author: Steve Ruyle

subject: Re: Creationist Geologic Time Scale:

text:
Gerard Fryer wrote:

Hi Gerald,

I agree, faith could be described as a willingness to believe what science
would call baseless supposition, to the death, in spite of demonstrable
fact.

Two things here. (1.) see baseless supposition above. Arguing the point
does no good whatsoever, whether it be science or your description of what
they believe. (2.) This assumes you know the character, goals and intent
of this God.

I would point out that this is every bit as psuedo-religious as the
pseudo-science that you are objecting to.

books,

I have not read either of these books and respond to the preceeding
statement with the assumption it was a presented conclusion of their book.

One of the things that makes *bad* science so easy to debunk, is the
authors
failure to have done so himself. Does it make it bad? No. It just makes him

look like an idiot. This is what happens with *so* much of the stuff to
have
been presented by the creationist camp, and the jury is still out on some.
The posted url here is simply peer review in action.

In most cases I have seen, the creationists published "demonstrable proof"
without bothering to do the supporting research to either validate of
refute
their position. What has happened in this case is exactly the same thing.
The authors did not do enough research on the God they were writing about
to make that assertion, and as such, it reaches the realm of
pseudo-science.
The assertion carries all the credibility of an electromagnetotorroid(EMT).

Please excuse me Mr. Cagle.

The truth of the matter is:
All people have the choice to not live in evil. All people have
the option for a clean and new heart. All it has ever required is fervently

and truthfully asking for it.

Mind you, once you get it,  this does not mean you are free from evil.
In reality it means you are now completely schitzophrenic as you now have
two completely incompatable lives to deal with.  But, at any given momemt,
you have the choice of which of the two lives you will live by. Evil will
be your own choice, not Gods.

I dont understand the remark, but this is most likely not the proper venue
to discuss it in. So, I wont start it.

Gerard,

 Im sorry to hear you run afoul of "creationists". I can only say
that if you choose to attack someone, you prepare for the battle you choose

to fight. If you wish to attack their science, then do so with science.
and that with the science you know. not that about which you can speculate.

If you wish to attack their religion, then you need to learn more
of its substance as the assumptions you make are invalid. see (2.) above.

Please dont take this as my being critical of you personally, but you are
not ready to enter that battle. There is a vast gulf between what you think

you know about christian beliefs and what you actually do know. Yes, you
could learn it and argue it well then, but i dont think you want to. You
would likely have better luck with a science argument that does not involve

pseudo_science or psuedo_religion or speculation of any form. Fight
ignorance, not faith. It will be much more productive for time spent.

remember however: At the end of the argument, or maybe prior to it, you
cant
argue with faith and win.

Steve Ruyle
A creationist who prefers geology as the topic of sci.geo.geology


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Creationist Geologic Time Scale:

text:
In article <[email]>,
  Steve Ruyle <[email]> wrote:
<snip>
the
between
book.
makes him
to
some.

Really? With respect to which creationist prinicpals is the jury still
out?

proof"
thing.
about
electromagnetotorroid(EMT).

Three things you can be sure of, death, taxes and  you won't be excused
by Cagle..

<snip>

Yes, you
You
involve
you

You can't argue using faith based "science" and expect to win either..


author: C. Cagle

subject: Re: Creationist Geologic Time Scale:

text:
In article <[email]>, Steve Ruyle
<[email]> wrote:

Really?  Why should I excuse you?  You suggest that
electromagnetotoroids don't exist?  You may as well suggest the Sun
does not exist because it happens to display the dynamic properties of
an EMT.   If you wanted to refute the existence of EMTs then by all
means have at it - but denial is not refutation.  Instead it is merely
a blatant refusal to honestly consider that which you have rejected
without consideration at all.

Your snake oil version of creationism puts you in the same camp as the
snakes from which the oil was extracted.  Lots of people and spirits
(demons, for example) believe in God - and that was never the problem.
The problem was that they didn't believe God.

You are a fence sitting fraud with not even the same level of integrity
as Gerard.  Gerard is simply ignorant and is intent on staying ignorant
because he truly hasn't expressed any interest in the Truth but rather
only in being able to defend his position.  The Truth doesn't really
need to be defended because nothing in heaven or on Earth can prevail
against it.  There could be some hope for Gerard though I'm not taking
bets on it but he at least has both feet planted in a position that
even though illogical at least is a position whereas you want to have
it both ways.  You are neither hot nor cold and for that cause will
likely be spewn out.

Charles Cagle.


author: araluen

subject: Re: Creationist Geologic Time Scale:

text:
it, you
sci.geo.geology
I love the way that zelots refer to *faith* what they themselves
would call *superstition* in those with contrary leanings.  I
have faith in science and knowledge developed over probably
hundreds of thousands of years of human thinking, not the take it
or leave it rantings of a bunch of bitter wouldbe-politicians in
a tiny backwater of the middle east.  What resluted was a self
congratulatory, mutually supporting series of sects based on
greed, hate, genocide, war, corruption, conquest, ridicule, witch
hunting, torture, neglect and racial superiority.  All in the
name of the saying that "My imaginary friend is better than your
imaginary friend!"

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!


author: David Scott

subject: Seeking advice on Benign Cystic Mesothelioma

text:
Does anyone have cystic mesothelioma or have any links to the
management of the condition, specifically alternative treatments to surgery.

Grateful for any advice and apologies for cross-posting.

David Scott
Christchurch, New Zealand


author: d&tm

subject: best technology for on line oxygen measurement in gas

text:
I would like to know what is the best available technology for measuring
oxygen on line, continuously in an ethylene gas stream. I need to be able to
detect down to 10ppb ( yes parts per billion !).  I would be particularly
interested in anyones experience of any particular equipment or suppliers.
thanks
terry


author: Ron Jones

subject: Re: best technology for on line oxygen measurement in gas

text:
d&tm wrote:

Many years ago I used a VG PETRA (Portable Electronic TRace gas Analyser),
and I did succeed in meauring oxygen in a nitrogen stream down to low ppm -
the kit used a mass spec as an analyser, and the gas stream was continuisly
sampled via a membrane (gas one side, 10-^6 torr the other side into the
mass spec), and scanning the mass spec range about 1 scan per second.  I
would expect that the later devices are more sensitive, however you may get
too much interference from isotopes (ethylene is 28, oxygen is 32, but 2 C13
and 2 D could also give you 32 - I don't know the percetage of the isotopes
to decide).  A look on the 'net didn't find the equipment I had (was 10-15
years ago), nearest link to VG was...
http://www.thermo.com/com/cda/product/detail/1,1055,10289,00.html


text:
"Ron Jones" <[email]> wrote in message
news:42b734e5$0$32018$[email]...
ppm -
continuisly
get
C13
isotopes
dead.  from some moor Googling it sounds like electrochemical detectors
might be the way to go.  One in particular called orbisphere claim to be
able to measure down to 0.1ppb  yes that is 100 parts per trillion.
terry


text:
d&tm wrote:

Good luck.  I was only using it to show low O2 levels in drug ampoules.


author: toto

subject: Re: comparing private and public school costs

text:
On Wed, 8 May 2002 10:55:55 -0700, "susupply"
<[email]> wrote:

No, the private companies wanted subsidies, but the government then
mandated service levels.   It's one of those little things..  If you
want a handout, then you will be regulated.  It will be interesting
to see what private schools do when they receive money, but must
then do what the government says or else forgo it.

Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
source unknown


author: susupply

text:
"toto" <[email]>

a strange bedfellow of the Heritage Foundation,

 wrote in message news:[email]...

problems

In the specific case cited, NYC's first subways, there were NO subsidies.
None, nada, zipperino.  While Belmont ran the IRT he made profits.  Hefty
ones, which is why the city muscled in on him.  It was the city that
destroyed the profitability by price controls that reduced the REAL fare.

Then, when the city got complete control over it, it really tanked.  Herman
is exactly right.

Patrick


author: Herman Rubin

text:
In article <[email]>,
toto  <[email]> wrote:

The private companies operated as they could.  Mandating
service levels just drives companies out of business, as
these cannot be offered at the prices also mandated.

Who is going to invest in a company which is not allowed
to make profits?  The Marxist view is that governments
would do it; so what happened?  China is encouraging
private enterprise; few are willing to work their butts
off with no rewards.

Hospitals are on the verge of bankruptcy because of
government price fixing.  Many pharmacists will not
accept Medicare and Medicaid patients.  Only government
serfdom will work with government controls.


author: Roy Batty

subject: Religious Technology Center

text:
RTC stands hierarchically at the top of the Church of Scientology
network. It has regulatory, corporate and ecclesiastical power over
the policy and activities of all other Scientology management units,
corporations, churches, missions and other organizations - with being
the only exception the Church of Spiritual Technology. The position of
RTC is notably visible in a drawing titled "The Command Channels of
Scientology", which the Church of Scientology International (CSI) and
RTC provided to the IRS in their application for tax-exempt status. It
should be noted that the Church of Spiritual Technology has not been
included in this application..[33]

In its application for tax exemption, RTC described the internal
structure of the organization as follows:[15]

"[...] RTC's daily activities are carried out by a staff of 54 highly-
trained individuals who function in their positions within the overall
ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Scientology religion. Through receipt
of reports and direct inspections, RTC ensures that those utilizing
the marks are ministering orthodox Scientology religious services.
[...]"

"[...] The senior ecclesiastical position in RTC is held by David
Miscavige, who continues to serve as Chairman of the Board RTC and
also as Inspector General. There are also several Deputy Inspector
Generals who assist in the performance of RTC's religious functions.
There is a Deputy Inspector General who functions as Chairman of the
Board RTC's second in command and sees to the day to day functioning
of the organization. There is a Deputy Inspector General who oversees
internal matters in RTC and another who is in charge of RTC's
religious programs."

"The religious mission of RTC, protecting the orthodoxy of the
technologies of Dianetics and Scientology, is carried out by two
ecclesiastical divisions within RTC as described below. There is now
one Inspectorate division which consists of four departments. The
Department of Data receives reports and collects information from
other organizations and Scientologists and collates, analyzes and
distributes the information to all other departments that require it.

"The Department of Trademark Registration, Maintenance and Enforcement
gets the religious marks of Dianetics and Scientology legally
registered and sees to it that all users of the marks are properly
licensed. It also investigates and, where necessary, prosecutes legal
infringements of the marks."

"The Department of Technical Policing inspects application of the
Scientology Scriptures pertaining to the ministry of religious
services by licensees and corrects misapplication where it is found."

"The Department of Organization Policing inspects the application of
Scientology Scriptures as it pertains to governance of the
ecclesiastical hierarchy and corrects misapplication where it is
found."

"Authorization, Verification and Correction International ('AVC INT')
is a division within RTC which is responsible for authorizing and
verifying that the ecclesiastical programs, evaluations, strategies,
promotional materials and issues as authored by CSI are in accordance
with Scripture. [...]"

As previously mentioned, RTC is currently led by the "Chairman of the
Board (of Directors)" David Miscavige, who is holding this position
since 1987. Miscavige has been in leading positions within the
Scientology management since the early 1980s. Prior to being in his
current position, Miscavige had been a member of the Commodore's
Messenger Organization and had been instrumental in the internal purge
of the Guardian's Office, the former intelligence service and legal
defense unit of the Scientology network. In 1982 he became the Chief
Executive Officer and later the Chairman of the Board of the for-
profit corporation Author Services Inc. (ASI). Miscavige stayed on
this position until 1987.[34]

About the role and the position of the RTC within the structure of the
Scientology network, David Miscavige declared in 1994:[35]

"[...] Since March of 1987, I have been Chairman of the Board of
Religious Technology Center [...]. RTC is not part of Church
management, nor is it involved in the daily affairs of various Church
of Scientology organizations or missions. RTC ensures that the
trademarks of Dianetics and Scientology, and the technology they
represent, are properly used around the world.

[...] 8 . RTC was formed with the specific purpose of seeing that the
religion of Scientology was kept pure and true to the source materials
of the religion. In fact, a major reason for its formation was to have
such a Church organization that performed these functions in a
capacity entirely separate from the actual management of the various
Churches and Missions of Scientology. Not only is RTC not involved in
the management of the international hierarchy of Scientology churches,
but its very existence and performance of its true functions depends
on the fact that it is not part of Church management. The authority of
the Religious Technology Center stems from the ownership of the
trademarks of Dianetics and Scientology.

[...] 11. Neither RTC nor I has any corporate authority over any
Scientology church, including CSI. CSI is the Mother Church of the
Scientology religion and has been since its inception in 1981. As
such, CSI is responsible for the activities commensurate with such a
role, including the ecclesiastical management of Churches,
dissemination and propagation of the faith and defense of its
activities, including external and legal affairs. [...]"

Such representations stand in stark contrast to declarations of high-
level ex-scientologists, who have worked in the Scientology
management. Former CSI security officer Andre Tabayoyon and former RTC
second-in-command Jesse Prince have stated in affidavits and
declarations that RTC and its chairman David Miscavige maintain de-
facto control of the entire Scientology network, including the Church
of Scientology International.[36]

Within that context, André Tabayoyon stated in a 1994 declaration the
following about Miscavige's exertion of power as Chairman of the Board
and ultimate head of the global Scientology network:[37]

"[...] 59. I have personal knowledge that Miscavige issues oral and
written orders and instructions to Scientologists irrespective of
either ecclesiastical lines of authority or corporate lines of is
authority or demarcation. Miscavige uses this omnipotent authority to
exercise personal control over any and all Scientology organizations
whenever he elects to do so. I observed that in running the various
Scientology organizations, Miscavige constantly crosses all corporate
and ecclesiastical command lines without regard to the fact that there
are numerous Scientology related corporations of which he is neither
an employee, officer nor director. He does not have to be to control
any Scientology organization. He is above all Scientology
organizations as the ecclesiastical head of Scientology, COB RTC and
Commander of the Sea Org. In this capacity, Miscavige acts as the
managing agent of each Scientology organization."

"[...] 61. I personally observed Miscavige take over this position of
ultimate power over all of Scientology after Hubbard died. I observed
Miscavige when he was COB RTC ordering into Golden Era Studios
("Gold"), a CSI division, and ordering into the Commodore's Messenger
Organization International ("CMO Int") , another CSI division
planetary dissemination organization, etc. Both of these Sea Org units
are corporately part of CSI. RTC, CMO Int and Gold are all located at
a large compound outside of Hemet, California. It is called Gold. As I
learned, the Scientology corporate structure was only for the benefit
of the outside "wog" world. It didn't have any bearing on how
Scientology operated."

"62. When Hubbard was alive it was common knowledge and I also
observed it personally that he was in direct control, via Miscavige
and Pat Broeker, of CMO Int and Gold, and the rest of Scientology.
After Hubbard died[,] Miscavige ousted Pat Broeker and Vicki Aznaran,
who were then in control of Scientology. After that, it was my
experience that Miscavige had complete control over Scientology just
as Hubbard had when he was alive. Miscavige took over Hubbard's place
as managing agent of all Scientology organizations. [...]"

Mark ("Marty") Rathbun, David Miscavige and Warren McShane, Deputy
Inspector General for Legal Affairs formed for several years the above-
mentioned "Board of Directors RTC".[38] As of March 2008, all
references to both Rathbun and McShane have disappeared from the RTC
website, and their names or pictures have also been removed from other
official Scientology websites. Though Miscavige is still listed as
Chairman of the Board, no other board members are acknowledged.[39]

Within the executive branch of RTC existed at least until 2001 the
position of "Inspector General RTC," which had been held by Mark
Rathbun. This network spanned from RTC headquarters in Gilman Hot
Springs to all of the "Advanced Organizations" in Los Angeles,
Clearwater, East Grinstead, Copenhagen and Sidney, where RTC has
maintained offices.[38]

In an internal newsletter, "Keeping Scientology Working," RTC stated
the following about the purpose and duties of the "Inspector General
Network":[40]

"These Deputy Inspector Generals head the entire IG Network, which
locates and handles internal and external infiltration and
suppression, legally protects and safeguards the trademarks and
technology of the religion of Scientology, and sees that management,
orgs and missions and their application of tech and policy remain
standard and true to LRH's writings."

While RTC has a dominant role over the "mother church," CSI and its
subordinate organizations, the relationship to the Church of Spiritual
Technology (CST) is unclear. While the above-mentioned "assignment
agreement" with L. Ron Hubbard on May 10, 1982 granted CST corporative
authority over RTC with respect to Scientology's trademarks and
service marks, there is no sign that CST ever executed any internal,
"ecclesiastical" authority over RTC. In fact, the U.S. Claims Court
court noted in its opinion in a tax case, which involved CST in 1992:
[41]

"CST claims that it does not and will not monitor RTC's use of the
religious marks and technology. CST explains that there is no need to
do so because any unorthodox use would be immediately obvious.
Regardless of how it arrived at the conclusion, however, the point is
that one of its obligations is to prevent misuse of the marks and
technology. CST's present confidence in RTC has no significance. If
CST ignored that element of its charter, one of the assumptions built
into LRH's gift would be missing. Monitoring for a misuse by RTC is a
form of ongoing oversight. The decision to exercise the option is an
ecclesiastical one which would not be readily susceptible to judicial
review."

[edit] Litigation
Since its inception in 1982, RTC has been involved in various lawsuits
in both state and federal courts. The majority of the cases initiated
by RTC contend unauthorized use of Scientology's copyrights, service
marks, or trademarks. Critics of Scientology contend that a great
number of these lawsuits have been launched in order "to silence
critics."[42] The courts have agreed in some cases; in RTC v. Lerma
Judge Leonie Brinkema found that the RTC's lawsuit was intended to
pursue the "broader motivation" of "the stifling of criticism and
dissent of the religious practices of Scientology and the destruction
of its opponents."[43]

The RTC filed a lawsuit on January 1, 1985 in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California against Robin
Scott and the Church of New Civilization (CNC), a Scientology splinter
group, alleging theft and unauthorized use of confidential material
owned by RTC. The case took over a decade to resolve, and was
dismissed on April 11, 1996 by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. In its final opinion the court summarized the
history of the case and commented on the conduct of RTC while the case
was litigated:[44]

"[...] In January 1985 RTC sued Mayo and other persons connected with
the Church of the New Civilization, a splinter group of the official
Church of Scientology, contending that they were making unauthorized
use of stolen documents relating to the religion of Scientology. RTC
stated that it was "the protector" of the religion of Scientology, its
philosophy and its technology "including the Advanced Technology"
consisting of "confidential and proprietary information regarding
counseling and training," and was the owner of various trademarks
registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office protecting the
Advanced Technology. [...]"

"[...] After 1,825 docket entries and nine years of pretrial
litigation involving three discovery magistrates, a special master,
the recusal of two district court judges, the denial of five petitions
for writ of mandamus, three appeals [...] and three denials of
certiorari by the Supreme Court, the third district judge [...]
entered Final Judgment."

"[...] [T]here is little doubt that RTC is playing "fast and loose"
with the judicial system as required in the minority view of estoppel.
To first assert that its unfair competition and false designation of
origin claims are justiciable and at the same time assert that Mayo's
identical claims are not is at best questionable; in light of RTC's
documented history of vexatious behavior, RTC's actions are
indefensible. [...]"

[edit] Knowledge reports
The RTC maintains a task force called the Inspector General Network,
an investigatory body which operates from seven offices on four
different continents. [45] The IGN's stated function is to "keep
Scientology working by ensuring the pure and ethical use of Dianetics
and Scientology technology." [46]

RTC, like the Church of Scientology, encourages the use of "Knowledge
Reports" (KR) from anyone inside or outside of the Church, to report
on potential misuse of the Standard Tech and copyrighted/trademarked
materials. They maintain an online form in which anyone is encouraged
to report any such matters that may be of concern. [47] The use of
reports is one system used by RTC to police the use of Scientology
materials and the application.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Technology_Center


author: Honest Abe

subject: Re: Religious Technology Center

text:
What does $cientology want from you?

The answer is simple. They want your MONEY. They want all the money you
have. Once they have you hooked on their "auditing" (very expensive
counselling techniques sold through high-pressure, false promises and
manipulation), they will expect you to empty your bank account and cash in
all your investments to pay for it. They will expect you to sell everything
you own and give the money to them. It doesn't matter if you only partly own
it, like your home. So long as you have any financial control over its
disposal, they'll find a means of taking it. How can they do this? By
brainwashing you into believing their "religion," which convinces you that
material things are worthless compared to the "total freedom" and spiritual
salvation they alone can deliver.

But all the money you have is not enough for the "church" of $cientology.
Even if you have given them everything you have and have even remortgaged
your home they will still want more. They will pressure and manipulate you
into taking out loans, and even arrrange them for you. They will teach you
what lies to tell to obtain the loans, and will accompany you to make sure
you don't back out of it. They will pressure you into borrowing to the
maximum possible extent. They will insist on going through your finances in
detail to find out everything you earn and everything you spend your money
on. They will work out how you could spend less, such as fewer vacations and
less spent on leisure activities. They will want to know the maximum you can
afford to pay a week in paying off the loan they will pressure you into
taking out. They will arrange for you to get the maximum loan you can
possibly afford to repay, and will take all that money from you. They want
it NOW of course, not tomorrow or next week. If they think you can borrow
$100,000, they will persuade you to take out a bridging loan with your bank.
Forgot the bank's phone number? No problem to a $cientology registrar, well
trained in taking every cent possible from you through high pressure and
psychological manipulation. The $cientology registrar will phone directory
assistance and find out the bank's number for you. He or she will then call
that number and put the phone in your hand while it is still ringing. He
will watch you closely as you talk to the bank manager to arrange the
bridging loan, and tell you exactly what lie to tell when the manager asks
what you need the money for.

But all the money you have and all the money you can borrow is not enough
for $cientology. They will pry further, finding out if you have any trust
funds set up for your children by their grandparents, and whether you have
financial control over them. If so they will arrange for you to cash in
those trust funds and give the money to them. They will tell you exactly
what to say. They will find the phone number of the firm keeping the funds,
then call that number and put the phone in your hand while it is still
ringing, watching you closely as you talk to them.

But all the money you have, all the money you can borrow, and all your
children's money for their future is not enough for the "church" of
$cientology. They will want to know how much your parents will leave you
when they die. They will persuade you to talk to your parents and persuade
them to hand over as much of that money as possible now. Not next year, not
next month, but today. They will ask you for your parents' phone number,
dial that number and put the phone in your hand. They will be scrutinizing
you as you speak to make sure you say the right things to your parents to
get the money from them. And if your parents agree to give you money they
will want it immediately. They will work out a way they can get it
transfered from your parents' account to your account and then to
$cientology in less than an hour. They will have you phone your parents
again if necessary to pressure them into agreement. They say they don't have
a fax? Well what about them phoning up their bank to tell them they are
coming, then taking a taxi there to sign a form for an electronic funds
transfer to your account? Then they'll have you contact your own bank to
find out when the transfer has cleared, and then sign the forms for the
transfer of the money to $cientology's account.

$CIENTOLOGY WANTS YOUR MONEY. ALL OF IT. NOW. And they'll use any and every
lie and trick there is to get it. And if you think you'll ever get anything
of worth from them in exchange for giving all you have, you are an even
bigger sucker than they take you for.


subject: Re: Religious Technology Center

text:
On Dec 16, 3:29 pm, "Honest Abe" <[email]> wrote:

FTW.


subject: Instant IrDA Infrared communications software

text:
Affordable and reliable IrDA infrared communications for 8/16/32/64
bit CPU's

IrPro(Tm) is An IrDA compliant software protocol stack that supports
reliable infrared communications for portable devices.

For more information check out:
http://www.embednet.com

Our customers have successfully used our stack on popular
8 bit CPU's like: 8051 derivatives and PIC.

We also support Atmel's AVR CPU's.

This software stack is:
. modular and written in "clean" C.
. small (<11K bytes)
. efficient ( Zero copy buffer management )
. able to support speeds from 9.6Kbps to 4Mbps
. able  interface to any commercial RTOS  or a custom OS
. has direct support for popular CPU's or is simple to port to your
  custom CPU.
. robust and mature.
. reliable, and provides inexpensive data transfers
. supported on all popular platforms: MIPS, ARM, Motorola, Intel,
Hitachi SH, etc ...
. affordable (<$8k, no royalties, all source code)

Advantages of using IrDA infrared:
. requires no connectors
. is low power and low cost.
. infrared is not regulated like RF and requires no certification
. data transfers are reliable and robust
. IrDA is supported by MS Windows operating systems.


author: Juka

subject: midland 70-165-16b

text:
I am in need of programming information for a Midland 70-165-16B VHF
handheld. Also need programming interface schematic. Thanks in advance!


author: Peter Bennett

subject: Re: midland 70-165-16b

text:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:49:53 +0100, "Juka" <[email]>
wrote:

You might try asking in one of the rec.radio.amateur.* newsgroups.

I don't know that radio, but it is quite possible that some hams have
converted it for amateur use.


author: Michael Black

subject: Re: midland 70-165-16b

text:
Peter Bennett ([email]) writes:
He did, one by one by one.

But since he did that, I can't remember if he actually asked in the
one group where it was appropriate, and since he was so sloppy in
posting, I wouldn't answer if I had the answer.

  Michael


author: Paul Alcock

subject: Earthquake in UK

text: A small earthquake was felt today in the east midlands at approx. 1625 GMT


author: PdeJ

subject: Re: Earthquake in UK

text:
According to EMSC Rapid Determination of Epicentres http://www.emsc-csem.org/ their preliminary report is:

EARTHQUAKE on 28/10/2001 at 16:25 (UTC): UNITED KINGDOM

MAGNITUDE: ML4.3 (EMSC)

               MB4.9 (SED)   ML3.7 (LED)   ML4.3 (LDG)

Latitude    =  52.82 N
Longitude   =   0.59 W
Origin Time = 16:25:25.9 (UTC)
Depth       =  20 Km
RMS         = 1.87 sec
95% confidence ellipse: - Semi major = 25.0 Km
                        - Semi minor = 11.2 Km
                        - Azimuth of major axis = 148 degrees

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The epicentre for this earthquake from their data is about 10 miles east of Melton Mowbray
For map: http://uk2.multimap.com/M4/browse.cgi?scale=100000&lon=-0.5900&lat=52.8200

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Paul Alcock" <[email]> wrote in message news:9rhl81$ht3$[email]...2


author: Peter Edward Beaman

subject: Re: Earthquake in UK

text:
"Paul Alcock" <[email]> wrote in message
news:9rhl81$ht3$[email]...

Yes I live in Leicester.  About 4.25 the house gave a shudder, thought a
large lorry had passed by to the property of something.  But in reality
seems we had a mild earthquake around 3.8.  Apparently largest in the region
for 250 years.

Pete Beaman


author: Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.

subject: Re: Problems with Infinity?

text:
In <[email]>, on 02/25/2013
   at 04:42 PM, Don Kuenz <[email]> said:

The word "infinity" has no context-independent meaning in Mathematics.
In Complex Analysis it is conventional to compactify C and to refer to
the added point as oo, but that has noting to do with other uses of
the symbol. Neither this usage, nor the similar usages for the real
line, have anything to do with cardinality.

The first two have nothing to do with the third. Moebius
transformations map the Riemann Sphere into itself.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to [email]


author: Walter Bushell

subject: Re: Problems with Infinity?

text:
In article <512d0d61$9$fuzhry+tra$[email]>,
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <[email]>
 wrote:

Ah, it was the problems of cardinality that caused Charlie Dodgson to
write that poem that included this line;

"He thought he saw an argument that proved he was the Pope."

But much more to do with carnality.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
 me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx


author: Don Kuenz

subject: Re: Problems with Infinity?

text:
[rasw snipped]

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <[email]> wrote:

Thanks.

Let S(z) be a Moebius transformation. My old textbook suggests choosing
S(oo) so that S(z) has a limit at oo. That's about the only role for
infinity in a Moebius transformation.

--
Don Kuenz


author: jo-jo

subject: venturi skimmers

text:
I need to get some input on a skimmer that would support a 180 - 220 gal reef
with a 50mg ozoner and a pressureized reactor.   Are store bought  skimmers
signifigantly better than home made ?

      ,///:,    ,/                                             ,///:,    ,/
  o::::::;;///     [email]     o::::::::;;///
      '''\\\'      \                                             '''\\\'      \


author: Scott Hodges

subject: Re: venturi skimmers

text:
jo-jo ([email]) wrote:

Jo-jo,

Tough question.  I've gone through a few finicky skimmers, but finally
went all out and bought a "Beast" from D & D Marine Enterprises.  It's a sump
return design, using a Supra 4 air pump.  You actually use a one gallon
jug as your overflow! It stands about 28" tall and is about 6" around
(plus fittings), so be sure you have room.
I would recommend one of these to anybody.  The name is appropriate.
D&D also has ozone kits for all teir skimmers.

On the homemade side, I have a few friends that tried to make them, but they
all gave up and bought instead.  If you want a clear one, you might end up
spending as much money on the parts (and mistakes) as you would buying.

I got my Beast from That Fish Place.

Hope this helps!

Scott Hodges    [email]


author: JEFF PFOHL

subject: Re: venturi skimmers

text:
--

I really like my Top Fathom a lot (except that it does not fit under
the tank but what tank does have room for a 5' skimmer underneath?)
Whether it is the best or not is a matter of opinion. I'm pleased with
it and feel I received my $$ worth. Some others seem to like DIY or
the Red Sea skimmers. There are others too (like the Beast previously
mentioned) . Someone on the net recommended that I buy a TF and I'm
grateful that he did. As a matter of fact everyone I know of who owns
one is pleased with its performance. I am using an Eheim 1060 pump. It
is adequate but I would go with a LG 2 or 3 series (or the equivalent
Iwaki) pump. I just think this would be a better choice. TF recommends
which pumps work best on their skimmers.  Trust them as I think they
are probably right. I used the Eheim b/c I had originally planned on
using a submersible pump and it fit the bill. After realizing the size
of the skimmer and the logistics of hooking it up (due to tank
placement which I could not change) I had to use the Eheim out of
water anyways.  All are about the same price.

For the $$ probably TF is one of the best. The Red Sea is smaller in
size and probably can fit under the tank. It claims to be able to
handle big tanks but since I have never seen one I cannot support or
refute this claim. If you are rich then you can find much more
expensive skimmers (like the Marine Technical concepts $800 skimmer) I
do not know if it is much better but I am certain that it is not worth
the $$ since I could easily buy several TF skimmers for the same price
and still have $$ left over. I bought mine on sale from a place that
was just opening. It cost about $275, less than TF sells retail.
I don't recall how much they are retail. Perhaps soneone on the net
has a TF connection.  Post and ask if anyone knows of somewhere that
sells TF cheaper than TF does. You may get lucky.

				JEFF PFOHL
				E-MAIL: [email]
				PHONE : (904) 644-1598  work
					(904) 224-0707  home
					(904) 644-9848  fax

"You don't perform CPR on someone who is alive!"
LEARN CPR.. YOU MAY BE ABLE TO SAVE A LIFE SOMEDAY


author: TOM CLARK

subject: SMALL CONTROL VALVES WANTED

text:
AM LOOKING FOR A SOURCE OF SMALL CONTROL VALVES FOR USE BY OUR OEM CUSTOMERS
.
THANKS


author: Alan Hooker

subject: Re: SMALL CONTROL VALVES WANTED

text:
How small? I presume you mean valves with a small CV, or do you mean valves
that are physically small>


author: Walter Driedger

subject: Re: SMALL CONTROL VALVES WANTED

text:
What is small?  Under 4", under 1 mm?  It's all relative.

Walter.

TOM CLARK wrote:


author: TheoG

subject: Tube length question

text:
On my Leitz Orthoplan the objectives for transmitted light have tube length
170.

For reflected light (metal) the objectives have tube length "infinity"
But for fluorescence, which also uses reflected light, the tubelength is 170
and not infinite.
When both use reflected light why are the tubelengths different?


author: Richard J Kinch

subject: Re: Tube length question

text:
TheoG writes:

The Orthoplan is typically configured in a 170mm tube length.  The
"metallurgical" (reflected light) objectives were infinity, for which you
also need a different illuminator unit which incorporates a tube lens to
make the upper half of the system infinity instead of 170mm.  Which is to
say, the Orthoplan overall scheme was versatile enough to work as both
finite and infinite tube lengths, by changing out various units.


subject: Re: Tube length question

text:
Both metallurgical and fluorescence Orthoplans use reflected light;
why did Leitz choose for infinity for the metallurgical, and 170mm for the
fluorescence microscopes?

"Richard J Kinch" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns9D8596E488A8Dsomeconundrum@216.196.97.131...


author: Victor

subject: Re: Tube length question

text:
On May 28, 5:42 pm, Richard J Kinch <[email]> wrote:

I'd speculate that because fluorescence has historically been used in
conjunction with biological applications, and because most
fluorescence applications at the time used coverslips, that it "made
more sense" from a design perspective to create their fluorescence
with an eye on compatibility with the techniques with which they would
most likely be concurrently used (biology), which called for 170mm
tube lens objectives at the time.


author: Kevin Cunningham

subject: Re: Tube length question

text:
On May 29, 7:29 am, Victor <[email]> wrote:

Let me back the above up, the core difference between metallurgical
and bio instruments is they rarely came together.  If you needed a met
'scope, you bought a met and if you needed a bio, you bought a bio.
The core difference is two fold, met microscopes used no cover glass
and were reflected.  Bio microscopes always had to consider cover
glass and transmitted light.

One huge change has been the complete acceptance of infinity
correction.  This makes for better performance with both met and
fluorescence, any reflected light application.  170 mm ceased being
made after 1980, Leitz converted to DIN.


subject: Re: Tube length question

text:
TheoG writes:

I don't know for certain, but I can speculate that since this was the era
of changeover from finite to infinity tube lengths in the industry, that
the infinity reflected-light designs for the Orthoplan came later and used
the better principles, versus the transmitted-light designs which were the
first available and perfected from the Ortholux and other earlier series.


author: MJ Wang

subject: Help: Data

text:
Hi, there:

I am looking for some historical data (weekly or monthly) for all the
assets in Dow Johns Stocks Index from 1980 to 1992. Could any one tell
me where I can find it?

Thank you very much for your help.

Jay


author: David P.

subject: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
Economists Out to Lunch

By Robert J. Samuelson - July 6, 2009

Niall Ferguson is one of those rare characters: a respected
scholar who's also a successful popularizer. Ferguson,
a Brit, has taught at Oxford and New York University and
is now at Harvard. He has written about World War I, the
British Empire and the Rothschilds (Europe's most powerful
banking family). He has turned four of his projects into TV
documentaries, the latest of which -- "The Ascent of Money,"
also a book -- begins airing on PBS on Wednesday. It is a
program that could be usefully viewed by most of America's
roughly 13,000 economists.

One intriguing subplot of the economic crisis is the failure
of most economists to predict it. Here we have the most
spectacular economic and financial crisis in decades --
possibly since the Great Depression -- and the one group
that spends most of its waking hours analyzing the economy
basically missed it. Oh, a few economists can legitimately
claim some foresight. But they are a handful. Most were as
surprised as the rest of us.

Why? This is a compelling question without, as yet, a
compelling answer. Indeed, so far as I can tell, economists
have not engaged in rigorous self-criticism to explain their
lapse. We've had some casual theories and some partisan
recriminations: "Free-market ideology" is a standard
scapegoat on the assumption that most economists are
"free-market ideologues." But that's not true. In any case,
the crisis surprised liberal and conservative economists,
Republicans and Democrats alike.

This brings us back to Ferguson. The creation of money was
a seminal historic event; so was the subsequent invention
of finance -- the saving and investing of money. Without
them, we could never have moved beyond barter to a modern
economy based on specialization and building for the future.
But these advances came interwoven with bubbles, crashes,
swindles and hyperinflations. Finance has been a wellspring
of both progress and instability.

Ferguson is an able guide. He relates the creation of the
bond market by Italian city-states in the 14th century as a
way to finance their wars against each other; he explains
the South Sea and Mississippi "bubbles" in England and
France around 1720 -- stock market manipulations based on
fantasized riches in the New World; and, finally, he visits
the recent housing bubble.

Ferguson's breezy tour suggests two reasons the present
crisis embarrassed most economists. The first involves
finance itself. The crisis originated in financial markets
(the markets for stocks, bonds and many complex securities),
and yet finance occupies a peripheral position in mainstream
economics. It's studied by a subset of economists, and
financial markets -- their ups, downs and side effects --
are not considered big sources of economic expansions and
slumps. Economists tend to focus directly on the spending
of consumers, businesses and government. It was also widely
assumed that deposit insurance and the existence of the
Federal Reserve would prevent financial panics.

Well, if you de-emphasize financial markets and financial
markets are decisive, you're out to lunch. Financial markets
pumped up the real estate bubble; greater housing and stock
market wealth inspired a consumer spending boom; losses on
"subprime" mortgage securities triggered a collapse of
confidence. Some economists have grudgingly, if obscurely,
conceded error. A study by the International Monetary Fund
called "Initial Lessons of the Crisis" admits: There "was
an under-appreciation of systemic risks coming from . . .
financial sector feedbacks onto the real economy." That's
an understatement.

Overshadowing the misunderstanding of finance is a larger
mistake: ignoring history. By and large, most economists
don't care much about history. Introductory college textbooks
spend little, if any, time exploring business cycles of the
19th century. The emphasis is on "principles of economics"
(the title of many basic texts), as if most endure forever.
Economists focused on constructing elegant, mathematical
models. "For years theorists held the intellectual high
ground," writes economic historian Barry Eichengreen of
the University of California at Berkeley. They were "the
high-prestige members of the profession."

History is messy & constantly changing, as Ferguson reminds
us. It flows from institutions, technologies, laws, cultural
and religious values, governments, popular beliefs, and much
more. Model-building and theorizing can sometimes simplify
the real world in ways that provide insights. But often,
the models' assumptions depart so radically from reality
that the conclusions become useless. Someone who studies
history becomes humble in the face of the ceaseless changes
and capricious mixing of motives.

Economists thought they had solved the problem of economic
stability. Their tools sufficed to prevent widespread
economic collapse, even if they couldn't control every
twist in the business cycle. This conceit may have once
been true. No more. Markets became more complex; more money
crossed national borders; people became complacent. History
moved on, but economists didn't.
.
.


author: Michael Coburn

subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:42:06 +0000, Pers3id wrote:

What's yer point?

Reeeeeely stupid.


subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:08:44 +0000, Pers3id wrote:

And we need a war to do that???


author: Gary Forbis

subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
On Jul 19, 10:20 pm, "Rod Speed" <[email]> wrote:

OK, I think most of WWII production was spend on underproductive
activities such as killing the enemy but a lot of it went into capital
that could be converted.  My dad housed in a POW camp while going
to college.  Boeing converted some of their production to comercial
airline production.  Roads built for the military were converted to
civilian use.  I'm sure I can find more examples.  Yes, lobbing metal
at others isn't a very productive activity but bullets weren't the
only
thing built and utilized by labor.


author: Day Brown

subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
(David P.) wrote:
Group think at work. when you achieve status, you become trapped in your
thinking because it must conform to what people think you think.

Economists are not poor people. But decline happens to them first, only
they are too ignorant, stupid, and crazy (which is why they are poor) to
understand what is going on.

For instance, the government, as the right reminds us, encouraged them
to buy houses. But the liberals dont seem to remember that nobody gave
them the money to meet the mortgage. And here we are.

If you want to know whats coming, you need an economist who lives with
the lower classes. But since such an economist is not rich, nobody
listens to anything he has to say. The media only listens to rich people.


author: Rod Speed

subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
David P. wrote

It would be more accurate to say a very successful explainer of historical phenomena.

He'd have your balls for that, he's actually a scot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson

It could indeed.

*ALL* of them actually. Including him.

Nope, not one actually predicted it. NOT ONE.

They answer is obvious, the system was so fragile that that result
essentially wasnt predictable, or even that it was so fragile.

Hardly surprising given how dramatically it shows up their limitations.

Particularly as word financial markets are nothing
even remotely resembling anything like free.

Indeed.

And there isnt a shred of evidence that those are avoidable now.

It has indeed. Its even arguable whether the instability is
dramatically increasing. That would certainly explain why
the complete implosion of the entire world financial system
wasnt predicted by anyone, its just too unstable to predict.

Yeah, never seen anyone like him.

All of them in fact.

We didnt see a financial panic in the run on all banks sense.

We clearly have worked out how to fix that particular problem.

You are indeed.

That last is just plain wrong. The real problem was that
bundled securitized loans ended up with AAA+ ratings
that they didnt come even close to qualifying for, and
once it became clear that they didnt come even close
to qualify for those ratings as the bubble burst, THATS what
collapsed confidence because it just wasnt clear what the
real rating should be. THATS what saw the likes of Lehmans,
which had lasted 150 years and had survived the great
depression fine implode spectacularly in a single weekend.

Losses on subprime mortgages couldnt have done that.
The worst that would have produced was higher costs
for the sub prime loans which had not defaulted.

It is indeed.

And desperate gambles, like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

They dont have any choice on that now tho.


subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
Gary Forbis wrote

And lots of other unproductive crap like moving hordes of
american around all over the world and then returning most
of them back to the US again once the war had ended etc.

Not much of it did, actually.

Most of it that didnt get scrapped was used for the cold war and korea etc.

Sure, but that sort of thing was a trivial part of what got spent on WW2.

And vast amounts of military hardware was just scrapped, and was required to be
scrapped so it didnt damage the economy because there was hordes of it around.

That was a trivial part of what was spent on WW2.

Sure, quite a few military airfields did end up being used as civilian
airfields, right thruout the world, but that was again only a small
part of all the airfields that never did get used as airfields again.

Sure, but again, thats only a small part of what was pissed against the wall in WW2.

Absolutely classic keynesian deficit spending in fact. Doesnt matter if it
gets spent on productive stuff or not, what matters is that it gets spent.

Yes, but much of what was built and utilised by labor was just
scrapped and had to be scrapped so that massive overhang of
what was produced didnt cripple the civilian economy after the war.


subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
Day Brown wrote

Have fun explaining how those like Keynes etc happen.

Some of them are.

Like hell it does.

Thats not what produced the complete implosion of the entire world financial system, fool.

Nope, dont need to live with them to know whats going on.

Gets sillier by the minute.


subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
Day Brown <[email]> wrote in news:4a639895$0$15936
$[email]:

and because they're rich, the thought of a collapse that would
rob them of their treasure is too horrific to contemplate.. hence
the reason why the 'popular' economists apparently don't see this
stuff coming until it's right on top of us.

I wonder why it's so difficult for some people to see past their
own desires to recognize reality. It's the eternal conflict between
reality that you can overcome and that which will overcome you.
Sucks to be rich eh ? They're the only ones losing money right now.


subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
Pers3id wrote:
Janis' studies on group think are most instructive. Only 15% will
actually believe their own eyes rather than go along with whatever
asininity they think the group has. "How We Decide" by Lehrer is also
instructive. He shows how, if there's a 10% chance of loss, people will
pay 50% to avoid it.

Obama should not be talking about what socialized medicine can do, but
how private healthcare will be lost unless we do something.

 From what Jared Diamond has to say in "Collapse", when the resource
base of a system is maxed, the power elites, rather than cutting back to
buy time to look for real solutions, simply increases its exploitation
of all lower classes. This keeps the level of their perks increasing,
which gives them the illusion 'progress' continues.

Group think among the elite is such that the Mandarins never knew there
was a problem til the bricks in the palace wall started to fly over it.
A lotta posters would be very gratified to see the bastards dragged out
to be shot, but taking down an corrupt system does not require you have
an effective system to replace it, then everyone suffers.

Thus, we see them rant about Obama, but we dont see who they say will do
a better job. Biden? Long before he was selected, I watched committee
hearings seeing how the other senators defer to Biden, and how often
Biden was the one who got to the nub of the matter and put the witness
on the spot to reveal what the real problem was. Biden working congress
and Obama doing the media is about as good as we could hope for. Dunno
that it will be enuf.


subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
Pers3id wrote

Fuck all economists are anything like rich.

All the more reason to be careful about one coming and doing that.

The real reason has nothing to do with being rich, which they arent.

Everything to do with not understanding what produces collapses like this.

Its got nothing to do with recognising reality, everything to do
with not understanding what can produce a collapse like this.

Wrong.

Thats just plain wrong. Hordes of the nothing like rich have lost their jobs and houses.


subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
Day Brown wrote:

Nope.

Depends entirely on the circumstances, fool.

Pity thats pure pig ignorant drivel in a host of real world circumstances.

Pity its a pig ignorant lie and no one but completely
irrelevant fools like you woudl buy that claim.

How odd that we didnt see anything like that in two world wars.

How odd that we didnt see anything like that in
WW1 in western europe or in Japan in WW2.

Nice theory, pity about the real world.

Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.

Nothing even remotely like that actually happened in
Britain when they worked out how to avoid a revolution.

Pity we didnt see anything like that during the great depression.

You wouldnt know what a real corrupt system was if it bit you on your drug crazed lard arse.

Thats a lie too. One fool is actually stupid enough to claim that Gingrich would.

They're both completely irrelevant. The system will recover fine, just like it always does, you watch.


subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
"Rod Speed" <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

You're right about that, but increasingly, the wealthy are
feeling the pain. During the subprime default waves, the wealthy
could afford to sit things out, hoping prices would rebound.
Increasingly they're deciding to sell at any price, even taking
losses, and the current wave of mortgage defaults (that we're
right in the middle of) is on jumbo loans, above $417,000.
Some of the larger banks are not going to survive this wave,
and the US Gov't is running out of money.. Congress is no longer
interested in bailouts. This is where the action really heats up.


author: Mason C

subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 23:06:09 +0000 (UTC), Pers3id <[email]>
wrote:

How in hell does a guy with a printing press and lots of paper and
ink "run out of money"?


subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
Pers3id wrote

About everything, actually.

Nope, the real wealthy dont lose their jobs or their houses either.

They always do and they have the wealth that allows them to wait.

And its no big deal to them when the value of their property drops for a while.

Like hell the real wealthy do.

The only one who do that are the ones that cant keep up the payments, and
those are nothing even remotely resembling anything like wealthy, let alone rich.

Thats nothing even remotely resembling anything like what the real rich borrow.

We'll see...  The same stupid claim was made about Goldman Sachs, look at them now.

Like hell it is.

Wrong, as always.

Nope. The economy is picking up fine and some operations
like Goldman Sachs have even repaid their TARP loans and
are doing very well indeed given the circumstances.


subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
Mason C <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

They can't print, or we get inflation. They can borrow, but too
much of that leads to insolvent gov't. They spend a $Trillion
here, a $Trillion there, then they run out of money and fabricate
a reason to have war with China (easy way to eliminate debt;
demolish your biggest creditor).


subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
"Rod Speed" <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

Their income is derived from debt payments (currently debt is
defaulting at gynormous speed) and equity increases (equities
are not increasing right now). I'm glad you're keeping up with
this stuff Rod.

Until they can't make payments and there is no hope the price will
rebound to pre-crash levels. Then they get out while the getting
is good.

Prime, Jumbo loans leading the way in current defaults. You need
to read more often Rod.

http://tinyurl.com/lkj3o2

Mid to High End Capitulation

http://tinyurl.com/n6ajr9

That was the size of the agency conforming loan prior to 2008.
They called them jumbo loans if they were that big or larger.

Like hell it isn't.

They'll spend a $Trillion and the economy will barely
sputter along.. then they'll want another $Trillion.. then
people start questioning the US Govt's sanity and ability
to repay.. then the gov't suffers a financial failure.

Have a nice day !


subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
Pers3id wrote

Wrong if they dont print too much in a period of deflation.

We managed an even higher percentage of GDP in debt during WW2 fine without going insolvent.

Mindlessly silly. We managed a much higher percentage of GDP in WW2 without going that route.


subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
Pers3id wrote

The real rich dont need 'debt payment' income, because they are rich.

Plenty of the wealthy dont get any income from that sort of debt.

Hordes of them get their income from debt that is not defaulting and never will default.

That last is just plain wrong. Have a look at what has happened with Goldman Sachs and Rio Tinto sometime.

You havent got a clue about the basics.

The rich dont make payments, stupid.

Fools have claimed that every single time we have had a crash in the past
and they have ALWAYS been just plain wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME.

No need for the rich to do that, they are just a little less rich than they
previously were, if the price does ever not return to previous levels.

Doesnt matter a damn to Bill Gates or Warren Buffet if
they are never worth as much as they once were, they
are STILL stinking rich compared with everyone else
and STILL have plenty to give away to anything they like.

The real rich dont have any loan at all, stupid.

Do you seriously believe that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet
actually have loans to buy their houses ?  Of course they dont.

You need to get a clue about how the rich actually live.

Doesnt say a damned thing about loans to the rich.

Doesnt say a damned thing about loans to the rich.

Pity that aint THE RICH.

China etc keeps buying US treasurys, stupid.

Mindlessly silly. The unemployment rate isnt even double digits yet.

Plenty of western european country would sell their
first borns to get that sort of unemployment rate.

Nope, not when the economy has recovered.

How odd that they didnt during WW2 when the per capita debt was even higher.

Have a shitty day !!!


subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
"Rod Speed" <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

Non-productive debt always leads to more borrowing in the future.
It's called ponzi finance, and it leads to debt spirals. Debt
creation in WWII was spent on real stuff which aided the economy.


subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
"Rod Speed" <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

..and how do you think they store their money, gold bars in
their basement ?


subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
Pers3id wrote

Another pig ignorant lie.

The non productive debt of WW2 didnt.

Some countrys wiped out ALL their federal govt debt completely.

Only by pig ignorant fools that dont have a clue about the basics.

Have fun explaining how the WW2 debt didnt.

Mindlessly silly. It was actually spent on killing the enemy.


subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
Pers3id wrote

In the case of the real rich, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Sergey Brin etc,
they own a hell of a lot of the stock of the operation they produced.


subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
"Rod Speed" <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

You think the borrowing and spending we did in WWII
was non-productive ? Now there's an interesting angle
I hadn't heard before. Keep up the excellent work Rod.


subject: Re: Economists Out to Lunch - Samuelson

text:
Pers3id wrote

Clearly was when the vast bulk of the ammunition was just fired at the enemy,
the bulk of the military hardware was scrapped when the war ended etc etc etc.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.


author: Anonymous User

subject: State of the Art, 2002

text:
What's topical in Prostatitis Land?

- We're all waiting for the descriptions of
  the papers to be delivered at AUA 2002.

- Several key CP/CPPS and IC studies are
  due for completion (and publication?) this year.

- Newsgroup numbers/posts down since advent of
  ProstaQ and quercetin treatment.

- The Bacteria Brigade, in full retreat, are to hold
  a conference on prostatitis and fertility in Germany
  this year. The Germans love those bug theories!
  Of course the PF are going to be there (freebie travel
  on your donated dollar).

- Our newsgroup takes a nosedive in quality since
  [email] started posting. When
  mental midgets like him find out how to use Usenet,
  does it spell the end of the usefulness of Usenet?
  The discussion continues ....

Anyone else got highlights, forthcoming attractions and major developments?

-------
Gotta love the prostatitis newsgroup: welcome to High Noise to Signal land!
Best website: http://www.chronicprostatitis.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_ugroup=sci.med.prostate.prostatitis
http://www.mailgate.org/sci/sci.med.prostate.prostatitis/
Newbie Alert - [email] is a turd & moron whose "advice" harms


author: NiceShyMiamiGuy

subject: Re: State of the Art, 2002

text:
My influence is spreading world wide!!!
Yes, - the Germans love me - because like their leaders from the past -- I
would rather be feared than loved - ahahahaha !!!!!
*****************


author: Rhemium

subject: Re: State of the Art, 2002

text:
You don't scare me at all, Paul.

You're a joke, basically.

I don't mind you posting here so much, especially after viewing DS and Anon
absolutely handing you an ass-whipping after your misstatements concerning abx
this morning.

And that's your area of expertise, no? LOL!!

You're a complete toolboy!!  You post here because nobody else will acknowledge
you anywhere else!  LOL!


author: Ed Conrad

subject: Pseudo Brains Still in Collision with Truth

text:
<
<
==============================================
IS THIS THE YEAR PSEUDOS FINALLY ADMIT
THEY'RE MORE PSEUDOS THAN SCIENTISTS?


author: harvest dancer

subject: Re: Pseudo Brains Still in Collision with Truth

text:
Ed Conrad <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

You must perfect your typing skills.  It's spelled "Collusion."

Jason


author: JimO

subject: JimO China-Space Testimony

text:
My home page www.jamesoberg.com
now has the materials and transcripts
from my testimony on China-Space-Future
before the Senate Subcommittee in April.
Plus beefcake photo. Sort of.


author: Revision

subject: Re: JimO China-Space Testimony

text:
"JimO" <[email]> wrote in message
news:VGjxc.42961$[email]...

An interesting analysis of Chinese plans and international cooperation.
I think that your testimony did a good job of pointing out that a Moon
mission or Mars mission are not trivial endeavors but require a lot of
time and work.

This is the first I have heard that the Chinese may opt for an near-Earth
asteroid visit prior to a Moon voyage.

At the time of the Shuttle/Mir program, it seemed to me that the US was
putting a lot of effort into these flights....ended up being a sizable
chapter of NASA history.  Looks like the Soviets are honoring our past
support by helping us now.

I am a little skeptical that the Chinese would not utilize Russian
hardware because "they can't afford it."  The Chinese are flush with cash
now.  Perhaps even affluent enough to more than one copy of MS Windows. I
recall that China wanted to buy a manned capsule at one point but the
Russians would only go as far as providing blueprints.  For what China is
spending on the Olympics they could finance a large space program.  The
Chinese space folks probably have to lobby the politicians there the same
as NASA does.  Buying hardware seems like an easy shortcut but when you
do that you deny yourself the benefits of developing industrial
infrastructure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/15/international/asia/15oper.html?pagewanted=2&hp

Senator Brownback ends with an equivocal remark that Congressional
support for the Shuttle is weak ("I just don't pick up the enthusiasm in
the Congress for continuing the Shuttle a whole lot longer"), but that
space flight is a feel-good activity that seems worthwhile in some vague
sort of way.


author: Carsten Nielsen

subject: Re: JimO China-Space Testimony

text:
"JimO" <[email]> wrote in message news:<VGjxc.42961$[email]>...

In case anybody haven't seen it, Sven Grahn has a lot about the
Chinese program, he was involved in launching the first Swedish build
satellite Freya from China.

He also has a lot of info about the ex soviet program, which he has
observed the radio communication of, and talked with all the people
after the iron curtain fell.

And he has been involved since age 14 with space commitees and
observing satellites and radio communication.

He's a real historian on space.

I observe that he thinks the orbital module of the chinese capsules is
used for other programmes, is that why the yu-hang-yuan (?) was
launched alone ?

What do you think ?

Regards

Carsten Nielsen
Denmark


author: Al & Chris

subject: Re: JimO China-Space Testimony

text:
"JimO" <[email]> wrote in message
news:VGjxc.42961$[email]...

BFD


author: Jim Kingdon

subject: Re: JimO China-Space Testimony

text:
This is good information.  It has a nice description of the Chinese
program, including what they developed themselves, what they got from
abroad, etc.

The short summary is that there is a fair bit of information out there
about the Chinese program (as Oberg points out, much more than the
West had about the Soviet program during the cold war).


author: OM

subject: Re: JimO China-Space Testimony

text:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 00:22:55 -0500, "Revision" <[email]>
wrote:

...Make sure you save this one. It deserves to be someone's .sig :-)

				OM


author: Pat Flannery

subject: Re: JimO China-Space Testimony

text:
Jim Kingdon wrote:

Which takes a lot of the fun out of it for me...where's the challenge in
trying to figure out what the devious commies are really planing...if
they _tell_ you what they are really planing.
The Chinese are spoilsports.

Pat


author: LaDonna Wyss

subject: Re: JimO China-Space Testimony

text:
Jim Kingdon <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Forgive me, but I wouldn't believe the Chinese if they said there WAS
a Moon.  WHATEVER they plan to do with their space program (and
judging from that big **THUD** I heard when their--what's it called?
A tikonaut or something like that?--went on his post-flight publicity
tour around the country, I think it will be a very long time before
they even get close to the Moon.


author: Jorge R. Frank

subject: Re: JimO China-Space Testimony

text:
OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org>
wrote in news:[email]:

Well, maybe after he locates the missing verb in the second sentence...


author: Scott Hedrick

subject: Re: JimO China-Space Testimony

text:
"LaDonna Wyss" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

It will happen far sooner than you will get to the truth.


author: Terrell Miller

subject: Re: JimO China-Space Testimony

text:
"Pat Flannery" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

that's just what they want you to think <g>


author: Mike Flugennock

subject: Re: JimO China-Space Testimony

text:
In article <Xns9509451819C9Ejrfrank@204.52.135.40>, "Jorge R. Frank"
<[email]> wrote:

I would have to assume that's "own". But, hell, they can _make_ 'em over
there if they want, anyway...(;^>


subject: keeping nightguard clean

text:
I've been instructed to clean my nightguard each morning by brushing it with an
anti-bacterial soap. Although I've been doing this faithfully since I first got
the appliance, about three months ago, it is nevertheless stained and grungy.
Any suggestions as to how I can get it clean again?  Thanks.
Sam


author: Nelson

subject: Re: keeping nightguard clean

text:
I have great success with a "drop" of chlorox added to water.  Works great!
fmn (be careful, abrasion is a real issue if you use a toothbrush,
eventually changing the fit)
fmn


author: Gina Cameron

subject: Re: keeping nightguard clean

text:
Well Sam, just like your own teeth your appliance will collect stain and tartar.
Use a good denture brush to keep it clean. You could also ask your dentist or
hygienist to clean it for you. At our office we have a special cleaner (tartar and
stain remover) we use to clean patients' dentures and nightguards. Hope this helps.

Pasa246 wrote:


author: Roy Brown

subject: Re: keeping nightguard clean

text:
I believe that denture brushes are too stiff and actually abrade the
acrylic. I've seen too many dentures with grooves worn in them from the
brushes. I now only recommend using a regular tooth brush. The stain and
tartar remover is a good idea, some people find that by using one of the
"fizzy denture cleaning tablets" once a week or so helps with staining. One
way to decrease staining is to make sure that whenever the nightguard is not
in your mouth it is kept in water. Even wrapping it in a moist paper towel
and storing it in a plastic bag will work if you are out camping or
something.

Roy

"Gina Cameron" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
tartar.
or
(tartar and
this helps.
with an
first got
grungy.


author: Shirley Gutkowski RDH

subject: Re: keeping nightguard clean

text:
Me too.  The only thing I would add is to use regular white vinegar once a week
or when you see the hard deposits starting to build up.
You didn't mention if it was hard or soft so I will also add that soft mouth
guards get kind of gross looking from the abuse they get from the bruxing.

Shirley Gutkowski, RDH, BSDH
"Everbody wants to save the earth - nobody wants to help Mom to do the dishes."
     - P. J. O'Rourke
~~~~~~~~~
http://www.themestream.com/gspd_browse/browse/view_article.gsp?c_id=259836


subject: Re: keeping nightguard clean

text:
But we all know that soft night guards are supposed to stop the bruxing.
Right?
;-)
Roy

"Shirley Gutkowski RDH" <[email]> wrote
mouth


author: Rudy Benavides

subject: Re: frass expulsion

text:
Liz,

Looking at the process in a later growth stage monarch cat, 2nd instar (@
6mm), it only elevates the tip of abdomen slightly and expels frass just a
few mm away from its body....nothing like the 1st instar's more distant
'slinging' expulsion.

Cheers,

Rudy/MD
------------------------------

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

 ------------------------------------------------------------

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl


author: Liz Day

subject: Re: frass expulsion

text:
Maybe the second instars don't get parasitized?

This is so mysterious.

Liz

-------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Day
Indianapolis, Indiana, central USA  (40 N, ~86 W)
Home of budgerigar Tweeter and the beautiful pink inchworm (Eupithecia
miserulata).
USDA zone 5b.  Winters ~20F, summers ~85F.  Formerly temperate deciduous
forest.
[email]
www.kiva.net/~daylight
-------------------------------------------------------------

 ------------------------------------------------------------

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl


author: gwang

subject: Re: frass expulsion

text:
Hi,

This seems like an unlikely explanation.  When I collect monarchs in the
larval stage, I have often found that the bigger they are when I collect
them, the higher the probability that they have parasites.  This makes
sense if one thinks about it.  The parasites need a fairly large host to
ensure that its eggs have enough to eat.
As for the projectile frass thing, could it be that the caterpillars
simply want to get the frass of the leaves they're on?  Big caterpillars
would have no problem with this as their frass is heavy and drops
easily, where as small caterpillars' frass does not.  I have often
noticed with monarchs that the bigger the caterpillars, the easier it is
to clean their container as the frass falls away more easily.
Actually, I have never seen this projectile phenomenon you speak of.
Just what kinds of distances are we talking about here?  A few
centimeters?

Peace,
Xi Wang


author: Sunsol

subject: Re: frass expulsion

text:
Liz,

I have raised a few anise swallowtails over the years. I have noticed that
if I collect first instars, they are sometimes parasitized by a wasp that
emerges from the second instar. I haven't noticed the wasp in older
caterpillars. So maybe some some caterpillars don't have to worry after the
first instar.

Sally


subject: Re: frass expulsion

text:
Up maybe a few inches and sideways maybe 6"?   They can make the frass land
on something at least a few inches above them (that's how I noticed it in
the first place - couldn't figure out how that frass got there!!).   The
sideways distance depends on how far below them it lands.  They shoot it
out upwards at an angle (at least sometimes).

Liz

 ------------------------------------------------------------

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl


subject: Re: frass expulsion

text:
It could be.   It seems the few kinds of larvae I've watched, they either
shoot the frass or they don't, from the time they're tiny until they're
large.   As we talk about this, and the advantages of making sure your
frass doesn't fall to rest on a nearby leaf, I'm wondering why ALL larvae
don't shoot it out.   Saturniids just let it fall.    Even if you are
hanging on the underside of a leaf, it might come to rest on the leaf below
you.  And they have plenty of parasitoids.   Mysterious.

Liz

-------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Day
Indianapolis, Indiana, central USA  (40 N, ~86 W)
Home of budgerigar Tweeter and the beautiful pink inchworm (Eupithecia
miserulata).
USDA zone 5b.  Winters ~20F, summers ~85F.  Formerly temperate deciduous
forest.
[email]
www.kiva.net/~daylight
-------------------------------------------------------------

 ------------------------------------------------------------

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl


author: Jane Dillonaire

subject: Re: frass expulsion

text:
Since the original question dealt with projectile frass in 1st instar
Monarchs (if I remember correctly) could it have something to do with the
accumulation of toxins?  It seems to me that the first instars would be at
greater peril from predators since they have not yet accumulated the
quantities of milkweed toxin that later instars have.  Has anyone any
information regarding the relative toxicity of various instars? comparative
acceptability to predators of various instars?


author: Chuck Vaughn

subject: Re: frass expulsion

text:
Sally,

I've seen the same thing here with Anise Swallowtails. If they make it
to 3rd instar they have a much higher chance of survival. I did find
a chrysalis on the fennel plant recently and put it in a cage. After
about a week some small flies of some kind emerged directly from
the chrysalis. I guess different parasitic insects favor different
instars.

Chuck <[email]>

------------------------------

 ------------------------------------------------------------

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl


author: Bill Cornelius

subject: Re: frass expulsion

text:
Maybe larvae grow bacteria in their gut & the early instars don't have the
right kind yet? sounds sort of lame, how'bout parasites locate early larvae by
the vitamin B content of their poop? I know ticks & fleas don't bite me if
I've eaten Vit B. Somebody else do the test.

Bill

Liz Day wrote:


author: Ron Gatrelle

subject: Re: frass expulsion

text:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Liz Day" <[email]>
Subject: Re: frass expulsion

caterpillars
below

In reading this thread over the last several days I have been waiting for
someone with more technical knowledge to jump in - but this has not yet
happened.  This is apparently a fertile area that is wide open for study.
Two years ago at the Lepid. Soc. annual meeting in NC an individual (from
Florida I believe) gave a very interesting and informative presentation on
this subject.  The species they chose to study escapes me but I believe it
was a skipper.  They had some great photography of the mechanical structure
that flicks the frass out and away. This was a totally involuntary action.
As the frass passed out the anus a small barb like appendage was moved into
a tension position by the frass.  After the frass got so far down the
channel the barb acted like a spring and in snapping back into its position
provided thrust that flung the frass several feet away. They also
demonstrated that wasp/fly predators found larvae by detecting their frass
when nearby. Several other very interesting aspects. Some larvae are very
neat house keepers and others wallow like pigs in frass filled shelters.

Ron

 ------------------------------------------------------------

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl


subject: Re: frass expulsion

text:
Monarchs are toxic, so would it not make sense for the eggs, and hence
newly emerged larvae, to be just as toxic, if not more?

Peace,
Xi Wang

Jane Dillonaire wrote:


subject: Re: frass expulsion

text:
Hi Chuck,

I guess caterpillars can never really stop worrying, just like moms.

Sally
Chuck Vaughn <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
that
that
the


subject: Re: frass expulsion

text:
Xi Wang wrote:

Not all monarchs are "toxic".  Some milkweeds are more so and others less
toxic or not at all -  I do not remember which. I seem to remember that
Butterfly Weed ( A. tuberosa) is non? The "protection" is achieved for
monarch adults and their mimics (which are not irritable to predators)
simply by the high percentages of distasteful ones producing a memory
aversion to the red wing pattern. In the egg and larval stages I would
think there is a whole different set of factors.

As I said in my previous post here (which I assume went through), anal
frass projection is an automatic mechanical reflex action produced by
structures in the anus of some species. Many other larva of many varied
genera remove excreted frass from their proximity orally.  It is picked up
with the mandibles and flung or dropped away from their site. Wasps and
flies in particular hone in on the sent of the frass to locate prey.  It is
also know that various larva are able to "hear" (detect) certain "humm"
frequencies which are at those generated by specific wasp predators.

This is the type  of interesting and useful info found in scientific
publications and why lepidopterists have thus traditionally subscribed to
things like the Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society etc.

It remains disappointing to me that either 1) those on this list with
answers to these questions based on detailed research are not posting, or
2) that those types of people are not subscribed.
Ron

 ------------------------------------------------------------

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl


author: Peter Swanson

subject: Re: Help needed on Dimer...

text:
In article <4vs7ih$[email]> [email] "PES Inc " writes:

Isn't this the stuff which is vacuum deposited onto things like printed
circuit boards, pacemakers, etc as a conformal coating? If so, contact Alpha
Metals in Jersey City, NJ, who market it as Parylene.

...............................................................................
Peter Swanson                                              Oxfordshire, England
[email]                              Compuserve: 100120,3641
           http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Peter_Swanson

         If you consult enough experts, you can confirm any opinion.
...............................................................................


author: Ruth Pohl

subject: RI think I found it!

text:
I'd be happy to get some and send it to you if you need it, but I think I
found you some:
http://www.smartmeds.com/shopping/items.cfm?labelname=GENTEAL%20LUBRICANT%20EYE%20GEL&cl=O

Ruth

"G.B." wrote:


subject: Re: I think I found it!

text:
can't give smartmeds a glowing endorsement.  after (paying extra for and)
waiting for two day delivery which was a no show, e-mailed them and found
out it's on backorder.  could've told me that right after i ordered!  then
walked in to walgreen's to order it there and there were 3 packages on the
shelf.  finally, a score!

"Ruth Pohl" wrote in message:
eye
boards


subject: Re: I think I found it!

text:
my eyes and i thank you very much

g.b.

"Ruth Pohl" wrote in message:
http://www.smartmeds.com/shopping/items.cfm?labelname=GENTEAL%20LUBRICANT%20
EYE%20GEL&cl=O
eye
boards


author: Jack Linthicum

text:
The basic question is when did the basic population come into the
islands, 10,000 or 16,000 years ago.

March 5, 2007
English, Irish, Scots: They're All One, Genes Suggest
By NICHOLAS WADE

Britain and Ireland are so thoroughly divided in their histories that
there is no single word to refer to the inhabitants of both islands.
Historians teach that they are mostly descended from different
peoples: the Irish from the Celts, and the English from the Anglo-
Saxons who invaded from northern Europe and drove the Celts to the
country's western and northern fringes.

But geneticists who have tested DNA throughout the British Isles are
edging toward a different conclusion. Many are struck by the overall
genetic similarities, leading some to claim that both Britain and
Ireland have been inhabited for thousands of years by a single people
that have remained in the majority, with only minor additions from
later invaders like Celts, Romans, Angles , Saxons, Vikings and
Normans.

The implication that the Irish, English, Scottish and Welsh have a
great deal in common with each other, at least from the geneticist's
point of view, seems likely to please no one.

The genetic evidence is still under development, however, and because
only very rough dates can be derived from it, it is hard to weave
evidence from DNA, archaeology, history and linguistics into a
coherent picture of British and Irish origins.

That has not stopped the attempt. Stephen Oppenheimer, a medical
geneticist at the University of Oxford, says the historians' account
is wrong in almost every detail. In Dr. Oppenheimer's reconstruction
of events, the principal ancestors of today's British and Irish
populations arrived from Spain about 16,000 years ago, speaking a
language related to Basque.

The British Isles were unpopulated then, wiped clean of people by
glaciers that had smothered northern Europe for about 4,000 years and
forced the former inhabitants into southern refuges in Spain and
Italy. When the climate warmed and the glaciers retreated, people
moved back north.

The new arrivals in the British Isles would have found an empty
territory, which they could have reached just by walking along the
Atlantic coastline, since there were still land bridges then across
what are now English Channel and the Irish Sea.

This new population, who lived by hunting and gathering, survived a
sharp cold spell called the Younger Dryas that lasted from 12,300 to
11,000 years ago. Much later, some 6,000 years ago, agriculture
finally reached the British Isles from its birthplace in the Near
East.

Agriculture may have been introduced by people speaking Celtic, in Dr.
Oppenheimer's view. Although the Celtic immigrants may have been few
in number, they spread their farming techniques and their language
throughout Ireland and the western coast of Britain. Later immigrants
arrived from northern Europe had more influence on the eastern and
southern coasts. They too spread their language, a branch of German,
but these invaders' numbers were also small compared with the local
population.

In all, about three-quarters of the ancestors of today's British and
Irish populations arrived between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, when
rising sea levels finally divided Britain and Ireland from the
Continent and from one another, Dr. Oppenheimer calculates in a new
book, "The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story" (Carroll
& Graf, 2006).

As for subsequent invaders, Ireland received the fewest; the invaders'
DNA makes up about 12 percent of the Irish gene pool, Dr. Oppenheimer
estimates, but it accounts for 20 percent of the gene pool in Wales,
30 percent in Scotland, and about one-third in eastern and southern
England.

Still, no single group of invaders is responsible for more than 5
percent of the current gene pool, Dr. Oppenheimer says on the basis of
genetic data.

He cites figures from the archaeologist Heinrich Haerke that the Anglo-
Saxon invasions that began in the fourth century A.D. added about
250,000 people to a British population of one to two million, an
estimate Dr. Oppenheimer notes is larger than his but considerably
less than the substantial replacement of the English population
assumed by others. The Norman invasion of 1066 A.D. brought not many
more than 10,000 people, according to Dr. Haerke.

Other geneticists say Dr. Oppenheimer's reconstruction is plausible,
though some disagree with details. Several said that genetic methods
did not give precise enough dates to be confident of certain aspects,
like when the first settlers arrived.

"Once you have an established population, it is quite difficult to
change it very radically," said Daniel G. Bradley, a geneticist at
Trinity College, Dublin. But he said he was "quite agnostic" as to
whether the original population became established in Britain and
Ireland immediately after the glaciers retreated 16,000 years ago, as
Dr. Oppenheimer argues, or more recently, in the Neolithic Age, which
began 10,000 years ago.

Bryan Sykes, another Oxford geneticist, said he agreed with Dr.
Oppenheimer that the ancestors of "by far the majority of people" were
present in the British Isles before the Roman conquest of A.D. 43.
"The Saxons, Vikings and Normans had a minor effect, and much less
than some of the medieval historical texts would indicate," he said.

His conclusions, based on his own genetic survey and information in
his genealogical testing service, Oxford Ancestors, are reported in
his new book, "Saxons, Vikings and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain
and Ireland."

A different view of the Anglo-Saxon invasions has been developed by
Mark Thomas of University College, London. Dr. Thomas and colleagues
say the invaders wiped out substantial numbers of the indigenous
population, replacing 50 percent to 100 percent of those in central
England.

Their argument is that the Y chromosomes of English men seem identical
to those of people in Norway and the Friesland area of the
Netherlands, two regions from which the invaders may have originated.

Dr. Oppenheimer disputes this, saying the similarity between the
English and northern European Y chromosomes arises because both
regions were repopulated by people from the Iberian refuges after the
glaciers retreated.

Dr. Sykes said he agreed with Dr. Oppenheimer on this point, but
another geneticist, Christopher Tyler-Smith of the Sanger Centre near
Cambridge, said the jury was still out. "There is not yet a consensus
view among geneticists, so the genetic story may well change," he
said. As to the identity of the first postglacial settlers, Dr. Tyler-
Smith said he "would favor a Neolithic origin for the Y chromosomes,
although the evidence is still quite sketchy."

Dr. Oppenheimer's population history of the British Isles relies not
only on genetic data but also on the dating of language changes by
methods developed by geneticists. These are not generally accepted by
historical linguists, who long ago developed but largely rejected a
dating method known as glottochronology.

Geneticists have recently plunged into the field, arguing that
linguists have been too pessimistic and that advanced statistical
methods developed for dating genes can also be applied to languages.

Dr. Oppenheimer has relied on work by Peter Forster, a geneticist at
Anglia Ruskin University, to argue that Celtic is a much more ancient
language than supposed, and that Celtic speakers could have brought
knowledge of agriculture to Ireland, where it first appeared. He also
adopts Dr. Forster's argument, based on a statistical analysis of
vocabulary, that English is an ancient, fourth branch of the Germanic
language tree, and was spoken in England before the Roman invasion.

English is usually assumed to have developed in England, from the
language of the Angles and Saxons, about 1,500 years ago. But Dr.
Forster argues that the Angles and the Saxons were both really Viking
peoples who began raiding Britain ahead of the accepted historical
schedule. They did not bring their language to England because
English, in his view, was already spoken there, probably introduced
before the arrival of the Romans by tribes such as the Belgae, whom
Julius Caesar describes as being present on both sides of the Channel.

The Belgae may have introduced some socially transforming technique,
such as iron-working, which would lead to their language supplanting
that of the indigenous inhabitants, but Dr. Forster said he had not
yet identified any specific innovation from the archaeological record.

Germanic is usually assumed to have split into three branches: West
Germanic, which includes German and Dutch; East Germanic, the language
of the Goths and Vandals; and North Germanic, consisting of the
Scandinavian languages. Dr. Forster's analysis shows English is not an
off-shoot of West Germanic, as usually assumed, but is a branch
independent of the other three, which also implies a greater
antiquity. Germanic split into its four branches some 2,000 to 6,000
years ago, Dr. Forster estimates.

Historians have usually assumed that Celtic was spoken throughout
Britain when the Romans arrived. But Dr. Oppenheimer argues that the
absence of Celtic place names in England - words for places are
particularly durable - makes this unlikely.

If the people of the British Isles hold most of their genetic heritage
in common, with their differences consisting only of a regional
flavoring of Celtic in the west and of northern European in the east,
might that perception draw them together? Geneticists see little
prospect that their findings will reduce cultural and political
differences.

The Celtic cultural myth "is very entrenched and has a lot to do with
the Scottish, Welsh and Irish identity; their main identifying feature
is that they are not English," said Dr. Sykes, an Englishman who has
traced his Y chromosome and surname to an ancestor who lived in the
village of Flockton in Yorkshire in 1286.

Dr. Oppenheimer said genes "have no bearing on cultural history."
There is no significant genetic difference between the people of
Northern Ireland, yet they have been fighting with each other for 400
years, he said.

As for his thesis that the British and Irish are genetically much
alike, "It would be wonderful if it improved relations, but I somehow
think it won't."


author: Diarmid

subject: Re: English, Irish, Scots: They're All One, Genes Suggest

text:
On Mar 5, 6:19 pm, "Jack Linthicum" <[email]>
wrote:

One British scientist - Mark Thomas - would disagree with this
analysis:

Germans set up an apartheid-like society in Britain -
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/media/library/apartheidengland

Evidence for an apartheid-like social structure in early Anglo-Saxon
England - http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Thomas-PRSB-06-Apartheid.pdf

Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration -
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Weale-MBE-02-AS.pdf


author: Actinide

text:
I'd like to interject, if I may, to say that I think one of the main
problems in this debate is the emphasis being placed on any sort of
tale that describes historical events. That is not to say that they
are not important in the overall process of evaluating the course of
events, as they are, but they can never replace the evidence gleaned
from good old fashioned science- i.e. recovery and thorough testing.
Obviously, there are some claims made in those tales that can never be
tested, at least with the techniques we currently have at our
disposal, and those should be viewed within the context of what the
cold, hard facts tell us.

As far as this is concerned, I am prone to rely on DNA evidence over
the unreliable claims made in manuscripts. The core of the argument,
as I see it, is not whether or not the people of the British Isles
actually identify themselves as one, as it is quite obvious that they
do not (for example, I, being Irish, would very much take offense to
being referred to as British), but whether or not they are genetically
similar enough to suggest a common origin- which, thus far, is what
the evidence suggests.

I mean no offense to any of the participants in this discussion, I
just felt compelled to make this post as I am the sort of person who
relies on concrete fact first, and uses it as a base for the more
subjective evidence in order to build a complete picture.


author: Mike

text:
"Jack Linthicum" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Why do they think we came from Iberia?

What's the oldest archaeological item ever found?

When I read books like The History of the Goths I all ways wondered about
the number of invaders as compared to the established citizens.  It seemed
overplayed.

Aren't the Basque known for being distinctly Rah negative and would not that
separate the Brits from them.  Or is it being postulated that this factor
morphed within the last 10k years?

I never seen these statistics before (estimated): Anglo Saxons were 13% of
the host country while Normans made up less than 1%.


author: [redacted]

text:
The article has already gone wrong at this point. In the works of the
great geographer Ptolemy, the two largest islands in the British Isles
(Brettanikai nesoi) are Great Britain (Megale Brettania, otherwise
Albion) and Little Britain (Mikra Brettania, otherwise Hibernia).
There has been continuous migration between the two islands through
recorded history and before it. And the islands effectively formed a
single nation from 1603 (when the King of Scots succeeded to the
thrones of England and Ireland).

It is not genetics that separates the UK from the ROI, it is religion.


author: Inger E(NorahD

text:
"Mike" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

How about reading the Irish tales???

Inger E


author: allan connochie

text:
<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

No it hasn't though. There is no single word to refer to all the
inhabitants. Only a fraction of Irishmen would regard themselves as British.
Most would be offended to be called that. Nothing to do with genetics but
true just the same.

Not so. The said event marked a personal regal union but the peoples of for
example, Scotland and England, would never have regarded themselves as one
single nation. They even remained seperate independent entities until 1707.

Religion has an obvious part to pay but I'd think nationality is also a big
factor.

Allan


author: "JMB"

text:
"Inger E(NorahD)" <[email]> wrote in message
news:tQtIh.36149$[email]...

You should try that Inger, and then learn something about the context and
time they were written in their currect form, and then it might become clear
to you that the Irish tales are in no way evidence that we are decended from
Basques.  The DNA evidence suggests that both the Irish and the Basques are
decended from the same parent mesolithic group.  The archaeological evidence
does not preclude the DNA evidence, but it does go against the claims that
the Irish were decended from the Basques.


text:
John,
Not only have I tried to read the Irish tales,
reading it and discussing it with scholars of English as well as Irish
scholars. I have a copy of some in my room. Did I say that the Irish
origined from the Basques? No Did I hint they came that way to the British
isles? yes.

Do I know the background of present tales. Yes.
But that's not the question.

Btw. we first read and discussed Lebor Gabala in English translation when I
was in highschool. That's why I got interested in it.

Inger E