(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/21/2004 6:23 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Do I have some sort of "evidence"...?!?! No. But he's already set the
pace and I see no likelyhood he'd get into office then suddenly get a spine.

So it's emotional, not based on objective facts with supporting evidence.

Part emotional, yes, but based on past experience with the Demoncratic
Party.

So it's really not about John Kerry as it is about Democrats vs.
Republicans.

That's not necessarily "wrong" or "right". In the end, what an
election comes down to is "who do you trust more?" Because regardless
of somebody's record, once they're in office it's a matter of trust
because you can't watch every issue and action. And you can't stop
them in time anyway.

That's why folks are/were so ticked off at Clinton and Nixon. They
betrayed the trust.

Do you see the problem?

I do.

I also know Kerry has made public remarks that supported Fonda.

Where? When? What exactly were the remarks?

Someone was a bit creative with a camera...OK...

No, they weren't.

The picture at the Valley Forge VVAW rally is real. (Another photo is
faked, but the one most often seen is real). Kerry is there, three
rows behind Hanoi Jane.

The point is that the surrounding information (date of the picture and
HJ's trip) are left out, and the picture presented as being *after*
that trip, rather than 2 years before.

You fell for it. Many others did, too. That's the problem.

Kerry's words were his own.

Which words?

Remember that when Fonda got back from Hanoi, nobody here really knew
the whole story. It was only when the POWs got back, years later, and
told of what she'd done and the consequences that the whole mess
became public.

Going to Hanoi wasn't the problem, it's what she did there.

He diluted the chain of command.

How, exactly?

By trying to have everyone be IN the pot, that's how.

There can only be so many people "in charge" at one time.

Just like what LBJ did.

Part of the errors that occured in the
Iranian desert were directly the result of White House meddling in what
should have been an military operation.

Agreed.

But there were also errors that were the result of simple human error.

Yes, there were. Letting Jimmy Carter be in charge was one of them.

There were others that had nothing to do with him.

Oh wll...That's democracy.

We live in a republic.

He further diluted the Nation's overt and cover security services with
"warm-fuzzy" Executive Orders that have, to this day, continued to leave
America blind and hog tied.

Carter left office almost a quarter century ago. How could his old orders
continue to cause such problems - particularly since 16 of the intervening
years were those of the Reagan and Bush administrations?

How could one president, in office for only four years, cause so much
trouble?

Indeed. Ask any Southerner the same question.

It wasn't Lincoln who fired on Fort Sumter.

You lived through the 70's...Jimmy Carter's economics and political
decisions almost bankrupted this nation, both financially and in fact.

Nope.

Carter was the inheritor of what his predecessors hadn't dealt with:

LBJ started the mess by getting the USA committed to the "space race",
Vietnam and his "Great Society" social programs all at once - without
raising taxes enough to pay for them.

Nixon continued the game, and tried to tame the problem with wage and
price controls. Worked for a while - until the wage and price controls
came off.

Ford - remember "WIN" buttons and catchy slogans like "Whip Inflation
Now" and "Let's all be a little less piggy"? Didn't work, because the
root causes weren't being addressed.

On top of this, OPEC caused the price of oil to jump twice - 1973 and
1979. The first time, gasoline went from around a quarter to around a
half-dollar, and the second time it went over a dollar. (At least in
the Northeast). Diesel and fuel oil had similar jumps. Worse, the
supply was limited.

Meanwhile, American products suddenly found themselves competing with
foreign imports in a number of areas - cars, electronics, clothing,
even steel.

All of that pushed inflation and interest rates through the roof.
Which made the deficit situation that much worse.

None of that was Carter's fault.

How would YOU have dealt with it?

Our Armed Forces were, if it's at all possible, in far worse condition
when he left office than when he entered.

We were humiliated in the Middle East, a reputation were have yet to
overcome.

You mean Iran? Think about why that happened. We supported a tyrant
because he was friendly to us and not the Soviets. Same story as in
the Phillipines and elsewhere. The Iranians finally got so ticked off
they toppled him.

We were saddled with double digit inflation.

See above for why that happened.

Our intelligence services were cut off at the knees by Executive
Order...You asked how he could create so much havoc in four years...?!?! He
did this one in only a few days!

Jim, did you study any of the after-action reports out of Mogandishu?

No. But you are avoiding the questions, Steve.

How did Clinton "let them"?

I am not avoiding the question, Jim.

I secifically stated that Clinton tried to manipulate field operations
from Washington.

OK.

Should the US have stayed out of that conflict? Or gotten more involved?

What threat were they to US security?

None.

Agreed.

As much compassion as I have for hungry, sick people, I have very LITTLE
compassion for people who are hungry BUT can afford AK47's, RPGs, etc etc etc.

Such actions are what the UN is for.

Will answer the rest later.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/21/2004 6:23 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:



Do I have some sort of "evidence"...?!?! No. But he's already set the
pace and I see no likelyhood he'd get into office then suddenly get a spine.


So it's emotional, not based on objective facts with supporting evidence.

Part emotional, yes, but based on past experience with the Demoncratic
Party.


So it's really not about John Kerry as it is about Democrats vs.
Republicans.


That's not necessarily "wrong" or "right". In the end, what an
election comes down to is "who do you trust more?" Because regardless
of somebody's record, once they're in office it's a matter of trust
because you can't watch every issue and action. And you can't stop
them in time anyway.

That's why folks are/were so ticked off at Clinton and Nixon. They
betrayed the trust.

Do you see the problem?

I do.

I also know Kerry has made public remarks that supported Fonda.


Where? When? What exactly were the remarks?


Someone was a bit creative with a camera...OK...


No, they weren't.

The picture at the Valley Forge VVAW rally is real. (Another photo is
faked, but the one most often seen is real). Kerry is there, three
rows behind Hanoi Jane.

I don't think that Political Photoshopping is a small deal.


The point is that the surrounding information (date of the picture and
HJ's trip) are left out, and the picture presented as being *after*
that trip, rather than 2 years before.

You fell for it. Many others did, too. That's the problem.

Another version of Gore's "Invention of the Internet" lie.


I have an logical disconnect with this sort of thing.


Why is it wrong for a president to lie about having gotten fellatio (
Which I agree is wrong)

YET!

It is perfectly acceptable to continue the LIE about Gore saying he
invented the internet, or showing a faked picture of Kerry and Jane
Fonda together coupled with another LIE about the date on which the
picture was taken - even though that picture was never taken in the
first place. It's perfectly to do a smear campaign on the patriotis

And that is just three examples I can call up without thinking too hard
about it.

Seriously folks, Think for yourself. If you are willing to accept every
story that your "group" sends down the wire, you will be hoodwinked.
Lying to advance your parties agenda is not moral or right. I've lived
around some people that have ruined their lives by lies, starting small,
then turning compulsive. It's where we are today, when so-called
Liberals are the cause of every problem on the face of the planet. They
aren't.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

The picture at the Valley Forge VVAW rally is real. (Another photo is
faked, but the one most often seen is real). Kerry is there, three
rows behind Hanoi Jane.

I don't think that Political Photoshopping is a small deal.

Nor I. You can see both photos and the surrounding story on the snopes.com
website. The real photo is from the VVAW rally, the faked one shows Kerry and
Fonda at a podium.

The point is that the surrounding information (date of the picture and
HJ's trip) are left out, and the picture presented as being *after*
that trip, rather than 2 years before.

You fell for it. Many others did, too. That's the problem.

Another version of Gore's "Invention of the Internet" lie.

Yep.

I have an logical disconnect with this sort of thing.

Why is it wrong for a president to lie about having gotten fellatio (
Which I agree is wrong)

YET!

It is perfectly acceptable to continue the LIE about Gore saying he
invented the internet, or showing a faked picture of Kerry and Jane
Fonda together coupled with another LIE about the date on which the
picture was taken - even though that picture was never taken in the
first place.

It's not OK. And as bad as Clinton's lie was, it wasn't as bad as Nixon's "I am
not a crook" lie and surrounding coverup.

Note that there are *two* Kerry/Fonda photographs. One is real, the other
faked. The real one seems to prove a point until you find out it was taken 2
years before Fonda went to Hanoi - then it proves a very different point.

It's perfectly to do a smear campaign on the patriotis

Something got cut off there, Mike.

And that is just three examples I can call up without thinking too hard

about it.

Seriously folks, Think for yourself. If you are willing to accept every

story that your "group" sends down the wire, you will be hoodwinked.
Lying to advance your parties agenda is not moral or right. I've lived
around some people that have ruined their lives by lies, starting small,
then turning compulsive. It's where we are today, when so-called
Liberals are the cause of every problem on the face of the planet. They
aren't.

Neither are conservatives the cause of every problem.

Your advice is right on, Mike. But remember that it's a natural human trait to
want easy, quick answers to complex problems, And it's even more attractive if
someone else or some other group can be blamed for a problem.

And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to sell it as
a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The
administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of the
'90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying to tie
it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those who
oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!'

Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated!

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


The picture at the Valley Forge VVAW rally is real. (Another photo is
faked, but the one most often seen is real). Kerry is there, three
rows behind Hanoi Jane.

I don't think that Political Photoshopping is a small deal.


Nor I. You can see both photos and the surrounding story on the snopes.com
website. The real photo is from the VVAW rally, the faked one shows Kerry and
Fonda at a podium.


The point is that the surrounding information (date of the picture and
HJ's trip) are left out, and the picture presented as being *after*
that trip, rather than 2 years before.

You fell for it. Many others did, too. That's the problem.

Another version of Gore's "Invention of the Internet" lie.


Yep.

I have an logical disconnect with this sort of thing.

Why is it wrong for a president to lie about having gotten fellatio (
Which I agree is wrong)

YET!

It is perfectly acceptable to continue the LIE about Gore saying he
invented the internet, or showing a faked picture of Kerry and Jane
Fonda together coupled with another LIE about the date on which the
picture was taken - even though that picture was never taken in the
first place.


It's not OK. And as bad as Clinton's lie was, it wasn't as bad as Nixon's "I am
not a crook" lie and surrounding coverup.

Note that there are *two* Kerry/Fonda photographs. One is real, the other
faked. The real one seems to prove a point until you find out it was taken 2
years before Fonda went to Hanoi - then it proves a very different point.


It's perfectly to do a smear campaign on the patriotis


Something got cut off there, Mike.

And that is just three examples I can call up without thinking too hard


about it.

Seriously folks, Think for yourself. If you are willing to accept every


story that your "group" sends down the wire, you will be hoodwinked.
Lying to advance your parties agenda is not moral or right. I've lived
around some people that have ruined their lives by lies, starting small,
then turning compulsive. It's where we are today, when so-called
Liberals are the cause of every problem on the face of the planet. They
aren't.


Neither are conservatives the cause of every problem.

No they are not. But I see that as the difference these days. Everyone
makes mistakes, every group can have a problem and a plan that simply
won't work. I would never blame all the problems on Conservatives or
Republicans. I share too many of their values. (mostly fiscal and
smaller government) But it isn't the other side blaming everything on
them. They (mostly NeoCons) are blaming *everything* on *everyone* else.


Your advice is right on, Mike. But remember that it's a natural human trait to
want easy, quick answers to complex problems, And it's even more attractive if
someone else or some other group can be blamed for a problem.

Simple answers for simple minds. Sounds great until you try to apply it
to the problem at hand.



And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to sell it as
a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The
administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of the
'90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying to tie
it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those who
oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!'

Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated!


Yup!

- mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to sell it
as
a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The
administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of the
'90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying to
tie
it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those who
oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!'

Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated!

Not complicated at all.

BPL will be the demise of low-level-signal HF communications in
urban areas. Kiss off any thoughts of signal-to-noise ratios
required in modern receivers. All that advanced technology will
go to waste. Hams can go back to using one-tube regenerative
receivers, those being as "low-signal-level" as any other in an
RF cesspool of noise on HF.

If BPL makes inroads as a legacy system, it will be very difficult
to remove, let alone stop.

BPL system companies will make money, the whole purpose of
that kind of thing. The rest of the HF communications world can
go away. Simple. A no-brainer.

Michael Powell will have made his small mark on history, unable
to complete his military career or emulate his father much.

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to sell
it
as
a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The
administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of the
'90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying
to
tie
it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those
who
oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!'

Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated!

Not complicated at all.

It's too complicated for the politiicans and regulators.

BPL will be the demise of low-level-signal HF communications in
urban areas.

FCC and NTIA say differently

Kiss off any thoughts of signal-to-noise ratios
required in modern receivers. All that advanced technology will
go to waste. Hams can go back to using one-tube regenerative
receivers, those being as "low-signal-level" as any other in an
RF cesspool of noise on HF.

Never used a regenerative receiver, have you, Len? That's obvious from your
statement. A good one is as sensitive as a modern superhet on HF.

If BPL makes inroads as a legacy system, it will be very difficult
to remove, let alone stop.

The Iowa case will set a precedent.

BPL system companies will make money, the whole purpose of
that kind of thing.

Maybe. Or maybe not - many technologies that were highly touted never made a
dime and faded away. How many billions were lost on the Iridium system?

The rest of the HF communications world can
go away. Simple. A no-brainer.

President Bush and Commissioner Powell say it's not a problem. NTIA says BPL
can reduce line noise. A lot of "professionals" say we amateurs don't know what
we're talking about. Folks like ARRL have produced voluminuous documentation
and measurements of what BPL interference is like, yet that has not been
convincing to FCC.

How does anyone argue against that?

Michael Powell will have made his small mark on history, unable
to complete his military career or emulate his father much.

You mean his father who presented evidence before the UN that turned out not to
be very accurate? He didn't want to, but his boss insisted. Same thing is going
on with BPL. Shrub wants *anything* that looks good in the techno-world. And
he's goit highly paid *professionals* telling him BPL and HF radio can coexist
peacefully.

So what else can be done? Thousands of hams and others saying "BPL is bad"
hasn't stopped it. FCC doesn't have to go with the majority, or even interpret
its own rules the same way all the time.

devil's advocate mode = ON

Besides, Len, who really uses HF radio much anymore? The important military
stuff all goes by satellite, right? You don't see the Pentagon making trouble
about BPL. Ships use GMDRSS and EPIRB and satellites and such. SWBC is being
replaced by satellites and netcasting. All that's really left on HF are hams,
cbs, freebanders and some backup systems. HF is unreliable at best and useless
at worst. It's slow, error prone and inadequate for things like streaming video
and broadband connectivity. The few services still using it are "living in the
past", aren't they?

Besides, why are *you* upset, Len? You're not a ham.

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to sell
it as
a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The
administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of the
'90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying
to tie
it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those
who
oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!'

Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated!

Not complicated at all.

It's too complicated for the politiicans and regulators.

Then educate them. You have the mighty certificates, you have
the technology..."train" them.

Choo choo. :-)

BPL will be the demise of low-level-signal HF communications in
urban areas.

FCC and NTIA say differently

The FCC has NOT said much technically on Access BPL.

Docket 03-104 asked for input on BPL.

Docket 04-37 asks for comment for a proposed R&O.

NTIA said "A 10 db increase in background noise is acceptible!!!!"

Kiss off any thoughts of signal-to-noise ratios
required in modern receivers. All that advanced technology will
go to waste. Hams can go back to using one-tube regenerative
receivers, those being as "low-signal-level" as any other in an
RF cesspool of noise on HF.

Never used a regenerative receiver, have you, Len? That's obvious from your
statement. A good one is as sensitive as a modern superhet on HF.

Poor baby. Joining in an attempted gang-bang of an NCTA?

My first receiver, built in 1947, was a regenerative. What did
you build in 1947, senior?

Last regenerative receiver I checked out (for son of friend) was in
1968 (give or take). Had an RF stage ahead of detector, too.
Had MAYBE 5 uV input "sensitivity" at best (if one squinted their
ears), was terrible in selectivity, full of intermods from other
strong signals adjacent. Didn't tell friend or son it was that bad,
made nice-nice, gave only technical figures (they were impressed).

Are you going to make a case FOR widespread Access BPL,
Rev. Jimmie Who?!?

Did we see your pearls of technical and economic wisdom in
multi-page Comments on docket 04-37?

Say goodnight.

Temper fry...

LHA / WMD

N2EY wrote:

It's perfectly to do a smear campaign on the patriotis


Something got cut off there, Mike.


Oops, sorry about that. That's what I get when I get interrupted and
don't do a spell check,


I was just going to say that I would caution people about how a person
that I consider a patriot - Max Cleland - was attacked as unpatriotic
in a recent election.

Max lost 2 legs and an arm in the service of our country. Problem was,
he didn't have the "correct" politics. If you don't like the man's
political leanings, fine. Challenge his voting record.

But not his patriotism. That makes me want to puke.

All those that serve our country honorably are patriots in my book. Too
bad there is a new breed that ties patriotism to "goodthink" in addition
to the willingness to lay down your life for your country.

Seems political correctness has been reincarnated!

story that your "group" sends down the wire, you will be hoodwinked.
Lying to advance your parties agenda is not moral or right. I've lived
around some people that have ruined their lives by lies, starting small,
then turning compulsive. It's where we are today, when so-called
Liberals are the cause of every problem on the face of the planet. They
aren't.


Neither are conservatives the cause of every problem.

Of course not. I never said they were, nor will I ever. But most I know
now admit to no shortcoming *ever*.

- Mike KB3EIA -