Question:

Hello All, I’m fooking for Accounting Online courses. Any good suggestions ? Thanks to All, – Gilbert

Response:

UCLA Extension has several on-line accounting courses.  I haven’t taken any on-line courses at UCLA, but I have taken some accounting classes through UCLA Extension’s traditional accounting program.  Check out its website for more info.  I think the web address is www.uclaextension.org Brian

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello All, I’m fooking for Accounting Online courses. Any good suggestions ? Thanks to All, – Gilbert

Response:

Question:

Could someone help me with the following question         I have a friend who uses Quicken for all there business accounting records.  The problem is the user entered an administrative password, and then lost/forget the password.         Is there ( would anyone know of ) a way to recover a lost password in Quicken?  Or is there a way to reset the password. Any help would be greatly appreaciated! Please feel free to email me at Thank You

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Could someone help me with the following question    I have a friend who uses Quicken for all there business accounting records.  The problem is the user entered an administrative password, and then lost/forget the password.    Is there ( would anyone know of ) a way to recover a lost password in Quicken?  Or is there a way to reset the password. Any help would be greatly appreaciated! Please feel free to email me at Thank You

call Quicken technical support (520) 618-7101, and be at your computer. Note: If you are using a version of Quicken prior to Quicken 98, please inform the Quicken support representative that your call is concerning password removal. The Quicken technical support representative will first take you through the above steps to confirm that your file is password-protected and cannot be accessed. Once the technical support team confirms your file is inaccessible, they will instruct you on sending the data file to Intuit for password removal. This will require you to sign legal documents permitting Intuit to access your data file. While these documents can me mailed, please have a FAX number available to expedite this process. You will also need to provide payment either with credit card or by check. Data files cannot be sent electronically. Any standard mailing or overnight service is acceptable. Password removal usually takes about two weeks. Your Quicken technical support representative can give you a more exact time frame given current business conditions at the time you call. If you need to enter transactions during the time you do not have access to your file, create a new file and then use the Quicken export and import features to move them into your old file when it is returned. John Brown CD, CAAS Why don’t I just stay hibern8n. Nosy I guess.

Response:

Question:

Hi, Just a newbie here tonight looking at posts, but it appears that the issue of where the kids are to live came about with the simultaneous death and remarriage.  Objectively, why should there be an issue at all?  Just curious, how did dearly departed mom die?  Suspicious by nature, I guess, but how long had the new Mrs. known your ex before the wedding bells? Naturally, the age of your children indicates they can choose, but I don’t feel comfortable in putting forth such a concept to their routine living under your roof, plus their tender-age psyche in putting them through that sort of  "choosing where to live" type of thing, just because ex’s mom died and ex remarried and decides to get financially paranoid toward you. Something sounds screwy with this picture for ex to pull the late checks, etc.  To me, pulling that sort of stunt is a signal that this caring father has become not so caring … makes no difference here if the check goes to you … the money is still required for the welfare of those teenagers.  By abusing you in this money scenario, he is abusing those kids and displays he definitely is not a caring father.  Sure, when he is WITH them he’s very generous … ever heard of the Disneyland parent?  Take advantage of the deadbeat dad laws and get him back on track and quit the money games and traumatizing yourself emotionally over it.  Be true to feeling in your heart in taking into account in doing so that you really are looking at the best interest of your kids and the money is a skirt being hidden behind by your ex.  There may even be something in ex’s mom’s Will for a trust fund for these kids (a common theme … that the deceased wishes for the son/daughter to be in control of said trust(s)) that your ex doesn’t want you to know about, hence the game playing on annoying you and worrying yourself about not wanting to create flack about the lacking checks … until you relinquish custody to him, which would make him a happier camper and you more of an emotional wreck in having done so.  Wills are on public record, so you can mosey down to the courthouse and look it up and get a copy.  Go from there to find out more about assets if you really want to, but a bit of the meat of money appears to be somewhere involving your teenagers, especially in view of this money behavior in not sending you checks.  I feel sure there are assets being hidden as well.  Just relating my own past experiences not too disimilar.  Good luck. Kay

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Greetings, Everyone! When I first started reading the posts on this forum, the weather outside was still balmy — however, my heart was frozen solid. I never thought I would have the courage to let it thaw, and allow myself to feel again. But after months of perusing the various posts here and following people’s brave resolve and valiant efforts to "press on," I’ve come to believe that I, too, can somehow find the strength to chip the protective ice off my heart. My former husband had always been a very generous and caring father. Even after the divorce, he never begrudged the children anything. He spent much time with them, and didn’t balk about his share of funds to support the children. We maintained a civil relationship. Then, his mother died and he inherited several million $$$ (he was the only child), and he also got remarried. (I do not know which came first, as the news of his mother’s death and his remarriage were revealed to me simultaneously.) Almost immediately, he began griping about the child support payments, skipping the children’s checks here and there, hemming and hawing about things like, "I don’t think [our daughter] really NEEDS braces…" Maybe he (and/or his new wife?) was worried that I’d suddenly ask for more money for the children, but the truth is that the children were being well-taken-care-of prior to his inheritance, and didn’t REQUIRE any more funding. However, they certainly didn’t require any LESS, either!!! I decided not to rock the boat — that the new wife would eventually see that I wasn’t after "their" money, so I waited patiently for him to get back on track with the payment-schedule that had been established years ago, and to which he always adhered. Well, no such luck. It was almost as if he was DARING me to keep up the stamina to have to call him periodically to broach the subject. (He KNOWS I hate talking about money, and it was always very uncomfortable for me to have to pick up the phone and say, "Um, sorry to bother you, but we haven’t received a check in the last 3 months, and [our daughter] will not be able to participate in the marching band if we don’t pay the dues and fees for the uniform/instrument/travel expenses this week!" Eventually, I felt I had no choice but to approach an attorney. I had been very reluctant to do so, but I didn’t know where else to turn! The attorney promptly researched my former husband’s assets, and guess what the dossier turned up?: except for his airplane, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! (For insurance purposes, apparently, my former husband kept the aircraft registered in his name, but EVERYTHING ELSE, he signed over either to his new wife, or tucked away in some overseas accounts.) I know there are "forensic accountants" who can supposedly locate all sorts of hidden assets, but not only do I not have the money to retain one — I also seem to have been born without the gene to motivate me to fight with anyone over money. Some might say that it’s not about money, per se, but about what is rightly due the children, and that therefore, I SHOULD fight! If he were otherwise a rotten father, I would agree, but, in all honesty, he is really a VERY GOOD FATHER . . . when the children are with HIM, that is! It’s only when they’re with ME, that he suddenly adopts this Scrooge attitude. I mean, not only is he financially generous with them when they are with him, but, being a university professor, he is also very adept at guiding them from an educational and intellectual standpoint (which I am, as well). Emotionally, however, he may actually be better-suited, in that he doesn’t "stress out" as easily as I do (but I think if I had millions of dollars, I probably wouldn’t "stress out" as much, either!). So I recently made a VERY tough decision. I decided that it might, indeed, be best for my children to live with their father. But I am still so torn about this! This decision HAS served to end the turmoil between me and my former husband, but I still feel almost "lost" without my children living under the same roof with me!!! My "higher self" does believe this is the right decision — for THEM, for my KIDS — but my heart aches almost non-stop! This is SUCH a societally non-popular decision, and I actually shudder at the thought of admitting that I made it somewhat voluntarily. (I say "somewhat," because I feel that I was, in a way, cornered into it.) I hope I’m not coming across as trying to make myself sound like some kind of "martyr." To me, it seems like I had the choice of battling for the next however-many-years in court, while my kids went without braces, missed piano lessons, been privy to legal wranglings, etc. — OR: choose to let them experience the next few years in relative peace, knowing that their needs are being met NOW. They are 15 and 17 years old, by the way. That makes ALL the difference when it comes to my motivation to pursue a big, giant investigation and fight. With college just around the corner, these children can’t afford to wait several years for a judge to render a decision on their behalf. Please don’t stone me! I’m already bruised enough as it is, believe me! May everyone here have a "New and Improved" New Year! Good health to all in 2001! Thanks for listening (for those who have endured my long-winded drivel!)! –Alexa talexa{at}evcom{dot}net

Response:

Hi, Toni! Season’s Greetings! Well, the first question I have is do the kids *want* to live with their dad?

Oh, without a question! They are happy with either — both my former husband and I have always made sure that they feel equally comfortable with each of us. I mean, think about the motivation here.  It’s really about a lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed.

Well, with all else being rather equal, I do admit that the motivation is financial — he and I can both provide a healthy environment for them, insofar as values and morals and and ethics are concerned. But he has the "edge" when it comes to immediate fulfillment of their medical and extra-curricular needs. Yes (as I indicated previously), it’s quite likely that a judge would have eventually rendered a decision in their favor had they continued to live under my care — but what good is a "reward" in their favor at age 20, let’s say, if they need the care and consideration NOW?!?!? Dad has the means, but is the *environment* what is best for them?

Essentially, they are in equally good care, be they with him, or with me. Is this good training for them?….What’s the lesson for them?

Great question! The "lesson" (that I’m hoping they will never have to look back upon — but IF THEY DO, IT WILL BE THERE) IS: sometimes we have to surrender those whom we love to the care of others, IF — and, mind you, ONLY IF — we have thoroughly reviewed the matter and determined that it would be entirely selfish for us to "keep them." Toni, let’s face it: realistically — by the time we’d get through arguing in court, our daughters would more than likely be well into adulthood. live maybe a less profitable life with you?

As teenagers, they yearn to be autonomous — and, of course, require steady guidance. He is as good at providing that as I am. However, in addition, he is willing to provide them "perks" when they are with him — perks which he became unwilling to provide them when they are with me. (I SUSPECT this is the influence of the new wife, but I can not be certain.) Truth be told, I believe that their lives are equally profitable with each of us (again, from the spiritual and ethical point of view), but certainly enhanced — from the materialistic point of view — with him. With all else being equal, and with him having "the edge" when it comes to money, and with me having to make the choice of which is "better" for them: well, what other criteria could I have figured into this formula? It seemed that it would be pretty sexist for me to say, "Well, I’m the MOTHER, therefore I get them by default!" I don’t happen to think that way. I encourage men to cultivate their capacity for nurturing their offspring. I’m not a hypocrite who says, "Men should care more for their children," while at the same time saying, "Women are more bonded to their children, and therefore should have first dibs." Toni, I’m not asking for a cheering section. I am merely trying to present a point of view which [hopefully] illustrates that decisions such as these should not be predicated upon the the gender or desire(s) of the parent(s) — but upon that which is deemed — AFTER SERIOUS INTROSPECTION AND INVESTIGATION BY THE ADULTS INVOLED — to be in the best interest of the children. (Usually, this means not considering divorce as an option, to begin with. [Barring, of course, severe mental, emotional, and/or physical abuse.] I know that’s more than one question, but…Lots of kids don’t have many of the "things" that you speak of and many get through college without parents footing the bill.  Just some things to think about.

Oh, Toni! Don’t get me started on the subject of "things," please! I see consumerism and materialism as being the great scourge on our society and culture! If anything, it is he who is arguing about "stuff" — I am the one who has refused to do this . . . Happy, happy, happy . . . 2001 . . . to one and all! –Alexa talexa{at}evcom{dot}net

Response:

Greetings, Everyone! When I first started reading the posts on this forum, the weather outside was still balmy — however, my heart was frozen solid. I never thought I would have the courage to let it thaw, and allow myself to feel again. But after months of perusing the various posts here and following people’s brave resolve and valiant efforts to "press on," I’ve come to believe that I, too, can somehow find the strength to chip the protective ice off my heart. My former husband had always been a very generous and caring father. Even after the divorce, he never begrudged the children anything. He spent much time with them, and didn’t balk about his share of funds to support the children. We maintained a civil relationship. Then, his mother died and he inherited several million $$$ (he was the only child), and he also got remarried. (I do not know which came first, as the news of his mother’s death and his remarriage were revealed to me simultaneously.) Almost immediately, he began griping about the child support payments, skipping the children’s checks here and there, hemming and hawing about things like, "I don’t think [our daughter] really NEEDS braces…" Maybe he (and/or his new wife?) was worried that I’d suddenly ask for more money for the children, but the truth is that the children were being well-taken-care-of prior to his inheritance, and didn’t REQUIRE any more funding. However, they certainly didn’t require any LESS, either!!! I decided not to rock the boat — that the new wife would eventually see that I wasn’t after "their" money, so I waited patiently for him to get back on track with the payment-schedule that had been established years ago, and to which he always adhered. Well, no such luck. It was almost as if he was DARING me to keep up the stamina to have to call him periodically to broach the subject. (He KNOWS I hate talking about money, and it was always very uncomfortable for me to have to pick up the phone and say, "Um, sorry to bother you, but we haven’t received a check in the last 3 months, and [our daughter] will not be able to participate in the marching band if we don’t pay the dues and fees for the uniform/instrument/travel expenses this week!" Eventually, I felt I had no choice but to approach an attorney. I had been very reluctant to do so, but I didn’t know where else to turn! The attorney promptly researched my former husband’s assets, and guess what the dossier turned up?: except for his airplane, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! (For insurance purposes, apparently, my former husband kept the aircraft registered in his name, but EVERYTHING ELSE, he signed over either to his new wife, or tucked away in some overseas accounts.) I know there are "forensic accountants" who can supposedly locate all sorts of hidden assets, but not only do I not have the money to retain one — I also seem to have been born without the gene to motivate me to fight with anyone over money. Some might say that it’s not about money, per se, but about what is rightly due the children, and that therefore, I SHOULD fight! If he were otherwise a rotten father, I would agree, but, in all honesty, he is really a VERY GOOD FATHER . . . when the children are with HIM, that is! It’s only when they’re with ME, that he suddenly adopts this Scrooge attitude. I mean, not only is he financially generous with them when they are with him, but, being a university professor, he is also very adept at guiding them from an educational and intellectual standpoint (which I am, as well). Emotionally, however, he may actually be better-suited, in that he doesn’t "stress out" as easily as I do (but I think if I had millions of dollars, I probably wouldn’t "stress out" as much, either!). So I recently made a VERY tough decision. I decided that it might, indeed, be best for my children to live with their father. But I am still so torn about this! This decision HAS served to end the turmoil between me and my former husband, but I still feel almost "lost" without my children living under the same roof with me!!! My "higher self" does believe this is the right decision — for THEM, for my KIDS — but my heart aches almost non-stop! This is SUCH a societally non-popular decision, and I actually shudder at the thought of admitting that I made it somewhat voluntarily. (I say "somewhat," because I feel that I was, in a way, cornered into it.) I hope I’m not coming across as trying to make myself sound like some kind of "martyr." To me, it seems like I had the choice of battling for the next however-many-years in court, while my kids went without braces, missed piano lessons, been privy to legal wranglings, etc. — OR: choose to let them experience the next few years in relative peace, knowing that their needs are being met NOW. They are 15 and 17 years old, by the way. That makes ALL the difference when it comes to my motivation to pursue a big, giant investigation and fight. With college just around the corner, these children can’t afford to wait several years for a judge to render a decision on their behalf. Please don’t stone me! I’m already bruised enough as it is, believe me! May everyone here have a "New and Improved" New Year! Good health to all in 2001! Thanks for listening (for those who have endured my long-winded drivel!)! –Alexa talexa{at}evcom{dot}net

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -New Year’s Eve! Greetings, Everyone! When I first started reading the posts on this forum, the weather outside was still balmy — however, my heart was frozen solid. I never thought I would have the courage to let it thaw, and allow myself to feel again. But after months of perusing the various posts here and following people’s brave resolve and valiant efforts to "press on," I’ve come to believe that I, too, can somehow find the strength to chip the protective ice off my heart. My former husband had always been a very generous and caring father. Even after the divorce, he never begrudged the children anything. He spent much time with them, and didn’t balk about his share of funds to support the children. We maintained a civil relationship. Then, his mother died and he inherited several million $$$ (he was the only child), and he also got remarried. (I do not know which came first, as the news of his mother’s death and his remarriage were revealed to me simultaneously.) Almost immediately, he began griping about the child support payments, skipping the children’s checks here and there, hemming and hawing about things like, "I don’t think [our daughter] really NEEDS braces…" Maybe he (and/or his new wife?) was worried that I’d suddenly ask for more money for the children, but the truth is that the children were being well-taken-care-of prior to his inheritance, and didn’t REQUIRE any more funding. However, they certainly didn’t require any LESS, either!!! I decided not to rock the boat — that the new wife would eventually see that I wasn’t after "their" money, so I waited patiently for him to get back on track with the payment-schedule that had been established years ago, and to which he always adhered. Well, no such luck. It was almost as if he was DARING me to keep up the stamina to have to call him periodically to broach the subject. (He KNOWS I hate talking about money, and it was always very uncomfortable for me to have to pick up the phone and say, "Um, sorry to bother you, but we haven’t received a check in the last 3 months, and [our daughter] will not be able to participate in the marching band if we don’t pay the dues and fees for the uniform/instrument/travel expenses this week!" Eventually, I felt I had no choice but to approach an attorney. I had been very reluctant to do so, but I didn’t know where else to turn! The attorney promptly researched my former husband’s assets, and guess what the dossier turned up?: except for his airplane, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! (For insurance purposes, apparently, my former husband kept the aircraft registered in his name, but EVERYTHING ELSE, he signed over either to his new wife, or tucked away in some overseas accounts.) I know there are "forensic accountants" who can supposedly locate all sorts of hidden assets, but not only do I not have the money to retain one — I also seem to have been born without the gene to motivate me to fight with anyone over money. Some might say that it’s not about money, per se, but about what is rightly due the children, and that therefore, I SHOULD fight! If he were otherwise a rotten father, I would agree, but, in all honesty, he is really a VERY GOOD FATHER . . . when the children are with HIM, that is! It’s only when they’re with ME, that he suddenly adopts this Scrooge attitude. I mean, not only is he financially generous with them when they are with him, but, being a university professor, he is also very adept at guiding them from an educational and intellectual standpoint (which I am, as well). Emotionally, however, he may actually be better-suited, in that he doesn’t "stress out" as easily as I do (but I think if I had millions of dollars, I probably wouldn’t "stress out" as much, either!). So I recently made a VERY tough decision. I decided that it might, indeed, be best for my children to live with their father. But I am still so torn about this! This decision HAS served to end the turmoil between me and my former husband, but I still feel almost "lost" without my children living under the same roof with me!!! My "higher self" does believe this is the right decision — for THEM, for my KIDS — but my heart aches almost non-stop! This is SUCH a societally non-popular decision, and I actually shudder at the thought of admitting that I made it somewhat voluntarily. (I say "somewhat," because I feel that I was, in a way, cornered into it.) I hope I’m not coming across as trying to make myself sound like some kind of "martyr." To me, it seems like I had the choice of battling for the next however-many-years in court, while my kids went without braces, missed piano lessons, been privy to legal wranglings, etc. — OR: choose to let them experience the next few years in relative peace, knowing that their needs are being met NOW. They are 15 and 17 years old, by the way. That makes ALL the difference when it comes to my motivation to pursue a big, giant investigation and fight. With college just around the corner, these children can’t afford to wait several years for a judge to render a decision on their behalf. Please don’t stone me! I’m already bruised enough as it is, believe me! May everyone here have a "New and Improved" New Year! Good health to all in 2001! Thanks for listening (for those who have endured my long-winded drivel!)! –Alexa talexa{at}evcom{dot}net

Well, the first question I have is do the kids *want* to live with their dad? I mean, think about the motivation here.  It’s really about a lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed.  Dad has the means, but is the *environment* what is best for them?  Is this good training for them?….What’s the lesson for them?  Would they rather have the things that money can provide than to live maybe a less profitable life with you?  I know that’s more than one question, but…Lots of kids don’t have many of the "things" that you speak of and many get through college without parents footing the bill.  Just some things to think about.

Response:

If you know where his mother’s estate was probated, you could get copies of the distribution reports and prove that he was hiding assets.  It shouldn’t take much, just check with the clerk of the court where she was known to reside.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Greetings, Everyone! When I first started reading the posts on this forum, the weather outside was still balmy — however, my heart was frozen solid. I never thought I would have the courage to let it thaw, and allow myself to feel again. But after months of perusing the various posts here and following people’s brave resolve and valiant efforts to "press on," I’ve come to believe that I, too, can somehow find the strength to chip the protective ice off my heart. My former husband had always been a very generous and caring father. Even after the divorce, he never begrudged the children anything. He spent much time with them, and didn’t balk about his share of funds to support the children. We maintained a civil relationship. Then, his mother died and he inherited several million $$$ (he was the only child), and he also got remarried. (I do not know which came first, as the news of his mother’s death and his remarriage were revealed to me simultaneously.) Almost immediately, he began griping about the child support payments, skipping the children’s checks here and there, hemming and hawing about things like, "I don’t think [our daughter] really NEEDS braces…" Maybe he (and/or his new wife?) was worried that I’d suddenly ask for more money for the children, but the truth is that the children were being well-taken-care-of prior to his inheritance, and didn’t REQUIRE any more funding. However, they certainly didn’t require any LESS, either!!! I decided not to rock the boat — that the new wife would eventually see that I wasn’t after "their" money, so I waited patiently for him to get back on track with the payment-schedule that had been established years ago, and to which he always adhered. Well, no such luck. It was almost as if he was DARING me to keep up the stamina to have to call him periodically to broach the subject. (He KNOWS I hate talking about money, and it was always very uncomfortable for me to have to pick up the phone and say, "Um, sorry to bother you, but we haven’t received a check in the last 3 months, and [our daughter] will not be able to participate in the marching band if we don’t pay the dues and fees for the uniform/instrument/travel expenses this week!" Eventually, I felt I had no choice but to approach an attorney. I had been very reluctant to do so, but I didn’t know where else to turn! The attorney promptly researched my former husband’s assets, and guess what the dossier turned up?: except for his airplane, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! (For insurance purposes, apparently, my former husband kept the aircraft registered in his name, but EVERYTHING ELSE, he signed over either to his new wife, or tucked away in some overseas accounts.) I know there are "forensic accountants" who can supposedly locate all sorts of hidden assets, but not only do I not have the money to retain one — I also seem to have been born without the gene to motivate me to fight with anyone over money. Some might say that it’s not about money, per se, but about what is rightly due the children, and that therefore, I SHOULD fight! If he were otherwise a rotten father, I would agree, but, in all honesty, he is really a VERY GOOD FATHER . . . when the children are with HIM, that is! It’s only when they’re with ME, that he suddenly adopts this Scrooge attitude. I mean, not only is he financially generous with them when they are with him, but, being a university professor, he is also very adept at guiding them from an educational and intellectual standpoint (which I am, as well). Emotionally, however, he may actually be better-suited, in that he doesn’t "stress out" as easily as I do (but I think if I had millions of dollars, I probably wouldn’t "stress out" as much, either!). So I recently made a VERY tough decision. I decided that it might, indeed, be best for my children to live with their father. But I am still so torn about this! This decision HAS served to end the turmoil between me and my former husband, but I still feel almost "lost" without my children living under the same roof with me!!! My "higher self" does believe this is the right decision — for THEM, for my KIDS — but my heart aches almost non-stop! This is SUCH a societally non-popular decision, and I actually shudder at the thought of admitting that I made it somewhat voluntarily. (I say "somewhat," because I feel that I was, in a way, cornered into it.) I hope I’m not coming across as trying to make myself sound like some kind of "martyr." To me, it seems like I had the choice of battling for the next however-many-years in court, while my kids went without braces, missed piano lessons, been privy to legal wranglings, etc. — OR: choose to let them experience the next few years in relative peace, knowing that their needs are being met NOW. They are 15 and 17 years old, by the way. That makes ALL the difference when it comes to my motivation to pursue a big, giant investigation and fight. With college just around the corner, these children can’t afford to wait several years for a judge to render a decision on their behalf. Please don’t stone me! I’m already bruised enough as it is, believe me! May everyone here have a "New and Improved" New Year! Good health to all in 2001! Thanks for listening (for those who have endured my long-winded drivel!)! –Alexa talexa{at}evcom{dot}net

Response:

Question:

I’m thinking about building a kit fiberglass aircraft but recently looked at one which took a direct lightning hit.  With no metal skin to protect the interior electronics, this airplanes entire electrical system was fried.  It was hit while parked.  I would hate to take such a hit in the air. Have any of you taken lightning strikes in your fiberglass aircraft and what was the outcome? LP

Response:

A composite glider in the UK took a lightning strike in April 1999 that blew the craft apart in midair. Both pilots survived, wearing chutes. The report is very interesting. The glider construction is very similar to many composite planes – foam core with glass over it, and control system primarily tubes. In the strike, the intense magnetic field of the current caused the aileron link rods to be sucked flat into ribbons. See the whole report at http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib/dec99htm/bga3705.htm In general, composites don’t like lightning. Don’t go near it. David – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m thinking about building a kit fiberglass aircraft but recently looked at one which took a direct lightning hit.  With no metal skin to protect the interior electronics, this airplanes entire electrical system was fried.  It was hit while parked.  I would hate to take such a hit in the air. Have any of you taken lightning strikes in your fiberglass aircraft and what was the outcome? LP

Response:

Don’t go near lightning or the conditions that cause it in a fiberglass airplane. The two don’t mix. Stoddard Hamilton did extensive research under a NASA grant on this subject an I’m sure if you contact NASA they will give you the results. The lightning protected Glasair III was one of the results of the project. It had a copper mesh embedded in laminates and was offered as a kit option. Stoddard didn’t sell even one!!! It added 10k to the price. I understand the Lancair Columbia and the Cirrus both have metal mesh in the laminates. Bruce Glasair III – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m thinking about building a kit fiberglass aircraft but recently looked at one which took a direct lightning hit.  With no metal skin to protect the interior electronics, this airplanes entire electrical system was fried.  It was hit while parked.  I would hate to take such a hit in the air. Have any of you taken lightning strikes in your fiberglass aircraft and what was the outcome? LP

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – FLYING magazine had a great write up about lightning strikes in their March ‘99 issue. Lightning Technologies, a large lightning generating testing facility, has intentially struck aircraft such as the Glasair III, Beechcraft Starship and Lancair Columbia 300. They blasted these full size aircraft with 100,000 volts/200,000 amperes strikes. About 10 times that of *normal* lightning. I’m certain that Lightning Technologies’ testing comes close to emulating natural lightning, but according to Britannica, natural lightning is up to the order of 100,000,000V and 20,000A (these are cloud-to-ground strikes; perhaps cloud-to-flying-aircraft is different).  100,000V/200,000A is ten times the current but at a thousand times less voltage.  There are probably 6 qualified engineers in the world who could give a good accounting of the "potential" differences.  :-) Russell Kent

The voltages required for lightning to arc across the air is proportional to the distance.  For example, if Lightning Technologies has a test room about 10 feet high and is generating a voltage from cieling to floor, it would take 100 times less voltage than would be required for a cloud to ground strike from a cloud at 1000 feet AGL.  This explains a significant portion of the voltage difference. Greg Gritton

Response:

[...snip...] The explosive strike to a glider in the UK (Flying, Sept (?), 2000) was studied in great depth, and that accident report suggests that even much higher amps are needed to lab-simulate (emphasis on this word) the destructive effects of natural strikes.  IOW, "10 times normal lightning" sounds like press release oversimplification of the actual science, and should not imply a 10x safety margin for average 20kA strikes, over even 2x on 100kA monsters. Fred F.

For anybody interested, the actual accident report for the glider lightning strike is available at   http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib/dec99htm/bga3705.htm The report also has links to images that show the damage caused to the various bits and pieces of the glider. — ss

Response:

I wasa passenger on a 777 going into Chicago about 2 years ago and we were struck by lightning.  There was a ping sound off the nose, a loud boom, and then a bright flash in the windows.  Pretty exciting stuff and the lights inside didn’t even flicker.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – See http://lightning.pwr.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp/lrg/temp/plane.html for shots of a lightning strike on a 747 during takeoff from Osaka airport. Pretty impressive. The page is a slow loader, as all frames must be transferred. From http://news.airwise.com/stories/99/10/939285371.html A Japan Airlines (JAL) jet bound for Brisbane, Australia, was forced to return after an engine on the left wing was struck by lightning October 6. None of the 437 passengers and crew on board the Boeing 747 were injured, said JAL spokesman Takeshi Suzuki. The plane returned safely to Kansai International Airport at 11:35 p.m. Wednesday, about 90 minutes after takeoff, Suzuki said. The Kansai airport serves the major western Japanese city of Osaka and is located 250 miles west of Tokyo. David FLYING magazine had a great write up about lightning strikes in their March ‘99 issue. Lightning Technologies, a large lightning generating testing facility, has intentially struck aircraft such as the Glasair III, Beechcraft Starship and Lancair Columbia 300. They blasted these full size aircraft with 100,000 volts/200,000 amperes strikes. About 10 times that of *normal* lightning. I’m certain that Lightning Technologies’ testing comes close to emulating natural lightning, but according to Britannica, natural lightning is up to the order of 100,000,000V and 20,000A (these are cloud-to-ground strikes; perhaps cloud-to-flying-aircraft is different).  100,000V/200,000A is ten times the current but at a thousand times less voltage.  There are probably 6 qualified engineers in the world who could give a good accounting of the "potential" differences.  :-) Russell Kent

Response:

Years ago I saw a Hawker which received a lightning strike on the tail.  It looked like some gigantic sewing machine had run down the entire length of the vertical stabalizer, then out the left horazontal and elevator melting the static wicks into balls of black goo. The pilot said he expected a lot more trouble than he had, he said it just jumbled some information in his flight director – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -See http://lightning.pwr.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp/lrg/temp/plane.html for shots of a lightning strike on a 747 during takeoff from Osaka airport. Pretty impressive. The page is a slow loader, as all frames must be transferred. From http://news.airwise.com/stories/99/10/939285371.html A Japan Airlines (JAL) jet bound for Brisbane, Australia, was forced to return after an engine on the left wing was struck by lightning October 6. None of the 437 passengers and crew on board the Boeing 747 were injured, said JAL spokesman Takeshi Suzuki. The plane returned safely to Kansai International Airport at 11:35 p.m. Wednesday, about 90 minutes after takeoff, Suzuki said. The Kansai airport serves the major western Japanese city of Osaka and is located 250 miles west of Tokyo. David FLYING magazine had a great write up about lightning strikes in their March ‘99 issue. Lightning Technologies, a large lightning generating testing facility, has intentially struck aircraft such as the Glasair III, Beechcraft Starship and Lancair Columbia 300. They blasted these full size aircraft with 100,000 volts/200,000 amperes strikes. About 10 times that of *normal* lightning. I’m certain that Lightning Technologies’ testing comes close to emulating natural lightning, but according to Britannica, natural lightning is up to the order of 100,000,000V and 20,000A (these are cloud-to-ground strikes; perhaps cloud-to-flying-aircraft is different).  100,000V/200,000A is ten times the current but at a thousand times less voltage.  There are probably 6 qualified engineers in the world who could give a good accounting of the "potential" differences.  :-) Russell Kent

marca(AT) techline (DOT) com (AT) = @   (DOT) = .

Response:

I’m not one of those 6 engrs; I’m just with the tour group <g.  But the destructive effect of lightning is in Joule heating (among others), and they measure strikes in part by using an "action integral."  The formula includes amps, time, and resistance (but not volts). Action integral is what FAA uses too in certification test requirements (AC 20-53A), which assumes 200kA in the action integral. The explosive strike to a glider in the UK (Flying, Sept (?), 2000) was studied in great depth, and that accident report suggests that even much higher amps are needed to lab-simulate (emphasis on this word) the destructive effects of natural strikes.  IOW, "10 times normal lightning" sounds like press release oversimplification of the actual science, and should not imply a 10x safety margin for average 20kA strikes, over even 2x on 100kA monsters. Fred F. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – … They blasted these full size aircraft with 100,000 volts/200,000 amperes strikes. About 10 times that of *normal* lightning. I’m certain that Lightning Technologies’ testing comes close to emulating natural lightning, but according to Britannica, natural lightning is up to the order of 100,000,000V and 20,000A (these are cloud-to-ground strikes; perhaps cloud-to-flying-aircraft is different).  100,000V/200,000A is ten times the current but at a thousand times less voltage.  There are probably 6 qualified engineers in the world who could give a good accounting of the "potential" differences.  :-) Russell Kent

Response:

See http://lightning.pwr.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp/lrg/temp/plane.html for shots of a lightning strike on a 747 during takeoff from Osaka airport. Pretty impressive. The page is a slow loader, as all frames must be transferred. From http://news.airwise.com/stories/99/10/939285371.html A Japan Airlines (JAL) jet bound for Brisbane, Australia, was forced to return after an engine on the left wing was struck by lightning October 6. None of the 437 passengers and crew on board the Boeing 747 were injured, said JAL spokesman Takeshi Suzuki. The plane returned safely to Kansai International Airport at 11:35 p.m. Wednesday, about 90 minutes after takeoff, Suzuki said. The Kansai airport serves the major western Japanese city of Osaka and is located 250 miles west of Tokyo. David – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – FLYING magazine had a great write up about lightning strikes in their March ‘99 issue. Lightning Technologies, a large lightning generating testing facility, has intentially struck aircraft such as the Glasair III, Beechcraft Starship and Lancair Columbia 300. They blasted these full size aircraft with 100,000 volts/200,000 amperes strikes. About 10 times that of *normal* lightning. I’m certain that Lightning Technologies’ testing comes close to emulating natural lightning, but according to Britannica, natural lightning is up to the order of 100,000,000V and 20,000A (these are cloud-to-ground strikes; perhaps cloud-to-flying-aircraft is different).  100,000V/200,000A is ten times the current but at a thousand times less voltage.  There are probably 6 qualified engineers in the world who could give a good accounting of the "potential" differences.  :-) Russell Kent

Response:

FLYING magazine had a great write up about lightning strikes in their March ‘99 issue. Lightning Technologies, a large lightning generating testing facility, has intentially struck aircraft such as the Glasair III, Beechcraft Starship and Lancair Columbia 300. They blasted these full size aircraft with 100,000 volts/200,000 amperes strikes. About 10 times that of *normal* lightning.

I’m certain that Lightning Technologies’ testing comes close to emulating natural lightning, but according to Britannica, natural lightning is up to the order of 100,000,000V and 20,000A (these are cloud-to-ground strikes; perhaps cloud-to-flying-aircraft is different).  100,000V/200,000A is ten times the current but at a thousand times less voltage.  There are probably 6 qualified engineers in the world who could give a good accounting of the "potential" differences.  :-) Russell Kent

Response:

Just an observation, I wouldn’t mind reading the report if you happen to know where I could get a copy…

Plumer, J. A., Setzer, T. E., and Siddiqi, S., "Lightning protection technology for small general aviation composite material aircraft," SAE Paper 931241, 1 Jan 1993. Try www.SAE.org …did the thought of Gavinsky doing something deceitful strike a nerve.

Do you also imply that Lighting Technologies and Analytical Services (sponsoring co-authors) were deceitful? Dave ‘SBIR’ Hyde

Response:

FLYING magazine had a great write up about lightning strikes in their March ‘99 issue. Lightning Technologies, a large lightning generating testing facility, has intentially struck aircraft such as the Glasair III, Beechcraft Starship and Lancair Columbia 300. They blasted these full size aircraft with 100,000 volts/200,000 amperes strikes. About 10 times that of *normal* lightning. Its some good reading if you have access to the back issue. I also just found their website. http://www.lightningtech.com/intro.html It has a picture of the Glasair strike on it. Interesting stuff indeed! Cheers! Bob

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m thinking about building a kit fiberglass aircraft but recently looked at one which took a direct lightning hit.  With no metal skin to protect the interior electronics, this airplanes entire electrical system was fried. It was hit while parked.  I would hate to take such a hit in the air. Have any of you taken lightning strikes in your fiberglass aircraft and what was the outcome? LP

Response:

I believe that there was an article in Sport Aviation about the study several years ago. I don’t know if I still have that issue.  I’ll look and see.  I assume that Gavinsky is the person in charge of Glasair.  I know nothing of the company and its officers. I do admit to being impressed with its aircraft.  Meanness and spite with no evidence to back it always catches my attention. I was just wondering if I had it right. Gary Thomas

<snip   Have – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – you read the report or did the thought of Gavinsky doing something deceitful strike a nerve. Fletcher Do you have proof of this or is it just an opinion?   If so is there any evidence the the study was cooked? If your answer to the above is "no" then maybe you should rethink the way you worded you post. Gary Thomas As it turns out with Stoddard Hamilton, I suppose a couple of people may have received a kit had they not wasted money on some govt. type research program.  The govt. has unlimited funds, Stoddard Hamilton didn’t.  Nasa may have paid for all of it or may have only paid for part.  In retrospect it may have been a ploy for a govt loan to keep Stoddard afloat for a few more months and Nasa didn’t even know it. Don’t go near lightning or the conditions that cause it in a fiberglass airplane. The two don’t mix. Stoddard Hamilton did extensive research under a NASA grant on this subject an I’m sure if you contact NASA they will give you the results. The lightning protected Glasair III was one of the results of the project. It had a copper mesh embedded in laminates and was offered as a kit option. Stoddard didn’t sell even one!!! It added 10k to the price. I understand the Lancair Columbia and the Cirrus both have metal mesh in the laminates. Bruce Glasair III I’m thinking about building a kit fiberglass aircraft but recently looked at one which took a direct lightning hit.  With no metal skin to protect the interior electronics, this airplanes entire electrical system was fried. It was hit while parked.  I would hate to take such a hit in the air. Have any of you taken lightning strikes in your fiberglass aircraft and what was the outcome? LP

Response:

As it turns out with Stoddard Hamilton, I suppose a couple of people may have received a kit had they not wasted money on some govt. type research program.  The govt. has unlimited funds, Stoddard Hamilton didn’t.  Nasa may have paid for all of it or may have only paid for part.  In retrospect it may have been a ploy for a govt loan to keep Stoddard afloat for a few more months and Nasa didn’t even know it.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don’t go near lightning or the conditions that cause it in a fiberglass airplane. The two don’t mix. Stoddard Hamilton did extensive research under a NASA grant on this subject an I’m sure if you contact NASA they will give you the results. The lightning protected Glasair III was one of the results of the project. It had a copper mesh embedded in laminates and was offered as a kit option. Stoddard didn’t sell even one!!! It added 10k to the price. I understand the Lancair Columbia and the Cirrus both have metal mesh in the laminates. Bruce Glasair III I’m thinking about building a kit fiberglass aircraft but recently looked at one which took a direct lightning hit.  With no metal skin to protect the interior electronics, this airplanes entire electrical system was fried. It was hit while parked.  I would hate to take such a hit in the air. Have any of you taken lightning strikes in your fiberglass aircraft and what was the outcome? LP

Response:

Do you have proof of this or is it just an opinion?  Have you read the report associated with the study?  If so is there any evidence the the study was cooked? If your answer to the above is "no" then maybe you should rethink the way you worded you post. Gary Thomas – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As it turns out with Stoddard Hamilton, I suppose a couple of people may have received a kit had they not wasted money on some govt. type research program.  The govt. has unlimited funds, Stoddard Hamilton didn’t.  Nasa may have paid for all of it or may have only paid for part.  In retrospect it may have been a ploy for a govt loan to keep Stoddard afloat for a few more months and Nasa didn’t even know it. Don’t go near lightning or the conditions that cause it in a fiberglass airplane. The two don’t mix. Stoddard Hamilton did extensive research under a NASA grant on this subject an I’m sure if you contact NASA they will give you the results. The lightning protected Glasair III was one of the results of the project. It had a copper mesh embedded in laminates and was offered as a kit option. Stoddard didn’t sell even one!!! It added 10k to the price. I understand the Lancair Columbia and the Cirrus both have metal mesh in the laminates. Bruce Glasair III I’m thinking about building a kit fiberglass aircraft but recently looked at one which took a direct lightning hit.  With no metal skin to protect the interior electronics, this airplanes entire electrical system was fried. It was hit while parked.  I would hate to take such a hit in the air. Have any of you taken lightning strikes in your fiberglass aircraft and what was the outcome? LP

Response:

Do you have proof of this or is it just an opinion?

Just an opinion, don’t know if I believe it to be true just mere possibility. Have you read the report associated with the study?

No, nor have I read War and Peace but I know its about Russia. If so is there any evidence the the study was cooked?

I’m not a detective or a 60 minutes investigative reporter, so I don’t know. then maybe you should rethink the way you worded you post.

Why? Just an observation, I wouldn’t mind reading the report if you happen to know where I could get a copy or an address feel free to enlighten us.  Have you read the report or did the thought of Gavinsky doing something deceitful strike a nerve. Fletcher

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Do you have proof of this or is it just an opinion?   If so is there any evidence the the study was cooked? If your answer to the above is "no" then maybe you should rethink the way you worded you post. Gary Thomas As it turns out with Stoddard Hamilton, I suppose a couple of people may have received a kit had they not wasted money on some govt. type research program.  The govt. has unlimited funds, Stoddard Hamilton didn’t.  Nasa may have paid for all of it or may have only paid for part.  In retrospect it may have been a ploy for a govt loan to keep Stoddard afloat for a few more months and Nasa didn’t even know it. Don’t go near lightning or the conditions that cause it in a fiberglass airplane. The two don’t mix. Stoddard Hamilton did extensive research under a NASA grant on this subject an I’m sure if you contact NASA they will give you the results. The lightning protected Glasair III was one of the results of the project. It had a copper mesh embedded in laminates and was offered as a kit option. Stoddard didn’t sell even one!!! It added 10k to the price. I understand the Lancair Columbia and the Cirrus both have metal mesh in the laminates. Bruce Glasair III I’m thinking about building a kit fiberglass aircraft but recently looked at one which took a direct lightning hit.  With no metal skin to protect the interior electronics, this airplanes entire electrical system was fried. It was hit while parked.  I would hate to take such a hit in the air. Have any of you taken lightning strikes in your fiberglass aircraft and what was the outcome? LP

Response:

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The military pays nothing for the system at all, Okay, but what can be done about that?  Charge the military for the services they receive?  That cost would then just have to be made part of the defense budget. Who really cares? The real problem is that twits like "machogrande" (machito?) spread the lie that we in GA don’t pay our "fair share" of the costs of using a system that was built to military/airline specs. We really find this attitude over in the bicycle/public transit newsgroups.

Twit??? You must be a British conservative.  The worst kind.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The military pays nothing for the system at all, Okay, but what can be done about that?  Charge the military for the services they receive?  That cost would then just have to be made part of the defense budget. Who really cares? I think that’s what I said.  Charging the military would make no difference as they’re funded by taxes already. The real problem is that twits like "machogrande" (machito?) spread the lie that we in GA don’t pay our "fair share" of the costs of using a system that was built to military/airline specs. Agreed.  Very little of the system could be shut down if general aviation didn’t exist.

Well perhaps you are right. It would seem to me, however, that if GA is paying a disproportionate share of the cost of the system, that the General Aviation lobby would be all in favor of user fees.  After all, what better way to fix the disparity than to have everyone pay for the services they actually use, and then GA would not be "subsidizing" the rest of the system. Strangely enough, however, it is here that all my conservative aviation friends depart from their philosophy of everyone being responsible for his own actions and paying his own way. I wonder why. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

It would seem to me, however, that if GA is paying a disproportionate share of the cost of the system, that the General Aviation lobby would be all in favor of user fees.  After all, what better way to fix the disparity than to have everyone pay for the services they actually use, and then GA would not be "subsidizing" the rest of the system.

I think the protest against user fees is not necessarily that the principle is unfair, but it would end up being just an additional tax. Fuel taxes would not go down one cent to compensate. If they gave a reasonable fee structure, then abolished all avgas taxes, you’d have a point – but that’s not what they’d do in the schemes they’ve been trying to pass so far. Also, look at all the other countries with user fees – they all have much higher taxes on avgas than are present in the US. The combined taxes and user fees in some countries represent appaling value for money (look at the fees you get charged after landing somewhere in Germany, and that’s in addition to tax on fuel – with all the money they’d charge, they should have the best general aviation system in the world, but instead the service is in fact quite poor). The current system in the US (IMHO) offers good value for money despite being imperfect. Secondly, user fees cost money to collect – a whole new billing infrastructure would need to be implemented. Flying clubs and FBO’s would have to institute quite a bit of extra accounting (requiring extra staff and expense) to ensure the right fees are collected from the right renter since it’s going to end up being charged to the N-number of the plane (and if the FBO/clubs don’t do it, then the government has to set up this infrastructure – yet more expense). The current system, whilst not perfect, is at least simple, easy and cheap to collect. All it’d end up doing is putting up the cost of flying without funding the system any better – like in Europe, it would represent appaling value for money. — Dylan Smith, Houston TX. http://www.icct.net/~dyls "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Response:

The military pays nothing for the system at all not true. Who do you think is paying for the development of the ASR-11 and contributing to the development of STARS? Who do you think pays for, maintains, and staffs all those RAPCONs and military towers that provide services to civil aviation? —

We do, the taxpayers. Julio * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

It has been my observation that most pilots, whose recreation is heavily subsidized by the public at large, (no way are GA pilots paying their fair share of the system they use) make no secret of their disdain of others’ receiving government largesse.

In what way is recreational flying subsidized by the public at large?

Response:

::There was nothing personal implied in the response.  It was a general ::observation, using the collective pronoun "we", and I stand by the ::statement. Hiya Macho. Well, I suppose that since you happen to be part of the "we" you’re talking about, it is entirely within your rights to "generally observe" about "our" behaviour. By the way, when the votes that elected you "we’s" representative have been tallied, please let me know, will ya? ::It has been my observation that most pilots, whose recreation is ::heavily subsidized by the public at large, (no way are GA pilots ::paying their fair share of the system they use) make no secret of ::their disdain of others’ receiving government largesse. What??  That is incredulous…I don’t know about you but  I pay enough taxes to make a couple of Medical Doctors (!!)  in West Africa very happy for at least a year! There you go again witht the generalizations about all of us (seemingly mute) GA pilots.  You would do well to realize this aphorism by Voltaire: "Every generalization is dangerous. Even this one" ::It is because, I believe, the majority of pilots are conservatives, ::who in principle  think that government belongs to them alone to ::abuse.   Um, okay.  I don’t agree with  you of course, but I have never claimed to know about and hence speak for any and everyone so I’ll stop just short (with heels screeching) of spouting my "general observation"  ;) ::If the shoe fits, wear it.  If it doesn’t, ignore it. Cheers! — Frederic Woodbridge http://www.ifconfig.com

Response:

Wow! A poster saying that GA does not carry its fair share. I can’t believe you really mean that. Have you no idea about the relationship between the fuel taxes and the cost of services, and the number of times your flight following request is denied because the controller is busy with IFR commercial traffic? GA gets the bumsrush too often, yet does pay its way. The majority of the system does not use the system for which it pays so dearly, yet 100% of the commercial and military system uses it. The military pays nothing for the system at all, and the fed piles the total cost into one budget section and allocates the cost to the private and commercial sector, and then whines that the private and commercial sector is not paying its way. Do you imagine for a moment that Air Force One with our hot buddy in the back is paying to use the system when it tootles around on his election junketeering – and don’t forget they always take the spare 747 along too in case the first one breaks down along the way, plus the press plane. Please think statements like the one you made through before making them, if you have the data at hand. The truth is that general aviation does pay it’s fair share when you consider the utilization of the atc system by the ga group as a whole. And GA pays the airports for services in the way of hangar rents and tiedown, local property taxes, license fees (depending on the state) as well as the fuel taxes which it pays whenever a ga plane takes a flight. Whenever I fly I am more than satisfied that I am paying my way. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Indeed a wonderful country, where we all can extol the government for subsidizing our recreational flying, and then with a clear conscience and in the same breath  bitch when it tries to help some poor bastard feed  and clothe his family. Who says you can’t have it both ways??? Ah jeez, I probably shouldn’t have posted about the "greatness" of America because I knew this was ultimately going to deteriorate into a political debate, which I really didn’t want. My apologies. However..(can’t let this one pass without at least a passing rebuttal I don’t quite agree with your posit about the government’s subsidizing of recreational flying.  As a tax-paying citizen, the provision by the government of a safe flying environment (just like driving, mind you) falls entirely within what is to be expected.  No more, no less! As for your "bitching in the same breath" statement, I have no idea where that came from!  What about my statement made you put such words into my mouth (or typing fingers?) Reading between the lines, are ya? Mind you, I have no arguments against government helping out someone down on their luck but that you assume praising the design and (relatively free)implementation of general aviation in the US automagically categorizes one as a "welfare state hater" is kinda warped logic, don’t you think? Heck, were you on welfare and no one helped and now you’re bitter? Cheers — Frederic Woodbridge Before you buy. There was nothing personal implied in the response.  It was a general observation, using the collective pronoun "we", and I stand by the statement. It has been my observation that most pilots, whose recreation is heavily subsidized by the public at large, (no way are GA pilots paying their fair share of the system they use) make no secret of their disdain of others’ receiving government largesse. It is because, I believe, the majority of pilots are conservatives, who in principle  think that government belongs to them alone to abuse. If the shoe fits, wear it.  If it doesn’t, ignore it.

Response:

The military pays nothing for the system at all,

Okay, but what can be done about that?  Charge the military for the services they receive?  That cost would then just have to be made part of the defense budget.

Response:

The military pays nothing for the system at all,

  Oh geez, another brain surgeon.

Response:

The military pays nothing for the system at all, Okay, but what can be done about that?  Charge the military for the services they receive?  That cost would then just have to be made part of the defense budget.

Who really cares? The real problem is that twits like "machogrande" (machito?) spread the lie that we in GA don’t pay our "fair share" of the costs of using a system that was built to military/airline specs. We really find this attitude over in the bicycle/public transit newsgroups.

Response:

The military pays nothing for the system at all, Okay, but what can be done about that?  Charge the military for the services they receive?  That cost would then just have to be made part of the defense budget. Who really cares?

I think that’s what I said.  Charging the military would make no difference as they’re funded by taxes already. The real problem is that twits like "machogrande" (machito?) spread the lie that we in GA don’t pay our "fair share" of the costs of using a system that was built to military/airline specs.

Agreed.  Very little of the system could be shut down if general aviation didn’t exist.

Response:

-snip- of very good information Sorry, but you are incorrect in the knee-jerk assessment that GA pilots are not paying their fair share.

Excellent post from someone who is in a position to actually know what he is talking about. Additionally, I would guess that if you added up the income taxes paid by the GA population, they are paying more than their ‘fair’ share anyway, so if some of that extra comes back in the form of subsidies, that is just messed up accounting, not something for nothing. BDWood

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There was nothing personal implied in the response.  It was a general observation, using the collective pronoun "we", and I stand by the statement. It has been my observation that most pilots, whose recreation is heavily subsidized by the public at large, (no way are GA pilots paying their fair share of the system they use) make no secret of their disdain of others’ receiving government largesse. It is because, I believe, the majority of pilots are conservatives, who in principle  think that government belongs to them alone to abuse.   If the shoe fits, wear it.  If it doesn’t, ignore it.

The shoe DOESN’T FIT!  You have committed a page 1 error! What subsidies does GA get, when we fly VFR, through the air, which is there, free for everybody to use? Do YOU pay YOUR "fair share" when you ride a bicycle across a bridge built for cars/trucks? Most of the ATC system is set up for the requirements of the military and airlines, not GA. We pay direct fuel taxes, tire taxes, tiedown/hangar (parking) fees to support the airports. In some states, Californis in particular, aircraft owners pay  1% of "fair market value" personal property tax and even taxes on their tiedowns to the local general fund, NONE of which goes back to support avaition. IMHO, GA subsidizes everybody else! Go attack some other windmill!

Response:

Altimeters don’t have any way to directly take temperature into account. My queston: Don’t you need DENSITY altitude to gauge performance? Yes…….and no.   You don’t really fly an altimeter.  If you want to calculate performances, then yes you need density altitude figures,  in the air you rarely have the time.  Unless you are flying an ILS to or below mins it really isn’t that important and when you are, you generally get the feild setting so you’re accurate enough and when you’re VFR you dont really need the accuracy anyway, I mean who looks at the altimeter when ththey’re on final? BTW  I heard your new book is out.  Maybe when this job is over I’ll be able to afford one.  Either that or another LLama.=:)

While I agree with your points… but, * you’ve got plenty of time to calculate density altitude on the ground – and that’s exactly what you need to do when operating at a grass field (read: shortish) at altitude.  ie for take-off.  The t/o P chart does this – and that’s the idea of it. Here in New Zealand we have a group rating system – but that pretty much rules out most airfields (it’s very conservative).  Most clubs make it manditory to work through a t/o P chart (as well as complete a load sheet and flight plan).  There are a number of fields over here that are around 500 metres long. PS: our flight plans have just become chargeable over here – I believe this will have serious ramifications for all aircraft movements over here.  Most private ownwers will simply not file one, not use the radio – and therefore no one will know they’re there.  I can’t say I blame the pilots. — Regards  Duncan

Response:

Indeed a wonderful country, where we all can extol the government for subsidizing our recreational flying, and then with a clear conscience and in the same breath  bitch when it tries to help some poor bastard feed  and clothe his family. Who says you can’t have it both ways???

Ah jeez, I probably shouldn’t have posted about the "greatness" of America because I knew this was ultimately going to deteriorate into a political debate, which I really didn’t want. My apologies. However..(can’t let this one pass without at least a passing rebuttal I don’t quite agree with your posit about the government’s subsidizing of recreational flying.  As a tax-paying citizen, the provision by the government of a safe flying environment (just like driving, mind you) falls entirely within what is to be expected.  No more, no less! As for your "bitching in the same breath" statement, I have no idea where that came from!  What about my statement made you put such words into my mouth (or typing fingers?) Reading between the lines, are ya? Mind you, I have no arguments against government helping out someone down on their luck but that you assume praising the design and (relatively free)implementation of general aviation in the US automagically categorizes one as a "welfare state hater" is kinda warped logic, don’t you think? Heck, were you on welfare and no one helped and now you’re bitter? Cheers — Frederic Woodbridge Before you buy.

Response:

says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – PS: our flight plans have just become chargeable over here – I believe this will have serious ramifications for all aircraft movements over here.  Most private ownwers will simply not file one, not use the radio – and therefore no one will know they’re there. I can’t say I blame the pilots. — Regards  Duncan I hate to sound like yet another jingoistic American but this is one more reason why I thank the stars everyday I takeoff into the wild blue "American" yonder! I can’t believe all the nonsense everyone else all over the world has to go through just to fly! — Frederic Woodbridge Before you buy. Indeed a wonderful country, where we all can extol the government for subsidizing our recreational flying, and then with a clear conscience and in the same breath  bitch when it tries to help some poor bastard feed  and clothe his family. Who says you can’t have it both ways???

I’d like to see it subsidised by the commercial operations side of things (this has nothing to to with Govn’t – but to do with the way they attempt cost recovery). It’s just not fair to make the lighties pay for what is in effect, there for the big boys.  eg. where I live, our main rwy is 3k’s long – why should I have to pay for that (I don’t need it). It’s just a small point – consider it generically please – effectively, the lighties are paying a much larger percentage than the commercial sector (divided by pax etc). How much do houses cost in the States — Regards  Duncan

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Indeed a wonderful country, where we all can extol the government for subsidizing our recreational flying, and then with a clear conscience and in the same breath  bitch when it tries to help some poor bastard feed  and clothe his family. Who says you can’t have it both ways??? Ah jeez, I probably shouldn’t have posted about the "greatness" of America because I knew this was ultimately going to deteriorate into a political debate, which I really didn’t want. My apologies. However..(can’t let this one pass without at least a passing rebuttal I don’t quite agree with your posit about the government’s subsidizing of recreational flying.  As a tax-paying citizen, the provision by the government of a safe flying environment (just like driving, mind you) falls entirely within what is to be expected.  No more, no less! As for your "bitching in the same breath" statement, I have no idea where that came from!  What about my statement made you put such words into my mouth (or typing fingers?) Reading between the lines, are ya? Mind you, I have no arguments against government helping out someone down on their luck but that you assume praising the design and (relatively free)implementation of general aviation in the US automagically categorizes one as a "welfare state hater" is kinda warped logic, don’t you think? Heck, were you on welfare and no one helped and now you’re bitter? Cheers — Frederic Woodbridge Before you buy.

There was nothing personal implied in the response.  It was a general observation, using the collective pronoun "we", and I stand by the statement. It has been my observation that most pilots, whose recreation is heavily subsidized by the public at large, (no way are GA pilots paying their fair share of the system they use) make no secret of their disdain of others’ receiving government largesse. It is because, I believe, the majority of pilots are conservatives, who in principle  think that government belongs to them alone to abuse.   If the shoe fits, wear it.  If it doesn’t, ignore it.

Response:

Indeed a wonderful country, where we all can extol the government for subsidizing our recreational flying, and then with a clear conscience and in the same breath bitch when it tries to help some poor bastard feed  and clothe his family. Who says you can’t have it both ways???

In what way does the government subsidize recreational flying?

Response:

I think your note reflects *your* experience with the pilots with whom you associate.  It sure doesn’t reflect the feelings of the pilots with whom *I* have associated over the past 25 years. –ron

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It has been my observation that most pilots, whose recreation is heavily subsidized by the public at large, (no way are GA pilots paying their fair share of the system they use) make no secret of their disdain of others’ receiving government largesse. It is because, I believe, the majority of pilots are conservatives, who in principle  think that government belongs to them alone to abuse. If the shoe fits, wear it.  If it doesn’t, ignore it.

Response:

+ It has been my observation that most pilots, whose recreation is + heavily subsidized by the public at large, (no way are GA pilots + paying their fair share of the system they use) make no secret of + their disdain of others’ receiving government largesse. Having spent two years serving on the board of a local airport, I’m always perplexed by statements such as the above. The airport I fly out of, year after year, contributes far more to the local community through direct and indirect taxes on revenue than it costs the local community to own and operate the airport – including the limited FAA subsidies it receives. Direct taxes include aircraft and hangar property taxes, fuel excises, sales taxes, and airport fees. Indirect taxes and revenue are the result of payroll, business, and income taxes on both the businesses and employees of those businesses that support aviation. Even including the ongoing maintenance and improvements, year after year after year, our local airport has generated far more revenue for the local community than it has ever received in FAA subsidies. So I’m sorry to say, but I disagree entirely with the characterization and assertion that GA pilots are not "paying their fair share of the system". Sure we use WX-BRIEF. Occasionally we use the ATC system with either VFR flight following or while under an IFR flight plan. But you are forgetting that things like VFR flight following are entirely voluntary for the ATC staff. It’s done when the controller’s workload permits it. ATC staff are not hired, nor employed with a primary responsibility for things like VFR flight following. As for the weather reporting, again, the number of GA pilots that use the weather reporting system on a regular and extensive basis is fairly low, and pales in comparison to the major air carrier usage of those facilities. You are forgetting that the vast majority of GA flights are training or currency flights that are local and VFR in nature. Very little of that traffic is actually captured by and actively controlled by the ATC system. The vast majority of those flights originate at local airports, many of which enjoy the same GA revenue windfall that our community enjoys, and routinely do not even have so much as a flight plan filed. Sorry, but you are incorrect in the knee-jerk assessment that GA pilots are not paying their fair share.

Response:

Altimeters don’t have any way to directly take temperature into account. My queston: Don’t you need DENSITY altitude to gauge performance?

Yes…….and no.   You don’t really fly an altimeter.  If you want to calculate performances, then yes you need density altitude figures,  in the air you rarely have the time.  Unless you are flying an ILS to or below mins it really isn’t that important and when you are, you generally get the feild setting so you’re accurate enough and when you’re VFR you dont really need the accuracy anyway, I mean who looks at the altimeter when ththey’re on final? BTW  I heard your new book is out.  Maybe when this job is over I’ll be able to afford one.  Either that or another LLama.=:)

Response:

PS: our flight plans have just become chargeable over here – I believe this will have serious ramifications for all aircraft movements over here.  Most private ownwers will simply not file one, not use the radio – and therefore no one will know they’re there. I can’t say I blame the pilots. — Regards  Duncan

I hate to sound like yet another jingoistic American but this is one more reason why I thank the stars everyday I takeoff into the wild blue "American" yonder! I can’t believe all the nonsense everyone else all over the world has to go through just to fly! — Frederic Woodbridge Before you buy.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – PS: our flight plans have just become chargeable over here – I believe this will have serious ramifications for all aircraft movements over here.  Most private ownwers will simply not file one, not use the radio – and therefore no one will know they’re there. I can’t say I blame the pilots. — Regards  Duncan I hate to sound like yet another jingoistic American but this is one more reason why I thank the stars everyday I takeoff into the wild blue "American" yonder! I can’t believe all the nonsense everyone else all over the world has to go through just to fly! — Frederic Woodbridge Before you buy.

Indeed a wonderful country, where we all can extol the government for subsidizing our recreational flying, and then with a clear conscience and in the same breath  bitch when it tries to help some poor bastard feed  and clothe his family. Who says you can’t have it both ways???

Response:

Dear Joe, and All: Altimeters don’t have any way to directly take temperature into account. Let’s say you landed at actual 13000′ but your altimeter there reads r = 12000′. So the pressure up there is somewhat higher than was predicted by your altimeter setting (put in at say 1700′). As you said, it was hot down below (which lowered the pressure and therefore lowered the altimeter setting) but relatively cooler up high (the isobars contracted) so pressure was higher than expected up top. Setting the altimeter to 29.92" Hg, assuming it’s working properly, gives you pressure altitude without any correction. My queston: Don’t you need DENSITY altitude to gauge performance? John. — John T. Lowry, PhD Flight Physics; Box 20919; Billings MT 59104 Voice: 406-248-2606 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m a helicopter pilot and am frequently making landings at high altitudes (12000 to 13000 ft). On days when the OAT is above the ISO Standard Temperture, my altimeter (which was set at a field elevation of 1700 ft) will read several hundred feet below the actual elevation of my landing site. Why is this?  I would think that at the higher temperatures, the opposite would happen.  Also – if I set the altimeter to 29.92" for computing the aircraft performance, is it actually showing me the true pressure altitude at these high elevation high OAT landings or is there a correction that I should be applying?

Response:

Dear Joe, and All: Altimeters don’t have any way to directly take temperature into account. Let’s say you landed at actual 13000′ but your altimeter there reads r = 12000′. So the pressure up there is somewhat higher than was predicted by your altimeter setting (put in at say 1700′). As you said, it was hot down below (which lowered the pressure and therefore lowered the altimeter setting) but relatively cooler up high (the isobars contracted) so pressure was higher than expected up top. Setting the altimeter to 29.92" Hg, assuming it’s working properly, gives you pressure altitude without any correction. My queston: Don’t you need DENSITY altitude to gauge performance?

YES. — Regards  Duncan

Response:

Question:

Need an accounting and IT consultant in Dallas,TX. $18 million company there needs someone LOCAL to handle both the accounting software and hardware (computers and network) for a new IT setup. This company needs help in identifying its info needs, selecting the right accounting software, developing the appropriate reports, etc. The client is looking for a long-term relationship, not an in-and-out deal.

You may want to investigate http://www.excelco.com where there is info and a POWERFUL tool for establishing needs and matching needs with appropriate solutions. Hardware/network setup will be fairly straightforward. Some old desktop computers that will have to be replaced, and a new network installed. Also have to arrange for reports and data to go to/from several regional offices, field salespeople, etc. Contact: Alex Auerbach Tel: 818-501-4221 (California time, don’t call before        10 a.m. Texas time.) Fax: 818-501-7825

– John Mosier,  excelco    voice: (800) 553-6911      fax: (602) 992-2026 2990 E. Northern, A-101  voice: (602) 992-8076 Phoenix, AZ 85028        http://excelco.com/ Accounting System Selector                          http://www.swinfo.com

Response:

Need an accounting and IT consultant in Dallas,TX. $18 million company there needs someone LOCAL to handle both the accounting software and hardware (computers and network) for a new IT setup. OK for an accountant and IT consultant to team up. This company needs help in identifying its info needs, selecting the right accounting software, developing the appropriate reports, etc. The client is looking for a long-term relationship, not an in-and-out deal. Hardware/network setup will be fairly straightforward. Some old desktop computers that will have to be replaced, and a new network installed. Also have to arrange for reports and data to go to/from several regional offices, field salespeople, etc. Contact: Alex Auerbach Tel: 818-501-4221 (California time, don’t call before        10 a.m. Texas time.) Fax: 818-501-7825

Response:

Question:

What the devil is an N.fl? How do you convert it to pound sterling figures to calculate various accounting ratios. For instance, if shareholder’s equity is in N.fl, and current assets is in pound sterling, how do you use them in the same ratio equation?

Response:

N.fl Dutch Guilder Convert as per usual rules Iain Swinburne

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What the devil is an N.fl? How do you convert it to pound sterling figures to calculate various accounting ratios. For instance, if shareholder’s equity is in N.fl, and current assets is in pound sterling, how do you use them in the same ratio equation?

Response:

What the devil is an N.fl? How do you convert it to pound sterling figures to calculate various accounting ratios. For instance, if shareholder’s equity is in N.fl, and current assets is in pound sterling, how do you use them in the same ratio equation?

N fl is a Nederlands Florin or a Dutch Guilder and use the cureent rate of exchange

Response:

Question:

one element that separates the sheep from the goats in blues, imo, is an artist and band’s willingness/ability to "break it down"–to ditch the volume and speed for some from-the-heart singing and playing that glows in contrast to the noise. risehigh

Response:

I completely agree.  I also discovered Slim Harpo at about the same time as Jimmy Reed.  These guys rock.  Their shuffles, although simple, never fail to amaze me with their swing and "big beat", for lack of a better term.  I like that they come from a different place in the blues than Muddy and the rest of the Delta bluesmen.  They never seem too serious. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I took a break from this thread too, but "DeBlooz" (sp?) had a good post early on where he advocated that beginners should concentrate on learning interesting chord accompaniment for blues rather than on soloing. When I was in high school (at the time that Cream ruled), I picked up Jimmy Reed’s "Live at Carnegie Hall" and thought it was the most boring crap I’d ever heard.  I now have the gold CD, having realized later on that it’s a goddam masterpiece as well as one of the main sources of all the things I thought most cool about the early Stones. Dan Haven’t been following the thread but thought I’d post. To play good blues you need good rhythm.  You could have all the tricks in the book, but its nothing without the proper foundation. If you are playing solo, you might have a little more room to pick around, and whatnot.  You still want to keep their feet tapping though. If you are with someone, then one of you should be playing the rhythm. Which is quite repetitive.  Frankly, playing 1-1-1-1-4-4-1-1-5-4-1-1 over and over again can get pretty dull, if you ask me.  But during that time, that’s when my partner can move me to the fullest extent. I won’t elaborate more, hopefully it made sense. — jiminut % Dear Mr. Fantasy play us a tune, % % something to make us all happy. % % Do anything to take us out of this gloom, % % sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy… %                     – Traffic "Dear Mr. Fantasy"

Response:

I took a break from this thread too, but "DeBlooz" (sp?) had a good post early on where he advocated that beginners should concentrate on learning interesting chord accompaniment for blues rather than on soloing. When I was in high school (at the time that Cream ruled), I picked up Jimmy Reed’s "Live at Carnegie Hall" and thought it was the most boring crap I’d ever heard.  I now have the gold CD, having realized later on that it’s a goddam masterpiece as well as one of the main sources of all the things I thought most cool about the early Stones. Dan

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Haven’t been following the thread but thought I’d post. To play good blues you need good rhythm.  You could have all the tricks in the book, but its nothing without the proper foundation. If you are playing solo, you might have a little more room to pick around, and whatnot.  You still want to keep their feet tapping though. If you are with someone, then one of you should be playing the rhythm. Which is quite repetitive.  Frankly, playing 1-1-1-1-4-4-1-1-5-4-1-1 over and over again can get pretty dull, if you ask me.  But during that time, that’s when my partner can move me to the fullest extent. I won’t elaborate more, hopefully it made sense. — jiminut % Dear Mr. Fantasy play us a tune, % % something to make us all happy. % % Do anything to take us out of this gloom, % % sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy… %                     – Traffic "Dear Mr. Fantasy"

Response:

I find that blues is fun to play but boring to listen to or watch. Anyone else

agree?    I happen to love the blues. But "I" like the good stuff. LOL Seriously …. I love good blues. But then I like good rock, jazz, swing, country, new age etc. etc. Do you like all that’s marketed of whatever particular music that your into? There is some awsome blues music that has been put out and some awsome blues music that is being put out. But I find most of what’s affailable at the CD shops is not what I’d recommend. Peace DBloozz

Response:

Haven’t been following the thread but thought I’d post. To play good blues you need good rhythm.  You could have all the tricks in the book, but its nothing without the proper foundation.   If you are playing solo, you might have a little more room to pick around, and whatnot.  You still want to keep their feet tapping though. If you are with someone, then one of you should be playing the rhythm.  Which is quite repetitive.  Frankly, playing 1-1-1-1-4-4-1-1-5-4-1-1 over and over again can get pretty dull, if you ask me.  But during that time, that’s when my partner can move me to the fullest extent. I won’t elaborate more, hopefully it made sense. — jiminut % Dear Mr. Fantasy play us a tune, % % something to make us all happy. % % Do anything to take us out of this gloom, % % sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy… %                      - Traffic "Dear Mr. Fantasy"

Response:

I find that blues is fun to play but boring to listen to or watch. Anyone else agree?

       Listen to Alvin Lee do "Help Me" or "I Woke Up This Morning", off the "Alvin Lee & Ten Years After" "Pure Blues" CD, then say that, you hear all this shit about Stevie Ray Vaughn, Eric Clapton, etc, being bluesmen HA! You’ve never heard a white boy do blues until you’ve heard Alvin Lee do it. But because this guy never sold his soul to the record companies they shoved him aside like an old shoe, but if there are any old fogies like myself reading this post, they’ll hear what I’m saying, smile and probably go dig out their favorite Ten Years After album and reminise about one fine bluesman.           — Jp — To Reply E-Mail you must remove the "-no-spam" from my E-mail address

Response:

It’s all in what flips your trigger. Personally I can hear in the music when something is played with energy and emotion, or if it’s just finely crafted and methodically designed to appeal to the masses. In this day and age, it’s hard to tell if a signed new band in fact is really as pitiful as they sound,  or if they are made to sound like crap because it appeals to the masses. Yes the record companies have now found out that they can also be successful in marketing crappy sounding bands. The advent of Squirel Nut Zipper and the swing is very well wrote, crafted, devised, and also has energy. It shows they are having fun playing what they are. It’s always been hard for me to get onto Pink Floyd, not because it wan’t well wrote and layed out, in fact it was, but I found their music void of any energy. At times it seemed to contain anti-energy. Well there was and still is a market for that, and David Gillmore was there only bright spot to me because there was emotion in his parts that were endlessly surrounded by depression, or the Dark Side of the Moon. Which brings me to the blues. Say what you may about it being boring, but there can be no doubt Stevie Ray was very alive at ever session. And in all fairness to the olde 1,4,5 PROGRESSION, it has alot of mileage, but somehow I don’t believe it’s going to ever run out of energy, atleast I hope not. But one thing is for sure, there is always an econo-line traveling somewhere to find the next stop to jam to 1,4,5 hours on end. The SaboDizzySam    

Response:

He was also a pioneer in ultra fast playing. And I mean that with all respect due him. I won’t call it shredding because in this NG that seems to mean brainless neo-classical riffing for the sake of speed alone (I’ll agree with part of that). Alvin Lee was one of the first in rock to really push the envelope speedwise and he did it using rock and blues licks. That’s one of the reasons his blues could nail you. Johnny Winter was no slowpoke either. Steve – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I find that blues is fun to play but boring to listen to or watch. Anyone else agree?        Listen to Alvin Lee do "Help Me" or "I Woke Up This Morning", off the "Alvin Lee & Ten Years After" "Pure Blues" CD, then say that, you hear all this shit about Stevie Ray Vaughn, Eric Clapton, etc, being bluesmen HA! You’ve never heard a white boy do blues until you’ve heard Alvin Lee do it. But because this guy never sold his soul to the record companies they shoved him aside like an old shoe, but if there are any old fogies like myself reading this post, they’ll hear what I’m saying, smile and probably go dig out their favorite Ten Years After album and reminise about one fine bluesman.           — Jp — To Reply E-Mail you must remove the "-no-spam" from my E-mail address

Response:

blues is more than just the notes that you hear.  its the feeling behind the riffs and runs.  Great blues don’t just play the blues, they live the blues. A blues guitarist has done his job when he can make you feel the blues. johnnyreb

Response:

I find that blues is fun to play but boring to listen to or watch. Anyone else agree? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m gonna piss off some people here but most blues is super boring, and is even worse than some techno stuff. Guess what, I love blues. Guess what, you’re right, at least when it comes to most "blues bands." Same old patterns, over and over and over zzzzzzzzzzzzz. Yup…stuff they stole from Eric Clapton who stole it from Buddy Guy who stole it from BB King who stole it from Lonnie Johnson, who stole it from Blind Lemon Jefferson, who stole it from… It’s not so bad that it’s stolen, but at least you should add your own twist to it, like the guys above did.    Some people have streched it out and improved it by adding extra bits(Stevie Ray).  But generally it’s snoozing stuff folks. That’s because most of what passes for blues bands are actually just old white guys who can’t stand current pop, can’t write songs, and want to have a cover band, so they do "blues."  Most of the time what this means is that they’re a ZZ Top/Allman Brothers/Eric Clapton cover band doing white 60s artists’ versions of Chicago blues’ artists versions of Delta blues songs written in 1928.  That’s why it’s boring, because it is.        Using a bluesy solo in the context of a non-blues song can sound really good, so why haven’t many blues guys done the opposite?   In this I would include non-predictable chord and key changes, etc.   If someone knows of bands that fit this description post the names please. Robert Jr. Lockwood, and Son Seals, to start you off with.  Ronnie Earl and the Broadcasters, especially on their most recent albums, also do a lot of jazzy stuff. Duke Robillard is very worth listening to.  T-bone Walker too; check out his CD, "T-Bone Blues" for examples of jazz and blues crossing over and for a good solo style.  From there you can check out Bobby "Blue" Bland’s early stuff for killer guitar and soul/blues vibe.     Kenny Wade is a prime example:   every chord,note,and line is like an old smelly shoe–completely worn out. I think you mean Kenny Wayne Shepherd, and yes, he’s master of the pentatonic snoozefest.  To be fair he’s just a kid suffering from a lot of record company hype, and after it’s all over he may actually become a good guitar player, but for now…well…you’re right. I also forgot to mention Keb’ Mo’, Alvin Youngblood Hart, and Corey Harris as guys worth listening to for their non-boringness. A lot of people really think blues is all about some guy with an electric guitar getting onstage and playing pentatonic scales for an hour with the occasional scream, "Yow! You know I woke up this mornin! Blues sittin’ on my face!" The best way to become disabused of this is to get a CD called "Son House, Father of the Blues" on Columbia, and listen to it.  Son House was the guy who taught Robert Johnson guitar, and he has a song called "Death Letter Blues."  That song is so fucking intense.  If aliens came to earth and said, "Give us one reason why we shouldn’t destroy the human race!"  I would just play them Son House’s "Death Letter Blues," and they would fly away in silence.

Response:

I’m gonna piss off some people here but most blues is super boring, and is even worse than some techno stuff.

Guess what, I love blues. Guess what, you’re right, at least when it comes to most "blues bands." Same old patterns, over and over and over zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Yup…stuff they stole from Eric Clapton who stole it from Buddy Guy who stole it from BB King who stole it from Lonnie Johnson, who stole it from Blind Lemon Jefferson, who stole it from… It’s not so bad that it’s stolen, but at least you should add your own twist to it, like the guys above did.    Some people have streched it out and improved it by adding extra bits(Stevie Ray).  But generally it’s snoozing stuff folks.

That’s because most of what passes for blues bands are actually just old white guys who can’t stand current pop, can’t write songs, and want to have a cover band, so they do "blues."  Most of the time what this means is that they’re a ZZ Top/Allman Brothers/Eric Clapton cover band doing white 60s artists’ versions of Chicago blues’ artists versions of Delta blues songs written in 1928.  That’s why it’s boring, because it is.          Using a bluesy solo in the context of a non-blues song can sound really good, so why haven’t many blues guys done the opposite?   In this I would include non-predictable chord and key changes, etc.   If someone knows of bands that fit this description post the names please.

Robert Jr. Lockwood, and Son Seals, to start you off with.  Ronnie Earl and the Broadcasters, especially on their most recent albums, also do a lot of jazzy stuff. Duke Robillard is very worth listening to.  T-bone Walker too; check out his CD, "T-Bone Blues" for examples of jazz and blues crossing over and for a good solo style.  From there you can check out Bobby "Blue" Bland’s early stuff for killer guitar and soul/blues vibe.     Kenny Wade is a prime example:   every chord,note,and line is like an old smelly shoe–completely worn out.

I think you mean Kenny Wayne Shepherd, and yes, he’s master of the pentatonic snoozefest.  To be fair he’s just a kid suffering from a lot of record company hype, and after it’s all over he may actually become a good guitar player, but for now…well…you’re right. I also forgot to mention Keb’ Mo’, Alvin Youngblood Hart, and Corey Harris as guys worth listening to for their non-boringness.   A lot of people really think blues is all about some guy with an electric guitar getting onstage and playing pentatonic scales for an hour with the occasional scream, "Yow! You know I woke up this mornin! Blues sittin’ on my face!"   The best way to become disabused of this is to get a CD called "Son House, Father of the Blues" on Columbia, and listen to it.  Son House was the guy who taught Robert Johnson guitar, and he has a song called "Death Letter Blues."  That song is so fucking intense.  If aliens came to earth and said, "Give us one reason why we shouldn’t destroy the human race!"  I would just play them Son House’s "Death Letter Blues," and they would fly away in silence. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

T-bone Walker too; check out his CD, "T-Bone Blues" for examples of jazz and blues crossing over and for a good solo style.  From there you can check out Bobby "Blue" Bland’s early stuff for killer guitar and soul/blues vibe.

And do not forget Robben Ford.  That man can crossover blues and jazz like I don’t know who! Jerry Pasquarella

Response:

Exactly.  I can’t agree with Junior more.  Open blues jams do a lot to foster this sort of thing, as what you get is a bunch of guys who know the I-IV-V progression, a pentatonic scale, and all of a sudden think they can play blues…  More often than not, you get a trainwreck on stage as everyone tries to cram 8 zillion notes into 24 bars.  And this gets REALLY tired, in a hurry, after you’ve heard 4 or 5 people solo over "Sweet Home Chicago" for the 3rd time in a night.  There is no reason why a song has to last 10 minutes when there are all of nine or twelve lines of lyrics in it. I’m in Orlando, FL and with a few notable exceptions, most of the local "Blues" bands or "blues" players are the same old disheartened ex-classic rockers who think cranking up a Strat and tearing through a note-for-note attempt at SRV’s "Pride and Joy" qualifies them as a blues player.  It IS boring.  Even more frustrating is being up on stage trying to play and having people shouting "Hendrix!"  or "Allman Brothers!"   While I might listen to these guys on occasion and respect their rightful place in the hierarchy of guitar greats, it’s just not the vibe I’m trying to pull off.  Some people just don’t get it, I guess. While I’m venting here, are any of the other blues players frustrated at "sound techs" at clubs who mix every band like they were an arena rock band?  This also goes a long way to destroy the subtlety and emotion represented in the blues… It’s hard to be dynamic when every bass drum hit sounds like John Bonham (no offense to the Zeppelin contingent…) and your rhythm playing keeps creeping up in volume no matter how much you turn your guitar down. I agree also with all the players listed below… Ronnie Earl’s "Szeren" is a great example.  Check out Hollywood Fats, T-Bone, Pee Wee Crayton, Tiny Grimes (an amazing tenor guitar player), Zu Zu Bollin, Duke Robillard (some killer stuff with Roomful of Blues too).  The good stuff is far from boring, you just have to look in the right place to find it. Boogie on, -Itchy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m gonna piss off some people here but most blues is super boring, and is even worse than some techno stuff. Guess what, I love blues. Guess what, you’re right, at least when it comes to most "blues bands." Same old patterns, over and over and over zzzzzzzzzzzzz. Yup…stuff they stole from Eric Clapton who stole it from Buddy Guy who stole it from BB King who stole it from Lonnie Johnson, who stole it from Blind Lemon Jefferson, who stole it from… It’s not so bad that it’s stolen, but at least you should add your own twist to it, like the guys above did.    Some people have streched it out and improved it by adding extra bits(Stevie Ray).  But generally it’s snoozing stuff folks. That’s because most of what passes for blues bands are actually just old white guys who can’t stand current pop, can’t write songs, and want to have a cover band, so they do "blues."  Most of the time what this means is that they’re a ZZ Top/Allman Brothers/Eric Clapton cover band doing white 60s artists’ versions of Chicago blues’ artists versions of Delta blues songs written in 1928.  That’s why it’s boring, because it is.        Using a bluesy solo in the context of a non-blues song can sound really good, so why haven’t many blues guys done the opposite?   In this I would include non-predictable chord and key changes, etc.   If someone knows of bands that fit this description post the names please. Robert Jr. Lockwood, and Son Seals, to start you off with.  Ronnie Earl and the Broadcasters, especially on their most recent albums, also do a lot of jazzy stuff. Duke Robillard is very worth listening to.  T-bone Walker too; check out his CD, "T-Bone Blues" for examples of jazz and blues crossing over and for a good solo style.  From there you can check out Bobby "Blue" Bland’s early stuff for killer guitar and soul/blues vibe.     Kenny Wade is a prime example:   every chord,note,and line is like an old smelly shoe–completely worn out. I think you mean Kenny Wayne Shepherd, and yes, he’s master of the pentatonic snoozefest.  To be fair he’s just a kid suffering from a lot of record company hype, and after it’s all over he may actually become a good guitar player, but for now…well…you’re right. I also forgot to mention Keb’ Mo’, Alvin Youngblood Hart, and Corey Harris as guys worth listening to for their non-boringness. A lot of people really think blues is all about some guy with an electric guitar getting onstage and playing pentatonic scales for an hour with the occasional scream, "Yow! You know I woke up this mornin! Blues sittin’ on my face!" The best way to become disabused of this is to get a CD called "Son House, Father of the Blues" on Columbia, and listen to it.  Son House was the guy who taught Robert Johnson guitar, and he has a song called "Death Letter Blues."  That song is so fucking intense.  If aliens came to earth and said, "Give us one reason why we shouldn’t destroy the human race!"  I would just play them Son House’s "Death Letter Blues," and they would fly away in silence.

Response:

But ya just gotta love me. Without assholes like me adding contrast, how would you know who’s cool? If everyone’s cool, then no one’s cool. It’s a thankless job… Panky PS Could I get her phone number??? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Boy you have a real problem.  I work with a lady like you. Can’t keep your mouth shut no matter how much or how little you know about a subject.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m gonna piss off some people here but most blues is super boring, and is even worse than some techno stuff. Same old patterns, over and over and over zzzzzzzzzzzzz.     Some people have streched it out and improved it by adding extra bits(Stevie Ray).  But generally it’s snoozing stuff folks.   My favorite musicians in most blues bands arethe drummers.   Many blues drummers are superb and can salvage a borefest on occasion.   The guitarists in many blues bands sound so fucking boring,  however.         Using a bluesy solo in the context of a non-blues song can sound really good, so why haven’t many blues guys done the opposite?   In this I would include non-predictable chord and key changes, etc.   If someone knows of bands that fit this description post the names please.      Kenny Wade is a prime example:   every chord,note,and line is like an old smelly shoe–completely worn out.

You said it, boy. Most of the "greats", like BB King, I’ve never enjoyed. His playing is *extremely* boring and unenlightening. But people like Hendrix and SRV, and the live Cream stuff I like. Of course, that’s when Clapton (another "great") actually was good. But as the saying goes, there’s no accounting for taste, which also explains why some people like techno. blaine

Response:

Same old patterns, over and over and over zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

    I agree most of the stuff they are marketing as blues today is boring. I don’t buy it. The really great players are not being marketed today. Except for the old names and some of them are not that entertaining. The good stuff ishard to find most the time. I special order it. The blues that is boring is being played by people that doen’t know how to play blues. Just because the major record companies are marketing someone as blues doesn’t mean a thing. Try Ronnie Earl, Rod Piazza, Anson Fundenberg, Mike Morgan, and James Harman. To name a couple …. I could go on. If you want guitar heros don’t look to the blues please. That’s what’s screwed up the blues scene today. A good blues guitar solo isn’t just running a pentatonic scale and holding a note once in a while. It should be an extention of the vocals. Peace DBloozz

Response:

Listen to The Butterfield Blues Band’s East/West.  Throw in a little Robben Ford for good measure.  There’s lots of adventuresome guitarists out there. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m gonna piss off some people here but most blues is super boring, and is even worse than some techno stuff. Same old patterns, over and over and over zzzzzzzzzzzzz.    Some people have streched it out and improved it by adding extra bits(Stevie Ray).  But generally it’s snoozing stuff folks.   My favorite musicians in most blues bands arethe drummers.   Many blues drummers are superb and can salvage a borefest on occasion.   The guitarists in many blues bands sound so fucking boring,  however.        Using a bluesy solo in the context of a non-blues song can sound really good, so why haven’t many blues guys done the opposite?   In this I would include non-predictable chord and key changes, etc.   If someone knows of bands that fit this description post the names please.     Kenny Wade is a prime example:   every chord,note,and line is like an old smelly shoe–completely worn out.

Response:

I’m gonna piss off some people here but most blues is super boring, and is even worse than some techno stuff. Same old patterns, over and over and over zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

*Great* blues isn’t boring.  It’s just that it’s easy to play mediocre blues, and there’s alot of people doing it. Chip McDonald ]]]  "Try to be reasonable whenever possible" ]]]  http://www.mindspring.com/~chipm/chip.htm ]]]  Musician, voracious reader, overly contemplative thinker, punching bag for fate. ]]] "People think I’m in my own world; that’s ok, they know me there" –  J. Hodgson

Response:

The Chipster, the Chip-o-rama, the Chip-a-tola, tellin it like it is, layin down the word, the Chipinator, Chiiiippppp.  Good call… Panky – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -*Great* blues isn’t boring.  It’s just that it’s easy to play mediocre blues, and there’s alot of people doing it.

Response:

Thank you for not thanking me for loving the blues. Panky

Boy you have a real problem.  I work with a lady like you. Can’t keep your mouth shut no matter how much or how little you know about a subject. Dylan

Response:

I’m gonna piss off some people here but most blues is super boring,

To you. Same old patterns, over and over and over zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

There is more to blues than the "patterns"  The guitarists in many blues bands sound so fucking boring,  however.

    Sounds like you have been listening to modern, cliched, ripoff blues players.  The great players aren;t boring-Muddy Waters, Howlin Wolf, the Kings, Guy, Rush, ect., ect.   For more ‘accessible’ blues material-SRV, Clapton’s Bluesbreakers, Johnny Winter, Allman Bros., some Hendrix, some Zep (I can’t quit you, You shook me, Since I’ve Been Lovin You, ect.)  These are the guys that introduced my gen. to the blues-there is so much good blues material out there;many diff. players all with different sounds. sing a bluesy solo in the context of a non-blues song can sound really good, so why haven’t many blues guys done the opposite?  

Then it wouldn’t be ‘blues’ BTW, there are more variations on a theme than you think.     Kenny Wade is a prime example:   every chord,note,and line is like an old smelly shoe–completely worn out.

Listen to the guys that MADE the shoe. If the blue isn’t you thing, that’s fine, but just listen to the masters(if you haven’t already) before you judge it all. Daniel

Response:

Thank you for not thanking me for loving the blues. Panky – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m gonna piss off some people here but most blues is super boring, and is even worse than some techno stuff. Same old patterns, over and over and over zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Response:

I’m gonna piss off some people here but most blues is super boring, and is even worse than some techno stuff. Same old patterns, over and over and over zzzzzzzzzzzzz.     Some people have streched it out and improved it by adding extra bits(Stevie Ray).  But generally it’s snoozing stuff folks.   My favorite musicians in most blues bands arethe drummers.   Many blues drummers are superb and can salvage a borefest on occasion.   The guitarists in many blues bands sound so fucking boring,  however.         Using a bluesy solo in the context of a non-blues song can sound really good, so why haven’t many blues guys done the opposite?   In this I would include non-predictable chord and key changes, etc.   If someone knows of bands that fit this description post the names please.      Kenny Wade is a prime example:   every chord,note,and line is like an old smelly shoe–completely worn out.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m gonna piss off some people here but most blues is super boring, and is even worse than some techno stuff. Same old patterns, over and over and over zzzzzzzzzzzzz.     Some people have streched it out and improved it by adding extra bits(Stevie Ray).  But generally it’s snoozing stuff folks.   My favorite musicians in most blues bands arethe drummers.   Many blues drummers are superb and can salvage a borefest on occasion.   The guitarists in many blues bands sound so fucking boring,  however.         Using a bluesy solo in the context of a non-blues song can sound really good, so why haven’t many blues guys done the opposite?   In this I would include non-predictable chord and key changes, etc.   If someone knows of bands that fit this description post the names please.      Kenny Wade is a prime example:   every chord,note,and line is like an old smelly shoe–completely worn out.

Blues is much like jazz only slower.  The repetitious progression allows soloists and vocalists to improvise.  The biggest problem with most blues bands today is that they do not improvise.  They copy other peoples solos note for note.  Music is like life, you have to be open minded and play what you feel. The best bands are the ones that play in open jam sessions with people that they have not played with before.  They make it up as they go along. PT

Response:

In the Hendrix BBC tapes there’s a bit where he mentions that what he’s doing is "freaky blues". . – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m gonna piss off some people here but most blues is super boring, and is

Response:

Question:

Now, this fellow Rich has some good points– that you should definitely seek a neurologist or neurosurgeon for a head injury.  That is a serious medical condition that needs immediate medical (that is, M.D./western) intervention. While I am open to the possibility that homeopathy may help some people, either as a therapy in itself or as an ADJUNCT to biomedicine, I also realize that biomedicine is absolutely essential in most critical, serious conditions (as yours seems to be.)   That being said, I wonder why Rich seems so determined to militantly BASH and DISMISS even the POSSIBILITY that homeopathy MAY be useful.

I realize that you think that I TOTALLY dismiss homeopathy as not useful for anything. Actually I DO believe that in many cases individuals with minor problems would benefit from homeopathy or ANY other alternative modality due to the placebo response (which is not well understood). Too many people too quickly turn to drugs when they are not really needed. Sometimes doing nothing is better than taking drugs. The trick is knowing when to do which. My major concern is those who think that homeopathy can supplant conventional medicine for severe conditions in which timely diagnosis and treatment is essential.   While I agree with him that many in the so-called "alternative" community are quick to dismiss those who have not received "cures" via their methods, he seems to be just as closed-minded in the opposite direction.

I have said repeatedly that if placebo controlled double blind studies that are replicated independently indicate that homeopathy works better than placebo then I will reconsider my position. I like to think of myself as open minded but not so open minded that my brains fall out. There is a difference between open mindedness and gullibility. What is needed today is a group of people whose eyes are open to POSSIBILITIES, yet remain SKEPTICAL enough to make real strides forward in finding those modalities that truly work– and who are willing to have an open, critical, unbiased, yet RESPECTFUL dialogue with those of ALL opinions.

I am all for doing studies to test the effectiveness for the therapy. I remain skeptical at this time however. Aloha,

Rich Far better to be uncertain Than to be sure and be wrong Note: Remember to remove the antispamming "NOT" in email address  before sending me email

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Now, this fellow Rich has some good points– that you should definitely seek a neurologist or neurosurgeon for a head injury.  That is a serious medical condition that needs immediate medical (that is, M.D./western) intervention.  While I am open to the possibility that homeopathy may help some people, either as a therapy in itself or as an ADJUNCT to biomedicine, I also realize that biomedicine is absolutely essential in most critical, serious conditions (as yours seems to be.) That being said, I wonder why Rich seems so determined to militantly BASH and DISMISS even the POSSIBILITY that homeopathy MAY be useful.  While I agree with him that many in the so-called "alternative" community are quick to dismiss those who have not received "cures" via their methods, he seems to be just as closed-minded in the opposite direction. What is needed today is a group of people whose eyes are open to POSSIBILITIES, yet remain SKEPTICAL enough to make real strides forward in finding those modalities that truly work– and who are willing to have an open, critical, unbiased, yet RESPECTFUL dialogue with those of ALL opinions. What are NOT needed are those, both onthe "left" (militant "alternative" types) and the "right" (militnat "biomedical" types) who feel the need to dismiss out of hand all those who do not agree with them. We’re all in this together, and we’re all doing the best we can. Of course these are just my own opinions… glad to hear yours…

I second those emotions. Syd

Response:

Have you thought of a second opinion? i wrote to this list earlier about taking AGARICUS for a brain injury and it making my symptoms worse… Well it has been 3 weeks or more since the worsening of the symptoms and i have seen NO improvement since then.. NONE.. i called my homeopath who is reputable and all he said was to come back in and try something else…. WHY? so i can have the same thing happen again? this is pure hell for me and i woudl love for some input from someone out here.. thanks!!! by the way i have drank tons of coffee and antidoting the stuff will not work, the damage is done!! -Dan

Coffee does not antidote everything.

Response:

Now, this fellow Rich has some good points– that you should definitely seek a neurologist or neurosurgeon for a head injury.  That is a serious medical condition that needs immediate medical (that is, M.D./western) intervention. While I am open to the possibility that homeopathy may help some people, either as a therapy in itself or as an ADJUNCT to biomedicine, I also realize that biomedicine is absolutely essential in most critical, serious conditions (as yours seems to be.)   That being said, I wonder why Rich seems so determined to militantly BASH and DISMISS even the POSSIBILITY that homeopathy MAY be useful.  While I agree with him that many in the so-called "alternative" community are quick to dismiss those who have not received "cures" via their methods, he seems to be just as closed-minded in the opposite direction. What is needed today is a group of people whose eyes are open to POSSIBILITIES, yet remain SKEPTICAL enough to make real strides forward in finding those modalities that truly work– and who are willing to have an open, critical, unbiased, yet RESPECTFUL dialogue with those of ALL opinions. What are NOT needed are those, both onthe "left" (militant "alternative" types) and the "right" (militnat "biomedical" types) who feel the need to dismiss out of hand all those who do not agree with them. We’re all in this together, and we’re all doing the best we can. Of course these are just my own opinions… glad to hear yours… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – i wrote to this list earlier about taking AGARICUS for a brain injury and it making my symptoms worse… Well it has been 3 weeks or more since the worsening of the symptoms and i have seen NO improvement since then.. NONE.. i called my homeopath who is reputable and all he said was to come back in and try something else…. WHY? so i can have the same thing happen again? this is pure hell for me and i woudl love for some input from someone out here.. thanks!!! by the way i have drank tons of coffee and antidoting the stuff will not work, the damage is done!! -Dan Hi Dan, I think you should go back to your homeopath and shout at him.  Complaining to strangers will do you no good and not relieve your anxiety. But shouting at him is SURE to do a lot of good:-)  I took my kid to a homeopathic MD about 4 years ago and during the interview he told me one day the kid would be able to carry his remedy for relief and that is all that he would need for the most part.  In your dreams I thought- all I wanted was a good night sleep every few days -you will understand this if you know anybody with a kid with asthma -so any improvement would have been fine by me.  Well, four years later it has happened my kid is able to use a remedy instead of a puffer and he is rarely needs his remedy. That is great that your kid is doing well. Many children "outgrow" their asthma so it is hardly clear that the homeopathy was the reason for the improvement. But it really does not matter as your child is doing well. Another thing I will tell you the aggravation you experienced is not uncommon if the remedy is well matched. Perhaps you could share with us how to distinguish aggravation due to a "healing crisis" from aggravation due to accumulation of blood in the brain??? Do you think that your average homeopath (with no formal medical training) can distinguish the two??? There is lots more to this, you will have to talk to your homeopath. Yes there is a lot more to this but will the homeopath have the knowledge to understand exactly what is involved after a brain injury.    Also, this is what is so funny about the arguments that what can be in a remedy after all it is so dilute it is nonexistent etc. – people do have reactions to them and sometimes it is unpleasant. What do you think they are reacting to? Impurities in the homeopathic remedy perhaps?? A worsening of their condition due to lack of treatment? Or some mysterious energy force contained in the homeopathic remedy due to the dilution and succussion??? Must be the latter:-)  Usually though, even though some things come back you handle it better in other words you should have felt better even though you had an aggravation and it appears this did not happen in you case. How can you possibly say he should have felt better???? Do you have a frigging clue what his problem is????? Do you think homeopathy can treat a subdural hematoma??? On second thought you probably do.   Also, there is a law of cure  one part of which  goes something like this – you will experience your symptoms in reverse order to their original appearance. Law?? Theory perhaps?? Fantasy more likely.  There is lots more to this.  Talk to you homeopath.  He should listen and explain things to you if he is a qualified reputable homeopath. Don’t take another remedy until you know exactly what to expect from the remedy. How does ANYONE know what to expect from a remedy EXACTLY. Everyone is different and it is not predictable how people will react with 100% certainty.  My nephew went to a homepath for a chest condition and the homeopath gave him a remedy and then proceeded to describe what my nephew could expect by way of symptoms ie first you will experience etc.  Well, that is exactly how my nephew’s illness progressed  after the remedy and it really blew him away. Do  u think that maybe your nephew is suggestible and if the homeopath described another set of symptoms that he may have had those??? Keep an open mind. You should have read up on homeopathy before you tried it so you had some idea of what it is and what questions to ask. If he read up on it he may not have even tried it.  You should have some confidence in your homeopath’s ability to help you. Why?? Aloha, Rich Far better to be uncertain Than to be sure and be wrong Note: Remember to remove the antispamming "NOT" in email address before sending me email

Response:

i wrote to this list earlier about taking AGARICUS for a brain injury and it making my symptoms worse… Well it has been 3 weeks or more since the worsening of the symptoms and i have seen NO improvement since then.. NONE.. i called my homeopath who is reputable and all he said was to come back in and try something else…. WHY? so i can have the same thing happen again? this is pure hell for me and i woudl love for some input from someone out here.. thanks!!! by the way i have drank tons of coffee and antidoting the stuff will not work, the damage is done!! -Dan

Hi Dan, I think you should go back to your homeopath and shout at him.  Complaining to strangers will do you no good and not relieve your anxiety.  I took my kid to a homeopathic MD about 4 years ago and during the interview he told me one day the kid would be able to carry his remedy for relief and that is all that he would need for the most part.  In your dreams I thought- all I wanted was a good night sleep every few days -you will understand this if you know anybody with a kid with asthma -so any improvement would have been fine by me.  Well, four years later it has happened my kid is able to use a remedy instead of a puffer and he is rarely needs his remedy.   Before  we saw our  homeopathic doctor,  we had used homeopathy but mainly  what is referred to as polypharmacy not individualized treatment.  Another thing I will tell you the aggravation you experienced is not uncommon if the remedy is well matched.  There is lots more to this, you will have to talk to your homeopath.    Also, this is what is so funny about the arguments that what can be in a remedy after all it is so dilute it is nonexistent etc. – people do have reactions to them and sometimes it is unpleasant.  Usually though, even though some things come back you handle it better in other words you should have felt better even though you had an aggravation and it appears this did not happen in you case.   Also, there is a law of cure  one part of which  goes something like this – you will experience your symptoms in reverse order to their original appearance.  There is lots more to this.  Talk to you homeopath.  He should listen and explain things to you if he is a qualified reputable homeopath. Don’t take another remedy until you know exactly what to expect from the remedy.  My nephew went to a homepath for a chest condition and the homeopath gave him a remedy and then proceeded to describe what my nephew could expect by way of symptoms ie first you will experience etc.  Well, that is exactly how my nephew’s illness progressed  after the remedy and it really blew him away.  You should have read up on homeopathy before you tried it so you had some idea of what it is and what questions to ask. Maybe you could find someone who has also used remedies to talk to. Homeopathy is a different approach from the it’s a symptom -kill it approach.  Also, not everything can be cured  depending on circumstances. You should have also discussed this with your homeopath ie what can you expect at best from homeopathic treatment or what does your homeopath expect to achieve given your present condition.  You should have some confidence in your homeopath’s ability to help you.   I hope this helps a bit.   If you have a specific question about agarius I will try to find the answer for you.      Angela  

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – i wrote to this list earlier about taking AGARICUS for a brain injury and it making my symptoms worse… Well it has been 3 weeks or more since the worsening of the symptoms and i have seen NO improvement since then.. NONE.. i called my homeopath who is reputable and all he said was to come back in and try something else…. WHY? so i can have the same thing happen again? this is pure hell for me and i woudl love for some input from someone out here.. thanks!!! by the way i have drank tons of coffee and antidoting the stuff will not work, the damage is done!! -Dan Hi Dan, I think you should go back to your homeopath and shout at him.  Complaining to strangers will do you no good and not relieve your anxiety.

But shouting at him is SURE to do a lot of good:-)   I took my kid to a homeopathic MD about 4 years ago and during the interview he told me one day the kid would be able to carry his remedy for relief and that is all that he would need for the most part.  In your dreams I thought- all I wanted was a good night sleep every few days -you will understand this if you know anybody with a kid with asthma -so any improvement would have been fine by me.  Well, four years later it has happened my kid is able to use a remedy instead of a puffer and he is rarely needs his remedy.

That is great that your kid is doing well. Many children "outgrow" their asthma so it is hardly clear that the homeopathy was the reason for the improvement. But it really does not matter as your child is doing well. Another thing I will tell you the aggravation you experienced is not uncommon if the remedy is well matched.

Perhaps you could share with us how to distinguish aggravation due to a "healing crisis" from aggravation due to accumulation of blood in the brain??? Do you think that your average homeopath (with no formal medical training) can distinguish the two???  There is lots more to this, you will have to talk to your homeopath.

Yes there is a lot more to this but will the homeopath have the knowledge to understand exactly what is involved after a brain injury.     Also, this is what is so funny about the arguments that what can be in a remedy after all it is so dilute it is nonexistent etc. – people do have reactions to them and sometimes it is unpleasant.

What do you think they are reacting to? Impurities in the homeopathic remedy perhaps?? A worsening of their condition due to lack of treatment? Or some mysterious energy force contained in the homeopathic remedy due to the dilution and succussion??? Must be the latter:-)   Usually though, even though some things come back you handle it better in other words you should have felt better even though you had an aggravation and it appears this did not happen in you case.

How can you possibly say he should have felt better???? Do you have a frigging clue what his problem is????? Do you think homeopathy can treat a subdural hematoma??? On second thought you probably do.    Also, there is a law of cure  one part of which  goes something like this – you will experience your symptoms in reverse order to their original appearance.

Law?? Theory perhaps?? Fantasy more likely.   There is lots more to this.  Talk to you homeopath.  He should listen and explain things to you if he is a qualified reputable homeopath. Don’t take another remedy until you know exactly what to expect from the remedy.

How does ANYONE know what to expect from a remedy EXACTLY. Everyone is different and it is not predictable how people will react with 100% certainty.   My nephew went to a homepath for a chest condition and the homeopath gave him a remedy and then proceeded to describe what my nephew could expect by way of symptoms ie first you will experience etc.  Well, that is exactly how my nephew’s illness progressed  after the remedy and it really blew him away.

Do  u think that maybe your nephew is suggestible and if the homeopath described another set of symptoms that he may have had those??? Keep an open mind.  You should have read up on homeopathy before you tried it so you had some idea of what it is and what questions to ask.

If he read up on it he may not have even tried it.   You should have some confidence in your homeopath’s ability to help you.

Why?? Aloha, Rich Far better to be uncertain Than to be sure and be wrong Note: Remember to remove the antispamming "NOT" in email address  before sending me email

Response:

I suggest you don’t take anything for your problem.

Oh is THIS what you suggest "Dr." Liz. You have not seen this person, you have not taken a history, you have not done a physical examination and yet you glibly tell him "to take NOTHING".  Perhaps it will go away in time, like most symptoms.

Oh maybe he will die as happens sometimes. But you are quite correct that with time most symptoms go away. Wonder if just maybe that is what is happening with homeopathic remedies???? You go to a homeopath and they give you a remedy and it does not work. They try another remedy and that does not work. Finally after a few weeks the third remedy works!! Voila. It was the third remedy that did it. It certainly was not the body just healing on its own as it often does.  No point in subjecting yourself to medicine that don’t work, is there?

How about going to a physician , getting a THOUROUGH evaluation, accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment? However, if you went to see a professional, maybe they could find out the CAUSE of your problem which may then show the way to the cure?

Finally!!! As an afterthought you recommend seeing a professional to find the cause. Now what kind of professional do you recommend?? An iridologist, a chiropracter, an aromatherapist????? You think a neurologist or neurosurgeon would be useful given a head injury? Any responsible health care provider when told that a person has a head injury with severe cognitive dysfunction is totally irresponsible if they don’t refer to a qualified neurologic specialist. But this troll is effectively demonstrating how reluctant the alternatavists are in referring out to a physician and how incredibly dangerous it is to rely on an alternatavist for your primary health care. Aloha, Rich – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Liz i wrote to this list earlier about taking AGARICUS for a brain injury and it making my symptoms worse… Well it has been 3 weeks or more since the worsening of the symptoms and i have seen NO improvement since then.. NONE.. i called my homeopath who is reputable and all he said was to come back in and try something else…. WHY? so i can have the same thing happen again? this is pure hell for me and i woudl love for some input from someone out here.. thanks!!! by the way i have drank tons of coffee and antidoting the stuff will not work, the damage is done!! -Dan

Far better to be uncertain Than to be sure and be wrong Note: Remember to remove the antispamming "NOT" in email address  before sending me email

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – i wrote to this list earlier about taking AGARICUS for a brain injury and it making my symptoms worse… Well it has been 3 weeks or more since the worsening of the symptoms and i have seen NO improvement since then.. NONE.. i called my homeopath who is reputable and all he said was to come back in and try something else…. WHY? so i can have the same thing happen again? this is pure hell for me and i woudl love for some input from someone out here.. thanks!!! by the way i have drank tons of coffee and antidoting the stuff will not work, the damage is done!! -Dan  <<  by the way, i took 10m of agaricus diluted it with 4 oz of water and took 2 eye droppers full per day,,, is this tooo much? can this be the reason why it did what it did? thanks

        Is this what the doctor asked you to do? I would follow the doctor’s guidelines. For how many days did you take? Even if you think it is too much and is causing a "proving", it should subside when you stop the medicine for a while. I have not heard of irreversible "provings" that you seem to imply. The worsening of symptoms could be due to something else and thus a coincidence. I would check out with a traditional (allopathic) doc to make sure there is nothing else wrong.         My impression was that homeopathy may take 3-4 visits over a couple of months or more to work. Sometimes the medicines do not match exactly to the symptoms, sometimes the symptoms change as the case progresses and have to be treated with other homeopathic medicines (remember homeopathy treats persons and symptoms, not diseases). If you are not happy with the doc and still want to give homeopathy a try, you could go to another doc you are comfortable with.         Good luck. keny (not a doc)

Response:

I suggest you don’t take anything for your problem.  Perhaps it will go away in time, like most symptoms.  No point in subjecting yourself to medicine that don’t work, is there? However, if you went to see a professional, maybe they could find out the CAUSE of your problem which may then show the way to the cure? Liz i wrote to this list earlier about taking AGARICUS for a brain injury and it making my symptoms worse… Well it has been 3 weeks or more since the worsening of the symptoms and i have seen NO improvement since then.. NONE.. i called my homeopath who is reputable and all he said was to come back in and try something else…. WHY? so i can have the same thing happen again? this is pure hell for me and i woudl love for some input from someone out here.. thanks!!! by the way i have drank tons of coffee and antidoting the stuff will not work, the damage is done!! -Dan

Response:

    If I had a patient do what you’ve done, I would promptly write them a referral to two or three other doctors who weren’t neccessarily my friends, and bid you farewell. why would you do that? according to your above statement, in essence youre saying that… this homeopathic remedy may have caused harm or may not….BUT that if  a patient was upset about the results you would tell them to take a hike and send them

elswhere??? ethical, real ethical… write back though bye

quote "by the way i have drank tons of coffee and antidoting the stuff will not, work, the damage is done", NOW,   YOU STATE "its not like i drank tons of coffee in order to antidote… i went off the AGARICUS and drank a cup per day… whats wrong with

that??" either, thou protests too much, you are off your rocker, or something is really wrong here!!!  Let’s start again… Tell the WHOLE story, perhaps just the truth, NOT the HYSTERIA.  BTW, I hope this isn’t going to court, any attorney would have a field day with this type of

Response:

i wrote to this list earlier about taking AGARICUS for a brain injury and it making my symptoms worse… Well it has been 3 weeks or more since the worsening of the symptoms and i have seen NO improvement since then.. NONE.. i called my homeopath who is reputable and all he said was to come back in and try something else…. WHY? so i can have the same thing happen again? this is pure hell for me and i woudl love for some input from someone out here.. thanks!!! by the way i have drank tons of coffee and antidoting the stuff will not work, the damage is done!! -Dan  <<

  by the way, i took 10m of agaricus diluted it with 4 oz of water and took 2 eye droppers full per day,,, is this tooo much? can this be the reason why it did what it did? thanks

Response:

    If I had a patient do what you’ve done, I would promptly write them a referral to two or three other doctors who weren’t neccessarily my friends, and bid you farewell.

why would you do that? its not like i drank tons of coffee in order to antidote… i went off the AGARICUS and drank a cup per day… whats wrong with that?? according to your above statement, in essence youre saying that… this homeopathic remedy may have caused harm or may not….BUT that if  a patient was upset about the results you would tell them to take a hike and send them elswhere??? ethical, real ethical… write back though bye

Response:

The people on this list don’t want to HEAR about failures with herbs or homeopathic treatments.  They BURY the failures and block them out of their conscious minds.  You may need to see a regular Medical Dr. if you haven’t already and if you have then I’m sorry for suggesting one.  I wish you well… — Also Please KNOW what you are taking and the reasons for it! Carol ….. **In a Podiatrist’s window: "Time wounds all heels."** – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – i wrote to this list earlier about taking AGARICUS for a brain injury and it making my symptoms worse… Well it has been 3 weeks or more since the worsening of the symptoms and i have seen NO improvement since then.. NONE.. -Dan

Response:

i wrote to this list earlier about taking AGARICUS for a brain injury and it making my symptoms worse… Well it has been 3 weeks or more since the worsening of the symptoms and i have seen NO improvement since then.. NONE.. i called my homeopath who is reputable and all he said was to come back in and try something else…. WHY? so i can have the same thing happen again?

Let’s be fair, often when either I or someone I know has a medical problem, such as a side effect or the treatment is not working, we are told by just about ALL health care providers to return for follow-up and see if something else will work better, or if he/she can help in another way….  Just because it is a homeopath, don’t they deserve the same consideration?  This happens in ALL types of health care! this is pure hell for me and i woudl love for some input from someone out here.. thanks!!! by the way i have drank tons of coffee and antidoting the stuff will not work, the damage is done!! -Dan

Dan, Who says drinking "tons" of coffee would help your condition???  I honestly do NOT know the first thing about homeopathy, but in general health knowledge, drinking lots of coffee helps NOBODY but Juan Valdez. I don’t know the first thing about your condition, but it sounds quite over-reactionary…  How do you know the "worsening" is permanent and the damage is done???

Response:

Dan,  there are only a few types of questions that a professional of any caliber can answer given an unknown case on a newsgroup, and your situation does not call for an offhand snap reply by anyone. As a matter of fact, knowing nothing about you other than the character of your current annoyance, I could see Agaricus possibly being an appropriate remedy – _in a certain homeopathic potency_, which could only be determined by a well trained and skilled _analyst_, and might very likely require adjustment according to your response or lack of.    This is simply the practise of clinical medicine, and holds equally true for the complementary approaches of nutrition, acupuncture, homeopathy and herbology. You’re not doing yourself a favor to second guess any doctor who you have chosen to see in the first place, and jump at suggestions to your desperate inquiries in this forum.    In your paranoid rush to antidote, you’ve basically screwed up the best first chance a professional might have had to evaluate how you were influenced (or not) by their first remedy selection.    I don’t have a clue what sort of brain damage you have (or maybe only think you have) and I’m not about to rattle off a dozen likely possible scenarios if for no other reason than not wanting to contribute to any psychogenic component.    If I had a patient do what you’ve done, I would promptly write them a referral to two or three other doctors who weren’t neccessarily my friends, and bid you farewell.   On the assumption that some doctor already told you there is brain damage, then you should still be under their care, and especially if it is a recent injury under their _responsibility_, which still means it’s your responsibility to follow their instructions about followup care and return visits, which are usually advised when there is a change of condition. Unless it’s been determined you have an operable tumor, it is unlikely that mainstream physicians have offered you anything curative other than physical re-training therapy (which probably _is_ appropriate) and/or drug maintenance which is just as likely to bring on a gamut of aggravation and unpleasant secondary symptoms.    Which is probably what brought you to the homeopath anyway, so your public critical expression here is unwarranted.    There are few if any competant homeopaths at a professional level ever writing in this forum, and doctors do not generally discuss the complex issues of case management with laypersons, ever, anywhere.    There are a few persons shooting off their opinions in this newsgroup about acupuncture, herbs and homeopathy with _no_ professional level training or experience on these vast and difficult subjects.    There has recently been a deluge of ignorant and misguided (although I’m sure well intentioned) statements.    I don’t have the time or inclination to try to bring people up to speed on subjects they don’t have any specific background in.    Intelligent and educated persons tend to think that everything can be synopsized on their own terms.    This just isn’t the case with traditional medical systems ;  I can’t impart comprehension that has taken me as long as fifteen years of study and practise to gradually _get_. My opinion is that the remedy you took _could not_ do the physical damage you claim, unless it was a physical dosage potency (unlikely).    So-called _homeopathic aggravation_ is always temporary, and I personally doubt claims of it ever lasting more than a few weeks.    An experienced doctor will know how to manage the situation, which could (at worst) involve a choice to grin-and-bear-it for a while, wait for a clear picture of another choice to emerge, or at the other extreme do something to antidote.        Or, given the onset of certain neurological signs (which _many_, but not all Licensed alternative practitioners are qualified to make competant triage assessment of), refer you out to a specialist or the ER immediately (who may very well then play up suspicion of malpractise at the hands of a _quack_, even though in fact they would most likely believe there’s not a chance in the world that a homeopathic dilution could have anything to do with the symptom progression). It is NOT UNLIKELY that the worsening you experienced is merely coincidental to taking the remedy, which especially in higher _potency_ can only be considered an _influence_ to your own self-healing mechanisms (and probably a very short-lived one at that), because there is no evidence of or reason to assume drug-like action.    It could be said that the whole point of both homeopathic treatment (homeopath-Y is only about _analysis_ as far as I’m concerned), and acupuncture needling is to provide the slightest possible specific stimulus which can _influence / enable_ the person’s own curative processes.    That’s all. ______ Also, Nospam (Carol) wrote : Also Please KNOW what you are taking and the reasons for it! <<

That’s nice in theory.    Now try applying that to 90% of the procedures and treatments of mainstream medicine,  and what will you get ?  . . . . . .   You’ll get meaningless contrived statistics, and idiotic survey polls purporting to rate _customer satisfaction_.    Of course it’s good to try to be aware of and understand everything important in your life, including how your car works, what lawyers and accountants do, where electricity comes from, where the garbage goes to, etc..    Many people don’t have a clue,  and the rest of us typically find a point where we realize that much of the depth of whatever matter is either beyond our comprehension or beyond the education we’re willing to invest.    So that’s why we have professions.    Simplistic consumer advocate strategies all too often wind up in some way being opposed to the personal responsibility that brought them about ( ! )      Specifically regarding the rational for a particular treatment using acupuncture, chinese herbal formulas, or homeopathy,  much of the time it is absolutely not possible to communicate this properly to a patient, and efforts to do so (beyond the type of statement I made above about _influence_) only lead to misunderstanding and the type of misinformed comments that I see pop up frequently in this forum. Joe Reid i wrote to this list earlier about taking AGARICUS for a brain injury

and it making my symptoms worse… Well it has been 3 weeks or more since the worsening of the symptoms and i have seen NO improvement since then.. NONE.. i called my homeopath who is reputable and all he said was to come back in and try something else…. WHY? so i can have the same thing happen again? this is pure hell for me and i woudl love for some input from someone out here.. thanks!!! by the way i have drank tons of coffee and antidoting the stuff will not work, the damage is done!! -Dan  <<

Response:

i wrote to this list earlier about taking AGARICUS for a brain injury and it making my symptoms worse… Well it has been 3 weeks or more since the worsening of the symptoms and i have seen NO improvement since then.. NONE.. i called my homeopath who is reputable and all he said was to come back in and try something else…. WHY? so i can have the same thing happen again? this is pure hell for me and i woudl love for some input from someone out here.. thanks!!! by the way i have drank tons of coffee and antidoting the stuff will not work, the damage is done!! -Dan

Dan Not having seen your earlier post, I hope this isn’t coming too late. You need to find a physician who incorporates alternative and complementary medicine in his/her practice. A homeopath may not be enough to help you through recovery from brain injury. I know I recommend this site quite a lot but it’s one of the few reputable sources for balanced medical information and has a directory to help you find the right healer: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/drweil/ Good luck, C.L. Getz Please change "nospam" to "net" in e-mail address to reply.

Response:

i wrote to this list earlier about taking AGARICUS for a brain injury and it making my symptoms worse… Well it has been 3 weeks or more since the worsening of the symptoms and i have seen NO improvement since then.. NONE.. i called my homeopath who is reputable and all he said was to come back in and try something else…. WHY? so i can have the same thing happen again? this is pure hell for me and i woudl love for some input from someone out here.. thanks!!! by the way i have drank tons of coffee and antidoting the stuff will not work, the damage is done!! -Dan

Response:

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My friend who has prancreatic Cancer for 1 year now is recomanded to use Hydrazine Sulfate by G.P. who also practice alternative medicine. This drug’s positive effect on Cancer was written by Linda Clark. I just wonder if anyone else could provide me with more information about this drug. Does it work with Leucovorin and 5-Fu? Thank you. Please reply to    Hydrazine, according to the more honest "Alternative medicine" supporters does not kill cancer cells, but may improve appetite. It can be given as an adjunct to conventional chemotherapy, but I have not seen much in the way of positive responses. If your friend tries the drug, she should check her weight (over a six week minimal trial) to see if the hydrazine is really improving her appetite as shown by documentable weight gain.

Hydrazine Sulfate: A life-Saving Drug by Dr Whitaker, M.D. Hydrazine sulfate, a drug that costs about a dollar a day, reverses the devastating weight loss called cachexia (ka-KEK-sia) that kills most cancer patients. This simple chemical, developed in 1969 by Dr. Joseph Gold, director or the Syracuse Cancer Institute, works in half of all the patients who take it. Yet more than two million cancer patients starve to death yearly because the National Cancer Institute (NCI) continues its 20-year suppression of this life-saving drug. Meanwhile, doctors at the Petrov Institute of Oncology in St. Petersburg treating 1,000 patients with hydazine sul-fate report long-term survival even in those with lymphatic cancer, the type that killed Jacqueline Onassis. Good news is that the U.S. General Accounting Office is investigating NCI’s conduct of these studies and may iniate a re-valuation of hydrazine sulfate. For more information on obtaining hydrazine sulfate, send $10 to the Cancer Control Society, 2042 No. Berendo St., Los Angeles, CA 90027, 213/663-7801.