I’ve been wondering about this…. Say, for example, that you’re preparing a salad with 0 points veggies, and some feta cheese. Normally, I would just calculate the points for the cheese and call that the point value for the whole salad. But here’s the thing….if that cheese had fiber, it would probably be lower in points. Can you use the fiber from the veggies instead, to lower the point value for the whole salad? This also applies to things like Grape Nuts in yogurt, etc etc. Thoughts are appreciated. Thanks! -Jen If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?
Can you use the fiber from the veggies instead, to lower the point value for the whole salad? This also applies to things like Grape Nuts in yogurt, etc etc. Thoughts are appreciated.
Someone at the meeting I go to asked this same question and our leader told us you are only cheating yourself if you do.
Can you use the fiber from the veggies instead, to lower the point value for the whole salad? This also applies to things like Grape Nuts in yogurt, etc etc. Thoughts are appreciated. Someone at the meeting I go to asked this same question and our leader told us you are only cheating yourself if you do.
Is this the standard response from the leaders’ manual? It seems a little odd and flippant. I mean, creative accounting can go both ways. I recently made beef stew with a little sirloin and a lot of potatoes, carrots and onions. And if I counted the points on each individual ingredients, I probably could have come up with a much higher credit for fiber than the 4-gram limit allows. But I didn’t eat those ingredients separately. Everything went into the pot and became part of the whole. And when I was serving it up, I figured out the points for the whole. (It was 5 points for 9 ounces, in case you were wondering.) I guess it just bugs me that your leader would use words that imply "you are…cheating." Are we in it for the long haul or not? So what if reaching goal weight may be delayed by a day or three? Speaking personally, I am already planning for a lifetime of maintenance. If I want to join the small ranks of permanent losers, I know that lifetime vigilance will be the price. Just enjoy your salad. –John B. 308/290.4/188
I think you need to wake up. If nuclear arms are ever used, everything is over.
That is nonsense. Nukes will be used, with some regularity in the coming decades. Life will go on. Oh, it will not be pretty. It will be completely unnecessary, mindless stupidity. But it will happen. The Pakistanis and Indians almost did it a couple months ago. The Chinese and Russian leaders went in there an read them the riot act, I think. So until today at least, they have not traded any nukes. There will be mutations. There will be increase in the background radiation. Oh, in a few centuries, perhaps we will be in real trouble, because of all this. But who the heck cares about more than their own children and grandchildren? Beyond that, very few people care. The Israelis are the other lunatics of the planet, building settlements and carrying on like there was no necessity for compromise. Such policy is only backed up by their military option, of which conventional power would run out pretty quickly without either US assistance or their own nuclear threat. TOdd
This thread does not appear to be on topic. How about transferring it to another newsgroup devoted to political issues without direct accounting relevance? A. Lucien Meyers, CIA, CMA — If you receive this by error, please delete it and inform the sender. PGP Key fingerprint=F1C0 D9AE 1B18 1405 4DFA B4CC 6DC7 FF78 C76E FB15 To Big Brother Echelon from "spook": KGB Nazi plutonium Albanian Ft. Bragg anthrax Mossad strategic NORAD DES
It is not unlikely that one or more nuclear weapons are already loose, in the United States. We need to begin thinking about how to react, intelligently, when everybody is being swept up into a mass hysteria by such a blast. First of all, when the blast occurs there will probably be very little hard evidence who caused it. The perpetrators would almost need to provide the evidence intentionally, to prove a point. Regardless of whoever the perpetrators are, I expect there would be a huge emotional backlash against some particular country or ethnic group. Americans will not want to accept such huge, unprecedented losses and damage. They will not accept they’re vulnerable to war losses, since they have, basically, never lost a war. Falling back on everything we know, our instincts, our gut, we will turn furiously to our industrial power, our factories, to build weapons on a scale never seen before. Our geographical location, 5000 miiles from the nearest threats, makes us safe from the missiles of our enemies. With impunity we will build weapons in our invincible factories. The majority of Americans will want blood vengeance against some physical, geographically located place associated with whoever they think is responsible for the blast. Then, there will be a huge expenditure of money into the coffers of the arms industry and the pentagon, and another vicious bombing campaign that causes another cycle of even-more dedicated terrorists. The danger in these scenarios is that the profits of the energy industry and arms industries are so great, and their influence over foreign policy is also so great, as to create a moral hazard. They will instigate wars because the profits are so great. (You’ll notice however, Boeing has moved office, to Chicago, away from the factories…) Over time we have seen Darwinism in the US aerospace, technology and energy industries. Those firms who do NOT sell to the government, as the decades go by, sooner or later have gone out of business. In the long run there are fewer Fortune 100 industrial, financial or technology companies remaining, that are not actively integrated into Washington policymaking and sharing in its revenues and favors. All of this has had some usefulness for Americans, in the past. We did win a lot of wars with this system. But in a world of nuclear and biological proliferation, making peace is a lot smarter strategy. It was smarter before September 11, it’s smarter today, and it will *still* be the smartest strategy even after the nuclear terrorism begins. Todd
I have a number of problems with your post. Firstly, as mentioned in my first post. If the rest of the world does not eat ice cream does that mean we should not either. Secondly why are you so interested in protecting the wealth of Mr Branson and British Airlines. Shouldn’t the interests of consumers come first (for once) Whilst you didn’t make this comment, why is that we as a usernet community or a government suppose to protect major international airlines from the mistake of running a loss making venture. I am sure they would have enough accountants and lawyers who could work out whether it would be profitable. Dare I say even more of an idea than Mr Howard. What no one will come to admit is that the only loser under the current system is the consumer. Frankly it is always the consumer who gets fucked over for the protection of big business. That is the correct answer. Give int airlines the right to take domestic carriers if they so desire. It is certainly better than the govt pumping a billion dollars of taxpayers money into a dog like Ansett. BTW what is Oz airline, is there an Australian airline I am not aware of? Cheers Warren
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Warren, I understand where you are coming from, but I don’t think this will bring competition, only ‘dumping’. You could sell those seat for virtually nothing, and as you say, it would be cream, but there is no way of actually competing with someone who is dumping. Added to this is the fact that most of the airlines you are talking about are either government owned (in some way), protected from the same thing you are suggesting (US), or simply don’t have to worry about it, as they don’t have a similar market from which we (QF, or any other Oz airline) could get some business in return. If you want cheap seats, there are plenty on both the QF and Virgin web sites. JB Again I ask for the 6th time. If this restrictive anti competitive arrangement was removed, has it been reregulated. Were there any restrictions after the removal of the anti competitive arrangements which made it more expensive for INT airlines excluding Qantas from taking customers. Were they given any time to work through the logistical issues ie customs, bookings etc. I find it hard to believe that it would be loss making as the seats at the moment are vacant. Why would filling empty seats at reduced rates be loss making. It is simply cream. When were they given the option. I don’t remember reading about it. I presume deregulation has been removed according to the wording of your post. How long was deregulation allowed (if it ever was which I doubt) Why was it removed, why wasn’t it left open and see if they make take up the option now. Were the int airlines given 3 weeks to get it in order and if they don’t we reregulate? Do you want to give a bit more detail to your claims that at some point after Ansett went bust, the Australian Govt gave international airlines (not just Qantas) the right to take domestic passengers between main capital cities, unless it was just a figment of your imagination. This is a troll right?? It was all over the news and ads were everywhere in the papers for the cheap fares United, Garuda, Korean and JAL were offering on their intra-Oz flights. As Rod correctly pointed out, International carriers were given the right to carry domestic only pax on any intra-Oz routes they had, not long after Ansett collapsed. I admit I don’t know if it’s still in existence or not or if the carriers dropped doing them. The other problem with that is that there are very very few intra-Oz routes being operated by foreign carriers as tags or add-ons. They’d find it a highly loss making exercise to add them just for domestic as well, so I wouldn’t expect to see any of them adding them. As for the "difficulties in customs" someone else was asking about, for domestic pax using an International Terminal, there are none. For many many years now the International Terminals have had orange Domestic Only desks at Immigration. All you have to do is flash your Drivers Licence or picture ID and pass on through. Your boarding passes are given a bright orange sticker with "D" on it to signify you as a domestic only passenger and not entitled to duty free purchases etc. Cheers. Al.
Some gutless coward desperately cowering behind
Ouch your insults are really hurting.
Just dont burst into tears child, everyone will really put the boot in if you do that. This is getting overly difficult getting a straight answer,
Then you’d better get off your fat arse and chase up the detail for yourself. so for the 8th time I will ask.
You can chuck as many tantrums a you like, child. If you want the detail, you’ll have to get off your fat arse and chase up the detail for yourself. Were all international carriers OR JUST QANTAS given the right to fly domestic after Ansett went bust.
That has already been answered more than once. It wasnt just Qantas, stupid. Qantas was allowed to carry domestic passengers on their international flights LONG before Ansett went bust. Could all international airlines OR JUST QANTAS fly domestic routes as part of an international flight after Ansett went bust.
That has already been answered more than once. It wasnt just Qantas, stupid. Qantas was allowed to carry domestic passengers on their international flights LONG before Ansett went bust. Is this competition still open to all international airlines OR JUST QANTAS
That has already been answered more than once. It isnt just Qantas, stupid. or has this right been removed completely through reregulation.
That has already been answered more than once. It hasnt been ‘removed completely’ and United and Qantas still do it. Rod Speed, as part of your insulting reply could you please try and answer the question without skirting around the issue.
Gutless, if you want the detail, you’ll have to get off your fat arse and chase up the detail for yourself. No hope that you will ever be able to actually comprehend what you have already been told more than once, so no one is gunna bother chasing up any more details when its just in one ear and out the other with you. If you don’t know the answer then don’t reply.
Silly little stupid children get no say what so ever on what anyone else posts, ever. If you do know the answer then reply and answer the question (with the insults if you so desire)
Silly little stupid children get no say what so ever on what anyone else posts, ever. I can’t write the question more clearly than what I have written above.
Your problem. In spades with your comprehension of what you have been told repeatedly already. This is not about me getting cheaper tickets, it is about correct public policy.
Silly little stupid children get no say what so ever on ‘correct public policy’ Why should Australian consumers subsidise Mr Branson
They dont. Even someone as stupid as you should be able to grasp that Branson isnt making any money out of Aust consumers currently. and British Airlines, the majority owner of Qantas.
Pigs arse they are the majority owner of Qantas, stupid. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When were they given the option. Like I said, just after Ansett went bust, when there was a hell of a problem moving people around with Ansett gone. I don’t remember reading about it. Your deficiencys are your problem. I presume deregulation has been removed according to the wording of your post. God knows what you ‘think’ that sentance is saying. How long was deregulation allowed (if it ever was which I doubt) Deregulation happened much earlier than that. Separate issue entirely to international carriers being allowed to carry domestic passengers. Why was it removed, why wasn’t it left open and see if they make take up the option now. Pointless when they clearly werent interested in bothering when Ansett had just gone bust. And that wasnt with your $50 fares either. Were the int airlines given 3 weeks to get it in order and if they don’t we reregulate? Nope. Do you want to give a bit more detail to your claims that at some point after Ansett went bust, the Australian Govt gave international airlines (not just Qantas) the right to take domestic passengers between main capital cities, No thanks, you’re always free to chase the detail up for yourself. From memory Anderson announced it. unless it was just a figment of your imagination. Beats being a figment of your complete pig ignorance, any day.
When were they given the option. I don’t remember reading about it. I presume deregulation has been removed according to the wording of your post. How long was deregulation allowed (if it ever was which I doubt) Why was it removed, why wasn’t it left open and see if they make take up the option now. Were the int airlines given 3 weeks to get it in order and if they don’t we reregulate? Do you want to give a bit more detail to your claims that at some point after Ansett went bust, the Australian Govt gave international airlines (not just Qantas) the right to take domestic passengers between main capital cities, unless it was just a figment of your imagination.
Very simple. Open up the option of international carriers as they go through our capital cities taking domestic passengers.
It’s the 21st Century – check the airline schedules and see exactly how many (few) o/s international carriers "go through our capital cities". Over here in the west our brilliant premier, Galloping Geoffery, was reported to recently have had a similar brain fart. Only problem was that none of his minders told him that all international services except one terminate in Perth. And somehow I don’t see Air Mauritius taking much interest in this idea with their once a week Perth to Melbourne return flight (northern winter only). you would probably have a minimum of 2 more airlines offering domestic travel to consumers overnight ie as they empty half there passengers off at Sydney, they could pick up domestic passengers and take them to Melbourne.
It’s been done, United were offered Sydney-Melbourne when Ansett died the first time. But generally most countries like to keep sovereignty over their domestic air services – check out "Freedoms of the Air" and "cabotage". Sounds good, but … Aubrey
When were they given the option. I don’t remember reading about it. I presume deregulation has been removed according to the wording of your post. How long was deregulation allowed (if it ever was which I doubt) Why was it removed, why wasn’t it left open and see if they make take up the option now. Were the int airlines given 3 weeks to get it in order and if they don’t we reregulate? Do you want to give a bit more detail to your claims that at some point after Ansett went bust, the Australian Govt gave international airlines (not just Qantas) the right to take domestic passengers between main capital cities, unless it was just a figment of your imagination.
This is a troll right?? It was all over the news and ads were everywhere in the papers for the cheap fares United, Garuda, Korean and JAL were offering on their intra-Oz flights. As Rod correctly pointed out, International carriers were given the right to carry domestic only pax on any intra-Oz routes they had, not long after Ansett collapsed. I admit I don’t know if it’s still in existence or not or if the carriers dropped doing them. The other problem with that is that there are very very few intra-Oz routes being operated by foreign carriers as tags or add-ons. They’d find it a highly loss making exercise to add them just for domestic as well, so I wouldn’t expect to see any of them adding them. As for the "difficulties in customs" someone else was asking about, for domestic pax using an International Terminal, there are none. For many many years now the International Terminals have had orange Domestic Only desks at Immigration. All you have to do is flash your Drivers Licence or picture ID and pass on through. Your boarding passes are given a bright orange sticker with "D" on it to signify you as a domestic only passenger and not entitled to duty free purchases etc. Cheers. Al.
I have a number of problems with your post.
Your problem. Firstly, as mentioned in my first post. If the rest of the world does not eat ice cream does that mean we should not either.
Duh. Secondly why are you so interested in protecting the wealth of Mr Branson and British Airlines.
No one who has commented here is. Shouldn’t the interests of consumers come first (for once)
Mindless stuff. Whilst you didn’t make this comment, why is that we as a usernet community or a government suppose to protect major international airlines from the mistake of running a loss making venture.
No one who has commented here is doing that either. Your nose was rubbed in the FACT that when the international carriers were allowed to do what you want after the demise of Ansett, none of them bothered to do much at all. Even someone as stupid as you should be able to grasp that thats much less likely to interest them at $50 fares. I am sure they would have enough accountants and lawyers who could work out whether it would be profitable.
Yep, which is why they didnt bother with it when they were allowed to do it after the demise of Ansett. Dare I say even more of an idea than Mr Howard.
Nothing to do with Howard. What no one will come to admit is that the only loser under the current system is the consumer.
Nothing to ‘admit’. If the international carriers didnt bother when they were allowed to do it after the demise of Ansett, they sure aint gunna bother now with $50 fares. You can stamp your tiny foot as often as you like and rave on about ‘consumers’ till the cows come home, doesnt change a damned thing. Frankly it is always the consumer who gets fucked over for the protection of big business.
Wrong. As always. Have fun explaining why the phone monopoly was ripped away from Telstra and why the cozy domestic monopoly was ripped away with the airlines. Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that Ansett has just gone bust because the cozy duopoly was ripped away. Some ‘protection of big business’ That is the correct answer. Give int airlines the right to take domestic carriers if they so desire.
They were given that after Ansett went bust. They all just yawned and ignored that change in what they were allowed to do. It is certainly better than the govt pumping a billion dollars of taxpayers money into a dog like Ansett.
Just your pathetic little fantasy. BTW what is Oz airline, is there an Australian airline I am not aware of?
Its just another way of saying australian airline, stupid. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Warren, I understand where you are coming from, but I don’t think this will bring competition, only ‘dumping’. You could sell those seat for virtually nothing, and as you say, it would be cream, but there is no way of actually competing with someone who is dumping. Added to this is the fact that most of the airlines you are talking about are either government owned (in some way), protected from the same thing you are suggesting (US), or simply don’t have to worry about it, as they don’t have a similar market from which we (QF, or any other Oz airline) could get some business in return. If you want cheap seats, there are plenty on both the QF and Virgin web sites. JB Again I ask for the 6th time. If this restrictive anti competitive arrangement was removed, has it been reregulated. Were there any restrictions after the removal of the anti competitive arrangements which made it more expensive for INT airlines excluding Qantas from taking customers. Were they given any time to work through the logistical issues ie customs, bookings etc. I find it hard to believe that it would be loss making as the seats at the moment are vacant. Why would filling empty seats at reduced rates be loss making. It is simply cream. When were they given the option. I don’t remember reading about it. I presume deregulation has been removed according to the wording of your post. How long was deregulation allowed (if it ever was which I doubt) Why was it removed, why wasn’t it left open and see if they make take up the option now. Were the int airlines given 3 weeks to get it in order and if they don’t we reregulate? Do you want to give a bit more detail to your claims that at some point after Ansett went bust, the Australian Govt gave international airlines (not just Qantas) the right to take domestic passengers between main capital cities, unless it was just a figment of your imagination. This is a troll right?? It was all over the news and ads were everywhere in the papers for the cheap fares United, Garuda, Korean and JAL were offering on their intra-Oz flights. As Rod correctly pointed out, International carriers were given the right to carry domestic only pax on any intra-Oz routes they had, not long after Ansett collapsed. I admit I don’t know if it’s still in existence or not or if the carriers dropped doing them. The other problem with that is that there are very very few intra-Oz routes being operated by foreign carriers as tags or add-ons. They’d find it a highly loss making exercise to add them just for domestic as well, so I wouldn’t expect to see any of them adding them. As for the "difficulties in customs" someone else was asking about, for domestic pax using an International Terminal, there are none. For many many years now the International Terminals have had orange Domestic Only desks at Immigration. All you have to do is flash your Drivers Licence or picture ID and pass on through. Your boarding passes are given a bright orange sticker with "D" on it to signify you as a domestic only passenger and not entitled to duty free purchases etc.
Ouch your insults are really hurting. This is getting overly difficult getting a straight answer, so for the 8th time I will ask. Were all international carriers OR JUST QANTAS given the right to fly domestic after Ansett went bust. Could all international airlines OR JUST QANTAS fly domestic routes as part of an international flight after Ansett went bust. Is this competition still open to all international airlines OR JUST QANTAS or has this right been removed completely through reregulation. Rod Speed, as part of your insulting reply could you please try and answer the question without skirting around the issue. If you don’t know the answer then don’t reply. If you do know the answer then reply and answer the question (with the insults if you so desire) I can’t write the question more clearly than what I have written above. This is not about me getting cheaper tickets, it is about correct public policy. Why should Australian consumers subsidise Mr Branson and British Airlines, the majority owner of Qantas.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When were they given the option. Like I said, just after Ansett went bust, when there was a hell of a problem moving people around with Ansett gone. I don’t remember reading about it. Your deficiencys are your problem. I presume deregulation has been removed according to the wording of your post. God knows what you ‘think’ that sentance is saying. How long was deregulation allowed (if it ever was which I doubt) Deregulation happened much earlier than that. Separate issue entirely to international carriers being allowed to carry domestic passengers. Why was it removed, why wasn’t it left open and see if they make take up the option now. Pointless when they clearly werent interested in bothering when Ansett had just gone bust. And that wasnt with your $50 fares either. Were the int airlines given 3 weeks to get it in order and if they don’t we reregulate? Nope. Do you want to give a bit more detail to your claims that at some point after Ansett went bust, the Australian Govt gave international airlines (not just Qantas) the right to take domestic passengers between main capital cities, No thanks, you’re always free to chase the detail up for yourself. From memory Anderson announced it. unless it was just a figment of your imagination. Beats being a figment of your complete pig ignorance, any day.
Again I ask for the 6th time. If this restrictive anti competitive arrangement was removed, has it been reregulated. Were there any restrictions after the removal of the anti competitive arrangements which made it more expensive for INT airlines excluding Qantas from taking customers. Were they given any time to work through the logistical issues ie customs, bookings etc. I find it hard to believe that it would be loss making as the seats at the moment are vacant. Why would filling empty seats at reduced rates be loss making. It is simply cream.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When were they given the option. I don’t remember reading about it. I presume deregulation has been removed according to the wording of your post. How long was deregulation allowed (if it ever was which I doubt) Why was it removed, why wasn’t it left open and see if they make take up the option now. Were the int airlines given 3 weeks to get it in order and if they don’t we reregulate? Do you want to give a bit more detail to your claims that at some point after Ansett went bust, the Australian Govt gave international airlines (not just Qantas) the right to take domestic passengers between main capital cities, unless it was just a figment of your imagination. This is a troll right?? It was all over the news and ads were everywhere in the papers for the cheap fares United, Garuda, Korean and JAL were offering on their intra-Oz flights. As Rod correctly pointed out, International carriers were given the right to carry domestic only pax on any intra-Oz routes they had, not long after Ansett collapsed. I admit I don’t know if it’s still in existence or not or if the carriers dropped doing them. The other problem with that is that there are very very few intra-Oz routes being operated by foreign carriers as tags or add-ons. They’d find it a highly loss making exercise to add them just for domestic as well, so I wouldn’t expect to see any of them adding them. As for the "difficulties in customs" someone else was asking about, for domestic pax using an International Terminal, there are none. For many many years now the International Terminals have had orange Domestic Only desks at Immigration. All you have to do is flash your Drivers Licence or picture ID and pass on through. Your boarding passes are given a bright orange sticker with "D" on it to signify you as a domestic only passenger and not entitled to duty free purchases etc. Cheers. Al.
When were they given the option.
Like I said, just after Ansett went bust, when there was a hell of a problem moving people around with Ansett gone. I don’t remember reading about it.
Your deficiencys are your problem. I presume deregulation has been removed according to the wording of your post.
God knows what you ‘think’ that sentance is saying. How long was deregulation allowed (if it ever was which I doubt)
Deregulation happened much earlier than that. Separate issue entirely to international carriers being allowed to carry domestic passengers. Why was it removed, why wasn’t it left open and see if they make take up the option now.
Pointless when they clearly werent interested in bothering when Ansett had just gone bust. And that wasnt with your $50 fares either. Were the int airlines given 3 weeks to get it in order and if they don’t we reregulate?
Nope. Do you want to give a bit more detail to your claims that at some point after Ansett went bust, the Australian Govt gave international airlines (not just Qantas) the right to take domestic passengers between main capital cities,
No thanks, you’re always free to chase the detail up for yourself. From memory Anderson announced it. unless it was just a figment of your imagination.
Beats being a figment of your complete pig ignorance, any day.
Warren, I understand where you are coming from, but I don’t think this will bring competition, only ‘dumping’. You could sell those seat for virtually nothing, and as you say, it would be cream, but there is no way of actually competing with someone who is dumping. Added to this is the fact that most of the airlines you are talking about are either government owned (in some way), protected from the same thing you are suggesting (US), or simply don’t have to worry about it, as they don’t have a similar market from which we (QF, or any other Oz airline) could get some business in return. If you want cheap seats, there are plenty on both the QF and Virgin web sites. JB
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Again I ask for the 6th time. If this restrictive anti competitive arrangement was removed, has it been reregulated. Were there any restrictions after the removal of the anti competitive arrangements which made it more expensive for INT airlines excluding Qantas from taking customers. Were they given any time to work through the logistical issues ie customs, bookings etc. I find it hard to believe that it would be loss making as the seats at the moment are vacant. Why would filling empty seats at reduced rates be loss making. It is simply cream. When were they given the option. I don’t remember reading about it. I presume deregulation has been removed according to the wording of your post. How long was deregulation allowed (if it ever was which I doubt) Why was it removed, why wasn’t it left open and see if they make take up the option now. Were the int airlines given 3 weeks to get it in order and if they don’t we reregulate? Do you want to give a bit more detail to your claims that at some point after Ansett went bust, the Australian Govt gave international airlines (not just Qantas) the right to take domestic passengers between main capital cities, unless it was just a figment of your imagination. This is a troll right?? It was all over the news and ads were everywhere in the papers for the cheap fares United, Garuda, Korean and JAL were offering on their intra-Oz flights. As Rod correctly pointed out, International carriers were given the right to carry domestic only pax on any intra-Oz routes they had, not long after Ansett collapsed. I admit I don’t know if it’s still in existence or not or if the carriers dropped doing them. The other problem with that is that there are very very few intra-Oz routes being operated by foreign carriers as tags or add-ons. They’d find it a highly loss making exercise to add them just for domestic as well, so I wouldn’t expect to see any of them adding them. As for the "difficulties in customs" someone else was asking about, for domestic pax using an International Terminal, there are none. For many many years now the International Terminals have had orange Domestic Only desks at Immigration. All you have to do is flash your Drivers Licence or picture ID and pass on through. Your boarding passes are given a bright orange sticker with "D" on it to signify you as a domestic only passenger and not entitled to duty free purchases etc. Cheers. Al.
My wife last December had to go to Sydney with Qantas. When she arrived in Brisbane Domestic she where told the flight was from the International. I wondered how in the world they sort out the passengers at the Immigration and Customs. She said she was taken by a shuttle Bus inside the Sydney Airport to the Domestic where she picked up her suitcase. PEM
Well if Quantas can do this, any airline should be allowed to do it. Otherwise its against the spirit of the ACCC.
I’ve caught a number of the Qantas international flights domestically but I try to avoid them, you do tend to get caught up in the queues and you have to be there earlier (45 mins is the minimum, I believe, but I’ve cut it finer than that before). Passport control in and out isn’t too bad with the lane for domestic passengers but you also get the package tour groups and such through there as well. You get more people at baggage claim due to more passengers usually checking more for their holiday or whatever, but I usually just have carry-on. The bigger queue is usually customs where everyone is trying to get out the green lane.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This is a troll right?? It was all over the news and ads were everywhere in the papers for the cheap fares United, Garuda, Korean and JAL were offering on their intra-Oz flights. As Rod correctly pointed out, International carriers were given the right to carry domestic only pax on any intra-Oz routes they had, not long after Ansett collapsed. I admit I don’t know if it’s still in existence or not or if the carriers dropped doing them. The other problem with that is that there are very very few intra-Oz routes being operated by foreign carriers as tags or add-ons. They’d find it a highly loss making exercise to add them just for domestic as well, so I wouldn’t expect to see any of them adding them. As for the "difficulties in customs" someone else was asking about, for domestic pax using an International Terminal, there are none. For many many years now the International Terminals have had orange Domestic Only desks at Immigration. All you have to do is flash your Drivers Licence or picture ID and pass on through. Your boarding passes are given a bright orange sticker with "D" on it to signify you as a domestic only passenger and not entitled to duty free purchases etc. Cheers. Al.
Again I ask for the 6th time. If this restrictive anti competitive arrangement was removed, has it been reregulated. Were there any restrictions after the removal of the anti competitive arrangements which made it more expensive for INT airlines excluding Qantas from taking customers. Were they given any time to work through the logistical issues ie customs, bookings etc.
Wasnt necessary, Qantas had been carrying domestic passengers on some of their international flights for a long time before that so the customs stuff etc had been dealt with long before that. I find it hard to believe that it would be loss making as the seats at the moment are vacant.
Depends entirely on the fare charged and the hassle involved in handling domestic customers as well as the international ones. Why would filling empty seats at reduced rates be loss making. It is simply cream.
Wrong, there will always be some extra costs involved. And you have to consider how many passengers would bother with the extra hassle involved when there is no shortage of cheap seats with the domestic carriers too. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When were they given the option. I don’t remember reading about it. I presume deregulation has been removed according to the wording of your post. How long was deregulation allowed (if it ever was which I doubt) Why was it removed, why wasn’t it left open and see if they make take up the option now. Were the int airlines given 3 weeks to get it in order and if they don’t we reregulate? Do you want to give a bit more detail to your claims that at some point after Ansett went bust, the Australian Govt gave international airlines (not just Qantas) the right to take domestic passengers between main capital cities, unless it was just a figment of your imagination. This is a troll right?? It was all over the news and ads were everywhere in the papers for the cheap fares United, Garuda, Korean and JAL were offering on their intra-Oz flights. As Rod correctly pointed out, International carriers were given the right to carry domestic only pax on any intra-Oz routes they had, not long after Ansett collapsed. I admit I don’t know if it’s still in existence or not or if the carriers dropped doing them. The other problem with that is that there are very very few intra-Oz routes being operated by foreign carriers as tags or add-ons. They’d find it a highly loss making exercise to add them just for domestic as well, so I wouldn’t expect to see any of them adding them. As for the "difficulties in customs" someone else was asking about, for domestic pax using an International Terminal, there are none. For many many years now the International Terminals have had orange Domestic Only desks at Immigration. All you have to do is flash your Drivers Licence or picture ID and pass on through. Your boarding passes are given a bright orange sticker with "D" on it to signify you as a domestic only passenger and not entitled to duty free purchases etc.
I think that you can fly united to melbourne, from Sydney and VV. they launched a few months ago. Have they stopped?
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I take your point but I wonder if one wouldn’t be willing to put up with the problems if the flight was say $50 Trouble is that its not likely to appeal to too many international airlines at that fare. At least give the international airlines a choice and see what happens. At the moment they are not allowed to fly DOMESTIC passengers on international airlines with the possible exception of Qantas. All you need is one and you are back to competition. I am willing to put a wager that one will take up the option. Again, let the option exist. Lets remember it is all cream for the international airline. It isnt, they have to pay for the staff to organise the hassle of mixing domestics and internationals. Again who are we to control how they run their business.Give them the choice to do there numbers and see if it is profitable. Again, I bet at least 1 possibly 2 possibly 10 will take up the option. I would imagine that with a bit of lateral thinking you could get around many of problems you mentioned. Sure, but its far from clear how may of the international airlines would bother. Again who are you or the government to decide. At the moment they are not allowed. Give them the option and see if they take it up. As infrastrucure is already there, I bet they will take it up. That aside, don’t you think that as long as the consumers are aware of the issues before they get on the flight then it is their choice? Sure. I dont see that bit as a major problem. Easily handled like that. The other problem is tho that you would take some risk of sinking Virgin and the last thing we need is a Qantas domestic monopoly. While they would have some competition from the internationals on a few routes, I dont expect the volume would be high, and they’d have a monopoly outside that tiny handful of routes. Virgin only do major routes anyway. If Virgin sink then thats life, why should we the taxpayers be subsidising this english multimillionaire. As for competition, as written above, if you open up the airlines, don’t worry about monopolies ever again. It is nice to see you wish to make Mr Branson wealthier than he already is. I certainly think it would be desirable to allow any international airline to do that if it wants to, but I dont expect it would have much effect at all. I beg to differ with your last line. I agree with your first.
I take your point but I wonder if one wouldn’t be willing to put up with the problems if the flight was say $50 Trouble is that its not likely to appeal to too many international airlines at that fare.
At least give the international airlines a choice and see what happens. At the moment they are not allowed to fly DOMESTIC passengers on international airlines with the possible exception of Qantas. All you need is one and you are back to competition. I am willing to put a wager that one will take up the option. Again, let the option exist. Lets remember it is all cream for the international airline. It isnt, they have to pay for the staff to organise the hassle of mixing domestics and internationals.
Again who are we to control how they run their business.Give them the choice to do there numbers and see if it is profitable. Again, I bet at least 1 possibly 2 possibly 10 will take up the option. I would imagine that with a bit of lateral thinking you could get around many of problems you mentioned. Sure, but its far from clear how may of the international airlines would bother.
Again who are you or the government to decide. At the moment they are not allowed. Give them the option and see if they take it up. As infrastrucure is already there, I bet they will take it up. That aside, don’t you think that as long as the consumers are aware of the issues before they get on the flight then it is their choice? Sure. I dont see that bit as a major problem. Easily handled like that. The other problem is tho that you would take some risk of sinking Virgin and the last thing we need is a Qantas domestic monopoly. While they would have some competition from the internationals on a few routes, I dont expect the volume would be high, and they’d have a monopoly outside that tiny handful of routes.
Virgin only do major routes anyway. If Virgin sink then thats life, why should we the taxpayers be subsidising this english multimillionaire. As for competition, as written above, if you open up the airlines, don’t worry about monopolies ever again. It is nice to see you wish to make Mr Branson wealthier than he already is. I certainly think it would be desirable to allow any international airline to do that if it wants to, but I dont expect it would have much effect at all.
I beg to differ with your last line. I agree with your first.
Very simple. Open up the option of international carriers as they go through our capital cities taking domestic passengers. It is so simple that I am surprised there has not been more talk about it. Assuming you have the correct regulatory and safety policies in place, you would probably have a minimum of 2 more airlines offering domestic travel to consumers overnight ie as they empty half there passengers off at Sydney, they could pick up domestic passengers and take them to Melbourne. The cost of the flight would be minimal as any money domestic passengers pay is simply cream for them. BTW in would not cost the federal government ie taxpayers 1 billion dollars as is the rumoured asking price in relation to Ansett mark 2. Within a week of opening you could be sure there would be an internet site which would give consumers the option of choosing which airline they wish to take – national / international. No one has ever given me a legitimate reason why we shouldn’t remove this anti competitive situation except to say that it would undercut Qantas ie shareholders and wealthy managers. The only winner would be the consumer but who cares about the consumer lets protect shareholder interests first. At the moment the government simply does not allow it, this is simply anti competitive and provides Qantas and Mr Branson with a monopoly over the skies. It is a disgrace. Lets let Mr Branson and Qantas compete on a level playing field.
I take your point but I wonder if one wouldn’t be willing to put up with the problems if the flight was say $50 Trouble is that its not likely to appeal to too many international airlines at that fare. At least give the international airlines a choice and see what happens.
We did just after Ansett went bust. No one bothered. At the moment they are not allowed to fly DOMESTIC passengers on international airlines with the possible exception of Qantas.
Its more complicated than that. All you need is one and you are back to competition.
We have competition now. I am willing to put a wager that one will take up the option.
No one did when Ansett went bust. Again, let the option exist.
It did. Lets remember it is all cream for the international airline. It isnt, they have to pay for the staff to organise the hassle of mixing domestics and internationals. Again who are we to control how they run their business. Give them the choice to do there numbers and see if it is profitable.
We did when Ansett went bust. Again, I bet at least 1 possibly 2 possibly 10 will take up the option.
Again, you’ve lost your bet, no one did. I would imagine that with a bit of lateral thinking you could get around many of problems you mentioned. Sure, but its far from clear how may of the international airlines would bother. Again who are you or the government to decide.
It was tried. No one was interested. At the moment they are not allowed.
Its more complicated than that. Give them the option and see if they take it up.
We did when Ansett went bust. As infrastrucure is already there, I bet they will take it up.
You’ve lost your bet, no one did. That aside, don’t you think that as long as the consumers are aware of the issues before they get on the flight then it is their choice? Sure. I dont see that bit as a major problem. Easily handled like that. The other problem is tho that you would take some risk of sinking Virgin and the last thing we need is a Qantas domestic monopoly. While they would have some competition from the internationals on a few routes, I dont expect the volume would be high, and they’d have a monopoly outside that tiny handful of routes. Virgin only do major routes anyway.
They do more than the international carriers would compete on. If Virgin sink then thats life,
No thanks, not interested in just one domestic carrier. why should we the taxpayers be subsidising this english multimillionaire.
The taxpayers aint subsidising anyone. As for competition, as written above, if you open up the airlines, don’t worry about monopolies ever again.
We dont have a monopoly now. It is nice to see you wish to make Mr Branson wealthier than he already is.
He cant be getting any wealthier when they arent making much profit. I certainly think it would be desirable to allow any international airline to do that if it wants to, but I dont expect it would have much effect at all. I beg to differ with your last line.
Get down on your knees and beg properly. I agree with your first.
You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
I take your point but I wonder if one wouldn’t be willing to put up with the problems if the flight was say $50 Lets remember it is all cream for the international airline. I would imagine that with a bit of lateral thinking you could get around many of problems you mentioned. That aside, don’t you think that as long as the consumers are aware of the issues before they get on the flight then it is their choice? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I got on a Jumbo one time in Sydney for a trip to Melbourne, Qantas were playing with the idea that you suggest. Well it took us about an hour to get all the passengers on board, then some problems ‘cos we’d missed the allocated time slot for take off. Then when we arrived in Melbourne at the domestic terminal we had to wait another 30 minutes or so for a parking spot at a gate that could cope with a Jumbo. Then the unload – dont ask – it was horrific. Then baggage delays because the carousel could nt cope with so many bags at once, plus 3 or 4 times the number of passengers milling around. All up the trip took about 5 hours – I was not a happy vegemite!!. I could drive in less than 10 hours!! The other problem with International flights is the customs and immigration processes. My understanding is that if you board an international flight you need a passport, etc. to get "back in" the country – even though you may not have exactly left. I think its one of those "all too hard" problems for the international airlines and they cant see the value in it.
I take your point but I wonder if one wouldn’t be willing to put up with the problems if the flight was say $50 Lets remember it is all cream for the international airline. I would imagine that with a bit of lateral thinking you could get around many of problems you mentioned. That aside, don’t you think that as long as the consumers are aware of the issues before they get on the flight then it is their choice?
So maybe you only want to fly between some capital cities cheaply- there are quite a few who want cheaper fares flying to regional centres and that will not happen if the cream goes overseas. Whilst your at it - you should also insist overseas airlines to pick up and let down at Albion Park, Moruya and Canberra on the way to Melbourne – in your dream. rm – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I got on a Jumbo one time in Sydney for a trip to Melbourne, Qantas were playing with the idea that you suggest. Well it took us about an hour to get all the passengers on board, then some problems ‘cos we’d missed the allocated time slot for take off. Then when we arrived in Melbourne at the domestic terminal we had to wait another 30 minutes or so for a parking spot at a gate that could cope with a Jumbo. Then the unload – dont ask – it was horrific. Then baggage delays because the carousel could nt cope with so many bags at once, plus 3 or 4 times the number of passengers milling around. All up the trip took about 5 hours – I was not a happy vegemite!!. I could drive in less than 10 hours!! The other problem with International flights is the customs and immigration processes. My understanding is that if you board an international flight you need a passport, etc. to get "back in" the country – even though you may not have exactly left. I think its one of those "all too hard" problems for the international airlines and they cant see the value in it.
Ha ha point taken. As one is offering a different service in terms of cut price airline verse normal airline with BC and FC, you could go with the monopoly or oligopoly.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thought that was a duopoly Very simple. Open up the option of international carriers as they go through our capital cities taking domestic passengers. It is so simple that I am surprised there has not been more talk about it. Assuming you have the correct regulatory and safety policies in place, you would probably have a minimum of 2 more airlines offering domestic travel to consumers overnight ie as they empty half there passengers off at Sydney, they could pick up domestic passengers and take them to Melbourne. The cost of the flight would be minimal as any money domestic passengers pay is simply cream for them. BTW in would not cost the federal government ie taxpayers 1 billion dollars as is the rumoured asking price in relation to Ansett mark 2. Within a week of opening you could be sure there would be an internet site which would give consumers the option of choosing which airline they wish to take – national / international. No one has ever given me a legitimate reason why we shouldn’t remove this anti competitive situation except to say that it would undercut Qantas ie shareholders and wealthy managers. The only winner would be the consumer but who cares about the consumer lets protect shareholder interests first. At the moment the government simply does not allow it, this is simply anti competitive and provides Qantas and Mr Branson with a monopoly over the skies. It is a disgrace. Lets let Mr Branson and Qantas compete on a level playing field.
Thought that was a duopoly
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Very simple. Open up the option of international carriers as they go through our capital cities taking domestic passengers. It is so simple that I am surprised there has not been more talk about it. Assuming you have the correct regulatory and safety policies in place, you would probably have a minimum of 2 more airlines offering domestic travel to consumers overnight ie as they empty half there passengers off at Sydney, they could pick up domestic passengers and take them to Melbourne. The cost of the flight would be minimal as any money domestic passengers pay is simply cream for them. BTW in would not cost the federal government ie taxpayers 1 billion dollars as is the rumoured asking price in relation to Ansett mark 2. Within a week of opening you could be sure there would be an internet site which would give consumers the option of choosing which airline they wish to take – national / international. No one has ever given me a legitimate reason why we shouldn’t remove this anti competitive situation except to say that it would undercut Qantas ie shareholders and wealthy managers. The only winner would be the consumer but who cares about the consumer lets protect shareholder interests first. At the moment the government simply does not allow it, this is simply anti competitive and provides Qantas and Mr Branson with a monopoly over the skies. It is a disgrace. Lets let Mr Branson and Qantas compete on a level playing field.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Very simple. Open up the option of international carriers as they go through our capital cities taking domestic passengers. It is so simple that I am surprised there has not been more talk about it. Assuming you have the correct regulatory and safety policies in place, you would probably have a minimum of 2 more airlines offering domestic travel to consumers overnight ie as they empty half there passengers off at Sydney, they could pick up domestic passengers and take them to Melbourne. The cost of the flight would be minimal as any money domestic passengers pay is simply cream for them. BTW in would not cost the federal government ie taxpayers 1 billion dollars as is the rumoured asking price in relation to Ansett mark 2. Within a week of opening you could be sure there would be an internet site which would give consumers the option of choosing which airline they wish to take – national / international. No one has ever given me a legitimate reason why we shouldn’t remove this anti competitive situation except to say that it would undercut Qantas ie shareholders and wealthy managers. The only winner would be the consumer but who cares about the consumer lets protect shareholder interests first. At the moment the government simply does not allow it, this is simply anti competitive and provides Qantas and Mr Branson with a monopoly over the skies. It is a disgrace. Lets let Mr Branson and Qantas compete on a level playing field.
I got on a Jumbo one time in Sydney for a trip to Melbourne, Qantas were playing with the idea that you suggest. Well it took us about an hour to get all the passengers on board, then some problems ‘cos we’d missed the allocated time slot for take off. Then when we arrived in Melbourne at the domestic terminal we had to wait another 30 minutes or so for a parking spot at a gate that could cope with a Jumbo. Then the unload – dont ask – it was horrific. Then baggage delays because the carousel could nt cope with so many bags at once, plus 3 or 4 times the number of passengers milling around. All up the trip took about 5 hours – I was not a happy vegemite!!. I could drive in less than 10 hours!! The other problem with International flights is the customs and immigration processes. My understanding is that if you board an international flight you need a passport, etc. to get "back in" the country – even though you may not have exactly left. I think its one of those "all too hard" problems for the international airlines and they cant see the value in it.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Very simple. Open up the option of international carriers as they go through our capital cities taking domestic passengers. It is so simple that I am surprised there has not been more talk about it. Assuming you have the correct regulatory and safety policies in place, you would probably have a minimum of 2 more airlines offering domestic travel to consumers overnight ie as they empty half there passengers off at Sydney, they could pick up domestic passengers and take them to Melbourne. The cost of the flight would be minimal as any money domestic passengers pay is simply cream for them. BTW in would not cost the federal government ie taxpayers 1 billion dollars as is the rumoured asking price in relation to Ansett mark 2. Within a week of opening you could be sure there would be an internet site which would give consumers the option of choosing which airline they wish to take – national / international. No one has ever given me a legitimate reason why we shouldn’t remove this anti competitive situation except to say that it would undercut Qantas ie shareholders and wealthy managers. The only winner would be the consumer but who cares about the consumer lets protect shareholder interests first. At the moment the government simply does not allow it, this is simply anti competitive and provides Qantas and Mr Branson with a monopoly over the skies. It is a disgrace. Lets let Mr Branson and Qantas compete on a level playing field.
It do happen. I was going overseas with Singapore Air. They where leaving from Sydney. I was in Brisbane. They gave me a ticket for Japanese Airline from Brisbane to Sydney. I guess they have some arrangement between themselves. My wife last December had to go to Sydney with Qantas. When she arrived in Brisbane Domestic she where told the flight was from the International. I wondered how in the world they sort out the passengers at the Immigration and Customs. She said she was taken by a shuttle Bus inside the Sydney Airport to the Domestic where she picked up her suitcase. PEM
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Very simple. Open up the option of international carriers as they go through our capital cities taking domestic passengers. It is so simple that I am surprised there has not been more talk about it. Assuming you have the correct regulatory and safety policies in place, you would probably have a minimum of 2 more airlines offering domestic travel to consumers overnight ie as they empty half there passengers off at Sydney, they could pick up domestic passengers and take them to Melbourne. The cost of the flight would be minimal as any money domestic passengers pay is simply cream for them. BTW in would not cost the federal government ie taxpayers 1 billion dollars as is the rumoured asking price in relation to Ansett mark 2. Within a week of opening you could be sure there would be an internet site which would give consumers the option of choosing which airline they wish to take – national / international. No one has ever given me a legitimate reason why we shouldn’t remove this anti competitive situation except to say that it would undercut Qantas ie shareholders and wealthy managers. The only winner would be the consumer but who cares about the consumer lets protect shareholder interests first. At the moment the government simply does not allow it, this is simply anti competitive and provides Qantas and Mr Branson with a monopoly over the skies. It is a disgrace. Lets let Mr Branson and Qantas compete on a level playing field.
I take your point but I wonder if one wouldn’t be willing to put up with the problems if the flight was say $50
Trouble is that its not likely to appeal to too many international airlines at that fare. Lets remember it is all cream for the international airline.
It isnt, they have to pay for the staff to organise the hassle of mixing domestics and internationals. I would imagine that with a bit of lateral thinking you could get around many of problems you mentioned.
Sure, but its far from clear how may of the international airlines would bother. That aside, don’t you think that as long as the consumers are aware of the issues before they get on the flight then it is their choice?
Sure. I dont see that bit as a major problem. Easily handled like that. The other problem is tho that you would take some risk of sinking Virgin and the last thing we need is a Qantas domestic monopoly. While they would have some competition from the internationals on a few routes, I dont expect the volume would be high, and they’d have a monopoly outside that tiny handful of routes. I certainly think it would be desirable to allow any international airline to do that if it wants to, but I dont expect it would have much effect at all. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I got on a Jumbo one time in Sydney for a trip to Melbourne, Qantas were playing with the idea that you suggest. Well it took us about an hour to get all the passengers on board, then some problems ‘cos we’d missed the allocated time slot for take off. Then when we arrived in Melbourne at the domestic terminal we had to wait another 30 minutes or so for a parking spot at a gate that could cope with a Jumbo. Then the unload – dont ask – it was horrific. Then baggage delays because the carousel could nt cope with so many bags at once, plus 3 or 4 times the number of passengers milling around. All up the trip took about 5 hours – I was not a happy vegemite!!. I could drive in less than 10 hours!! The other problem with International flights is the customs and immigration processes. My understanding is that if you board an international flight you need a passport, etc. to get "back in" the country – even though you may not have exactly left. I think its one of those "all too hard" problems for the international airlines and they cant see the value in it.
DON”T SPOIL YOUR SEASONS WAITING FOR DELIBVERIES THAT NEVER ARRIVE…. Choice Group Bulletin on-line Web quotes - Web History, Web do and don
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 09:10:59 -0400, "KATHRYN A TAUBERT" <KATAUB…@prodigy.net> wrote: >This makes me nervous. >Anybody else out there been following this?
I read the entire report – before seeing this thread – and frankly was optimistic. Much of the report is spent on classifying ‘threats’ and explaining why casual words alone do not make a serious threat – or even make something the police need to be involved with. (Which has been a big issue with the ‘zero tolerance’, where ANY threatening word had to be reported and made into a mountain.) My son for years has had a tendency to blurt and say stuff that could be misconstrued as a threat. In a way, it has been SO common for him, and so out of context, that the teachers learned long ago not to take it as a ‘true’ threat. But as he gets older, this has become a bigger and bigger concern for us. So I was relieved to see this FBI report so clearly delineate that the kind of blurting stuff he says is not consistent with ‘true’ threats. I think this report has the opportunity to ease things for our kids. Vicki H. (an optimist at heart)
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 20:38:02 -0400, "KATHRYN A TAUBERT" <KATAUB…@prodigy.net> wrote: >My question is how does one define ‘threat?’ >Is that specified in the report? >KAT in CT
Yes, it is specified and categorized in great detail. It may not have made for good 10 second soundbites for TV news, but that is the heart of this report…and I believe that is how the report will actually be used in schools and in law enforcement. Vicki H.
> Kat, any thoughts about a session at the CT educator’s conference to > address this issue and your concerns? Whatdaya think? Pat W
That thought occurred to me. However, I think it needs lots of thinking about for a variety of reasons. By the way, the 2000 Conference was cancelled, due to serious conflicts in the schedules of key organizers. Virtually every one had health matters and/or significant family matters that ‘got in the way.’ (life does that sometimes). KAT In CT
> it seems to me that they are throwing a good portion of this right back > at the things that are wrong in the schools, and THAT is what I’m so > encouraged to see.
I’m glad to hear that!! KAT in CT
> I did not understand until I read the report that the assessment would ONLY be > done after a threat is received.
My question is how does one define ‘threat?’ Is that specified in the report? KAT in CT
> . Provide training for students on relevant subjects such as > interpersonal communication, conflict resolution, anger management, > coping with depression, family tensions,
Personally, I think these should be taught in ALL schools to ALL students. and identifying and reporting > threatening behavior.
this is the one that bothers me. What’s a threat? And what happens if this becomes "I don’t like you, so I’m going to report you for ‘threatening me!"? KAT in CT
KATHRYN A TAUBERT wrote: > > I did not understand until I read the report that the assessment would > ONLY be > > done after a threat is received. > My question is how does one define ‘threat?’ > Is that specified in the report?
Yes, it is defined very well in the report — four pages, if I recall. Lots about "threat assessment" – the importance of determining if a thread is a real and the person is likely to act upon it. Question is, would people put this into practice as defined ??
> Yes, it is defined very well in the report — four pages, if I recall. > Lots about "threat assessment" – the importance of determining if a > thread is a real and the person is likely to act upon it.
Excellent. > Question is, would people put this into practice as defined ??
I am presently in the middle of a book written by the retired ‘founder’ of the FBI’s criminal ‘profiling’ unit, John Douglas. He describes the need to identify potentially dangerous people in the workplace, in the schools, etc, but he is VERY VERY Careful to mention the need for TRAINING of the associated personnel in using the techniques to do precisely that. He cautions about the misuse of this kind of material. I think releasing this kind of report without considering this facet of the ’system’ is somewhat risky. I’m wondering if there are such programs being ramped up for purposes of educating the educators on precisely how this is to be implemented? Anyone know? KAT In CT
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -KATHRYN A TAUBERT wrote: > > Yes, it is defined very well in the report — four pages, if I recall. > > Lots about "threat assessment" – the importance of determining if a > > thread is a real and the person is likely to act upon it. > Excellent. > > Question is, would people put this into practice as defined ?? > I am presently in the middle of a book written by the retired ‘founder’ of > the FBI’s criminal ‘profiling’ unit, John Douglas. He describes the need to > identify potentially dangerous people in the workplace, in the schools, etc, > but he is VERY VERY Careful to mention the need for TRAINING of the > associated personnel in using the techniques to do precisely that. He > cautions about the misuse of this kind of material. > I think releasing this kind of report without considering this facet of the > ’system’ is somewhat risky. I’m wondering if there are such programs being > ramped up for purposes of educating the educators on precisely how this is > to be implemented? > Anyone know? > KAT In CT
Kat, any thoughts about a session at the CT educator’s conference to address this issue and your concerns? Whatdaya think? Pat W
I just read the report, too. Thanks for the link. I did (a few months ago) see a list of questions that would be in the four prongs, but because it was on a closed listserv I shouldn’t disclose the questions (also, I can’t even find that post anymore!). From what I remember, the questions pretty closely follow the long lists of considerations listed under the four prongs. (Personality of the student, Family Dynamics, School dynamics and the studen’ts role in those dynamics, and Social dynamics). I did not understand until I read the report that the assessment would ONLY be done after a threat is received. I had (wrongly) assumed that ANY student could be assessed at any time (heck, I worriedly wondered if school would routinely do the assessment checklist once a year on any student who isn’t "normal." I see that is not (supposed to be) the case. I could see teachers and administrators handing lists of kids they didn’t like to the risk assessment coordinator. I remain concerned that the school staff person responsible for doing or coordinating the assessment will not be impartial. I am also concerned about confidentiality of a student’s records, particularly if a student is in special education. I don’t think many schools are going to realistically state their deficits in school culture…large public schools, that is. As is commonplace, the blame will be put squarely on the student. The schools will minimize their part in all of it because it wouldn’t look good to do otherwise. What would happen to an administrator who admitted to a very bad school culture? ~Brenda
Cyberbren wrote: > I don’t think many schools are going to realistically state their deficits in > school culture…large public schools, that is. > As is commonplace, the blame will be put squarely on the student. The schools > will minimize their part in all of it because it wouldn’t look good to do > otherwise. What would happen to an administrator who admitted to a very bad > school culture?
Yep, I share your concerns there … how would deficits in the school come to be identified ??? Does some of this bother you … ?? (I’ve pulled out the ones I thought could be misapplied … or botched … ) APPENDIX C PROPOSALS The following proposals, offered by persons attending the 1999 Leesburg Symposium, list possible actions that can be taken in a school to strengthen its threat response program. These are not recommendations of the FBI.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A friend who owns an airport and is planning some airport improvements was wondering how much he should charge for hanger space and tie down spots. It’s a 2000′ public grass field in south central PA with well mowed grass and clear aproaches. How much would you pay to hanger or tie down your plane in such a place? Depends on how close in to the cities he is. At Potomac (VKX) tie dows are around $65 and hangers about in the mid $300’s. At Manassas they’re slightly more expensive. Of course most places around have waiting lists (or you have to buy into a condo) for hangars. By the way, at Dulles, I here the tie down (not even a reserved spot) is now $350! I left there three years ago when it was $125.
At Caldwell where I am based, my tie-down is $185.00 and a hangar is over $650 (if you can get one). It’s basically the 3 laws of real estate . . . location, location, location.
If the other airports have waiting lists for hangars, what they charge is too low.
Uh oh…fighting words… –kyler
No offense, but I think I’d prefer topless line GUYS in mine! Helen – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You can do an accounting of all your capital investment, labor cost, taxes, and add the desired profit margin, and this is something you will want to do to determine whether you are making a profit or not…BUT…you can’t charge more than the average cost of other similar services in your area. And you can’t afford to charge much less because you’ll go broke. Call a dozen airports within 100 mile radius of your location and ask about their hanger rents, both T-hanger storage and heated storage with line service pull-in/out service (if you will offer such). If the other airport is old or newer than yours, their prices may not reflect yours. Just a general real estate broker can tell what land is worth, you need to charge for the 1500-2000 sq.ft. that the plane will be tied down on and a portion to cover mowing, taxes, etc. Don’t forget to factor your hanger-keepers liability insurance. Start out asking the highest price you think only a few would pay. People will store their airplane as close to home as possible, most won’t want to drive more than 30 miles to the airport (most much less). Drop your rates by a special offer program after a month or two, until people decide they can afford your cost. Even old, cheap airplanes are expensive, being $10,000 to hundreds of thousands of dollars. You could charge more for more expensive airplanes because your insurance cost will be higher on such. How much do they charge to park a car in town? How much to keep the pets? You could offer a kennel service for people traveling. The bottom line is you must be within 10-15 percent of the market or you’ll have no customers or you’ll sell out all your space on a contract price that is too low and you’ll go broke. Now, if you have new air conditioned/heated hangers and topless line girls you can charge more. A friend who owns an airport and is planning some airport improvements was wondering how much he should charge for hanger space and tie down spots. It’s a 2000′ public grass field in south central PA with well mowed grass and clear aproaches. How much would you pay to hanger or tie down your plane in such a place? Helen
Not much, Helen, since it is 2000 ft, grass, and so it won’t take a plane of any serious weight. Consequently the very light and very small planes that can operate there have small budgets, and won’t pay much. My guess is that you’ll get between $25 and $50 a month for a concrete pad – more like the $25 though is my guess. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A friend who owns an airport and is planning some airport improvements was wondering how much he should charge for hanger space and tie down spots. It’s a 2000′ public grass field in south central PA with well mowed grass and clear aproaches. How much would you pay to hanger or tie down your plane in such a place? Helen
A friend who owns an airport and is planning some airport improvements was wondering how much he should charge for hanger space and tie down spots. It’s a 2000′ public grass field in south central PA with well mowed grass and clear aproaches. How much would you pay to hanger or tie down your plane in such a place?
Depends on how close in to the cities he is. At Potomac (VKX) tie dows are around $65 and hangers about in the mid $300’s. At Manassas they’re slightly more expensive. Of course most places around have waiting lists (or you have to buy into a condo) for hangars. By the way, at Dulles, I here the tie down (not even a reserved spot) is now $350! I left there three years ago when it was $125.
Call a dozen airports within 100 mile radius of your location and ask about their hanger rents, both T-hanger storage and heated storage with line service pull-in/out service (if you will offer such).
Also ask if they actually have any available. For years the going rate for hangars around here was about $160, but they were all full. Now the rate runs between $360 and $700, depending on the airport. They’re still full. If the other airports have waiting lists for hangars, what they charge is too low. George Patterson, N3162Q.
By the way, at Dulles, I here the tie down (not even a reserved spot) is now $350! I left there three years ago when it was $125.
Ouch! When I based at PHX, the tiedown rate for a reserved spot was $30/mo. Just about the same as all of the surrounding GA airports. I think it’s up to $33 now. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) Before you buy.
A friend who owns an airport and is planning some airport improvements was wondering how much he should charge for hanger space and tie down spots. It’s a 2000′ public grass field in south central PA with well mowed grass and clear aproaches. How much would you pay to hanger or tie down your plane in such a place? Helen
You can do an accounting of all your capital investment, labor cost, taxes, and add the desired profit margin, and this is something you will want to do to determine whether you are making a profit or not…BUT…you can’t charge more than the average cost of other similar services in your area. And you can’t afford to charge much less because you’ll go broke. Call a dozen airports within 100 mile radius of your location and ask about their hanger rents, both T-hanger storage and heated storage with line service pull-in/out service (if you will offer such). If the other airport is old or newer than yours, their prices may not reflect yours. Just a general real estate broker can tell what land is worth, you need to charge for the 1500-2000 sq.ft. that the plane will be tied down on and a portion to cover mowing, taxes, etc. Don’t forget to factor your hanger-keepers liability insurance. Start out asking the highest price you think only a few would pay. People will store their airplane as close to home as possible, most won’t want to drive more than 30 miles to the airport (most much less). Drop your rates by a special offer program after a month or two, until people decide they can afford your cost. Even old, cheap airplanes are expensive, being $10,000 to hundreds of thousands of dollars. You could charge more for more expensive airplanes because your insurance cost will be higher on such. How much do they charge to park a car in town? How much to keep the pets? You could offer a kennel service for people traveling. The bottom line is you must be within 10-15 percent of the market or you’ll have no customers or you’ll sell out all your space on a contract price that is too low and you’ll go broke. Now, if you have new air conditioned/heated hangers and topless line girls you can charge more.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A friend who owns an airport and is planning some airport improvements was wondering how much he should charge for hanger space and tie down spots. It’s a 2000′ public grass field in south central PA with well mowed grass and clear aproaches. How much would you pay to hanger or tie down your plane in such a place? Helen
<snip Hey ! Because of a grossly discriminatory law ( an interesting anamoly, in a nation of immigrants ), I have zero shot at the Presidency. So, that’s it, I will have to go for Prime Minister. The only problem is, which of the five parties will I use ? The Bloc Quebecois are right out, as they only run in Quebec ( around 75 out of 300 seats in Commons ), so I can’t win a general election there. The NDP ( Not Destined for Power ) are kinda moribund, the Tories are more so, and the Reformers don’t even know what their name is going to be. And, the Liberals, *ain’t*.
You’re forgetting about the Greens, Andre! 8% of the vote in BC and growing! I think we form a Green-Rhino coalition and we’ve got 24 Sussex Drive in the bag. And, I’m sexier than Gore ( I have references ), and, unlike Bush ( Shrub ) I know where many of the nations that have dealings with the US actually *are*. Gotta watch out for those Maine Texans…
Paint drying is sexier than Gore. I’m afraid you’ll have to do better than than for my vote. Andre
JW
<snip Hey ! Because of a grossly discriminatory law ( an interesting anamoly, in a nation of immigrants ), I have zero shot at the Presidency. So, that’s it, I will have to go for Prime Minister. The only problem is, which of the five parties will I use ? The Bloc Quebecois are right out, as they only run in Quebec ( around 75 out of 300 seats in Commons ), so I can’t win a general election there. The NDP ( Not Destined for Power ) are kinda moribund, the Tories are more so, and the Reformers don’t even know what their name is going to be. And, the Liberals, *ain’t*. You’re forgetting about the Greens, Andre! 8% of the vote in BC and growing! I think we form a Green-Rhino coalition and we’ve got 24 Sussex Drive in the bag.
Fair enough. Whenever I’ve had the opportunity to vote Rhino, I have. But, does that mean that I will have to share the Prime Ministry ? I’m not sure how my s/o will like that. <g And, I’m sexier than Gore ( I have references ), and, unlike Bush ( Shrub ) I know where many of the nations that have dealings with the US actually *are*. Gotta watch out for those Maine Texans… Paint drying is sexier than Gore. I’m afraid you’ll have to do better than than for my vote.
Well, that’s who I had available, to compare to. Were the candidates sexier, I betcha that I could still beat ‘em. But, for a reference for that, I may have to ask my s/o to take a few minutes at the school where she teaches ( and, just today, came up with a brilliant method to ensure that her students couldn’t cheat, when correcting multiple choice quizzes. Definitely Sec Ed material, from where I sit ). So, what would I have to do, bed Tipper ? Andre JW
Andre — " The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness " David Gelernter, " 1939 "
hiya Ziggy, 
I think Al Gore did a recent "flip" as far as fathers are concerned. - I guess he realized that dads and men in general make up a large portion of the voting population.
I must have missed it – can you point me to where he may have voiced support for fatherhood? (I know that he supports the "Fathers Count Act", but based on his comments at the NFI gathering, he seems to support it as a weapon to be used against fathers who are unable to economically support their children – the right thing for the wrong reason. I am happy to see any support for this bill, though.) He has provided *numerous* times the stupid terminology "dead-beat dads". Use of this term in a political context is not helpful to these issues, it is merely inflammatory demagoguery. Gore has shown that he is perfectly willing to color outside of the lines in order to attempt to jumpstart his lackluster campaign. (Gosh, for a nation of 240 million people *this* is the best we could do for presidential candidates? Geeze.) Overall, his comments as published in the Massachusetts Times show a complete disregard for the value of fatherhood. The issue that many fathers face is that the government and society work actively and passively *against* any inclination that divorced or separated fathers would have to be involved with thier children. The comment about showing "respect" for the children’s mother was particularly ironic – NCP parents are catagorically shown an utter lack of respect by the instruments of government – many parents who faithfully pay child support find themselves harrassed by support collection agancies nonetheless (the stories are astounding) and "visitation rights" are generally ignored by the courts and police. Hell, "respect"? Most fatheres would settle for basic civility and some recogition of their existing *legal* rights, never mind parenting rights. So, f*ck Al Gore and his gang of father-hating scum. But let him screw up his own damn kids, meanwhile I’ll fight the battle for *my* kids, regardless of what I have to do. There – blew off some steam. Feels good. I am, BTW, nominating my ASD good friend Donna T for president, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that she could do a more respectable job then these clowns. Fido
I am, BTW, nominating my ASD good friend Donna T for president, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that she could do a more respectable job then these clowns.
Oh, so *she* gets the presidency, and all I get is some lousy nomination for NYS senator? Hrmmmmph. |Kathy Litherland | People make their own history, but No hacemos el amor;|Dept. of Anthro | they do not make it under El nos hace |U. of Illinois | circumstances of their own choosing
In article I am, BTW, nominating my ASD good friend Donna T for president, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that she could do a more respectable job then these clowns. Oh, so *she* gets the presidency, and all I get is some lousy nomination for NYS senator? Hrmmmmph.
Umm, I promised her the job. Best – Fido |Kathy Litherland | People make their own history, but No hacemos el amor;|Dept. of Anthro | they do not make it under El nos hace |U. of Illinois | circumstances of their own choosing
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
I am, BTW, nominating my ASD good friend Donna T for president, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that she could do a more respectable job then these clowns. Oh, so *she* gets the presidency, and all I get is some lousy nomination for NYS senator? Hrmmmmph.
Hey ! Because of a grossly discriminatory law ( an interesting anamoly, in a nation of immigrants ), I have zero shot at the Presidency. So, that’s it, I will have to go for Prime Minister. The only problem is, which of the five parties will I use ? The Bloc Quebecois are right out, as they only run in Quebec ( around 75 out of 300 seats in Commons ), so I can’t win a general election there. The NDP ( Not Destined for Power ) are kinda moribund, the Tories are more so, and the Reformers don’t even know what their name is going to be. And, the Liberals, *ain’t*. And, I’m sexier than Gore ( I have references ), and, unlike Bush ( Shrub ) I know where many of the nations that have dealings with the US actually *are*. Gotta watch out for those Maine Texans… |Kathy Litherland | People make their own history, but No hacemos el amor;|Dept. of Anthro | they do not make it under El nos hace |U. of Illinois | circumstances of their own choosing
Andre — " The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness " David Gelernter, " 1939 "
I think Al Gore did a recent "flip" as far as fathers are oncerned. - I guess he realized that dads and men in general make up a large portion of the voting population.
One can hope… <g IMHO, CS payments should be made to a central controlling agency (and I don’t even like the sound of that)
I’ve read over your proposal, and while I will admit that I am not as well versed in this area as some ( as it wasn’t any part of my divorce ), I do have some research and thoughts to play with. In general, I would prefer to keep the bureaucrats out of it, wherever possible, so if you have a situation where the couple has a working court order, or a working agreement, then I’d say, leave the central body *out*. They will only add to complexity, and paperwork, in which deals can be fubared. Plus, monies sent to be processed to such a body, will take *longer* to get to their intended place. Proving general expenses, day to day, would be very time consuming, and people, especially divorced parents haven’t got enough of that commodity. So, I’d go with a CS level determined by setting an annual budget, taking into account such things as the difference between a one and a two bedroom place, at the place where the CS recipient is living ( often, the difference is relatively paltry ), if there is one child, for example. Beyond that, I am not in favour of forcing a parent to hold, or give, monies to an adult child. No married parent can be forced to do that, and this provision, IMHO, discriminates against a divorced parent. If one, or both, parents wish to fund a post secondary education for their 18 year old, that ought to remain their *choice*. No one elses. Proportional expensing can easily run into great problems, with growing children, who go through a lot more clothing, in a shorter span of time, than do most adults. So, expenses there would have to run along another track. An annual budget could better deal with this. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1. …where the money is doled out to the parent who is awarded payment, after expense vouchers are submitted to prove the money was spent on the children. 2. The child support award money should be put in a interest drawing escrow account. 3. Any money not used in any month would be held in this account to be available for a time when expenses are greater in one month as against another. Any monies left over over the length of time it takes for a child to reach 18 would be used to further their education. If the child does not choose to go to college, or vocational school, then the money would be given to them as a "stake" in whatever direction they choose to go (since the money should belong to them anyhow). 4. A fair "lodging" amount can be determined for the child/children’s "room" expense to be applied to the monthly rental and proportionate maintenance expense of an apartment or house. 5. The same as above can be determined for the child/children’s "board" expenses (food, clothing, and such…) This plan can be "fleshed out" to eliminate the usual complaint of the other spouse spending child support payments on their private expenses and not on the children. The time spent doing "parenting" resposibilities would not be compensated for. Being a parent is rewarding enough if the offspring become a credit to the parents. If not, then reflect on the things you did wrong.
Yep, no CS ought to be there to " compensate " the CS recipient for parenting the kids. As for spending CS on themselves… if there is the proper amount of money budgeted for the child’s needs, then thihs would not really be much of a problem, as it could be reduced to, I’ll take a fiver from here, and put it back, the next time I go to Safeways. I’m less concerned about the accounting, then I am about the results. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Can our readers add responsible additions to this plan? I’m sure they can. Let’s hear it. I have always wondered if there is such a thing a a dead beat mother who has been ordered to pay child support to her X and children because she left and earns more oney yet refuses to pay? (I am female so this is NOT agains mothers or fathers) Read Sanford Braver’s " Divorced Dads ", he has a ton of studies in there that address exactly this, among other things. Overall, that’s the best book about the true state of divorce that I have ever read. With a look to my bookshelves, and my local library, I could suggest a comprehensive reading list. There are deadbeat moms, and many of them do the same as the dads that fail their kids, both in CS, as well as parenting. I feel who ever has the most income should be the one to pay the child support. Not necessarily. The best would be for a presumed 50/50 arrangement, with the courts sanctioning whoever tries to sabotage it. That would make most CS deals unnecessary. As each parent would pay for what they expend, while the child is with them, and the court orders, done right, would cover long term costs, such as school, and the like. What is, a dad has his two kids, and he makes $60k, while the ex makes $35k ? As he makes more, is she off the hook to support *her* kids, just ’cause she makes less then him ? Why ought her lesser paystubs stick him with the full costs of raising *their* kids ?
Andre — " The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness " David Gelernter, " 1939 "
Eloquently said FIDO. I’m behind you 100%
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Al Gore is a moron. Well, he is or isn’t, but these statements are moronic. Just a classic case of a liberal democrate bowing down to the women’s movement and their unsubstantiated figures they throw around. Sure – 51% of the voters are women. Hey, gotta get elected, you know. In Maine, our Governor shows his strongest support among women, something like 74% support – he says the strangest things to shore up that constituency. Polioticians may be great politicians – but that doesn’t necessarily translate into great lawmakers. But, that’s the system we got. I realize ALOT of fathers don’t pay support. And they should get what is coming to them. Agreed. But, the majority of fathers do pay their child support. But Gore and his gang portray pretty much all fathers of divorced familys as dead-beat-dads. Ignoring the real numbers. Inflating them to get votes. I’m a single full-time dad. My ex-wife has’nt paid me a dime of what she owes me in support for going on 6 months now. She is too busy being the "party-girl" to give her daughter any kind of involvement much less any kind of financial support. I am so sick of hearing about it being ONLY the fathers. And the politics is highlighted by that point – fathers pay a greater percentage of thier child support then mother who are required to pay child support. But Gore continues to use the inflammatory term "dead beat *dad*", while at the same time ignoring the larger and more significant issue of fatherlessness in the lives of *many* children. The present social programs provide not one whit of assistance for fathers who want to be more involved in thier childrens’ lives – instead, as many of us know – works to drive the father *out* of his children’s lives. The massive failure of this social initiative has not been address by those who make social policy – instaed they are happy to blame the wholesale social failure of these programs on those fathers themselves. Absurd, but unless the government recognizes that the family is a social unit better then any social program that might be created by government – instead, the government is happy to try to *replace* the father with expensive social programs. As a father who has made extraordinary sacrifices to stay closely involved with the lives of his children under difficult circumstances, I understand this process too well. And I also understand the many fathers who just give up on thier children, rather then continue to battle against the social "war against fathers" which drives them out of the lives of thier children. This is not a social system that works well, and no amount of social policy will replace, for many children, the benefits of having both parents involved in thier upbringing. Our "social scientists" refuse to recognize that fact, do not see the simple things that can be done to encourage the involvement of the father, and instead perpetuate the system that requires fathers to only be paychecks to thier children. A parent is a parent. Mother or Father. They BOTH should contribute to the well being of the child. Financially and emotionally. Yes, but social scientists do not consider anything other then the economic crisis that those very same social scientists have created. And rather then changing policies to support and encourage those fathers who do want to be involved in the lives of thier children (and there are good arguments that emotional involvement of the father is *much* more important then any incremental economic benefit to the children) they crank up the policies that continue to drive fathers out of the lives of the children. These policies will not, in the long term or short term, work. The contradiction that is created can be seen clearly in the social worker community – the problems of fatherlessness are almost universally recognized. And the system and policies that work in a hostile manner *against* father is perpetuated. Somehow, the connection between the two has not, on a wholesale level, been made. I have posted here about the *denial* that the social professions are in about this issue. My ex does neither. Just another case of a democrat kissing the rear end of a movement that regards the fathers involvement in his childrens lives as detrimental anyway. Married or divorced. They really don’t give a damn about the kids – they are just happy to hump the provocative "dead-beat dad" myth, bemoaning fatherlessness, while working actively to drive fathers out of the lives of thier children. I’ve been doing this long enough so that I have heard and lived thier lies too long. To hell with them, I will do it myself. Gore and his pals can continue their big circle jerk, and screwing up the lives of children. Best – Fido
Excerpted from the Washington Time, 03 JUN 00 p. A4 From the guy who "invented the internet". A good reason for requiring
intellegence tests of anyone who offers to run for President. This long-time democrat has finally given up on that party. GORE FAVORS FORCING DADS INTO SUPPORTING by Cheryl Wetzstein Vice President Al Gore yesterday told a national fatherhood summit that he would boost child support enforcement as the "next step in welfare reform" if he is elected president. We’ve been requiring work and support of the mothers; let’s require it of the fathers," he told the National Fatherhood Initiative’s third summit. He said he would urge credit card companies "to deny credit to any parent who owes a substantial amount of child support." "Deadbeat dads should pay what they owe to their children, or they will leave home without it," he said parodying the American Express credit-card ad. Mr. Gore also pledged that all federally funded fatherhood programs would be required to have provisions to stem domestic violence. He said, "every father needs to understand that being a dad means respecting the mother of your children." When the vice-president that "only one in four parents who owe child support actually pays that child support," an unidentified man in the audience yelled "That’s a lie." Federal data shows that "70% of fathers pay child support," the man said. Gore joked about whether the heckler "was on the program later" and repeated his data, clarifying that he was "not talking about those who have court orders being enforced against them."
Al Gore is a moron. Just a classic case of a liberal democrate bowing down to the women’s movement and their unsubstantiated figures they throw around. I realize ALOT of fathers don’t pay support. And they should get what is coming to them. But Gore and his gang portray pretty much all fathers of divorced familys as dead-beat-dads. Ignoring the real numbers. Inflating them to get votes. I’m a single full-time dad. My ex-wife has’nt paid me a dime of what she owes me in support for going on 6 months now. She is too busy being the "party-girl" to give her daughter any kind of involvement much less any kind of financial support. I am so sick of hearing about it being ONLY the fathers. A parent is a parent. Mother or Father. They BOTH should contribute to the well being of the child. Financially and emotionally. My ex does neither. Just another case of a democrat kissing the rear end of a movement that regards the fathers involvement in his childrens lives as detrimental anyway. Married or divorced.
Personally I’ve always believed that vice presidents were picked to insure the pres wouldn’t be killed. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Excerpted from the Washington Time, 03 JUN 00 p. A4 From the guy who "invented the internet". A good reason for requiring intellegence tests of anyone who offers to run for President. This long-time democrat has finally given up on that party. GORE FAVORS FORCING DADS INTO SUPPORTING by Cheryl Wetzstein Vice President Al Gore yesterday told a national fatherhood summit that he would boost child support enforcement as the "next step in welfare reform" if he is elected president. We’ve been requiring work and support of the mothers; let’s require it of the fathers," he told the National Fatherhood Initiative’s third summit. He said he would urge credit card companies "to deny credit to any parent who owes a substantial amount of child support." "Deadbeat dads should pay what they owe to their children, or they will leave home without it," he said parodying the American Express credit-card ad. Mr. Gore also pledged that all federally funded fatherhood programs would be required to have provisions to stem domestic violence. He said, "every father needs to understand that being a dad means respecting the mother of your children." When the vice-president that "only one in four parents who owe child support actually pays that child support," an unidentified man in the audience yelled "That’s a lie." Federal data shows that "70% of fathers pay child support," the man said. Gore joked about whether the heckler "was on the program later" and repeated his data, clarifying that he was "not talking about those who have court orders being enforced against them."
– "Don’t spit into the well, you may have to drink the water" old Polish proverb ICQ# 35013944
I have always wondered if there is such a thing a a dead beat mother who has been ordered to pay child support to her X and children because she left and earns more oney yet refuses to pay? (I am female so this is NOT agains mothers or fathers) I feel who ever has the most income should be the one to pay the child suport .
I feel who ever has the most income should be the one to pay the child suport .
Child support should be rare. Try sharing your "toys" instead. Then take responsibilty for them when you have them. Child support is just the flip side of saying "We will kidnap your children."
Al Gore is a moron.
Well, he is or isn’t, but these statements are moronic. Just a classic case of a liberal democrate bowing down to the women’s movement and their unsubstantiated figures they throw around.
Sure – 51% of the voters are women. Hey, gotta get elected, you know. In Maine, our Governor shows his strongest support among women, something like 74% support – he says the strangest things to shore up that constituency. Polioticians may be great politicians – but that doesn’t necessarily translate into great lawmakers. But, that’s the system we got. I realize ALOT of fathers don’t pay support. And they should get what is coming to them.
Agreed. But, the majority of fathers do pay their child support. But Gore and his gang portray pretty much all fathers of divorced familys as dead-beat-dads. Ignoring the real numbers. Inflating them to get votes. I’m a single full-time dad. My ex-wife has’nt paid me a dime of what she owes me in support for going on 6 months now. She is too busy being the "party-girl" to give her daughter any kind of involvement much less any kind of financial support. I am so sick of hearing about it being ONLY the fathers.
And the politics is highlighted by that point – fathers pay a greater percentage of thier child support then mother who are required to pay child support. But Gore continues to use the inflammatory term "dead beat *dad*", while at the same time ignoring the larger and more significant issue of fatherlessness in the lives of *many* children. The present social programs provide not one whit of assistance for fathers who want to be more involved in thier childrens’ lives – instead, as many of us know – works to drive the father *out* of his children’s lives. The massive failure of this social initiative has not been address by those who make social policy – instaed they are happy to blame the wholesale social failure of these programs on those fathers themselves. Absurd, but unless the government recognizes that the family is a social unit better then any social program that might be created by government – instead, the government is happy to try to *replace* the father with expensive social programs. As a father who has made extraordinary sacrifices to stay closely involved with the lives of his children under difficult circumstances, I understand this process too well. And I also understand the many fathers who just give up on thier children, rather then continue to battle against the social "war against fathers" which drives them out of the lives of thier children. This is not a social system that works well, and no amount of social policy will replace, for many children, the benefits of having both parents involved in thier upbringing. Our "social scientists" refuse to recognize that fact, do not see the simple things that can be done to encourage the involvement of the father, and instead perpetuate the system that requires fathers to only be paychecks to thier children. A parent is a parent. Mother or Father. They BOTH should contribute to the well being of the child. Financially and emotionally.
Yes, but social scientists do not consider anything other then the economic crisis that those very same social scientists have created. And rather then changing policies to support and encourage those fathers who do want to be involved in the lives of thier children (and there are good arguments that emotional involvement of the father is *much* more important then any incremental economic benefit to the children) they crank up the policies that continue to drive fathers out of the lives of the children. These policies will not, in the long term or short term, work. The contradiction that is created can be seen clearly in the social worker community – the problems of fatherlessness are almost universally recognized. And the system and policies that work in a hostile manner *against* father is perpetuated. Somehow, the connection between the two has not, on a wholesale level, been made. I have posted here about the *denial* that the social professions are in about this issue. My ex does neither. Just another case of a democrat kissing the rear end of a movement that regards the fathers involvement in his childrens lives as detrimental anyway. Married or divorced.
They really don’t give a damn about the kids – they are just happy to hump the provocative "dead-beat dad" myth, bemoaning fatherlessness, while working actively to drive fathers out of the lives of thier children. I’ve been doing this long enough so that I have heard and lived thier lies too long. To hell with them, I will do it myself. Gore and his pals can continue their big circle jerk, and screwing up the lives of children. Best – Fido
I have always wondered if there is such a thing a a dead beat mother who has been ordered to pay child support to her X and children because she left and earns more oney yet refuses to pay? (I am female so this is NOT agains mothers or fathers)
Read Sanford Braver’s " Divorced Dads ", he has a ton of studies in there that address exactly this, among other things. Overall, that’s the best book about the true state of divorce that I have ever read. With a look to my bookshelves, and my local library, I could suggest a comprehensive reading list. There are deadbeat moms, and many of them do the same as the dads that fail their kids, both in CS, as well as parenting. I feel who ever has the most income should be the one to pay the child support.
Not necessarily. The best would be for a presumed 50/50 arrangement, with the courts sanctioning whoever tries to sabotage it. That would make most CS deals unnecessary. As each parent would pay for what they expend, while the child is with them, and the court orders, done right, would cover long term costs, such as school, and the like. What is, a dad has his two kids, and he makes $60k, while the ex makes $35k ? As he makes more, is she off the hook to support *her* kids, just ’cause she makes less then him ? Why ought her lesser paystubs stick him with the full costs of raising *their* kids ? Andre — " The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness " David Gelernter, " 1939 "
I think Al Gore did a recent "flip" as far as fathers are oncerned. - I guess he realized that dads and men in general make up a large portion of the voting population. IMHO, CS payments should be made to a central controlling agency (and I don’t even like the sound of that) 1. …where the money is doled out to the parent who is awarded payment, after expense vouchers are submitted to prove the money was spent on the children. 2. The child support award money should be put in a interest drawing escrow account. 3. Any money not used in any month would be held in this account to be available for a time when expenses are greater in one month as against another. Any monies left over over the length of time it takes for a child to reach 18 would be used to further their education. If the child does not choose to go to college, or vocational school, then the money would be given to them as a "stake" in whatever direction they choose to go (since the money should belong to them anyhow). 4. A fair "lodging" amount can be determined for the child/children’s "room" expense to be applied to the monthly rental and proportionate maintenance expense of an apartment or house. 5. The same as above can be determined for the child/children’s "board" expenses (food, clothing, and such…) This plan can be "fleshed out" to eliminate the usual complaint of the other spouse spending child support payments on their private expenses and not on the children. The time spent doing "parenting" resposibilities would not be compensated for. Being a parent is rewarding enough if the offspring become a credit to the parents. If not, then reflect on the things you did wrong. Can our readers add responsible additions to this plan? I’m sure they can. Let’s hear it.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have always wondered if there is such a thing a a dead beat mother who has been ordered to pay child support to her X and children because she left and earns more oney yet refuses to pay? (I am female so this is NOT agains mothers or fathers) Read Sanford Braver’s " Divorced Dads ", he has a ton of studies in there that address exactly this, among other things. Overall, that’s the best book about the true state of divorce that I have ever read. With a look to my bookshelves, and my local library, I could suggest a comprehensive reading list. There are deadbeat moms, and many of them do the same as the dads that fail their kids, both in CS, as well as parenting. I feel who ever has the most income should be the one to pay the child support. Not necessarily. The best would be for a presumed 50/50 arrangement, with the courts sanctioning whoever tries to sabotage it. That would make most CS deals unnecessary. As each parent would pay for what they expend, while the child is with them, and the court orders, done right, would cover long term costs, such as school, and the like. What is, a dad has his two kids, and he makes $60k, while the ex makes $35k ? As he makes more, is she off the hook to support *her* kids, just ’cause she makes less then him ? Why ought her lesser paystubs stick him with the full costs of raising *their* kids ? Andre — " The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness " David Gelernter, " 1939 "
Refer to "Valuation – Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies" by Tom Copeland et al. On page 433 they state that (tax considerations aside) no difference exists between the two methods. The accounting treatment has no effect on value created. Empirical support is also provided. I hope this helps – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Has anyone seen any evidence that the accounting choice between purchase accounting and pooling of interest for mergers has any effect on long term stock appreciation? I know that banks are notorious for trying to aviod goodwill, but I’m not sure the market cares (i.e. the old cash flow vs. earnings question). Any help in pointing a relevant study (or just opinions) would be great. Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
Has anyone seen any evidence that the accounting choice between purchase accounting and pooling of interest for mergers has any effect on long term stock appreciation? I know that banks are notorious for trying to aviod goodwill, but I’m not sure the market cares (i.e. the old cash flow vs. earnings question). Any help in pointing a relevant study (or just opinions) would be great. Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
Hi It has been known since 1997 as the Institute of Cost & Executive Accountants. Please email me the details you require and specific questions. I have gone through the entire syllabus of the ICEA. Dr. N.J. Wilson Certified Public Accountant (UK) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Address of ACEA (Association of Cost Executive Accontants) ??? Dose any one know the address of the abone organisation or other contact method ? Many thanks ! Regards, William
Address of ACEA (Association of Cost Executive Accontants) ??? Dose any one know the address of the abone organisation or other contact method ? Many thanks ! Regards, William
Can someone please tell me how this association ranks in UK. I am quite interested in any information P J French
The address for the ACEA is as follows: The Institute of Cost and Executive Accountants 139 Fonthill Road London N4 3HF Tel : +44 171 272 3925 Fax: +44 171 282 5723
– 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.