Ed Cregger wrote:

Ed:

You are not just right, you are right on.

...
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.

Yes, strange the last thing our public servants will consider is closing
the borders ... well, until you consider the desire for dirt-cheap labor
and an impoverished work force which will work for next to nothing ...
and you are quite right, I did know that--but then, anyone with the gray
matter to blow away a fly would ... :-(

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

Yes, a disease which favored the control freaks, corrupt public servants
and the power-hungry would be useful right about now ...

And yes, something new, unique or at least interesting and not seen
before would be nice--even with antennas! I am all ears! :-)

Warm regards,
JS

Mike Coslo wrote:

...
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 -

Then I suggest you listen to rush linbaugh (sp?) He clearly explains
that there is nothing wrong; things are good and only getting better!

However, I think he is mainly speaking to those which enjoy the smog
polluted airs of Los Angeles and drinking water containing chemicals I
have great difficulty pronouncing. Those who think the climbing numbers
of sterile males is "natural." Those who like the charts showing
climbing numbers of cancer, birth defects, etc. Those who never did
like the taste of salmon and can certainly rejoice in its' extinction,
etc., etc.

You know who I speak of, those who will only empty the trash can when
garbage starts hitting the floor and stinking so bad it takes their
breath away, and they ponder why the rats have taken on such a sickly
look ...

Regards,
JS

On Jul 16, 8:39*pm, Mike Coslo wrote:

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 -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The primary redeeming quality and prerequisite of any good mantra is
that it must fit nicely on a bumper sticker - inescapable logic in
four words or less. Print enough of them and it becomes a truism.

Never trust anyone over 30, man.

ac6xg

- Show quoted text -

The primary redeeming quality and prerequisite of any good mantra is
that it must fit nicely on a bumper sticker - inescapable logic in
four words or less. Print enough of them and it becomes a truism.

Never trust anyone over 30, man.

ac6xg

This has drifted an awfully long way off the original topic, and the purpose
of the newsagroup. Any chance of you folks proclaiming your non-antenna
beliefs somewhere else?

W4ZCB
over 30.

Harold E. Johnson wrote:

...
This has drifted an awfully long way off the original topic, and the purpose
of the newsagroup. Any chance of you folks proclaiming your non-antenna
beliefs somewhere else?

W4ZCB
over 30.



Oh, good!

Your post brought this to mind:

http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...687445/-1/NEWS

Just thought you might enjoy it ... ;-)

Regards,
JS

On Jul 17, 10:38*am, "Harold E. Johnson" wrote:

This has drifted an awfully long way off the original topic, and the purpose
of the newsagroup.

Yes, but one could take consolation in the fact that with enough self-
righteous indignation and proselytizing, there would eventually be a
law against it.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

The primary redeeming quality and prerequisite of any good mantra is
that it must fit nicely on a bumper sticker - inescapable logic in
four words or less. Print enough of them and it becomes a truism.


The problem with soundbites and bumper stickers and tiny mantras is
that they appeal to the least common denominator.

Ideas and theories in nutshells belong in nutshells.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Harold E. Johnson wrote:
- Show quoted text -

The primary redeeming quality and prerequisite of any good mantra is
that it must fit nicely on a bumper sticker - inescapable logic in
four words or less. Print enough of them and it becomes a truism.

Never trust anyone over 30, man.

ac6xg

This has drifted an awfully long way off the original topic, and the purpose
of the newsagroup. Any chance of you folks proclaiming your non-antenna
beliefs somewhere else?


Probably not a whole lot, Harold. For that matter, there isn't a whole
lot in the newsgroup that is on topic,these days. Or if it is, it is
just a rehashed argument that has been going on for months now. Bleh.

Heck, even the original thread was off topic. So do you want us to go
back to the topic of the thread, of just quit posing on the topic.

Outlook should be able to allow you to filter us though. Might be a
better option for you.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

snip


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.

Sure. Even so, I didn't realize the truth was known _that_ far back. But
in the fifties, when I started smoking (briefly, thank goodness) we referred
to cigarettes as cancer sticks and coffin nails. Yet, lots of people
referred to the first Surgeon General's Report (1964?) as "groundbreaking."
Ah ... no!

Sal M. Onella wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

snip


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.

Sure. Even so, I didn't realize the truth was known _that_ far back. But
in the fifties, when I started smoking (briefly, thank goodness) we referred
to cigarettes as cancer sticks and coffin nails. Yet, lots of people
referred to the first Surgeon General's Report (1964?) as "groundbreaking."
Ah ... no!



To be completely fair, they relied on cause and effect, which is to say
that they noticed a lot of people who smoked and chewed ended up with
these diseases.

But deep pockets kept tangling things up until testing came along that
not only showed that they caused the diseases, but the pathways, and
how, and in a 100 percent unambiguous way.

If we were to apply the same rationale and proof to say, falling out of
airplanes at 30 thousand feet, the argument would be " Well, can you
prove that the person died form the fall, or did they perhaps die of
fright on the way down? Can you testify with a certainty that is what
happened? As if the exact mechanism being indeterminate means the
activity should be promoted, when we all know that whatever the exact
cause of death, if you do fall out at that height, it ain't gonna be too
happy of an ending.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -