers. pic.twitter.com/5Kj5iVKdL7

— Sue Knows Best (@sues86453) July 16, 2025

🚨 HOLY CRAP! Stephen Miller reveals there have already been over 1 MILLION self deportations

He also sends an ultimatum to illegals, saying they face:

◼️ Sudden Arrest
◼️ Sudden Deportation
◼️ Wage Garnishment
◼️ Loss of property
◼️ Incarceration
◼️ Imprisonment for… pic.twitter.com/qKwqgzqVmN

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) July 17, 2025

A shocking report this week revealed that Microsoft has been using engineers in China to help maintain the Defense Department’s computer systems for nearly a decade.

This is a massive national security risk, and @Microsoft needs to end these operations immediately.

— Sen. Marsha Blackburn (@MarshaBlackburn) July 16, 2025

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

jkpackfan said:

---

caryking said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Well that's weird. House Dems just tried to add an amendment to a bill to force the full release of the Epstein files, and the House Republicans blocked it. Why would they do that?

Just kidding. Obviously it's a lose/lose for Trump. Either there's something in the files and he goes to jail for diddling a 15 year old, or there's nothing in the files and MAGA suddenly realizes that their entire world is a lie.

https://www.axios.com/2025/07/15/trump-epstein-khanna-doj-democrats-republicans

---

Or maybe hold that card for when we might need it?

---

Lol, so that's the talking point they came up with? You really will gobble up anything they fling at the wall.

Even though Trump finally has a puppet running the Justice Department, now isn't a good time? Lol, when you "might need it"? What are you even talking about?

---

I'll give a take on this…

the Epstein issue could tank Trump, from getting more of his agenda done. I just listened to Mark Mitchell, from Rasmussen Polling. The cross-tabs on his polling is pounding Trumps approval rating. People from both parties are not buying that latest debacle the administration has done.

one of the key cross-tabs was about elites getting away with a perceived crime. Both parties are at about the same percentage with their frustration.

People don't like the way this has been handled. This has appeared to be handled like any other recent president, so, in general Trumps polling is plummeting.

Now, Smapty, please don't take your shots at me or Trump. I'm here saying that this has been an unforced error by the administration. So, what do they do about this?

Just this past week Dan Bongino has threatened to leave the administration, based on how this has been handled, it appears. It appears as if Bongino was trotted out to talk about this issue, only to come out, with Kash, and say…. There isn't anything there. Then, that memo was released, not signed by anyone (imagine that).

So, yes!!! This admin has fumbled this one big time, in my opinion!

---

IF there was any evidence that Trump had been on that island and was on the "list" (if there even is one) democrats would've used this years ago to prevent him from being president again. We're supposed to believe they would sit on something like this? Zero chance.

---

Unless prominent Democrat(s) are on it too.

Both Presidents/parties could be opting for something other than mutually assured destruction.

But yeah I agree the far more likely scenario is either there is no list or if there is one it's far less salacious than the conspiracy sharks have been hoping for.

---

I listened to a guy last night saying: the DOJ might not have much more information. He thinks, because of the supposed understanding, that Epstein was an asset for another country, the CIA will have all the information. Meaning Tulsi Gabbard has the real information that will tell us everything.

---

how about there just isn't any more information? Again, criminals usually don't make records of their criminal activities.

Also, do you guys ever think that Epstein just wanted to use these folks as cover, rather than everyone who is rich and everyone in government is a pedophile? What sounds most likely?

Same with Epstein being a Mossad agent. All Jews are Mossad agents! If you're going to have a honey pot sting, there are far easier ways to do such things than trying to lure really smart people into pedophilia.

Here's what I think, the two perpetrators of these horrific crimes were convicted and one is dead and one is in jail. Is there a possibility of someone else being involved? Maybe maybe not. But I find it hard to believe that all these people coming to his island and flying on his plane and Wu h pilots, stewardesses, caterers, housekeepers, gardeners, the pool guy, none of them have come forward with anyone doing something nefarious with Epstein.

Reality is you guys were snookers by grifters who live off your clicks to get wealthy and you have fallen for it over and over and over and over again.

Epstein and that lady are evil, they paid for their heinous acts. Trump is right this is all a big nothing.

---

You're lazy...

---

Trump told a reporter the other day:

Quote:

---

"I don't understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody, it's pretty boring stuff. It's sordid, but it's boring, and I don't understand why it keeps going. I think really only pretty bad people, including fake news, want to keep something like that going."

---

Sorry man... Trump just tossed you, Werewolf, and the rest of MAGA under the garbage truck!

---

There're lazy and you're just dumb as ****!!!

Trump didn't do anything but want to move the conversation somewhere else, which I get. I would too…

That said, and as I've said…. They fumbled this one big time. Now, whether there is more information or not, and none of you stupid asses know, including me, the admin handled this poorly!

That's all I said in my initial reply.

Unfortunately, for the world, in general, people like you have a tendency to **** up a good society. Go back to NYC with your ilk and potential new mayor. You belong with those people.

---

Apparently you didn't read today's Truth where Trump just disowned any MAGA people who think there is "more information" and called you weaklings.

---

Again, this shows how dumb as **** you are…

As I said above was, you and no one else knows what information the DOJ and/or the FBI has. All I said is that the Trump Admin fumbled the hell out of this. Nothing about what Trump tweeted/thruthed changes my opinion.

Now, is this going to be the first time "You" believe what Trump is saying?

---

I mean, aside from how wild it is that he's going completely alpha dog on his base, you have to admit it's a little weird that Trump's Justice Department is insisting that there's nothing there and he keeps interrupting them them to insist that he was framed.

Dear Leader works in mysterious ways!

---

Nothing there…. That must mean Epstein was about to be released, instead, he chose to hang himself so that the lady would get 20 years. The lady gets 20 years for what? Nothing?

Again, I have no idea, neither do you, that anything more than what we know is there…

it would be fascinating where the lady was getting all those girls, including the one that killed herself several weeks ago. You know, the one that was in a picture with the Prince…

That said… I will repeat myself! The admin had handled this poorly and it's not going away. This self-inflicted debacle is affecting his polling numbers. Why does that matter? The mid-terms!

I believe Trump has had good start; however, he is blowing this one. I guess a Special Council appointment will call off the dogs…

I wonder how loud it’ll get if Trump could pull this off. It will be interesting.
President Trump is asking everyone to share this, in three days, most people in the United States will have seen the message. This is an idea that should be passed around, regardless of political…

— Old Salty Marine (@BamaSaltyMarine) July 17, 2025

Beware of the US Senate's Genuis Act re Central Bank digital currency.

BOOM

House passes bill banning the Federal Reserve from establishing a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)

CBDC is one of the greatest threats to our freedom b/c the gov’t could track every dollar you spend and even “turn off” your money pic.twitter.com/zY2aXdlwPT

— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) May 23, 2024

Werewolf said:

---

Beware of the US Senate's Genuis Act re Central Bank digital currency.bse

BOOM

House passes bill banning the Federal Reserve from establishing a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)

CBDC is one of the greatest threats to our freedom b/c the gov’t could track every dollar you spend and even “turn off” your money pic.twitter.com/zY2aXdlwPT

— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) May 23, 2024

---

Heavily regulated stablecoins are just a backdoor CBDC and that HAS been legalized via the GENIUS Act. The holdouts who finally voted for it after meeting with Trump should have inserted an amendment making cash availability a stricture such that the Act becomes invalid in the event that ready cash availability is done away with.

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

I'm a realist. And the most simple explanation is usually the most likely. Besides, the government can't run **** and you're telling me that they can control this massive scandal? Please.

---

Cthepack told me that 90% of most companies is pure waste. Sounds like the free market can't run **** either.

---

Not once did I say 90% of most companies (activities I assume you mean) is pure waste. 90% of most companies activities are waste.

There is a difference and honestly you are out of you league on this one.

I do work with governement contracts and the waste level is the same. The difference is that public companies can not go to the government and ask for more money when they need it. Lots of governement contracts have been structured this way so if they do not meet the plan they just go get more money from the tax payers.

---

Sorry, in my league they define pure waste like this:

Quote:

---

Pure waste, also known as non-value-added waste, represents activities within a process that do not contribute to the final product or service that the customer is willing to pay for.

---

You're right, "waste" sounds totally different. Maybe someday I'll learn how math works and then I can finally figure out all of your sorcery.

Anyway, sorry... I had said "lol, never mind", and here I am trolling you again.

---

You really do not know what you are talking about.

For information, around 50% of all activities are pure waste. And yes 90% of all activities are waste. Go figure.

Use those numbers to google a little more and you may find out what the other 40% is.

---

Sigh... here's literally the first sentence of the Lean Six Sigma manual:

Quote:

---

In 2025, the brutal truth is that value still hides in the shadows: across industries, fewer than one in ten minutes of process-cycle time actually creates something a customer would pay forthe other 90 % is consumed by waiting, hand-offs, rework and other silent drains on profit. Even organisations already running Lean Six Sigma seldom push process-cycle efficiency beyond 15 %, which means at least 85 % of effort is still pure waste.

---

Lol, never mind.

---

And it is wrong. Google non-value added but needed. And you may start to understand a bit more.

---

Uh huh. As I said, you guys are so lost in semantic b.s. even your guides can't keep it straight.

Like I said at the outset, "Necessary NVA activities" are exactly the part of this system that make all of these percentages suspect. Considering a legally required safety inspection "waste" is a stupid waste of management's bandwidth, and has more to do with creating stressful "waste" numbers that keep consultants employed.

---

Not at all lost on semantics and you continue to demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. The percentages are very valid. There is a clear definition of what non value added but needed versus pure waste.

You are really struggling to understand what you google because it is very clear you are getting all this information from searches. Keep digging! I like watching someone errogant taking a hit.

---

Lol, "errogant". I'm just reading your manuals trying to understand your self-evidently ridiculous percentages, like you asked me to.

So you're saying a legally required safety inspection isn't considered an NNVA? You sure you shouldn't read these manuals again?

---

You are reading some six sigma site. Not my manuals. You have not come across my publications yet.

The percentages have been around for decades and are 100% valid.

I have not made any comment on a safety inspection.

You may want to start with what value is and who defines it.

---

Yes, the way you define value is the root of the problem, that is way too cute and allows obviously necessary activities to be considered "waste".

How about instead of strutting around insisting that I google terms I'm already familiar with, which definitely isn't "errogant", why not just address the questions. Or provide a link to your mystical manual that diverts from Lean Six Sigma orthodoxy.

Do you consider a legally required safety inspection "waste" in the context of your cute definition of value?

---

So you have been familiar with all these terms? The book "Lean Thinking" was where I believe I first read about value add, non-value added, and non-value added but necessary.

The definition of value is very straightforward. Of course you know this right? Or should I ask how do you define value?

---

In the context of this excruciating conversation, and in general, using a simplistic customer-centric view of value that allows you to label huge swaths of necessary activities as "waste" is deeply semantic and dishonest.

Saying that companies activities are "OMG 90% waste" is clearly meant to suggest that there is MASSIVE room for cost cutting, when in reality there isn't.

All you've done with this definitely not "errogant" nonsense is try to obfuscate just how damaging tariffs will be for many good companies.

So thanks! Another enlightening Cthepack conversation in the books.

---

So you could not define value and/or you know I am correct.

Value is what the customer is willing to pay for: 5-10% of all activities. The rest is waste.

Of the 90% waste:. 50% of the 90% is pure waste (what you said six sigma said was 85 or 90%, this is not the case) , 40 to 45 % is non value added but needed (can be things more than your safety audit question). You defined it today as pure waste. I corrected you and said I never said it was pure waste but it is waste just necessary to do business.

I will be sending you a bill for this!

---

I'll pay you for the value that you're providing to the customer, which is zero.

In fact, shouldn't you be counseling your clients not to hire you? Waste!

---

Need to invest to get better!

My model is to teach clients to do what I do. I want them to fire me and the sooner the better. My clients love this approach. I leave them with something tangible.

---

Lol, oooooh, so your existence depends on "value" to a company being far more complicated than just what a customer will pay for! Got it!

---

Honestly, you said you have worked with 1000s of consultants, there was a reason your company or you were looking for them. Or working with them, right?

I am better value for a client as I am not a full time employee and I can get results very quick. The company avoids having to hire someone to either attempt to do what I do or to educate people on what I do.

---

Yes, consultants can be extremely helpful, as long as you learn to wade through consultant speak and find their value. I'm also confident that there is tons of strategic value in a lot of company activities that a customers would never pay for.

The entire point of this eye rolling exercise was to point out that you should stick to the valuable cost savings you can provide and not get caught up in semantics that way oversell the value of your system. And derail political conversations.

---

So you were coaching me. Thanks! Good news is I can quanitfy my value.

BTW what do you do for a living?

---

Software engineer by trade. As Cary would love to tell you, I used to work at Lehman Brothers. Got out a couple years before Wall Street imploded in 2008. Most recently was CTO of an analytics startup.

---

Boring life

Gulfstream4 said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

I'm a realist. And the most simple explanation is usually the most likely. Besides, the government can't run **** and you're telling me that they can control this massive scandal? Please.

---

Cthepack told me that 90% of most companies is pure waste. Sounds like the free market can't run **** either.

---

Not once did I say 90% of most companies (activities I assume you mean) is pure waste. 90% of most companies activities are waste.

There is a difference and honestly you are out of you league on this one.

I do work with governement contracts and the waste level is the same. The difference is that public companies can not go to the government and ask for more money when they need it. Lots of governement contracts have been structured this way so if they do not meet the plan they just go get more money from the tax payers.

---

Sorry, in my league they define pure waste like this:

Quote:

---

Pure waste, also known as non-value-added waste, represents activities within a process that do not contribute to the final product or service that the customer is willing to pay for.

---

You're right, "waste" sounds totally different. Maybe someday I'll learn how math works and then I can finally figure out all of your sorcery.

Anyway, sorry... I had said "lol, never mind", and here I am trolling you again.

---

You really do not know what you are talking about.

For information, around 50% of all activities are pure waste. And yes 90% of all activities are waste. Go figure.

Use those numbers to google a little more and you may find out what the other 40% is.

---

Sigh... here's literally the first sentence of the Lean Six Sigma manual:

Quote:

---

In 2025, the brutal truth is that value still hides in the shadows: across industries, fewer than one in ten minutes of process-cycle time actually creates something a customer would pay forthe other 90 % is consumed by waiting, hand-offs, rework and other silent drains on profit. Even organisations already running Lean Six Sigma seldom push process-cycle efficiency beyond 15 %, which means at least 85 % of effort is still pure waste.

---

Lol, never mind.

---

And it is wrong. Google non-value added but needed. And you may start to understand a bit more.

---

Uh huh. As I said, you guys are so lost in semantic b.s. even your guides can't keep it straight.

Like I said at the outset, "Necessary NVA activities" are exactly the part of this system that make all of these percentages suspect. Considering a legally required safety inspection "waste" is a stupid waste of management's bandwidth, and has more to do with creating stressful "waste" numbers that keep consultants employed.

---

Not at all lost on semantics and you continue to demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. The percentages are very valid. There is a clear definition of what non value added but needed versus pure waste.

You are really struggling to understand what you google because it is very clear you are getting all this information from searches. Keep digging! I like watching someone errogant taking a hit.

---

Lol, "errogant". I'm just reading your manuals trying to understand your self-evidently ridiculous percentages, like you asked me to.

So you're saying a legally required safety inspection isn't considered an NNVA? You sure you shouldn't read these manuals again?

---

You are reading some six sigma site. Not my manuals. You have not come across my publications yet.

The percentages have been around for decades and are 100% valid.

I have not made any comment on a safety inspection.

You may want to start with what value is and who defines it.

---

Yes, the way you define value is the root of the problem, that is way too cute and allows obviously necessary activities to be considered "waste".

How about instead of strutting around insisting that I google terms I'm already familiar with, which definitely isn't "errogant", why not just address the questions. Or provide a link to your mystical manual that diverts from Lean Six Sigma orthodoxy.

Do you consider a legally required safety inspection "waste" in the context of your cute definition of value?

---

So you have been familiar with all these terms? The book "Lean Thinking" was where I believe I first read about value add, non-value added, and non-value added but necessary.

The definition of value is very straightforward. Of course you know this right? Or should I ask how do you define value?

---

In the context of this excruciating conversation, and in general, using a simplistic customer-centric view of value that allows you to label huge swaths of necessary activities as "waste" is deeply semantic and dishonest.

Saying that companies activities are "OMG 90% waste" is clearly meant to suggest that there is MASSIVE room for cost cutting, when in reality there isn't.

All you've done with this definitely not "errogant" nonsense is try to obfuscate just how damaging tariffs will be for many good companies.

So thanks! Another enlightening Cthepack conversation in the books.

---

So you could not define value and/or you know I am correct.

Value is what the customer is willing to pay for: 5-10% of all activities. The rest is waste.

Of the 90% waste:. 50% of the 90% is pure waste (what you said six sigma said was 85 or 90%, this is not the case) , 40 to 45 % is non value added but needed (can be things more than your safety audit question). You defined it today as pure waste. I corrected you and said I never said it was pure waste but it is waste just necessary to do business.

I will be sending you a bill for this!

---

I'll pay you for the value that you're providing to the customer, which is zero.

In fact, shouldn't you be counseling your clients not to hire you? Waste!

---

Need to invest to get better!

My model is to teach clients to do what I do. I want them to fire me and the sooner the better. My clients love this approach. I leave them with something tangible.

---

Lol, oooooh, so your existence depends on "value" to a company being far more complicated than just what a customer will pay for! Got it!

---

Honestly, you said you have worked with 1000s of consultants, there was a reason your company or you were looking for them. Or working with them, right?

I am better value for a client as I am not a full time employee and I can get results very quick. The company avoids having to hire someone to either attempt to do what I do or to educate people on what I do.

---

Yes, consultants can be extremely helpful, as long as you learn to wade through consultant speak and find their value. I'm also confident that there is tons of strategic value in a lot of company activities that a customers would never pay for.

The entire point of this eye rolling exercise was to point out that you should stick to the valuable cost savings you can provide and not get caught up in semantics that way oversell the value of your system. And derail political conversations.

---

So you were coaching me. Thanks! Good news is I can quanitfy my value.

BTW what do you do for a living?

---

Software engineer by trade. As Cary would love to tell you, I used to work at Lehman Brothers. Got out a couple years before Wall Street imploded in 2008. Most recently was CTO of an analytics startup.

---

Boring life

---

Lol, if you say so.

Of course, we can't all be flying bus drivers.

Gulfstream4 said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

I'm a realist. And the most simple explanation is usually the most likely. Besides, the government can't run **** and you're telling me that they can control this massive scandal? Please.

---

Cthepack told me that 90% of most companies is pure waste. Sounds like the free market can't run **** either.

---

Not once did I say 90% of most companies (activities I assume you mean) is pure waste. 90% of most companies activities are waste.

There is a difference and honestly you are out of you league on this one.

I do work with governement contracts and the waste level is the same. The difference is that public companies can not go to the government and ask for more money when they need it. Lots of governement contracts have been structured this way so if they do not meet the plan they just go get more money from the tax payers.

---

Sorry, in my league they define pure waste like this:

Quote:

---

Pure waste, also known as non-value-added waste, represents activities within a process that do not contribute to the final product or service that the customer is willing to pay for.

---

You're right, "waste" sounds totally different. Maybe someday I'll learn how math works and then I can finally figure out all of your sorcery.

Anyway, sorry... I had said "lol, never mind", and here I am trolling you again.

---

You really do not know what you are talking about.

For information, around 50% of all activities are pure waste. And yes 90% of all activities are waste. Go figure.

Use those numbers to google a little more and you may find out what the other 40% is.

---

Sigh... here's literally the first sentence of the Lean Six Sigma manual:

Quote:

---

In 2025, the brutal truth is that value still hides in the shadows: across industries, fewer than one in ten minutes of process-cycle time actually creates something a customer would pay forthe other 90 % is consumed by waiting, hand-offs, rework and other silent drains on profit. Even organisations already running Lean Six Sigma seldom push process-cycle efficiency beyond 15 %, which means at least 85 % of effort is still pure waste.

---

Lol, never mind.

---

And it is wrong. Google non-value added but needed. And you may start to understand a bit more.

---

Uh huh. As I said, you guys are so lost in semantic b.s. even your guides can't keep it straight.

Like I said at the outset, "Necessary NVA activities" are exactly the part of this system that make all of these percentages suspect. Considering a legally required safety inspection "waste" is a stupid waste of management's bandwidth, and has more to do with creating stressful "waste" numbers that keep consultants employed.

---

Not at all lost on semantics and you continue to demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. The percentages are very valid. There is a clear definition of what non value added but needed versus pure waste.

You are really struggling to understand what you google because it is very clear you are getting all this information from searches. Keep digging! I like watching someone errogant taking a hit.

---

Lol, "errogant". I'm just reading your manuals trying to understand your self-evidently ridiculous percentages, like you asked me to.

So you're saying a legally required safety inspection isn't considered an NNVA? You sure you shouldn't read these manuals again?

---

You are reading some six sigma site. Not my manuals. You have not come across my publications yet.

The percentages have been around for decades and are 100% valid.

I have not made any comment on a safety inspection.

You may want to start with what value is and who defines it.

---

Yes, the way you define value is the root of the problem, that is way too cute and allows obviously necessary activities to be considered "waste".

How about instead of strutting around insisting that I google terms I'm already familiar with, which definitely isn't "errogant", why not just address the questions. Or provide a link to your mystical manual that diverts from Lean Six Sigma orthodoxy.

Do you consider a legally required safety inspection "waste" in the context of your cute definition of value?

---

So you have been familiar with all these terms? The book "Lean Thinking" was where I believe I first read about value add, non-value added, and non-value added but necessary.

The definition of value is very straightforward. Of course you know this right? Or should I ask how do you define value?

---

In the context of this excruciating conversation, and in general, using a simplistic customer-centric view of value that allows you to label huge swaths of necessary activities as "waste" is deeply semantic and dishonest.

Saying that companies activities are "OMG 90% waste" is clearly meant to suggest that there is MASSIVE room for cost cutting, when in reality there isn't.

All you've done with this definitely not "errogant" nonsense is try to obfuscate just how damaging tariffs will be for many good companies.

So thanks! Another enlightening Cthepack conversation in the books.

---

So you could not define value and/or you know I am correct.

Value is what the customer is willing to pay for: 5-10% of all activities. The rest is waste.

Of the 90% waste:. 50% of the 90% is pure waste (what you said six sigma said was 85 or 90%, this is not the case) , 40 to 45 % is non value added but needed (can be things more than your safety audit question). You defined it today as pure waste. I corrected you and said I never said it was pure waste but it is waste just necessary to do business.

I will be sending you a bill for this!

---

I'll pay you for the value that you're providing to the customer, which is zero.

In fact, shouldn't you be counseling your clients not to hire you? Waste!

---

Need to invest to get better!

My model is to teach clients to do what I do. I want them to fire me and the sooner the better. My clients love this approach. I leave them with something tangible.

---

Lol, oooooh, so your existence depends on "value" to a company being far more complicated than just what a customer will pay for! Got it!

---

Honestly, you said you have worked with 1000s of consultants, there was a reason your company or you were looking for them. Or working with them, right?

I am better value for a client as I am not a full time employee and I can get results very quick. The company avoids having to hire someone to either attempt to do what I do or to educate people on what I do.

---

Yes, consultants can be extremely helpful, as long as you learn to wade through consultant speak and find their value. I'm also confident that there is tons of strategic value in a lot of company activities that a customers would never pay for.

The entire point of this eye rolling exercise was to point out that you should stick to the valuable cost savings you can provide and not get caught up in semantics that way oversell the value of your system. And derail political conversations.

---

So you were coaching me. Thanks! Good news is I can quanitfy my value.

BTW what do you do for a living?

---

Software engineer by trade. As Cary would love to tell you, I used to work at Lehman Brothers. Got out a couple years before Wall Street imploded in 2008. Most recently was CTO of an analytics startup.

---

Boring life

---

Lol, if you say so.

Of course, we can't all be flying bus drivers.

---

Haha-bus driver? Iraq, Afghanistan, Mogadishu, West Africa all for Uncle Sam. Part 91 for a wealthy family. Part 135 charter for the rich and famous. Now 777 wide body international. I stopped counting at about 60 different countries. Had different beer, had different food, banged more @$$ near and far, been kicked out of more places and I've forgotten stories of life you'll never be able to tell. I'm sitting in Funchal, Madeira having a cold one and waiting for my orthodontist girlfriend to get off work so we can have dinner by the sea and watch the moon come up.

You: "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation…"

-Thoreau

---

Sounds so cool! Some of us are forced to just travel the world for fun. Uh oh, times up! Time to get back and stare at your autopilot indicator.

BREAKING 🚨 Karoline Leavitt stuns America by announcing Tariff revenues were $113+ Billion 🔥

This “lead to a budget surplus in June for the first time in nearly a decade”

THIS IS HUGE 👏 pic.twitter.com/jMsXRycgPB

— MAGA Voice (@MAGAVoice) July 17, 2025

The US slaps preliminary anti-dumping duties of 93.5% on Chinese graphite imports, key for EV batteries, pushing total tariffs to ~160% amid supply chain battles and clean energy competition.https://t.co/D9xUxSwR1i

— Al Mayadeen English (@MayadeenEnglish) July 17, 2025