| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
FCC Chairman To Resign
|
wrote in message oups.com... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6852019/ 73 de Jim, N2EY http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050121/D87OIUJG0.html Jan 21, 11:35 AM (ET) By TED BRIDIS (AP) Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell speaks at the National Press Club in... .. . . "Powell, a champion of deregulation who critics say is too pro-big business, rose from commissioner to chairman when Bush took office in 2001. His term was to run until 2007." .. . . Powell led the Republican-dominated FCC in easing decades-old rules governing ownership of newspapers and television and radio stations. .. . . - - - - - - - No mention was made of his selling out to the power companies in support of BPL. Now, can anyone worse be nominated for FCC Chairman? ak |
|
Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6852019/ 73 de Jim, N2EY I hear Jimmy Swaggart is next in line.....;^) Eric Idle has a song about the FCC. 3.1 MB download: WARNING! CONTAINS STRONG LANGUAGE AND ENOUGH POLITICAL CONTENT TO OFFEND ALMOST EVERYONE! http://www.pythonline.com/plugs/idle/index.shtml click the download link 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote in message oups.com... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6852019/ 73 de Jim, N2EY .....but what people want to know is if there are more bare titties shown at this Year's Super Bowl haltime show, will the far right monkeys be rattling the bars on their cages and throwing feces at the fcc because they were 'forced' to see a tittie on national television.....? (think about it a minute...they got all worked up in a frothing lather when J.J. showed her bedazzled breastie nipple on the Super Bowl halftime show...but you didn't hear jack shi+ from joe sixpack when the Abu Graib photos were released to the news media...........GO FIGURE..... (grin) |
skinshedder wrote: wrote in message oups.com... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6852019/ 73 de Jim, N2EY ....but what people want to know is if there are more bare titties shown at this Year's Super Bowl haltime show, will the far right monkeys be rattling the bars on their cages and throwing feces at the fcc because they were 'forced' to see a tittie on national television.....? (think about it a minute...they got all worked up in a frothing lather when J.J. showed her bedazzled breastie nipple on the Super Bowl halftime show...but you didn't hear jack shi+ from joe sixpack when the Abu Graib photos were released to the news media...........GO FIGURE..... (grin) Dan Rather's handler is the one that got the photo's and released them to Al Jazeer. Once they broke the story, she ran them on CBS. |
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:39:04 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:
They could have fined CBS a reasonable amount of money, which would have prompted them to be sure to clean up their act. Instead, they speak of fining every station that carries an offending signal, and threatening all manner of dire consequences on those who would scoff public decency. As well as fining CBS the better part of a megabuck. As may have been mentioned before, the FCC does not have a "hook" on a network or program provider, only on stations which are licensees or are transmitting signals without a license. The "CBS" which was hit by the forfeiture was the Owned and Operated (O&O) stations. Failure to levy a penalty on the non-O&Os would give rise to a defense claim of selective enforcement, which wouldn't stand up but would stir up the pot and cost the Feds more than the amount taken in as penalties. Some organizations would do that just in spite. Frankly, anything less than the big bucks penalties would be ignored as the equivalent of a mosquito bite and/or paid out and ignored as "the cost of doing business". -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
|
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... wrote: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6852019/ 73 de Jim, N2EY I hear Jimmy Swaggart is next in line.....;^) I would find Swaggart much more preferable than the dumbbell commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy. The first requirement for FCC chief should be NO law degree. Some brains and some technical comprehension would be a plus. ak - Mike KB3EIA - |
I would find Swaggart much more preferable than the dumbbell commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy. The first requirement for FCC chief should be NO law degree. Some brains and some technical comprehension would be a plus. No, someone who actually understands the physics of radio could never run the Funny Cookie Corporation. You need someone who writes screwball regulations like "A radio station will not be allowed to own the translator (repeater) it uses to get heard in another area". Why would that matter? |
" I would find Swaggart much more preferable than the dumbbell commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy. The first requirement for FCC chief should be NO law degree. Some brains and some technical comprehension would be a plus. I think you have hit the nail on the head here. The FCC commissioners are all WASH DC political hacks. LOTS of "connections", but NO TECHNICAL experience. IF you're going to write regulations for a very technical subject area, you have to have the technical expertise and ability to understand what the consequences of your rules and regulations are. Technical competence, NOT the fact that you were a legislative assistant to a senator from North Dakota, or on the board of zoning appeals, will make you effective. Otherwise, you will be BS'ed by lobbyists that have an axe to grind, and you will make poor regulatory decisions with poor outcomes, because you can't forsee the unexpected consequences of you new regulations. Abernathy is NOT stupid. She is just a technically illiterate lawyer. She doesn't understand RF,propagation or antenna theory, consequently, BPL which is touted to bring the internet to the rural masses, sounds wonderful. I should be the next FCC commisioner. Dan AI8O |
"ai8o" wrote in message ... " I would find Swaggart much more preferable than the dumbbell commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy. The first requirement for FCC chief should be NO law degree. Some brains and some technical comprehension would be a plus. I think you have hit the nail on the head here. The FCC commissioners are all WASH DC political hacks. LOTS of "connections", but NO TECHNICAL experience. IF you're going to write regulations for a very technical subject area, you have to have the technical expertise and ability to understand what the consequences of your rules and regulations are. Technical competence, NOT the fact that you were a legislative assistant to a senator from North Dakota, or on the board of zoning appeals, will make you effective. Otherwise, you will be BS'ed by lobbyists that have an axe to grind, and you will make poor regulatory decisions with poor outcomes, because you can't forsee the unexpected consequences of you new regulations. Abernathy is NOT stupid. Depends on how you define stupid, I suppose. She is just a technically illiterate lawyer. She doesn't understand RF,propagation or antenna theory, consequently, BPL which is touted to bring the internet to the rural masses, sounds wonderful. I should be the next FCC commisioner. I could vote for that, Dan. I'm an ex-8lander living in NC also. I didn't keep my 2x1 call, however. ak |
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:27:30 -0500, ai8o wrote:
The FCC commissioners are all WASH DC political hacks. LOTS of "connections", but NO TECHNICAL experience. Technical experience by itself isn't necessary if the Commissioner(s) has/have an Engineering Assistant whose job is to absorb the technical stuff and lay it out in a manner that the Commissioner can understand and act on. The good Commissioners have all had such folks on their staff. None of the current ones do, although I could be wrong in regard to Commissioners Copps and Adelstein, the only two with brains. Several decades ago a former colleague of mine started a movement to get the Communications Act changed to mandate that at least one Commissioner have a degree in engineering or physics or be a Registered Professional Engineer. Although most of the engineers supported that, it went absolutely nowhere. The last "engineer" Commissioner was George Sterling in the late 1940s. During WW-II he had headed up the Radio Intelligence Division which chased German and Japanese spies using radio. He was also the last Commissioner who was a licensed ham during his time at the agency. Common sense and a good grasp of what communication regulation should be is what is really needed. Rubber stamps can be obtained at any office supply store. Two more electron's worth.... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:09:47 GMT, King Zulu wrote:
The first requirement for FCC chief should be NO law degree. Some brains and some technical comprehension would be a plus. One of the best, if not THE best Chairman that the FCC had was Dick Wiley (Nixon appointee-mid 1970s) who was a top-notch lawyer before coming to the Commission. He had an engineering assistant to whom he could turn to explain the issues, and Dick was sharp enough to listen and understand what he was being told. I got to brief him about a special project involving TV technical standards for which I was heading up the field measurements and analysis portion, and from his many questions he seemed to understand what was going on the first time. After his term was over, he went back to his old law firm (Wiley, Rein, and Fielding) where he still is. I wish we could get him back. He would have made short shrift of the BPL business. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On 22 Jan 2005 16:16:17 GMT, N2EY wrote:
Some folks are cheering that Mr. Powell is leaving FCC, but ya gotta wonder who will replace him. Rumors in the industry come up with a name of a Texas state regulator, that person being eons worse than Mister Michael. There are two sitting Commissioners either of whom would make an excellent Chairman, but being Democrats they don't have a chance of a snowball in hell. The other two sitting Commissioners would scare me were either of them installed as Chairman. It's not because they are Republicans - two of the best Chairmen in my memory were Republicans. It's because they scare me.... My two electron's worth, based on serving under about ten different Chairmen and meeting half of them in person. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On 23 Jan 2005 00:30:49 GMT, N2EY wrote:
What I find interesting about "Dr." Laura is that she doesn't/hasn't lived up to the very values she preaches to others. For example, she insists on being called "Doctor" - but she's not an MD, Psy. D or even Ed.D. She's got a Ph.D, but not in human psychology or therapy. It is in Physiology. We in the ba.broadcast group usually refer to her as "the Quactor". -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Phil Kane wrote: On 23 Jan 2005 00:30:49 GMT, N2EY wrote: What I find interesting about "Dr." Laura is that she doesn't/hasn't lived up to the very values she preaches to others. For example, she insists on being called "Doctor" - but she's not an MD, Psy. D or even Ed.D. She's got a Ph.D, but not in human psychology or therapy. It is in Physiology. We in the ba.broadcast group usually refer to her as "the Quactor". -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Academia is full of folks who insist upon being called "doctor," and I'm not talking about medical schools. Jim doesn't seem to mind it. As far as her moral values, perhaps she discovered them later in life than did our precious N2EY. I guess God doesn't allow for mistakes or late learners. |
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: N2EY wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: I don't think I've ever heard Dr Laura ever ask anyone to show her their boobs!! No, but we she does/has done is worse. Her show basically consists of her lecturing people about how they have to adopt her values in order for their lives to work. I see where you are going. I don't quite equate the two things as equal, but agree that the show and here are something else. Some of what she says is correct, but her delivery and sanctimony make you achingly want to disagree with her always. Agreed - but some of what she says is dead wrong too. Of course! Just in case you didn't see the "letter to Dr. Laura, I'll post it he Dear Dr. Laura, Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this? I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify? I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Hey! Why can't we own Canadians? ;^) Heh, sounds like a friend of ours! In many ways!! What I find interesting about "Dr." Laura is that she doesn't/hasn't lived up to the very values she preaches to others. For example, sheinsists on being called "Doctor" - but she's not an MD, Psy. D or even Ed.D. She's got a Ph.D, but not in human psychology or therapy. Phil Kane, K2ASP, informs us in another post that her degree is in physiology. That's a fur piece from what she does. When a person wants to have strong unshakable conviction, it is very important that they don't know a lot about the subject. I asked a colleague who is a psychologist about Dr Laura, and what he thought of that sort of thing. He replied "A good rule of thumb is that if a person is called "Dr and their first name" they probably aren't the best person to listen to. Dr. Laura, Dr. Phil, Dr. Nick... Dr. No... The woman has a checkered past for sure, by here present standards, she also appears to have occasional "episodes", after which she feels the need to get a little more shrill in her approach. That's just one aspect. Consider the whole "I am my kid's mom" nonsense, compared to how she raises *her* kid... She wasn't very respectful of her mother either, as it turns out. The strange thing is that she has not learned the lesson that you can improve your morals and values, but *you* have to do it, and someone virtually screaming at you probably *won't* get you to do it. Oddly enough, the early Dr. Laura probably knew that already The sad part is that she has created such a following of people who need *real* help. For all his blather, no one really takes HS that seriously. Masochists have to turn to someone? Lots of other examples. some snippage Now you have me reminiscing. WRSC FM in the late 60's, early 70's was a State College sation that was very progressive. They did the albums, theme nights, and real music all the time. I tuned in to this as a freshman in high school, and was hooked immediately. While my classmates were listening to the Grass Roots, 1910 Fruitgum Company, and Gary Puckett and the Union Gap, I was doing Hendrix, Led Zappelin, Cream and other non teeny stuff. In my time it was WMMR, but the same basic story. Point is, over time the experimental/progressive elements disappeared and were replaced by a formula. Homogenized just like Top 40 radio was. And of course, it becomes bland and boring. CLever paradigm they had. Problem is, it is a bad paradigm. Both the technical quality and the programming quality of FM in those days pulled a lot of people away from AM. If you want to hear some of Michael Savage's compassionate conservatism, go to: http://tinyurl.com/5ywcw and check out the Michael Savage, Tsunami no tragedy clip. I'll take a listen. FM around here is not a lot better Deregulation has homogenized both of them. Neither is a big moneymaker nor job-creator, because the markets are saturated and there's a limit to advertising revenue. The receiver technology is mature and there are no ongoing user fees. BC TV is in a similar state, compounded by the limping move to HDTV. You left out an important part, Jim. Let us take AM for example. It is now the purveyor of Cranky talk radio. While the people who want to listen to that sort of thing are simply wild about their shows, most people are not. So while the marketing drove itself in the new direction, a lot of people simply stopped tuning in at all. Less listeners. Bad idea to turn off half of your listener base, but there you go! It is the same thing as the reality based TV show craze. That was the final straw in my shift away from network TV. Those who like REality shows just LOVE them. Many of the rest of us find it odd that people would want to sit around and watch shows glorifying "average". But now even these shows are wearing thin. The trend of less people watching network TV will probably accelerate. Hey, I have an idea! How about some quality programming? Put on a few science shows. Maybe some shows glorifying real heroes instead of crack smoking entertainers. Don't show the same ten movies over and over again - how many times do we need to see Kindergarten Cop, She-Devil, or Dirty Dancing? Those movies are often on multiple channels at the same time on any given weekend. My XYL is content to watch Dirty dancing over and over, but I think she has a thing for Patrick Swayze. 8^) The audience is there, all they have to do is attract them with dome decent programming. Remember the "21st Century" show with Walter Cronkite? That commercial with putting the baby chick in the insulating container, then dropping it into the boiling water, after which it was retrieved unharmed, entranced me as a child. Into this mess comes satellite radio, internet and cable TV, BPL, etc. All promise lots of new jobs and revenue sources. Plus the FCC doesn't have the headaches of trying to regulate them. Ah, the unintended consequences! Who is going to satisfy the Prigs need for getting the trash off the airways? some more snippage All as a result of short-term focus and diversion by hot-button red-herring issues. 73 de Jim, N2EY "Kokava aro, kokava tua, te igoa o te akuaku, erua" I'll bite... What is? Do you know who Thor Heyerdahl was? Yeah, he was the Kon-Tiki guy. I'm not up on my Norwegian tho! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: N2EY wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: Of course! Just in case you didn't see the "letter to Dr. Laura, I'll post it he Dear Dr. Laura, When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this? I suggest moving. My neighbors never object to the aroma of barbecued beef, grilled over an open fire, fueled with hickory. Hey! Why can't we own Canadians? ;^) They are on the endangered species list and are in short supply. There is, on the other hand, a surplus of Mexicans. When a person wants to have strong unshakable conviction, it is very important that they don't know a lot about the subject. There is a strong temptation to take this back into the morse code test wars. Deregulation has homogenized both of them. Neither is a big moneymaker nor job-creator, because the markets are saturated and there's a limit to advertising revenue. The receiver technology is mature and there are no ongoing user fees. BC TV is in a similar state, compounded by the limping move to HDTV. AM broadcast radio is basically a wasteland. Spinning the dial in the daytime from here shows wall-to-wall talk except for low powered station in the Wheeling-Steubenville area which plays easy listening hits of the '40s through the '70s. It can be heard here during the day but not at night. The nights reveal a few music stations, including one in Canada. Our local Clear Channel powerhouse, WWVA (which runs talk radio during the day) sells its time to fundamentalist preachers except for Saturdays when it airs the Jamboree. I quit limping as regards HDTV last year. I went for it full bore. Neither of the two local TV stations is using enough power to reach me and I'm only 25-40 miles away. They aren't yet transmitting HDTV, just digital TV. Remember that I'm at a little over 1500 foot though. I installed a new TV antenna and modest preamp and use quality RG-6 coaxial cable. I receive Pittsburgh CBS, ABC and Fox affiliate HDTV along with PBS HDTV from Cambridge, Ohio and Morgantown, WV. I get sporadic HDTV signal from the Pittsburgh NBC affiliate. When it ups its power, I'll have the major networks covered. The received picture is phenomenal. You left out an important part, Jim. Let us take AM for example. It is now the purveyor of Cranky talk radio. While the people who want to listen to that sort of thing are simply wild about their shows, most people are not. I like Glenn Beck, who mixes conservative talk with humor. I sometimes listen to Rush or to Hannity to balance the left-leaning stuff from NPR. So while the marketing drove itself in the new direction, a lot of people simply stopped tuning in at all. Less listeners. Bad idea to turn off half of your listener base, but there you go! There's room for both music and talk on AM and FM The AM band is much better for cross country driving. Yeah, I know, there's always satellite radio. I'm not paying to listen to the radio in my car. It is the same thing as the reality based TV show craze. That was the final straw in my shift away from network TV. Those who like REality shows just LOVE them. I find little of reality in them but much of stupidity. We find that we watch perhaps four shows from the big three networks. We have Dish Network here though if they keep jacking the prices, I'll investigate their rival or scale back. Many of the rest of us find it odd that people would want to sit around and watch shows glorifying "average". You'll remember my line as used concerning amateur radio testing, "Strive to be mediocre!" But now even these shows are wearing thin. The trend of less people watching network TV will probably accelerate. There's always a market for good drama, good comedy, good music and good discussion. The trouble is, it is a small market. Hey, I have an idea! How about some quality programming? Put on a few science shows. Maybe some shows glorifying real heroes instead of crack smoking entertainers. Don't show the same ten movies over and over again - how many times do we need to see Kindergarten Cop, She-Devil, or Dirty Dancing? Those movies are often on multiple channels at the same time on any given weekend. My XYL is content to watch Dirty dancing over and over, but I think she has a thing for Patrick Swayze. 8^) There ya have it but who's going to watch it. The audience is there, all they have to do is attract them with dome decent programming. I don't think the audience is there in large enough numbers, Mike. Remember the "21st Century" show with Walter Cronkite? That commercial with putting the baby chick in the insulating container, then dropping it into the boiling water, after which it was retrieved unharmed, entranced me as a child. I'm old enough to remember "Omnibus" and "Wide, Wide World". I was enthralled with "Watch Mr. Wizard"--enough to whine my parents into getting me two of Don Herbert's science experiment books. There's some quality television available today though. Philadelphia vs. Atlanta and Pittsburgh beating the Patriots for the second time. Dave K8MN |
In article ws.com, "Phil
Kane" writes: On 23 Jan 2005 00:30:49 GMT, N2EY wrote: What I find interesting about "Dr." Laura is that she doesn't/hasn't lived up to the very values she preaches to others. For example, she insists on being called "Doctor" - but she's not an MD, Psy. D or even Ed.D. She's got a Ph.D, but not in human psychology or therapy. It is in Physiology. Which is not even closely related. We in the ba.broadcast group usually refer to her as "the Quactor". Bwaahaahaa! Good one! The sad part is that many of her listeners think she really is qualified. I think there was an episode of "Frasier" where he has to deal with a quack radio "doctor", who asks him to write the foreword in her new book. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
On 23 Jan 2005 00:30:49 GMT, N2EY wrote:
What I find interesting about "Dr." Laura is that she doesn't/hasn't lived up to the very values she preaches to others. For example, she insists on being called "Doctor" - but she's not an MD, Psy. D or even Ed.D. She's got a Ph.D, but not in human psychology or therapy. The "D" stands for "doctor." One can be a doctor of mathematics, doctor of chemistry, doctor of medicine, doctor of psychology, et cetera. All can use the title "doctor." Heck, even a lawyers can use that title due their degree being a Juris Doctor ("Doctor of Law"). I'm sure you called some of your professors "Doctor" and never gave it a second thought. 73, Jeff KH6O -- Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System |
Jeffrey Herman wrote:
On 23 Jan 2005 00:30:49 GMT, N2EY wrote: What I find interesting about "Dr." Laura is that she doesn't/hasn't lived up to the very values she preaches to others. For example, she insists on being called "Doctor" - but she's not an MD, Psy. D or even Ed.D. She's got a Ph.D, but not in human psychology or therapy. The "D" stands for "doctor." One can be a doctor of mathematics, doctor of chemistry, doctor of medicine, doctor of psychology, et cetera. All can use the title "doctor." Heck, even a lawyers can use that title due their degree being a Juris Doctor ("Doctor of Law"). I'm sure you called some of your professors "Doctor" and never gave it a second thought. I'd bet he didn't call them Doctor followed by their first name! And the other thing is, at least with all the PhD's I work with, asking any one of them to comment outside their field gets the answer prefaced with a "well, it isn't my field of expertise" or something to that effect. Dr Laura is shelling out "advice" that is not related to her field of expertise. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Jeffrey Herman wrote: On 23 Jan 2005 00:30:49 GMT, N2EY wrote: What I find interesting about "Dr." Laura is that she doesn't/hasn't lived up to the very values she preaches to others. For example, she insists on being called "Doctor" - but she's not an MD, Psy. D or even Ed.D. She's got a Ph.D, but not in human psychology or therapy. The "D" stands for "doctor." One can be a doctor of mathematics, doctor of chemistry, doctor of medicine, doctor of psychology, et cetera. My favorite is doctor of electrical engineering. All can use the title "doctor." Yes, they can. But most that I know do not *require* it, outside their field of expertise. Heck, even a lawyers can use that title due their degree being a Juris Doctor ("Doctor of Law"). But they don't usually do that. I'm sure you called some of your professors "Doctor" and never gave it a second thought. Sure - because they were functioning in their field of expertise. I'd bet he didn't call them Doctor followed by their first name! Not a one. And the other thing is, at least with all the PhD's I work with, asking any one of them to comment outside their field gets the answer prefaced with a "well, it isn't my field of expertise" or something to that effect. BINGO! Heck, you can ask most Ph.D EEs about house wiring, and most of them will preface their remarks that way, because it *isn't* their field of EE. Dr Laura is shelling out "advice" that is not related to her field of expertise. Exactly! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote: Dr Laura is shelling out "advice" that is not related to her field of expertise. Exactly! 73 de Jim, N2EY Now one has to have an advanced degree in "Commonsensology" to be able to advocate such progressive ideas as faithfullness to marriage vows, a responsiblity to raise your children as a parent and not as their buddy, and forgiveness of those who've offended you. So sad. |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: Jeffrey Herman wrote: On 23 Jan 2005 00:30:49 GMT, N2EY wrote: What I find interesting about "Dr." Laura is that she doesn't/hasn't lived up to the very values she preaches to others. For example, she insists on being called "Doctor" - but she's not an MD, Psy. D or even Ed.D. She's got a Ph.D, but not in human psychology or therapy. The "D" stands for "doctor." One can be a doctor of mathematics, doctor of chemistry, doctor of medicine, doctor of psychology, et cetera. My favorite is doctor of electrical engineering. Does that mean they can fix a Hi-Fi? |
On 24 Jan 2005 00:35:37 GMT, N2EY wrote:
All can use the title "doctor." Yes, they can. But most that I know do not *require* it, outside their field of expertise. My brother-in-law has a PhD in Physiology (his field of expertise is geriatic physiology). His "daytime" job is as a profusionist - the expert who operates the heart-lung bypass machine during open-heart surgery. For many years he was a professor and then department head in his field at a famous teaching hospital. In class, he was "Professor". In academic meetings he was "Doctor". In the operating room he was "Mister" (he wasn't an MD - he knew too much for that!) although he was usually referred to by his first name. And yes, all the docs, including the anesthesiologists, asked him for advice on how much and what kind of anesthesia to administer. Heck, even a lawyers can use that title due their degree being a Juris Doctor ("Doctor of Law"). Yup, I got one of those. AFAIK there are no US law schools which grant a Batchelor of Laws degree any more. But they don't usually do that. Rumor has it that the only place in the US that does is a certain part of Michigan but I don't have any first-hand info to prove that. In the Eastern hemisphere lawyers are referred to as "Doctor" but only if they have the graduate degree (in most countries there law is an undergraduate degree program). As an aside, the British do not call American PhD holders "Doctor" because the attitude there is that the US schools hand the degree out like candy. In a recent BBC broadcast about Condoleeza Rice, she was referred to as "Miss Rice" continuously. Similarly, a dentist there is called "Mister" even though the coursework and training is as rigorous as that of a medical doctor. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:17:35 -0700, Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
My favorite is doctor of electrical engineering. Does that mean they can fix a Hi-Fi? Some can, some can't!! Several of my classmates from engineering school went on to get a Doctorate in Electrcal Engineering (DEE) degree. It just involves a hell of a lot of theoretical coursework and a research dissertation. That path never interested me - I'm too much of a practical, rather than a research, engineer. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
|
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article , Mike Coslo writes: Dr Laura is shelling out "advice" that is not related to her field of expertise. Exactly! 73 de Jim, N2EY "Dr" Laura is a buffoon...man, I can't stand that woman! Kim W5TIT |
In article , Ham Guy
writes: On 23 Jan 2005 20:12:32 GMT, (Jeffrey Herman) wrote: On 23 Jan 2005 00:30:49 GMT, N2EY wrote: What I find interesting about "Dr." Laura is that she doesn't/hasn't lived up to the very values she preaches to others. For example, she insists on being called "Doctor" - but she's not an MD, Psy. D or even Ed.D. She's got a Ph.D, but not in human psychology or therapy. The "D" stands for "doctor." One can be a doctor of mathematics, doctor of chemistry, doctor of medicine, doctor of psychology, et cetera. All can use the title "doctor." Heck, even a lawyers can use that title due their degree being a Juris Doctor ("Doctor of Law"). I'm sure you called some of your professors "Doctor" and never gave it a second thought. 73, Jeff KH6O Unless they *insist* on being addressed as "Doctor", as was the case with former Homeland Security official Laura Callahan. Exactly! Back in my days at University, the profs who got the most respect were those who didn't demand being addressed by specific titles. One thing common to all of talk radio is that the host or an assistant has his/her finger on the cutoff button all the time. Nobody dares to disagree with the "expert" for fear of being cut off. At least HS is honest about it. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: Jeffrey Herman wrote: On 23 Jan 2005 00:30:49 GMT, N2EY wrote: What I find interesting about "Dr." Laura is that she doesn't/hasn't lived up to the very values she preaches to others. For example, she insists on being called "Doctor" - but she's not an MD, Psy. D or even Ed.D. She's got a Ph.D, but not in human psychology or therapy. The "D" stands for "doctor." One can be a doctor of mathematics, doctor of chemistry, doctor of medicine, doctor of psychology, et cetera. My favorite is doctor of electrical engineering. All can use the title "doctor." Yes, they can. But most that I know do not *require* it, outside their field of expertise. Heck, even a lawyers can use that title due their degree being a Juris Doctor ("Doctor of Law"). But they don't usually do that. I'm sure you called some of your professors "Doctor" and never gave it a second thought. Sure - because they were functioning in their field of expertise. I'd bet he didn't call them Doctor followed by their first name! Not a one. And the other thing is, at least with all the PhD's I work with, asking any one of them to comment outside their field gets the answer prefaced with a "well, it isn't my field of expertise" or something to that effect. BINGO! Heck, you can ask most Ph.D EEs about house wiring, and most of them will preface their remarks that way, because it *isn't* their field of EE. hehe, and sometimes that is a very good thing! Dr Laura is shelling out "advice" that is not related to her field of expertise. Exactly! Thank heavens they toook her off the air here! - Mike KB3EIA - |
bb wrote:
N2EY wrote: Dr Laura is shelling out "advice" that is not related to her field of expertise. Exactly! 73 de Jim, N2EY Now one has to have an advanced degree in "Commonsensology" to be able to advocate such progressive ideas as faithfullness to marriage vows, a responsiblity to raise your children as a parent and not as their buddy, and forgiveness of those who've offended you. So sad. As I had said, those are ideas that she has right. But if she was handing out advice as Laura Schlessinger, that would be cool. But I thought she was a psychologist for quite a while when I listened to her. Lots of people are "allowed" to think that. And remember that she is very judgemental on her show. Judgemental people are in turn judged. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Phil Kane wrote:
On 24 Jan 2005 00:35:37 GMT, N2EY wrote: All can use the title "doctor." Yes, they can. But most that I know do not *require* it, outside their field of expertise. My brother-in-law has a PhD in Physiology (his field of expertise is geriatic physiology). His "daytime" job is as a profusionist - the expert who operates the heart-lung bypass machine during open-heart surgery. For many years he was a professor and then department head in his field at a famous teaching hospital. In class, he was "Professor". In academic meetings he was "Doctor". In the operating room he was "Mister" (he wasn't an MD - he knew too much for that!) although he was usually referred to by his first name. And yes, all the docs, including the anesthesiologists, asked him for advice on how much and what kind of anesthesia to administer. Heck, even a lawyers can use that title due their degree being a Juris Doctor ("Doctor of Law"). Yup, I got one of those. AFAIK there are no US law schools which grant a Batchelor of Laws degree any more. So are you Dr. Kane, Dr. Phil, or just Citizen Kane?........ Ohhhh, sorry, I just had to, Phil! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote: bb wrote: N2EY wrote: Dr Laura is shelling out "advice" that is not related to her field of expertise. Exactly! 73 de Jim, N2EY Now one has to have an advanced degree in "Commonsensology" to be able to advocate such progressive ideas as faithfullness to marriage vows, a responsiblity to raise your children as a parent and not as their buddy, and forgiveness of those who've offended you. So sad. As I had said, those are ideas that she has right. But if she was handing out advice as Laura Schlessinger, that would be cool. But I thought she was a psychologist for quite a while when I listened to her. Lots of people are "allowed" to think that. And remember that she is very judgemental on her show. Judgemental people are in turn judged. - Mike KB3EIA - Mike, the way I read it, all will be judged. bb |
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:37:30 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:
So are you Dr. Kane, Dr. Phil, or just Citizen Kane?........ Ohhhh, sorry, I just had to, Phil! 8^) Just call me when the paychecks are delivered..... ggg -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Kim wrote: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Mike Coslo writes: Dr Laura is shelling out "advice" that is not related to her field of expertise. Exactly! "Dr" Laura is a buffoon...man, I can't stand that woman! I hadn't thought of the word "buffoon" for her, Kim, but it fits perfectly. I've seen it written that what LS wants to be is the scolding parent who says 'do as I say, not as I do'. Her own life is no example you'd want to hold up. Besides the fooling around with a married man in the workplace (a la Ms. Lewinsky), there are those clothing-less photos which she at first claimed were fake but then had to later admit were real. Some might forgive those things as youthful indiscretions, but LS doesn't forgive the youthful indiscretions of others! Then there's the fake "guests" on her short-lived TV show, the preaching that moms must not have jobs and always have the choice to stay home with their kids (but she didn't!) You probably know many more. 73 de Jim, N2EY btw, check this out and see if you can guess the author. I thought you'd get a kick out of it, particularly the "big house" line. Hint: It was written in 1991. "Democracy is buying a big house you can't afford with money you don't have to impress people you wish were dead. And, unlike communism, democracy does not mean having just one ineffective political party; it means having two ineffective political parties. ... Democracy is welcoming people from other lands, and giving them something to hold onto -- usually a mop or a leaf blower. It means that with proper timing and scrupulous bookkeeping, anyone can die owing the government a huge amount of money. ... Democracy means free television, not good television, but free. ... And finally, democracy is the eagle on the back of a dollar bill, with 13 arrows in one claw, 13 leaves on a branch, 13 tail feathers, and 13 stars over its head -- this signifies that when the white man came to this country, it was bad luck for the Indians, bad luck for the trees, bad luck for the wildlife, and lights out for the American eagle." |
|
In article .com, "bb"
writes: N2EY wrote: Dr Laura is shelling out "advice" that is not related to her field of expertise. Exactly! 73 de Jim, N2EY Now one has to have an advanced degree in "Commonsensology" to be able to advocate such progressive ideas as faithfullness to marriage vows, a responsiblity to raise your children as a parent and not as their buddy, and forgiveness of those who've offended you. So sad. Seems like Rev. Jim is working up to another Sermon on the Antenna Mount...this time on Credentialism, a seeming necessity for all to state anything about anything in this recreational amateur radio policy newsgroup. Lately we've all been treated to the rantings of an Antichrist- wannabe (aka Doctor Strangeglove) who wants to ban all religions. That goes farther than some broadcasting program content and opinions thereof. Apparently Rev. Jim is displeased that anyone has opinions counter to his own ultraconservatism (keeping amateur radio safe and happy with good old fashioned morse code). He claims "authoritiy" by virtue of an old extra class amateur license which, apparently, overrides the First Amendment of the United States Constitution applicable to all other U.S. citizens. [democratic principles in action in amateurism?] Excuse me, I have to go meet my wife "on the streets." (the street in front of her hairdresser's) Doctor Strangeglove thinks I first met her "on the streets." Wierd, wired Doctor. He is so cross... OK, everyone back to the Entertainment Newsgroup and reviews of Broadcasting Service program content... |
Len Anderson wrote: Seems like Rev. Jim...(SNIP) Who is Rev. Jim? No one here signs anything "Rev. Jim" except you, Lennie. Lately we've all been treated to the rantings of an Antichrist- wannabe (aka Doctor Strangeglove) Who's "Antichrist-Wannabe" or "Dr. Strangelove"...??? No one here signs anything like that. Apparently Rev. Jim is displeased that anyone has opinions counter to his own ultraconservatism (keeping amateur radio safe and happy with good old fashioned morse code). So far the ONLY person expressing any form of angst about having opinions differed with is you, Lennie. Excuse me, I have to go meet my wife "on the streets." (the street in front of her hairdresser's) Doctor Strangeglove thinks I first met her "on the streets." I think it's so noble of you to have given her a place to stay and out of the rain, Lennie. Bravo. And without any sex shared. Double bravo. Still on the 2-for-1 deal, Lennie? Steve, K4YZ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:37 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com