On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 14:45:01 -0400, Dee D. Flint wrote:

You missed my point. It would be just as bad no matter whose administration
it was and no matter to what party they belonged. If it were a Gore
administration, they'd be just as much a sock puppet to the commercial
interests of that administration.

There are those who feel that the FCC's predecessor, the Federal
Radio Commission, was a sock-puppet to the Herbert Hoover
administration. This was long before FDR and the New Deal alphabet
soup agencies.

HH was the Secretary of Commerce before he became prez in the era
when the Commerce Department did what the FCC does today.

I really have to be respectful of him as a person because I actually
had the opportunity to shake hands with him when I was a senior in
college in the mid-1950s -- he was the kick-off speaker for the
fundraising campaign for our then-new engineering building and made
it a point to shake the hand of every senior engineering student.
He must have been in his 80s by that time.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 16:44:17 -0400, Minnie Bannister wrote:

I heard this issue raised in a discussion of the Chrysler/Daimler-Benz
merger on the eve of its consummation. Chrysler was run by managers,
whereas Daimler-Benz was run by engineers.

A family friend who retired from Chrysler shortly after the merger
was very adamant that Daimler-Benz was run by folks whose ability in
any field was totally outshone by their complete and utter arrogance
(don't want to invoke the N**i word).

Driving home from Detroit yesterday, we stopped for dinner at a truck
stop, where we overheard a waitress telling another customer that she
was busier than usual because the cook had called in sick so the
managers were having to do the cooking and were not able to help with
serving. But in this case the managers were able to cook. What would
they have done if the managers could not fill in for the cook?

Call the union hall and get temp cooks off the waiting-to-be-employed
roster.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 16:44:17 -0400, Minnie Bannister wrote:

I heard this issue raised in a discussion of the Chrysler/Daimler-Benz
merger on the eve of its consummation. Chrysler was run by managers,
whereas Daimler-Benz was run by engineers.

A family friend who retired from Chrysler shortly after the merger
was very adamant that Daimler-Benz was run by folks whose ability in
any field was totally outshone by their complete and utter arrogance
(don't want to invoke the N**i word).

Yeh, yeh, yeh. I heard the same crap about A/B in St Louis.

Harry K wrote:

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 14:45:01 -0400, Dee D. Flint wrote:

I really have to be respectful of him as a person because I actually
had the opportunity to shake hands with him when I was a senior in
college in the mid-1950s -- he was the kick-off speaker for the
fundraising campaign for our then-new engineering building and made
it a point to shake the hand of every senior engineering student.
He must have been in his 80s by that time.




Duhhh, is this supposed to impress somebody?

73 de Harry K


Speaking of which, I'm very impressed with your post Harry. Obviously,
all three of your synapses fired in perfect order to create such a
wonderful, on-topic and thought-inspiring reply.

You are a perfect, shining example of everything that is wrong within
amateur radio.

Now go **** yourself.

In article t, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

All true...unfortunatly the REAL problem is the lack of basic, let alone
engineer level, knowledge to even understand what is going on with BPL.

I disagree slightly, Dan.

I think there are folks at FCC who know darn well how bad an idea BPL really
is. The problem is that those folks are not in charge.

Politics aside.....ain't it a real pity that the FCC has no concept what
they are doing with this BPL crap? No one in the right mind would have let
this get out of the first meeting.

Only if they had a basic grasp of the physical principles involved. But the
folks at the top are not engineers or scientists. They're "regulators".

As for the Bush administration pushing this. I think the real situation is
some low level gofer with his computer knowledge decided this is a 'good'
thing. Then he got someones ear to push it at the Prez.

Possibly. Look at all the 'next big thing' companies that have come and gone in
the past decade or two, and how many trillion dollarss were pumped into them.
The Bush administration is still sitting on a jobs deficit and a lackluster
economy. *Any* new thing that promises big gains and jobs without massive
investment is going to get a lot of attention from an administration desperate
to be reelected.

Look at the way the NTIA back peddled.....they came on strong against
it...then all of a sudden they are going backwards. Politics...pure and
simple.

BINGO! The guy in the Oval Office sez tone it down, and they did.

Do you remember how we got saddled with code test waivers? A King asked Papa
Bush for a favor. Papa Bush told FCC to find a way to make it happen. Treaty
prevented merely dumping the code test so we got the whole waiver mess.
Gee thanks George.

It is up to us and ALL THOSE it trashes to put on a sustained attack against
this BPL. If we don't we are stuck with it.

Agreed. And look carefully at how it was done in Iowa. Including the ARRL's
important role.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Harry K" wrote in message
...

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 14:45:01 -0400, Dee D. Flint wrote:

I really have to be respectful of him as a person because I actually
had the opportunity to shake hands with him when I was a senior in
college in the mid-1950s -- he was the kick-off speaker for the
fundraising campaign for our then-new engineering building and made
it a point to shake the hand of every senior engineering student.
He must have been in his 80s by that time.



Duhhh, is this supposed to impress somebody?

You snipped incorrectly. The way you snipped makes it appear as if this were
my statement and it is not.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

There is a interesting article on QRZ from a young ham. He wrote a very
good comment on BPL to the FCC. Makes for a good read.

Dan/W4NTI

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article t,
"Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

All true...unfortunatly the REAL problem is the lack of basic, let alone
engineer level, knowledge to even understand what is going on with BPL.

I disagree slightly, Dan.

I think there are folks at FCC who know darn well how bad an idea BPL
really
is. The problem is that those folks are not in charge.

Politics aside.....ain't it a real pity that the FCC has no concept what
they are doing with this BPL crap? No one in the right mind would have
let
this get out of the first meeting.

Only if they had a basic grasp of the physical principles involved. But
the
folks at the top are not engineers or scientists. They're "regulators".

As for the Bush administration pushing this. I think the real situation
is
some low level gofer with his computer knowledge decided this is a 'good'
thing. Then he got someones ear to push it at the Prez.

Possibly. Look at all the 'next big thing' companies that have come and
gone in
the past decade or two, and how many trillion dollarss were pumped into
them.
The Bush administration is still sitting on a jobs deficit and a
lackluster
economy. *Any* new thing that promises big gains and jobs without massive
investment is going to get a lot of attention from an administration
desperate
to be reelected.

Look at the way the NTIA back peddled.....they came on strong against
it...then all of a sudden they are going backwards. Politics...pure and
simple.

BINGO! The guy in the Oval Office sez tone it down, and they did.

Do you remember how we got saddled with code test waivers? A King asked
Papa
Bush for a favor. Papa Bush told FCC to find a way to make it happen.
Treaty
prevented merely dumping the code test so we got the whole waiver mess.
Gee thanks George.

It is up to us and ALL THOSE it trashes to put on a sustained attack
against
this BPL. If we don't we are stuck with it.

Agreed. And look carefully at how it was done in Iowa. Including the
ARRL's
important role.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Regardless of who would be president, the president is still a
"puppet-on-a-string" for their respective parties anyways...... Regardless
of political party. The party controls what is going on.

Ryan KC8PMX


You missed my point. It would be just as bad no matter whose
administration
it was and no matter to what party they belonged. If it were a Gore
administration, they'd be just as much a sock puppet to the commercial
interests of that administration.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article .net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

There is a interesting article on QRZ from a young ham. He wrote a very
good comment on BPL to the FCC. Makes for a good read.

Yep, that was a really good one. He writes better than I do, and he's just out
of high school.

But he's not a newcomer, Dan. He's been licensed since age 10. At least one
nonamateur here would have denied him a license for four years, based solely on
age.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
"Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

There is a interesting article on QRZ from a young ham. He wrote a very
good comment on BPL to the FCC. Makes for a good read.

Yep, that was a really good one. He writes better than I do, and he's just
out
of high school.

But he's not a newcomer, Dan. He's been licensed since age 10. At least
one
nonamateur here would have denied him a license for four years, based
solely on
age.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Rgr that...hi.

Dan/W4NTI