RadioBanter - FCC Office Testing History

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - FCC Office Testing History (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/27648-re-fcc-office-testing-history.html)

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 20:53:34 -0600, JJ
wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

Now here we differ. Whatever problems "lack" of religion may cause
are overshadowed by the problems that religion *causes*. I am perfectly
happy to have religions coexist together - problem is, the religion's
adherants are often not.

The Muslim religion is a good example.

This is one reason why I don't subscribe to the specific beliefs of
any of the established religions. Maybe it only seems like it to
me...but I find it odd that every major religion is convinced that
theirs is the only *true* way to...well, to whatever rewards they
claim await those who follow the path those beliefs say is the correct
one. They're also convinced that anyone who chooses another path is
condemned in this life and the next. The fact is that none of us
really knows and can prove which is right.

In a sense they are all right...since, as I said, religion is nothing
more than a system of beliefs people use to explain to themselves
things that they don't understand - so in a way, the "God" of Judaism
and Christianity, the "Allah" of Islam, etc. all refer to the same
higher power whose nature none of us really knows anything about.

The problem, then, comes in when groups manage to convince themselves
that they know something they don't, and set forth attempting to
correct everyone else's views on the subject using military force,
terrorism, concentration camps, or whatever.

Meanwhile, we get numerous examples throughout history of people
perpetrating various levels of atrocity upon other people in the name
of their relgious beliefs. It isn't just the Muslim religion.
Christians conducted The Crusades long before anybody even knew where
Manhattan was, let alone thought about building skyscapers there.

Add to that the scumbags who will make use of people's religious
beliefs in order to take advantage of them, and what it all adds up to
is a whole lot of harm being done by man to his fellow man in the name
of God/Allah/Jehovah/Whatever, and maybe the commies had a point
trying to keep all that crap out of their society. Problem is, there's
nothing in communist ideology to answer unanswered questions. shrug

We now return you to our regularly scheduled discussion of FCC Office
Testing History, already in progress. :-)

John Kasupskim Tonawanda, New York
Amateur Radio (KC2HMZ), SWL/Scanner Monitoring (KNY2VS)
Member of ARES/RACES, ARATS, WUN, ARRL
http://www.qsl.net/kc2fng
E-Mails Ignored, Please Post Replies In This Newsgroup

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

No evolution in
science class. The fundies had wiped the slate clean - no dinosaurs, no
ancient earth at all. Even sanitized geology! Nothing to pollute the
minds of the impressionable youngsters. After getting out of high
school, I read the forbidden stuff on evolution and geology and age of
the earth. Such innocent stuff to be so dangerous.

Mike:

Try this:

Get out a Bible and read the first book of Genesis. Not a book of Bible stories
- get a Bible. Note that there are *two* creation stories - and they cannot
both be literally true, because they contradict each other on several points.
Most books of Bible stories blend the two storiesand edit out the obvious
contradictions.

I think Genesis is written that way as a signal from the Author to the reader
that the Book is not meant to be taken literally, but to be looked at as
explanations of Why and By Whom, not How and When. But that distinction is too
often lost on people.

The amazing thing is that for a long long time, the Bible was thought
of as allegorical. It worked and still works well as such. The hyper
literal interpretation is a fairly recent phenomenon of the early 20th
century. We had to wait almost 2K years for the "right" interpretation
to come along! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

It's weird for sure, but I think it is a result of what some people
have tried to do to adolescents regarding their sexuality.

Deny they have any?

Correct! And when a fundamental drive is suppressed, it always comes
out in some weird other way.

Using AIDS
fear as a lever, some people have tried abstinance programs as a cure
all for STD's, and golly gawrsh, it just happens to fit into their
morality view. What they are trying to do is distinctly unnatural.
Humans reach sexual maturity at one age, and we are trying to enforce
celibacy until they reach their late 20's early 30's, when they are
supposed to marry and have kids. So celibacy is supposed to take 20 of
the most fertile years of your life and you aren't supposed to do
anything. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Fun facts:

- Research shows that the *average* age of puberty has been dropping over the
past several generations, particularly in girls. Yet the age of first marriage
has been rising even faster. Go back to the time of "Little Women" (War Between
the States era) and the delay between puberty and typical first marriage was
only a few years (even for Yankees). Today it's a lot more - and for folks
looking to go to college and grad school and start a career, even longer. So of
course the reality becomes that there's an official message (abstinence) and
what actually goes on in people's lives (something quite different from
abstinece).

Agreed. And when you only lived to an average age in the lower 40's, it
was easier to stay married to one person only.

- The whole abstinece thing is a relatively new invention. Research shows that
about 1/3 of Colonial-era brides were expecting on their wedding day.

And the kids these days think THEY have it bad! hehehe

*Every* generation thinks they invented it...

When we all know it was *our* generation! ;^)

Of course.

I think that the videos of the people leaving Saigon were one of the low
points of US history.

And that happened under whose administration?

Good King Richard's? 8^)

Bingo.

He told us in 1968 that he had a "secret plan" to end the war. Four years
later, that plan hadn't been put into action, but he got reelected anyway.
Then
there was the secret bombing of Cambodia..

Well, there you go!

There were also wage and price controls, which delayed stagflation but
ultimately made it far worse.

What a socialist thing to do.

Most important was that it made the problem worse.

Of course! If you are going to pull anything from socialism, price and
wage controls would have to be just about the worst. Dumb.

But very effective in the *short* term. Then the problem comes back, far worse.

Because he cheated on his wife? Heck, look at what ol' Newt did to *his*
first wife.

But there was a difference, Jim. He's Republican. He was framed or
there was an invasion of privacy or something!

Do you know what he did to his first wife?

Served her divorce papers when she was recovering in the hospital from
cancer surgury. There's compassionate conservatism for ya!

Bingo again!

Don't forget that the whole thing opened up when a "nice" republican
lady that Monica thought was a friend went to the people that so badly
wanted to discredit him. So she didn't keep the indiscretion discreet.

Kinda dumb on Monica's part, don't ya think?

Imagine her perspective. She prpobably felt she HAD to brag to someone!

Reminds me of the story of the old guy in confession....

HAR! I liked that one....

For more on that:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/G...220_Tripp.html

Two interesting things here.

This person is *surprised* that no one wants to hire her?

Actually, given the way things often go in Washington, it *is* a bit
surprising.

Look at where she was working Jim. Blabbing is not appreciated.

bwaahaahaa

In the Pentagon?

No, the people she was blabbing about. It's permissible in that case. ;^)

Ah. Exactly.

73 de Jim, N2EY

- mike KB3EIA -

Subject: FCC Office Testing History

On 08 Aug 2004 12:18:46 GMT, N2EY wrote:

The only ones "inside" who really wanted the work passed to the
volunteers were those examiners who wanted to do less work (some,
but certainly not all).

But wasn't the FCC, like all agencies at the time, under pressure to reduce
spending? Seems to me that getting unpaid volunteers to take over most of the
work of amateur license testing and test preparation would save some $$. Not
much, but it would be something the top dogs could point to and say "see -
we're saving money and getting the govt. off your back"...

That's what "the brass" kept saying.....

Of course that really didn't save any money because the examiners
were given other tasks (primarily database entry of administrative
data) which didn't exist before.

The rest of us felt that it was a bad move,
and would be the start of a very slippery slope of the FCC abandoning
its regulatory responsibilities under the guise of "privatization".
Replacing said examiners with more and different examiners with better
work attitudes would have been a better solution.

Of course, but that was politically incorrect back then, wasn't it?

In that era a detailed performance evaluation system was well
established and it wasn't difficult to terminate someone's employment
for documented failure to perform. The most politically incorrect
thing, though, was to oppose whatever scheme "the brass" came up
with no matter how harebrained it was.

The brass obviously had their minds made up before they even asked
us about it.....and in fact it was the start of said "privitization"
downhill spiral.

Exactly. Brought to you by which administration?

Started under Reagan, got worse under Clinton. Equal opportunity.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 14:51:52 -0400, John Kasupski wrote:

...but I find it odd that every major religion is convinced that
theirs is the only *true* way to...well, to whatever rewards they
claim await those who follow the path those beliefs say is the correct
one. They're also convinced that anyone who chooses another path is
condemned in this life and the next.

My major religion - the "source code" of several other "major
religions" - does not teach or believe either of the above.

"Go and learn...."

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

In article , John Kasupski
writes:

However...I think the USSR was defeated
primarily because communism as a system of government tends to ignore
the human nature of the governed as well as the political, social, and
economic conditions that exist at any given time.

Agreed - but that's not inconsistent with what I wrote. Once the average
Soviet
began to see what capitalism and freedom could do (in the form of things
like
rock'n'roll and McDonald's) they wanted that stuff.

I wasn't disagreeing with your comments, merely expandiong on the
topic. Not that McDonalds should stand as a symbol of all that's great
about America or anything, but that does fall under the heading of
economic conditions, along with the designer jeans and other stuff not
available in a society where people waited in line for hours for a
simple roll of bathroom tissue.

The point I was trying to make is that the collectivist systems could not offer
anything to compare with McDonald's and blue jeans - and they knew it.

And it's not just 'communism' - it's any collectivist system that routinely
requires people to place the good of "society" or "the group" above their
own.

In a sense, though, this is what civilization depends on, isn't it?

Just the opposite!

Civilization depends on people realizing that their own good is better served
by being part of a society. The reason capitalism flourished was that it
offered a way for people to work together and mutually profit. The reason
America's take on it flourished is the emphais on protecting the individual
from the group. Doesn't mean it's a perfect system, but better than an
overcontrolled collectivist system that demands as a primary rule that the
individual sacrifice for the group.

Communism is at odds with religion - dooming it to failure because it
is human nature to look for answers to questions that science cannot
answer and thus only religion can provide.

Depends what you mean by "communism". If you're talking about economic
capitalism ("workers own the means of production") there's no reason
religion
and economic communism can't coexist. But if you're talking about
ideological
communism, where the collective mindset is supposed to replace individual
logic, religion is incompatible because it may set up a different set of
values, ideals, and authority figures.

I had in mind the communist ideology typified by Marx, Stalin, and
Lenin. Although the Chinese brand of communism certainly would seem to
me to fit the descriptiom just as well.

That's really totalitarian socialism. But what matters is that they are
collectivist systems.

IOW, ideological communism sets itself up as the 'religion'. And in many
ways
it's very similar: Many (not all) religions require blind acceptance of
"items
of faith" - ideological communism requires unquestioning acceptance of what
is
"the good of the people". Many (not all) religions say they are the *only*
way
for humans to live morally - same with ideological communism.

Which works until people become smart enough to know better.

Note that not all religions work that way.

Most of all, many religions require their adherents to "sacrifice" various
earthly delights because they are "wrong" or "for the good of others" - just
like ideological communism.

Why certainly! Why have people wasting their time enjoying life when
they could be serving the state (or the supreme being) instead? ;-)

Exactly! Replace the afterlife paradise with the workers' paradise of future
generations.

Communism fails to reward productivity thus removing the incentive to
be productive. This leads to the economic failure of the system.

All collectivist systems do that - some more than others. A nuclear family
is a
collectivist system of a sort. But in a healthy family, the rewards for
productivity are not removed, though they may be delayed.

The best description I've seen of why collectivist systems fail is in "Atlas
Shrugged" where the collapse of the Twentieth Century Motor Company is
described - and the reasons for it.

I haven't read that, but in my opinion such systems fail basically on
account of human nature...assuming that the people concerned are
intelligent enough to ask themselves the question, "Just why am I
doing this?"

I think you'd get a lot out of the book, despite its flaws. Worth the read.

OTOH, some forms of economic 'communism' do indeed work - when they really do
allow the workers to control the means of production. For example, consider
partnerships and companies where the stock is owned by the employees. Each
employee or partner contributes to and benefits by the success of the group,
and has a measure of control.

Imagine a company where every employee owned stock in the company, and no
nonemployee did. And each employee had a vote on its management. That's the
'communist' principle in action, without all the ideological stuff attached.
Such companies do exist and succeed - in capitalist countries.

Not only that, but I think most civilized people have some pretty good
concept of right and wrong, so when they see their communist
government and leaders doing things they know are wrong...well, let's
just say that such governments don't help their own cause much by
perpetrating various atrocities on their own people.

I disagree! A lot of people who consider themselves 'civilized' have
perpetrated far worse atrocities on other people.

I know that for me, the lying was much worse than the act itself. I think
it
would have been much better for all if he'd done one of two things:

1) Said "That's a personal matter - it's none of your business - next
question"

OR

2) Said "Yeah, sure, I shagged her silly. Most of you would have too,
given
the opportunity. Big deal, live with it."

I'd have been impressed with the guy if he'd have simply had enough
cojones to say something like, "Yeah, she did it, it was great, eat
your heart out." Lying about it was definitely the worst part of the
whole affair as far as I'm concerned.

We're saying the same thing.

Yes. Does that disappoint you? :-)

Not at all!

Eisenhower was rumored to have been romantically linked (to be polite
about it) with a female sarge who drove his staff car...

Kate Sommersby

which would
not only be adultery but also violate military protocol since officers
aren't supposed to be romantically involved with enlisted personnel.

Agreed but that was only a rumor. The Monica deal was proven.

Kennedy supposedly had Marilyn Monroe, Clinton had Gennifer Flowers
and later Monica Lewinsky, while for Nixon, there was his dog
Checkers. (snicker)

bwaahaahaa - what about LBJ?

Alice Glass. AKA Alice Glass Kirkpatrick. Though supposedly that was
when Johnson was in Congress, not the White House.

Impossible. Her initials did not spell out "LBJ". Johnson could not be involved
with anyone or anything on a personal level if their initials were different
;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

It's weird for sure, but I think it is a result of what some people
have tried to do to adolescents regarding their sexuality.

Deny they have any?

Correct! And when a fundamental drive is suppressed, it always comes
out in some weird other way.

Exactly. Bertrand Russell once said something on the order that his students
should all just go do the wild thing so they'd be able to concentrate on math
in his classes.

Using AIDS
fear as a lever, some people have tried abstinance programs as a cure
all for STD's, and golly gawrsh, it just happens to fit into their
morality view. What they are trying to do is distinctly unnatural.
Humans reach sexual maturity at one age, and we are trying to enforce
celibacy until they reach their late 20's early 30's, when they are
supposed to marry and have kids. So celibacy is supposed to take 20 of
the most fertile years of your life and you aren't supposed to do
anything. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Fun facts:

- Research shows that the *average* age of puberty has been dropping over
the past several generations, particularly in girls. Yet the age of first
marriage has been rising even faster. Go back to the time of "Little Women"
(War Between
the States era) and the delay between puberty and typical first marriage
was
only a few years (even for Yankees). Today it's a lot more - and for folks
looking to go to college and grad school and start a career, even longer.
So of
course the reality becomes that there's an official message (abstinence)
and
what actually goes on in people's lives (something quite different from
abstinece).

Agreed. And when you only lived to an average age in the lower 40's, it
was easier to stay married to one person only.

That's part of the equation. Another was the fact that a person's role in
the family was well-defined. If someone did A, B and C, they were a "good
husband", and like wise doing X, Y and Z made a "good wife". Today the
expectations are not only higher but also not well defined.

- The whole abstinece thing is a relatively new invention. Research shows
that
about 1/3 of Colonial-era brides were expecting on their wedding day.

Reminds me of the story of the old guy in confession....

HAR! I liked that one....

"I'm telling everybody!"

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

No evolution in
science class. The fundies had wiped the slate clean - no dinosaurs, no
ancient earth at all. Even sanitized geology! Nothing to pollute the
minds of the impressionable youngsters. After getting out of high
school, I read the forbidden stuff on evolution and geology and age of
the earth. Such innocent stuff to be so dangerous.

Mike:

Try this:

Get out a Bible and read the first book of Genesis. Not a book of Bible
stories
- get a Bible. Note that there are *two* creation stories - and they cannot
both be literally true, because they contradict each other on several
points.
Most books of Bible stories blend the two storiesand edit out the obvious
contradictions.

I think Genesis is written that way as a signal from the Author to the
reader
that the Book is not meant to be taken literally, but to be looked at as
explanations of Why and By Whom, not How and When. But that distinction is
too
often lost on people.

The amazing thing is that for a long long time, the Bible was thought
of as allegorical.

By some. Others have taken it literally for centuries.

It worked and still works well as such. The hyper
literal interpretation is a fairly recent phenomenon of the early 20th
century. We had to wait almost 2K years for the "right" interpretation
to come along! 8^)

Tell it to Galileo. And Copernicus. Literal interpretation goes back a lot
longer than the 20th century.

73 de Jim, N2EY