Jim:

Well, go take of your french buddies, maybe you will want to appease the
muslims too...

John

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Hello, John

You are correct - HF (and MF) amateur radio is not isolated. Signals
cross
international boundaries. As to "sovereign nation, it sounds good and
is,
except that what we are discussing crosses international boundaries.
The
international agreements will have to happen - or would you prefer
that
Radio Moscow rear it's head on a directional array running 5,000,000
watts
in the middle of our AM broadcast band?

VHF and above does not often stray far (although the stuff from 30 MHz
to
perhaps a bit above 6 meters can and does at times, especially during
the
peak of the sunspot cycle); therefore the FCC is very free to
rearrange
things that don't affect satellite transmission/reception.

Heck, when you said "one world order", I thought you were going to
mention
our friend, GW


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA



"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Jim:

Yes, you touch on globalization and "one world order" and/or "new
order"
(hey, wasn't that a phrase invented by Adolph Hitler's klick?)

Seems like a little more thought on "sovereign nation" and just
exactly
what that is might be to our best interest.

Also, seems with each passing day "they" are anxious to give us
reasons
why we should lose respect for gov't and authority and, the effects
of
this are rather frightening--it even touches my neighborhood--a place
which was once safe and secure.

I can hardly see how this is not having an effect on this great
hobby--amateur radio is not an isolated island.

John

Jim Hampton wrote:
The HF bands are, many times, international in scope. This story is not
about the FCC, it is about international agreements.

It's about both, really.

What is said in the story is true; many 3rd world countries would love 80
meters as it would provide cheap communications (they don't have to pay to
build all the infrastructure of a telephone system to cover their country).
If the world community decides that 80/75 meters is to no longer be an
amateur allocations, the FCC will have nothing to say about it.

The US delegation to the radio conferences looks to FCC for input,
though. (Not just FCC, of course.) There's a big difference between
what happens if FCC says that 75 is such a mess it isn't worth
defending at the conferences versus the reverse.

I think the main point of all this is that it's really up to *us hams*
to
show that we're worth our allocations. That's one reason on-air
behavior really matters!

There's also a lesson in human nature in there, too. When Rudy Giuliani
was elected mayor of NYC, one of his priorities was enforcement of
"minor" laws,
like going after turnstile-jumpers, graffiti and trash/rubbish
violations. Some people asked if tax money wouldn't be better spent
going after drug dealers and murderers. RG's theory was that if you
allow the "little stuff" to get slack, the big stuff gets slack too. In
any event, NYC's crime, large and small, went down.

Same principle applies on the ham bands. But FCC can't do it all -
there's the question of what we hams consider acceptable behavior. FCC
enforcement is complaint-driven - just ask K1MAN. A key factor in his
case is that many,
many hams complained about his violations over a long period of time.

If you look at cell phones, you might get an idea of the extent of the
problem. In developed countries, cell phones have become big business. In
the U.S., every teenager "needs" one. It takes a lot of cell phone towers
to provide service, not to mention ever increasing needs of frequencies.

Right - but those will be VHF/UHF, not HF.

I believe that when I was first licensed (in 1962) amateurs could use any
frequency above 30 GHz. There was little gear that could function at all at
that frequency and dx records could be measured in yards or a few miles.
Nowadays, there are some amateur bands intermingled with other segments
going up to 300 GHz, at which point amateurs can use anything above 300 GHz.
300 GHz in far infra-red light!

Sure - but isn't that the way it's always been?

Back in 1912, hams had access to "200 meters and down" (note - that did
not mean any ham could use any frequency above 1500 kHz! It meant that
individual hams could apply for, and receive, licenses to use specific
frequencies above 1500. So could anyone else, but the professionals and
experts of the time thought those frequencies were useless for
long-distance communications.

When HF was carved into bands, US hams had lots of room. Before 1929,
40 meters was 7000 to 8000 kHz and 20 meters was 14,000 to 16,000 kHz -
exact harmonics of 80!

Somehow, communications devices are going to have to become more efficient
at using available frequencies (amateurs included). Even assuming they do
(and they have become more band-width friendly), there will be pressure on
all users to use it (effectively) or loose it.

I agree up to a point.

Most of the communications revolution has nothing to do with radio.
It's all about fiber optics. Heck, I bet that the vast majority of
telecommunications today (in terms of bits/mile) does *not* go by
radio, but by copper or glass. Cell phones, Wi-Fi, etc. are simply a
way of getting the last mile without a wire or fiber. Broadcasting as
we knew it will probably morph into something aimed mostly at mobile
users.

Heck, the real value of HF (as perceived by regulators) is demonstrated
by BPL.

As to the FCC, they can easily reassign users at VHF and above as it doesn't
carry world-wide.

*Some* of our bands are not protected by treaty, others are. 144-146 is
worldwide exclusive amateur, FCC can't touch it without a treaty
change. 146-148 could be reallocated whenever FCC feels like it.

Those segments are also in jeopardy by big business.
Note that the Supreme Court ruled that local governments can exercise their
right to take property (with compensation to the owners) and sell it to
someone else.

They took eminent domain to a new high - or low.

Think what it means! Once it was the case that your house could be
taken to build a public works project (road, school, bridge) on the
theory that the public good demanded it. Now the Supremes are saying
that "the public good" includes a *private industry* developer who
wants to put up McMansions.

Big business and the Republicans rule.

"What's good for General Bullmoose...."

Next time be careful of who you vote for.

I've always been careful that way...

But the Dems have a way of nominating candidates that too many people
won't vote for. They're well on the way to doing it again with Hillary.
She's the best friend the 'pubs ever had!

Friend of mine once said that if you gave the DNC the job of organizing
a firing squad, they'd put the squad in a circle around the condemned
person.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2Ey:

Yep, the little stuff really matters... while you chase mice the
elephants trample the village--gee, I think I seen that movie before...

John

wrote in message
ps.com...
Jim Hampton wrote:
The HF bands are, many times, international in scope. This story is
not
about the FCC, it is about international agreements.

It's about both, really.

What is said in the story is true; many 3rd world countries would
love 80
meters as it would provide cheap communications (they don't have to
pay to
build all the infrastructure of a telephone system to cover their
country).
If the world community decides that 80/75 meters is to no longer be
an
amateur allocations, the FCC will have nothing to say about it.

The US delegation to the radio conferences looks to FCC for input,
though. (Not just FCC, of course.) There's a big difference between
what happens if FCC says that 75 is such a mess it isn't worth
defending at the conferences versus the reverse.

I think the main point of all this is that it's really up to *us hams*
to
show that we're worth our allocations. That's one reason on-air
behavior really matters!

There's also a lesson in human nature in there, too. When Rudy
Giuliani
was elected mayor of NYC, one of his priorities was enforcement of
"minor" laws,
like going after turnstile-jumpers, graffiti and trash/rubbish
violations. Some people asked if tax money wouldn't be better spent
going after drug dealers and murderers. RG's theory was that if you
allow the "little stuff" to get slack, the big stuff gets slack too.
In
any event, NYC's crime, large and small, went down.

Same principle applies on the ham bands. But FCC can't do it all -
there's the question of what we hams consider acceptable behavior. FCC
enforcement is complaint-driven - just ask K1MAN. A key factor in his
case is that many,
many hams complained about his violations over a long period of time.

If you look at cell phones, you might get an idea of the extent of
the
problem. In developed countries, cell phones have become big
business. In
the U.S., every teenager "needs" one. It takes a lot of cell phone
towers
to provide service, not to mention ever increasing needs of
frequencies.

Right - but those will be VHF/UHF, not HF.

I believe that when I was first licensed (in 1962) amateurs could use
any
frequency above 30 GHz. There was little gear that could function at
all at
that frequency and dx records could be measured in yards or a few
miles.
Nowadays, there are some amateur bands intermingled with other
segments
going up to 300 GHz, at which point amateurs can use anything above
300 GHz.
300 GHz in far infra-red light!

Sure - but isn't that the way it's always been?

Back in 1912, hams had access to "200 meters and down" (note - that
did
not mean any ham could use any frequency above 1500 kHz! It meant that
individual hams could apply for, and receive, licenses to use specific
frequencies above 1500. So could anyone else, but the professionals
and
experts of the time thought those frequencies were useless for
long-distance communications.

When HF was carved into bands, US hams had lots of room. Before 1929,
40 meters was 7000 to 8000 kHz and 20 meters was 14,000 to 16,000
kHz -
exact harmonics of 80!

Somehow, communications devices are going to have to become more
efficient
at using available frequencies (amateurs included). Even assuming
they do
(and they have become more band-width friendly), there will be
pressure on
all users to use it (effectively) or loose it.

I agree up to a point.

Most of the communications revolution has nothing to do with radio.
It's all about fiber optics. Heck, I bet that the vast majority of
telecommunications today (in terms of bits/mile) does *not* go by
radio, but by copper or glass. Cell phones, Wi-Fi, etc. are simply a
way of getting the last mile without a wire or fiber. Broadcasting as
we knew it will probably morph into something aimed mostly at mobile
users.

Heck, the real value of HF (as perceived by regulators) is
demonstrated
by BPL.

As to the FCC, they can easily reassign users at VHF and above as it
doesn't
carry world-wide.

*Some* of our bands are not protected by treaty, others are. 144-146
is
worldwide exclusive amateur, FCC can't touch it without a treaty
change. 146-148 could be reallocated whenever FCC feels like it.

Those segments are also in jeopardy by big business.
Note that the Supreme Court ruled that local governments can exercise
their
right to take property (with compensation to the owners) and sell it
to
someone else.

They took eminent domain to a new high - or low.

Think what it means! Once it was the case that your house could be
taken to build a public works project (road, school, bridge) on the
theory that the public good demanded it. Now the Supremes are saying
that "the public good" includes a *private industry* developer who
wants to put up McMansions.

Big business and the Republicans rule.

"What's good for General Bullmoose...."

Next time be careful of who you vote for.

I've always been careful that way...

But the Dems have a way of nominating candidates that too many people
won't vote for. They're well on the way to doing it again with
Hillary.
She's the best friend the 'pubs ever had!

Friend of mine once said that if you gave the DNC the job of
organizing
a firing squad, they'd put the squad in a circle around the condemned
person.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

73 de Jim, N2EY

From: on Jun 27, 6:11 pm

Jim Hampton wrote:
The HF bands are, many times, international in scope. This story is not
about the FCC, it is about international agreements.

It's about both, really.

There we have it from an "insider."


The US delegation to the radio conferences looks to FCC for input,
though. (Not just FCC, of course.) There's a big difference between
what happens if FCC says that 75 is such a mess it isn't worth
defending at the conferences versus the reverse.

WRRRRONNNNNGGGGGGG.

The U.S. delegation to the WRCs IS composed of members from
the FCC, the NTIA, and Department of State. All three. You can
read that on the FCC website or read the Report of the Chairperson
(OF the FCC) on WRC-03.


There's also a lesson in human nature in there, too. When Rudy Giuliani
was elected mayor of NYC, one of his priorities was enforcement of

The POLITICAL newsgroups are on the 2nd floor. Go there and
find some Noo Yawk buddies.


If you look at cell phones, you might get an idea of the extent of the
problem. In developed countries, cell phones have become big business. In
the U.S., every teenager "needs" one. It takes a lot of cell phone towers
to provide service, not to mention ever increasing needs of frequencies.

Right - but those will be VHF/UHF, not HF.

Low end of L-Band, in the microwaves.


Back in 1912, hams had access to "200 meters and down" (note - that did
not mean any ham could use any frequency above 1500 kHz! It meant that
individual hams could apply for, and receive, licenses to use specific
frequencies above 1500. So could anyone else, but the professionals and
experts of the time thought those frequencies were useless for
long-distance communications.

1912 was NINETY THREE YEARS AGO, senior. The "audion" was only
six years old and "electronics professionals" were still trying
to figure out how to make them.

When HF was carved into bands, US hams had lots of room. Before 1929,
40 meters was 7000 to 8000 kHz and 20 meters was 14,000 to 16,000 kHz -
exact harmonics of 80!

Got any more CUT AND PASTE from "200 Meters and Down?"

Anybody in here born BEFORE 1929, senior?


Most of the communications revolution has nothing to do with radio.
It's all about fiber optics.

Really?!? "Nothing to do with radio" yet it is a main subject
of the following trade magazines: "Microwaves and RF," "RF
Design." Not to mention the big Microwave Symposium recently
in Long Beach, CA.

The 100 MILLION plus 2-way RADIO handsets (called "cell phones")
don't have any "fiber" attached to them.

GPS doesn't work by "fiber."

Those hundreds of thousands of public safety, utility, transport
companies, businesses of all sizes, in VHF-UHF aren't communicating
via "fiber."

WLANS are RADIO since they were done to get AWAY from "fiber."

RFID tag interrogators are working in RADIO frequencies in stores
all over the USA and possessions. No "fiber."

Bluetooth devices are short-range two-way RADIOS without "fiber"
and most of those work with fiber-less cell phones.

YOU need more mental fiber in your knowledge diet.



Big business and the Republicans rule.

"What's good for General Bullmoose...."

Next time be careful of who you vote for.

I've always been careful that way...

But the Dems have a way of nominating candidates that too many people
won't vote for. They're well on the way to doing it again with Hillary.
She's the best friend the 'pubs ever had!

Friend of mine once said that if you gave the DNC the job of organizing
a firing squad, they'd put the squad in a circle around the condemned
person.

The POLITICAL newsgroups are up on the other floor. This one
is about AMATEUR RADIO. Go join your "friend" there, okay?

wrote in message
ups.com...
From: on Jun 27, 6:11 pm

Jim Hampton wrote:
The HF bands are, many times, international in scope. This story is
not
about the FCC, it is about international agreements.

It's about both, really.

There we have it from an "insider."


The US delegation to the radio conferences looks to FCC for input,
though. (Not just FCC, of course.) There's a big difference between
what happens if FCC says that 75 is such a mess it isn't worth
defending at the conferences versus the reverse.

WRRRRONNNNNGGGGGGG.

The U.S. delegation to the WRCs IS composed of members from
the FCC, the NTIA, and Department of State. All three. You can
read that on the FCC website or read the Report of the Chairperson
(OF the FCC) on WRC-03.


There's also a lesson in human nature in there, too. When Rudy Giuliani
was elected mayor of NYC, one of his priorities was enforcement of

The POLITICAL newsgroups are on the 2nd floor. Go there and
find some Noo Yawk buddies.


If you look at cell phones, you might get an idea of the extent of the
problem. In developed countries, cell phones have become big business.
In
the U.S., every teenager "needs" one. It takes a lot of cell phone
towers
to provide service, not to mention ever increasing needs of
frequencies.

Right - but those will be VHF/UHF, not HF.

Low end of L-Band, in the microwaves.


Back in 1912, hams had access to "200 meters and down" (note - that did
not mean any ham could use any frequency above 1500 kHz! It meant that
individual hams could apply for, and receive, licenses to use specific
frequencies above 1500. So could anyone else, but the professionals and
experts of the time thought those frequencies were useless for
long-distance communications.

1912 was NINETY THREE YEARS AGO, senior. The "audion" was only
six years old and "electronics professionals" were still trying
to figure out how to make them.

When HF was carved into bands, US hams had lots of room. Before 1929,
40 meters was 7000 to 8000 kHz and 20 meters was 14,000 to 16,000 kHz -
exact harmonics of 80!

Got any more CUT AND PASTE from "200 Meters and Down?"

Anybody in here born BEFORE 1929, senior?


Most of the communications revolution has nothing to do with radio.
It's all about fiber optics.

Really?!? "Nothing to do with radio" yet it is a main subject
of the following trade magazines: "Microwaves and RF," "RF
Design." Not to mention the big Microwave Symposium recently
in Long Beach, CA.

The 100 MILLION plus 2-way RADIO handsets (called "cell phones")
don't have any "fiber" attached to them.

GPS doesn't work by "fiber."

Those hundreds of thousands of public safety, utility, transport
companies, businesses of all sizes, in VHF-UHF aren't communicating
via "fiber."

WLANS are RADIO since they were done to get AWAY from "fiber."

RFID tag interrogators are working in RADIO frequencies in stores
all over the USA and possessions. No "fiber."

Bluetooth devices are short-range two-way RADIOS without "fiber"
and most of those work with fiber-less cell phones.

YOU need more mental fiber in your knowledge diet.



Big business and the Republicans rule.

"What's good for General Bullmoose...."

Next time be careful of who you vote for.

I've always been careful that way...

But the Dems have a way of nominating candidates that too many people
won't vote for. They're well on the way to doing it again with Hillary.
She's the best friend the 'pubs ever had!

Friend of mine once said that if you gave the DNC the job of organizing
a firing squad, they'd put the squad in a circle around the condemned
person.

The POLITICAL newsgroups are up on the other floor. This one
is about AMATEUR RADIO. Go join your "friend" there, okay?






Hello, Len

Amateur radio policy is *devoid* of politics? ROTFLMAO.

The Repooblican party, big business, and frequency allocations have quite a
bit of politics involved, my friend.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

wrote in message
ps.com...
Jim Hampton wrote:
The HF bands are, many times, international in scope. This story is not
about the FCC, it is about international agreements.

It's about both, really.

What is said in the story is true; many 3rd world countries would love
80
meters as it would provide cheap communications (they don't have to pay
to
build all the infrastructure of a telephone system to cover their
country).
If the world community decides that 80/75 meters is to no longer be an
amateur allocations, the FCC will have nothing to say about it.

The US delegation to the radio conferences looks to FCC for input,
though. (Not just FCC, of course.) There's a big difference between
what happens if FCC says that 75 is such a mess it isn't worth
defending at the conferences versus the reverse.

I think the main point of all this is that it's really up to *us hams*
to
show that we're worth our allocations. That's one reason on-air
behavior really matters!

There's also a lesson in human nature in there, too. When Rudy Giuliani
was elected mayor of NYC, one of his priorities was enforcement of
"minor" laws,
like going after turnstile-jumpers, graffiti and trash/rubbish
violations. Some people asked if tax money wouldn't be better spent
going after drug dealers and murderers. RG's theory was that if you
allow the "little stuff" to get slack, the big stuff gets slack too. In
any event, NYC's crime, large and small, went down.

Same principle applies on the ham bands. But FCC can't do it all -
there's the question of what we hams consider acceptable behavior. FCC
enforcement is complaint-driven - just ask K1MAN. A key factor in his
case is that many,
many hams complained about his violations over a long period of time.

If you look at cell phones, you might get an idea of the extent of the
problem. In developed countries, cell phones have become big business.
In
the U.S., every teenager "needs" one. It takes a lot of cell phone
towers
to provide service, not to mention ever increasing needs of frequencies.

Right - but those will be VHF/UHF, not HF.

I believe that when I was first licensed (in 1962) amateurs could use
any
frequency above 30 GHz. There was little gear that could function at
all at
that frequency and dx records could be measured in yards or a few miles.
Nowadays, there are some amateur bands intermingled with other segments
going up to 300 GHz, at which point amateurs can use anything above 300
GHz.
300 GHz in far infra-red light!

Sure - but isn't that the way it's always been?

Back in 1912, hams had access to "200 meters and down" (note - that did
not mean any ham could use any frequency above 1500 kHz! It meant that
individual hams could apply for, and receive, licenses to use specific
frequencies above 1500. So could anyone else, but the professionals and
experts of the time thought those frequencies were useless for
long-distance communications.

When HF was carved into bands, US hams had lots of room. Before 1929,
40 meters was 7000 to 8000 kHz and 20 meters was 14,000 to 16,000 kHz -
exact harmonics of 80!

Somehow, communications devices are going to have to become more
efficient
at using available frequencies (amateurs included). Even assuming they
do
(and they have become more band-width friendly), there will be pressure
on
all users to use it (effectively) or loose it.

I agree up to a point.

Most of the communications revolution has nothing to do with radio.
It's all about fiber optics. Heck, I bet that the vast majority of
telecommunications today (in terms of bits/mile) does *not* go by
radio, but by copper or glass. Cell phones, Wi-Fi, etc. are simply a
way of getting the last mile without a wire or fiber. Broadcasting as
we knew it will probably morph into something aimed mostly at mobile
users.

Heck, the real value of HF (as perceived by regulators) is demonstrated
by BPL.

As to the FCC, they can easily reassign users at VHF and above as it
doesn't
carry world-wide.

*Some* of our bands are not protected by treaty, others are. 144-146 is
worldwide exclusive amateur, FCC can't touch it without a treaty
change. 146-148 could be reallocated whenever FCC feels like it.

Those segments are also in jeopardy by big business.
Note that the Supreme Court ruled that local governments can exercise
their
right to take property (with compensation to the owners) and sell it to
someone else.

They took eminent domain to a new high - or low.

Think what it means! Once it was the case that your house could be
taken to build a public works project (road, school, bridge) on the
theory that the public good demanded it. Now the Supremes are saying
that "the public good" includes a *private industry* developer who
wants to put up McMansions.

Big business and the Republicans rule.

"What's good for General Bullmoose...."

Next time be careful of who you vote for.

I've always been careful that way...

But the Dems have a way of nominating candidates that too many people
won't vote for. They're well on the way to doing it again with Hillary.
She's the best friend the 'pubs ever had!

Friend of mine once said that if you gave the DNC the job of organizing
a firing squad, they'd put the squad in a circle around the condemned
person.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

73 de Jim, N2EY



Hello, Jim

LOL, I got a chuckle from your post. You are right; I was generalizing. Of
course, the FCC has input, but international agreements we have to follow (I
hope).

I'm glad you have enjoy 'lil Abner in the past. I always loved that strip.
What's good for ..... LOL

Fortunately, in this country we are free to disagree, rather than being
placed in a tree grinder or whatever

As to the Democrats, I hate to admit it but you just may have hit the nail
on the head. Point well taken



73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Jim Hampton wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...
Jim Hampton wrote:
*Some* of our bands are not protected by treaty, others are. 144-146 is
worldwide exclusive amateur, FCC can't touch it without a treaty
change. 146-148 could be reallocated whenever FCC feels like it.

Those segments are also in jeopardy by big business.
Note that the Supreme Court ruled that local governments can exercise
their
right to take property (with compensation to the owners) and sell it to
someone else.

They took eminent domain to a new high - or low.

Think what it means! Once it was the case that your house could be
taken to build a public works project (road, school, bridge) on the
theory that the public good demanded it. Now the Supremes are saying
that "the public good" includes a *private industry* developer who
wants to put up McMansions.

I saw a headline that some private developer wants to use the new
ruling
to get some private property eminent-domained so he can build on it.
The
land currently belongs to one of the Supremes (and I don't mean the
singers)

see: www.fark.com

(very good site, btw)

Big business and the Republicans rule.

"What's good for General Bullmoose...."

Next time be careful of who you vote for.

I've always been careful that way...

But the Dems have a way of nominating candidates that too many people
won't vote for. They're well on the way to doing it again with Hillary.
She's the best friend the 'pubs ever had!

Of course I could be wrong. When she carpetbagged to New York State I
was
sure there was no way she could get elected.

But ya gotta ask - is HRC the best the Dems can do for 2008? Sheesh!

(then again, look at what the 'pubs have offered us....)

Friend of mine once said that if you gave the DNC the job of organizing
a firing squad, they'd put the squad in a circle around the condemned
person.


Hello, Jim

LOL, I got a chuckle from your post. You are right; I was generalizing. Of
course, the FCC has input, but international agreements we have to follow (I
hope).

At least so far as frequency allocations are concerned.

I'm glad you have enjoy 'lil Abner in the past.

One wonders if it could be done today. Moonbeam McSwine, Stupefyin'
Jones, and my personal favorite, Appassionata Von Climax.

I heard the Broadway soundtrack album as a kid many, many times.

I always loved that strip.
What's good for ..... LOL

Art imitates life.

Panfried shmoos, anyone?

Then there was Pogo....

Fortunately, in this country we are free to disagree, rather than being
placed in a tree grinder or whatever

At least for now, anyway.

As to the Democrats, I hate to admit it but you just may have hit the nail
on the head. Point well taken

The sad part of it for me is that Bill Clinton was perhaps the biggest
factor in all of it. Normally an incumbent VP should have won in a
walk, but Bill's misbehavior in office forced Algore to lose all
coattails. Which set the stage for Shrub to win.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

I still miss Palmyra

73 de Jim, N2EY

"John Smith" wrote in message
...

Here is Hollingsworth on his "vision(s)", some may interpret it
differently:

John



The only "vision" Hollingsworth has is a lavish tax payer
finance retirement.

Lloyd:

I don't doubt that everything you do is as simple as it looks, I don't
think you are devious, cunning or stealthy--however, don't be fool
enough to think everyone else the same--you will make one grave error...

Yanno, my life is a conspiracy, and it is my family, my friends and me
against the world.

In my job, we have trade secrets and act in the companies best
interests--we don't disclose these interests or our long range
plans--however, you can bet that we do NOT feel obligated to look out
for others best interests--that is their responsibility...

.... perhaps you are just one simple guy--but you make a grave error if
you think that applies to all others... now, go back to sleep--don't
worry, be happy--others will take care of things for you...

John

"Lloyd" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message
...

Here is Hollingsworth on his "vision(s)", some may interpret it
differently:

John



The only "vision" Hollingsworth has is a lavish tax payer
finance retirement.

If you are going to mouth off, stop top posting, and use the
correct headers.

73,

Lloyd


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Lloyd:

I don't doubt that everything you do is as simple as it looks, I don't
think you are devious, cunning or stealthy--however, don't be fool enough
to think everyone else the same--you will make one grave error...

Yanno, my life is a conspiracy, and it is my family, my friends and me
against the world.

In my job, we have trade secrets and act in the companies best
interests--we don't disclose these interests or our long range
plans--however, you can bet that we do NOT feel obligated to look out for
others best interests--that is their responsibility...

... perhaps you are just one simple guy--but you make a grave error if you
think that applies to all others... now, go back to sleep--don't worry,
be happy--others will take care of things for you...

John

"Lloyd" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message
...

Here is Hollingsworth on his "vision(s)", some may interpret it
differently:

John



The only "vision" Hollingsworth has is a lavish tax payer
finance retirement.