PING: Ned Carlson and JJTj

Question:

Hey Ned Carlson of www.tubezone.net and JJTj of "I’m famous, writing a book & I’ll be at NAMM in a booth wearing my BB/Lounge T-Shirt". Why don’t you sunny winners write Ward Meeker, Editor of _Vintage_Guitar_ Magazine_ ? Tell _him_ how full of shit you think products like Stellartone’s Tone Styler are and cc: AGA (alt.guitar.aplifiers) ? I think you’re both On Topic ankle biters . Regards, mvm www.geocities.com

Response:

>JJTj of "I’m famous, writing a book & I’ll be at NAMM in a booth wearing >my BB/Lounge T-Shirt".

I don’t know what fantasy land you live in: a): I am not famous.. b): I am writing a book, yes.. late 2k7.. c): I will be at NAMM d): I will NOT be in a booth..I will be walking. <where did you dream up this ‘booth’ thing?> e): Yes, I will be wearing said shirt.. PLEASE, if you need to act like an arse, be correct.. JJTj " God bless us, cuz we iz Funk-ie !! " " Making our own rules, no matter the price " " And ya best believe, we NEVER think twice "

Response:

WHICH shirt WILL you be wearing Whacky? "…Stop by..say hello. Win free prizes…" "…BB/Lounge T-Shirt…" "..Bob’s Berserk-o Lounge.." T-Shirt.. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I don’t know what fantasy land you live in: > a): I am not famous.. > b): I am writing a book, yes.. late 2k7.. > c): I will be at NAMM > d): I will NOT be in a booth..I will be walking. > <where did you dream up this ‘booth’ thing?> > e): Yes, I will be wearing said shirt.. > PLEASE, if you need to act like an arse, be correct.. > JJTj

You are goofier than a one-eyed butt worm on chloroform

Response:

> WHICH shirt WILL you be wearing Whacky? > "…Stop by..say hello. Win free prizes…" > "…BB/Lounge T-Shirt…" > "..Bob’s Berserk-o Lounge.." T-Shirt..

‘I’m with Stupid’ (stands alone)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Hey Ned Carlson of www.tubezone.net > and >JJTj of "I’m famous, writing a book & I’ll be at NAMM in a booth wearing >my BB/Lounge T-Shirt". >Why don’t you sunny winners write Ward Meeker, Editor of >_Vintage_Guitar_ Magazine_ ? Tell _him_ how full of shit you think >products like Stellartone’s Tone Styler are and cc: AGA >(alt.guitar.aplifiers) ? >I think you’re both On Topic ankle biters .

Marc, trust me — both you and Meeker are in way over your heads technically. VG is a valuable advertising venue, but using it as a technical evaluaton source is akin to getting your geopolitical analysis from a cable news channel — i.e. you *might* hear from a credible expert, but the odds are hevily stacked against it. VG’s expertise, such as it is, concerns old instruments, their quirks, and their market value — iow, porno for collectors and would-be collectors of pricey old guitar gear. Moreover, their editorial allegiance is clearly to their advertisers, not to any demonstrable technical excellence. As a potential advertiser, I appreciate their loyalty — but their technical knowledge isn’t very different from that of the hobbyists and "vintage" gear investors that comprise their readership, it’s just that they get to play with more stuff. In short, Marc, don’t be such a mark — just as a realtor isn’t an architect, a magazine devoted to the encouragment of the largely bullshit-based "vintage" craze isn’t an authoritative technical evaluation source. One might as well look to "People" magazine for expert music reviews! Btw, I don’t consider myself a credible authority either — I’m not the sort of fool who puts "expert" in his sig — but, as it’s long been said, "In the land of the blind, a one-eyed man is a king." Now, can I sell you some absolutely first-rate American-made pickups at a price that make sense? :-)

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> WHICH shirt WILL you be wearing Whacky? > "…Stop by..say hello. Win free prizes…" > "…BB/Lounge T-Shirt…" > "..Bob’s Berserk-o Lounge.." T-Shirt.. > I don’t know what fantasy land you live in: > a): I am not famous.. > b): I am writing a book, yes.. late 2k7.. > c): I will be at NAMM > d): I will NOT be in a booth..I will be walking. > <where did you dream up this ‘booth’ thing?> > e): Yes, I will be wearing said shirt.. > PLEASE, if you need to act like an arse, be correct.. > JJTj > You are goofier than a one-eyed butt worm on chloroform

lol : )

Response:

… > Marc, trust me — both you > and Meeker are in way over > your heads technically. VG > is a valuable advertising > venue, but using it as a > technical evaluaton source > is akin to getting your > geopolitical analysis from > a cable news channel — i.e. > you *might* hear from a > credible expert, but the > odds are hevily stacked > against it.

You’re giving him the benefit of the doubt that he’s doing something besides trying to stir things up? Why? Just curious. [VG stuff snipped] … > Btw, I don’t consider myself > a credible authority either > — I’m not the sort of fool > who puts "expert" in his sig > — but, as it’s long been > said, "In the land of the > blind, a one-eyed man is a > king." > Now, can I sell you some > absolutely first-rate > American-made pickups at a > price that make sense?

So what part of the business are you in? Got a link? Are you making pickups or selling them for others, or what? Either curious or interested, won’t know til I know more. -Miles

Response:

> Hey Ned Carlson of www.tubezone.net > Why don’t you sunny winners write Ward Meeker, Editor of > _Vintage_Guitar_ Magazine_ ?

First thing, I don’t feel like it. Second thing, Mr. Meeker’s opinion isn’t at issue here. Facts are, the principles behind a stepped tone control are not a mystery, and ceramic capacitors aren’t any great shakes, nor are they very expensive, they can be had on reels for as little as $5 per thousand. I don’t have a problem with the price per se. People do spend hundreds of dollars on very simple items like audio attenuators and microphone input transformers. People spend thousands of dollars on guitars, so in perspective, spending $119 for a tone control isn’t insane in itself. However, it may be a bit of a stretch when it’s full of capacitors and resistors I can buy out of a catalog for less than 20 cents apiece. Tell _him_ how full of shit you think > products like Stellartone’s Tone Styler are and cc: AGA > (alt.guitar.aplifiers) ?

I bet Mr. Meeker’s real happy you put his email out here where 2 gazillion spambots can harvest it. — Ned Carlson SW side of Chicago, USA www.tubezone.net

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >… > Marc, trust me — both you > and Meeker are in way over > your heads technically. VG > is a valuable advertising > venue, but using it as a > technical evaluaton source > is akin to getting your > geopolitical analysis from > a cable news channel — i.e. > you *might* hear from a > credible expert, but the > odds are hevily stacked > against it. >You’re giving him the benefit of the >doubt that he’s doing something besides >trying to stir things up? >Why? >Just curious. >[VG stuff snipped] >… > Btw, I don’t consider myself > a credible authority either > — I’m not the sort of fool > who puts "expert" in his sig > — but, as it’s long been > said, "In the land of the > blind, a one-eyed man is a > king." > Now, can I sell you some > absolutely first-rate > American-made pickups at a > price that make sense? >So what part of the business are you >in? Got a link? Are you making pickups >or selling them for others, or what? >Either curious or interested, >won’t know til I know more.

I’m the sales/marketing arm of Keystone, a recently revived Bill Lawrence brand and trademark. We currently make single-coil (low-noise by not hum-cancelling) Strat and Tele pickups in Bill’s family-run workshop across the track from the Fender plant in Corona, with more products (including reissues of classic BL designs from as far back the ’70s) in the pipleline. You can read about the Strat pickups in my current eBay blurb, which you can always find by this search: <http://search.ebay.com/Bill-Lawrence-Keystone_W0QQfrppZ50QQfsopZ1QQma…> The Tele pickups caused quite a sensation over on the TDPRI: <http://www.tdpri.com/forum/just-pickups/55161-keystones-here.html?hig…> Prices are $74 and $57 per set for Strat and Tele respectively. U.S. s&h is a rock-bottom $5 plus USPS for (optional) insurance. Strat pickups come in white, black, and a "cream" beige, Tele pickups have black open-coil construction. You can pay more, but you can’t get better single-coil performance or consistency — the best you can do is get something a bit different, generally for a lot of extra $$.

Response:

>> Why don’t you sunny winners write Ward Meeker, Editor of > _Vintage_Guitar_ Magazine_ ? >First thing, I don’t feel like it. >Second thing, Mr. Meeker’s opinion isn’t at issue here.

I happen to understand the Mag’s purpose too, but no, his opinion is NOT the issue here or VG for that matter. >Facts are, the principles behind a stepped tone control are >not a mystery, and ceramic capacitors aren’t any great shakes, >nor are they very expensive, they can be had on reels for as >little as $5 per thousand.

You speak of the PUBLIC buying it at that $ point, the folks who build this thing spend even less. WAY less then say, Mouser. Face it, any smart guy can wire up a rot-switch with alot better >I don’t have a problem with the price per se. People do spend >hundreds of dollars on very simple items like audio attenuators >and microphone input transformers. People spend thousands of dollars >on guitars, so in perspective, spending $119 for a tone control >isn’t insane in itself. However, it may be a bit of a stretch when it’s >full of capacitors and resistors I can buy out of a catalog for >less than 20 cents apiece.

I have to agree with the $ thing. In this day n age, a C note for a new ALL I said was that I did not find it all that neat n swifty, and a long term customer who BOUGHT it ($99) was not impressed with it, so we no like-ie.. > Tell _him_ how full of shit you think > products like Stellartone’s Tone Styler are and cc: AGA > (alt.guitar.aplifiers) ?

I don’t think he’s "..full of shit..". I think the wankers who post here to just make waves are FOS. I just laugh at it all. It’s so easy. And I’ve told bigger companies then THAT they make shit, 2 their face, from HP to Jim Marshall himself..and BOTH agreed with me over the product, BTW. >I bet Mr. Meeker’s real happy you put his email out here >where 2 gazillion spambots can harvest it.

Yeah, well that was weird. Anyone who wanted to email him can find his email address in the magazine..and he DOES answer his own mail… JJTj …hold..I have to put on my morning CD..YES !!!! this one… The moon was a drip on a dark hood ‘N they were drivin’ around ‘n around Vital Willy tol’ Weepin’ Milly I’m gonna booglarize you baby I’m gonna booglarize you baby If I can find ah place t’ park my machine Out ah town Milly tol’ Willy come on over t’my house I’ll slow your machine right down ‘Cause listen Vitals gives me the Willies Drivin’ around ‘n around Drivin’ around n’ around If you keep beatin’ around the bush You’ll lose your push If you keep beatin’ around the bush You’ll lose your push The moon was ah drip on ah dark hood The moon was ah drip on ah dark hood ‘N they were drivin’ around ‘n around Tush tush Bogota boogie Tush tush Bogota boogie around There ain’t no place t’ stop around Bogota boogie said Weepin’ Milly Now Willy come over t’ my place ‘N I’ll slow you right down You lose your push tush When you beat around the bush If you act reserved I know somebody payin’ for your parkin’ place You gotta take your space Tush tush You lose your push When you beat around When you beat around When you beat around the bush Bogota boogie Bogota boogie I’m gonna booglarize you baby I’m gonna booglarize you baby I’m gonna booglarize you baby

Response:

… > You can read about the Strat > pickups in my current eBay > blurb, which you can always > find by this search: > <http://search.ebay.com/Bill-Lawrence-Keystone_W0QQfrppZ50QQfsopZ1QQma…>

Is it possible to buy a set of two instead of three? I really want some more Strat-ish pickups in my Hagstrom Model 1, which has two pickups in Strat neck and bridge config. BTW, congrats on the gig. I’ve never heard *anything* but good about Bill and Becky Lawrence.

Response:

Permalink · Leave a comment
In: Sales Marketing

Home Workers and Franchises Needed Worldwide

Question:

We are currently hiring home workers worldwide to provide online clerical and marketing services for online businesses. All you assignments are listed in your members area. There is no searching or applying for work. You can earn an unlimited income every month working part time from home completing assignments in your members area. Type of assignments include but are not limited to Internet research: Searching Internet Sites for details relevant to clients order Mail List Compiling: Compile mailing lists specific to clients request Data Entry : Compile data from Internet to data forms Media Typing: Ad Placing, Email Forms, Press Release Compiling Data Bases: Compile data bases specific to clients needs News Letter Management: Type, Compile, Research, manage subscriber data base Promotional Campaigning: Plan campaigns, Execute organised campaigns Response Analyst: Tracking media and campaign results We also provide work at home job listings each month. These are real home based employment offered by real employers. For these you will apply to the employer. For full details or to register please visit http://www.typeinternational.com/idevaffiliate/idevaffiliate.php?id=4… For details on our franchise opportunities please click the franchise link on the above page

Response:

>type of assignments include but are not limited to > Internet research: Searching Internet Sites for details relevant to BULLSHIT > Data Entry : Compile data from Internet to data forms > Compiling Data Bases: Compile data bases specific to BULLSHIT

Looks like some AGA OT hack artists fit the requirements

Response:

Permalink · Leave a comment
In: Internet Marketing

Zootwoman: I'm engaged to Mulay

Question:

> He was faster than a Chinese torpedo, but I still enjoyed it.

Glad to see you believe in pre-marital sex.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Chinese torpedo, http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3af5536a2248.htm

Response:

>>>Chinese torpedo, http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3af5536a2248.htm

Here’s some info about your doomsday torpedo from that site: OK, here goes with my analysis: Scientific American reports in its May edition that these supersophisticated weapons have been linked to the sinking of the Russian submarine Kursk last August, and even to the arrest and imprisonment of Edmond Pope. If it was Shkval round that sank the Kursk, then we have a lot less to worry about. The new technology that allows for these incredible speeds is "is based on the physical phenomenon of supercavitation." According to Scientific American, the new generation of torpedos, some believed capabale of carrying nuclear warheads, are surrounded by a "renewable envelope of gas so that the liquid wets very little of the body’s surface, thereby drastically reducing the viscous drag" on the torpedo. The new technology "could mean a quantum leap in naval warfare that is analogous in some ways to the move from prop planes to jets or even to rockets and missiles." In 1997 Russia announced that it had developed a high-speed unguided underwater torpedo, which has no equivalent in the West. Code-named the Shkval or "Squall," the Russian torpedo reportedly travels so fast that no U.S. defense can stop it. A ready defense is to stay more than five miles away from the prospective launch platform–the article has, so far, pointedly refrained from discussing the actual range of the weapon, which is 3.75 miles. In late 2000, after the sinking of the Russian submarine Kursk, new reports began circulating that the Chinese navy had bought the Shkval torpedo. And in 1999, reports circulated that the Chinese had bought one or more Typhoon-class submarines. Those reports didn’t pan out. The modern Russian weapon in Chinese navy hands has sent alarm bells ringing through the halls of the Pentagon. "China purchased the Shkval rocket torpedo," stated Richard Fisher, a defense analyst and senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation. Who IS this guy, and what group is this? I’ve never heard of them before. "The Shkval was designed to give Soviet subs with less capable sonar the ability to kill U.S. submarines before U.S. wire-guided anti-sub torpedoes could reach their target. Not quite true. It was designed to give the Soviet submarine a last-ditch counterfire weapon. The basic doctrine for the Shkval was to use a nuclear version (it had no guidance, so it was a straight-runner) and hope that the US sub was both within five miles of the Russian sub AND that it was on the bearing line of the torpedo and not taking an offset shot. Even with a nuclear warhead, it had a miniscule chance of inflicting a mission kill on the US boat. The Chinese navy would certainly want to have this kind of advantage over U.S. subs in the future. At the speed that it travels, the Shkval could literally punch a hole in most U.S. ships, with little need for an explosive warhead." And, of course, ol’ Mr. Fisher neglects to mention that the Shkval is a very short-legged beast, and that when it’s running at top speed, it’s essentially an unguided round–the likelihood of a contact hit is extremely low. "This torpedo travels at a speed of 200 knots, or five to six times the speed of a normal torpedo, and is especially suited for attacking large ships such as aircraft carriers," stated Fisher. Well, yes, if you use a nuclear warhead, it will work against an aircraft carrier. The report that China purchased some 40 Shkval torpedoes from Russia in 1998 has been confirmed by U.S. intelligence sources. Pentagon officials also confirmed that a Chinese naval officer was on board the ill-fated Russian submarine Kursk to observe firings of the Shkval. Boy, that Shkval works REALLY good, doesn’t it? The Shkval rocket first came to light in the Western press in April 2000 when Russian FSB security services charged American businessman Edward Pope with spying for the U.S. According to Russian intelligence sources, Pope obtained detailed information on the rocket-powered torpedo. BRAVO SIERRA!! Shkval was known in the Western press in 1995, thank you kindly. The 6,000-pound Shkval rocket torpedo has a range of about 7,500 yards and can fly through the water at more than 230 miles an hour. And we FINALLY get the fricking range on this beast…3.75 nautical miles. The US Mark 48 torpedo reaches out to over 20 nautical miles. The solid-rocket-propelled "torpedo" achieves this high speed by producing a high-pressure stream of bubbles from its nose and skin, which coats the weapon in a thin layer of gas. The Shkval flies underwater inside a giant "envelope" of gas bubbles in a process called "supercavitation." The Russian Pacific Fleet held the first tests of the Shkval torpedo in the spring of 1998. In early 1999, Russia began marketing a conventionally armed version of the Shkval high-speed underwater rocket at the IDEX 99 exhibition in Abu Dhabi. The Shkval is so fast that it is guided by an autopilot rather than by a homing head as on most torpedoes. Translation: it’s dumb, VERY dumb. The original Shkval was designed to carry a tactical nuclear warhead detonated by a simple timer clock. Uh-huh. Like I said, it was a very last-ditch weapon. However, the Russians recently began advertising a homing version, which runs out at very high speed, then slows to search for its target. OK, so which one is it? Is it a dumb weapon that needs a nuke AND a conveniently close target that is supposedly invincible to countermeasures, or is it a fast-and-slow weapon that IS vulnerable to countermeasures? Help me out, folks… There are no evident countermeasures to the Shkval and, according to weapons experts, its deployment by Russian and Chinese naval forces has placed the U.S. Navy at a considerable disadvantage. WHICH weapons experts? Names? Qualifications? And the countermeasure is ridiculously simple: stay more than 5 nautical miles away from the shooter. The blanket assertions and semi-hysterical tone make me really suspicious of just how much real research went into this piece. "We have no equivalent, its velocity would make evasive action exceedingly difficult, and it is likely that we have no defense against it," stated Jack Spencer, a defense analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Why is it that some guy like me on FR can clearly state the countermeasure, but some double-domed dweeb at Heritage–supposedly a subject matter expert–cannot do so? According to the Jamestown Foundation’s Richard Fisher, China is acquiring a fleet of blue-water submarines armed with the deadly Shkval. Hmm…this statement is suspect, see comments further on. In a recent defense report, Fisher noted the Chinese navy is arming itself with a deadly combination of silent submarines, supersonic nuclear tipped Stealth missiles and Shkval rocket torpedoes. This is not supported by the rest of this article, see below. Fisher warned that the new Chinese navy is capable of operating far from Asian shores. I need a definition of "capable of operating far from Asian shores." Can the PLAN conduct sustained combat operations far from Asian shores, or can they just get out there and then come back home? "There are reports that the Chinese navy’s current subs do not have tubes large enough to fire the Shkval. The Chinese navy has completed the acquisition of four Russian Kilo-class conventional submarines. The Kilo 636 is said to be nearly as quiet as the early version of the U.S. Los Angeles class nuclear submarine," noted Fisher. The Kilo-class submarine is a diesel-electric boat–basically, a mobile minefield. Against a 688 boat, it’s dead meat. "This very high speed torpedo would provide the PLA with the technology to build their own version, and this is a looming threat," stated Fisher. A straight-running torpedo with a range of only 3.75 nautical miles is, by sleight of hand, selective presentation of the facts, and choice shades of purple prose, turned into a "looming threat." "The next few years may also see China produce a new class of nuclear-powered submarine, the Type 093. Again benefiting from Russian technology." The Chinese Type 093-class nuclear attack submarines are similar to Russian Victor III class first produced at the Leningrad yards in the 1970s. Each Chinese Type 093 weighs more than 5,000 tons and is over a football field in length. The Chinese type 093 submarines are armed with eight 21-inch torpedo tubes that are large enough to fire the super-fast Shkval. Victor III is Russian 1970s technology, equivalent to USN late 1950s technology. The fact that this boat is seen as a huge leap forward for the PLAN should tell the casual observer just how backwards the PLAN is… "The Type 093 is projected by the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence to have a performance similar to the Russian Victor-III nuclear attack submarine. By one estimate, four to six Type 093s should enter service by 2012," concluded Fisher. We had more boats of this level of capability operating in 1964–the year before I was born–than China will have in service by 2012. I’m so scared…

Response:

Cutting and pasting 100% from a site _I_ provided just put you somewhere between a Dover/Roccaforte and DG / TD …Ned Blum. The threat a series of magnesium-burning supercavitating supersonic nuclear tipped torpedos pose to one or more U.S. Aircraft Carrier battle groups or ICBM subs, is in fact quite significant. If you think the cocky rebuttal typed by non-Navy chickenhawks five years ago has merit with regard to the torpedo’s kill zone being "fixed" to what it was _then_, then I’m pleased for your comfort zone. A false sense of security about issues and matters of critical concern has led many, many, many a young man rotting beneath an anonymous cross in a military cemetary. When China is economically self-sufficient and militarily set, they will absorb tremendous losses to secure the entire Thailand-to-Japan-Phillipines sphere of co-prosperity as a U.S. "yesterday" zone. The UK once had India. France had Vietnam. Keep laughing, sneering and taunting. 2015 isn’t 2006 isn’t 1999. Go on. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>Chinese torpedo, http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3af5536a2248.htm > Here’s some info about your doomsday torpedo from that site:

Response:

>When China is economically self-sufficient and militarily set, they will >absorb tremendous losses to secure the entire >Thailand-to-Japan-Phillipines sphere of co-prosperity as a U.S. >"yesterday" zone. The UK once had India. France had Vietnam.

You mean secure a wasteland that was once Thailand, the Philippines and Japan? You’re talking nuclear-based torpedos and you think China will have anything left to conquer, let alone even exist as a nation afterward? >Keep laughing, sneering and taunting. 2015 isn’t 2006 isn’t 1999.

2015? By then we’ll have our own missile defense and China will have a bumper crop of nuclear mushrooms all across their homeland if they try anything so stupid. Who am I talking to? A child? You in there McMulay? You think the US, with the most advanced military the world has ever seen, is going to stop developing and lose all techno advances by 2015???? If anything, China will dominate economically, like Japan found out after WW2. It’s not 1939 and you invade the country you want, anymore.

Response:

>>When China is economically self-sufficient and militarily set, they will >absorb tremendous losses to secure the entire >Thailand-to-Japan-Phillipines sphere of co-prosperity as a U.S. >"yesterday" zone. The UK once had India. France had Vietnam. > You mean secure a wasteland that was once Thailand, the Philippines > and Japan?

Destructive military activity would be confined to mainland China, as well as Okinawa. _How_ you deduce complete destruction of other nations You’re talking nuclear-based torpedos No. I’m referring to supersonic torpedos, tipped w/ thermonuclear, devices capable of removing and disabling the U.S. Navy from ten to twenty miles away. I’m referring to megatonnage blasts which at a minimum, would disrupt all command and control capacity of heretofore consinsidered ‘invincible’ military assets. These could be used by China to quell traditional U.S. military dominance via Aircraft Carrier / airpower projection. and you think China will have anything left to conquer, let alone even exist as a nation afterward? ? You have it …backwards…. Additionally, unlike U.S. military assets, much of PLA is burrowed like a tick, deep into Chinese mountain ranges. The U.S. is above ground, with the exception of NORAD and Subs. >Keep laughing, sneering and taunting. 2015 isn’t 2006 isn’t 1999. > 2015? By then we’ll have our own missile defense and China will have a > bumper crop of nuclear mushrooms all across their homeland if they try > anything so stupid.

Remarkable. The GDP growth of China was recently revised upwards from 8 to 16%. A VERY high % of this is fed directly to the PLA. Evidently, you couldn’t have been bothered to read 1 single informative article; Political status of Taiwan: Information From Answers.com The United States in 1979 passed the Taiwan Relations Act, a law generally interpreted as mandating US defense of Taiwan in the event of an attack from the … www.answers.com/topic/political-status-of-taiwan Project for the New American Century This subtle observation is the first time that a formal US government report has… deepening commitment to providing advanced defense systems to Taiwan. … www.newamericancentury.org/china-20020718.htm Japan to Join US Policy on Taiwan (washingtonpost.com) Japan to Join US Policy on Taiwan. Growth of China Seen Behind Shift … "If our sovereignty is being threatened, we have a right to defend ourselves." … www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33297-2005Feb17.html CRS Report IB98034 – Taiwan: Recent Developments and US Policy … Abstract: US policy concerns over Taiwan in recent years have centered on easing… The US Defense Department issued a congressionally mandated report on … www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRS/abstract.cfm?NLEid=16775 Taiwan (09/05) Following derecognition, the United States terminated its Mutual Defense Treaty… The US "one-China" policy acknowledges that both Taiwan and the Mainland … www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm JINSA Online — Senator Parris Chang on US-Taiwan Relations "The strategic policy of the US toward China is one of ‘constructive … Taiwan is only sold ‘defensive weapons,’ Chang said. "We want US help on submarines …www.jinsa.org/articles/view.html?documentid=562 > Who am I talking to? A child? You in there McMulay? You think the US, > with the most advanced military the world has ever seen, is going to > stop developing and lose all techno advances by 2015????

Evidently, you are of the opinion that China is in the perma-dark ages, and not committed to a massive military build up benefited tremendously by collaboration with Russians. The Chinese compromised the U.S. nuclear "enhanced radiation" (‘neutron bomb’) some 5 years ago. Also, with the downing of the EP3, they compromised the most advanced information intercept platform the U.S. had. Take a look at who is gaining EE Ph.D.’s in HUGE numbers at M.I.T., CalPoly, and at virtually every significant University in the USA. > If anything, China will dominate economically, like Japan found out > after WW2. It’s not 1939 and you invade the country you want, anymore.

How long after a Communist nation of one billion five hundred million people "dominates economically" a nation of 300 million, -as well as Europe- do you think their massive investment in guns vs. butter will take to show up as a ‘might makes right’ policy on the high seas, in space,and via world oil trade?

Response:

> > He was faster than a Chinese torpedo, but I still enjoyed it. > Glad to see you believe in pre-marital sex.

Unlike the only woman *you’ve* ever dated, right? : )

Response:

>>>He was faster than a Chinese torpedo, but I still enjoyed it. >Glad to see you believe in pre-marital sex. > Unlike the only woman *you’ve* ever dated, right? :-)

One can only presume that when they pay for it, they’re none too concerned.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>When China is economically self-sufficient and militarily set, they will >>absorb tremendous losses to secure the entire >>Thailand-to-Japan-Phillipines sphere of co-prosperity as a U.S. >>"yesterday" zone. The UK once had India. France had Vietnam. > You mean secure a wasteland that was once Thailand, the Philippines > and Japan? >Destructive military activity would be confined to mainland China, as >well as Okinawa. _How_ you deduce complete destruction of other nations

<snip rest of Mulay talk> Dude, China isn’t going to take over Asia militarily without major repercussions. The rest of the world would not stand for it, period. Even if they did win, they would be isolated and the reason for going to war in the first place would be moot. It’s not 1939 or the Wild West anymore.

Response:

>> > He was faster than a Chinese torpedo, but I still enjoyed it. > Glad to see you believe in pre-marital sex. >Unlike the only woman *you’ve* ever dated, right? : )

You’re mother barely classifies as a woman. More like a cheap slut. How are you doing my long forgotten, son? (or you could be Mulay’s, seeing he had her after I did.) I was just JOKING when I said name the kid Howard Aubrey.

Response:

>>>>He was faster than a Chinese torpedo, but I still enjoyed it. >>Glad to see you believe in pre-marital sex. > Unlike the only woman *you’ve* ever dated, right? :-) >One can only presume that when they pay for it, they’re none too concerned.

So how was sloppy seconds with Howard Aubrey’s mother? By the way he posts, I’m thinking he’s YOUR kid.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I was just JOKING when I <slurp>.

Response:

> <snip rest of Mulay talk>

They always freak out and ’snip’ when exposed… > Dude, China isn’t going to take over Asia militarily without major > repercussions.

"Take over". The mind of a child Ned Roper, boy _____. Gosh, really? Why, I thought you might have realized that’s precisely what I said; >>>When China is economically self-sufficient and militarily set, they >>>will absorb tremendous losses to secure the entire >>>Thailand-to-Japan-Phillipines sphere of co-prosperity as a U.S. >>>"yesterday" zone. The UK once had India. France had Vietnam. Why- I did! > The rest of the world would not stand for it, period. > Even if they did win, they would be isolated and the reason for going > to war in the first place would be moot. It’s not 1939 or the Wild > West anymore.

Take a GOOD look at what Vladamir Putin has publicly agreed to, re; China’s position on Taiwan. OH! that’d mean you read previous info. and were capable of understanding it. You poor fella. Here’s the gig babe- Currently, Japan holds the position in the ‘co-prosperity sphere’ which China covets. See: Spratly Islands.* Particularly, with regard to energy. Russia has endorsed China’s policy on Taiwan and of course, Japan has endorsed the U.S. position defined by Nixon and Kissinger, before China began to grow at a prodigious rate. Rage on Garth! * ICE Cases: Spratly Islands Dispute The Spratly Islands are also strategically situated within the waterway servicing Japan with 70% of its imports from the Middle East.(19) … www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/ice/spratly.htm Spratly Islands In January 2000 photographs of Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands were shown … In 1941 Japan forcibly took over the islands as part of its World War II … www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/spratly.htm Spratly Islands – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Following the defeat of Japan, the Kuomintang (nationalist) claimed the whole Spratly Islands (including Itu Aba) and accepted the Japanese surrender on the … en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands Spratly Islands The Spratly Islands, located in the South China Sea (approx. … The Japanese were in the islands briefly in 1917 and occupied them from 1939 to 1945. … flagspot.net/flags/xp-s.html American Defense Commiments and Asian Island Disputes Japan disputes the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands with China and Taiwan. The Philippines contests most of the Spratly Islands with China, Malaysia, Taiwan, … www.boundaries.com/US-Asia.htm Island Disputes Diayou/Senkaku Islands Dispute: Japan and China, Oceans Apart (WB Heflin) … Articles and Discussions on the Spratly Islands that are part of the … www.geocities.com/erdemdenk/islands.htm Paracel and Spratly Islands 1791 Named the Spratly Islands. 1815 Claimed by Vietnam (Truong Sa [Long Islands). ... 1939 Annexed by Japan (renamed Shinnan Shoto [New Southern Islands]). … www.worldstatesmen.org/Paracel_Spratly.html The World Factbook 1995 Japan

Permalink · Leave a comment
In: Marketing Advertising

Instructional Balloon Videos

Question:

Featuring the industry’s top balloon artists sharing their secrets of the trade on everything from the latest decorating techniques to business management and marketing skills. The progams range from 90 – 120 minutes each. http://www.store.yahoo.com/balloonbasics/inbalvid.html

Response:

NO REALLY !!!, this is the information I really missed until now in a GUITAR FORUM !!!! morons !!! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Featuring the industry’s top balloon artists sharing their secrets of the > trade on everything from the latest decorating techniques to business > management and marketing skills. The progams range from 90 – 120 minutes > each. > http://www.store.yahoo.com/balloonbasics/inbalvid.html

Response:

Permalink · Leave a comment
In: Business Marketing

One Million FR.EE Visitors

Question:

Do you want a great backend product that is selling like crazy this week? My readers are running to get this NEW CONCEPT! I

Permalink · Leave a comment
In: Internet Marketing

GET YOUR MLM OFF THE GROUND NOW – PROSPECTS AND ADVERTISING – NEW (c) 2005

Question:

This is a real marketing solution for your MLM. This is not a scam and it has taken me years to develope. One article in my package shows you how to Reach 65 million people every month. This is a lifetime generator for you. Take a look at this one stop marketing solution and business all in one. Are you making any money? How many sales do you make per day? Well the truth of the matter is 95% of people online are not successful – Why? They have a lack of PROSPECTS and KNOWLEDGE. Both are key factors in running any business effectively. This is where my product comes in. This package is truly ONE OF A KIND, Check it out for yourself. Get your business into business TODAY. Knowledge, Prospects, Resources, Your Own Business and MORE. Complete Marketing & Advertising Solution. Rocket launch your Income TODAY. http://www.marketing-package.com

Response:

> This is a real

Ripoff.

Response:

Permalink · Leave a comment
In: Sales Marketing

Mulay's new low

Question:

10 new Mulay socks for my killfile in the last 24 hours. This has got to be a record. Marc: I’ve said it before, but this s**t ain’t the least bit funny. It CERTAINLY doesn’t increase your credibility one iota. Use your own name, post relevant stuff and just MAYBE in time folks will listen, Until then, it all goes into my killfile. This crap is the USENET equivalent of public masturbation. –Mike (wondering why I’m even bothering to post this) Mike Schway | [Picture your favorite quote here]

Response:

@comcast.dca.giganews.com: > 10 new Mulay socks for my killfile in the last 24 hours. This has got > to be a record. > Marc: I’ve said it before, but this s**t ain’t the least bit funny. It > CERTAINLY doesn’t increase your credibility one iota. > Use your own name, post relevant stuff and just MAYBE in time folks will > listen, Until then, it all goes into my killfile. > This crap is the USENET equivalent of public masturbation. > –Mike (wondering why I’m even bothering to post this)

‘Cause you’re saying aloud what others are thinking. Greg – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Mike Schway | [Picture your favorite quote here]

Response:

Whilst wandering in usenet Mike Schway stated… > 10 new Mulay socks for my killfile in the last 24 hours. This has got > to be a record.

Now you’ve done it, you’ve gone and given him a new goal. > Marc: I’ve said it before, but this s**t ain’t the least bit funny. It > CERTAINLY doesn’t increase your credibility one iota.

His actions have guaranteed that he’ll never have credibility. > Use your own name, post relevant stuff and just MAYBE in time folks will > listen, Until then, it all goes into my killfile.

Moolie may fool the noobs from time to time but that’s all… he chose to be a pariah. > This crap is the USENET equivalent of public masturbation.

That’s quite an understatement! > –Mike (wondering why I’m even bothering to post this)

What makes a person try to reason with a spoiled vainglorious two year old in the midst of a public tantrum?

Response:

> 10 new Mulay socks for my killfile in the last 24 hours. This has got > to be a record. > Marc: I’ve said it before, but this s**t ain’t the least bit funny. It > CERTAINLY doesn’t increase your credibility one iota. > Use your own name, post relevant stuff and just MAYBE in time folks will > listen, Until then, it all goes into my killfile.

The damage is done and it’s permanent. You can’t bare your ischial callosities in public over and over again, and then expect anyone to take you for a human being. http://images.google.com/images?q=ischial+callosities&hl=en&btnG=Sear…

Response:

> Use your own name, post relevant stuff and just MAYBE in time folks will > listen, Until then, it all goes into my killfile.

I can almost tell its him by the subject or fake id. Just block postings from 68.5.75.48

Response:

I upgraded my computer in the past week from 98SE to XP and (woe is me) I lost my killfile. It’s a bit hard to tell on some of these, but I’m counting 28 socks in the last week for the Mulya. Marc…we’re not listening…so don’t go away mad, just go away. Unfortunately, the only practical type of solution is the Yahoo group that Jim started, where the benevolent dictator is able to put someone on moderated status. Don’t get me wrong, Jim…in this case, a very good thing, but I wouldn’t want that burden. So, better you than me. Unlike the physical world, where an individual like this would be relegated to an isloated street corner in a bad neighborhood, we have nothing but the kill file and self control. If we all killfile the nuisance and refuse to reply, sooner or later, he *will* quit. It will take far longer than you imagine, but it can happen. Unfortunately, consistency is *everything* if this is what’s to be accomplished. IMO, that’s not possible here. AGA is like herding cats! BTW, so far losing the killfile seems to be the only ill effect of the upgrade. It looks like I managed to salvage and transfer everything else.

Response:

1. ] WGAF? 2.] See 1. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > 10 new Mulay socks for my killfile in the last 24 hours. This has got > to be a record. > Marc: I’ve said it before, but this s**t ain’t the least bit funny. It > CERTAINLY doesn’t increase your credibility one iota. > Use your own name, post relevant stuff and just MAYBE in time folks will > listen, Until then, it all goes into my killfile. > This crap is the USENET equivalent of public masturbation. > –Mike (wondering why I’m even bothering to post this) > Mike Schway | [Picture your favorite quote here]

Response:

I don’t credit any of you with thinking. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->10 new Mulay socks for my killfile in the last 24 hours. This has got >to be a record. >Marc: I’ve said it before, but this s**t ain’t the least bit funny. It >CERTAINLY doesn’t increase your credibility one iota. >Use your own name, post relevant stuff and just MAYBE in time folks will >listen, Until then, it all goes into my killfile. >This crap is the USENET equivalent of public masturbation. >–Mike (wondering why I’m even bothering to post this) > ‘Cause you’re saying aloud what others are thinking. > Greg > Mike Schway | [Picture your favorite quote here]

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Whilst wandering in usenet Mike Schway stated… >10 new Mulay socks for my killfile in the last 24 hours. This has got >to be a record. > Now you’ve done it, you’ve gone and given him > a new goal. >Marc: I’ve said it before, but this s**t ain’t the least bit funny. It >CERTAINLY doesn’t increase your credibility one iota. > His actions have guaranteed that he’ll never > have credibility. >Use your own name, post relevant stuff and just MAYBE in time folks will >listen, Until then, it all goes into my killfile. > Moolie may fool the noobs from time to time > but that’s all… he chose to be a pariah. >This crap is the USENET equivalent of public masturbation. > That’s quite an understatement! >–Mike (wondering why I’m even bothering to post this) > What makes a person try to reason with a spoiled > vainglorious two year old in the midst of a public > tantrum?

Response:

"ischial callosities"….now at least that’s that’s got style, albeit in a self-absorbed sort of white way… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->10 new Mulay socks for my killfile in the last 24 hours. This has got >to be a record. >Marc: I’ve said it before, but this s**t ain’t the least bit funny. It >CERTAINLY doesn’t increase your credibility one iota. >Use your own name, post relevant stuff and just MAYBE in time folks will >listen, Until then, it all goes into my killfile. > The damage is done and it’s permanent. You can’t bare your ischial > callosities in public over and over again, and then expect anyone to take > you for a human being. > http://images.google.com/images?q=ischial+callosities&hl=en&btnG=Sear…

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Use your own name, post relevant stuff and just MAYBE in time folks will >listen, Until then, it all goes into my killfile. > I can almost tell its him by the subject or fake id. > Just block postings from 68.5.75.48

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->10 new Mulay socks for my killfile in the last 24 hours. This has got >to be a record. >Marc: I’ve said it before, but this s**t ain’t the least bit funny. It >CERTAINLY doesn’t increase your credibility one iota. >Use your own name, post relevant stuff and just MAYBE in time folks will >listen, Until then, it all goes into my killfile. >This crap is the USENET equivalent of public masturbation. >–Mike (wondering why I’m even bothering to post this) >Mike Schway | [Picture your favorite quote here] > I upgraded my computer in the past week from 98SE to XP and (woe is me) I > lost my killfile. It’s a bit hard to tell on some of these, but I’m > counting 28 socks in the last week for the Mulya. Marc…we’re not > listening…so don’t go away mad, just go away. > Unfortunately, the only practical type of solution is the Yahoo group that > Jim started, where the benevolent dictator is able to put someone on > moderated status. Don’t get me wrong, Jim…in this case, a very good > thing, but I wouldn’t want that burden. So, better you than me. > Unlike the physical world, where an individual like this would be relegated > to an isloated street corner in a bad neighborhood, we have nothing but the > kill file and self control. If we all killfile the nuisance and refuse to > reply, sooner or later, he *will* quit. It will take far longer than you > imagine, but it can happen. Unfortunately, consistency is *everything* if > this is what’s to be accomplished. IMO, that’s not possible here. AGA is > like herding cats! > BTW, so far losing the killfile seems to be the only ill effect of the > upgrade. It looks like I managed to salvage and transfer everything else.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> 10 new Mulay socks for my killfile in the last 24 hours. This has got > to be a record. > Marc: I’ve said it before, but this s**t ain’t the least bit funny. It > CERTAINLY doesn’t increase your credibility one iota. > Use your own name, post relevant stuff and just MAYBE in time folks will > listen, Until then, it all goes into my killfile. > This crap is the USENET equivalent of public masturbation. > –Mike (wondering why I’m even bothering to post this) > Mike Schway | [Picture your favorite quote here] >I upgraded my computer in the past week from 98SE to XP and (woe is me) I >lost my killfile. It’s a bit hard to tell on some of these, but I’m >counting 28 socks in the last week for the Mulya. Marc…we’re not >listening…so don’t go away mad, just go away. >Unfortunately, the only practical type of solution is the Yahoo group that >Jim started, where the benevolent dictator is able to put someone on >moderated status. Don’t get me wrong, Jim…in this case, a very good >thing, but I wouldn’t want that burden. So, better you than me.

Unfortuately, Yahoo is spyware/malware central. I recently joined a Yahoo group for some cellphone info and my firewall log is practically spinning with attempted connection attempts to my port 80 from a multitude of different "advertising and marketing" related sites. These attempts started when I joined up and spike after every time I access the group. Fortunately I have a reasonable effective firewall, but I pity those who do not. Claude

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>10 new Mulay socks for my killfile in the last 24 hours. This has got >>to be a record. >>Marc: I’ve said it before, but this s**t ain’t the least bit funny. It >>CERTAINLY doesn’t increase your credibility one iota. >>Use your own name, post relevant stuff and just MAYBE in time folks will >>listen, Until then, it all goes into my killfile. >>This crap is the USENET equivalent of public masturbation. >>–Mike (wondering why I’m even bothering to post this) >>Mike Schway | [Picture your favorite quote here] >I upgraded my computer in the past week from 98SE to XP and (woe is me) I >lost my killfile. It’s a bit hard to tell on some of these, but I’m >counting 28 socks in the last week for the Mulya. Marc…we’re not >listening…so don’t go away mad, just go away. >Unfortunately, the only practical type of solution is the Yahoo group that >Jim started, where the benevolent dictator is able to put someone on >moderated status. Don’t get me wrong, Jim…in this case, a very good >thing, but I wouldn’t want that burden. So, better you than me. > Unfortuately, Yahoo is spyware/malware central. I recently joined > a Yahoo group for some cellphone info and my firewall log is practically > spinning with attempted connection attempts to my port 80 from a > multitude of different "advertising and marketing" related sites. > These attempts started when I joined up and spike after every time > I access the group. Fortunately I have a reasonable effective firewall, > but I pity those who do not. > Claude

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>10 new Mulay socks for my killfile in the last 24 hours. This has got >>>to be a record. >>>Marc: I’ve said it before, but this s**t ain’t the least bit funny. It >>>CERTAINLY doesn’t increase your credibility one iota. >>>Use your own name, post relevant stuff and just MAYBE in time folks will >>>listen, Until then, it all goes into my killfile. >>>This crap is the USENET equivalent of public masturbation. >>>–Mike (wondering why I’m even bothering to post this) >>>Mike Schway | [Picture your favorite quote here] >>I upgraded my computer in the past week from 98SE to XP and (woe is me) I >>lost my killfile. It’s a bit hard to tell on some of these, but I’m >>counting 28 socks in the last week for the Mulya. Marc…we’re not >>listening…so don’t go away mad, just go away. >>Unfortunately, the only practical type of solution is the Yahoo group that >>Jim started, where the benevolent dictator is able to put someone on >>moderated status. Don’t get me wrong, Jim…in this case, a very good >>thing, but I wouldn’t want that burden. So, better you than me. > Unfortuately, Yahoo is spyware/malware central. I recently joined > a Yahoo group for some cellphone info and my firewall log is practically > spinning with attempted connection attempts to my port 80 from a > multitude of different "advertising and marketing" related sites. > These attempts started when I joined up and spike after every time > I access the group. Fortunately I have a reasonable effective firewall, > but I pity those who do not. > Claude

Thanks for the repost(s), Mulish. I forgot to mention that it is far easier to filter you in here when I choose to than it is to deal with the professional pests that infest Yahoo. Your Pal Claude

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I forgot to mention that thongs for old men are HOT! > Only challenge– professional pests infest my Yahoo. > Your Lapdog, > Claude Lucas

Response:

> I upgraded my computer in the past week from 98SE to XP and (woe is me) I > lost my killfile.

Use Outlook Express for your ng reader, it`s in there. It also is an easy organized way to follow threads, and your posts appear near instantly. See ya, John

Response:

Thanks. You’re first to go, asshole. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I upgraded my computer in the past week from 98SE to XP and (woe is me) I >lost my killfile. > Use Outlook Express for your ng reader, it`s in there. It also is an easy > organized way to follow threads, and your posts appear near instantly. > See ya, > John

Response:

> Thanks. You’re first to go, asshole.

Not my post. see headers below. cox.net…you know who. Can’t believe he’s glomming my contact info. Soon this place will be a ghost town. That’s how he’ll get his deserted street corner. Truly sad. Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!in.100proofnews.com!in.100p roofnews.com!cox.net!news-xfer.cox.net!p01!fed1read05.POSTED!53ab2750!not-f or-mail User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.guitar.amps Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 16 NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.5.75.48 Organization: Cox Communications Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.guitar.amps:727403

Response:

> I upgraded my computer in the past week from 98SE to XP and (woe is me) I > lost my killfile. > Use Outlook Express for your ng reader, it`s in there. It also is an easy > organized way to follow threads, and your posts appear near instantly. > See ya, > John

Actually, I do use OE for the NG reader. I just got tuckered out on the upgrade. Besides, it was an opportunity to clean house. Thanks.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>I upgraded my computer in the past week from 98SE to XP and (woe is me) I >>lost my killfile. >Use Outlook Express for your ng reader, it`s in there. It also is an easy >organized way to follow threads, and your posts appear near instantly. >See ya, >John > Actually, I do use OE for the NG reader. I just got tuckered out on the > upgrade. Besides, it was an opportunity to clean house. Thanks.

Response:

Mike Schway, tied to the tracks, said: > 10 new Mulay socks for my killfile in the last 24 hours. This has got > to be a record. > Marc: … > This crap is the USENET equivalent of public masturbation.

I think that’s his whole point. He can do it here and not get arrested. So far. I recall an irrational, scared, nasty little three year old who would do *anything* to get attention, even if it meant he’d get the crap knocked out of him. No idea what he grew up to be like, but at 3, he was acting more mature than this guy.

Response:

Digg deeper, *find* that inner accuracy and DELIVER! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Mike Schway, tied to the tracks, said: >10 new Mulay socks for my killfile in the last 24 hours. This has got >to be a record. >Marc: … >This crap is the USENET equivalent of public masturbation. > I think that’s his whole point. > He can do it here and not get > arrested. > So far. > I recall an irrational, scared, > nasty little three year old who > would do *anything* to get attention, > even if it meant he’d get the crap > knocked out of him. No idea what he > grew up to be like, but at 3, he was > acting more mature than this guy.

Response:

Phil, you just downloaded XP fired it back up and no other problems? I am still using 98 and was thinking of an upgrade too. I have a truck load of images, files etc. and was worried about losing stuff that I have not yet backed up. What major benefits have you seen so far? Clarke

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Phil, you just downloaded XP fired it back up and no other problems? I > am still using 98 and was thinking of an upgrade too. I have a truck > load of images, files etc. and was worried about losing stuff that I > have not yet backed up. What major benefits have you seen so far? > Clarke

Response:

Permalink · Leave a comment
In: Marketing Advertising

Bush Won, Markets Dive :-(

Question:

This market volatility is merely the beginning… 1,286 days to go…3 years, 6 months.

Response:

Ze Vest eez lookink zour $…:-( Fears Mount That Germany Faces Recession By MARK LANDLER Published: April 27, 2005 FRANKFURT, April 26 – Six influential German economic institutes have cut their growth forecast for this year in half, prompting a new rash of fears that the German economy is on the brink of recession. After four years of lackluster growth, the downward revision – to 0.7 percent from 1.5 percent – illustrates that economic forecasting in Germany has become mostly an exercise in finding ever-more-precise ways to measure stagnation, economists say. In their semiannual report on the German economy, submitted Tuesday, the six institutes said: "Almost no other country in the European Union has had a development in recent years that was so unfavorable. Obviously, the German economy is suffering from fundamental weakness." Given such weak underpinnings, economists said it was quite possible that the German economy, Europe’s largest and an engine for much of the Continent, could fall into a recession – classically defined as two consecutive quarters of contraction. But this, they said, would scarcely be different from the current state of affairs. "Trend growth in Germany is now so low that you can easily meet the technical definition of recession," said Thomas Mayer, the chief European economist at Deutsche Bank in London. In fact, Mr. Mayer said, he viewed the forecast as optimistic because it assumes that Germany will keep growing, despite the spike in oil prices and the softening of the global economy. "If oil prices keep going up, Germany won’t even hold on to the 0.7 percent number," he said. "You would end up with stagnation, and more importantly, there would be no recovery next year." Even without rising oil prices, there is no shortage of grim news in the report. The institutes, which generally anticipate the government’s own forecast, predict that growth will be only 1.5 percent in 2006, less than in 2004, which was 1.6 percent. With a growth rate this anemic, economists say, Germany cannot generate new jobs. The current unemployment rate of 12 percent is a record in the post-World War II period, and poses a mounting political threat to Chancellor Gerhard Schr

Permalink · Leave a comment
In: Market Research

deplane or board in the middle stop?

Question:

Is it ok to deplane before the final stop if you only have carry on bag? For example, If I have a flight from city A to city C that makes a plane change in city B, can I deplane in city B? Likewise, if I have a flight from city C to city A that makes a plane change in city B, can I board the flight in city B?

Response:

If you fly domestic and oneway, I guess you can get off the plane and leave. No one can stop you. But the airline will not let you board mid-way on your journey abandoning your initial leg. Nor will they honor your return part if you have a round trip ticket. The post 9-11 world is very different from 20 years ago when we catch a plane like we do a bus. In the good old days you can board a flight using a ticket bearing someone else’s name.

Response:

> Is it ok to deplane before the final stop if you only have carry on > bag? For example, If I have a flight from city A to city C that makes a > plane change in city B, can I deplane in city B?

If you have a full fare unrestricted ticket, yes. If you got a discount ticket based on the A to C itinerary you are looking for trouble. You can deplane to stretch your legs, but you have to get back on. If you don’t then a lot of fun things can happen. For example: If you try at a later time to use the balance of your ticket you may find it voided. If the airline determines that the flight you actually flew is more expensive than the discount ticket you bought and you bought your ticket with a credit card you can arrive home to see some fun new charges on your account. > Likewise, if I have a flight from city C to city A that makes a plane > change in city B, can I board the flight in city B?

Not without starting in C, no.

Response:

"In the good old days you can board a flight using a ticket bearing someone else’s name." There is one airline that allows you to transfer a ticket for $35. That airline is Spirit Airlines (www.SpiritAir.com). As long as it’s 24 hours before the flight, it’s acceptable to them. The issue of "security" when used to prevent ticket transfer is just another way the airlines try to hold on to revenue. There is no logical reason to prevent it, it’s just a sales/marketing restriction as long as the airline’s reservation system is available to the TSA 24 hours prior to departure. Spirit is a great little airline (but growing). It’s too bad they don’t have the traction that would force other’s to follow their policy. Spirit’s policies are the type that make me want to patronize them (even though I’ve never transferred a ticket). They will also give you a credit for the full balance of a fare drop without a re-ticketing fee. This all makes good business sense. Bob Cowen The Internet Travel Guru (TM) www.InternetTravelTips.com

Response:

> > Is it ok to deplane before the final stop if you only have carry on > bag? For example, If I have a flight from city A to city C that makes > a > plane change in city B, can I deplane in city B? > If you have a full fare unrestricted ticket, yes. If you got a discount > ticket based on the A to C itinerary you are looking for trouble. > You can deplane to stretch your legs, but you have to get back on. If > you don’t then a lot of fun things can happen. For example:

Actually, getting off they’ll probably never figure out. You don’t "check out" so to speak so they don’t really know you’ve left. They’ll do a head count and when they find your seat empty, they’ll just fill it (if they have a waiting passenger). They won’t try to figure out who isn’t on the plane. > If you try at a later time to use the balance of your ticket you may > find it voided.

The problem will be if you try to originate your return trip from the interim stop. When you don’t board in the original return location, the rest of your ticket will be voided. [snip] – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Likewise, if I have a flight from city C to city A that makes a plane > change in city B, can I board the flight in city B? > Not without starting in C, no.

Response:

:>> > Is it ok to deplane before the final stop if you only have carry on :>> > bag? For example, If I have a flight from city A to city C that :>makes :>> a :>> > plane change in city B, can I deplane in city B? :>> If you have a full fare unrestricted ticket, yes. If you got a :>discount :>> ticket based on the A to C itinerary you are looking for trouble. :>> You can deplane to stretch your legs, but you have to get back on. If :>> you don’t then a lot of fun things can happen. For example: :> Actually, getting off they’ll probably never figure out. You :>don’t "check out" so to speak so they don’t really know you’ve :>left. They’ll do a head count and when they find your seat empty, :>they’ll just fill it (if they have a waiting passenger). They :>won’t try to figure out who isn’t on the plane. I question how true that might be nowadays. Isn’t there a requirement that the bags match up with the passengers? — http://www.dissensoftware.com Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Is it ok to deplane before the final stop if you only have carry on > > bag? For example, If I have a flight from city A to city C that > makes > a > > plane change in city B, can I deplane in city B? > If you have a full fare unrestricted ticket, yes. If you got a > discount > ticket based on the A to C itinerary you are looking for trouble. > You can deplane to stretch your legs, but you have to get back on. If > you don’t then a lot of fun things can happen. For example: > Actually, getting off they’ll probably never figure out. You > don’t "check out" so to speak so they don’t really know you’ve > left. They’ll do a head count and when they find your seat empty, > they’ll just fill it (if they have a waiting passenger). They > won’t try to figure out who isn’t on the plane.

Pre 9/11 I would have agreed with you. Now they check very thoroughly. I’ve been delayed more than once on a flight because someone left the plane unexpectedly during a stop and they had to unload his baggage. > If you try at a later time to use the balance of your ticket you may > find it voided. > The problem will be if you try to originate your return > trip from the interim stop. When you don’t board in the original > return location, the rest of your ticket will be voided.

True. But even if you board in the same spot (but at a different date or time than your original ticket), if the city wasn’t an approved stop you’ll find your ticket voided. That’s what they call the "hidden city" trick. And the airlines hate it. Therefore they enforce the penalties.

Response:

> True. But even if you board in the same spot (but at a different date > or time than your original ticket), if the city wasn’t an approved stop > you’ll find your ticket voided. That’s what they call the "hidden city" > trick. And the airlines hate it. Therefore they enforce the penalties.

There’s another thing to be careful of: At my old airline, we had a flight that kept the same flight number, but stopped in City B on its way to City C. People discovered that it was cheaper to buy two one-way tickets from A to C and back than it was to get a roundtrip to B and back. (B was a high-dollar market; C was out in the country.) It seems counterintuitive that it’s cheaper to go farther, but I guess the tickets were priced by city-pair, not by mileage. What the folks on our plane that day DIDN’T count on was that, on this quiet mid-week day, all the passengers on the plane were booked for city C, and there were no passengers booked from B to C. We received a message about this enroute, so we went straight to C — no point in wasting the time or fuel making a stop if nobody was (supposed to be) getting on or off. Imagine the surprise on the B-bound folks’ faces when we landed at C, when they were planning on getting off on that intermediate stop. They ended up buying last-minute full-fare tickets on our return flight to B. Whoops. — Garner R. Miller Clifton Park, NY =USA=

Response:

In the earl 90’s and prior, many business travellers also used double ticketing. The idea was the price for two cut rate economy round trip tockets was still cheaper than one full fare round trip ticket. Let’s say I want to travel from city A to city B. I’d buy a round trip ticket from A to B and another from B to A. But I’ll use only one leg of each ticket, abandoning the other. The two cut rate tickets satisfy the carrier’s over the weekend requirement so they are still cheaper combined than the full fare ticket. I did that many times. It took sometime for the airlines to find out and plug the loophole. That practice no longer works even well before 9/11.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > :>> > Is it ok to deplane before the final stop if you only have carry on > :>> > bag? [snip] > :>> You can deplane to stretch your legs, but you have to get back on. If > :>> you don’t then a lot of fun things can happen. For example: > :> Actually, getting off they’ll probably never figure out. You > :>don’t "check out" so to speak so they don’t really know you’ve > :>left. They’ll do a head count and when they find your seat empty, > :>they’ll just fill it (if they have a waiting passenger). They > :>won’t try to figure out who isn’t on the plane. > I question how true that might be nowadays. > Isn’t there a requirement that the bags match up with the passengers?

The question was based upon not checking luggage. There’d be no match requirement. Furthermore, the airlines have the option to send the bags however they wish domestically. Their only requirement is that a bag flying must have a matching passenger.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >:>> > Is it ok to deplane before the final stop if you only have carry on >:>> > bag? For example, If I have a flight from city A to city C that >:>makes >:>> a >:>> > plane change in city B, can I deplane in city B? >:>> If you have a full fare unrestricted ticket, yes. If you got a >:>discount >:>> ticket based on the A to C itinerary you are looking for trouble. >:>> You can deplane to stretch your legs, but you have to get back on. If >:>> you don’t then a lot of fun things can happen. For example: >:> Actually, getting off they’ll probably never figure out. You >:>don’t "check out" so to speak so they don’t really know you’ve >:>left. They’ll do a head count and when they find your seat empty, >:>they’ll just fill it (if they have a waiting passenger). They >:>won’t try to figure out who isn’t on the plane. >I question how true that might be nowadays. >Isn’t there a requirement that the bags match up with the passengers?

Well, yes and no. When I was selected for the full security treatment at St Louis a couple of years ago, I was unconcerned at the delay in the security queue because I relied on that. I didn’t think they’d take of without us and with my luggage on board. However, with the full treatment they had also X-rayed my checked luggage, so they took off without us. And still managed to lose one of the checked bags. Cheers, Alan, Australia

Response:

> Isn’t there a requirement that the bags match > up with the passengers?

There are requirements that can be reasonably met, requirements that can be profitable for the airline, and the rest. This falls in the rest. I have gotten off at unplanned middle stops (due to weather closings at the destination), with the full knowledge and cooperation of the airline, and know that it was unavoidable that my checked luggage go the the original destination anyway. Tim.

Response:

Permalink · Leave a comment
In: Internet Marketing

outsourcing?

Question:

Shoring up trade laws By Andy Gussert You know there is a problem when people start making up new words. Offshoring used to be something you would do for vacation. Along with its cousin, outsourcing, they are the two new political buzzwords in Washington, D.C. But is there a real solution to the problem of losing jobs overseas? It does not make sense to focus our anger at the Chinese worker: You can’t blame somebody for wanting a better job. We should not blame business leaders, either; outsourcing and offshoring are often the rational and necessary choice to compete under our current system of subsidies and trade laws. These people take advantage of outsourcing for the simplest of reasons: because they can. If we want to stop the offshoring of American jobs, we need change the current system of trade laws and agreements that are structured to encourage this anti-American behavior. Ben Franklin said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. One intelligent response to outsourcing would be to stop passing the same trade agreements over and over. The United States has lost more than 3 million jobs in the 10 years since NAFTA was first introduced. Wisconsin was hit particularly hard: >From March 2001 to January 2004 we lost more than 74,000 manufacturing

jobs, a decline of 14 percent in their manufacturing base. These unemployed factory workers are often retrained in internet technology or software design only to find those are the new and next wave of jobs being exported and offshored. By the end of 2005, it is projected that more than 830,000 American tech jobs will have moved to low-wage countries like India and China. The cycle has become an economic revolving door of outsourcing, with each new sector taking on additional casualties. Once thought to impact only industrial sectors, outsourcing now threatens computer engineers, IT specialists, call-center workers, paralegals, technical writers, accountants, tax professionals and public service workers. Put simply, if your job uses a phone, a computer or a welding torch, outsourcing trade policies will impact you. If you can telecommute, your job can likely be outsourced. There is an intelligent response: Stop the insanity. It is time to change the way we negotiate trade agreements, instead of repeating our mistakes and expecting to get different results. At the state level, we can promote state contracts that purchase American goods and services and eliminate subsidies and tax breaks to corporate bad actors like Accenture. If a company bases in Bermuda to take advantage of tax loopholes, they should not get our tax dollars. If a company outsources 50 or more jobs it should not get state contracts. At the federal level, we should oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) – NAFTA’s big brother on steroids – or we can expect the same results of more lost jobs. And we should ban the billions in public subsidies that go to government contractors who move jobs overseas. Bush administration officials have taken the opposite approach, calling the transfer of U.S. service jobs overseas "just a new way to do international trade," and claiming, "When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it." One question: What good or service can’t be produced more cheaply abroad? When China uses child labor to produce sneakers — without regulations on trademarks, patents, environmental protection or worker safety — shoes will be always be produced more cheaply overseas. That does not mean a low road strategy makes sense. Racing to the basement is never good policy, especially when it is at the expense of American workers. January’s U.S. Census Bureau report shows our trade deficit shot up to record a $60.3 billion during November 2004. In February, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that the U.S. will start importing more food than it exports for the first time in our nation’s history. To stop this outsourcing – and to stop the insanity of repeating our mistakes – we will need a new system of trade rules. We need our members of Congress to vote against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Future agreements must protect workers, small business, farmers and the environment, and discourage the low-road behavior that has defined the race to the basement. Otherwise, we can just expect the same results we have seen since first passing NAFTA 10 years ago: more outsourcing, increased offshoring and higher job loss. March 29, 2005 Andy Gussert lives in Madison and is director of the Wisconsin Fair Trade Coalition.

Response:

> The United States has lost more than 3 million jobs in the 10 years > since NAFTA was first introduced.

So there are fewer jobs in the US now than there was in the early `90`s when NAFTA passed? Anyone paying casual attention, know that isn`t true. This fellow is just a tad to the Left of Center. See ya, John

Response:

Where’s your numbers?

Response:

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp118 Fast track to lost jobs Trade deficits and manufacturing decline are the legacies of NAFTA and the WTO by Robert E. Scott The U.S. has experienced steadily growing trade deficits for nearly three decades, and these deficits have accelerated rapidly since the North American Free Trade Agreement took effect in 1994 and the World Trade Organization was created in 1995. The toll on U.S. employment has been heavy: from 1994 to 2000, growing trade deficits eliminated a net total of 3.0 million actual and potential jobs from the U.S. economy.1 Yet despite substantial evidence that current trade policies have resulted in massive trade deficits and job losses, the Bush Administration is pressing Congress for "fast track" trade negotiating authority, by which the President could submit trade agreements to Congress for a yes or no vote without amendment.2 Fast-track promoters want this authority to make it easier to extend NAFTA throughout the hemisphere in a proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement and to expand the WTO in a new round of multilateral negotiations. Promotion of fast track has even made its way into the post-September 11 debate over an economic stimulus. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Thomas has repeatedly urged that Congress include fast track authority in any economic stimulus plan. The dismal U.S track record in negotiating trade agreements since the mid-1990s, as indicated by the nation’s growing trade deficit and the attendant economic problems, suggests that a fast track is exactly what the nation does not need: While gross U.S. exports rose 61.5% between 1994 and 2000, imports rose much more, by 80.5%. Job losses associated with the trade deficit increased six times more rapidly between 1994 and 2000 than they did between 1989 and 1994. Every state and the District of Columbia suffered significant job losses due to growing trade deficits between 1994 and 2000. Ten states, led by California, lost over 100,000 net jobs. The manufacturing sector, where the trade deficit rose 158.5% between 1994 and 2000, shouldered 65% of the surge in job losses during that period. http://www.prism-magazine.org/dec03/global.cfm The numbers are grim. Gartner Inc., a high-tech forecasting firm, estimates that 10 percent of computer services and software jobs will be moved overseas by the end of 2004. Deloitte Research surveyed 100 of the world’s largest financial services companies and found they expect to move 2 million jobs and $356 billion in operations to low-wage, developing countries within the next five years. Forrester Research, a marketing research firm, predicts that 3.3 million high-tech and service-industry jobs will move overseas by 2015, jobs that will provide $136 billion in wages. The first jobs moving offshore are lower-level ones in computer programming and at call centers for financial institutions. But there is now an indication that higher-level engineering jobs-architectural services, research and development for computer chip makers, aerospace engineering jobs-are beginning to make their way out of the country as well. "When manufacturing jobs started moving offshore, we were told not to worry, that the U.S. comparative advantage was in services and high technology," Paul Almeida, president of the department of professional employees for the AFL-CIO, testified before Congress in the summer of 2003. "We were assured that the new global division of labor was both natural and benign: We would keep the high-paying, high-skilled jobs while developing countries would do the actual work of making things. Now, engineers with Ph.D.s and recent college graduates alike are hearing that they are too expensive, that their job can be done more cheaply abroad." The trend is complex and full of many moving parts, from the valuation of the dollar overseas to the ability of telecommunication to allow a computer engineer in Bangalore, India, to do the same work as someone in Silicon Valley. But what is at play here is central to the question of a global economy and "commoditization" of engineering work. If a computer programmer in India or China can do the work for $10,000 a year, and a U.S. computer programmer makes $60,000 a year, it is not difficult to see which country the work will gravitate toward. Manufacturing Employment, 1946 to 2003 Although manufacturing employment has steadily declined as share of total employment from 1946 to 2003, the decline in the number of jobs over the past three and a half years is unprecedented both in size and in length. From March 1998 to January 2004, manufacturing employment fell by 3.3 million. Job losses accelerated after March 2001. Since then, manufacturing lost 2.6 million jobs. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics. Average Employment Changes in Manufacturing and Non-manufacturing States , 1998 to 2003 Employment began to decline in March 1998, but its decline accelerated in March 2001. Consequently, manufacturing states experienced on average smaller employment gains from March 1998 to March 2001. And they experienced actual employment losses from March 2001 to December 2003, while non-manufacturing states registered a small employment gain. http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/uicued/AmericasHighTechBust.pdf and the irony here is note the name of the person who wrote it. http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Oct04/jobs.outsourcing.rpt.04.pdf

Response:

> Where’s your numbers?

Please re-read my previous post; So there are fewer jobs in the US now than there was in the early `90`s when NAFTA passed? The question mark at the end signafies a question. Where are your numbers? See ya, John

Response:

> Fast track to lost jobs > Trade deficits and manufacturing decline are the legacies of NAFTA and > the WTO

Please make this a bit easier for all to see and harder for some to obscure. You wrote; >"The United States has lost more than 3 million jobs in the 10 years >since NAFTA was first introduced."

US Labor Dept figures for March 2005 is 148 million employed. Please find a higher employment figure for Jan 1994 when NAFTA took effect. Thanks, John

Response:

> Fast track to lost jobs > Trade deficits and manufacturing decline are the legacies of NAFTA and > the WTO

Please make this a bit easier for all to see and harder for some to obscure. You wrote; >"The United States has lost more than 3 million jobs in the 10 years >since NAFTA was first introduced."

US Labor Dept figures for March 2005 is 148 million employed. Please find an employment figure of 151 million or higher for Jan 1994 when NAFTA took effect. Thanks, John

Response:

haven’t time to look this up but I posit that there are more people and the jobs are not the same kind as manufacturing – type of job is important for various reasons. Ummm and then there are some other problems with numbers. but later. "If at first you don’t succeed, keep on sucking ’till you do succeed!" – The Three Stooges’ Curly from "Movie Maniacs" (1936) –

Response:

> haven’t time to look this up but I posit that there are more people and > the jobs are not the same kind as manufacturing – type of job is > important for various reasons.

The propaganda piece that you posted flat out stated "The United States has lost more than 3 million jobs in the 10 years since NAFTA was first introduced." It isn`t true. Our economy will be evolving along with every other country around the world. We can`t enjoy the net, and other forms of world-wide communication and not expect everyone around the world to want to share in our kind of jobs, income, and lifestyle when they are seeing it every day. You can`t put the Genie back in the bottle. See ya, John

Response:

> http://www.depression2.tv/nwo/archives/000023.html > try 10.9%

Keep trying. The propaganda piece that you posted said "The United States has lost more than 3 million jobs in the 10 years since NAFTA was first introduced." Current employment is 148 million please find where employment in Jan 1994 when NAFTA took effect was 151 million or more. See ya, John P.S. Cute move to write you didn`t have time to answer this, yet were able to post other new propaganda!

Response:

http://www.depression2.tv/nwo/archives/000023.html try 10.9% Special thanks to George Ure at Urban Survival for pointing out the truth about the unemployment statistics released last week. The link that George supplied is to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table A-12. Alternative measures of labor underutilization "Alternative measures of labor underutilization?" Hmm…What does it mean in English? Also known as the U-6 number, it is a more accurate measure of the nation’s unemployment rate. This page estimates the "total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers at 10.9%. What are "marginally attached workers?" According to the BLS, "marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. " Do you know anyone like that? They’re not counted in the big, pretty headline number (Unemployment rate falls to 5.6%) that is reported on the six o’clock news. How come? http://www.depression2.tv/nwo/archives/000023.html

Response:

> haven’t time to look this up but I posit that there are more people and > the jobs are not the same kind as manufacturing – type of job is > important for various reasons. Ummm and then there are some other > problems with numbers. but later.

Uh-oh… a rather non-specific "posit" there… and yep, there are some "problems with numbers"… we’ll wait. gtski

Response:

well start here: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm Bigger than NAFTA Able to leap tall hedge funds in a single bound, too: China and India 1/3 of the world’s population joined via free trade agreement. http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBPUBWKE7E.html

Response:

Because the news has gone full-on propaganda; infotainment. Pope? …7 Days?! UK Royal Wedding? Schiavo? M. Jackson? Lacy Peterson? 110% pandering to a dumbed down audience. Currently in bookstores; A complete insider’s expose;. Bad News by Tom Fenton Virtually all network foriegn news bureaus have been shut down. They were "too expensive" to maintain…London "packages" news from "stringers". As to so-called domestic news; Corporations own the electronic media and actively control what gets broadcast. "More people now get thier news from the internet than any other place". (Fortunately, ng’s are considered a "source" only by >350lb toxic waddling white supremicists in Denver). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > http://www.depression2.tv/nwo/archives/000023.html > try 10.9% > Special thanks to George Ure at Urban Survival for pointing out the > truth about the unemployment statistics released last week. The link > that George supplied is to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table A-12. > Alternative measures of labor underutilization > "Alternative measures of labor underutilization?" Hmm…What does it > mean in English? Also known as the U-6 number, it is a more accurate > measure of the nation’s unemployment rate. > This page estimates the "total unemployed, plus all marginally attached > workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a > percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached > workers at 10.9%. What are "marginally attached workers?" According to > the BLS, "marginally attached workers are persons who currently are > neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and > are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent > past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have > given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for a job. > Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and > are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time > schedule. " Do you know anyone like that? They’re not counted in the > big, pretty headline number (Unemployment rate falls to 5.6%) that is > reported on the six o’clock news. How come? > http://www.depression2.tv/nwo/archives/000023.html

Response:

bin Laden who? What? Now after a word from our sponsors, find out MORE about Michael Jackson! Caution! Some of this detail may be considered "graphic" and may require parental discretion! http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:OBTAekbe9VcJ:www.csmonitor.com/200… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > …other new propaganda!

Response:

Want some bitter irony? In August ‘93, Lawrence Bossidy, chief honcho of AlliedSignal corporation, was head cheerleader of Wall Streetճ push to pass NAFTA. On CNN, he was asked straight out, "Do you think jobs will move to Mexico, would your company put jobs in Mexico?" Bossidy answered, "Quite the contrary, the jobs that were to move to Mexico have already moved there." Oh? That would be news to the AlliedSignal employees in Illinois, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, and Texas, who’ve since lost their jobs as a direct result of NAFTA, giving Bossidy the dubious distinction of being the number one shipper-outer of U.S. jobs under his NAFTA trade scam. Indeed, AlliedSignal is now the 12th largest employer in Mexico, paying workers about 80 cents an hour. Sure, Bossidy lied, but hey…it pays well. For all of his fibbing and firing, Bossidy personally was paid $12.4 million last year. I’m reminded of Lily Tomlin’s observation, "Even if you win the rat race, you’re still a rat".

Response:

nyuk nyuk nyukl Ten years of economic data belie the promises of broad economic benefits that NAFTA’s promoters used to sell the pact to a skeptical U.S. public. We were promised that NAFTA would result in a growing U.S. trade surplus with Mexico that would create new U.S. jobs. Instead NAFTA has turned a modest U.S. trade surplus with Mexico into a huge new NAFTA trade deficit and the U.S. trade deficit with Canada has increased fivefold.We were promised 170,000 new U.S. jobs would be created annually by NAFTA.When unprecedented U.S. economic growth in the 1990s created jobs at a fairly rapid rate, the hundreds of thousands of fulltime, high-wage, benefit-paying manufacturing jobs that were being lost to NAFTA were masked. But the U.S. lost three million manufacturing jobs – 1 in 6 jobs in that sector – during NAFTA and some 525,000 U.S. workers have been specifically certified as NAFTA job-loss victims under just one narrow government retraining program. NAFTA’s rules provided new incentives to relocate production:"foreign investors"- meaning U.S. companies relocating to Mexico – received both special investor protections and preferential access for finished products shipped back to the U.S. Meanwhile, many workers who have lost high-wage, benefits-paying manufacturing jobs have only found new work in service sector positions that typically pay 23-77 percent less than their previous wages and offer few or no benefits.NAFTA’s transformation of the kinds of jobs available to the 75 percent of Americans who do not have a college degree has contributed to stagnant wage levels that have destroyed the economic security of millions of American families. From 1946-73, there was an 80% gain in median wages.Yet from 1973-2000,U.S.median wages have been almost flat, even though trade now represents two times the share of U.S. economic activity than it did thirty years ago. 1 THE TEN YEAR TRACK RECORD OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT U.S. WORKERS’ JOBS, WAGES AND ECONOMIC SECURITY 2 And, after ten years of NAFTA the prediction of trade theory – that increased trade liberalization will increase income inequality – has become reality, with stark empirical data revealing disparities not seen since the Robber Baron age. As economic growth slowed in recent years, NAFTA’s full wreckage has emerged. In every region of the country, towns have been devastated by serial plant closings, mass layoffs, the slow death of main street businesses once patronized by the suddenly unemployed, and the consequent crash in tax revenues that once supported local schools, hospitals and other essential services. The outrage of millions of Americans hurt by our failed trade policy has catapulted the issue to the top of the Democratic presidential primary debate. NAFTA HAS INCREASED U.S. TRADE DEFICITS WITH CANADA AND MEXICO 1 The NAFTA decade has featured greatly accelerated U.S. trade imbalances with both Mexico and Canada. Large trade imbalances have serious implications for jobs and economic growth because large deficits mean that consumers are buying far more goods produced by foreign workers than goods made domestically. 2 This in turn leads to high job losses and low levels of job creation. In 2002, the total U.S. trade deficit was a staggering $436 billion. 3 Even U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan – a free trade cheerleader – refers to this huge trade deficit as an "unsustainable" drag on U.S. economic growth.3 By 2002 combined U.S. trade deficits with both NAFTA partners accounted for almost 20 percent of this total trade deficit – $85 billion! 4 In 1993, pro-NAFTA economists confidently predicted that implementation of NAFTA would result in a $9 billion U.S. trade surplus with Mexico within two years. Two years later, the U.S. had a $15 billion trade deficit with Mexico. The annual deficit has only grown through the decade – with the U.S. exporting $37 billion less to Mexico than it imported from there in 2002. 5 NAFTA supporters tried to explain away the new deficit as being caused by a major devaluation of the Mexican currency in 1995 – which they also claimed had nothing to do with NAFTA. First, the unfortunate truth is that the peso had been intentionally and artificially overvalued as part of the campaign to sell NAFTA. The overvalued peso kept Mexican labor costs higher, made Mexican imports more expensive and thus helped create the $1.3 billion trade surplus the U.S. had with Mexico the year NAFTA passed. This surplus helped win support for NAFTA in the U.S. Congress by creating the illusion that NAFTA might be a net job creator instead of a job loser for American workers.4 Second, a review of non-NAFTA countries’ trade balances with Mexico proves that the growing U.S. trade deficit with Mexico is about NAFTA, not Mexico’s currency problems. The European Union and China, which enjoyed trade surpluses with Mexico in the early 1990s, maintained those surpluses throughout the decade-unaffected by the peso crash. 6 Meanwhile, under NAFTA, the U.S. trade deficit with Canada has increased almost fivefold to $48 billion in 2002.5 U.S. exports to Canada rose 63 percent between 1993 and 2001, but these were outpaced by imports which grew by 96 percent across the same period.6 According to the Congressional Research Service, U.S. imports from Mexico increased 229 percent between 1993 and 2001 – while U.S. exports to Mexico rose only 144 percent over this period. As grim as these numbers are, they only tell half the story: a large proportion of what is counted as U.S. "exports" to Mexico have been parts and components that are shipped to Mexico for assembly, never enter the Mexican domestic economy, but rather are returned to the U.S. for sale as finished goods. By 1999, these "industrial tourist" exports accounted for more than 60 percent of all U.S. exports to Mexico. 7 When corporate and government NAFTA boosters try to defend NAFTA now, they not only count these industrial tourists as exports, but they only focus on the increase in U.S. exports to Mexico and Canada under NAFTA – and never mention the much bigger increase in imports. Yet, we all know what happens if you only count the deposits but not the withdrawals to your checking account! It is also important to look closely at the types of goods that the U.S. is importing from Mexico and Canada under NAFTA. Back in the early 1990s, the pro-NAFTA lobby told us that under NAFTA, Mexico would sell the U.S. mostly low end basic goods, such as T-shirts, and we would sell Mexico expensive value-added products, such as computers. In fact, the new NAFTA trade deficit has been driven by rapid increases in Mexican exports of high tech and high quality manufactured goods from foreign-owned factories – particularly computer equipment (1077 percent), automotive parts and vehicles (294 percent), and chemicals and allied products (154 percent). 8 Most of the U.S. NAFTA deficit with Canada also is attributable to increased imports of high-end manufactured goods ranging from transportation equipment, motor vehicles equipment and parts, to electrical and electronic machinery, equipment and supplies. 9 MILLIONS OF HIGH-QUALITY JOBS LOST Promises that NAFTA would create hundreds of thousands of new high-quality U.S. jobs were central to the pro-NAFTA campaign. Using a formula that estimated 13,000 new jobs for each $1 billion in trade surplus, one pro-NAFTA economist famously predicted that NAFTA would create 170,000 new U.S. jobs within its first two years – with job creation from NAFTA growing from then on. 10 But, NAFTA did not result in the promised increases in U.S. trade surpluses with Canada and Mexico. If you plug the actual trade deficit numbers into the formula used to generate the infamous 170,000 job gain number endlessly repeated by NAFTA boosters, the result is a loss of nearly nine million U.S. jobs in 2002 alone! Some economists have designed more careful, accurate formulas to measure NAFTA’s job effects. For instance, three years ago the Economic Policy Institute concluded that by 2000 NAFTA already had cost the United States 766,000 jobs and job opportunities (jobs that would have existed without NAFTA’s incentives to relocate factories.) 11 Since then, the rate of manufacturing job loss has accelerated greatly. Data on applications to one government program reveal some of the specific U.S. jobs lost to NAFTA. The NAFTA-TAA (Trade Adjustment Assistance) program – which was terminated in 2002 – provided income support and job search and training allowances to workers who lost their jobs as a direct result of cheaper Canadian or Mexican imports, or when their plant was relocated to one of those countries. Between 1994 and the end of 2002, 525,094 specific U.S. workers were certified for assistance under this government program. NAFTA-TAA has since been merged into a general TAA program making it harder to track the specific NAFTA job casualties. 12 But, even when NAFTA-TAA existed, many workers who lost jobs or significant income as a result of NAFTA did not even apply. There was no required posting of information regarding the program in workplaces or public government agency offices. Plus, many affected workers were not covered – for instance when an auto assembly plant relocated to Mexico, its workers could qualify for NAFTATAA, but workers in a plant next door which provided parts for the relocated plant were excluded as were all service workers from truckers delivering the cars to local restaurants and stores the workers had patronized. Plus, many unions directed workers towards other assistance programs with less onerous filing requirements – meaning that the NAFTA-TAA number is a significant undercount of NAFTA job loss although it does provide us with important information about some of the lost jobs, including what sorts of jobs were lost and where. 13 WAGES STAGNANT FOR MILLIONS OF U.S. WORKERS NAFTA has had serious implications for … read more »

Response:

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp147 NUMBERS AND TABLES HERE Note TABLE TWO. The United States has experienced steadily growing global trade deficits for nearly three decades, and these deficits accelerated rapidly after NAFTA took effect on January 1, 1994. For the purposes of this report it is necessary to distinguish between exports produced domestically and foreign exports, which are goods produced in other countries but exported to the United States, and then re-exported from the United States. Foreign exports made up 11.6% of total U.S. exports to Mexico and Canada in 2002. However, because only domestically produced exports generate jobs in the United States, our trade calculations are based only on domestic exports. Our measure of the net impact of trade, which is used here to calculate the employment content of trade, is the difference between domestic exports and total imports.3 We refer to this as "net exports," to distinguish it from the more commonly reported gross trade balance. However, both concepts are measures of net trade flows. Although U.S. domestic exports to its NAFTA partners have increased dramatically

Permalink · Leave a comment
In: Marketing Jobs

Business Marketing Articles To Help You Succeed In Life

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Question:

Response:

Response:

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Question:

Response:

Response:

Question:

Question:

Response:

Response:

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Question:

Response:

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Question:

Response:

Response: