| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
FCC Office Testing History
In article et, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote What I find most interesting is the high percentage of "by-mail" hams in those days - more than 40%! Even if we allow that a significant percentage of Technicians were FCC-office-tested, we still have well over 1 in 3 hams of those days with "by-mail" licenses. Nobody was tested "by mail". I got the term from the ARRL License Manual. That's how they describe the volunteer examiner process. They were tested by volunteer examiners One (1) volunteer examiner was required - as opposed to a team of at least 3 Volunteer Examiners today. (as are virtually ALL of todays applicants --- what goes around, comes around) who just happened to obtain the test material through the postal service. The postal service was an integral part of the process. The volunteer examiner had to send a letter to FCC requesting test materials, which then came by mail and were returned by mail in sealed envelopes. Sunuvagun! Those volunteer examiners did not prepare or grade the written exams. They simply proctored the exam, certifying that the examinee did not get any help. Yes, some volunteer examiners would look over a written test and give an unofficial pass/fail opinion. But it was FCC that graded the exams. And the main point remains: The percentage of US hams back then who did not face the steely-eyed FCC examiner was quite high. I'm pretty sure that in some parts of the country, "tested by mail" hams were the vast majority. Not that there's anything wrong with that! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
And the main point remains: The percentage of US hams back then who did not face the steely-eyed FCC examiner was quite high. I'm pretty sure that in some parts of the country, "tested by mail" hams were the vast majority. Back in 1976 when I tested for my tech license, I faced a steely-eyed black woman FCC examiner. Who knew what she was doing, and could copy code (I had to send code to her). The FCC was giving out recycled call signs that year. Someone else once had WA2ISE before I was given it. My father had WB2JIA a few years before I got mine, so in a sense I was "out of sequence". Maybe the FCC didn't want to hand out "WC"s as people would use phonetics like "Water Closet ..." |
"Robert Casey" wrote Maybe the FCC didn't want to hand out "WC"s as people would use phonetics like "Water Closet ..." The WC#$$$ call format block was reserved for RACES stations. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Robert Casey wrote in message ...
Wonder how much cheating may have occured, if there was only one person as the "VE" proctoring the FCC written tests. Seems that the current VE system would be more secure. Though someone who cheated to get a ham license won't be as serious a hazard as say someone who cheated on medical exams to become a doctor. Seems to me there have been more instances of test fraud committed by VEs than there were by the old by-mail proctors. By far. w3rv More that have been caught, that is. In the old days, it's possible that the old by-mail proctor takes something "under the table" and "helps" the applicant take the tests. I 'spose there had to be incidents like that. I'll further 'spose that most of it involved buddies doing the proctoring and passing out a "hint" or two during the exams or some slack on the code tests rather than getting involved with passing green stamps under the table which would have been federal felonies. And without additional proctors like in today's VE system, how could anyone ever know? Right: We don't know and never will. Which kinda terminates the discussion. It could turn out that there is less cheating today as the odds of getting caught may be much higher. And that those who try anyway get caught more often. In the old days more people could proctor the tests (IIRC any general, advanced or extra could do it). So it was likely many proctors did only a handful of tests. And it would be really hard to tell (at the FCC field office) if a proctor cut someone a break or not. With today's VE system, a few "proctors" do lots of tests of lots of people, and if there was a corrupt group of VEs a lot of people would hear of it and someone would eventually squeal. And say you're a VE wanting to take bribes, there's a big risk to even broach the subject with the other 2 VEs in your group. That should kill off a fair amount of corruption that would have gone ahead under the old proctor system. Let's hope so since the only way to get a ham ticket these days is via a VEC group. I never paid much attention to any of it back then. The Philly FCC office was only a 45 minute hop on the Sharon Hill/69th Street trolley and the Market Street El so "mail order" tests were not an interest or a concern on my part. I sat for all four of my exams in front of one of the most notorious FCC Examiners in the biz for my Novice, General and 14 years later my Extra and Telegraph II when Joe Squelch The Examiner got to do me yet again. w3rv |
In article , Robert Casey
writes: Nobody was tested "by mail". They were tested by volunteer examiners (as are virtually ALL of todays applicants --- what goes around, comes around) who just happened to obtain the test material through the postal service. I think the distinction was that the proctor wans't supposed to look at the test itself, but just watch the candidate take the test and attest that he didn't cheat, then have the candidate put the answered test back in the envelope and the proctor signs off on the envelope or some such. That's pretty much how it worked for the written test. It went like this: First the volunteer examiner gave you the code test - receiving and sending. S/he certified that you got the required number of consecutive correct characters at the designated speed, and could send at that speed as well. Volunteer examiner then sent a letter to FCC requesting written exam. I think a Form 610 was used for the purpose. FCC processed the application and sent an exam package to the volunteer examiner. Inside the package were instructions, return envelopes and the test in its own sealed envelope. The sealed envelope with the test and answer sheet inside was not to be opened until the actual test began. The prospective ham did the test, put all the sheets in another provided envelope which was sealed up. Whole mess went back to FCC for grading and processing. In theory, the volunteer examiner wasn't even supposed to look at the exam. No copies were to be made, nor its contents divulged to anyone. Of course there was nothing to stop people from deviating from the prescribed path other than their own honesty and the possiblity of being turned in to the FCC. I think FCC was between a rock and a hard place on the whole issue. On the one hand, they were tasked with making licensing accessible to the US population - all of it, not just those who lived near big cities. On the other, they could not have an exam point convenient to everyone. Before 1954, the Conditional distance was 125 miles "air-line" - and this was before most of the interstate highway system existed. Back then, all hams closer than the distance had to go to FCC office - even Novices. In 1954 the distance became 75 miles and Novices and Technicians went to "by-mail" exams, same as Conditional. But the Novice and Tech "by-mail" thing was regardless of distance! It is my understanding that this was done to reduce the workload on FCC exam points, which were being inundated by prospective hams. In 1965 the distance went from 75 to 175 miles and the number of applications for Conditional dropped dramatically. The proctor wasn't supposed to grade it or anything, and the appicant wouldn't know if he passed untill some weeks later by mail. Yep - the old "thin envelope" was what you were looking fo, because it contained only the license. The dreaded "thick envelope" contained paperwork to start the whole process all over again. No credit for the code tests - you had to do the whole song-and-dance from scratch. I'd call that "testing by mail". Today, the VEs give the tests, grades them, tells you if you passed or not, and then tells the FCC that you passed everything to get whatever level of ham license. Not only that, the VEs *make up* the tests from the pool. Really a sharp move by FCC - they get unpaid volunteers to do almost all of the grunt work, from coming up with questions for the pool to verifying CSCEs. Yet FCC retains all the authority and dictates procedure and the fees VEs can collect to reimburse their expenses. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Subject: FCC Office Testing History
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 8/6/2004 8:59 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: Of course he should have specified WHICH woman....Probably Hilliary. THAT I would believe. So if the question had been more specific, you'd have believed him? Not likely. The list was so long to choose from. The "read my lips" utterenace was not, in my opinion, a lie, but a bad decision. Never say never in politics. He got boxed into a political corner and up the taxes went. As for the "I am not a crook"...Well, he got caught. I don't think the price HE was force to pay wqas warranted. Richard Nixon DID get us out of Viet Nam and opened the China wall, among other political milestones. Had it not been for a bad political mistake on his part, he would have been enshrined as one of America's greatest presidents. Clinton, in my not-so-humble opinon, was (is) one of the singularly most immoral and incompetent presidents we've ever had. His "credit" was that he could surround himself with people more able than he who could do the spin control. Any adult male that can't enjoy some recreational intimacy and keep it quiet is a fool! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes: On 07 Aug 2004 12:14:49 GMT, N2EY wrote: I think FCC was between a rock and a hard place on the whole issue. On the one hand, they were tasked with making licensing accessible to the US population - all of it, not just those who lived near big cities. On the other, they could not have an exam point convenient to everyone. For several years before the FCC abandoned its responsibilities by turning the function over to the VEs, there was a "pilot program" in several areas where the U S Civil Service Commission examiners gave the FCC written tests by prior arrangement at their regular exam points. This avoided the problem of finding a local ham and vetting his/her character before sending the exam. (The field office examiner was supposed to check with the local FCC investigators to find out whether the choice of proctor raised any "red flags".) I did not know that! Thanks, Phil! That program did not yield any better results than the previous mail-volunteer system and was ended. Really a sharp move by FCC - they get unpaid volunteers to do almost all of the grunt work, from coming up with questions for the pool to verifying CSCEs. Yet FCC retains all the authority and dictates procedure and the fees VEs can collect to reimburse their expenses. 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"... 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? 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? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , John Kasupski
writes: On 07 Aug 2004 18:56:04 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote: Once they got exposed to rock'n'roll, blue jeans and McDonald's, they wanted to be capitalists. Heck, the Soviets weren't defeated by Star Wars, Radio Free Europe or Berlin as much as by the Pepsi Generation and Ronald McDonald. All of this is *way* off topic for this NG and belongs in some political discussion group. Thread drift is par for the course here, John. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. I remember Clinton saying his role model was JFK. Well, JFK was allegedly involved with Marilyn Monroe, while WJC got Monica. Sigh. 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? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: FCC Office Testing History From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 8/6/2004 8:59 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: Of course he should have specified WHICH woman....Probably Hilliary. THAT I would believe. So if the question had been more specific, you'd have believed him? Not likely. So he wqas pre-judged before he even spoke... The Pubs HATED him so much that they would do anything at all to discredit him. The list was so long to choose from. Yep. He was just following in his predecessors' footsteps... The "read my lips" utterenace was not, in my opinion, a lie, but a bad decision. And what Bill did with Monica was not, in his opinion, "having sex". This is an interesting point here. There are a lot of young people in this country that enjoy each others company in that manner, and they do not consider it sex. In fact they consider themselves virgins as long as they don't do it in the traditional manner. And *in their opinions*, they're right! And the kids these days think THEY have it bad! hehehe *Every* generation thinks they invented it... Never say never in politics. He got boxed into a political corner and up the taxes went. Papa Bush made apublic promise that he *knew* he could not keep. But he *knew* it would help get him elected. That qualifies as a lie to most people. There's also lying by omission. Remember Willie Horton, and how Dukakis was blamed for letting him out of jail? Well, the rest of the story is that Dukakis, as governor, was *required by law* to let Willie out of jail, because a program *created by Dukakis' Republican predecessor* REQUIRED it. By law. No choice or discretion. That early release program was then dismantled by Dukakis' administration as soon as its shortcomings were apparent. Standard Pub tactic. Every election they have a hot button topic, be it School Prayer, Pledge of allegiance, Flag burning, etc. It is one of those things that help to divert peoples attention away from issues that should be debated during the campaign. All the above are perfectly fine issues - discuss them after the election please! Fun facts: - Before the whole Supreme Court case about school prayer, most public schools in the USA *did not* have school prayers. - The Pledge of allegiance as originally written *did not* include the words "under God". They were added because the Knights of Columbus wanted them... - The *correct* way to dispose of a US Flag is to burn it. Papa Bush's campaign made a lot of noise about Willie Horton but not about the rest of the story. Duh Shall we talk about faked and misleading pictures of Jane Fonda and other people? Richard Nixon DID get us out of Viet Nam Sure - by simply giving up and walking away. The country rapidly fell to the North Vietnamese. What, exactly, was accomplished by all those years, lost lives, and billions of dollars? 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? 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! and opened the China wall, among other political milestones. That he did. 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. Had it not been for a bad political mistake on his part, he would have been enshrined as one of America's greatest presidents. I don't see how. Not compared to the likes of FDR or Eisenhower, to name just two. But there was one important difference, Jim. Which was? Clinton, in my not-so-humble opinon, was (is) one of the singularly most immoral and incompetent presidents we've ever had. hehe. Your pulling your punches here Jim! Who, me? I didn't write that. Clinton was not a great president, but he was light-years ahead of Nixon. 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? His "credit" was that he could surround himself with people more able than he who could do the spin control. Any adult male that can't enjoy some recreational intimacy and keep it quiet is a fool! So it was OK that he fooled around but not OK that he got caught? I disagree! Not to mention, it was not he who blabbed. Didn't I mention it? 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? 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. And the last paragraph quote is one of those that make you shake your head in disbelief * Tripp accuses the White House, the Pentagon and two Pentagon * officials of violating the Privacy Act by releasing personal * information about her during the Lewinsky investigation. AT LEAST *SHE* DIDN'T RELEASE ANY PRIVATE INFORMATION ABOUT ANYONE!!!! BWAHAHAHAHA! Oh... that's correct..... the other people were those evil democrats! ;^) In the Pentagon? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Subject: FCC Office Testing History
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 8/8/2004 7:55 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: And what Bill did with Monica was not, in his opinion, "having sex". This is an interesting point here. There are a lot of young people in this country that enjoy each others company in that manner, and they do not consider it sex. In fact they consider themselves virgins as long as they don't do it in the traditional manner. And *in their opinions*, they're right! Uh huh. You forget where I work. There's an awful lot of young people who get treated for various sexually transmitted diseases who, in the same words of our former Commander-in-Chief, "weren't having sex". Uh huh. That's why I have 14, 15 and 16 year olds in the ER with herpes lesions in places where they shouldn't be...but are. "But we didn't have "sex"...it was just a B---j--." How can you tell kids otherwise about sex when they see thier parents essentially condoning those same acts by the President of the United States by NOT demanding his resignation? And the kids these days think THEY have it bad! hehehe *Every* generation thinks they invented it... Probably, but then it's up to the preceeding geneeration to clan up the mess. - The *correct* way to dispose of a US Flag is to burn it. Ahhhhhhh....Jim, why don't you qualify that with "in an honorable and respectful manner as prescribed by Public Law"...?!?! Putting a match to Old Glory in order to make some ill defined political point is not "properly disposing" of the flag. 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? What does it matter, Jim? It was what the American people (or at least the most VOCAL Americans) demanded thier government do. They demanded it from the Democrat that got them inot it, and they demanded it from the Republican who eventually DID get us out of it. We can argue the reasons or the methodology that Lyndon Johnson used to get us into it until the cows come home, but to have not prosecuted it to win was the REAL tragedy. 50K+ Americans dead...for what? Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Vietnamese on both sides dead, too. Who, me? Is Alfred E. Neuman ghostwriting today, Jim...?!?! =0 I didn't write that. Clinton was not a great president, but he was light-years ahead of Nixon. Sorry Jim...but we have to take a BIG difference of opinon here. The Watergate scandal was nothing compared to the utter disprespect and dishonor Bill Clinton and his spouse brought to the White House. Clinton lied about the LEGAL things he did before he ran for office. (Protesting against the war.) When he was caught, that SHOULD have been a clue to the rest of the country of what was about to come. Hillary was supposed to set "healthcare" straight in this country. All she did was spend a lot of the taxpayers money, sent the industry running for cover and gave Bill some pretty graphics in the form of a prototype "national health card" to flash at his first "State of the Union" address. That was the end of "National Health Care" for seven more years. She did not do one single thing to improve health care in the United States. Nothing. Hillary tore up the White House travel office, creating hate and discontent that did absolutely nothing to improve efficiency, cut costs or otherwise enhance the office. They lied about White Water. He lied about his mistresses. And on thier way out the door in 2001, they tried to STEAL things that they had been clearly told were NOT thiers for the taking. Nixon lied about Watergate and the subsequent coverup, but the man had the intestinal fortitude, no matter how disgraced he was, to see what the results were doing the country, and he got out of the way. THAT took guts. He was also the last president to have a balanced budget and opened the doors to China. He set in motion the wheels that Ronald Reagan would eventually use to grind the Soviet Union to a pulp. 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? Did it involve leather, Kool-whip and handcuffs? Was there video? Was it overheard and recorded by a scanner enthusiast? 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? Yep. But who could "do" the president and not say SOMETHING to someone? Who could "do" any famous person and not...?!?! If my oft repeated mid-life fantasy about a certain pop-diva ever did come true, you can bet your bottom dollar SOMEONE would know about it! I would further say "someone I could trust". In my life there's only been TWO people I could invest that kind of secret to, and one of them certainly would NOT be pleased! 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. I wouldn't. She was given what the other person thought was a private exchange between friends. She (Linda) violated it. True, what she did was "legal", and may or may not have been in the best interests of the United States, but could YOU HONESTLY confide in Ms. Tripp...?!? My best friend and I have exchanged confidences that have never gone any farther than our own ears...Because he IS my friend I feel I can tell him things I wouldn't tell anyone else and vice versa. And I imagine that's exactly what Monica expected when she told Linda Tripp about scoring some presidential bootie. However Linda was an opportunist and she saw her opportunity. So much for friends...At least in Washington. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: (old stuff removed) What I was trying to say is that if we're going to condemn Willy for being a hornydog who couldn't keep his hands (and other things) to himself, and who couldn't keep the promises he made to his bride, then we should use the same standards to judge other politicians. Like Newt. Because he is a Republican, and it is okay then. He's been on Fox news trying to ressurect himself. Hey may succeed. Well, Ted Kennedy did.... And of course there is Strom's daughter! Surreal, huh? Kinda dumb on Monica's part, don't ya think? Kinda dumb, on anyone's part, to get caught up in something like that. Fer cryin' out loud, who *was* the numkoff in that situation? The Prez or the nitwit that let herself be used like that? I say her. There's plenty to go around! But I say the biggest dummy in the pile was WJC himself. Because he *knew* that fooling around could easily go public, and would have enormous negative repercussions. This was obvious from what happened to Gary "Monkey Business" Hart (remember him?). Hart did a lot of good things in the various offices he held, and might have made a good President or VP. But his indiscretions pushed all that aside and destroyed any chance for him. Anybody with *any* sense would know that the chances of keeping such stuff secret were slim to none. People make mistakes, people engage in stupid and illegal things. Yep. Like Nixon and the whole Watergate mess. He resigned 30 years ago this month - I still remember where I was when I heard that speech.. People engage in sex outside the sanctity of marriage. They've been doing that for a long long time... And we are more concerned about these things that we are about whether or not they can actually do the job or not. Some people are, anyway. One thing Watergate changed was that the media would no longer turn a blind eye to politicians' personal lives. Remember that politician who turned up drunk in the reflecting pool with someone named Fannie Fox? A few years earlier, and it would never have made the news. We get what we deserve. THere are probably a lot of people who could be a great President that can't or won't because of irrelevant personal history. Possibly. Heck, one of the reasons Ronald Reagan didn't get nominated until 1980 was because he'd been divorced. That used to be political suicide. Now, nobody seems to care. Or consider Slick Willy hisself. I think the main reason he got the nomination back in 1992 was that a lot of the big guns on the Dem side (Sam Nunn, Mario Cuomo) saw Papa Bush's popularity after Gulf War 1 and figured that running against him was futile. So they gave it to Bill. Then the economy tanked for a spell, Ross Perot split the opposition vote, and Clinton gets in on 40% of the popular vote but a big majority of electoral votes. -- Here's another item for ya: One of this election's issues is stem cell research. The Dems are for it, the Pubs against it. Ron Reagan spoke at the *Dems* convention to support it (he was not invited to speak at the Pubs' convetion at all, despite the tie-ins with his dad's recent passing). Now, the reason the Pubs are against stem cell research is because of the abortion issue/killing embryos. Which is consistent in a way. But note this: IVF (in-vitro fertilization) involves exactly the same issue. If someone is against stem cell research because of the abortion issue, then logic dictates they must also oppose IVF for exactly the same reason. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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. 73 de Jim, N2EY 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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? 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). - 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.... 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 |
|
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , Leo writes: On 07 Aug 2004 19:53:25 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: I think it was cute that Kellie gave up front porch prom night fun to rush, rush home to fire up his rig and work the UK instead. It shows were some priorities lie. :-) What's the Church of St. Hiram's ruling on THAT, Rev. Jim? Perhaps it's just me, but I would have been inclined to work the date, and forgo CW for the evening....ham radio is fun, but hey!...... :) "Work the date?" Odd phrasing, Leo... :-) Some of these PCTA seem to have never heard that popular phrase among young people, "Off like a prom dress!" :-) But, if one really, Really, REALLY loves "CW" more than anything else, I suppose it is understandable...but it boggles the mind just trying to envision it... LHA / WMD While writing a monthly weather review for a forward location in the ROK, I manage to work the following phrase into my report. "The visibility was up and down like a new bride's pajamas." So, either no one was reading the reports, or they were somewhat amused and let it go. |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: John Kasupski wrote: On 07 Aug 2004 18:56:04 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote: Once they got exposed to rock'n'roll, blue jeans and McDonald's, they wanted to be capitalists. Heck, the Soviets weren't defeated by Star Wars, Radio Free Europe or Berlin as much as by the Pepsi Generation and Ronald McDonald. All of this is *way* off topic for this NG and belongs in some political discussion group. Not to worry, John. This is our group therapy and most anything goes. Probably best to stay out of the Len/Brian/Steve donnybrook tho'! Don't feel bad, Mike. If you don't have the guts to jump into that one-sided firefight, you don't. You stay on the ice where it's cool and you can hit folks with your stick or get the puck off. Not a matter of guts, Len. I stay out of it because its all old and gone circular. If you guys are enjoying yourselves - have at it! At least you all are accomplishing something, eh? 8^) No, Mike. You've gone over to the dark side of the force. You've kept silent on the insulting behavior of these U.S. radio amateur "extras" and then tried to encourage turning this newsgroup into a private little Chat Room. I keep quiet on all sorts of insulting behavior. I'm not here to comment on others insulting behavior. snip I'm putting you down on the PCTA self-righteousness group...on the basis of your subject postings. Have fun! :-) I've been a PCTA for a long time. Putting me down as self righteous? You can do that if you wish. You seem to have a thing about labels. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Subject: FCC Office Testing History
From: (William) Date: 8/9/2004 7:36 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: While writing a monthly weather review for a forward location in the ROK, I manage to work the following phrase into my report. "The visibility was up and down like a new bride's pajamas." So, either no one was reading the reports, or they were somewhat amused and let it go. They probably just considered the source. We do. Steve, K4YZ |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 22:22:11 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote: John Kasupski wrote: On 07 Aug 2004 18:56:04 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote: All of this is *way* off topic for this NG and belongs in some political discussion group. Not to worry, John. This is our group therapy and most anything goes. Probably best to stay out of the Len/Brian/Steve donnybrook tho'! Agreed. 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. 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. On a global scale, you have a point. However, I was referring to communist countries in general - and the USSR in particular - where the commie ideology forbids the notion of any power higher than the politburo and The Chairman. The more intelligent people are, the more difficult it becomes to deny the existence of a higher power. I'm personally not a very religious man myself, insofar as I don't subscribe to the specific systems of beliefs championed by the established, organized religions, but one needs only look at the human body and consider how complex are all the interactions between the various systems (respiratory, digestive, reproductive, etc.). To me it is all far too complex to be an accident, and I think there has to be some higher power at work - I just don't claim to know anything about the nature of said higher power. In the USSR there was Judaism, Catholicism, and sundry other religions - all of them declared wrong by a government with the power and the inclination to punish people simply for holding the beliefs that they did. I submit that such a system of government is doomed to fail as soon as its people get beyond the stage of worshipping the moon and sun and start acquiring some scientific knowledge - which raises more questions than it can answer. Well yeah - he shouldn't have lied about it after things broke out. But all that ignores a big, big problem. The Pubs had showed a willingness to spend a huge amount of our - MY - tax dollars on wild goose chases, including the Ken Starr fiasco in which they suddenly changed things around after not being able to nab the prez on the S&L thing, to the "blue dress BJ". I was just as embarrassed by their actions as I was by the indiscretion itself. Just as the Democrats did everything they could to nail Nixon to the wall. The only difference is that the Dems succeeded with Nixon, whereas the attempt to oust Clinton failed. 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 |
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 |
On 08 Aug 2004 12:18:48 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote:
In article , John Kasupski writes: All of this is *way* off topic for this NG and belongs in some political discussion group. Thread drift is par for the course here, John. Yes, I've noticed that over the few years I've been here - on and off. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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? ;-) 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?" 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 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? :-) 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. 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 |
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (William) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , Leo writes: On 07 Aug 2004 19:53:25 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote: I think it was cute that Kellie gave up front porch prom night fun to rush, rush home to fire up his rig and work the UK instead. It shows were some priorities lie. :-) What's the Church of St. Hiram's ruling on THAT, Rev. Jim? Perhaps it's just me, but I would have been inclined to work the date, and forgo CW for the evening....ham radio is fun, but hey!...... :) "Work the date?" Odd phrasing, Leo... :-) Some of these PCTA seem to have never heard that popular phrase among young people, "Off like a prom dress!" :-) But, if one really, Really, REALLY loves "CW" more than anything else, I suppose it is understandable...but it boggles the mind just trying to envision it... LHA / WMD While writing a monthly weather review for a forward location in the ROK, I manage to work the following phrase into my report. "The visibility was up and down like a new bride's pajamas." So, either no one was reading the reports, or they were somewhat amused and let it go. Heh heh. The humor of it failed to "earn respect" from our resident angryperson. :-) I'm not suprised. Nothing he does suprises me anymore. It still scares me, though. Back when I was in class for my private pilot's license, the instructor was explaining about old CAA weather reports and how they were sent every half hour. If there was significant change in the local weather, a new report would be put on the TTY tape in between scheduled times. One morning Santa Barbara (along the coast) was experiencing fog that came and went many times during several hours. SBA reports were frequent that morning, three times normal. Finally, the last TTY read, "The fog she comes in, the fog she goes out." Instructor had a very beat-up, taped-together printout of the TTY loop and showed the class. :-) LHA / WMD Ha! Good one. Some of that stuff is priceless. Under basic weather watch, a "Record" observation is required on or about the hour and to be transmitted longline. After the hourly record observation, a check on the weather is required every 20 minutes. Changes meeting certain criterion require a "Special" observation to be transmitted lognline. Smaller changes meeting "local" requirements are to be sent locally only. FMH1-b covers weather observations. When a weather forcaster finds themselves amending their forecast with every observation, it is known as "chasing observations." No skill required. I've seen some interesting PIREPs as well. They get a little out of control on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. |
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: There's nothing "alleged" about it, Norma Jean put her romps between the sheets with JFK in writing. And she wasn't the only one of that bunch JFK did, he was a shadow member of the Rat Pack. They all "shared nicely". Ya missed the point. MM, in her time, was "world class" in a way that doesn't really exist today. ML? Puhleeze! .. . oink . . . not even with your . . . While Mamie was crocked out of gourd back on the home front . . I think the tootsie you're citing was a lieutenant, some sort of "attache". Ike and his "attache" didn't even bother using separate tents during the North African campaign . . Or maybe he did bofum, his attache and his driver. He still did the right thing about D-Day. Exactly. That's what he was paid to do. The rest is mindless soap opera crap for the idlers which had nothing to do with carrying out his duties. 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: No, Mike. You've gone over to the dark side of the force. You've kept silent on the insulting behavior of these U.S. radio amateur "extras" and then tried to encourage turning this newsgroup into a private little Chat Room. I keep quiet on all sorts of insulting behavior. I'm not here to comment on others insulting behavior. So...you condone it by not commenting. I don't recall you making any comments regarding the Killing Fields of Cambodia. By your logic, you condone what was done. You like the image that some extras display worldwide in here? What's it to you, Leonard. How are you involved in amateur radio? Do you like the image that you convey here? I'm putting you down on the PCTA self-righteousness group...on the basis of your subject postings. Have fun! :-) I've been a PCTA for a long time. No one is perfect. You're coming awfully close, Leonard. A little cosmetic surgery on your posterior should do the trick. Putting me down as self righteous? You can do that if you wish. You seem to have a thing about labels. No, I'll take that back. You are very busy trying to excuse yourself from any "conflict" in here, trying to run down the very middle of the road. In a way, that is a form of self-righteousness...that of being so "important" that you won't Get Involved in any conflicts (you are "above" that). Talk about someone being self-righteous, Len! You're in no way involved in amateur radio, yet you claim that radio amateurs and those who regulate them should come around to your way of thinking on how amateur radio should best be regulated. It also means that you don't care for anyone else, especially newcomers, since newcomers will be the most affected by any morse code test. You can think nobly and loftily because YOU made it and can then sit back and laugh at all the disputes. You've got yours and to heck with all the others. How right you are, Leonard. Newcomers will have to pass their exams, much in the same way that any of us who hold an amateur radio license studied for, took and passed exams. I can sit back and laugh at your antics because you've not taken one step toward obtaining such a license. If you are interested enough in amateur radio, you'll get the license. If not, who cares? You can pontificate here forever, supported by your little electrolyte in Ohio. Dave K8MN |
|
|
Subject: FCC Office Testing History
From: (Quitefine) Date: 8/11/2004 6:34 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In 1962 a Mooney single-engine, 4-place, retracts, gen-av plane cost $30,000 with minimal electronics on board. Hull insurance annual premiums for under-200-hour privates was 10% of that! My present residence cost $30,600 in 1963. It's worth anywhere from $300,000 to $400,000 on the market today (depending on the realtor). Let's see.... If an investment of $30,600 is worth $350,000 after a period of 41 years, the annual interest rate works out to be approximately 6.015% That's only a bit ahead of the long term inflation rate A house has insurance, taxes, and general upkeep. We are not impressed. No...we are not. And Lennie's home is just like his pilot's license...He ALMOST made it to a license, and he ALMOST wound up in an $800K gated community. And he's ALMOST a licensed Amateur...just has to drop in to the VE and take that exam...but THAT won't happen either. Lennie's life is a whole parade of "almosts". Steve, K4YZ |
Subject: FCC Office Testing History
From: (William) Date: 8/11/2004 7:46 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: I'm thinking that Dave is a crank and a kook. Coming from a guy who can only talk when another man's hand is stuffed up his backside making the mouth move, it's cute! Steve, K4YZ |
In article ,
(William) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , Dave Heil retired oberst in das Amatur Schutz Staffel writes: You're in no way involved in amateur radio, yet you claim that radio amateurs and those who regulate them should come around to your way of thinking on how amateur radio should best be regulated. Poor baby. Feeling a chill from the possibility that FCC might change regulations and remove your brag raison d'etre about mighty macho morsemanship and amateurism? You are snarling (with fear) in the dark of the graveyard, robust oberst. You do NOT enforce any regulations. You do NOT make any regulations. Quit trying to pretend you are some kind of "official authority" on who can do what. It looks so silly...like some schoolyard bully trying to "enforce" his way of thinking on all the kids... You do NOT present a pleasant picture of U.S. amateur radio, trying to "enforce" it like it was some kind of national service rather than a fun hobby. You aren't "leader" and the hobby isn't some paramilitary "service" of macho fighting men. Give up the territorial imperative of MAKING all others Do As You Did...just because You Did It. You don't own that right. You don't even have that right. The rest of us citizens enjoy the freedom to comment on federal regulations and - AMAZINGLY - the power to petition for changes in them! Sunnuvagun! How about that? Why are you so bloody insistent on trying to withhold that RIGHT from your fellow citizens? Say goodnight, Davie. LHA / WMD Len, you must not, you cannot hold an opinion about amateur radio because you hold no amateur license (shure). Furthermore, this apparently isn't America anymore. You must not, you cannot voice those opinions in a forum that is supposed to be for amateur radio policy discussion. Shame on you. What were you thinking? Must have lost it when entering this din of inequity. Mea culpa! I'm thinking that Dave is a crank and a kook. Crank, yes, but I don't think a kook. He's just your ordinary posturing bragging extra trying to talk down anyone who doesn't agree with him or who gives him the tiniest bit of sass. :-) He's been that way ever since nobody applauded his mighty macho morse accomplishments in that embassy in the mighty nation of Guinea-Bisseau (nation's maximum export is cashew nuts). Come to think of it, he may be nuts also, but of a different variety. Seventy trees, |
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (William) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , Dave Heil retired oberst in das Amatur Schutz Staffel writes: You're in no way involved in amateur radio, yet you claim that radio amateurs and those who regulate them should come around to your way of thinking on how amateur radio should best be regulated. Poor baby. Feeling a chill from the possibility that FCC might change regulations and remove your brag raison d'etre about mighty macho morsemanship and amateurism? You are snarling (with fear) in the dark of the graveyard, robust oberst. You do NOT enforce any regulations. You do NOT make any regulations. Quit trying to pretend you are some kind of "official authority" on who can do what. It looks so silly...like some schoolyard bully trying to "enforce" his way of thinking on all the kids... You do NOT present a pleasant picture of U.S. amateur radio, trying to "enforce" it like it was some kind of national service rather than a fun hobby. You aren't "leader" and the hobby isn't some paramilitary "service" of macho fighting men. Give up the territorial imperative of MAKING all others Do As You Did...just because You Did It. You don't own that right. You don't even have that right. The rest of us citizens enjoy the freedom to comment on federal regulations and - AMAZINGLY - the power to petition for changes in them! Sunnuvagun! How about that? Why are you so bloody insistent on trying to withhold that RIGHT from your fellow citizens? Say goodnight, Davie. LHA / WMD Len, you must not, you cannot hold an opinion about amateur radio because you hold no amateur license (shure). Furthermore, this apparently isn't America anymore. You must not, you cannot voice those opinions in a forum that is supposed to be for amateur radio policy discussion. Shame on you. What were you thinking? Must have lost it when entering this din of inequity. Mea culpa! So much for the Liberty Loving, Liberty Defending ex-Marine and his Look the Other Way Cronies. I'm thinking that Dave is a crank and a kook. Crank, yes, but I don't think a kook. He's just your ordinary posturing bragging extra trying to talk down anyone who doesn't agree with him or who gives him the tiniest bit of sass. :-) He's been that way ever since nobody applauded his mighty macho morse accomplishments in that embassy in the mighty nation of Guinea-Bisseau (nation's maximum export is cashew nuts). Come to think of it, he may be nuts also, but of a different variety. Seventy trees, Bad branch water. Angus steers upstream. |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: FCC Office Testing History From: Mike Coslo Date: 8/9/2004 6:37 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo Don't mistake good manners for weakness. BAM! Hammer hit's nail directly on head. What hammer? What nail? As I've suspected, you have no idea of the things going on around you. I don't "demand" anything, nursie. No? So all you do is see any comment by anyone opposed to your outsider's view of amateur radio as a demand or an order? Certainly not the marching in ranks to the beat of morse under the Newington flag like the proud noble amateurs did in the 1930s... Don't worry about it, old timer. You aren't part of the ranks. Let me know if you dig up any photos or 16mm movies of radio amateurs marching under that Newington flag. I see myself as just trying to get rid of the morse code test for U.S. amateur radio licensing. :-) I see myself using an American dictionary and spelling without so many U letters...such as in "savriour." Go for it, "Atila" (your spelling). How's your little "synchophant" (your spelling), "William" (his spelling of 'Brian')? I see myself in the mirror every time I look into one. How do you live with that pain? I couldn't? Sorry, but I DID get professionally published...for money! Do those who are professionally published for no money operate under some sort of barter system? The problem is he came into the Amateur Radio arena with the same "You'd darned well better listen to me because I know better than you" attitude and now he wonders why no one (save the lame, lazy and easily impressionable) want anything to do with him or his opinions. Nursie be gone, outasight, cracked-up, bonkers, nuts. I'm guessing that most who read Steve's statement found it accurate. Dave K8MN |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:50 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com