| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Problem for boaters and APRS?
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 12/16/2004 4:26 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS? From: "KØHB" Date: 12/15/2004 10:23 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: t A friend sent me the link below. At first I thought it had to be an April Fool joke, but apparently The Shrub really IS that stupid! http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...ellites.html?e x=1104168601&ei=1&en=4e6b58c489759881 I'd ask you where you've been, Hans, but I know the question's rhetorical. Slick Willy specifically stated that he was authorizing the deactivation of accuracy inhibitors for non-military users based upon the pemise that American military commanders could re-activate it, or the President could order it's complete isolation from non-authorized users. That was in 1993 or 1994, I believe. IIRC, the accuracy inhibition was turned off just before Gulf War 1 (1991) and President Clinton simply decided not to turn it back on. Nope. It was still active. President Clinton made a point of announcing the intent to remove the inhibitors and making it more accurate for civilian applications. Also IIRC, the effect of accuracy inhibition was to degrade the accuracy of "civilian" users to about plus-minus 30 feet. As opposed to the almost 300 yard to 1/2 mile "accuracy" that it was at before, it was a MAJOR improvement to non-US Armed Forces users. WHY, Hans, would the United States NOT act to either "desensitize" the GPS net, or completely remove it from use for the criteria set forth in the article...?!?! The article talks about shutting it off. Or parts of it. Seems to me that capability should have been a part of it from day one. It was. Where were you? I think Hans' point may be that we have become so dependent on GPS that turning it off would hurt us more than it would stop the terrorists. The 9/11 attacks didn't depend on GPS in any way. No, Jim...it would "inconvienience" us...It would not hurt us. And the "hijack an aircraft and use it as a missle" thing is unlikely to happen again. Just think how much more damage Saddam's SCUD's could have caused had they had GPS navigation rather than their antiquated Soviet inertial navigation. Or it may be that openly talking about what you're going to do removes a level of protection. Terrorists with any sense (yes, an oxymoron) know now that they shouldn't depend on GPS. You mean they shouldn't depend on GPS AFTER the first volley of attacks, don't you...?!?! As of RIGHT NOW, anyone with the money and desire to do so can use GPS against us. So, Jim, in YOUR estimation, how many lives are worth the inconvienience of not having a moving map display in your Escalade...??? Is it your contention that, given a set of "extreme criteria" (attack on the United States, overt acts of war, etc), that we should leave the net "open" regardless...??? What was stated in the article is NOTHING NEW! Sure it is. No, it was not. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Steve Robeson K4YZ wrote:
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS? From: PAMNO (N2EY) What was stated in the article is NOTHING NEW! Sure it is. No, it was not. You are correct, Steve. Nothing new here at all. In fact I am surprised that the story was even written, except maybe as just a reminder. Shutting down the system has been a part of the system since day one. Allowing the system to be more accurate was more of an economic decision than malfeasance by a former president. I suspect that considering the economic impact of the use of accurate GPS, any sitting president would have made the same decision. What is worrisome is that IF the system is shut down even temporarily, the effects could cause as many problems as they prevent. We are *that* dependent on GPS. Here is just one (admittedly scary) example: In Oregon, there is a pilot project using GPS. http://www.odot.state.or.us/ruftf/faq.html http://economics.about.com/od/taxesa...ileage_tax.htm Don't like paying gasoline taxes? In Oregon, you will be able to forgo them by allowing them to track the mileage that you drive within the state. Your GPS simply reports your position as you drive around the state. When you gas up at the pump, a sensor subtracts the tax on the gas, and you don't pay the tax until you get a statement (presumably on your credit card. Aside from the obvious Big Brother aspect of this scheme, if the GPS were to go down, there would be lots of money lost. As an aside, is this creepy or what? I can foresee a time when the records of *everyone* driving near a crime scene could be subpoenaed and you'll have to prove that it was not you who murdered the person and dumped their body in the creek, etc., etc,etc. - Mike KB3EIA - |
A little less Orwellian is that the cellular sites all use the GPS time
signals to synchronize their switching. It's gotta be very precise or it no workee. |
"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote in message ... Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS? From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 12/16/2004 4:26 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS? From: "KØHB" Date: 12/15/2004 10:23 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: t A friend sent me the link below. At first I thought it had to be an April Fool joke, but apparently The Shrub really IS that stupid! http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...ellites.html?e x=1104168601&ei=1&en=4e6b58c489759881 I'd ask you where you've been, Hans, but I know the question's rhetorical. Slick Willy specifically stated that he was authorizing the deactivation of accuracy inhibitors for non-military users based upon the pemise that American military commanders could re-activate it, or the President could order it's complete isolation from non-authorized users. That was in 1993 or 1994, I believe. IIRC, the accuracy inhibition was turned off just before Gulf War 1 (1991) and President Clinton simply decided not to turn it back on. Nope. It was still active. President Clinton made a point of announcing the intent to remove the inhibitors and making it more accurate for civilian applications. Also IIRC, the effect of accuracy inhibition was to degrade the accuracy of "civilian" users to about plus-minus 30 feet. As opposed to the almost 300 yard to 1/2 mile "accuracy" that it was at before, it was a MAJOR improvement to non-US Armed Forces users. WHY, Hans, would the United States NOT act to either "desensitize" the GPS net, or completely remove it from use for the criteria set forth in the article...?!?! The article talks about shutting it off. Or parts of it. Seems to me that capability should have been a part of it from day one. It was. Where were you? I think Hans' point may be that we have become so dependent on GPS that turning it off would hurt us more than it would stop the terrorists. The 9/11 attacks didn't depend on GPS in any way. No, Jim...it would "inconvienience" us...It would not hurt us. And the "hijack an aircraft and use it as a missle" thing is unlikely to happen again. Just think how much more damage Saddam's SCUD's could have caused had they had GPS navigation rather than their antiquated Soviet inertial navigation. Or it may be that openly talking about what you're going to do removes a level of protection. Terrorists with any sense (yes, an oxymoron) know now that they shouldn't depend on GPS. You mean they shouldn't depend on GPS AFTER the first volley of attacks, don't you...?!?! As of RIGHT NOW, anyone with the money and desire to do so can use GPS against us. So, Jim, in YOUR estimation, how many lives are worth the inconvienience of not having a moving map display in your Escalade...??? Is it your contention that, given a set of "extreme criteria" (attack on the United States, overt acts of war, etc), that we should leave the net "open" regardless...??? What was stated in the article is NOTHING NEW! Sure it is. No, it was not. 73 Steve, K4YZ Steve, Folks have become so dependent upon modern conveniences. Many times I've handed money to some kid at a cash register and he/she punches in the exact purchase price and *not* the amount of money I forked over. Now the machine says zero change. I've seen them resort to calculators and one had to get a manager (no calculator and she couldn't subtract $12.35 from $20.00). Take these same folks (most likely the ones that will ultimately earn big money - engineers don't), put 'em on a 50 foot boat out for a cruise - and the GPS shuts down. Now what do they do? Reach for a direct satellite cell phone. Ooops - maybe they turned them off too? Come to think of it, if they shut the communications satellites off, that will severely limit communications overseas and make any terrorist cells less able to act. No Internet from overseas and telephone calls will probably be in the neighborhood of $15.00 per minute. Sounds good to you, right? Or are you pro terrorist? Better get a letter off to the White House now! We can *really* be safe if we shut down the communications satellites! No overseas Internet for terrorists to communicate over. Ooops ... I forgot. Russia has made many more launches than we have. Some 10 times in a couple of years. Europe, Japan .... say, believe it or not, we don't have the exclusive anymore. In fact, we might be in danger of becoming a bit player. Maybe that is why Bush wants to push for Mars. Make his place in history. I see some real good research on diabetes. Why am I not surprised that it is coming out of Great Britain, rather than the U.S. I note that one medication I had was $120.00 for a 30 day supply. They raised my co-pay to $48.00 (40%). They told me to get a generic. I did. Now I only pay $8.00. It works just great! I was really surprised to find that the cost of the generic was $98.00!!! The insurance company pays far more now for me to use "generic" ($90.00) than the "brand" ($72.00) name. LOL. Bush has sure covered the drug companies so well that they are raising the generic prices up close to the brand name prices. How's your health insurance? Nice and cheap? Low deductibles? Why am I not surprised? Our biggest danger is likely not external; I suspect that we may simply self-destruct like the U.S.S.R. did. Best regards from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
Steve Robeson K4YZ wrote:
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS? From: "JAMES HAMPTON" Date: 12/16/2004 7:24 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote in message ... Folks have become so dependent upon modern conveniences. Many times I've handed money to some kid at a cash register and he/she punches in the exact purchase price and *not* the amount of money I forked over. Now the machine says zero change. I've seen them resort to calculators and one had to get a manager (no calculator and she couldn't subtract $12.35 from $20.00). You're preaching to the choir here, Jim. Come to think of it, if they shut the communications satellites off, that will severely limit communications overseas and make any terrorist cells less able to act. Dunno about you, Jim, but I am pretty much able to communicate world wide on a semi-reliable basis without Internet capability. If I were a combatant in a remote area without satellite, I betchya I could get a message to where I wanted it to go, and get instructions in return. (And for Lennie and Brian's benefit, that's even withOUT a code key at hand...) No Internet from overseas and telephone calls will probably be in the neighborhood of $15.00 per minute. Sounds good to you, right? Or are you pro terrorist? Hardly. But the terrorists are pretty well funded...certainly a lot better than my own personal budget! But I can still communicate without the Internet...Wanna bet they can Better get a letter off to the White House now! We can *really* be safe if we shut down the communications satellites! No overseas Internet for terrorists to communicate over. How much MORE ya wanna bet that we can do exactly that if we thought it was in our best interests to do so? Ooops ... I forgot. Russia has made many more launches than we have. Some 10 times in a couple of years. Europe, Japan .... say, believe it or not, we don't have the exclusive anymore. In fact, we might be in danger of becoming a bit player. Maybe that is why Bush wants to push for Mars. Make his place in history. I see some real good research on diabetes. Why am I not surprised that it is coming out of Great Britain, rather than the U.S. Mostly because their version of the FDA is more liberal in drug trial testing, among other things. Also, the government controls healthcare. I note that one medication I had was $120.00 for a 30 day supply. They raised my co-pay to $48.00 (40%). They told me to get a generic. I did. Now I only pay $8.00. It works just great! I was really surprised to find that the cost of the generic was $98.00!!! The insurance company pays far more now for me to use "generic" ($90.00) than the "brand" ($72.00) name. LOL. Bush has sure covered the drug companies so well that they are raising the generic prices up close to the brand name prices. How's your health insurance? Nice and cheap? Low deductibles? Why am I not surprised? Less than $3000 a year for a family of four, no deductibles (unless I go "out of plan"). Our biggest danger is likely not external; I suspect that we may simply self-destruct like the U.S.S.R. did. You're almost absolutely right...Until we demand tort law reform, cap damages limits and demand that health care conglomerates like HCA, Tenet, and others put the public ahead of profits, we very well may..at least as far as healthcare goes. Our economic deficits are due MOSTLY to OUR gluttonous consumerism, and unless WE decide that we want to put the good of the Nation ahead of the good of our selves, then you are again correct...we may very well implode. Implode is the right word, Steve. Our almost inconcievable national debt is being propped up by foreign money propping up the dollar. Problem is that as the dollar gets weaker, at some point two things are going to happen: 1. Other countries, including the one that is pumping the most money into the US, are going to look elsewhere for the place to put their money 2. The dollar will cease to be the worlds preferred currency. At that point, we will be hurting. No amount of blaming the "other" party is going to make a bit of difference. This is some pretty basic economic truth, no conspiracy theories or whackiness needed. Just check out who the biggest investor in the US is at this time. Anyone that isn't scared ****less is not paying proper attention. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , "JAMES HAMPTON"
writes: Folks have become so dependent upon modern conveniences. Many times I've handed money to some kid at a cash register and he/she punches in the exact purchase price and *not* the amount of money I forked over. Now the machine says zero change. I've seen them resort to calculators and one had to get a manager (no calculator and she couldn't subtract $12.35 from $20.00). I've seen that sort of thing - and also bright young people of the same age who could make change and do much more complex calculations in their heads. All depends on what the educational priorities are. Take these same folks (most likely the ones that will ultimately earn big money - engineers don't), put 'em on a 50 foot boat out for a cruise - and the GPS shuts down. Now what do they do? Become a statistic. Heck, a lot of folks I know can't even figure out which way North is on a clear night. Reach for a direct satellite cell phone. Ooops - maybe they turned them off too? Satellite phones are known to be used by terror groups. Yet they are allowed to use those assets against us. Come to think of it, if they shut the communications satellites off, that will severely limit communications overseas and make any terrorist cells less able to act. No Internet from overseas and telephone calls will probably be in the neighborhood of $15.00 per minute. And unlike a satellite call, "wired" calls can be traced to their source. Sounds good to you, right? Or are you pro terrorist? Indeed. Better get a letter off to the White House now! We can *really* be safe if we shut down the communications satellites! No overseas Internet for terrorists to communicate over. Ooops ... I forgot. Russia has made many more launches than we have. Some 10 times in a couple of years. Europe, Japan .... say, believe it or not, we don't have the exclusive anymore. In fact, we might be in danger of becoming a bit player. Maybe that is why Bush wants to push for Mars. Make his place in history. In some ways it's the '60s all over again. Focusing on the wrong problems and fighting the wrong enemy. Most of all, a short-term point of view. I see some real good research on diabetes. Why am I not surprised that it is coming out of Great Britain, rather than the U.S. Priorities. I note that one medication I had was $120.00 for a 30 day supply. They raised my co-pay to $48.00 (40%). They told me to get a generic. I did. Now I only pay $8.00. It works just great! I was really surprised to find that the cost of the generic was $98.00!!! The insurance company pays far more now for me to use "generic" ($90.00) than the "brand" ($72.00) name. LOL. Bush has sure covered the drug companies so well that they are raising the generic prices up close to the brand name prices. How long a drive is it from Rochester to Canada, Jim? How much do you think those same medications, made in the same factories, cost in Toronto or Montreal? How's your health insurance? Nice and cheap? Low deductibles? Why am I not surprised? Mine's pretty good but but it's not cheap. And every year the deductibles go up. Our biggest danger is likely not external; I suspect that we may simply self-destruct like the U.S.S.R. did. I think that in some ways that process has been going on a long time. For example - remember when a high school education and some specialized training and skills would get the average person a good job? And when most of those jobs paid enough in salary and benefits to support a middle class family? I don't think we'll see an implosion - rather, just a gradual slide. A little bit here, a little bit there, until more people wake up. 73 de Jim, N2EY 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"In some ways it's the '60s all over again. Focusing on the wrong
problems and fighting the wrong enemy. Most of all, a short-term point of view." Jim, what are the right problems to focus on? Who is the right enemy? It will be interesting to hear what your NPR trained mind will come up with. |
"bb" wrote in message ups.com... "In some ways it's the '60s all over again. Focusing on the wrong problems and fighting the wrong enemy. Most of all, a short-term point of view." Jim, what are the right problems to focus on? Who is the right enemy? It will be interesting to hear what your NPR trained mind will come up with. Well, if Jim (N2EY) doesn't mind me jumping in here ... My own beliefs are that the free market is not necessarily the right place for certain things. Would we have all of the nice communications satellites if the government had not been in a space race with Russia (and spent many billions of dollars)? Now, of course, it is moving into commercial market, but without the government lead, I doubt we'd have nearly the communications capability that we currently have. The federal deficit is enormous; so is the imbalance of trade. I would probably start (and get promptly voted out of the White House LOL) with getting some experts and deciding and a good gasoline rationing plan (not the odd/even stuff from the 70s). Allow so many gallons per licensed driver in a household (no, you don't get more because you have a truck, SUV, RV, two Jaguars and three motorcycles), plus some additional for school age children. Take the numbers and come up with a limit to reduce oil consumption by 10%. Each year, reduce it a bit more. Some folks wouldn't use their allotment, and they'd be entitled to turn it into an "open" account. They would receive cash equal to the unpurchased gasoline. Anyone who wishes could purchase gasoline credits from that account. The government would, of course, tack on about a 50% tax, both to pay for this rationing plus bring a few extra dollars into the treasury. Over a few years, folks would be looking once again for fuel efficient vehicles. If someone really wants to buy a Dodge Viper with a 500 horsepower 10 cylinder engine, they could. They could also expect to be purchasing from that fund of unused gas rations (with the extra surcharge). However, if we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 25 or 30 percent, we'd be in better shape (both in the trade balance department as well as in better shape in case of an oil embargo). Let us not kid ourselves, however. Currently, I believe we only produce 25% of the oil we consume. I think it was a bit more than 50% back in the days of the oil embargo. This might be a reasonable place to start. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA ps - not going to start with the FCC auctioning of spectrum. That is crazy enough, but doesn't help the foreign trade deficit. |
In article , "JAMES HAMPTON"
writes: Well, if Jim (N2EY) doesn't mind me jumping in here ... Not at all! My own beliefs are that the free market is not necessarily the right place for certain things. Would we have all of the nice communications satellites if the government had not been in a space race with Russia (and spent many billions of dollars)? Now, of course, it is moving into commercial market, but without the government lead, I doubt we'd have nearly the communications capability that we currently have. Valid point! OTOH, do we really have a "free market" at all? Consider transportation - the airlines didn't build the airports, or the air traffic control system, or the weather service that reports on conditions at flying altitudes. Nor did the bus and trucking industries build the interstates or the bridges and tunnels. Construction of significant parts of the railroad system was not funded by the railroads, nor were the canals and river systems. The federal deficit is enormous; so is the imbalance of trade. I would probably start (and get promptly voted out of the White House LOL) with getting some experts and deciding and a good gasoline rationing plan (not the odd/even stuff from the 70s). You have identified two of our biggest problems: dependence on imported petroleum products and the trade deficit. Allow so many gallons per licensed driver in a household (no, you don't get more because you have a truck, SUV, RV, two Jaguars and three motorcycles), plus some additional for school age children. Take the numbers and come up with a limit to reduce oil consumption by 10%. Each year, reduce it a bit more. Some folks wouldn't use their allotment, and they'd be entitled to turn it into an "open" account. They would receive cash equal to the unpurchased gasoline. Anyone who wishes could purchase gasoline credits from that account. The government would, of course, tack on about a 50% tax, both to pay for this rationing plus bring a few extra dollars into the treasury. Over a few years, folks would be looking once again for fuel efficient vehicles. If someone really wants to buy a Dodge Viper with a 500 horsepower 10 cylinder engine, they could. They could also expect to be purchasing from that fund of unused gas rations (with the extra surcharge). However, if we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 25 or 30 percent, we'd be in better shape (both in the trade balance department as well as in better shape in case of an oil embargo). I agree with the goal but not the method. The problem, as I see it, is that there would be too many ways around the system for some people, and it would be too bureaucratic. But the goal is right. The Europeans and Japanese control oil consumption by taxing the fuel at the pump, and then using the taxes to fund energy-efficient alternatives to the private auto. That's why their transit systems are so pervasive and so popular: they don't expect transit to make money or even pay for itself. The big questions a how to reduce consumption without serious negative economic effects on industries like agriculture? And how do we make the changes permanent? In a larger sense, overall energy policy needs to change. Which isn't going to be popular, because it influences our way of life in all sorts of ways - more fuel-efficient cars, less driving, more transit, more fuel-efficient homes and businesses, living in denser communities with sidewalks and town centers rather than in sprawl. This isn't primarily a technological problem, it's an attitude and policy problem. Gasoline is actually so inexpensive in the USA that it 'doesn't pay' to conserve it. Example: Suppose you drive 15,000 miles a year. If you drive a vehicle that gets 15 mpg, and you pay $2/gallon, your annual fuel cost is $2000. A vehicle that gets 30 mpg saves you half that, but it's only $1000 a year - less than $20/week. A 45 mpg vehicle saves you only $333 more. While these costs aren't small, they are only a small part of the total cost of a vehicle, when you look at car prices, insurance, repair/maintenance, etc. Plus when you look at the effect of inflation, $2/gal gasoline today is less expensive in inflation-adjusted dollars than $1/gal ~20 years ago. Shrub talks about hydrogen power but doesn't explain where all the hydrogen is supposed to come from. US carmakers push, and US drivers buy, SUVs rather than cars, and the govt. reinforces the sales by classifying SUVs as "trucks". Let us not kid ourselves, however. Currently, I believe we only produce 25% of the oil we consume. I think it was a bit more than 50% back in the days of the oil embargo. From what I've read recently, back in the '70s we imported one-third and produced two-thirds. Today it's the other way around. It should be remembered that a lot of our imported oil comes from places like Canada, Mexico and Nigeria, and not from the Middle East. The significance of Middle East oil is two fold: 1) Oil companies are multinational, and aren't going to freeze, strand and starve Western Europe so Americans can drive SUVs. 2) The big producers like SA have enormous influence on price. This might be a reasonable place to start. Yep. But it's not popular. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA ps - not going to start with the FCC auctioning of spectrum. That is crazy enough, but doesn't help the foreign trade deficit. Agreed! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
No, Jim doesn't mind. Of course not.
It gives him an excuse for not answering the questions I asked. Jim, what are the right problems to focus on? Who is the right enemy? Thanks, bb |
"bb" wrote now we've got Hans saying "It's my right, It's my right to have free access to a DoD weapons system!" Pains me to say it Brian, but on one issue Steve is precisely right --- the part where he says you're a lying sack of crap. Hans never said anything even remotely resembling that. What he did say is that shutting it down is an exceptionally stupid idea, akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face. Nothing in there about any individual "right to have free access". Sunuvagun! Good luck on this one now! 3's, de Hans, K0HB |
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: "KØHB" Date: 12/18/2004 8:46 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: et "bb" wrote now we've got Hans saying "It's my right, It's my right to have free access to a DoD weapons system!" Pains me to say it Brian, but on one issue Steve is precisely right --- the part where he says you're a lying sack of crap. Where did I call Brian a "sack of crap"...?!?! Steve, K4YZ |
Then you have the perfect opportunity to correct me at this time,
instead of agreeing with Steve, who says you're a supporter of terrorism. "A friend sent me the link below. At first I thought it had to be an April Fool joke, but apparently The Shrub really IS that stupid!" So in your sea-swamped opinion, why cannot "Shrub" turn off the GPS if a terrorist attack is imminant? Best of Luck |
"bb" wrote
"A friend sent me the link below. At first I thought it had to be an April Fool joke, but apparently The Shrub really IS that stupid!" So in your sea-swamped opinion, why cannot "Shrub" turn off the GPS if a terrorist attack is imminant? Best of Luck No luck needed at all, Brian. I never said he "cannot turn off the GPS". After all, he's in charge and has wide lattitude to do pretty much whatever he decides to, including some stupid things. This would be one of those stupid things. Par for the course, like his stupid notion of turning SS over to Wall Street. dit dit, de Hans, K0HB |
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: "KØHB" Date: 12/19/2004 10:45 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: et "bb" wrote "A friend sent me the link below. At first I thought it had to be an April Fool joke, but apparently The Shrub really IS that stupid!" So in your sea-swamped opinion, why cannot "Shrub" turn off the GPS if a terrorist attack is imminant? Best of Luck No luck needed at all, Brian. I never said he "cannot turn off the GPS". No...You just called it a "stupid idea" without one iota of qualification as to why. You also insinuated that it was his idea, and that he had his finger poised to punch the button. After all, he's in charge and has wide lattitude to do pretty much whatever he decides to, including some stupid things. This would be one of those stupid things. Par for the course, like his stupid notion of turning SS over to Wall Street. And the Federal Government has done shuch a good job with it...HOW...??? I am only 15 1/2 years away from being able to draw it if I so choose, yet depending on who prognostications you believe, it won't be there for me to draw upon. Would it be any worse to let select Wall Streeters invest it with Government oversight? Steve, K4YZ |
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: "bb" Date: 12/19/2004 10:01 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: .com Then you have the perfect opportunity to correct me at this time, instead of agreeing with Steve, who says you're a supporter of terrorism. "A friend sent me the link below. At first I thought it had to be an April Fool joke, but apparently The Shrub really IS that stupid!" So in your sea-swamped opinion, why cannot "Shrub" turn off the GPS if a terrorist attack is imminant? Because it was easier to just jump right to the insults and diminutives and hope no one really DID read past the headline. Of course he blames OTHER of that, again hoping no one "reads past the headlines". Sorry Hans. Steve, K4YZ |
Then what are you whining about?
If the Commander in Chief shouldn't have control over a DoD Weapons System, then who should? Prolly some whining ham and his aprs setup. bb |
Steve, the "stupid idea" is a GPS design feature.
And as far as SS goes, Wall Streeters are already involved in the Federal Employees Retirement System, virtually every State Employees Retirement System, Teachers Retirement Systems, 401Ks, and IRAs. Wall Street is how these retirement systems can fund such mundane stuff as cost of living increases to their recipients. All baad, baaad stuff. |
"KØHB" wrote in message nk.net... "bb" wrote "A friend sent me the link below. At first I thought it had to be an April Fool joke, but apparently The Shrub really IS that stupid!" So in your sea-swamped opinion, why cannot "Shrub" turn off the GPS if a terrorist attack is imminant? Best of Luck No luck needed at all, Brian. I never said he "cannot turn off the GPS". After all, he's in charge and has wide lattitude to do pretty much whatever he decides to, including some stupid things. This would be one of those stupid things. Par for the course, like his stupid notion of turning SS over to Wall Street. dit dit, de Hans, K0HB Hello, Hans Just so some might appreciate the problem with "privatization", New York State started a deal where you could invest money to be used for your kids' education. Not a savings account; this had to be "invested". They had a nice thing going. A lot of ordinary folks jumped right on the bandwagon. After the company I worked for stopped their "fund d" and everything became chance. Wow! The stock market was really rising! (yep, like a pyramid, you get a lot of folks to invest, stocks go up). Over time, of course, stock tends to go up, but a lot of new accounts ... a few of the guys at work were bragging how many grand they made "last month". One guy (from Vietnam) took a hard look and bailed out and moved it all into low producing accounts. Needless to say, the tech stocks tanked, just about everyone investing in that New York State thing lost a good portion of what they invested .... and if you check, you find some folks (especially the folks that knew what was happening) bailed. Some did very well (perhaps illegally), some did well just not to loose anything (like the guy at work I mentioned earlier). And a lot more ordinary folk lost. Why has gambling become the method of choice for making money? Everyone around here wants more gambling. Creates jobs. As to the stock market, it is like walking into a poker game. If you can't spot the fish, guess what? Best regards from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
JAMES HAMPTON wrote:
Just so some might appreciate the problem with "privatization", New York State started a deal where you could invest money to be used for your kids' education. Not a savings account; this had to be "invested". They had a nice thing going. That was a short sighted idea. With Education at constant double digit inflation, there were no investment plans that could ever keep up, once the investment people skimmed off their money. This means someone loses at some point. Guess who? A lot of ordinary folks jumped right on the bandwagon. After the company I worked for stopped their "fund d" and everything became chance. Wow! The stock market was really rising! (yep, like a pyramid, you get a lot of folks to invest, stocks go up). Over time, of course, stock tends to go up, but a lot of new accounts ... a few of the guys at work were bragging how many grand they made "last month". I knew a few millionaires. for a few months. One guy (from Vietnam) took a hard look and bailed out and moved it all into low producing accounts. Needless to say, the tech stocks tanked, just about everyone investing in that New York State thing lost a good portion of what they invested .... and if you check, you find some folks (especially the folks that knew what was happening) bailed. Oh yeah, there is that. I confess I kept all my money in more conservative investments for the whole duration. In retrospect, it was quite wise. Some did very well (perhaps illegally), some did well just not to loose anything (like the guy at work I mentioned earlier). And a lot more ordinary folk lost. Coslo's rule of investment: Find out what investment is hot, and avoid it like the plague. Mr. investment counselor is NOT your friend. Why has gambling become the method of choice for making money? Everyone around here wants more gambling. Creates jobs. That one is easy. Gambling simply serves as a voluntary tax. The reason that politicians love it is that it is accepted by the users. And the gild on the lily is that the wealthy don't use lotteries anywhere near the level that the poor do. So you have a voluntary tax on the poor. As to the stock market, it is like walking into a poker game. If you can't spot the fish, guess what? The stock market is a revenue generating mechanism. The thing is who is it generating revenue for. You need an insider to make money. cynically yours..... - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Steve Robeson K4YZ wrote: Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS? From: "JAMES HAMPTON" Date: 12/16/2004 7:24 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote in message ... Folks have become so dependent upon modern conveniences. Many times I've handed money to some kid at a cash register and he/she punches in the exact purchase price and *not* the amount of money I forked over. Now the machine says zero change. I've seen them resort to calculators and one had to get a manager (no calculator and she couldn't subtract $12.35 from $20.00). You're preaching to the choir here, Jim. Come to think of it, if they shut the communications satellites off, that will severely limit communications overseas and make any terrorist cells less able to act. Dunno about you, Jim, but I am pretty much able to communicate world wide on a semi-reliable basis without Internet capability. If I were a combatant in a remote area without satellite, I betchya I could get a message to where I wanted it to go, and get instructions in return. (And for Lennie and Brian's benefit, that's even withOUT a code key at hand...) No Internet from overseas and telephone calls will probably be in the neighborhood of $15.00 per minute. Sounds good to you, right? Or are you pro terrorist? Hardly. But the terrorists are pretty well funded...certainly a lot better than my own personal budget! But I can still communicate without the Internet...Wanna bet they can Better get a letter off to the White House now! We can *really* be safe if we shut down the communications satellites! No overseas Internet for terrorists to communicate over. How much MORE ya wanna bet that we can do exactly that if we thought it was in our best interests to do so? Ooops ... I forgot. Russia has made many more launches than we have. Some 10 times in a couple of years. Europe, Japan .... say, believe it or not, we don't have the exclusive anymore. In fact, we might be in danger of becoming a bit player. Maybe that is why Bush wants to push for Mars. Make his place in history. I see some real good research on diabetes. Why am I not surprised that it is coming out of Great Britain, rather than the U.S. Mostly because their version of the FDA is more liberal in drug trial testing, among other things. Also, the government controls healthcare. I note that one medication I had was $120.00 for a 30 day supply. They raised my co-pay to $48.00 (40%). They told me to get a generic. I did. Now I only pay $8.00. It works just great! I was really surprised to find that the cost of the generic was $98.00!!! The insurance company pays far more now for me to use "generic" ($90.00) than the "brand" ($72.00) name. LOL. Bush has sure covered the drug companies so well that they are raising the generic prices up close to the brand name prices. How's your health insurance? Nice and cheap? Low deductibles? Why am I not surprised? Less than $3000 a year for a family of four, no deductibles (unless I go "out of plan"). Our biggest danger is likely not external; I suspect that we may simply self-destruct like the U.S.S.R. did. You're almost absolutely right...Until we demand tort law reform, cap damages limits and demand that health care conglomerates like HCA, Tenet, and others put the public ahead of profits, we very well may..at least as far as healthcare goes. Our economic deficits are due MOSTLY to OUR gluttonous consumerism, and unless WE decide that we want to put the good of the Nation ahead of the good of our selves, then you are again correct...we may very well implode. Implode is the right word, Steve. Our almost inconcievable national debt is being propped up by foreign money propping up the dollar. Problem is that as the dollar gets weaker, at some point two things are going to happen: 1. Other countries, including the one that is pumping the most money into the US, are going to look elsewhere for the place to put their money 2. The dollar will cease to be the worlds preferred currency. At that point, we will be hurting. No amount of blaming the "other" party is going to make a bit of difference. This is some pretty basic economic truth, no conspiracy theories or whackiness needed. Just check out who the biggest investor in the US is at this time. Anyone that isn't scared ****less is not paying proper attention. - Mike KB3EIA - Hello, Mike Your observation that no amount of blame placing is going to help anything is well taken. Both the budget deficit and the totally out of whack foreign trade balance (or lack thereof) is more than worrisome. Anyone got a spray can of "whack"? Best regards from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
|
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: JAMES HAMPTON wrote: Just so some might appreciate the problem with "privatization", New York State started a deal where you could invest money to be used for your kids' education. Not a savings account; this had to be "invested". They had a nice thing going. Every state has those plans. They're called "529" plans, I think. And you don't have to invest in your own state's plan. That was a short sighted idea. With Education at constant double digit inflation, there were no investment plans that could ever keep up, once the investment people skimmed off their money. This means someone loses at some point. Guess who? The big question is: why is the cost of higher education climbing so fast? Does it really cost so much more to run a college today than, say, 25 years ago? A lot of ordinary folks jumped right on the bandwagon. After the company I worked for stopped their "fund d" and everything became chance. Never heard of a "fund d". 529s and educational IRAs I know about, Roths and conventional IRAs, 401(k). Wow! The stock market was really rising! (yep, like a pyramid, you get a lot of folks to invest, stocks go up). Over time, of course, stock tends to go up, but a lot of new accounts ... a few of the guys at work were bragging how many grand they made "last month". I knew a few millionaires. for a few months. One guy (from Vietnam) took a hard look and bailed out and moved it all into low producing accounts. Needless to say, the tech stocks tanked, just about everyone investing in that New York State thing lost a good portion of what they invested .... and if you check, you find some folks (especially the folks that knew what was happening) bailed. Oh yeah, there is that. I confess I kept all my money in more conservative investments for the whole duration. In retrospect, it was quite wise. Same here. All about risk/return. Some did very well (perhaps illegally), some did well just not to loose anything (like the guy at work I mentioned earlier). And a lot more ordinary folk lost. Coslo's rule of investment: Find out what investment is hot, and avoid it like the plague. Mr. investment counselor is NOT your friend. Depends upon how the invest ment counselor gets paid. If his payment is dependent on your rate of return over a considerable term, then s/he's on your side. If it's dependent on the sale of particular securities, or short-term gains.... Why has gambling become the method of choice for making money? Everyone around here wants more gambling. Creates jobs. That one is easy. Gambling simply serves as a voluntary tax. The reason that politicians love it is that it is accepted by the users. And the gild on the lily is that the wealthy don't use lotteries anywhere near the level that the poor do. So you have a voluntary tax on the poor. Exactly! And it's self-perpetuating because every so often somebody hits it big. This is where the proliferation of ignorance helps those in power. A clear understanding of how probability works shows that in most games of chance (like the lottos), you are more likely to be personally struck by lightning than to win big. But most folks don't understand just how awful the chances against them really are. As to the stock market, it is like walking into a poker game. If you can't spot the fish, guess what? The stock market is a revenue generating mechanism. The thing is who is it generating revenue for. You need an insider to make money. That's why I'm into funds rather than individual stocks. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: JAMES HAMPTON wrote: Just so some might appreciate the problem with "privatization", New York State started a deal where you could invest money to be used for your kids' education. Not a savings account; this had to be "invested". They had a nice thing going. Every state has those plans. They're called "529" plans, I think. And you don't have to invest in your own state's plan. Right, but Jim H's point as I see it is that people were talked into something that anyone that pays attention to history could see was simply not going to work. That was a short sighted idea. With Education at constant double digit inflation, there were no investment plans that could ever keep up, once the investment people skimmed off their money. This means someone loses at some point. Guess who? The big question is: why is the cost of higher education climbing so fast? Does it really cost so much more to run a college today than, say, 25 years ago? I think a big part is that Universities have shifted away from education to research. More buildings, more administrators. That sort of thing. A lot of ordinary folks jumped right on the bandwagon. After the company I worked for stopped their "fund d" and everything became chance. Never heard of a "fund d". 529s and educational IRAs I know about, Roths and conventional IRAs, 401(k). Wow! The stock market was really rising! (yep, like a pyramid, you get a lot of folks to invest, stocks go up). Over time, of course, stock tends to go up, but a lot of new accounts ... a few of the guys at work were bragging how many grand they made "last month". I knew a few millionaires. for a few months. One guy (from Vietnam) took a hard look and bailed out and moved it all into low producing accounts. Needless to say, the tech stocks tanked, just about everyone investing in that New York State thing lost a good portion of what they invested .... and if you check, you find some folks (especially the folks that knew what was happening) bailed. Oh yeah, there is that. I confess I kept all my money in more conservative investments for the whole duration. In retrospect, it was quite wise. Same here. All about risk/return. Some did very well (perhaps illegally), some did well just not to loose anything (like the guy at work I mentioned earlier). And a lot more ordinary folk lost. Coslo's rule of investment: Find out what investment is hot, and avoid it like the plague. Mr. investment counselor is NOT your friend. Depends upon how the invest ment counselor gets paid. If his payment is dependent on your rate of return over a considerable term, then s/he's on your side. If it's dependent on the sale of particular securities, or short-term gains.... I'll stick with assuming she/he's not my friend. That's worked well so far... 8^) Why has gambling become the method of choice for making money? Everyone around here wants more gambling. Creates jobs. That one is easy. Gambling simply serves as a voluntary tax. The reason that politicians love it is that it is accepted by the users. And the gild on the lily is that the wealthy don't use lotteries anywhere near the level that the poor do. So you have a voluntary tax on the poor. Exactly! And it's self-perpetuating because every so often somebody hits it big. Yup! There will be one story about how the poor widow lady won the big lottery, and everyone thinks it will be them next. Same thing goes in the stock market. Lots of stories about that one independent investor who hit it big. This is where the proliferation of ignorance helps those in power. A clear understanding of how probability works shows that in most games of chance (like the lottos), you are more likely to be personally struck by lightning than to win big. But most folks don't understand just how awful the chances against them really are. Remember that half of the nation is below average! ;^) As to the stock market, it is like walking into a poker game. If you can't spot the fish, guess what? The stock market is a revenue generating mechanism. The thing is who is it generating revenue for. You need an insider to make money. That's why I'm into funds rather than individual stocks. Yup. - Mike KB3EIA - |
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:05:42 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote: snip I'll stick with assuming she/he's not my friend. That's worked well so far... 8^) If you're not sure whether he/she is a he/she, you might want to get a bit closer relationship going with your investment counselor... :-) snip - Mike KB3EIA - |
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 12/20/2004 6:21 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: Par for the course, like his stupid notion of turning SS over to Wall Street. And the Federal Government has done shuch a good job with it...HOW...??? By investing it very conservatively, because high risk cannot be accepted in a safety net. I guess you missed that part where I said "...with federal government oversight..."....?!?! I am only 15 1/2 years away from being able to draw it if I so choose, yet depending on who prognostications you believe, it won't be there for me to draw upon. Think about *why*: Snipped...We know why Social Security was created...I don't thinnk FDR ever imagined it being *******ized such as it has. But the real solution is education and responsibility. The real solution is to restore the program to what it was intended for, delete the drug abusers and lazy, and restore some basic civic responsibilities. Would it be any worse to let select Wall Streeters invest it with Government oversight? Much worse. Here's why: It's a fundamental fact of investing that you don't get high return without risk. Particularly in the long term. For every investor who made big bucks quick by a good choice, there are plenty of others who lost big bucks by a poor one. But nobody has lost money by investing in safe things like US savings bonds - at the price of a lower return. Do you *really* think Shrub is concerned about your retirement, or mine? I don't. I do...More so than I ever thought Bill Clinton was... Here's a hint: Do you think *his* retirement depends on SS? I am not the least big concerned...There are hundreds of thousands of Americans who have "retirement" packages that don't depend on SS... 15 years, 4 months, 11 days and the rest of today...but who's counting? I'm counting backwards as of today! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote I am only 15 1/2 years away from being able to draw it if I so choose, yet depending on who prognostications you believe, it won't be there for me to draw upon. The public has heard two decades worth of spin about the coming "demise" of SS. They've heard the system is going "bankrupt" ("broke;" "belly-up"). They've heard SS "won't be there" for them. They've heard a bunch of free-money nonsense from the endlessly dissembling Shrub. As the Shrub tries to persuade America to convert Social Security into a giant 401(k), it might be instructive to examine some FACTS. In FACT, first, SS isn't going broke because of lack of revenue. It is actually generating funds in SURPLUS of todays benefit payout (as it is designed to do). But rather than let those funds grow in the SS trust fund, the federal government is "taking a loan" of those surplus dollars (intended for future benfits) out of the trust fund at the rate of about $100,000,000 (that's $400-billion over the past 4 years of the Shrubs "tax cuts for the rich" administration). In FACT, second, even if the government continues to "take a loan" of all the surplus from SS it is projected to continue to meet it's obligations without a problem until 2028 (24 years from now). At that point it is (was?) planned that the several decades of surplus in the trust fund would be used to supplement the shortfall for approximately 52 more years (until 2080). Of course here's the catch --- the government would then have to start paying back the loan to the trust fund. That's the dirty little secret that the Shrub doesn't want you to know, so his talk of "reform" is really a smoke screen to avoid facing that "payback" by weaning future retirees off SS and into the stock market. Wahhlah! No tax increase to pay back the money we stole from the SS trust fund! What a plan! So far he's floated about 6 different versions of this "smoke and mirrors" in front of congress, but they haven't yet been fooled. Yet in this mornings news conference he continued to his song and dance about "SS Reform". In the same news conference he cried big crocodile tears about how warm and caring a guy Secretary "Machine Signature" Rumsfeld is. Yup, Rummy is an old softie, and SS reform is good for America. Telling tall-tales like that, no wonder he has to smirk a lot! dit dit, de Hans, K0HB |
Jim says, """Maybe we're talking about two different investment
products. The main advantage of many of these plans like 529s is that they're either tax-exempt or tax-deferred. Which can make a big difference in the long term.""" Brian says, """Sounds like one of those evils tax cuts for the rich schemes wich are so unpopular with the Air America crowd these days.""" |
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes: Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS? From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 12/20/2004 6:21 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: Par for the course, like his stupid notion of turning SS over to Wall Street. And the Federal Government has done shuch a good job with it...HOW...??? By investing it very conservatively, because high risk cannot be accepted in a safety net. I guess you missed that part where I said "...with federal government oversight..."....?!?! Not at all. If the oversight makes sure the investment is very conservative, the end result will be no more return than today. If the oversight doesn't make sure the investment is very conservative, the end result *may* be no more return than today, or it may be less, or even a loss. Unacceptable risk in a safety net. "Privatizing" SS is about as dumb as the idea that we don't need an energy policy because hydrogen will solve all our energy problems. I am only 15 1/2 years away from being able to draw it if I so choose, yet depending on who prognostications you believe, it won't be there for me to draw upon. Think about *why*: Snipped... I think you want to avoid the hard facts, Steve. We know why Social Security was created... What I wrote wasn't about why SS was created, but about why it could be in trouble in the future. And as Hans, K0HB has pointed out, the 800 pound gorilla problem is the borrowing of money from the SS trust fund. Such borrowing is fine unless and until it's not paid back. I don't thinnk FDR ever imagined it being *******ized such as it has. How is SS *******ized? FDR's New Deal, like the Constitution, wasn't meant to be a static unchanging entity. He said so himself - if a program didn't work, it was to be changed or eliminated. But the real solution is education and responsibility. The real solution is to restore the program to what it was intended for, Which is? delete the drug abusers and lazy, and restore some basic civic responsibilities. How would you do that? Here's a bit of history: Once upon a time (up until about 40 years ago), there were lots of large state mental hospitals. Such as portrayed in "One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest". If someone had serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia, they could be and were involuntarily committed to one of them *indefinitely*. Drug addicts were often committed to these institutions. The care they got wasn't usually very good - they were essentially warehoused. But they were off the street. Then came a whole bunch of new pharmaceuticals that promised to control many mental disorders. There also came investigations into the conditions at the mental hospitals, showing how poor the treatment was in some of them. Most of all, there came a bunch of politicians looking for ways to save money. So we got new laws, new treatments and the end of open ended involuntary commitments. And most of the state mental institutions closed or were radically reduced in size, while the population grew. So a lot of the patients who used to be inside those institutions are now outside, trying to survive. Are they really better off? Are we saving any money? Would it be any worse to let select Wall Streeters invest it with Government oversight? Much worse. Here's why: It's a fundamental fact of investing that you don't get high return without risk. Particularly in the long term. For every investor who made big bucks quick by a good choice, there are plenty of others who lost big bucks by a poor one. But nobody has lost money by investing in safe things like US savings bonds - at the price of a lower return. Do you *really* think Shrub is concerned about your retirement, or mine? I don't. I do...More so than I ever thought Bill Clinton was... Why? At least under Bill Clinton, the markets were rising, inflation was low and the budget got balanced. Now Shrub is digging an enormous hole of debt and yet giving the rich tax cuts. Here's a hint: Do you think *his* retirement depends on SS? I am not the least big concerned...There are hundreds of thousands of Americans who have "retirement" packages that don't depend on SS... Shrub is one of them. Are you? 15 years, 4 months, 11 days and the rest of today...but who's counting? I'm counting backwards as of today! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"bb" wrote Fact: Alan Greenspan says Social Security reform is an urgent problem facing America. It'll be a lot easier to understand, Brian, if you just cut through all the spin. Everytime some talking head like Alan says "Social Security reform is an urgent problem", substitute the word 'payback' for the word 'reform'. Then you'll see why Washington is in a panic over this issue! As you've noted, their hand has been in the cookie jar for decades, and their dirty little secret is slowly leaking out because people are starting to wonder "will it be there for me". The answer is "Well, yes, it will be if we put the cookies back in the jar for you." Can you say "taxes"? So the "urgent problem" is to decide whether to engage in 'payback' or engage in 'reform'. Hmmmmmm, I wonder if the bank will let me 'reform' my mortgage? 3, de Hans, K0HB |
"N2EY" wrote What I wrote wasn't about why SS was created, but about why it could be in trouble in the future. And as Hans, K0HB has pointed out, the 800 pound gorilla problem is the borrowing of money from the SS trust fund. Such borrowing is fine unless and until it's not paid back. When Ken Lay/Enron raids the pension fund it's called a felony. When Nixon/Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush raid the pension fund it's called sound fiscal policy. When the IOU's in the SS fund come due for payback they don't go to jail. They simply 'reform' SS, and in the process they confiscate more of our money and put it at risk in the stock market. Wall Street has got to love it --- a law taking money directly from the taxpayer and putting it into their legalized crap-shoot. The name of the legislation shouldn't be "SS Reform Act", it should be the "Stockbroker Full Employment Act". Talk about a "golden fleecing"! 3, de Hans, K0HB |
Hans, your point is valid.
Specifically which congress persons raided the fund, and which president(s) signed those budget bills? And did you vote for any of them? |
"bb" wrote Hans, your point is valid. I knew you'd see it my way. Specifically which congress persons raided the fund, and which president(s) signed those budget bills? Pretty much all of them in the past 20 years. And did you vote for any of them? Probably. 3's, de Hans, "I invented Billy Beeper", K0HB |
Which ones should go to jail with enron, worldcom, and martha?
|
bb wrote:
Which ones should go to jail with enron, worldcom, and martha? "enron" and "worldcom" are going to jail? Dave K8MN |
If that's what you want to think, David. Intelligent people wouldn't
go that direction. |
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: "bb" Date: 12/29/2004 5:41 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: .com Which ones should go to jail with enron, worldcom, and martha? Marth Stewart is the only one with the 'nads to take her punishment and move on...I never gave her products or programs much thought, but just based on the fact that she stood up to her responsibilites with the dignity she did get's my vote. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
bb wrote:
If that's what you want to think, David. Intelligent people wouldn't go that direction. Well, "bb", you're stuff is starting to read like fortune cookies. """Good luck""" Dave K8MN |
"""Marth Stewart is the only one with the 'nads to take her punishment
and move on...I never gave her products or programs much thought, but just based on the fact that she stood up to her responsibilites with the dignity she did get's my vote. 73 Steve, K4YZ""" I think Martha was the scapegoat. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:38 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com