I /shouldn’t/ qualify, since I’ve got a /boyfriend/ but… *sigh* I always thought "I’m too tired" was a female excuse? According to circadian rhythms, males are involuntarily at their sexual peak in the morning hours. If your boyfriend says this at that time, there’s a problem. It’s not uncommon for men to come home from work too tired to do the deed. But if your bf is unemployed, there’s a problem.
Which could be due to poor self esteem from being unemployed. Or it could come from not eating the right foods for his body, or getting enough exercise. Maybe try getting him to take a math or accounting course. They bore my mind so much I get overwhelming urges to have sex.
I /shouldn’t/ qualify, since I’ve got a /boyfriend/ but… *sigh* I always thought "I’m too tired" was a female excuse?
According to circadian rhythms, males are involuntarily at their sexual peak in the morning hours. If your boyfriend says this at that time, there’s a problem. It’s not uncommon for men to come home from work too tired to do the deed. But if your bf is unemployed, there’s a problem. "Scientists say the body is most primed for sex (and fertilisation) in the early morning
… it’s true. The Environmentalist Party’s founder, MP Mike Bogatirev, has master degrees in Russian, International Business and Computer Science. He started the Party in 1983, and currently supports the reform of the California Coastal Commission, to make it an elected committee. He’s the Environmental Minister of the US Parliament [www.usparliament.org]. Environmentalist Party members may not currently be on the ballot. Currently, the party is censored by the state. Really, there are probably less than 100 actual *members* of the Environmentalists … those you speak of are probably Democrats. Cheers, -Jimmy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Environmentalist Party, registered with the FEC as a national party based in Paradise, CA., I assure you that the California Environmentalist Party rejects acts not associated with the peaceful counting of votes. Hogwash. Another E.L.F. arson occured on Saturday. A condominium was torched causing $20 million dollars damage. See: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=YGXKXY5PX50RACRBA… "…The three-alarm fire, which leveled a 200-unit condominium complex that was under construction, caused at least $20 million in damage after it broke out shortly before dawn on Friday. A 12-foot hand-painted banner found on the scene suggested members of the Earth Liberation Front, a network of environmental groups that has claimed responsibility for other fires, had set the blaze. "It does look as we progress on (with the investigation) that the E.L.F. has taken responsibility," said Jan Caldwell, a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation in San Diego. "That does put it in the arena of domestic terrorism." On Saturday, the San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper reported it had received an e-mail from the E.L.F. claiming responsibility. The banner found at the site read: "If you build it — we will burn it — the E.L.F.’s are mad."…" [Snip] I’m going to make a prediction here: I predict that NOT ONE official spokesperson for the Green Party will speak up and condemn this arson. I bet we’ll hear mum from Ralph Nader, in particular. Further, I predict that NOT ONE spokesperson from ANY of the established "Environmentalist" organization will condemn this act. Why should they start condemning POLITICAL, TERRORISM and VIOLENCE done in their name at this point? Only morons and fools believe that PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, etc., are not aware of who these people are and how to contact them if necessary. Which leads to another prediction: NOT ONE person from the above mention organizations and the Green Party will come forth and disclose who the perpetrators are. Up to now, nobody has been hurt, except perhaps the insurance companies (and their stockholders) and those who pay the insurance premiums. But should there be a death of a human being as a result of eco-terrorism, you leftists and "Greens" are going to have to ask yourselves some rather pointed questions. 1. Do you (including the "national" environmentalist organizations) want to escalate the federal scrutiny your political organizations will almost certainly come under? 2. Do you want to risk the political backlash that will doom for your lifetimes any chance of becoming part of America’s political mainstream and seeing advancement of your agenda? The reaction of the American public to the 9/11/01 event ought to be a clue to the depth of anger that you people will be facing, if Americans are killed by other Americans over a political issue. And something tells me that any mealy-mouthed press release condemning the violence then, will simply be too little, too late for most people, especially when they realized that somebody among you could have prevented the murder by simply turning these thugs in. 3. Do you want to risk opposition political activity directed specifically at the Green Party, PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et. al.? Can YOU people stand up to picketing, being shouted down at your rallies, by a public that is enraged at the murderous ways of YOUR associates? 4. Do you want to risk vigilantism and escalating political violence as YOUR associates continue their campaign of terror? You know, the addresses of PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et. al., are in the phone book. It’s not a stretch to imagine protests and even political action coming directly to their doors, or even following them to their homes. And, it’s not a stretch to see the Patriot Act used to shut down your "money-makers," because it is not a stretch to imagine the feds walking in and seizing people, computers, accounting data, correspondence and membership lists in order to see *who* among your lobbyists and cash-cows, and "money makers" (e.g.., PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et.al.) know, know of, or participated in or with, the E.L.F. terrorists. And I can even envision the government using the Patriot Act against the Green Party locals and national offices. Oh, yeah, it’d probably be unconstitutional — it ought to be unconstitutional to come after a political party. But by the time your lawyers can find the right official to serve habeas corpus papers, you’ll be long held incommunicado (disappeared, in other words), held as "enemy combatants" or some such nonsense. And frankly, you’ll have brought it onto yourselves, because there are people in YOUR organization who know EXACTLY who E.L.F. is; who is involved, and who are the specific plotters. Yes, I know that there is a fiction that E.L.F. consists of "cells" (modeled after COMMUNIST PARTY insurgents), and that nobody knows who is in these cells and who coordinates them. But that *is* a fiction. Somebody is giving them money. Somebody is giving them "intelligence." And that "somebody" knows who to contact at the top of the "cell" structure to pass the information along. You know it. I know it, and you can be sure that the counter-terrorism boys and girls at the FBI know it too. So, here’s another prediction: When innocent people are finally murdered by *your* associates in E.L.F., expect to see Ashcroft invoke the Patriot Act to drag your red butts to a "sequestered" facility where you will be sweated for what you know without benefit of an attorney or even a public trial. Oh yeah, your attorneys and those of PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et.al., will all scream bloody murder about "rights" being violated and "due process" withheld. And you’ll be right — and I’d even protest with you if that happens. But, as some of you *are* accomplices to the eco-terrorism, and have been for years, you’ll find that not even your allies in the media will be able to reshape public opinion in your favor. And that will be the end of the Green party for all practical purposes. Further, it will be the end of your "cash cows," your lobbying organizations, tax exemptions, and any of your "members" who donated money to you or your cause. You people (some of you) are complicit in the activities of E.L.F. You people (most of you) applaud their actions. You people (all of you — all of *us*, actually) share a responsibility to protect each other’s lives. It’s a natural consequence of living in a Republic, and why we pay taxes. It’s why the preamble to the Constitution reads: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." If you abdicate in this (as some of you did after 9/11/01), you will have forfeited any claim to "the blessings of liberty" in the eyes of your fellow citizens, because you will have abrogated your part of the social contract. If it comes to this (another prediction), we will have degraded to a 1980’s style insurgent state, rife with both right and left wing death squads, assassinations, and death. I’d like to point out, at this time, that YOUR side is the one that practices gun control…. Prove me wrong, Greens. Please. Somebody, anybody, turn in E.L.F., before they kill somebody and it all crashes down on your heads.
The Environmentalist Party, registered with the FEC as a national party based in Paradise, CA., I assure you that the California Environmentalist Party rejects acts not associated with the peaceful counting of votes.
Hogwash. Another E.L.F. arson occured on Saturday. A condominium was torched causing $20 million dollars damage. See:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=YGXKXY5PX50RACRBA… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "…The three-alarm fire, which leveled a 200-unit condominium complex that was under construction, caused at least $20 million in damage after it broke out shortly before dawn on Friday. A 12-foot hand-painted banner found on the scene suggested members of the Earth Liberation Front, a network of environmental groups that has claimed responsibility for other fires, had set the blaze. "It does look as we progress on (with the investigation) that the E.L.F. has taken responsibility," said Jan Caldwell, a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation in San Diego. "That does put it in the arena of domestic terrorism." On Saturday, the San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper reported it had received an e-mail from the E.L.F. claiming responsibility. The banner found at the site read: "If you build it — we will burn it — the E.L.F.’s are mad."…" [Snip] I’m going to make a prediction here: I predict that NOT ONE official spokesperson for the Green Party will speak up and condemn this arson. I bet we’ll hear mum from Ralph Nader, in particular. Further, I predict that NOT ONE spokesperson from ANY of the established "Environmentalist" organization will condemn this act. Why should they start condemning POLITICAL, TERRORISM and VIOLENCE done in their name at this point? Only morons and fools believe that PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, etc., are not aware of who these people are and how to contact them if necessary. Which leads to another prediction: NOT ONE person from the above mention organizations and the Green Party will come forth and disclose who the perpetrators are. Up to now, nobody has been hurt, except perhaps the insurance companies (and their stockholders) and those who pay the insurance premiums. But should there be a death of a human being as a result of eco-terrorism, you leftists and "Greens" are going to have to ask yourselves some rather pointed questions. 1. Do you (including the "national" environmentalist organizations) want to escalate the federal scrutiny your political organizations will almost certainly come under? 2. Do you want to risk the political backlash that will doom for your lifetimes any chance of becoming part of America’s political mainstream and seeing advancement of your agenda? The reaction of the American public to the 9/11/01 event ought to be a clue to the depth of anger that you people will be facing, if Americans are killed by other Americans over a political issue. And something tells me that any mealy-mouthed press release condemning the violence then, will simply be too little, too late for most people, especially when they realized that somebody among you could have prevented the murder by simply turning these thugs in. 3. Do you want to risk opposition political activity directed specifically at the Green Party, PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et. al.? Can YOU people stand up to picketing, being shouted down at your rallies, by a public that is enraged at the murderous ways of YOUR associates? 4. Do you want to risk vigilantism and escalating political violence as YOUR associates continue their campaign of terror? You know, the addresses of PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et. al., are in the phone book. It’s not a stretch to imagine protests and even political action coming directly to their doors, or even following them to their homes. And, it’s not a stretch to see the Patriot Act used to shut down your "money-makers," because it is not a stretch to imagine the feds walking in and seizing people, computers, accounting data, correspondence and membership lists in order to see *who* among your lobbyists and cash-cows, and "money makers" (e.g.., PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et.al.) know, know of, or participated in or with, the E.L.F. terrorists. And I can even envision the government using the Patriot Act against the Green Party locals and national offices. Oh, yeah, it’d probably be unconstitutional — it ought to be unconstitutional to come after a political party. But by the time your lawyers can find the right official to serve habeas corpus papers, you’ll be long held incommunicado (disappeared, in other words), held as "enemy combatants" or some such nonsense. And frankly, you’ll have brought it onto yourselves, because there are people in YOUR organization who know EXACTLY who E.L.F. is; who is involved, and who are the specific plotters. Yes, I know that there is a fiction that E.L.F. consists of "cells" (modeled after COMMUNIST PARTY insurgents), and that nobody knows who is in these cells and who coordinates them. But that *is* a fiction. Somebody is giving them money. Somebody is giving them "intelligence." And that "somebody" knows who to contact at the top of the "cell" structure to pass the information along. You know it. I know it, and you can be sure that the counter-terrorism boys and girls at the FBI know it too. So, here’s another prediction: When innocent people are finally murdered by *your* associates in E.L.F., expect to see Ashcroft invoke the Patriot Act to drag your red butts to a "sequestered" facility where you will be sweated for what you know without benefit of an attorney or even a public trial. Oh yeah, your attorneys and those of PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et.al., will all scream bloody murder about "rights" being violated and "due process" withheld. And you’ll be right — and I’d even protest with you if that happens. But, as some of you *are* accomplices to the eco-terrorism, and have been for years, you’ll find that not even your allies in the media will be able to reshape public opinion in your favor. And that will be the end of the Green party for all practical purposes. Further, it will be the end of your "cash cows," your lobbying organizations, tax exemptions, and any of your "members" who donated money to you or your cause. You people (some of you) are complicit in the activities of E.L.F. You people (most of you) applaud their actions. You people (all of you — all of *us*, actually) share a responsibility to protect each other’s lives. It’s a natural consequence of living in a Republic, and why we pay taxes. It’s why the preamble to the Constitution reads: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." If you abdicate in this (as some of you did after 9/11/01), you will have forfeited any claim to "the blessings of liberty" in the eyes of your fellow citizens, because you will have abrogated your part of the social contract. If it comes to this (another prediction), we will have degraded to a 1980’s style insurgent state, rife with both right and left wing death squads, assassinations, and death. I’d like to point out, at this time, that YOUR side is the one that practices gun control…. Prove me wrong, Greens. Please. Somebody, anybody, turn in E.L.F., before they kill somebody and it all crashes down on your heads.
The Environmentalist Party, registered with the FEC as a national party based in Paradise, CA., I assure you that the California Environmentalist Party rejects acts not associated with the peaceful counting of votes. We are currently holding a parliamentary vote of confidence with people alligned under a system of PR. All California residents may participate by voting by 8/5/03 at www.usparliament.org/votehere.htm MP J. www.usparliament.org – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Another E.L.F. arson occured on Saturday. A condominium was torched causing $20 million dollars damage. See: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=YGXKXY5PX50RACRBA… "…The three-alarm fire, which leveled a 200-unit condominium complex that was under construction, caused at least $20 million in damage after it broke out shortly before dawn on Friday. A 12-foot hand-painted banner found on the scene suggested members of the Earth Liberation Front, a network of environmental groups that has claimed responsibility for other fires, had set the blaze. "It does look as we progress on (with the investigation) that the E.L.F. has taken responsibility," said Jan Caldwell, a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation in San Diego. "That does put it in the arena of domestic terrorism." On Saturday, the San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper reported it had received an e-mail from the E.L.F. claiming responsibility. The banner found at the site read: "If you build it — we will burn it — the E.L.F.’s are mad."…" [Snip] I’m going to make a prediction here: I predict that NOT ONE official spokesperson for the Green Party will speak up and condemn this arson. I bet we’ll hear mum from Ralph Nader, in particular. Further, I predict that NOT ONE spokesperson from ANY of the established "Environmentalist" organization will condemn this act. Why should they start condemning POLITICAL, TERRORISM and VIOLENCE done in their name at this point? Only morons and fools believe that PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, etc., are not aware of who these people are and how to contact them if necessary. Which leads to another prediction: NOT ONE person from the above mention organizations and the Green Party will come forth and disclose who the perpetrators are. Up to now, nobody has been hurt, except perhaps the insurance companies (and their stockholders) and those who pay the insurance premiums. But should there be a death of a human being as a result of eco-terrorism, you leftists and "Greens" are going to have to ask yourselves some rather pointed questions. 1. Do you (including the "national" environmentalist organizations) want to escalate the federal scrutiny your political organizations will almost certainly come under? 2. Do you want to risk the political backlash that will doom for your lifetimes any chance of becoming part of America’s political mainstream and seeing advancement of your agenda? The reaction of the American public to the 9/11/01 event ought to be a clue to the depth of anger that you people will be facing, if Americans are killed by other Americans over a political issue. And something tells me that any mealy-mouthed press release condemning the violence then, will simply be too little, too late for most people, especially when they realized that somebody among you could have prevented the murder by simply turning these thugs in. 3. Do you want to risk opposition political activity directed specifically at the Green Party, PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et. al.? Can YOU people stand up to picketing, being shouted down at your rallies, by a public that is enraged at the murderous ways of YOUR associates? 4. Do you want to risk vigilantism and escalating political violence as YOUR associates continue their campaign of terror? You know, the addresses of PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et. al., are in the phone book. It’s not a stretch to imagine protests and even political action coming directly to their doors, or even following them to their homes. And, it’s not a stretch to see the Patriot Act used to shut down your "money-makers," because it is not a stretch to imagine the feds walking in and seizing people, computers, accounting data, correspondence and membership lists in order to see *who* among your lobbyists and cash-cows, and "money makers" (e.g.., PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et.al.) know, know of, or participated in or with, the E.L.F. terrorists. And I can even envision the government using the Patriot Act against the Green Party locals and national offices. Oh, yeah, it’d probably be unconstitutional — it ought to be unconstitutional to come after a political party. But by the time your lawyers can find the right official to serve habeas corpus papers, you’ll be long held incommunicado (disappeared, in other words), held as "enemy combatants" or some such nonsense. And frankly, you’ll have brought it onto yourselves, because there are people in YOUR organization who know EXACTLY who E.L.F. is; who is involved, and who are the specific plotters. Yes, I know that there is a fiction that E.L.F. consists of "cells" (modeled after COMMUNIST PARTY insurgents), and that nobody knows who is in these cells and who coordinates them. But that *is* a fiction. Somebody is giving them money. Somebody is giving them "intelligence." And that "somebody" knows who to contact at the top of the "cell" structure to pass the information along. You know it. I know it, and you can be sure that the counter-terrorism boys and girls at the FBI know it too. So, here’s another prediction: When innocent people are finally murdered by *your* associates in E.L.F., expect to see Ashcroft invoke the Patriot Act to drag your red butts to a "sequestered" facility where you will be sweated for what you know without benefit of an attorney or even a public trial. Oh yeah, your attorneys and those of PETA, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Fund, The Wildlands Project, the National Audubon Society, et.al., will all scream bloody murder about "rights" being violated and "due process" withheld. And you’ll be right — and I’d even protest with you if that happens. But, as some of you *are* accomplices to the eco-terrorism, and have been for years, you’ll find that not even your allies in the media will be able to reshape public opinion in your favor. And that will be the end of the Green party for all practical purposes. Further, it will be the end of your "cash cows," your lobbying organizations, tax exemptions, and any of your "members" who donated money to you or your cause. You people (some of you) are complicit in the activities of E.L.F. You people (most of you) applaud their actions. You people (all of you — all of *us*, actually) share a responsibility to protect each other’s lives. It’s a natural consequence of living in a Republic, and why we pay taxes. It’s why the preamble to the Constitution reads: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." If you abdicate in this (as some of you did after 9/11/01), you will have forfeited any claim to "the blessings of liberty" in the eyes of your fellow citizens, because you will have abrogated your part of the social contract. If it comes to this (another prediction), we will have degraded to a 1980’s style insurgent state, rife with both right and left wing death squads, assassinations, and death. I’d like to point out, at this time, that YOUR side is the one that practices gun control…. Prove me wrong, Greens. Please. Somebody, anybody, turn in E.L.F., before they kill somebody and it all crashes down on your heads.
I’m off to Sydney in June with a 12-month working holiday visa. I’ve heard that it’s not easy to get work there at the moment. Can anyone give any tips on good ways to find work? Don’t mind what I do – office/bar/labouring etc, whatever. Cheers! Matt (I have 5 years accountancy experience (cima), is it easy to get that kind of work? – I’d rather steer clear if possible, but would do it if that’s all I could get!!)
I’m off to Sydney in June with a 12-month working holiday visa. I’ve heard that it’s not easy to get work there at the moment. Can anyone give any tips on good ways to find work? Don’t mind what I do – office/bar/labouring etc, whatever. Cheers! Matt (I have 5 years accountancy experience (cima), is it easy to get that kind of work? – I’d rather steer clear if possible, but would do it if that’s all I could get!!)
In order to practice accountancy, you would have to be recognized and insured by the relevant regulator, I suspect. That said, I hear Andersen’s might be a good prospect since they might not be quite as strict <VBG. You might also get "informal" work that doesn’t require licensing, only your expertise (e.g. number crunching for a C.A.) The big cities are always going to have the most competition. Sunraysia is always a good bet for fruit picking/farm work but it’s backbreaking.
I’m off to Sydney in June with a 12-month working holiday visa. I’ve heard that it’s not easy to get work there at the moment. Can anyone give any tips on good ways to find work? Don’t mind what I do – office/bar/labouring etc, whatever. Cheers! Matt (I have 5 years accountancy experience (cima), is it easy to get that kind of work? – I’d rather steer clear if possible, but would do it if that’s all I could get!!)
Try http://www.tntmagazine.com/au/working/displayContent.asp?id=760726&in… yID=4&intContinentID=9 You shouldn’t have much problem in getting a job, especially with your accounting experience. There are generally plenty of back breaking farm jobs. Farmers quite often head down to the local backpacker palace when they’re in need of a team of labourers. It’s hard work but you’ll get a great sun tan, fresh air and meet some real characters on the job and have a lot of fun. Ashame the pay will be lousy. In most backers you’ll find signs on the notice boards about where you can get a job. Plus lots of word of mouth when you get here. Don’t worry, be happy, there’ll be a job for you when you get here. Kerry http://www.byrononline.com
How do many of you setup your GL segments? For years the small company I’m with (150 employee’s) has had the general ledger setup in the form: ###-### account – department ex. 560-100 telephony – overhead or 560-200 telephony sales We’re considering adding another segment for location. ex.560-100-01 01 main office 02 secondary office Thoughts suggestions?
If that kind of detail is important to you and your software will permit you to do it easily, go ahead. Peter
You should think carefully about the sequence of your segments. Depending on how you wish to sort your data and how your software handles reporting, you may find 01-560-100 easier to report on than 560-100-01. — Ken Russell Sydney
| How do many of you setup your GL segments? | | For years the small company I’m with (150 employee’s) has had the general | ledger setup in the form: | ###-### | account – department | ex. 560-100 | telephony – overhead | or | 560-200 | telephony sales | | We’re considering adding another segment for location. | ex.560-100-01 | 01 main office | 02 secondary office | | Thoughts suggestions? | |
You should think carefully about the sequence of your segments. Depending on how you wish to sort your data and how your software handles reporting, you may find 01-560-100 easier to report on than 560-100-01.
Many of the accounting applications in the market today, are able to handle the account numbering structure you describe but many recomend that having the account number as the first segment makes is easier to set up financial statments. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — Ken Russell Sydney | How do many of you setup your GL segments? | | For years the small company I’m with (150 employee’s) has had the general | ledger setup in the form: | ###-### | account – department | ex. 560-100 | telephony – overhead | or | 560-200 | telephony sales | | We’re considering adding another segment for location. | ex.560-100-01 | 01 main office | 02 secondary office | | Thoughts suggestions? | |
I agree. Majority of entries will be for the same location (HQ / CO). Thanks for the input.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You should think carefully about the sequence of your segments. Depending on how you wish to sort your data and how your software handles reporting, you may find 01-560-100 easier to report on than 560-100-01. Many of the accounting applications in the market today, are able to handle the account numbering structure you describe but many recomend that having the account number as the first segment makes is easier to set up financial statments. — Ken Russell Sydney | How do many of you setup your GL segments? | | For years the small company I’m with (150 employee’s) has had the general | ledger setup in the form: | ###-### | account – department | ex. 560-100 | telephony – overhead | or | 560-200 | telephony sales | | We’re considering adding another segment for location. | ex.560-100-01 | 01 main office | 02 secondary office | | Thoughts suggestions? | |
ps – did you know that you – as our Chief-Looker-Upper at the moment, – gotta call from that heart-stopping doc-fella, – on the 18th…… (if i never return here for anything else AT ALL, it will be to read that reply and sequence….) luv, k.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – . actually, never mind about pointing anything out to me that you seem to think that i posted, i know what i have said here….once again, yarrow, you have proven that it is pointless to try to "discuss" anything with you reasonably. so once again, i give up. i am not going to go back and forth with you in these pointless rebuttals. (but i tried, karuna!! i really did……) to reiterate: i give up…no more trying to reason with yarrow about anything…..it is a brick wall. a thick brick wall. a thick brick wall with reinforced steel doors slammed shut. ka – you’re going just Fine!!!!! and that is all i dropped in to see. i’m not supposed to be here – s n e a k i n g in at 4:00 am – just *know* i’m gonna be caught, somehow… ( I am working for a sometimes hard and demanding taskmaster, but when you value the learning this much you let some things go by…) like i said, – you’re going Fine!!! k.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -. actually, never mind about pointing anything out to me that you seem to think that i posted, i know what i have said here….once again, yarrow, you have proven that it is pointless to try to "discuss" anything with you reasonably. so once again, i give up. i am not going to go back and forth with you in these pointless rebuttals. (but i tried, karuna!! i really did……) to reiterate: i give up…no more trying to reason with yarrow about anything…..it is a brick wall. a thick brick wall. a thick brick wall with reinforced steel doors slammed shut.
ka – you’re going just Fine!!!!! and that is all i dropped in to see. i’m not supposed to be here – s n e a k i n g in at 4:00 am – just *know* i’m gonna be caught, somehow… ( I am working for a sometimes hard and demanding taskmaster, but when you value the learning this much you let some things go by…) like i said, – you’re going Fine!!! k.
i’m not supposed to be here – s n e a k i n g in at 4:00 am – just *know* i’m gonna be caught, somehow… ( I am working for a sometimes hard and demanding taskmaster, but when you value the learning this much you let some things go by…) like i said, – you’re going Fine!!! k.
thanks, and i hope your lessons are coming along nicely! there is an adobe photoshop ng (or two or twelve) also….. plus, your task master *can* check up on where you have been online if you dont course, i havent pointed this out to my hubby yet….if he ever gets inclined to go porno shopping or something i will catch him red handed!!! (no pun intended) plus i keep an eye on the ole ebay comings and goings….gotta keep my eye on the finances……. come visit when you can! we miss you!!!
i have never blamed doctors for anything, yarrow….you are floundering and grasping at straws, m’dear. to reiterate: i give up…no more trying to reason with yarrow about anything…..it is a brick wall. a thick brick wall. a thick brick wall with reinforced steel doors slammed shut.
When you get to the place where you care nothing about other peoples’ Jan
how on earth did you get in the room with all of these patients and doctors, yarrow?? that is very odd indeed!! ### It is? How long have you worked in the health field now? It is INDEED a very common occurrence these days when Dr. and patients are seldom alone in a room.
whether i have or have not worked in the health field has no bearing on knowing that you were exaggerating (once again) to try to prove some feeble point that had nothing to do with the topic under discussion. blowing smoke or some such i suppose….. yarrow, you said that *you* had "seen" so many doctors shake their heads when blah blah blah from their patients….i was simply pointing out that this is unlikely, as *you* would not have been in the room during exams and consultations. you were exaggerating…and poorly. can the Dr’s do, force these foods down their throats? Rip the smokes and booze from their hands? sorry, i have no idea what you are talking about. #### Of course you don’t. You never worked in a large Hospital and got to see what goes on. You still have the delusions that everyone on earth is willing to change their living and eating habits to stay healthy.
please point out to me (cut n paste) where i said that i think that "everyone on earth is willing to change their living/eating habits to stay healthy". what i did was ask you if you were joking when you said no one is interested in preventing illness. actually, never mind about pointing anything out to me that you seem to think that i posted, i know what i have said here….once again, yarrow, you have proven that it is pointless to try to "discuss" anything with you reasonably. so once again, i give up. i am not going to go back and forth with you in these pointless rebuttals. (but i tried, karuna!! i really did……) …when did we start this discussion?? what has this got to do with milk thistle having been studied and approved?? but, irrelevence to the topic aside, if you are trying to say that people have to take responsiblity for their own health, i emphatically agree…. ### That’s exactly what I’m saying! Don’t blame Dr’s because of what people do to themselves with poor living/eating habits.
i have never blamed doctors for anything, yarrow….you are floundering and grasping at straws, m’dear. to reiterate: i give up…no more trying to reason with yarrow about anything…..it is a brick wall. a thick brick wall. a thick brick wall with reinforced steel doors slammed shut.
how on earth did you get in the room with all of these patients and doctors, yarrow?? that is very odd indeed!!
### It is? How long have you worked in the health field now? It is INDEED a very common occurrence these days when Dr. and patients are seldom alone in a room. can the Dr’s do, force these foods down their throats? Rip the smokes and booze from their hands? sorry, i have no idea what you are talking about.
#### Of course you don’t. You never worked in a large Hospital and got to see what goes on. You still have the delusions that everyone on earth is willing to change their living and eating habits to stay healthy. …when did we start this discussion?? what has this got to do with milk thistle having been studied and approved?? but, irrelevence to the topic aside, if you are trying to say that people have to take responsiblity for their own health, i emphatically agree….
### That’s exactly what I’m saying! Don’t blame Dr’s because of what people do to themselves with poor living/eating habits. — Carol…… You know it’s going to be a bad day when: "Your horn is stuck on the Highway and you’re behind 32 Hell’s Angel’s." Before you buy health products on the net, see… http://www.quackwatch.com/index.html
But I do enjoy how you like to go on the attack rather than dealing with the information that was presented.
### Who attacked? I asked if the proof of these allegations was going to be brought before the public. And you’re taking the proof to the AMA or the FBI? I’d be happy to show the evidence to any lawful authority who inquires.
### Just TAKE it to them. If I knew a person down the road killed someone I’d go to the police and not wait for them to come to me and ask. The AMA already has their copies of the proof, which provides them with a good reason not to sue me for declaring that the article is a fraud.
### And they’ve not acted on it? Or have they and they’ve found it all baseless accusations? News perhaps? There are several copies of the photos in existence, including the ones I have. (One copy of a series of photos can be seen on the dust jackets of "The Man Who Cures Cancer" [front cover] and "The Doctor Who Cures Cancer". [back inside flap]) I’d be happy to present the same evidence to any reputable journalist who inquires as well.
### Why wait for them to inquire? GO TO THEM! — Carol…… You know it’s going to be a bad day when: "Your horn is stuck on the Highway and you’re behind 32 Hell’s Angel’s." Before you buy health products on the net, see… http://www.quackwatch.com/index.html
The answer is long, but I will give you one prime example. The authors of the JAMA study wrote that there was no evidence, either microscopically or *MACROscopically*, of any benefit to any patient from the treatments. *** And next you’ll tell us they were "paid off" to lie?
You’re jumping to conclusions again. If you’d read my book you would know that although others have made specific allegations of such, to me those charges are merely hearsay. But I do enjoy how you like to go on the attack rather than dealing with the information that was presented. And you’re taking the proof to the AMA or the FBI?
I’d be happy to show the evidence to any lawful authority who inquires. The AMA already has their copies of the proof, which provides them with a good reason not to sue me for declaring that the article is a fraud. Yet, there is in existence several sets of dated and signed photographs (signed and dated by a JAMA coauthor!)taken of external tumors on different patients which gradually and completely disappeared! *** And where are these photos? I assume you are about to bring them out into the light of day through the NY Times or other trustworthy paper? CNN News perhaps?
There are several copies of the photos in existence, including the ones I have. (One copy of a series of photos can be seen on the dust jackets of "The Man Who Cures Cancer" [front cover] and "The Doctor Who Cures Cancer". [back inside flap]) I’d be happy to present the same evidence to any reputable journalist who inquires as well. William Kelley Eidem, author "The Doctor Who Cures Cancer" and founder of the Gentler Cancer Research Foundation Let’s beat cancer. Gently. <http://www.gentler.org Support the Gentler Cancer Research Foundation. Only you can take the hurt out of cancer research. Read the doctor’s report "It’s Not Just For Sex!" by A.R. Salman, M.D. <http://www.bewellbooks.com. Each purchase supports the Gentler Cancer Research Foundation! Before you buy.
The answer is long, but I will give you one prime example. The authors of the JAMA study wrote that there was no evidence, either microscopically or *MACROscopically*, of any benefit to any patient from the treatments.
*** And next you’ll tell us they were "paid off" to lie? And you’re taking the proof to the AMA or the FBI? Yet, there is in existence several sets of dated and signed photographs (signed and dated by a JAMA coauthor!)taken of external tumors on different patients which gradually and completely disappeared!
*** And where are these photos? I assume you are about to bring them out into the light of day through the NY Times or other trustworthy paper? CNN News perhaps? — Carol…… You know it’s going to be a bad day when: "You borrow from Visa to pay Mastercard." Before you buy health products on the net, see… http://www.quackwatch.com/index.html
i have been here since about mid september. but i know how to use deja search…..got quite good at it recently. ### So then you found the posts complaining how no one researches herbs and other alt. meds.
noooo…that was my point. stating that drug companies dont appear to be interested in testing unpatentable products ### That’s true as who would pay the outrageous costs of such studies? The alt. practitioners? I doubt it as they’re out to MAKE a buck not SPEND their money on research. is NOT the same as "complaining" that no one is doing any studies. ### Then you missed a lot of past posts…. plus the one’s whining how greedy the Drug Co’ are because they DON’T and aren’t doing the alt. research.
you are vastly over-generalizing here, yarrow….you tend to do that alot….that’s ok, i know i do it from time to time. if there were so many people doing this and so many posts about it, i wonder how it got by me?! perhaps, when pro-alts are confronted with gross exaggerations by skeptics, they come back with ones of their own?? ) i dunno…. not if one researches and listens and pays attention and asks questions. and generally, when *i* discuss alternatives, i am in the ballpark of **prevention** of diseases and sickness, not cures. ### People don’t want to HEAR about prevention of disease.
you must be joking! They want to do as they’ve always done and pop some herb or use some zapper-crapper to cure whatever they come down with. You can’t be unaware of this. I’ve seen Dr’s shake their heads in frustration at patients who refuse to exercise or change their dietary habits.
how on earth did you get in the room with all of these patients and doctors, yarrow?? that is very odd indeed!! So why blame the Dr’s? How about placing the blame where it belongs like on the heavy drinker and smoker, the couch potato, the person who overeats every day and eats grease laden meals no less, those who wont eat fresh fruit and vegetables? What can the Dr’s do, force these foods down their throats? Rip the smokes and booze from their hands?
sorry, i have no idea what you are talking about….when did we start this discussion?? what has this got to do with milk thistle having been studied and approved?? but, irrelevence to the topic aside, if you are trying to say that people have to take responsiblity for their own health, i emphatically agree…. and i am a firm believer in the high efficiacy of using things like herbs and aromatherapy and nutrition for prevention of illness. ### You’re entitled to your beliefs as long as you don’t HARM others with them.
well, thank you. i try very hard not to harm other people (or myself). not in my nature. *** And some of these countries are as loose as Mexico with their drug and medication tests and what they allow to be sold. i was thinking more along the lines of europe and asia. but if third world countries can afford to do scientific research on things like medicinal herbs that their peoples have been using with success all along anyway, that is great. ### If they had such great "success" with these herbs their death rates would not be so high.
those countries have lots of problems that herbs cant even touch. not to mention all of those godawful emerging viruses and whatnot. even science isnt prepared for those nasties yet…… hopefully, working together with alt-types, they will be soon. And any missionary will tell you about African and So. American peoples who walk many miles to get to a clinic in the bush or Jungle because they know the meds work better than the potions given them by their Shaman and voodoo queens. Some will carry their ill for a week to see a real Dr. and the rate of the cures keep these people coming to these clinics.
i never have said and am not now saying that modern medicine is not valuable. but i am saying that medicinal herbs have been and will continue to be used with success…..hopefully there will be some great merging of the two and we can all rest on our laurels. we are happy and healthy already without the clinical trials. (speaking for myself: using things like soy, echinacea, milk thistle, quercetin, green tea, essential oils, non-toxic cleaning and personal care products to help PREVENT disease and illness.) #### Also keeping in mind that many don’t do as you’re doing and are still healthy and well.
that is all well and good, as long as they dont go out of their way to stop the rest of us from making and using our own choices. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – healthcare system: ===brevity snips here=== Managing Care, Managing Health country ranked second worldwide in per-capita expenditures, Canada. ### I don’t disagree… http://www.consciouschoice.com/features/payingforhealthcare.html contrary to what you and some other skeptics might think, yarrow, alot of us pro-alt types are pretty good at taking care of ourselves. and even have a bit of intelligence to boot. ### And what makes you think we don’t?
again, are you joking?? I have been talking here about the importance of exercise and diet for months.
and no one has diputed that with you, have they? what they do dispute with you is that you tout this to the exclusion of other methods. and both diet and exercise are very subjective to the individual who is using them, as is any medication or herb or other health issue. again, i am not sure why you are bringing this up here in light of the topic i started. But some of the alt’s, like some skeptics do believe in doing as they wish and looking for that magic pill or herb whatever the case me be, AFTER they become ill. Both sides should take care of themselves. Has anyone ever claimed otherwise here?
obviously, everyone who posts here on a regular basis is "set in their ways" as far as their own health regime. the object of this ng would then appear to be to present your points of view in as palatable and rational a way as possible. this ng often gets abused/misused as a soap box for both sides i reckon. but it is very much a debunking forum, i would say. the almighty charter states that it is supposed to be a forum for discussing the pros and cons of alternative health methods. this tends to get taken to extremes (by both sides) and alot of good information can be overlooked when this happens. did you read the milk thistle study, yarrow? have you gone to any of your (or others) sources lately to research any of your own firm beliefs (or disbeliefs as the case may be)?? i have, and will continue to do so. i look at skeptic sites as well as (non commercial) alternative ones. i read all kinds of articles and watch all kinds of educational programs. what i am seeing is that there is now and will continue to be a merging of alt with conventional when it comes to health and the environment. are you ready for the ride?? hope so, cause you are on it as we type!! 
i have been here since about mid september. but i know how to use deja search…..got quite good at it recently.
### So then you found the posts complaining how no one researches herbs and other alt. meds. stating that drug companies dont appear to be interested in testing unpatentable products
### That’s true as who would pay the outrageous costs of such studies? The alt. practitioners? I doubt it as they’re out to MAKE a buck not SPEND their money on research. is NOT the same as "complaining" that no one is doing any studies.
### Then you missed a lot of past posts…. plus the one’s whining how greedy the Drug Co’ are because they DON’T and aren’t doing the alt. research. not if one researches and listens and pays attention and asks questions. and generally, when *i* discuss alternatives, i am in the ballpark of **prevention** of diseases and sickness, not cures.
### People don’t want to HEAR about prevention of disease. They want to do as they’ve always done and pop some herb or use some zapper-crapper to cure whatever they come down with. You can’t be unaware of this. I’ve seen Dr’s shake their heads in frustration at patients who refuse to exercise or change their dietary habits. So why blame the Dr’s? How about placing the blame where it belongs like on the heavy drinker and smoker, the couch potato, the person who overeats every day and eats grease laden meals no less, those who wont eat fresh fruit and vegetables? What can the Dr’s do, force these foods down their throats? Rip the smokes and booze from their hands? and i am a firm believer in the high efficiacy of using things like herbs and aromatherapy and nutrition for prevention of illness.
### You’re entitled to your beliefs as long as you don’t HARM others with them. *** And some of these countries are as loose as Mexico with their drug and medication tests and what they allow to be sold. i was thinking more along the lines of europe and asia. but if third world countries can afford to do scientific research on things like medicinal herbs that their peoples have been using with success all along anyway, that is great.
### If they had such great "success" with these herbs their death rates would not be so high. And any missionary will tell you about African and So. American peoples who walk many miles to get to a clinic in the bush or Jungle because they know the meds work better than the potions given them by their Shaman and voodoo queens. Some will carry their ill for a week to see a real Dr. and the rate of the cures keep these people coming to these clinics. we are happy and healthy already without the clinical trials. (speaking for myself: using things like soy, echinacea, milk thistle, quercetin, green tea, essential oils, non-toxic cleaning and personal care products to help PREVENT disease and illness.)
#### Also keeping in mind that many don’t do as you’re doing and are still healthy and well. healthcare system: ===brevity snips here=== Managing Care, Managing Health country ranked second worldwide in per-capita expenditures, Canada.
### I don’t disagree… http://www.consciouschoice.com/features/payingforhealthcare.html contrary to what you and some other skeptics might think, yarrow, alot of us pro-alt types are pretty good at taking care of ourselves. and even have a bit of intelligence to boot.
### And what makes you think we don’t? I have been talking here about the importance of exercise and diet for months. But some of the alt’s, like some skeptics do believe in doing as they wish and looking for that magic pill or herb whatever the case me be, AFTER they become ill. Both sides should take care of themselves. Has anyone ever claimed otherwise here? — Carol…… You know it’s going to be a bad day when: "You borrow from Visa to pay Mastercard." Before you buy health products on the net, see… http://www.quackwatch.com/index.html – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
i have been taking milk thistle seed extract for over a year now. i just found this interesting bit of info on pubmed : (oh those poor little meeces, though!) Carcinogenesis 1999 Nov;20(11):2101-2108 Tissue distribution of silibinin, the major active constituent of silymarin, in mice and its association with enhancement of phase II enzymes: implications in cancer chemoprevention. Zhao J, Agarwal R Center for Cancer Causation and Prevention, AMC Cancer Research Center, Denver, CO 80214 and University of Colorado Cancer Center, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, CO 80262, USA. [Record supplied by publisher] Polyphenolic antioxidants are being identified as cancer preventive agents. Recent studies in our laboratory have identified and defined the cancer preventive and anticarcinogenic potential of a polyphenolic flavonoid antioxidant, silymarin (isolated from milk thistle). More recent studies by us found that these effects of silymarin are due to the major active constituent, silibinin, present therein. Here, studies are done in mice to determine the distribution and conjugate formation of systemically administered silibinin in liver, lung, stomach, skin, prostate and pancreas. Additional studies were then performed to assess the effect of orally administered silibinin on phase II enzyme activity in liver, lung, stomach, skin and small bowel. For tissue distribution studies, SENCAR mice were starved for 24 h, orally fed with silibinin (50 mg/kg dose) and killed after 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 h. The desired tissues were collected, homogenized and parts of the homogenates were extracted with butanol:methanol followed by HPLC analysis. The column eluates were detected by UV followed by electrochemical detection. The remaining homogenates were digested with sulfatase and beta-glucuronidase followed by analysis and quantification. Peak levels of free silibinin were observed at 0.5 h after administration in liver, lung, stomach and pancreas, accounting for 8.8 +/- 1.6, 4.3 +/- 0.8, 123 +/- 21 and 5.8 +/- 1.1 (mean +/- SD) mug silibinin/g tissue, respectively. In the case of skin and prostate, the peak levels of silibinin were 1.4 +/- 0.5 and 2.5 +/- 0.4, respectively, and were achieved 1 h after administration. With regard to sulfate and beta-glucuronidate conjugates of silibinin, other than lung and stomach showing peak levels at 0.5 h, all other tissues showed peak levels at 1 h after silibinin administration. The levels of both free and conjugated silibinin declined after 0.5 or 1 h in an exponential fashion with an elimination half-life (t((1/2))) of 57-127 min for free and 45-94 min for conjugated silibinin in different tissues. In the studies examining the effect of silibinin on phase II enzymes, oral feeding of silibinin at doses of 100 and 200 mg/kg/day showed a moderate to highly significant (P < 0.1-0.001, Student’s t-test) increase in both glutathione S-transferase and quinone reductase activities in liver, lung, stomach, skin and small bowel in a dose- and time-dependent manner. Taken together, the results of the present study clearly demonstrate the bioavailability of and phase II enzyme induction by systemically administered silibinin in different tissues, including skin, where silymarin has been shown to be a strong cancer chemopreventive agent, and suggest further studies to assess the cancer preventive and anticarcinogenic effects of silibinin in different cancer models. PMID: 10545412 Cancer Res 1999 Feb 1;59(3):622-32 A flavonoid antioxidant, silymarin, affords exceptionally high protection against tumor promotion in the SENCAR mouse skin tumorigenesis model. Lahiri-Chatterjee M, Katiyar SK, Mohan RR, Agarwal R Department of Dermatology, Skin Diseases Research Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106, USA. In cancer chemoprevention studies, the identification of better antitumor-promoting agents is highly desired because they may have a wider applicability against the development of clinical cancers. Both epidemiological and animal studies have suggested that microchemicals present in the diet and several herbs and plants with diversified pharmacological properties are useful agents for the prevention of a wide variety of human cancers. Silymarin, a flavonoid isolated from milk thistle, is used clinically in Europe and Asia as an antihepatotoxic agent, largely due to its strong antioxidant activity. Because most antioxidants afford protection against tumor promotion, in this study, we assessed the protective effect of silymarin on tumor promotion in the SENCAR mouse skin tumorigenesis model. Application of silymarin prior to each 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol 13-acetate (TPA) application resulted in a highly significant protection against tumor promotion in 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene-initiated mouse skin. The protective effect of silymarin was evident in terms of reduction in tumor incidence (25, 40, and 75% protection, P < 0.001, X2 test), tumor multiplicity (76, 84, and 97% protection, P < 0.001, Wilcoxon rank sum test), and tumor volume (76, 94, and 96% protection, P < 0.001, Student’s t test) at the doses of 3, 6, and 12 mg per application, respectively. To dissect out the stage specificity of silymarin against tumor promotion, we next assessed its effect against both stage I and stage II of tumor promotion. Application of silymarin prior to that of TPA in stage I or mezerein in stage II tumor promotion in dimethylbenz(a)anthracene-initiated SENCAR mouse skin resulted in an exceptionally high protective effect during stage I tumor promotion, showing 74% protection against tumor incidence (P < 0.001, X2 test), 92% protection against tumor multiplicity (P < 0.001, Wilcoxon rank sum test), and 96% protection against tumor volume (P < 0.001, Student’s t test). With regard to stage II tumor promotion, silymarin showed 26, 63, and 54% protection in tumor incidence, multiplicity, and volume, respectively. Similar effect of silymarin to that in anti-stage I studies, were also observed when applied during both stage I and stage II protocols. In other studies, silymarin significantly inhibited: (a) TPA-induced skin edema, epidermal hyperplasia, and proliferating cell nuclear antigen-positive cells; (b) DNA synthesis; and (c) epidermal lipid peroxidation, the early markers of TPA-caused changes that are associated with tumor promotion. Taken together, these results suggest that silymarin possesses exceptionally high protective effects against tumor promotion, primarily targeted against stage I tumors, and that the mechanism of such effects may involve inhibition of promoter-induced edema, hyperplasia, proliferation index, and oxidant state. PMID: 9973210, UI: 99137495 there are lots more if anyone is into this dry technical scientific
because *we arent the ones clamouring for scientific tests and clinical results*. we are happy and healthy already without the clinical trials. (speaking for myself: using things like soy, echinacea, milk thistle, quercetin, green tea, essential oils, non-toxic cleaning and personal care products to help PREVENT disease and illness.) i do enjoy popping into pubmed (sounds like a beer joint) and reading all of the corraboratory info there now, though. makes me want to do the cabbage patch dance. (nya nya nya…who’s da man!..kind of thing). here is something interesting regarding who pays for what in today’s US healthcare system:
Hey Lady, you are getting good at finding these interesting websites. Do you learn that from your sewing circle?? Very interesting indeed, keep us informed. Jan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Obviously, alternative health care is no longer being ignored by mainstream medicine. The National Institutes of Health, through its new Office of Alternative Medicine, currently spends about $14.5 million annually on clinical trials and research. Earlier studies have established acupuncture’s effectiveness, for example, in treating the nausea associated with pregnancy and chemotherapy, and the pain following dental surgery, and in providing relief for asthma and back pain. Several new acupuncture pilot studies are now in the works (e.g., osteoarthritis, alcoholism), as well as new trials to study, for example, the efficacy of herbal treatments for Parkinson’s Disease, dementia, and traumatic brain injury. It is thus likely that insurers and health care systems will continue to integrate new areas of alternative treatment into what is covered and what is provided, based on the results of these and other future trials. Managing Care, Managing Health Of course, it is unrealistic to separate the issue of alternative care and how it is paid for from the larger issue of how money moves throughout the health-care economy. The American system of health care remains what the New England Journal of Medicine once described as a "paradox of excess and deprivation." The truth is, we spend more and deliver less (about 40 percent more per capita) than the country ranked second worldwide in per-capita expenditures, Canada. Under the present managed-care system, says Arnold Relman, M.D., editor-in-chief emeritus of the New England Journal of Medicine, insurers are pitted against patients and health-care practitioners are hampered from doing what they know to be best. Left out of the current health-care equation is any overarching health-care policy based on providing the greatest good for the greatest number. Instead, the system, Dr. Relman concludes, is driven by "competing groups that take no responsibility for the whole." If the current system is in need of an overhaul, the trend toward greater personal health awareness at least signifies a more positive kind of culture change in the works. Marc Micozzi, M.D., Ph.D., executive director of the College of Physicians, sees in the emergence of alternative medicine a glimpse of where the entire health-care system is headed. In his view, the health-care system of the future will blend both today’s alternatives and today’s conventions, forging a new model of care defined by themes of self-care and self-cure. He is right. This new model of care will be founded on the idea that no doctor, pill, or surgery intrinsically has the power to grant or dispense health. Health care will be about nurturing self-healing. Tapping into this self-healing potential will increasingly become the guiding directive of a health-care system that embraces the challenges of scientific medicine as it discards labels of allopathic versus holistic medicine, conventional versus alternative care. But, of course, if health itself cannot be bought, health care certainly can. And the crisis in health care will remain for now as much an issue of how we pay — or don’t pay — for care, as in the choices we make and in the nature of the care we provide. http://www.consciouschoice.com/features/payingforhealthcare.html contrary to what you and some other skeptics might think, yarrow, alot of us pro-alt types are pretty good at taking care of ourselves. and even have a bit of intelligence to boot. cabbage patch dancing aside.
Brilliant Post, Ka!!! k. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Marc Micozzi, M.D., Ph.D., executive director of the College of Physicians, sees in the emergence of alternative medicine a glimpse of where the entire health-care system is headed. In his view, the health-care system of the future will blend both today’s alternatives and today’s conventions, forging a new model of care defined by themes of self-care and self-cure. He is right. This new model of care will be founded on the idea that no doctor, pill, or surgery intrinsically has the power to grant or dispense health. Health care will be about nurturing self-healing. Tapping into this self-healing potential will increasingly become the guiding directive of a health-care system that embraces the challenges of scientific medicine as it discards labels of allopathic versus holistic medicine, conventional versus alternative care. http://www.consciouschoice.com/features/payingforhealthcare.html contrary to what you and some other skeptics might think, yarrow, alot of us pro-alt types are pretty good at taking care of ourselves. and even have a bit of intelligence to boot. cabbage patch dancing aside.
ka & g – you’re on a roll. Well done. : ) Godspeed. Connie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – who’s *complaining* that no studies are being done, yarrow?? *** Many of you alt. types. How long have you been here now? I’ve seen many accusations that the Drug Co’s, researchers etc. refuse to test alt. methods and herbs because there isn’t the money in them as in chemicals. i have been here since about mid september. but i know how to use deja search…..got quite good at it recently. stating that drug companies dont appear to be interested in testing unpatentable products is NOT the same as "complaining" that no one is doing any studies. we just say that we dont necessarily need to wait for them to get done (at least with herbals) *** And take a chance of a dangerous or worthless product? That’s a kin to playing Russian Roulette with your health/life. not if one researches and listens and pays attention and asks questions. and generally, when *i* discuss alternatives, i am in the ballpark of **prevention** of diseases and sickness, not cures. and i am a firm believer in the high efficiacy of using things like herbs and aromatherapy and nutrition for prevention of illness. and generally tests and trials have already been done in other countries anyway…. *** And some of these countries are as loose as Mexico with their drug and medication tests and what they allow to be sold. i was thinking more along the lines of europe and asia. but if third world countries can afford to do scientific research on things like medicinal herbs that their peoples have been using with success all along anyway, that is great. .the US is a bit slow in the scientific-study-of-herbals department for some reason….. *** That’s true. yes, af, science *IS* a great thing. i am certainly not one to knock science. but then again, it is up to human beings to use the sciences. and human beings generally have their own ideas of what they want to study and when. *** And who pays for these studies? Why hasn’t the herb, magnet, zapper (crowd) and supplement Industries, worth billions, funding studies of their own? because *we arent the ones clamouring for scientific tests and clinical results*. we are happy and healthy already without the clinical trials. (speaking for myself: using things like soy, echinacea, milk thistle, quercetin, green tea, essential oils, non-toxic cleaning and personal care products to help PREVENT disease and illness.) i do enjoy popping into pubmed (sounds like a beer joint) and reading all of the corraboratory info there now, though. makes me want to do the cabbage patch dance. (nya nya nya…who’s da man!..kind of thing). here is something interesting regarding who pays for what in today’s US healthcare system: Obviously, alternative health care is no longer being ignored by mainstream medicine. The National Institutes of Health, through its new Office of Alternative Medicine, currently spends about $14.5 million annually on clinical trials and research. Earlier studies have established acupuncture’s effectiveness, for example, in treating the nausea associated with pregnancy and chemotherapy, and the pain following dental surgery, and in providing relief for asthma and back pain. Several new acupuncture pilot studies are now in the works (e.g., osteoarthritis, alcoholism), as well as new trials to study, for example, the efficacy of herbal treatments for Parkinson’s Disease, dementia, and traumatic brain injury. It is thus likely that insurers and health care systems will continue to integrate new areas of alternative treatment into what is covered and what is provided, based on the results of these and other future trials. Managing Care, Managing Health Of course, it is unrealistic to separate the issue of alternative care and how it is paid for from the larger issue of how money moves throughout the health-care economy. The American system of health care remains what the New England Journal of Medicine once described as a "paradox of excess and deprivation." The truth is, we spend more and deliver less (about 40 percent more per capita) than the country ranked second worldwide in per-capita expenditures, Canada. Under the present managed-care system, says Arnold Relman, M.D., editor-in-chief emeritus of the New England Journal of Medicine, insurers are pitted against patients and health-care practitioners are hampered from doing what they know to be best. Left out of the current health-care equation is any overarching health-care policy based on providing the greatest good for the greatest number. Instead, the system, Dr. Relman concludes, is driven by "competing groups that take no responsibility for the whole." If the current system is in need of an overhaul, the trend toward greater personal health awareness at least signifies a more positive kind of culture change in the works. Marc Micozzi, M.D., Ph.D., executive director of the College of Physicians, sees in the emergence of alternative medicine a glimpse of where the entire health-care system is headed. In his view, the health-care system of the future will blend both today’s alternatives and today’s conventions, forging a new model of care defined by themes of self-care and self-cure. He is right. This new model of care will be founded on the idea that no doctor, pill, or surgery intrinsically has the power to grant or dispense health. Health care will be about nurturing self-healing. Tapping into this self-healing potential will increasingly become the guiding directive of a health-care system that embraces the challenges of scientific medicine as it discards labels of allopathic versus holistic medicine, conventional versus alternative care. But, of course, if health itself cannot be bought, health care certainly can. And the crisis in health care will remain for now as much an issue of how we pay — or don’t pay — for care, as in the choices we make and in the nature of the care we provide. http://www.consciouschoice.com/features/payingforhealthcare.html contrary to what you and some other skeptics might think, yarrow, alot of us pro-alt types are pretty good at taking care of ourselves. and even have a bit of intelligence to boot. cabbage patch dancing aside.
who’s *complaining* that no studies are being done, yarrow??
*** Many of you alt. types. How long have you been here now? I’ve seen many accusations that the Drug Co’s, researchers etc. refuse to test alt. methods and herbs because there isn’t the money in them as in chemicals. we just say that we dont necessarily need to wait for them to get done (at least with
herbals) *** And take a chance of a dangerous or worthless product? That’s a kin to playing Russian Roulette with your health/life. and generally tests and trials have already been done in other countries anyway….
*** And some of these countries are as loose as Mexico with their drug and medication tests and what they allow to be sold. .the US is a bit slow in the scientific-study-of-herbals department for some reason…..
*** That’s true. yes, af, science *IS* a great thing. i am certainly not one to knock science. but then again, it is up to human beings to use the sciences. and human beings generally have their own ideas of what they want to study and when.
*** And who pays for these studies? Why hasn’t the herb, magnet, zapper (crowd) and supplement Industries, worth billions, funding studies of their own? — Carol…… You know it’s going to be a bad day when: "Nothing you own is actually paid for." Before you buy health products on the net, see… http://www.quackwatch.com/index.html – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
who’s *complaining* that no studies are being done, yarrow?? *** Many of you alt. types. How long have you been here now? I’ve seen many accusations that the Drug Co’s, researchers etc. refuse to test alt. methods and herbs because there isn’t the money in them as in chemicals.
i have been here since about mid september. but i know how to use deja search…..got quite good at it recently. stating that drug companies dont appear to be interested in testing unpatentable products is NOT the same as "complaining" that no one is doing any studies. we just say that we dont necessarily need to wait for them to get done (at least with herbals) *** And take a chance of a dangerous or worthless product? That’s a kin to playing Russian Roulette with your health/life.
not if one researches and listens and pays attention and asks questions. and generally, when *i* discuss alternatives, i am in the ballpark of **prevention** of diseases and sickness, not cures. and i am a firm believer in the high efficiacy of using things like herbs and aromatherapy and nutrition for prevention of illness. and generally tests and trials have already been done in other countries anyway…. *** And some of these countries are as loose as Mexico with their drug and medication tests and what they allow to be sold.
i was thinking more along the lines of europe and asia. but if third world countries can afford to do scientific research on things like medicinal herbs that their peoples have been using with success all along anyway, that is great. .the US is a bit slow in the scientific-study-of-herbals department for some reason….. *** That’s true. yes, af, science *IS* a great thing. i am certainly not one to knock science. but then again, it is up to human beings to use the sciences. and human beings generally have their own ideas of what they want to study and when. *** And who pays for these studies? Why hasn’t the herb, magnet, zapper (crowd) and supplement Industries, worth billions, funding studies of their own?
because *we arent the ones clamouring for scientific tests and clinical results*. we are happy and healthy already without the clinical trials. (speaking for myself: using things like soy, echinacea, milk thistle, quercetin, green tea, essential oils, non-toxic cleaning and personal care products to help PREVENT disease and illness.) i do enjoy popping into pubmed (sounds like a beer joint) and reading all of the corraboratory info there now, though. makes me want to do the cabbage patch dance. (nya nya nya…who’s da man!..kind of thing). here is something interesting regarding who pays for what in today’s US healthcare system: Obviously, alternative health care is no longer being ignored by mainstream medicine. The National Institutes of Health, through its new Office of Alternative Medicine, currently spends about $14.5 million annually on clinical trials and research. Earlier studies have established acupuncture’s effectiveness, for example, in treating the nausea associated with pregnancy and chemotherapy, and the pain following dental surgery, and in providing relief for asthma and back pain. Several new acupuncture pilot studies are now in the works (e.g., osteoarthritis, alcoholism), as well as new trials to study, for example, the efficacy of herbal treatments for Parkinson’s Disease, dementia, and traumatic brain injury. It is thus likely that insurers and health care systems will continue to integrate new areas of alternative treatment into what is covered and what is provided, based on the results of these and other future trials. Managing Care, Managing Health Of course, it is unrealistic to separate the issue of alternative care and how it is paid for from the larger issue of how money moves throughout the health-care economy. The American system of health care remains what the New England Journal of Medicine once described as a "paradox of excess and deprivation." The truth is, we spend more and deliver less (about 40 percent more per capita) than the country ranked second worldwide in per-capita expenditures, Canada. Under the present managed-care system, says Arnold Relman, M.D., editor-in-chief emeritus of the New England Journal of Medicine, insurers are pitted against patients and health-care practitioners are hampered from doing what they know to be best. Left out of the current health-care equation is any overarching health-care policy based on providing the greatest good for the greatest number. Instead, the system, Dr. Relman concludes, is driven by "competing groups that take no responsibility for the whole." If the current system is in need of an overhaul, the trend toward greater personal health awareness at least signifies a more positive kind of culture change in the works. Marc Micozzi, M.D., Ph.D., executive director of the College of Physicians, sees in the emergence of alternative medicine a glimpse of where the entire health-care system is headed. In his view, the health-care system of the future will blend both today’s alternatives and today’s conventions, forging a new model of care defined by themes of self-care and self-cure. He is right. This new model of care will be founded on the idea that no doctor, pill, or surgery intrinsically has the power to grant or dispense health. Health care will be about nurturing self-healing. Tapping into this self-healing potential will increasingly become the guiding directive of a health-care system that embraces the challenges of scientific medicine as it discards labels of allopathic versus holistic medicine, conventional versus alternative care. But, of course, if health itself cannot be bought, health care certainly can. And the crisis in health care will remain for now as much an issue of how we pay — or don’t pay — for care, as in the choices we make and in the nature of the care we provide. http://www.consciouschoice.com/features/payingforhealthcare.html contrary to what you and some other skeptics might think, yarrow, alot of us pro-alt types are pretty good at taking care of ourselves. and even have a bit of intelligence to boot. cabbage patch dancing aside.
i have been taking milk thistle seed extract for over a year now. i just found this interesting bit of info on pubmed : (oh those poor little meeces, though!)
Thanks for the post. Very informative. For more info on therapeutic potential of milk thistle you may want to visit www.liversupport.com Ralph Before you buy.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – FYI, I posted many times that the quackwatch excerpt quoted by Fox is replete with errors of a fundamental nature. Secondly, the article published in JAMA is a fraudulent report. I have demonstrated why numerous times. I’ve also challenged anyone who wishes to, to pass my claim of fraud onto JAMA. I’d be glad to defend it in court, since the truth is a complete defense. (They should have copies in their files of the irrefutable proof themselves, which would make them leery of attempting a lawsuit.) You may have "demonstrated why numerous times," but I don’t recall having read it myself. Is there a handy reference?
My replies were in reponse to others. Which threads they are in (I couldn’t tell you. (You know how threads start out on one topic and end up somewhere else — like this one.) The answer is long, but I will give you one prime example. The authors of the JAMA study wrote that there was no evidence, either microscopically or *MACROscopically*, of any benefit to any patient from the treatments. Yet, there is in existence several sets of dated and signed photographs (signed and dated by a JAMA coauthor!)taken of external tumors on different patients which gradually and completely disappeared! The photographs are stunning proof that the report is an unadulterated falsehood designed to grossly misinform America’s doctors. Used toilet paper has more integrity that that article. The Office of Alternative Medicine has classifed the Revici Method as a "high priority" for further investigation. That ought to tell you what they think of quackwatch’s opinion and the bogus JAMA article. Maybe. Or maybe not. I’d prefer a direct statement from the OAM to your inferences.
While the OAM hasn’t declared the article to be false, one can be assured that if they placed any value in the damning report whatsover, they wouldn’t have declared the Revici Method to be a "high priority" for further investigation. William Kelley Eidem, author "The Doctor Who Cures Cancer" and founder of the Gentler Cancer Research Foundation Let’s beat cancer. Gently. Read "It’s Not Just For Sex!" by A.R. Salman, M.D. <http://www.bewellbooks.com. Each purchase helps to support the Gentler Cancer Research Foundation! Support the Gentler Cancer Research Foundation <http://www.gentler.org. Only you can take the hurt out of cancer research. Before you buy.
FYI, I posted many times that the quackwatch excerpt quoted by Fox is replete with errors of a fundamental nature. Secondly, the article published in JAMA is a fraudulent report. I have demonstrated why numerous times. I’ve also challenged anyone who wishes to, to pass my claim of fraud onto JAMA. I’d be glad to defend it in court, since the truth is a complete defense. (They should have copies in their files of the irrefutable proof themselves, which would make them leery of attempting a lawsuit.)
You may have "demonstrated why numerous times," but I don’t recall having read it myself. Is there a handy reference? The Office of Alternative Medicine has classifed the Revici Method as a "high priority" for further investigation. That ought to tell you what they think of quackwatch’s opinion and the bogus JAMA article.
Maybe. Or maybe not. I’d prefer a direct statement from the OAM to your inferences. — David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct. "What would Brian Boitano do?" – Kyle, Stan, and Cartman
Or the exciting news out tonight about Glucosamine for arthritis. in a double-blind clinical trial, it worked beautifully and better than a standard drug. this is what science is good for.
But this is not new, I’ve got an extract from a book by Dr Jason Theodosakis, "The Arthritis Cure" which advocates glucosamine and chondroitin sulphates. He lists double blind studies from abroad. Fortunately a lot of people didn’t wait for the official double blinded trials and went ahead and tried it sucessfully. All anecdotal evidence of course. This is exactly the reason I will not write off treatments until the studies have been done. Best wishes — John Bain UK TV Sound Director, magnotherapy user & distributor http://members.aol.com/JBainSI/Magnotherapy.html Surround Sound for Television
But this is not new, I’ve got an extract from a book by Dr Jason Theodosakis, "The Arthritis Cure" which advocates glucosamine and chondroitin sulphates. He lists double blind studies from abroad.
Dear John, I can’t remember the source of his (Theo) studies, but I became aware of German studies 3 years ago. So this has been around for quite some time. C. Bond.
i have been taking milk thistle seed extract for over a year now. i just found this interesting bit of info on pubmed : (oh those poor little meeces, though!) And you alt’s keep complaining that no studies are done on your herbs….. also see Fox’s post about the studies done on Rivichi (sp?) cancer cure method.
FYI, I posted many times that the quackwatch excerpt quoted by Fox is replete with errors of a fundamental nature. Secondly, the article published in JAMA is a fraudulent report. I have demonstrated why numerous times. I’ve also challenged anyone who wishes to, to pass my claim of fraud onto JAMA. I’d be glad to defend it in court, since the truth is a complete defense. (They should have copies in their files of the irrefutable proof themselves, which would make them leery of attempting a lawsuit.) The Office of Alternative Medicine has classifed the Revici Method as a "high priority" for further investigation. That ought to tell you what they think of quackwatch’s opinion and the bogus JAMA article. William Kelley Eidem, author "The Doctor Who Cures Cancer" and founder of the Gentler Cancer Research Foundation Let’s beat cancer. Gently. Read "It’s Not Just For Sex!" by A.R. Salman, M.D. <http://www.bewellbooks.com. Each purchase helps to support the Gentler Cancer Research Foundation! Support the Gentler Cancer Research Foundation <http://www.gentler.org. Only you can take the hurt out of cancer research. Before you buy.
i have been taking milk thistle seed extract for over a year now. i just found this interesting bit of info on pubmed : (oh those poor little meeces, though!)
And you alt’s keep complaining that no studies are done on your herbs….. also see Fox’s post about the studies done on Rivichi (sp?) cancer cure method. — Carol…… You know it’s going to be a bad day when: "You wake up and your braces are stuck together." Before you buy health products on the net, see… http://www.quackwatch.com/index.html
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – i have been taking milk thistle seed extract for over a year now. i just found this interesting bit of info on pubmed : (oh those poor little meeces, though!) And you alt’s keep complaining that no studies are done on your herbs….. also see Fox’s post about the studies done on Rivichi (sp?) cancer cure method. — Or the exciting news out tonight about Glucosamine for arthritis. in a double-blind clinical trial, it worked beautifully and better than a standard drug. this is what science is good for. Goodnight, catch you all from Texas. AF
who’s *complaining* that no studies are being done, yarrow?? we just say that we dont necessarily need to wait for them to get done (at least with herbals) and generally tests and trials have already been done in other countries anyway…..the US is a bit slow in the scientific-study-of-herbals department for some reason….. yes, af, science *IS* a great thing. i am certainly not one to knock science. but then again, it is up to human beings to use the sciences. and human beings generally have their own ideas of what they want to study and when. have fun in TX……
Who knows? Bureaucracy is such a wonderful thing, isn’t it? As I stated in a previous post, we have such fees in the U.S. as well – they’re known as passenger facility charges (PFC’s) – which go into a fund for airport maintenance, etc. However, in the U.S., every airline I know of incorporates the fee into the ticket price, so you never know it’s there.
You’ll know they’re there if you travel on some airlines on a ticket obtained by cashing in frequent-flyer miles, as you’ll have to pay the airport fees to get the free tickets. The airlines won’t pay them out of the miles but want cash to pass on to the airports instead. — Mary Shafer http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Lead Handling Qualities Engineer, SR-71/LASRE NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
–cut– Er, uh, then what exactly are PFC’s? Rennovations at an airport that I travel through have a big sign next to them saying that everything was paid for by PFC’s.
PFC – Passenger Facility Charge. In the U.S. PFC’s are a standard of (at least when I worked in the industry – I left in early 1998) $3. They’re incorporated into your ticket price and they go into a Federal fund for airport renovations, maintenance, etc. Individual airports often also charge landing fees to the various carriers serving the airport for upkeep and improvements. These fees are often negotiated in advance and based on the number of flights a given airline has into the airport. These fees, like PFC’s, are incorporated into the ticket price. KRC
Thanks for the enlightening info, everyone. Just to clarify, it’s not the money I object to, it’s the customer-hostile way it’s collected. Do YVR Inc., and the other airport authorities referred to, really have so little influence over their tenant airlines that they can’t work something out for their common customers?
Who knows? Bureaucracy is such a wonderful thing, isn’t it? As I stated in a previous post, we have such fees in the U.S. as well – they’re known as passenger facility charges (PFC’s) – which go into a fund for airport maintenance, etc. However, in the U.S., every airline I know of incorporates the fee into the ticket price, so you never know it’s there. FWIW, when I was still in the industry, the PFC was generally $3 at all the airports that charged them. You might be interested to know that there are also other hidden fees in the U.S., such as landing fees. Every airline serving a given airport can be assessed a landing fee for your plane to touch down on their runway. These fees are generally paid in advance based on the number of flights scheduled into the airport and figured into the ticket price. KRC
–cut– I’ve never been to Vancouver but I assure you that paying a separate fee upon departure is VERY common all around the world.
Tell me about it. The departure taxes were a very big customer service issue in my airline res and travel agent days. Although the CRS systems I used (SABRE and Worldspan) apprise you of the fees, many res agents and other travel agents did not pass this information on to the customer. Well, when the customer arrives at the airport and finds out they have to pay an extra fee – well, guess who they call first? In most cases, it was our failure to apprise them of that information, as we had it all along. However, it’s always good to keep in mind that you never know what might happen when you’re out of the country. Americans (especially tourists) seem to have difficulty understanding that not every place in the world operates on "democratic" principles. When you’re on your eco-tour in Central America, don’t be surprised if the local "police" comes up with all sorts of fees (bribes) to let you leave town. It’s not fair, and probably even illegal in the country you’re travelling in, but it’s the way things are done in such places. In the case of YVR, I’d imagine that the fees are charged as a means of generating revenue for airport maintenance. We have them in the U.S. also – they’re called Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) – it’s just that U.S. airlines generally incorporate the charge into the price of the ticket, so the passenger often never knows they’re paying the fee. KRC
even if the airport wanted to make it so the public knew that they were paying it…
No, it is the opposite. The airlines are the ones who want to force that fee to be visible instead of hidden. The airlines also do not want to act as tax collectors for private airport operators. I suspect that airports where fees are collecetd by airlines are probably the ones which give airlines a decent commission on the fee to cover processing expenses. And airports that don’t want to give the airlines a good commission are told by airlines to collect the fees themselves.
I recently passed through Vancouver and was dumbfounded that you pay your $10.00 at a counter beside the security area, then no more than 10 feet away someone is there to collect the receipt – seems like a waist of resources to me.
Agreed. But then, when you don’t need to pay the $10 (connecting pax don’t pay it), it means you can proceed directly to the second counter instead of being to wait in a long queue of folks having to pay by credit or cash etc. Since Vancouver handles a large number of connecting passengers, this is probably a serious enough argument for the extra layer/employees.
Is it really too much to check if there is a departure fee and how much it is when you come to a new place? Works for me… No, but as I mentioned in another post, it is yet another thing to remember to do, and travelling is stressful enough. Wouldn’t adding these fees to the ticket price be easier on everyone concerned?
No, it wouldn’t. For one thing, in many countries the fee is much cheaper in the local currency than it would be if converted into dollars — always rounded up, W-A-A-A-Y up. As you travel more, you will find these things become automatic.
Then how is that YOW is introducing a fee starting Sept 1 and they have convinced the airlines to include it in fares?
Is YOW still owned and operated by Transport Canada ? It is possible that since there is very little connecting traffic at YOW, that applying such a fee is logistically easy for CRS pricing systems.
I recently passed through Vancouver and was dumbfounded that you pay your $10.00 at a counter beside the security area, then no more than 10 feet away someone is there to collect the receipt – seems like a waist of resources to me.
I don’t know about YVR but in YUL frequent travellers can buy books of tickets and bypass step 1 nine out of ten times.
Yeah, it’s a pain to have to remember to have enough cash… It’s also a pain to have to remember what time your plane leaves and from which airport and where it’s going and why you want to be on it…
LOL! * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Of all the many times I’ve gone through YVR I’ve never stood in a line to get one using my plastic at one of the machines, and BTW you’ve got your part to keep for records, and if you like going in and out of US Customs more than once, you can always use it again. SIMPLE eh!!! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I do not see anything wrong with charging $10 dollars, but I do agree that it would be better to make it part of the ticket price , even if the airport wanted to make it so the public knew that they were paying it by having the airlines provide a coupon that had to be turned in at security, as I have seen people waiting extremely long times when several people in a large group are all paying the fee via credit card, and the authorization process is slow. It really slows down the process of going to the gates. It is also a pain because you have to remember to have enough cash on you or charge it, not to mention most business travelers have to charge it slowing down the process since they need the receipts for their expense accounts. I would rather pay twice as much being $20 when I buy the ticket to have it included in some format then have to mess with digging out money or credit cards at the entrance to the gates. The worst thing is I have seen people pay the entrance fee several times, as they have entered the gate area and then returned to the main terminal, only to have to pay the fee upon returning. I do not think the original poster, was complaining about having to pay the fee as we all know that almost every major airport imposes such fees, he was just complaining about the method in which these fees were collected. Having just passed through YVR for the first time, returning from a cruise, I was very rudely suprised to find that one has to pay an Airport Improvement Fee
The reason for that is because you can buy the tickets from machines placed all around the terminal – you probably walked by 2 or 3 – and some TAs include them with the tickets etc. or even if you are a frequent user you can buy several at a time to save stopping if you’re in a hurry. Simple ! OK
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks for the enlightening info, everyone. Just to clarify, it’s not the money I object to, it’s the customer-hostile way it’s collected. Do YVR Inc., and the other airport authorities referred to, really have so little influence over their tenant airlines that they can’t work something out for their common customers? I recently passed through Vancouver and was dumbfounded that you pay your $10.00 at a counter beside the security area, then no more than 10 feet away someone is there to collect the receipt – seems like a waist of resources to me.
<snip money or credit cards at the entrance to the gates. The worst thing is I have seen people pay the entrance fee several times, as they have entered the gate area and then returned to the main terminal, only to have to pay the fee upon returning.
Not if you save your receipt. I gave up my seat in April to go on a later flight (in the gate area) and came back using the same (used) receipt.
I do not think the original poster, was complaining about having to pay the fee as we all know that almost every major airport imposes such fees, he was just complaining about the method in which these fees were collected.
I agree 100%. To make matters more confusing, sometimes airline departure fees ARE included in the price you pay for tickets, but sometimes not. (I haven’t figured out the pattern; it may depend on the airline and/or airport.) I vastly prefer buying tickets which include ALL fees! After having been angered by a surprise departure tax in Tokyo almost 10 years ago, I then made it a point to ask any time such fees are a possibility (usually at foreign airports). But it is yet another thing to remember to do, and it would be completely unnecessary if they just added it to the fees section on the ticket. No surprises, no last-minute fumbling with a credit card, no paying one person to sell the departure receipt and still another person to collect it. Unless I’m missing something, this would make it easier on everyone. — email: mikew 99 @ my-dejanews.com phone: 650 857-6939 WWW: www.bigfoot.com/~mikew99
Is it really too much to check if there is a departure fee and how much it is when you come to a new place? Works for me…
No, but as I mentioned in another post, it is yet another thing to remember to do, and travelling is stressful enough. Wouldn’t adding these fees to the ticket price be easier on everyone concerned? — email: mikew 99 @ my-dejanews.com phone: 650 857-6939 WWW: www.bigfoot.com/~mikew99
Thanks for the enlightening info, everyone. Just to clarify, it’s not the money I object to, it’s the customer-hostile way it’s collected. Do YVR Inc., and the other airport authorities referred to, really have so little influence over their tenant airlines that they can’t work something out for their common customers?
I do not see anything wrong with charging $10 dollars, but I do agree that it would be better to make it part of the ticket price , even if the airport wanted to make it so the public knew that they were paying it by having the airlines provide a coupon that had to be turned in at security, as I have seen people waiting extremely long times when several people in a large group are all paying the fee via credit card, and the authorization process is slow. It really slows down the process of going to the gates. It is also a pain because you have to remember to have enough cash on you or charge it, not to mention most business travelers have to charge it slowing down the process since they need the receipts for their expense accounts. I would rather pay twice as much being $20 when I buy the ticket to have it included in some format then have to mess with digging out money or credit cards at the entrance to the gates. The worst thing is I have seen people pay the entrance fee several times, as they have entered the gate area and then returned to the main terminal, only to have to pay the fee upon returning. I do not think the original poster, was complaining about having to pay the fee as we all know that almost every major airport imposes such fees, he was just complaining about the method in which these fees were collected. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Having just passed through YVR for the first time, returning from a cruise, I was very rudely suprised to find that one has to pay an Airport Improvement Fee
Thanks for the enlightening info, everyone. Just to clarify, it’s not the money I object to, it’s the customer-hostile way it’s collected. Do YVR Inc., and the other airport authorities referred to, really have so little influence over their tenant airlines that they can’t work something out for their common customers?
I recently passed through Vancouver and was dumbfounded that you pay your $10.00 at a counter beside the security area, then no more than 10 feet away someone is there to collect the receipt – seems like a waist of resources to me.
Thanks for the enlightening info, everyone. Just to clarify, it’s not the money I object to, it’s the customer-hostile way it’s collected. Do YVR Inc., and the other airport authorities referred to, really have so little influence over their tenant airlines that they can’t work something out for their common customers? I recently passed through Vancouver and was dumbfounded that you pay your $10.00 at a counter beside the security area, then no more than 10 feet away someone is there to collect the receipt – seems like a waist of resources to me.
Probably an accounting control measure to make sure that the collectors aren’t recycling the tickets and pocketing the fees
Taxation powers or not, can’t "YVR Inc." just raise fees on airlines, who would then pass them on to customers through higher fares? Just raise the landing fee, or the gate lease, or something like that.
The major airlines have very long contracts with fee stability clauses for example AC had something like a 20 or 30 year contract with YYZ before it was privatized and now are in court with the GTAA as they have attempted to break the contract and raise fees (and argue that the legislation that privatized the airport and transfered ownership also nullified all exisiting contracts)
Airlines do not wish to admisnister these fees on behalf of the airport (especially when flying through YVR on two separate tickets, it is impossible to administer at the airline level).
Er, uh, then what exactly are PFC’s? Rennovations at an airport that I travel through have a big sign next to them saying that everything was paid for by PFC’s. -Dan
Having just passed through YVR for the first time, returning from a cruise, I was very rudely suprised to find that one has to pay an Airport Improvement Fee simply to enter the gate area for a departure. Getting on a flight to the US costs C$10 per person, in cash or credit card, handed over to some airport flunky who then prints out and hands over a ticket that must be immediately handed over to another airport flunky. Part of the fee undoubtedly goes to pay these people and for their equipment.
Montreal (YUL) is the same. $10 Canadian, cash or credit card. I saw a few college students who were caught by surprise — they had spent every cent, and didn’t have either forms of payment. I don’t know what finally happened to them, but they weren’t getting through while I was passing by. Best Regards, Bill Mattocks
Hi…if you go to www.yvr.com click on "services" you’ll see "airport fee" which will explain the whole thing, including about other airports around the world that charge fees, including the US.
Having just passed through YVR for the first time, returning from a cruise, I was very rudely suprised to find that one has to pay an Airport Improvement
Fee
these from the airlines, who bury them in the fares. Why can’t YVR do the same, instead of picking the most annoying, inconvenient, delaying way possible "YVR Inc" does not have the powers to tax, it is not a government agency. (It is a semi-private non-profit organisation). To pay for all the expansion and renovations, they decided to charge passengers who start at Vancouver while not penalising those who transit through vancouver. Airlines do not wish to admisnister these fees on behalf of the airport (especially when flying through YVR on two separate tickets, it is impossible to administer at the airline level).
Taxation powers or not, can’t "YVR Inc." just raise fees on airlines, who would then pass them on to customers through higher fares? Just raise the landing fee, or the gate lease, or something like that. This collection at the airport is very inconvenient and seems inneficient. Paulo Santos
Simple. The Vancouver Airport Authority charges "you" for using their services. You pay and the Canadian tax payer does not. The airlines also pay fees to use the airport. Why would you expect the airline to "hide" a tax in your fare? Same rational as a toll road .. you drive it, you pay. One last point. Use London Heathrow and pay 68.00 CAD departure fee. $10.00 it’s cheap.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes, I know local taxes are commonplace, and I don’t really mind. …. But it’s also commonplace for airport authorities to collect these from the airlines, who bury them in the fares. Perhaps someone from YVR has studied SXM. Fares to SXM (Sint Maarten) are about the highest in the Caribbean – meaning to me that the airport fees to the airlines (or corruption) are the cause. In addition, passengers must pay a US$20 departure fee to escape the place. Bob C.
(Richard Cline) writes: There aren’t enough votes to remove the president from office. We can be assured that the Democratic minority will hold together. OJ all over again.
Really? Who did Clinton KILL? —
Either he walks or he stays. But none of this Censure Stuff.
Thanks for saying that. I am in agreement with you. -Connie I wish you the merriest Christmas -Connie
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : : There should be a Senate trial on the Bill of Impeachment. That is the : : only way for the Senate to validate or refute the action of the House. : : : : : : The Senate, in cooperation with both the prosecution and defense, : : could design a procedure that would avoid (or at least minimize) : : revisiting the excrement we have already been subjected to. New : : evidence, if any, could be introduced. : : : : Senate censure before a trial would be a copout. Censure after a trial : : would be sour grapes. A censure is almost certainly within the : : authority of the Senate but it will be difficult to articulate a : : censure that fully addresses the Bill of Impeachment … and I think : : it absolutely necessary that the Bill of Impeachment be disposed of : : one way or another! : : : : The House has chosen to impeach and (we assume) wants a conviction. It : : has forfeited any right to partake in any lesser action that the : : Senate might choose. : : : : Charlie : : Here’s a thought to curl your toes. : : The Senate is acting as jurors Renquist is da JUDGE. : : OK ? : : Judges can when examining the case presented by the accusers : say….hey man no case…you did not do the job right go do it again : or forget it. This is the USof A not Iran. : : Have a happy Holiday : : Doris F. : : : Alas, Doris, that is so logical, but the HORRIBLE truth is: the Senate : can make any rule it wants, and the Judge can’t throw out the case. : : However, if he did what you suggest, and he most certainly should, and : if the senators defied him, they would be in deep doo doo. Rehnqueist : has written a several books on the subject, including one specifically : on impeachment and removal from office. : : (BTW, I think he shouldalso ask the senators to call to account Mr. : Starr and force him to disclose what other indictments he has pending : against the president, Hillary, et al.) : — : EAH : : Otium cum dignitate Evidently you and your conversation group are well-informed do you feel the framers of our constitution were such good plotters and planners that allowed for nonsense like this? It seems to me that they had a lot of savey about how people and politics really works. What frightens me is that some dim brains without a sintilla of intelligence or education want to "improve" it. I did think the adjustment of term limits for the president probably is a good idea but don’t particularly care for the limits on the senate or congresscritters. As much as one would like "get at" the entrenched members of the other party I don’t think it is a good idea. Sooner or later they get theirs. Usually when they make a grab for the brass ring. It seems to me that some senators, for example, have accomplished a great deal with long tenure. God knows the fresh young faces in the congress need trainers to sit on them till they learn their craft. How do you and yours feel about it. Merry Christmas Doris F.
They framers did pretty well considering what they were getting away from/ But at the time, the two party system had not developed into anything resembling what it became after about four terms. The idea was to give WE THE PEOPLE the right to toss out a president who was found to be so injurious to the country that we couold not afford to wait till We the People got a chance to vote him out. Or leave him in. Once we reached a point where there is a different party in congress than in the white house, we reached a point where it is very possible, and very attractive to certain short-brained people, to exercise a rather genteel coup d’etat. No guns, no chopping block. The Brits, in their own way, more or less came to our way, once they got the royals under control. In Britain, Clinton would have lost and won half a dozen votes of confidence and several elections by now. I doublt he would have lost a vote of confidence in re Monica: for evidence, look at Blair, who has had a a whole parade of Etonian gays swishing through Number 7, with no terribly ill effects. Your point is well taken, and the asnwer, I believe, is that the founders did not take into account the kind developments we now face. That would sugget maybe we should. We’ve had amendments before, we can have another, concerning the rules and regs for impeachment. We could at any rate get the independent counsel law dumped. (You do realize that Starr is still hard at work, paying his troops, still trying to find the smoking gun.) A great joyous Christmas to you. We just got back from making the rounds of our favorite shops on Broadway on the upper West Side. There are lines outside all of them, waiting to get in and load up on everything from smoked salmon to english plum puddings. I am particulary joyful — an orthopedist managaged to inject the right stuff into the right place yesterday afternoon, and this morning my right shoulder no longer feels like I have been carrying a sack of cement for a mile. It’s been six months since I felt so relieved. As Freud said: happiness is the absence of pain. Best. — EAH Otium cum dignitate
(BTW, I think he shouldalso ask the senators to call to account Mr. Starr and force him to disclose what other indictments he has pending against the president, Hillary, et al.)
You keep saying that, and so do some others. Why? I mean about the other indictments…. what is their bearing on the two articles of impeachement? I’m afraid I don’t see the connection. Oh, I understand that some might be enraged about it, but……relevance? cheers bob
Censure means nothing. The Senate can vote for it but Clinton can still reject censure.
Unless they make a deal, and Clinton is honorable enuf to stick by his deal. Why would Clinton make a deal? Kinda like pleading to a lesser penalty in court. The defendent knows he did it. The prosecution knows he did it, but either think their case is questionable or they want to avoid the court time. What does Clinton think they have on him that we don"t know about??? This is the only reason I can think of that he’d make a deal. cheers bob
There aren’t enough votes to remove the president from office. We can be assured that the Democratic minority will hold together.
OJ all over again. Ang. ~ http://www.Point-and-Click.com/Campanella_Acoustics/ ~
: : : There should be a Senate trial on the Bill of Impeachment. That is the : : only way for the Senate to validate or refute the action of the House. : : : : : : The Senate, in cooperation with both the prosecution and defense, : : could design a procedure that would avoid (or at least minimize) : : revisiting the excrement we have already been subjected to. New : : evidence, if any, could be introduced. : : : : Senate censure before a trial would be a copout. Censure after a trial : : would be sour grapes. A censure is almost certainly within the : : authority of the Senate but it will be difficult to articulate a : : censure that fully addresses the Bill of Impeachment … and I think : : it absolutely necessary that the Bill of Impeachment be disposed of : : one way or another! : : : : The House has chosen to impeach and (we assume) wants a conviction. It : : has forfeited any right to partake in any lesser action that the : : Senate might choose. : : : : Charlie : : Here’s a thought to curl your toes. : : The Senate is acting as jurors Renquist is da JUDGE. : : OK ? : : Judges can when examining the case presented by the accusers : say….hey man no case…you did not do the job right go do it again : or forget it. This is the USof A not Iran. : : Have a happy Holiday : : Doris F. : : : Alas, Doris, that is so logical, but the HORRIBLE truth is: the Senate : can make any rule it wants, and the Judge can’t throw out the case. : : However, if he did what you suggest, and he most certainly should, and : if the senators defied him, they would be in deep doo doo. Rehnqueist : has written a several books on the subject, including one specifically : on impeachment and removal from office. : : (BTW, I think he shouldalso ask the senators to call to account Mr. : Starr and force him to disclose what other indictments he has pending : against the president, Hillary, et al.) : — : EAH : : Otium cum dignitate Evidently you and your conversation group are well-informed do you feel the framers of our constitution were such good plotters and planners that allowed for nonsense like this? It seems to me that they had a lot of savey about how people and politics really works. What frightens me is that some dim brains without a sintilla of intelligence or education want to "improve" it. I did think the adjustment of term limits for the president probably is a good idea but don’t particularly care for the limits on the senate or congresscritters. As much as one would like "get at" the entrenched members of the other party I don’t think it is a good idea. Sooner or later they get theirs. Usually when they make a grab for the brass ring. It seems to me that some senators, for example, have accomplished a great deal with long tenure. God knows the fresh young faces in the congress need trainers to sit on them till they learn their craft. How do you and yours feel about it. Merry Christmas Doris F.
Really? Who did Clinton KILL? Let’s start with – virtually – Vince Foster. Two independent counsels said no. You are, of course, nutty as a fruitcake. Thank you for saying it for more mildly than I was going to!
You missed the point. I meant ‘virtually’ since Foster was protecting the Clinton files much to his (Foster’s) dislike – too much so. ~ http://www.Point-and-Click.com/Campanella_Acoustics/ ~
writes: Really? Who did Clinton KILL? Let’s start with – virtually – Vince Foster. Two independent counsels said no. You are, of course, nutty as a fruitcake. — EAH
Thank you for saying it for more mildly than I was going to! We are off to visit the kids for a few days, so y"all have fun while we are gone. —
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Really? Who did Clinton KILL? Let’s start with – virtually – Vince Foster. A little more realistically, consider the "Friends of Bill" whose careers have been ruined by association with him. Still more realisitically, the parallel is that a preponerence of evidence indicated foul play, yet the jury did (or may) practice jury nullification to drive home their (not that of justice) agenda. That’s the parallel that I reference. Ang. ~ http://www.Point-and-Click.com/Campanella_Acoustics/ ~
Two independent counsels said no. You are, of course, nutty as a fruitcake. — EAH Otium cum dignitate
Really? Who did Clinton KILL?
Let’s start with – virtually – Vince Foster. A little more realistically, consider the "Friends of Bill" whose careers have been ruined by association with him. Still more realisitically, the parallel is that a preponerence of evidence indicated foul play, yet the jury did (or may) practice jury nullification to drive home their (not that of justice) agenda. That’s the parallel that I reference. Ang. ~ http://www.Point-and-Click.com/Campanella_Acoustics/ ~
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Censure means nothing. The Senate can vote for it but Clinton can still reject censure. Unless they make a deal, and Clinton is honorable enuf to stick by his deal. Why would Clinton make a deal? Kinda like pleading to a lesser penalty in court. The defendent knows he did it. The prosecution knows he did it, but either think their case is questionable or they want to avoid the court time. What does Clinton think they have on him that we don"t know about??? This is the only reason I can think of that he’d make a deal. cheers bob
They haven’t been able to prove boo diddly about the one thing they need– lying under oath. If they can’t make him say hemeant to lie, not mislead, he’s only got to impress the jury. (Like OJ.) — EAH Otium cum dignitate
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (BTW, I think he shouldalso ask the senators to call to account Mr. Starr and force him to disclose what other indictments he has pending against the president, Hillary, et al.) You keep saying that, and so do some others. Why? I mean about the other indictments…. what is their bearing on the two articles of impeachement? I’m afraid I don’t see the connection. Oh, I understand that some might be enraged about it, but……relevance? bob
Total and complete relevance: Starr provided the stuff of the articles of impeachment. He kept waving his little book and saying, "it’s all in here, just read the notes." DeLay (not really who you would want an "independent counsellor reporting to, but obviously the one to whom Starr is leaking) today says he’s seen secret stuff no one else knows about, which sounds like he’s setting Clinton up to be blindsided — defending himself against one charge and hitting him with another, which he has not even been accused of. AND … is it not time at long last to receive an accounting from this investigator that I have been funding for five years? He was asked to look into Whitewater. He stretched it to oral sex. Where is it written that ANY president or any official may be pursued so long as the party in power finds it politically useful? He may not be above the law, but he sure hell ought not to be below it. I find it hard to believe that legally, Larry Flynt has any fewer rights to be heard — or seen. (And wait till you read about Livingston —dear, dear. naughty, naught boy. One of the makeup artists was SHOCKED.) — EAH Otium cum dignitate
Either he walks or he stays. But none of this Censure Stuff.,
I quite agree. Clinton would be a lot dumber that I think he is, or there is a lot more to to the case than I know about, if he agrees to censure. Trial, and complete vindication should be his goal. cheers bob
Charlie, I agree with you, have the Senate trial – give the Representatives the same 2 days to make their case that they gave the opposition
One assumes you object to the fact that Demos in the House weren’t given unlimited time to defend Clintion. Two thoughts: 1. The House impeachement was much like a grand jury indictment. The point was to determine whether or not there was sufficient evidence/presumption of guilt to warrant going to the Senate for trial. The place for defense is the Senate. 2. I note that in the two days the Demos DID have, they offered no defense, to speak of. Most agreed that what Clinton did was "awful", he should be punished, and "Le’s censure, fine and condemn him". So what do you want, another month of that????? cheers bob
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : There should be a Senate trial on the Bill of Impeachment. That is the : only way for the Senate to validate or refute the action of the House. : : : The Senate, in cooperation with both the prosecution and defense, : could design a procedure that would avoid (or at least minimize) : revisiting the excrement we have already been subjected to. New : evidence, if any, could be introduced. : : Senate censure before a trial would be a copout. Censure after a trial : would be sour grapes. A censure is almost certainly within the : authority of the Senate but it will be difficult to articulate a : censure that fully addresses the Bill of Impeachment … and I think : it absolutely necessary that the Bill of Impeachment be disposed of : one way or another! : : The House has chosen to impeach and (we assume) wants a conviction. It : has forfeited any right to partake in any lesser action that the : Senate might choose. : : Charlie Here’s a thought to curl your toes. The Senate is acting as jurors Renquist is da JUDGE. OK ? Judges can when examining the case presented by the accusers say….hey man no case…you did not do the job right go do it again or forget it. This is the USof A not Iran. Have a happy Holiday Doris F.
Alas, Doris, that is so logical, but the HORRIBLE truth is: the Senate can make any rule it wants, and the Judge can’t throw out the case. However, if he did what you suggest, and he most certainly should, and if the senators defied him, they would be in deep doo doo. Rehnqueist has written a several books on the subject, including one specifically on impeachment and removal from office. (BTW, I think he shouldalso ask the senators to call to account Mr. Starr and force him to disclose what other indictments he has pending against the president, Hillary, et al.) — EAH Otium cum dignitate
: There should be a Senate trial on the Bill of Impeachment. That is the : only way for the Senate to validate or refute the action of the House. : : : The Senate, in cooperation with both the prosecution and defense, : could design a procedure that would avoid (or at least minimize) : revisiting the excrement we have already been subjected to. New : evidence, if any, could be introduced. : : Senate censure before a trial would be a copout. Censure after a trial : would be sour grapes. A censure is almost certainly within the : authority of the Senate but it will be difficult to articulate a : censure that fully addresses the Bill of Impeachment … and I think : it absolutely necessary that the Bill of Impeachment be disposed of : one way or another! : : The House has chosen to impeach and (we assume) wants a conviction. It : has forfeited any right to partake in any lesser action that the : Senate might choose. : : Charlie Here’s a thought to curl your toes. The Senate is acting as jurors Renquist is da JUDGE. OK ? Judges can when examining the case presented by the accusers say….hey man no case…you did not do the job right go do it again or forget it. This is the USof A not Iran. Have a happy Holiday Doris F.
B.B. The Senate will have to censure, they cannot go through with the impeachment trial. If they go ahead with the trial the Prez’ defenders would be forced to do something the House Judiciary Committee failed to do, call fact witnesses. One of the key fact witnesses on Charge I is the discrepancy between the Prez and Monica. Monica would have to be called and would be forced to testify to every little bitty detail of each encounter. (Cigar included 
"BTW, Miss Lewinsky, describe for us exactly how you went about having sex with the President." "How did you hold your tongue?" "Would you show us?" "What happened to cause the President’s semen to be on your dress?" "Were you engaged in oral sex at the time or was it just after he had finished?" More, but you see where this could lead. Of course this would be embarrassing to a great many people, not the least of whom would be the members of the Senate. Since the Constitution requires that the trial be held with an "Open Door" the whole thing would be televised to every school in the country. Can you see the networks running the trial on a tape delay and bleeping whole paragraphs, much less words? What about diagrams, re-enactments, charts? These would have to be displayed as well. No, a trial would turn the Senate Chamber into a XXX rated sideshow and a hundred red-faced Senators would not want that. They don’t want that. There may be the start of a trial but it will end shortly after it begins when a deal for censure is reached with the Prez. Clinton will be in office up until 11:59 a.m., January 20, 2001. Bob There should be a Senate trial on the Bill of Impeachment. That is the only way for the Senate to validate or refute the action of the House. As far as I am concerned. Yes to the above. Either he walks or he stays. But none of this Censure Stuff., B.Burkart http://www.netcom.com/~bhb1
– If you ever injected truth into politics you would have no politics. Will Rogers
Doris, A little correction. Rehnquist would simply be there to make rulings but he would not be acting in the capacity of a judge. The Senate would still be the Judge and the Jury. If Rehnquist made a ruling that senate members didn’t like all they would have to do is make a motion to override and by a simple majority 51/49 they could overrule him. Hence, they are the judge too. Rehnquist doesn’t want to do this anymore than Clinton. Bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : There should be a Senate trial on the Bill of Impeachment. That is the : only way for the Senate to validate or refute the action of the House. : : : The Senate, in cooperation with both the prosecution and defense, : could design a procedure that would avoid (or at least minimize) : revisiting the excrement we have already been subjected to. New : evidence, if any, could be introduced. : : Senate censure before a trial would be a copout. Censure after a trial : would be sour grapes. A censure is almost certainly within the : authority of the Senate but it will be difficult to articulate a : censure that fully addresses the Bill of Impeachment … and I think : it absolutely necessary that the Bill of Impeachment be disposed of : one way or another! : : The House has chosen to impeach and (we assume) wants a conviction. It : has forfeited any right to partake in any lesser action that the : Senate might choose. : : Charlie Here’s a thought to curl your toes. The Senate is acting as jurors Renquist is da JUDGE. OK ? Judges can when examining the case presented by the accusers say….hey man no case…you did not do the job right go do it again or forget it. This is the USof A not Iran. Have a happy Holiday Doris F.
– If you ever injected truth into politics you would have no politics. Will Rogers
Oh no! The republicans didn’t give the democrats 2 days to make their case where it counted – in the House. They gave them a whopping 2 hours. Limit hypocrite Hyde and his cronies to 2 hours and then be done with it. They’d be screaming bloody murder that just wasn’t fair. ;) Bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There should be a Senate trial on the Bill of Impeachment. That is the only way for the Senate to validate or refute the action of the House. Charlie Charlie, I agree with you, have the Senate trial – give the Representatives the same 2 days to make their case that they gave the opposition , and then call for the vote. A week and it’s done! This whole thing has been hashed
– If you ever injected truth into politics you would have no politics. Will Rogers
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Alas, Doris, that is so logical, but the HORRIBLE truth is: the Senate can make any rule it wants, and the Judge can’t throw out the case. However, if he did what you suggest, and he most certainly should, and if the senators defied him, they would be in deep doo doo. Rehnqueist has written a several books on the subject, including one specifically on impeachment and removal from office. (BTW, I think he shouldalso ask the senators to call to account Mr. Starr and force him to disclose what other indictments he has pending against the president, Hillary, et al.) — EAH Otium cum dignitate
But this is all a big fuss about nothing. O rather it now becomes a more sophisticated game of politics. There aren’t enough votes to remove the president from office. We can be assured that the Democratic mminority will hold together. The Republicans don’t have the stomach to go through a long drawn out exercise and then lose on a vote. The only short cut is to enact some form of censure. It is my understanding that censure can be voted by a majority. So what form of censure is possible. —– Not much. Censure means nothing. The Senate can vote for it but Clinton can still reject censure. Dick
There should be a Senate trial on the Bill of Impeachment. That is the only way for the Senate to validate or refute the action of the House.
As far as I am concerned. Yes to the above. Either he walks or he stays. But none of this Censure Stuff., The Senate, in cooperation with both the prosecution and defense, could design a procedure that would avoid (or at least minimize) revisiting the excrement we have already been subjected to. New evidence, if any, could be introduced.
I would be for a no holds barred. Gather more evidence including that provided to the committee just before the vote. Investigate a number of items including Starr, the murders, many more potential attempts to quiet witnesses etc. Senate censure before a trial would be a copout. Censure after a trial would be sour grapes. A censure is almost certainly within the authority of the Senate but it will be difficult to articulate a censure that fully addresses the Bill of Impeachment … and I think it absolutely necessary that the Bill of Impeachment be disposed of one way or another!
Not positive about the "authority" but maybe so. But would qualify that. (a) It the censure was like the House version which simple says what Clinton already said with no further punishment then maybe so. But that could be repealed by future Congresses. Or could be made even more meaningless if done often for a variety of items such as policy items. For example what if the Senate censured Ronald Reagan for Star wars. Or the President for his Medicare. Or for a future President just because they are Republican and it is get even time. (b) If it was super tough. Admit to perjury. $2,000,000 fine. Plus criminal liability – potential jail time etc. That to me would need more look into the Constitution. It does not say anything against it. But I find it hard to believe that the impeachment process would be intended to be one of "blackmail" against the Executive branch. One where they get the President to sign a false confession that he does not believe in just to avoid impeachment conviction. That seems like what happens with plea bargains all the time where people falsely accuse themselves of things like manslaughter to avoid the chance of 1 st degree murder even if they think they were innocent. Like they tried to do to the au pair. The House has chosen to impeach and (we assume) wants a conviction. It has forfeited any right to partake in any lesser action that the Senate might choose.
Again I agree with you. The house might have thought they were sending a message. Even today (Tuesday) it is reported four Republican Representatives said they did not mean removal from office as the only possible conclusion. . And that too was on conservative radio. They vote for impeachment which per the constitution means removal from office if convicted . But then say that is not how to interpret the vote. Here is what the articles of impeachment say at the end of article one and three (Sun Dec 20 SJMN). "Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct warrants impeachment and trial , and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States." So what is going on here. Are our Congress people saying that on the day of "conscious" they voted for impeachment and trial and removal from office etc but that is not what they meant?. Seems like that is exactly what is going on. Or they want the Cake and eat it too. A vote for impeachment that really means censure but without a vote for censure being offered. If the Congressmen don’t seem to want to admit that they voted for what they voted for, maybe this entire vote should be annulled and redone with the 106th. And this time have people vote yes or no per the constitution relative the vote being for removal from office if convicted. Try the impeachment. Then convict or don’t convict. That is my opinion. But none of this "blackmail" by Congress on the Executive branch. "We will not remove you from office if you will do the things we want you to do " type of stuff. Some reasons why no censure (1) Although not specifically mentioned in the constitution, it is difficult to imagine that things censure is what they meant especially if it includes fines etc. (2) Use of punishments lessor than removal from office can lead to frequent use of items like censure by the Congressional branch to blackmail the executive branch. Even if the President were to "sign up" for it (3) He might have done what they say and even much worse, and what they say could rise to the level of impeachment. If he is guilty, then maybe out he should go. (4) He might not have done what they say and what they say might not rise to the level of removal from office. Then he should not be convicted. (5) Believe we need a full and fair trial including an investigation of what Starr did, the murders especially if influencing witnesses etc.. One problem Looks like we might just be replacing the " biased" and maybe over zealous Starr with the particular committee members that want to impeach him. Maybe not. The sub committee hearings did seem to be reasonably fair as Chairman Hyde allowed the Dems quite a bit of latitude. The problem I perceive is that even if he is fair, there would be no Dems around to help keep it fair. Hope some way can be found for the President’s side to have a fair chance. If there is no way to give the president a fair chance, then and only then would I believe censure to be something to consider.. B.Burkart http://www.netcom.com/~bhb1
There should be a Senate trial on the Bill of Impeachment. That is the only way for the Senate to validate or refute the action of the House. Charlie
Charlie, I agree with you, have the Senate trial – give the Representatives the same 2 days to make their case that they gave the opposition , and then call for the vote. A week and it’s done! This whole thing has been hashed
: There should be a Senate trial on the Bill of Impeachment. That is the : only way for the Senate to validate or refute the action of the House. : : : The Senate, in cooperation with both the prosecution and defense, : could design a procedure that would avoid (or at least minimize) : revisiting the excrement we have already been subjected to. New : evidence, if any, could be introduced. This is not correct. Unfortunatly thr public dumping of all the garbage from the grand jury hearings which are *not* a trail, which are *not* proven charges only accusations NOW should be confronted with the adversarial peocess. The person accused can present his/her case to disprove the validity of the accusations. We cry the president should not have more rights than we do…he also should not have less. The media…the mob….the propaganda boys are not suppose to run our legal system. What you are asking empowers them and will ultimatly take away our rights also. Doris F.
There should be a Senate trial on the Bill of Impeachment. That is the only way for the Senate to validate or refute the action of the House. The Senate, in cooperation with both the prosecution and defense, could design a procedure that would avoid (or at least minimize) revisiting the excrement we have already been subjected to. New evidence, if any, could be introduced. Senate censure before a trial would be a copout. Censure after a trial would be sour grapes. A censure is almost certainly within the authority of the Senate but it will be difficult to articulate a censure that fully addresses the Bill of Impeachment … and I think it absolutely necessary that the Bill of Impeachment be disposed of one way or another! The House has chosen to impeach and (we assume) wants a conviction. It has forfeited any right to partake in any lesser action that the Senate might choose. Charlie
I have set up the terms e.g. 2% 10 Net 30 and associated it with the customer. I then send out invoice to customer for e.g. 10-00 ukp Then when I receive payment 5 days later for 9-80 ukp and enter this into Quickbooks against the invoice it still shows up as 20p outstanding. I was expecting the discount of 2% to cause this invoice to be closed. Can anyone explain how Quickbooks deals with discounts? Thanks Alan
I then send out invoice to customer for e.g. 10-00 ukp Then when I receive payment 5 days later for 9-80 ukp and enter this into Quickbooks against the invoice it still shows up as 20p outstanding. I was expecting the discount of 2% to cause this invoice to be closed.
In the Receive Payment window, enter the amount of payment and select the invoice (or first of more than one) to apply it to. Then click the DISCOUNT INFO button and accept or edit the data. QB probably does it this way because the customer may calculate the discount differently from you and you may either agree or disagree with him.
I then send out invoice to customer for e.g. 10-00 ukp Then when I receive payment 5 days later for 9-80 ukp and enter this into Quickbooks against the invoice it still shows up as 20p outstanding. I was expecting the discount of 2% to cause this invoice to be closed. In the Receive Payment window, enter the amount of payment and select the invoice (or first of more than one) to apply it to. Then click the DISCOUNT INFO button and accept or edit the data. QB probably does it this way because the customer may calculate the discount differently from you and you may either agree or disagree with him.
Unfortunately my UK version 5.0 doesn’t have a DISCOUNT INFO button! It displays a date up to which the discount applies, but doesn’t appear to act upon it. Any further ideas please? cheers Alan —-
I would be grateful if someone can recommend a good book on Trust Accounting or even a good WWW site. Thanks Derek
Anyway, for a small budget, i decided on either the Peavy Classic 30 (all tube and around $250 used.) Or the New Line6 Flextone (around $570 new) They both had peasing sounds to me. I’m going for the flextone cos it is just plain fun versatile and sounds great to my unrefined ears. steve
My god!! The Line6 Flextone? SIMULATED TUBES!! What will people think, Steve? I’m with ya…this amps really looks fun. Keith
Go play on a bunch of amps in your price range and pick the one that sounds best. Try to do it with your guitar, or the equivalent, and keep in mind the store’s acoustics vs. the acoustics of wherever you play. I play through a Carvin 212 all-tube combo, which I have a love-hate relationship with, and I wouldn’t give it up anytime soon, but one day recently my band was forced to practice in what was essentially a large closet, and I played though a shitty Squire practice amp and two pedals, and had a damn good time, and didn’t really complain about the tone. I was good for the time and place.
Simple advice: Stop reading reviews and go out and PLAY these fancy-pants new amps.
Yeah I did–which is why I’m not sure now what would be the best choice (not that I have the money for it at the moment anyway so it’s no biggie). The few new solid-state ‘tube’ amps I tried out (can’t remember which ones they were) sounded phenomenal to my untrained ear. I’ve been playing guitar for 22 years but never really owned but a couple small practice amps, since I usually played on my acoustic and classical guitars through the years. So–not being an amp expert–they all sounded incredible to me–as good as the real tube’s did. So on that alone, guess I’ll go with what *I* dig. That’s really the bottom line anyway, right? But I have heard them and they sound fine to me. Again, stop reading, drooling, and thinking exactly in the manner these reviewers (and the ad department at the mag, and the marketing guys at the amp company) want you to. Go out and spend some time with these amps. You’ll be impressed, but it’s still not quite happening.
Yeah, I was impressed (as were quite a few fellow guitarist who came to see what amp I was jamming on) and they’re happening enuf for me. They prolly wouldn’t cut it for a real, performing, tone freak/junkie, I guess, but as a typical recreational player (not going on tour, not gigging in clubs, etc) they sound great! BTW, who said I was "reading, drooling, and thinking exactly in the manner these reviewers" want me to? I said I’ve read the reviews for em (along with tons of other equipment reviews) in the monthly guitar mags that I read regularly, and on some of the sites I frequent. I haven’t really been seeking them out, per se, but they’re in the mags I read and junk. I’ve been just as into studying the tube amp reviews and ads too. I’m just saying these reviews do make an intriguing case for the amps, so I asked for opinions. You never see ads/reviews that interest you into taking a closer look at a product? So yes, I really still feel that "A nice 30 watt tube amp is better." The reviewers work for the magazines; the magazines are paid (in part) by companies who place ads therein. That’s why they write those nice words.
Ahhhh. I didn’t know all those reviews were bogus. Huh. But ya know, I see many other people in here who constantly refer to the ads and reviews in these magazines–many also post that they ended up basing a purchase on said reviews. That goes on in here everyday, it’s nothing new. Doesn’t mean people are slavering idiots mindlessly following the will and dictate of some corporate marketing firm just because they read the reviews and ads and liked what they read. But ANYWAY, it’s all good. And it’s all just personal taste in the end. I’ve read some posts by people who love these amps and some who don’t care for em, so it goes both ways I guess. Depends on what YOU like. I don’t always listen to people online anyway since there’s really no accounting for taste. A while back I asked for opinions on the DOD Ice Box and was told by a couple people that it "sucks". And still a couple others said "it’s cool". I went ahead and made my own decision and bought it. I love it. Does exactly what I wanted it to do and more. And it sounded way better to me than a couple other "leading brand" chorus boxes I compared it to at the store. Just shows to go ya! Keith
Amen. Chris – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Anyway, what’s your take on these new amps? Do you still say "a nice 30 watt tube amp would be far better than 100+ watts of solid state sound"? If so, what’s with all these magazines and their so-called "professional" reviewers telling us that these literally sound just like the real thing? Simple advice: Stop reading reviews and go out and PLAY these fancy-pants new amps. They are cool, interesting, and pretty damn good, but they STILL do not really cut the vibe that they are trying SO hard to emulate. For God’s sake, a 15W 1×10" Fender Pro Junior, with only tone and volume knobs, is one of the most widely-lauded little amps around. It’s a simple little tube amp, a one-trick pony with a single great tone. Again, stop reading, drooling, and thinking exactly in the manner these reviewers (and the ad department at the mag, and the marketing guys at the amp company) want you to. Go out and spend some time with these amps. You’ll be impressed, but it’s still not quite happening. If tube amps weren’t available, I’d be thrilled that this technology is out there. But… tube amps are widely available. So yes, I really still feel that "A nice 30 watt tube amp is better." The reviewers work for the magazines; the magazines are paid (in part) by companies who place ads therein. That’s why they write those nice words. Roger
Sell everything, get the best guitar you can find, buy an amp when you can afford one. Chris If your giging..rent amps. Rent a different one every time till you decide what you really like. Peace Chris – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am currently pretty unhappy with my tone.. I have a Crate 130 watt 2×12 solid state amp, a cheap washburn lyon guitar (Hum-Single-Hum configuration), a boss metal zone, ds-1, and digital delay. I know that I pretty much need to upgrade my entire rig to get a good sound. The only thing is that I don’t have much money at the moment and can only upgrade one aspect. Would it be best to get a new guitar first, another amp, or a multi-fx unit? Which would make the biggest difference in my sound? Thanks for any help
Anyway, what’s your take on these new amps? Do you still say "a nice 30 watt tube amp would be far better than 100+ watts of solid state sound"? If so, what’s with all these magazines and their so-called "professional" reviewers telling us that these literally sound just like the real thing?
Simple advice: Stop reading reviews and go out and PLAY these fancy-pants new amps. They are cool, interesting, and pretty damn good, but they STILL do not really cut the vibe that they are trying SO hard to emulate. For God’s sake, a 15W 1×10" Fender Pro Junior, with only tone and volume knobs, is one of the most widely-lauded little amps around. It’s a simple little tube amp, a one-trick pony with a single great tone. Again, stop reading, drooling, and thinking exactly in the manner these reviewers (and the ad department at the mag, and the marketing guys at the amp company) want you to. Go out and spend some time with these amps. You’ll be impressed, but it’s still not quite happening. If tube amps weren’t available, I’d be thrilled that this technology is out there. But… tube amps are widely available. So yes, I really still feel that "A nice 30 watt tube amp is better." The reviewers work for the magazines; the magazines are paid (in part) by companies who place ads therein. That’s why they write those nice words. Roger
Well, I’m no tone expert, but I spent a lot of time last week playing every amp that was in stores in the area from a Peavy classic 30 (all tube) up to a Matchless John Jorgenson special ($3500 retail) and they all certainly had characteristics of their own. I’m not one to say what sounded great or bad cos some of the classics (such as a fender twin) didn’t sound so good, yet they are obviously classic for a reason. Anyway, for a small budget, i decided on either the Peavy Classic 30 (all tube and around $250 used.) Or the New Line6 Flextone (around $570 new) They both had peasing sounds to me. I’m going for the flextone cos it is just plain fun, versatile and sounds great to my unrefined ears. steve
I am currently pretty unhappy with my tone.. I have a Crate 130 watt 2×12 solid state amp, a cheap washburn lyon guitar (Hum-Single-Hum< configuration), a boss metal zone, ds-1, and digital delay. I know that I pretty much need to upgrade my entire rig to get a good sound. The only thing is that I don’t have much money at the moment and can only upgrade one aspect. Would it be best to get a new guitar
first,another amp, or a multi-fx unit? Which would make the biggest difference in my sound? Thanks for any help Depends on what you want, but first trade that amp for an all tube jobby. A nice 30 watt tube amp would be far better than 100+ watts of solid state (Roland JC -120 excepted of course) sound. Go to Harmony-Central.Com and check the amp reviews for Crate Vintage Series , Ampeg re-issues (SuperJet, Reverb-o-Rocket), Laney, Marshal JTM 30,60, and Fender Hot Rods.
I’m in the sorta the same boat as Jeremy, and I have a question about the solid-state vs tube advice. I know a true tube amp will in most cases just plain sound better, but in all the major guitar mags and on many websites I keep reading about how today’s new "tube-simulating" amps are finally to the point where it’s a valid choice and no longer much of a difference from TRUE tube amp sound–think Line6 and stuff. I’ve read rave reviews from industry professionals who in fact say that that line6 amp sounds so much like a real tube amp, that it makes you wonder why you’d even buy a real tube amp anymore. I’ve been reading a lot of this kind of stuff about some of the new amps. Heck, I’ve even read reviews for some of the effect boxes out there that’ll give a VERY life-like tube amp sound on a normal solid-state—all this and with none of the maintinance and hassles of a real tube amp. In fact, a friend of mine has a nice tube amp that I covet very much for it’s warm, creamy, ‘tubey’ sound and one night I found a little tiny FREE program online that allows me to plug my guitar right into the soundcard and it simulates all kinds of effects. It has a bunch of tube amp simulating fx and geez!, even just fiddling around with that thing (which is free) gave me a sound very much like my friend’s real tube amp! It’s close enough for me. Anyway, what’s your take on these new amps? Do you still say "a nice 30 watt tube amp would be far better than 100+ watts of solid state sound"? If so, what’s with all these magazines and their so-called "professional" reviewers telling us that these literally sound just like the real thing? I’m torn as to what kind of amp I should concentrate on. (hmm, maybe I’ll re-post this in here under its own heading to get some widerange feedback) Keith
I am currently pretty unhappy with my tone.. I have a Crate 130 watt 2×12 solid state amp, a cheap washburn lyon guitar (Hum-Single-Hum configuration), a boss metal zone, ds-1, and digital delay. I know that I pretty much need to upgrade my entire rig to get a good sound. The only thing is that I don’t have much money at the moment and can only upgrade one aspect. Would it be best to get a new guitar first, another amp, or a multi-fx unit? Which would make the biggest difference in my sound? Thanks for any help
Depends on what you want, but first trade that amp for an all tube jobby. A nice 30 watt tube amp would be far better than 100+ watts of solid state (Roland JC -120 excepted of course) sound. Go to Harmony-Central.Com and check the amp reviews for Crate Vintage Series , Ampeg re-issues (SuperJet, Reverb-o-Rocket), Laney, Marshal JTM 30,60, and Fender Hot Rods. Guitar next …leave the fx for last.
You could always go the "other" route, which is a preamp, poweramp, and cabinet. I often advies my students (i’m a part-time teacher), to go this route for their second or third amp because: a) good value b) easy to upgrade or replace c)some excellent sounds in those preamps, ’specially the rocktrons.
I am currently pretty unhappy with my tone.. I have a Crate 130 watt 2×12 solid state amp, a cheap washburn lyon guitar (Hum-Single-Hum configuration), a boss metal zone, ds-1, and digital delay. I know that I pretty much need to upgrade my entire rig to get a good sound. The only thing is that I don’t have much money at the moment and can only upgrade one aspect. Would it be best to get a new guitar first, another amp, or a multi-fx unit? Which would make the biggest difference in my sound? Thanks for any help
Another amp.
Get a new amp. This always makes the biggest difference. Forget shitty boss metal pedals. Get a Valvestate 100watt Marshall (valvestate’s are great and cheaper than their valve cousins) and use the amp’s distortion. And for God’s sake, don’t forget to put mids in your sound. Harro. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am currently pretty unhappy with my tone.. I have a Crate 130 watt 2×12 solid state amp, a cheap washburn lyon guitar (Hum-Single-Hum configuration), a boss metal zone, ds-1, and digital delay. I know that I pretty much need to upgrade my entire rig to get a good sound. The only thing is that I don’t have much money at the moment and can only upgrade one aspect. Would it be best to get a new guitar first, another amp, or a multi-fx unit? Which would make the biggest difference in my sound? Thanks for any help
I am currently pretty unhappy with my tone.. I have a Crate 130 watt 2×12 solid state amp, a cheap washburn lyon guitar (Hum-Single-Hum configuration), a boss metal zone, ds-1, and digital delay. I know that I pretty much need to upgrade my entire rig to get a good sound. The only thing is that I don’t have much money at the moment and can only upgrade one aspect. Would it be best to get a new guitar first, another amp, or a multi-fx unit? Which would make the biggest difference in my sound? Thanks for any help
Dude, I’d trade the Crate 130w in for a used tube amp. Problem number one fixed. As for the guitar if you can scrape up about $300.00 you can get a new Mexican made Strat. Or maybe a used EPI Les Paul if that suits your tastes more. Thoes two changes will make a major difference.
Jeremy, What you first need to determine is why you don’t like your guitar tone. There are many factors that can be related to this. What sound are you going for? If you want your tone to sound like a strat then you don’t have the right guitar. If you want a les paul through a marshall sound then i would suggest getting a new amp. Something to consider is the sound of your guitar by itself. If the guitar isn’t setup for playing it’s going to sound like crap. Before i buy a new guitar i play it not connected to an amp. If it sounds good by itself it will sound good plugged in. Make sure that action is setup how you like it. Most people desire a low profile. The strings shouldn’t be too high at the 12th fret. That brings up another point. If you aren’t happy with the guitars tone and it seems to be setup properly then just change strings to a different brand or different gauge. That is the cheapest way to improve your guitar tone. I play a 78 Fender Music Master, probably one of the cheaper Fender guitars. I have small hands so i need a narrow neck. A strat has a width at the nut of about 42-43mm. That’s too big for me. I need a width of 41mm. It might not sound like a lot, but it matters. I also don’t care for hum buckers and think the neck position single coil pickup is the best sound on a strat, so i’m set with this cheap guitar. I usual can’t get a good tone from a guitar until i put a heavy gauge string on it. I personally prefer DR Tite-Fit Nickel strings. I usually use the lite-n-heavy ones, but if i feel like giving my fingers a work out i use the Jeff Healy ones. Earnie Ball makes a Skinny top Heavy Bottom string that gives a good tone also. I hope this helps. I could go on, but this is getting pretty long, so i’ll leave you with that. Just for reference i’m currently using the music master through a fender blues deluxe with a big muff, tube screamer and a vox wah (in that order from the amp). it’s a great blues setup, but that’s the tone i like. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am currently pretty unhappy with my tone.. I have a Crate 130 watt 2×12 solid state amp, a cheap washburn lyon guitar (Hum-Single-Hum configuration), a boss metal zone, ds-1, and digital delay. I know that I pretty much need to upgrade my entire rig to get a good sound. The only thing is that I don’t have much money at the moment and can only upgrade one aspect. Would it be best to get a new guitar first, another amp, or a multi-fx unit? Which would make the biggest difference in my sound? Thanks for any help
I am currently pretty unhappy with my tone.. I have a Crate 130 watt 2×12 solid state amp, a cheap washburn lyon guitar (Hum-Single-Hum configuration), a boss metal zone, ds-1, and digital delay. I know that I pretty much need to upgrade my entire rig to get a good sound. The only thing is that I don’t have much money at the moment and can only upgrade one aspect. Would it be best to get a new guitar first, another amp, or a multi-fx unit? Which would make the biggest difference in my sound? Thanks for any help
No, it is *not* the regulations that created the unsafe situation, the idiot at the wheel did. And maybe the fool who specified a useless light on that boat, but the owner was still responsible. If he couldn’t see what he was doing, why was he going that fast? First, I was not discussing the driver of the boat, he was an idiot for going 40 mph with his vision impaired…
Thank you, that is not how your post seemed to read On the other hand, I just bought a brand new boat with lights so I can go out at night. The boat maker designed the lights to meet with all the regulations developed by the experts in the field of boating safety, I go turn them on and I am blinded by them.
Who says that they were designed by experts? They were placed to meet the letter of the law, for the *least* amount of moeny spend. Period. They like probably many other things on your brand new boat need fixing/adjustment/redesign before they work correctly. Sad, but typical, performance. So I am an idiot for going out in this CG, COLREG, etc, etc aproved boat which cannot be operated safely at night.
I didn’t say that you are an idiot, unless you go faster than you can *safely* navigate. BTW the boat *does not* meet colreg if the lights shine in the helmsperson’s eyes (call the manufacturer, see what they say about that) It might be the fault of the regulations or the fault of the boat makers, but it will change one day. Somebody will sue after death caused by the light scheme on boats. They put them on for night operations did they not? I don’t think it is totally unreasonable for a first time boat buying to expect that the regulation bodies and the boat makers know how to build a proper and safe lighting scheme for my boat.
Oh, good. Make it someone elses fault and start a lawsuit, just the thing. It’s not unreasonable to expect a first time boat owner to go to a boating class and learn the applicable laws that deal with the conditions under which that owner will use the boat (same as driving). Because, regardless of what you buy, when you run it, it’s *your* responsibility to meet the laws, not *anyone* else’s. The regulations are not at fault (at least colregs) they are consistant and usable. People all over the world accept them. And except for the masthead light in your eyes, I expect that you don’t have a problem with them either. I do agree that the builders should put a usable set of lights on a boat before it leaves the factory if it is expected to be used at night. I suspect that the problem is that everybody wants to be legal at night, but most folks don’t ever use the boat at night, so the manufacturers put the least money into light that they can get away with. Mark
Steve Who thinks that this thread (like too many others lately) has reach the end of its useful life….. Make sure that the lights on your boat are correct for it’s operation, make sure that they work properly, shield them if necessary, no lawsuits, if you don’t like the laws, start lobbying.
Sorry to be picky, Mark, but the all around white light carried above the red/green nav lights on a power vessel is correctly called a masthead light. Nautical terms for power boats were derived from sailboat terms, not the other way around. I don’t think the poster meant the power boat has a mast, although as you know, many power boats have a short mast for this light, in smaller vessels, combined as a flagstaff at the stern. No duh, just data. Michael Dunn – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Last year a small speedboat hit the pier going around 40 mph. Gosh, I would have thought that one shouldn’t go 40 MPH when he is blinded by his masthead light. Duh. Speedboats do not have a mast, those kind of boats are called "sailboats". Duh… Mark Armstrong
<snip Speedboats do not have a mast, those kind of boats are called "sailboats". Duh…
Yes they do, It’s used for mounting lights and radar and _IS_ called a mast. It just doesn’t hold up sails… Duh… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Mark Armstrong
Let’s try this again slowly. If those lights are bouncing off something between you and the front of the boat, they are probably not properly installed. The steaming light is defined as: "A white fixed light over the centerline of the vessel showing an unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of 225 degrees from dead ahead to 22.5 degrees abaft the bean on either side" Now as a under 40 foot boat, you’re actually given the dispensation that the steaming light can be as far forward as possible and not necesarily on centerline. - David
David- As long as you are going to be technical, you should point out that there is no light defined in either the Inland Rules or International Rules as a "Steaming Light". The light that you refer to is properly called a "Masthead Light" and is found on both sail and power boats that operate at night under power. For reasons unknown to me, the name "Steaming Light" is generally used only by sailboaters to refer to their Masthead Light. -Dick-
Last year a small speedboat hit the pier going around 40 mph. Gosh, I would have thought that one shouldn’t go 40 MPH when he is blinded by his masthead light. Duh.
Speedboats do not have a mast, those kind of boats are called "sailboats". Duh… Mark Armstrong
No, it is *not* the regulations that created the unsafe situation, the idiot at the wheel did. And maybe the fool who specified a useless light on that boat, but the owner was still responsible. If he couldn’t see what he was doing, why was he going that fast?
First, I was not discussing the driver of the boat, he was an idiot for going 40 mph with his vision impaired… On the other hand, I just bought a brand new boat with lights so I can go out at night. The boat maker designed the lights to meet with all the regulations developed by the experts in the field of boating safety, I go turn them on and I am blinded by them. So I am an idiot for going out in this CG, COLREG, etc, etc aproved boat which cannot be operated safely at night. It might be the fault of the regulations or the fault of the boat makers, but it will change one day. Somebody will sue after death caused by the light scheme on boats. They put them on for night operations did they not? I don’t think it is totally unreasonable for a first time boat buying to expect that the regulation bodies and the boat makers know how to build a proper and safe lighting scheme for my boat. Mark
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Many boats around here (SE Michigan) that run at night have covered one or more of their lights because THEY BLIND THE HELMSMAN! The local sheriff’s boat has been observed with the steaming light taped over. Last year a small speedboat hit the pier going around 40 mph. I sure their steaming light was blinding them (they were not drunk). Maybe it is time to ban the steaming light, just a bow and stern light. Is a steaming light really needed on small vessels? I am sure a 30′ powerboat or large ship can install a steaming light which does not blind the helmsman, but can you install a steaming light on a small speedboat which does not affect the helmsman? Mark Armstrong
Yes, you can. A good place for it is over the head of the helmsman (on the center line, of course) with a glare shield to prevent it shining down on the deck or other things on the boat and in the helmsman’s view. The all-round white lights mounted on detachable poles aft are a loser. I prefer separate masthead (i.e., "steaming") light and stern light. Mount the masthead light up high (it must be at least a meter higher than the stern light, even when the bow is tilted up). Jim Maynard, K7KK Salem, Oregon "Ignorance is the mother of Adventure."
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No, it is *not* the regulations that created the unsafe situation, the idiot at the wheel did. And maybe the fool who specified a useless light on that boat, but the owner was still responsible. If he couldn’t see what he was doing, why was he going that fast? First, I was not discussing the driver of the boat, he was an idiot for going 40 mph with his vision impaired… On the other hand, I just bought a brand new boat with lights so I can go out at night. The boat maker designed the lights to meet with all the regulations developed by the experts in the field of boating safety, I go turn them on and I am blinded by them. So I am an idiot for going out in this CG, COLREG, etc, etc aproved boat which cannot be operated safely at night. It might be the fault of the regulations or the fault of the boat makers, but it will change one day. Somebody will sue after death caused by the light scheme on boats. They put them on for night operations did they not? I don’t think it is totally unreasonable for a first time boat buying to expect that the regulation bodies and the boat makers know how to build a proper and safe lighting scheme for my boat. Mark
Let’s try this again slowly. If those lights are bouncing off something between you and the front of the boat, they are probably not properly installed. The steaming light is defined as: "A white fixed light over the centerline of the vessel showing an unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of 225 degrees from dead ahead to 22.5 degrees abaft the bean on either side" Now as a under 40 foot boat, you’re actually given the dispensation that the steaming light can be as far forward as possible and not necesarily on centerline. If you’ve got a beef with anyone, it’s the folks who installed the light so that it either throws light where it doesn’t belong, or placed it with something in between it and the water that reflects the light back at you. The rules are reasonable and can be met with reasonable common sense installations. (I will freely grant that some builders don’t seem to be able to do this last) – David
= =Last year a small speedboat hit the pier going around 40 mph. =I sure their steaming light was blinding them (they were not =drunk). = = Maybe it is time to ban the steaming light, just a =bow and stern light. Is a steaming light really needed on small =vessels?
YES! Without the steaming light, you are showing the lights of a vessel UNDER SAIL. The steaming light can be adjusted.
Or modified or moved. On my 19′, the steaming light was on a pole mounted off the stern. We replaced the one that came with the boat because original height was maybe 1.5 feet with a new one that was 3 or 4 feet long.
The white light is supposed to be at least 1 meter above the sidelights, according to the COLREGS. On my 25′ power boat, the steaming light is mounted on a pole on top of the windshield. There is a neat disk
This is a "screen" which limits the arc of visability. that is mounted to one side of the light. Adjust the disk so that the steaming light is not shining into the helmsman’s eyes.
It should be large enough, and positioned properly, so that no light shines on the cabintop or foredeck. The sternlight should also be similarly shielded. I prefer (even on a runabout) to use separate stern and steaming lights mounted so that NOTHING shines on any part of my boat. (I have to go out and make a special effort to see if they are actually working.)
Some nights, when it’s cloudy and there’s no moon, it’s so dark on some waters that one really does need the aid of lights to spot other boaters. Even on brighter nights, it’s easier to track another boat when it has its lights on. When I’m on the water at night, I am forever fearful of sneaking up on someone running without lights and having to make a very rapid course change. People are just too hard to see without lights, which is why people probably started putting them on boats. (I suspect the law requiring running lights came after the practice of carrying them.) I don’t think the presence or absence of the masthead light is really the question here, since a couple of folks complained about the bow lights reflecting off the pulpit. It’s easy enough to fix the reflection problem by putting on sheilding or, as one person did, wrapping non-reflective tape around shiny things. To me, a vessel that exhibits little signs of seamanship like this looks better than one that does not. People really ought not to be blasting around at 40mph so close to shore that they might hit jetties or piers. For that matter, people ought not to be going that fast at night under ideal conditions — what about submerged logs? What about MOBs? — Adrian P. Vrouwenvelder (919) 543-1834 "Pookums" C22 #12435 These are my opinions; no one else’s. No one should be held liable for these comments or what they might engender. If I thought I or anyone else was going to be held liable, I wouldn’t even have posted this.
No, it is *not* the regulations that created the unsafe situation, the idiot at the wheel did. And maybe the fool who specified a useless light on that boat, but the owner was still responsible.
Important point. The skipper is responsible for the correct installation and display of the lights – not the manufacturer (and some lights are misinstalled so they don’t cover the correct angles). Rental boats may not comply with safety regulations, and you are responsible. (A boat rental agent once told me vehemently that the out-of-order horn on my rental boat was not a violation!) BTW, both my current and previous boat had steaming lights visible from the flybridge helm. On this boat, I mounted a loudhailer speaker just above the light, shading the bridge nicely. Walt Bilofsky Golden Phoenix (Cape Dory 30 Poweryacht)
I have moved or shielded most of the lights on any boats I have ever owned or used regularly. I won’t cover or remove them, but I make VERY sure they don’t shine anywhere but where they are required to shine. Too bad it can’t be done properly at the factory.
I’ve been told of sailbats which arrive from the factory *without a separate switch for the steaming light*. Tom Murphy Standard Disclaimer.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I boat on the South Shore of Long Island, probably the busiest boating area in the US. It is amazing how many people boat at night here, given the odds of grounding, if your not careful. But thats really not the danger. The danger is in the fact the 90% (my estimate) of the boaters at night either don’t show proper lights while under way, or at anchor. Colregs is quite clear that while underway a vessel should show bow and stern lights. Many of the recreational boats around me show no bow lights, or only one, cover their stern lights with dinghies, or have their mast light bent down and not visible. On the other hand, those at anchor (and there is only one special anchorage area – a cove) show either no lights or all lights. EDUCATION is what is needed, and some enforcement by the CG would be welcomed. Any opinions? — Wayne Spivak SBA * Consulting: Systems for Business & Accounting SBA.NET.WEB: Internet & World Wide Web Consulting Tel: 516-221-3306 Fax: 516-221-7129 http://www.ronin.com/SBA – "The Guide to Computer Vendors"
Amen! I often sail at night, and so I am sensitive to the issue of improperly lit boats. Usually, it’s pleasure boats. The professional mariners usually have their act together, and actually welcome a call on channel 13 (bridge-to-bridge radiotelephone act frequency) to let them know if one of their lights is extinguished. The pleasure boaters often don’t know how to light their vessels, or don’t care. The most frequent offenders I see are: 1. Sailors who don’t know which lights to show, those for a power-driven vessel or those for a sailing vessel. Sailboats with auxiliary engines are equipped to show both lighting configurations, but their operators often don’t know which configuration to exhibit. While under power, they show the lights of a sailing vessel, or while under sail, they show the lights of a power driven vessel. It’s frustrating when, on port tack, I approach a sailboat on starboard tack that is showing the lights of a power-driven vessel. If he really _is_ power-driven, then my boat is stand-on and his is give-way. But if he’s not using his engine, and is unaware that his masthead (i.e., "steaming") light on, or doesn’t know that he is claiming to be power-driven when he exhibits that light, then he may expect me to give way to him. 2. The owners of the power-driven runabouts who neglect to insert the pole that carries the all-round white light that serves as a combination masthead (i.e., "steaming") light and stern light. They run at 10 or 15 knots or so, showing what looks like the lights of a sailing vessel. I’ve also seen such a runabout running ahead of a towboat pushing its tow ahead. Since the idiot isn’t exhibiting a stern light, the operator of the tug cannot see him. Stupid! 3. Many power-boaters like to carry their dinghies on their swim platforms. Unfortunately, this often obscures the stern light. The people who know what they are doing will re-mount the stern light in a higher location, such as aft of the flying bridge. But many people do _not_ know what they are doing, and leave the stern light obscured. be power-driven by exhibiting that light Jim Maynard, K7KK Salem, Oregon "Ignorance is the mother of Adventure."
Maybe it is time to ban the steaming light, {I note that the steaming light helps indicate which boat has right of way] [Mark proposes that the rules be changed: powerboats carry running lights, sailboats carry running lights and a white "non-steaming" light above.]
I think this is a *great* idea, and if you’ll push for the legislation to implement it, I’ll support it as much as I can by voting for it, writing letters, etc.. You’ll want to be certain that the sailboat "non steaming" light is required to be at the *masthead* rather than a mere 2 meters above the running lights, because you will want to be able to see it from both sides, and if you’re to leeward, the job will hide it from you. Furthermore, it’ll shine on the jib and blind the helmsman of the sailboat (which is why, when I’m motorsailing at night under the current regs, I usually furl my jib). You’ll have a tough time getting it passed in all the countries in the world, but great ideas have always met with opposition. If not, then the person at the helm should probably adjust his or her handling of the boat to compensate for the effect. If not, s/he might hit a pier… But then, the operation of a speedboat at night is safe with the proper lighting. It is the regulations that can create an unsafe situation.
The regs do not create an unsafe situation. It’s quite possible, as others have pointed out, to install a shield beneath th steaming light, etc., to keep it out of the helmsman’s eyes. And even if the regs *do* create an unsafe situation for you, they only do so if you go too fast. Putt-putting along at 1 kt, you’re not likely to do a lot of damage. Annoying to you if you want to speed, I know. Seems like a nuisance. Of course, it may save someone’s life, but I can understand that if it limits your fun, it gets you ticked off. Just remember, that pier may be your boat which did happen around here a couple of years ago, a speedboat going 30 mph rammed a sailboat anchored for the night, the sailboat was on its first cruise.
I know that a speedboat may hit my boat. And it worries me. And if the operator says, in his own defense, "I couldn’t see where I was going because that light was in my eyes," I think I might be a bit annoyed. If I were the operator of the speedboat, I’d feel like a complete idiot to even attempt such an explanation. -John
Ok, then lets switch. A effective steaming light (or use the anchor light which is above the sails) can be installed on a sailboat with little ease. Since most sailboats which sail at night have a steaming light, this would not require any additional equipment (speedboats can just remove their steaming light). So a sailboat will operate with running and steaming light, power boats will only use running lights.
How about commercial vessels? Do container ships keep the steaming light? I hope so, but now you’ve got inconsistent lighting schemes. When does a powerboat require the light? 5m, 10m, 20m? Sailboats and ships with the steaming light, powerboats less than some arbitrary length without it, and general confusion throughout. Besides, these requirements are established by international treaty, and getting all the maritime nations to revisit the COLREGS doesn’t make nearly as much sense as throttling back when visibility is poor. but can you install a steaming light on a small speedboat which does not affect the helmsman?
If a particular boat cannot be modified in such a way, the operator needs to slow down at night. But then, the operation of a speedboat at night is safe with the proper lighting. It is the regulations that can create an unsafe situation.
No, it’s not the regulations that cause an unsafe situation, it’s a reckless boater that does so. Speedboating at night can be safe–seamanship is recognizing when it’s not safe. If the operator of the boat can’t see, it’s not safe, and the speed of the boat should be reduced. Just remember, that pier may be your boat which did happen around here a couple of years ago, a speedboat going 30 mph rammed a sailboat anchored for the night, the sailboat was on its first cruise.
Why doesn’t this surprise me?
: I boat on the South Shore of Long Island, probably the : busiest boating area in the US. : It is amazing how many people boat at night here, : given the odds of grounding, if your not careful. But : thats really not the danger. : The danger is in the fact the 90% (my estimate) of the : boaters at night either don’t show proper lights while : under way, or at anchor. : Colregs is quite clear that while underway a vessel : should show bow and stern lights. Many of the : recreational boats around me show no bow lights, or : only one, cover their stern lights with dinghies, or : have their mast light bent down and not visible. : On the other hand, those at anchor (and there is only : one special anchorage area – a cove) show either no : lights or all lights. : EDUCATION is what is needed, and some enforcement by : the CG would be welcomed. What is needed is for the idiots who locate the navigation lights on boats to be required to actually try to pilot a boat at night while they are on. Many boats around here (SE Michigan) that run at night have covered one or more of their lights because THEY BLIND THE HELMSMAN! The local sheriff’s boat has been observed with the steaming light taped over. The lights shine on railings, white decks, spray, wake, and a host of other reflective parts of the boat and its surroundings. Your eyes never get a chance to become dark-adapted. {{Sorry; but you pushed one of my (many) Hot-Buttons there.}} I probably run 50+ hours a year at night, so it is important to me. I have moved or shielded most of the lights on any boats I have ever owned or used regularly. I won’t cover or remove them, but I make VERY sure they don’t shine anywhere but where they are required to shine. Too bad it can’t be done properly at the factory. Colregs requires big boards painted flat black which limit the spread of the side lights on vessels over 20m. They ought to be required on all boats. — "Since at first there was no space, | Cao Xueqin ca. 1760 Things can have no proper place." | (tsao schwechin) <I find this a fascinating pre-big-bang cosmology.
Many boats around here (SE Michigan) that run at night have covered one or more of their lights because THEY BLIND THE HELMSMAN! The local sheriff’s boat has been observed with the steaming light taped over.
Last year a small speedboat hit the pier going around 40 mph. I sure their steaming light was blinding them (they were not drunk). Maybe it is time to ban the steaming light, just a bow and stern light. Is a steaming light really needed on small vessels? I am sure a 30′ powerboat or large ship can install a steaming light which does not blind the helmsman, but can you install a steaming light on a small speedboat which does not affect the helmsman? Mark Armstrong
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : I boat on the South Shore of Long Island, probably the : busiest boating area in the US. : It is amazing how many people boat at night here, : given the odds of grounding, if your not careful. But : thats really not the danger. : The danger is in the fact the 90% (my estimate) of the : boaters at night either don’t show proper lights while : under way, or at anchor. : Colregs is quite clear that while underway a vessel : should show bow and stern lights. Many of the : recreational boats around me show no bow lights, or : only one, cover their stern lights with dinghies, or : have their mast light bent down and not visible. : On the other hand, those at anchor (and there is only : one special anchorage area – a cove) show either no : lights or all lights. : EDUCATION is what is needed, and some enforcement by : the CG would be welcomed. What is needed is for the idiots who locate the navigation lights on boats to be required to actually try to pilot a boat at night while they are on. Many boats around here (SE Michigan) that run at night have covered one or more of their lights because THEY BLIND THE HELMSMAN! The local sheriff’s boat has been observed with the steaming light taped over. The lights shine on railings, white decks, spray, wake, and a host of other reflective parts of the boat and its surroundings. Your eyes never get a chance to become dark-adapted. {{Sorry; but you pushed one of my (many) Hot-Buttons there.}} I probably run 50+ hours a year at night, so it is important to me. I have moved or shielded most of the lights on any boats I have ever owned or used regularly. I won’t cover or remove them, but I make VERY sure they don’t shine anywhere but where they are required to shine. Too bad it can’t be done properly at the factory. Colregs requires big boards painted flat black which limit the spread of the side lights on vessels over 20m. They ought to be required on all boats. — "Since at first there was no space, | Cao Xueqin ca. 1760 Things can have no proper place." | (tsao schwechin) <I find this a fascinating pre-big-bang cosmology.
I agree more with what Pete has said. On my sailboat the bow light shines on the down tubes of the bow pulpit and reflects off the front tube above the light. In addition to spoiling your night vision, it makes it kind of hard to hunt for a colored bouy. I have had to fashion a back-plate to mount behind the light to keep the light off the down tubes, and wrap the front tubes with black handlebar tape. It works, but looks like hell. — Steve Christensen Ericson 38 "Rag Doll" Bay City, MI
Gosh, I would have thought that one shouldn’t go 40 MPH when he is blinded by his masthead light. Silly me. Duh. -Dick- – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Last year a small speedboat hit the pier going around 40 mph. I sure their steaming light was blinding them (they were not drunk). Maybe it is time to ban the steaming light, just a bow and stern light. Is a steaming light really needed on small vessels? I am sure a 30′ powerboat or large ship can install a steaming light which does not blind the helmsman, but can you install a steaming light on a small speedboat which does not affect the helmsman? Mark Armstrong
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – writes: Maybe it is time to ban the steaming light, It *is* necessary if I want to know which of us has the right of way. If I’m under sail, I’ve got on the bow and stern lights. When I’m under power, the steaming light goes on. Ok, then lets switch. A effective steaming light (or use the anchor light which is above the sails) can be installed on a sailboat with little ease. Since most sailboats which sail at night have a steaming light, this would not require any additional equipment (speedboats can just remove their steaming light). So a sailboat will operate with running and steaming light, power boats will only use running lights.
Wow, change the way light are used on boats *all over the world*, to save some folks from adjusting their lights properly, what an idea! It is usually possible to make a shield to prevent the light from going in the wrong direction from plastic, wood, or sheet metal in just a short time, and for little work. While reflections from the red and green running lights can be a problem, the most common problem is from the unshielded white steaming light on-a-stick that most small power boats have. Putting a flat disk about 6 – 8" in diameter with a hole in center for the fixture to stick through would solve many people’s glare problems in about 10 min (I’m including 5 for the epxoy to set). but can you install a steaming light on a small speedboat which does not affect the helmsman?
YES!!! In fact, not only is it a good idea, it’s the law. I just checked Chapman’s and screening the masthead light (the regs term for what we commonly call a steaming light) to prevent it’s interference with the pilot’s vision is required *by law* If not, then the person at the helm should probably adjust his or her handling of the boat to compensate for the effect. If not, s/he might hit a pier…
Absolutely! But then, the operation of a speedboat at night is safe with the proper lighting. It is the regulations that can create an unsafe situation. Just remember, that pier may be your boat which did happen around here a couple of years ago, a speedboat going 30 mph rammed a sailboat anchored for the night, the sailboat was on its first cruise.
No, it is *not* the regulations that created the unsafe situation, the idiot at the wheel did. And maybe the fool who specified a useless light on that boat, but the owner was still responsible. If he couldn’t see what he was doing, why was he going that fast? Steve
[Lights blind the helmsman] Last year a small speedboat hit the pier going around 40 mph. I sure their steaming light was blinding them (they were not drunk).
Wait a minute…they couldn’t see where they were headed because there was a light shining in their eyes, but they kept going 40 MPH???? I think that the problem here is one that’s deeper than the location of navigational lights. Do these folks drive 40 MPH in dense fog or snow too? Maybe it is time to ban the steaming light, just a bow and stern light. Is a steaming light really needed on small vessels?
It *is* necessary if I want to know which of us has the right of way. If I’m under sail, I’ve got on the bow and stern lights. When I’m under power, the steaming light goes on. That makes a big difference in the right-of-way laws. I am sure a 30′ powerboat or large ship can install a steaming light which does not blind the helmsman, but can you install a steaming light on a small speedboat which does not affect the helmsman?
If not, then the person at the helm should probably adjust his or her handling of the boat to compensate for the effect. If not, s/he might hit a pier… -John Hughes
Have used a white handkerchief and a rubberband to cover the steaming light. It difuses the light enough to not bother the helmsman… but lets the light still shine bright enough to be visible to other craft… This solution probably isn’t in Chapman’s… but what the heck it works!
Maybe it is time to ban the steaming light, It *is* necessary if I want to know which of us has the right of way. If I’m under sail, I’ve got on the bow and stern lights. When I’m under power, the steaming light goes on.
Ok, then lets switch. A effective steaming light (or use the anchor light which is above the sails) can be installed on a sailboat with little ease. Since most sailboats which sail at night have a steaming light, this would not require any additional equipment (speedboats can just remove their steaming light). So a sailboat will operate with running and steaming light, power boats will only use running lights. but can you install a steaming light on a small speedboat which does not affect the helmsman? If not, then the person at the helm should probably adjust his or her handling of the boat to compensate for the effect. If not, s/he might hit a pier…
But then, the operation of a speedboat at night is safe with the proper lighting. It is the regulations that can create an unsafe situation. Just remember, that pier may be your boat which did happen around here a couple of years ago, a speedboat going 30 mph rammed a sailboat anchored for the night, the sailboat was on its first cruise. Mark Armstrong
=[Lights blind the helmsman] = =Last year a small speedboat hit the pier going around 40 mph. =I sure their steaming light was blinding them (they were not =drunk). = =Wait a minute…they couldn’t see where they were headed because =there was a light shining in their eyes, but they kept going 40 MPH???? =I think that the problem here is one that’s deeper than the location =of navigational lights. Do these folks drive 40 MPH in dense fog =or snow too? = = Maybe it is time to ban the steaming light, just a =bow and stern light. Is a steaming light really needed on small =vessels? The steaming light can be adjusted. On my 19′, the steaming light was on a pole mounted off the stern. We replaced the one that came with the boat because original height was maybe 1.5 feet with a new one that was 3 or 4 feet long. On my 25′ power boat, the steaming light is mounted on a pole on top of the windshield. There is a neat disk that is mounted to one side of the light. Adjust the disk so that the steaming light is not shining into the helmsman’s eyes. The worst setup I ever saw was on a 30′ flybridge. The steaming light was mounted on the cabin roof, right in front of the flybridge. I could never see much of anything in front of that boat, except for the foredeck (it wasn’t my boat). Mike
I boat on the South Shore of Long Island, probably the busiest boating area in the US. It is amazing how many people boat at night here, given the odds of grounding, if your not careful. But thats really not the danger. The danger is in the fact the 90% (my estimate) of the boaters at night either don’t show proper lights while under way, or at anchor. Colregs is quite clear that while underway a vessel should show bow and stern lights. Many of the recreational boats around me show no bow lights, or only one, cover their stern lights with dinghies, or have their mast light bent down and not visible. On the other hand, those at anchor (and there is only one special anchorage area – a cove) show either no lights or all lights. EDUCATION is what is needed, and some enforcement by the CG would be welcomed. Any opinions? — Wayne Spivak SBA * Consulting: Systems for Business & Accounting SBA.NET.WEB: Internet & World Wide Web Consulting Tel: 516-221-3306 Fax: 516-221-7129 http://www.ronin.com/SBA – "The Guide to Computer Vendors"