N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo

some snippage for clarity

Just no need to be so sensitive!


On whose part?

On theirs. When there is a disagreement, the reaction is all out of
proportion.


I'm here for a "bloody good row", and
I want to hear opinions that differ with mine.

Me too!

Some, like Len, think I'm
trying to play the middle, and am not "controversial" enough. Taint so!
I'm here to civilly discuss issues, and an occasional fishing expedition
too!


I miss K2UNK. He and I differ on practically every amateur radio policy issue
ever discussed here, yet there is never any animosity or personal attack.


It's even worse, if you prove that their opinion isn't based on facts....


So it seems......


Kill the messenger?

I had a co-worker that I would get into discussions with occasionally.
I knew I had won the argument when he would freak out on me. We're
talking yelling, name calling, etc. He would always come back later and
apologize, and since he was a decent sort, that was okay by me. Here, no
apology is forthcoming, perhaps.


I kind of thought that was what we were here for.

Me too.

As for off topic, yourself and are the ones
complaining of messages being off topic.


Yep. Even though they go off topic even more.


C'mon, you are starting to sound like a "victim".

Precisely.

Sorry, didn't mean to give that impression. It was supposed to be
tongue-in-cheek, but my keyboard emoticons are lacking.

Dang-it, there's that victim trap again! ;^)

See?

As a conservative, I can tell you that you don't have to be a victim.
You are responsible for your actions, and don't have to be a victim.
Once you do that, your life will take on new meaning, with unlimited
possibilities opening up that were denied you by the liberal's "victim
trap"


You mean like folks who blame all the problems of the ARS on the code test?


Reminds me of the "parade of victims" that NPR features each day.


When? I listen to NPR frequently, and I've not heard any such "parade".


There are true victims, who have actually been wronged, and there are folks who
blame everything bad on others.

You mean like the folks that never paid attention to Harry Truman's "The
buck stops here"?


Why does George Bush continue to fund those idiots?


See? "It's all the liberals' fault!"

1. Liberals believe in spending lots of money regardless of tax monies
received.

1a. Conservatives believe in a balanced budget, with money spent no
less than equaling input from taxes.

2. Liberals believe in using government to further their social agendas.

2a. Conservatives believe that the government that governs least governs
best. This means getting government off peoples backs.

3. Liberals believe in the government taking in tax dollars, and
redistributing them as welfare.

3a. Conservatives believe in "If you can't make it on your own, you
aren't going to make it/

So lessee, we gots ourselves record deficits (coming after a surplus)
and tax reductions - Hey, there's a recipe for bankruptcy!

We gots faith based initiatives, and a drive for vouchers, we gots a
castrated version of stem cell research - Hey ya know the rest of the
world is moving ahead - just one more way we are falling behind. Now if
we can just get that damnable evolution out of the schools...

And as we have scaled back on personal welfare, corporate welfare is
just boomin' baby!

So who is the liberals, and who is the conservatives?


For the same reasons outfits like Halliburton are funded?



NPR gets less and less gvt funding every year. 65 percent private/35
percent public



Yep.



There is a downside to that though. When Newt ad his buds originally
started the pull the pursetrings on NPR, the idea was that they would
melt and go away like the wicked witch of the west after getting doused
by Dorothy.



Is that the Newt whose treatment of his former spouse wasn't exactly in
line with "family values"?


There is a cruelty there that is damning, especially that his fellow
"family value" spouting, right thinking people didn't hop on that.


Did you *really* expect fellow Pubs and conservatives to criticize Mr. Speaker?

(Look up how many times Rush Limbaugh has been married...)
What is amazing is that there is more than one woman in the world that
would mate with him.


Or the Newt whose intercepted cell phone conversation wasn't exactly G
rated?


hehheh


Lots of examples like that.


They didn't - they thrived, adapting to the new situation.


Fascinating!



As they
receive less and less government funding, they have more and more
autonomy. At this point I would assume that they enjoy the money that
they still get from the gvt



And that is the downside - less control.



I don't see journalistic freedom as a downside.


I guess I skipped around there a bit. I meant that to Newt and his
minions (hey - what IS the difference between a minion and a crony,
anyhoo?)


Crony is a fellow-traveler, minion is an underling.


the fact that they did not Kill public broadcasting, they lost
any ability to control it.

And that's good!

Yup!


As long as they controlled the purse strings,
they could threaten to cut off monies if public broadcasting didn't
start broadcasting "properly" ala Fox News. Instead, they made that
wrong assumption about public broadcasting's will to survive, and even
thrive.

They also completely misunderstood what we the people really want.

It's pretty common. It is like the networks bringing out new "reality
shows" because they are what get people watching - while ignoring the
fact that network viewership continues to tumble. It's why the music
industry bemoans declining sales, and blame it on MP3 file sharing,
completely ignoring that their present product is way overpriced - oh,
and by the way, the fact that "popular" music SUCKS these days might
have something to do with it, eh?


So instead of doing what they wanted to do, they inadvertently
did the right thing. Happens once in a while.


Law of Unintended/Unforeseen Consequences


Perhaps some people would
prefer that all broadcasting be like Fox - a cheerleader for the
administration currently in power.


(just like good ol' Radio Moscow used to be)

ZZZZZZZiiinnngggg! You done brought the thread home, Jim!



I actually get my news from NPR and Reuters now.

I've done NPR and PBS for years. Best broadcasting in the USA, bar none.


NO doubt.



Despite NPR's middle
to left perspective, they actually report so much more than the other
organizations - Network news sucks, CNN is weird, and Fox News is great
if you are a Pub that only wants to hear news that agrees with your
world view.



I find the whole NPR/PBS viewpoint to be all over the map - left, right,
center, whatever. IOW, well rounded and balanced. But I can see where some
folks would be annoyed by hearing things that are not complimentary to the
current administration - whoever it is.
---


One thing I find interesting, though, is the upscale drift of the PBS DIY
shows. Seems to me that "This Old House" and "Hometime" used to be mostly
about
regular middle-class folks fixing up their homes themselves. But in recent
seasons, it's become more and more about monster projects in exotic or
upscale
locations, using top-of-the-line products. And most of the work is done by
contractors, not homeowners.


I stopped watching the show after a person in Taos NM was redoing his
house. The host immediately asks him what the budget is. Upon getting
the answer - $150,000 - he made all kinds of clucking noises about how
hard it was going to be to redo a place for that little. This was at a
time when the typical new house in our area was going for that much. I
figured the show wasn't too relevant to me anymore.


Real estate is one of those things that varies all over the place. Look at
realtor.com and see how much the same house costs in different parts of the
country, or even in different parts of the same *county*. It's all in what
you're used to. In a house worth, say, $500,000, a $150,000 re-do isn't such a
big deal if it includes really serious upgrading. Heck, I know folks doing
$100,000 improvements to $300,000 houses - because the cost of the house they
want, a couple of blocks over, is well over $450,000. And we're not talking
mansions or fancy places, either.

Eventually that bubble will burst.

Yup, like when Mr. and Mrs. Smartbuy decide to sell their 20,000 sq. ft
McMansion and move into a apartment or condo after they retire, and find
no market for it? They will be trying to sell a huge house that costs a
fortune to heat and keep up, and is poorly constructed to boot.

WoW! I've been on a rant here!

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo

some snippage for clarity

Just no need to be so sensitive!

On whose part?

On theirs. When there is a disagreement, the reaction is all out of
proportion.

Yes, I've noticed that. Nothing new, really - look up how Len behaved in "the
sphincter post". That one was a classic!

Basically, a fellow who had been a USCG radio operator described what it was
like doing so at the station in Hawaii. Using Morse code on 500 kHz and HF for
maritime communications. Not in the 1930s, either. Post wasn't even addressed
to Len IIRC. Len didn't exactly show respect for the skill and dedication
required to do that job.

I'm here for a "bloody good row", and
I want to hear opinions that differ with mine.

Me too!

Some, like Len, think I'm
trying to play the middle, and am not "controversial" enough. Taint so!
I'm here to civilly discuss issues, and an occasional fishing expedition
too!

You're pro-code-test, Mike, and therefore a target for anyhting Len can think
up.

I miss K2UNK. He and I differ on practically every amateur radio policy
issue
ever discussed here, yet there is never any animosity or personal attack.

It's even worse, if you prove that their opinion isn't based on facts....

So it seems......

Kill the messenger?

I had a co-worker that I would get into discussions with occasionally.
I knew I had won the argument when he would freak out on me. We're
talking yelling, name calling, etc. He would always come back later and
apologize, and since he was a decent sort, that was okay by me. Here, no
apology is forthcoming, perhaps.

Haven't seen one in more than seven years. In fact it works the other way: If
you get to the point where you've actually proven a mistake on the part of the
other party, the resentment and abuse get worse. This was clearly demonstrated
when Len stated that he'd *never* used a certain screen name on rrap - and then
I googled up a few posts where he had.

I kind of thought that was what we were here for.

Me too.

As for off topic, yourself and are the ones
complaining of messages being off topic.

Yep. Even though they go off topic even more.

What's interesting is that you'll see OT assertions about how somebody was
doing military radio while you were still in diapers, but no explanation about
how that connects to amateur radio policy today.

C'mon, you are starting to sound like a "victim".

Precisely.

Sorry, didn't mean to give that impression. It was supposed to be
tongue-in-cheek, but my keyboard emoticons are lacking.

Dang-it, there's that victim trap again! ;^)

See?

As a conservative, I can tell you that you don't have to be a victim.
You are responsible for your actions, and don't have to be a victim.
Once you do that, your life will take on new meaning, with unlimited
possibilities opening up that were denied you by the liberal's "victim
trap"

You mean like folks who blame all the problems of the ARS on the code
test?

Reminds me of the "parade of victims" that NPR features each day.

When? I listen to NPR frequently, and I've not heard any such "parade".

There are true victims, who have actually been wronged, and there are folks
who
blame everything bad on others.

You mean like the folks that never paid attention to Harry Truman's "The
buck stops here"?

Yep. When asked if he'd made any mistakes in his time in the White House, our
president replied that he'd made some mistakes in appointing certain people.
That was all. Talk about buck-passing!

Why does George Bush continue to fund those idiots?

See? "It's all the liberals' fault!"

1. Liberals believe in spending lots of money regardless of tax monies
received.

That's a classic complaint of their fiscal policies.

1a. Conservatives believe in a balanced budget, with money spent no
less than equaling input from taxes.

Supposedly

2. Liberals believe in using government to further their social agendas.

Agendas which focus on special interest groups, supposedly

2a. Conservatives believe that the government that governs least governs
best. This means getting government off peoples backs.

Minimal regulation

3. Liberals believe in the government taking in tax dollars, and
redistributing them as welfare.

Supposedly so that those who receive the welfare will advance to the point
where they don't need it any more.

3a. Conservatives believe in "If you can't make it on your own, you
aren't going to make it/

AKA "free market" or "Darwinism".

So lessee, we gots ourselves record deficits (coming after a surplus)
and tax reductions - Hey, there's a recipe for bankruptcy!

In less than four years we went from surplus to incredible deficit. Last time
we did that to such an amazing degree was when Ronald Reagan was president...

We gots faith based initiatives, and a drive for vouchers, we gots a
castrated version of stem cell research - Hey ya know the rest of the
world is moving ahead - just one more way we are falling behind. Now if
we can just get that damnable evolution out of the schools...

And keep those gays from getting hitched! Yep, that'll solve all our
problems...

Back in the 1970s, the USA imported about a third of the oil used here. Now we
import about two-thirds. Wrong direction.

And as we have scaled back on personal welfare, corporate welfare is
just boomin' baby!

Only for certain organizations.

So who is the liberals, and who is the conservatives?

Bingo! You oughta write that up, Mike. oh wait, you just did

For the same reasons outfits like Halliburton are funded?

NPR gets less and less gvt funding every year. 65 percent private/35
percent public

Yep.

There is a downside to that though. When Newt ad his buds originally
started the pull the pursetrings on NPR, the idea was that they would
melt and go away like the wicked witch of the west after getting doused
by Dorothy.

Is that the Newt whose treatment of his former spouse wasn't exactly in
line with "family values"?

There is a cruelty there that is damning, especially that his fellow
"family value" spouting, right thinking people didn't hop on that.

Did you *really* expect fellow Pubs and conservatives to criticize Mr.
Speaker?

(Look up how many times Rush Limbaugh has been married...)

What is amazing is that there is more than one woman in the world that
would mate with him.

I'm amazed that there is one...!

Or the Newt whose intercepted cell phone conversation wasn't exactly G
rated?

hehheh

Lots of examples like that.

They didn't - they thrived, adapting to the new situation.

Fascinating!

As they
receive less and less government funding, they have more and more
autonomy. At this point I would assume that they enjoy the money that
they still get from the gvt

And that is the downside - less control.

I don't see journalistic freedom as a downside.

I guess I skipped around there a bit. I meant that to Newt and his
minions (hey - what IS the difference between a minion and a crony,
anyhoo?)

Crony is a fellow-traveler, minion is an underling.

the fact that they did not Kill public broadcasting, they lost
any ability to control it.

And that's good!

Yup!

As long as they controlled the purse strings,
they could threaten to cut off monies if public broadcasting didn't
start broadcasting "properly" ala Fox News. Instead, they made that
wrong assumption about public broadcasting's will to survive, and even
thrive.

They also completely misunderstood what we the people really want.

It's pretty common. It is like the networks bringing out new "reality
shows" because they are what get people watching - while ignoring the
fact that network viewership continues to tumble.

Inevitable result of more channels and more competing technologies.

The interesting part of "reality" shows (to me) is that they're all based on
fantasies!

My favorite ones are the PBS ones where they put modern day people into setups
from another time ("The 1900 House", "Frontier House", etc.) and see how they
fare. What's neat is that they become subtle but powerful commercials for the
modern life.

It's why the music
industry bemoans declining sales, and blame it on MP3 file sharing,
completely ignoring that their present product is way overpriced - oh,
and by the way, the fact that "popular" music SUCKS these days might
have something to do with it, eh?

Part of that is the fact that a CD costs so much yet may have only a few songs
you want on it.

There's also so many competing *legal* venues out there like satellite radio,
streaming audio, the 99 cent iPod downloads, etc.

So instead of doing what they wanted to do, they inadvertently
did the right thing. Happens once in a while.

Law of Unintended/Unforeseen Consequences

Perhaps some people would
prefer that all broadcasting be like Fox - a cheerleader for the
administration currently in power.

(just like good ol' Radio Moscow used to be)

ZZZZZZZiiinnngggg! You done brought the thread home, Jim!

Of course! See how the whole thing is actually on-topic?

I actually get my news from NPR and Reuters now.

I've done NPR and PBS for years. Best broadcasting in the USA, bar none.

NO doubt.

Despite NPR's middle
to left perspective, they actually report so much more than the other
organizations - Network news sucks, CNN is weird, and Fox News is great
if you are a Pub that only wants to hear news that agrees with your
world view.

I find the whole NPR/PBS viewpoint to be all over the map - left, right,
center, whatever. IOW, well rounded and balanced. But I can see where
some
folks would be annoyed by hearing things that are not complimentary to the
current administration - whoever it is.
---

One thing I find interesting, though, is the upscale drift of the PBS DIY
shows. Seems to me that "This Old House" and "Hometime" used to be
mostly
about
regular middle-class folks fixing up their homes themselves. But in recent
seasons, it's become more and more about monster projects in exotic or
upscale
locations, using top-of-the-line products. And most of the work is done by
contractors, not homeowners.

This week's "Hometime" just exploded that theory completely, at least for that
show. The project is a kitchen redo. Young family (Dad, Mom, 9 month old baby)
in a small frame house with limited budget. Everybody pitches in, cabinets and
appliances are from the home center some contracting and lots of homeowner
work, etc. Home videos integrated into the show. Real-life headaches and
stresses dealt with.

Kinda like ham radio - lots of hams don't have ideal or even near ideal setups,
but they manage to get on the air nonetheless.

I stopped watching the show after a person in Taos NM was redoing his
house. The host immediately asks him what the budget is. Upon getting
the answer - $150,000 - he made all kinds of clucking noises about how
hard it was going to be to redo a place for that little. This was at a
time when the typical new house in our area was going for that much. I
figured the show wasn't too relevant to me anymore.

Real estate is one of those things that varies all over the place. Look at
realtor.com and see how much the same house costs in different parts of the
country, or even in different parts of the same *county*. It's all in what
you're used to. In a house worth, say, $500,000, a $150,000 re-do isn't
such a
big deal if it includes really serious upgrading. Heck, I know folks doing
$100,000 improvements to $300,000 houses - because the cost of the house
they
want, a couple of blocks over, is well over $450,000. And we're not talking
mansions or fancy places, either.

Eventually that bubble will burst.

Yup, like when Mr. and Mrs. Smartbuy decide to sell their 20,000 sq. ft
McMansion and move into a apartment or condo after they retire, and find
no market for it? They will be trying to sell a huge house that costs a
fortune to heat and keep up, and is poorly constructed to boot.

Yep. And it gets worse: The McMansion is on a huge lot that has a pile of deed
restrictions prohibiting things like subdividing the property, converting the
house for multifamily use, etc.

Meanwhile the apartment/condos that they want to go into keep climbing in price
because so many other people in the same situation are buying them.

WoW! I've been on a rant here!

Not at all!

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote


Back in the 1970s, the USA imported about a third of the oil used
here. Now we
import about two-thirds. Wrong direction.


And what is "wrong" about that? It's a global economy. You import what
you have a shortage of, and export what you have a surplus of. Many
countries import 100% of the oil they need!

Damn right we import more oil! In the 1970's I drove a 4-cylinder
compact car that sipped gasoline; today I drive several cars, one of
which is a 32-valve turbo-charged V8 and pay less for fuel on an
adjusted-for-inflation basis than I did 30 years ago in 1974.

Sunuvagun! Ain't economics grand!

73, de Hans, K0HB