John Smith wrote:

...
But then, I digress from antennas ...

Regards,
JS

I failed to mention oil/energy, but then, you already know about those ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
While capitalism was wonderful when resources were
abundantly plentiful to be raped, it will now be interesting to see how
it functions.

---Eight stages of democracy---
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence; (2008?)
From dependence back into bondage.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Ed Cregger wrote:
"John Smith" wrote

Absolutely not ...

"They" have simply designed the world wrong. We need our jobs closer to
our homes. We need small manufacturing plants close to cities, and of
varying products so as supply the most needs of the city as possible. Mass
transportation in place of single cars ... etc, etc ...

We need to manufacture "things" to last a lifetime or two, and out of
metal, wood and glass--instead of cheap plastic poisons to fill our dumps,
streams and oceans with ...

Etc, etc, etc ...

Oh no, it is all easily "fixable", it just won't be done--greed and
corruption take a far different path--one which always ends in the end of
the particular civilization in question ... look at the cheap plastic
"toy" radios we have today--a sharp contrast to the sturdy metal/glass
cases of yesteryear ...

Those who know NOT their history are doomed to repeat that history ...
today they "rewrite history" in the image "they" wish ...

Regards,
JS

-----------

No offense intended, but the first really scary thing that I learned as an
adult was that there is no "they". It is all random. See, I told you that
was scary.

One man's corruption is another man's politics...

Looking back with 20-20 hindsight, it is simple to see how things could have
been accomplished in much more efficient manners. Who would have gussed that
chemical companies' run-off (ditching) would affect the world so negatively?

Odd, but it was obvious to a lot of people. They were just ignored or
ostracized.


I lived in a community whose main source of income was the production of
various chemicals.

In our area, we had a world class trout fishing stream. when I say
that, I mean that people from all over the world came here and spent a
lot of money to fish, and stay in hotels, eat in restaraunts.

We also had a chemical production company that wanted to do a lot of
things that some of the populous didn't want them to do. It got to the
point of township meetings. Some folks said that the companies practices
were going to destroy the local watershed. The company and a lot of
people accused them of being anti-business, anti job, anti growth, and
worse.

The chemical company got it's way.

Fast forward to today....


The watershed has been destroyed by two chemicals that leaked from
poorly constructed holding areas. The world class trout stream is no
more. No more visitors spending all that money - it was millions in the
60's, who knows what it would be now. The chemicals have reached a lake
about 30 miles away now, and people aren't supposed to eat fish from
either the lake or stream.


And the chemical company? They aren't in business any more. They were
bought out by a european company who then closed down the competition,
took a write off, and left. That isn't all they left. The bill for the
cleanup is with us.


The end result:

Jobs are gone.

World class fishing stream gone.

A nice lake downstream gone as an added benefit.

No one can say they didn't know. They didn't listen.


Just like the old smoking ads that claimed that smoking
was good for you (yes, they did, in fact, exist and were uttered by our
government),

And yet, I read a book from the late 1800's that stated that smoking
tobacco caused Lung cancer and emphysema, and that chewing it caused
oral and stomach cancer.

We knew. We just didn't listen.


we blue collar kids were told that chemicals and fumes were
good for you. I swear to God. It's true. Seems hard to believe today, but in
those days, TV was only on the air for six to seven hours a day and no one,
but no one, spread negative news toward industry.

When I was a kid, of course I didn't pay much attention. But as I grew,
I found that the answers were out there somewhere.We just had to look
for them. Even as a teenager, I wanted to look for the unfiltered source
for knowledge.

Anyway, we have another chance, in fact, multitude chances, to save our
civilization. But it will probably spring from technologies and ways of
thinking which we cannot even imagine presently.

I just don't think it will happen. I suspect the last humans' words will
be "We just didn't know!"

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
When I was a kid, of course I didn't pay much attention. But as I
grew, I found that the answers were out there somewhere.We just had to
look for them. Even as a teenager, I wanted to look for the unfiltered
source for knowledge.


Most look at "the news" on tv/radio, I don't think the answers to their
questions are there. I don't think the news is responsible to
"Joe-Blow_Citizen"; I think "the news" is responsible to "the men with
the money." This is highly dangerous to over 99% of the citizens ...
"the truth" can be very difficult to find--when it has the potential to
threaten those in power ...

Anyway, we have another chance, in fact, multitude chances, to save
our civilization. But it will probably spring from technologies and
ways of thinking which we cannot even imagine presently.

I just don't think it will happen. I suspect the last humans' words will
be "We just didn't know!"

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

I agree with you here. Even if "the technologies" provide answers (and,
that is NOT on the horizon), our "public servants" (the president,
senators, congressmen, military, police, etc.) are bought and owned;
this is what has really brought on the problems you have named and those
which face us now, and in the foreseeable future. Until we have made
"them" responsible to us, with great penalties placed on "them" for
prostituting themselves for money, we will remain where we are ... the
man behind the curtain is pulling the strings and leavers.

Regards,
JS

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
While capitalism was wonderful when resources were abundantly
plentiful to be raped, it will now be interesting to see how it
functions.

---Eight stages of democracy---
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence; (2008?)
From dependence back into bondage.

Or, simply, those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat
their history ...

Regards,
JS

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
While capitalism was wonderful when resources were abundantly
plentiful to be raped, it will now be interesting to see how it
functions.

---Eight stages of democracy---
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence; (2008?)
From dependence back into bondage.

I should also have stated, remember that the "Boston Tea Party" was over
a penny a pound tax on tea ... Now, count all the hidden taxes we pay
.... the forefathers MUST be turning in their graves ...

Regards,
JS

Michael Coslo wrote:

In our area, we had a world class trout fishing stream. when I say
that, I mean that people from all over the world came here and spent a
lot of money to fish, and stay in hotels, eat in restaraunts.

We also had a chemical production company that wanted to do a lot of
things that some of the populous didn't want them to do. It got to the
point of township meetings. Some folks said that the companies practices
were going to destroy the local watershed. The company and a lot of
people accused them of being anti-business, anti job, anti growth, and
worse.

The chemical company got it's way.

Fast forward to today....


The watershed has been destroyed by two chemicals that leaked from
poorly constructed holding areas. The world class trout stream is no
more. No more visitors spending all that money - it was millions in the
60's, who knows what it would be now. The chemicals have reached a lake
about 30 miles away now, and people aren't supposed to eat fish from
either the lake or stream.


And the chemical company? They aren't in business any more. They were
bought out by a european company who then closed down the competition,
took a write off, and left. That isn't all they left. The bill for the
cleanup is with us.


The end result:

Jobs are gone.

World class fishing stream gone.

A nice lake downstream gone as an added benefit.

No one can say they didn't know. They didn't listen.

What a disaster - and a huge tragedy. Clearly the world would be a
better place....if it was uninhabited.

I guess a better message would have been that holding areas should not
be poorly constructed, rather than just shouting the tired old
eco-mantra 'corporations are evil' - which nobody listens to. But eco
groups aren't exactly the best listeners either.

ac6xg

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Ed Cregger wrote:

...
-----------

No offense intended, but the first really scary thing that I learned as
an adult was that there is no "they". It is all random. See, I told you
that was scary.
...

Well, I differ, the "they" are those in power with the chance to make
things better, or make a buck--however, we seem to live in a world where
this two things are mutually exclusive! If it were I or you, or we
together, who were the ones in "power", we would face great temptations to
do the same--sell out our fellow citizens to fatten our wallets. The
safeguards, which were once in place, are now gone--money purchasing your
congressmen and senators fixed that ...


Anyway, we have another chance, in fact, multitude chances, to save our
civilization. But it will probably spring from technologies and ways of
thinking which we cannot even imagine presently.

Try to enjoy the good things and times while they are here, for they too
are transitory. And just in case you forgot, so are we.

Ed Cregger

We are indeed in a time of GREAT transition. The gold in the gold fields
is gone. The BIG trees in the forests have all been harvested. In the
Sierra Nevada's, "they" have left belts of trees along the highways for
aesthetics, but venture a little ways off these highways and you find
great areas of clear cut land. In the old days, one single log could fill
a logging truck; today, these trucks appear to be carrying loads of
pencils! Every acre of ground is now in the hands of private citizens,
companies/corps or the gov't. All the farm ground is now in production
which is economically feasible to grow crops on; we tax the reserves of
cheaply available fertilizer we have left to raise these crops. Every
gallon of water in the lakes, rivers and streams is owned by some entity.

Without anymore natural resources to exploit--we now face a much different
world. While capitalism was wonderful when resources were abundantly
plentiful to be raped, it will now be interesting to see how it functions.

I see a world with vast numbers of impoverished "have-nothings" and a few
members of a ruling class with their knaves and female servents ... but
come hell-or-high-water, we shall see this "new world order." The gears
which bring it turn now; and, I see none powerful enough to halt them.

But then, I digress from antennas ...

Regards,
JS

---------

The more people that want a piece of the pie, the smaller the pieces will
be. Our main, number #1 problem is over population for the resources we have
remaining and the lifestyle we wish to live. But you know that.

Nature culls its creatures occasionally. Will it be by disease/plague? By
wars? By things we cannot even imagine? No one knows. Enjoy the party while
it is going on. Analyze later. Worrying hurts no one but you and those
around you. I have given up worrying about it all. It is now in God's hands.
I surrender.

Ed, NM2K

back to antennas

"Jim Kelley" wrote

What a disaster - and a huge tragedy. Clearly the world would be a better
place....if it was uninhabited.

I guess a better message would have been that holding areas should not be
poorly constructed, rather than just shouting the tired old eco-mantra
'corporations are evil' - which nobody listens to. But eco groups aren't
exactly the best listeners either.

ac6xg

----------

And that is the answer in a nutshell.

The environmental folks have to make ridiculous statements to the news
media to obtain any coverage of their views. The general population sees the
wackos on TV and dismisses anything they have to say because, "they aren't
like us". But you will never get the general population to think through the
unusual clothing, phrasing and behavior of the environmentalists. How can
such brilliant folks (the environmentalists on the average) miss such a
mundane marketing practice as "do not alienate the customer"? It appears
that they could use some help from the very industrial folks they hold in
such high disdain.

Ed Cregger

Jim Kelley wrote in
:

Michael Coslo wrote:

In our area, we had a world class trout fishing stream. when I
say
that, I mean that people from all over the world came here and spent
a lot of money to fish, and stay in hotels, eat in restaraunts.

We also had a chemical production company that wanted to do a lot of
things that some of the populous didn't want them to do. It got to
the point of township meetings. Some folks said that the companies
practices were going to destroy the local watershed. The company and
a lot of people accused them of being anti-business, anti job, anti
growth, and worse.

The chemical company got it's way.

Fast forward to today....


The watershed has been destroyed by two chemicals that leaked from
poorly constructed holding areas. The world class trout stream is no
more. No more visitors spending all that money - it was millions in
the 60's, who knows what it would be now. The chemicals have reached
a lake about 30 miles away now, and people aren't supposed to eat
fish from either the lake or stream.


And the chemical company? They aren't in business any more. They were
bought out by a european company who then closed down the
competition, took a write off, and left. That isn't all they left.
The bill for the cleanup is with us.


The end result:

Jobs are gone.

World class fishing stream gone.

A nice lake downstream gone as an added benefit.

No one can say they didn't know. They didn't listen.

What a disaster - and a huge tragedy. Clearly the world would be a
better place....if it was uninhabited.

I guess a better message would have been that holding areas should not
be poorly constructed, rather than just shouting the tired old
eco-mantra 'corporations are evil' - which nobody listens to. But eco
groups aren't exactly the best listeners either.

Jim, I'll give you a universal truth. It is all about money. Nothing
else. Either through the chemicals or the world class fishing stream.

Take your pick. Have a company that comes in, pays about 20 people a
little above minimum wage, and maybe 5 managers a decent wage for a few
years. Or a setup that keeps returning money as long as it can be kept
up?

Know what the problem with well constructed holding areas is? If you try
to insist on them, it will cost the company more money, and in an effort
to avoid that, you are painted as an eco-nut or a tree hugger. I was
perhaps remiss in that the quality of the holding ponds was part of the
controversy. You might be glad to know that the design settled upon saved
the company a lot of money. Great, huh? Showed the tree huggers a thing
or two. Problem was, it leaked like a seive. Roughty equivalent to just
pouring th echemicals on the ground, which would have saved the company
even more money.

Contrast that to millions that would have come in if the fishing stream
was protected and maintained.

As a person who stood to make money on one of the two endeavors,
which would you prefer? One that could make you a whole lot of money over
a long long period of time, or the ten year model that puts a lot less
money into the community, eventually leaves you footing a very large
bill. What we did, we lost money on, not made money.

No tree hugging, no Sierra club, no leeeburuls, no "Corporations are
evil", nothing but pure bottom line. Money. Why would you be against
making as mouch money as possible? I like capitalism myself, how about
you?


- 73 de Mike N3LI -