> Anyway if America ever thinks it has to stoop to the >level of bloody head cutters, torturers and mass murderers.
Ahhh so dressing up and humiliating Iraqi prisoners by a few scumbags AND THEN BEING PUNISHED FOR THAT ACTION BY THE USA = sawing off heads on video and endless suicide bombings to kill random men, women and children. You are one of the dumbest human beings I have ever encountered!
This Is Rumor Control April 29, 2005 From the ‘Song Ve’ Valley to ‘Abu Ghraib’: The ‘Tiger Force’ Investigation Revisited By Newt I’ve spent the last two days reviewing previously classified evidence of atrocities committed during the Vietnam War by certain members of the "Tiger Force" reconnaissance unit of the 101st Airborne (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031022/SRTIGE…). It’s impossible not to be affected by what the documents contain, and as I sit down to write, the spring sky grows dark, thunder rolls and a downpour clatters across the roof. It’s as if the atmosphere is adjusting itself to the documents and their grim explorations: A baby is beheaded with the blade of a hunting knife because a soldier covets the child’s symbolic Buddhist necklace. A farmer is shot in the face as he pleads for his life. Multiple grenades are lobbed at villagers who lay trapped and helpless at the bottom of bunkers where they were hiding. The eyewitness accounts of the unit’s murderous seven month rampage between May and November of 1967 have not lost their power to shock. The Army investigators who heard the stories first-hand must have been sickened and yet no one has ever explained why no action was taken against those responsible. The attacks on Vietnamese civilians and prisoners of war pre-dated the infamous "My Lai massacre" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/trenches/my_lai.html), which occurred in the same remote valley. A soldier who witnessed the crimes and tried to stop them tells "This is Rumor Control" that if only he’d been listened to, the stain that was My Lai might never have happened. In October of 2003, after two years of work, the "Toledo Blade" newspaper published a harrowing account of Tiger Force’s merciless patrols through Vietnam’s remote and deadly Central Highlands (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031022/SRTIGE…). Good soldiers of conscience blew the whistle but no one stepped in to stop the carnage. Later when the Army did investigate, even recommending murder charges, the case was dropped and forgotten until it was discovered by the "Toledo Blade" decades later. The "Toledo Blade" series won a Pulitzer Prize and the publicity prompted the Pentagon to begin anew an investigation into the old war crimes. "This is Rumor Control" has learned that the same Judge Advocate General officer who was charged with re-investigating Tiger Force also handled the Army’s review of Abu Ghraib. His report on the "Tiger Force" atrocities was due over a year ago. No one from the Army has offered an explanation for its delay and the story itself is in danger of receding back into history. The current Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumsfeld), was also the Secretary of Defense under Gerald Ford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford) when the original queries were buried. That first investigation found that "a total 18 soldiers committed crimes, including murder and assault but no one was ever charged" according to the Blade, even though as the newspaper determined, Rumsfeld’s office was sent a copy of the report. Given the irrefutable truth of the "Tiger Force" and Abu Ghraib war-crimes evidence and the refusal of anyone high on the Pentagon food chain to take responsibility, a cynic might note a pattern of behavior from the Secretary. As one senior CIA source said of Rumsfeld’s Abu Ghraib testimony before Congress "Some people think you can bullshit anyone" (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact). Over the next few days, I will be posting some of the testimony taken by Army investigators — word for word accounting from soldiers who witnessed or participated in one of the darkest episodes in American military history. I think it’s important that you know what they said. Next week, watch for the final chapter including an interview with a "Tiger Force" whistleblower that refuses to let the story die. http://www.thisisrumorcontrol.org/node/2133 — Quaecomque sunt vera —-
Hey Troll. Do the insurgents in Iraq deserve any blame for their killing men, women and children at random?
Normally I ignore idiots, but its some thing the xxx xxxx constantly bring up. I will answer by a parable maybe they will get it. Back in 1980 in Evanston Ill., there was this "bohemian" style store, it had many intriguing items. The store had a sign that said (unlike other stores), they will NOT prosecute shoplifters. One day when I could not bear it anymore, I asked the guy what it means, he said he just can’t have a store in a poor neighborhood and act like others. Anyway if America ever thinks it has to stoop to the level of bloody head cutters, torturers and mass murderers. Then it has lost. Fighting in that scenario is like fucking for virginity. Just like dance without music it can be done but it is stupid. — Quaecomque sunt vera —- "Chuck" <ChuckM…@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1115632189.475538.17330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hey Troll. Do the insurgents in Iraq deserve any blame for their > killing men, women and children at random?
Muirenn wrote: > My husband is ok he does well. His parents never medicated him. If I could > get a doc to scrip him adderal xr we would be fine. But he can not get any > help. I am however considering applying for benefits for his daughter with > aspergers and ADHD.
Hi Muirenn, They just announced that Canada (gov’t) has approved Strattera for ADHD Looks to me like it’s been available in the US for some time http://www.strattera.com/1_1_about_strattera/1_1_about.jsp http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic3/strattera.htm Maybe your hubby’s doctor has samples for him to try? I have no experience with it. Just letting you know. Hugs from J
Hi all, Happy new year. I am in a bad flare and I hurt so much. The weather is crazy and I am trying to potty train my 3 year old son. My husband has ADHD and so has no memory to speak of. He gets so upset when I forget things. I try so hard. It drives me crazy. I used to be an accounting clerk. I had most of my 300 customers names addresses and phone numbers memorized. Now If I don’t write it down I forget. My husband has always depended on me to keep the wheel oiled and keep the house running smoothly, now I have trouble getting dressed some days. The pain is so bad. I am at a loss of what to do. Some days I am ok others I just want to cry. I am fighting to get disability. We are broke. I used to be the big bread winner. I have the better skill set. My husband is a artist. He is a writer. He has writes scripts but getting someone to buy them is a chore we have not yet accomplished. I am so sorry for my rant, but I am so lost. My effexor is not even working to keep the depression away anymore. I just don’t know what to do anymore. Thanks for letting me vent As always Muirenn
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Muirenn wrote: > I am in a bad flare and I hurt so much. The weather is crazy and I am > trying to potty train my 3 year old son. My husband has ADHD and so has no > memory to speak of. He gets so upset when I forget things. I try so hard. > It drives me crazy. I used to be an accounting clerk. I had most of my 300 > customers names addresses and phone numbers memorized. Now If I don’t write > it down I forget. > My husband has always depended on me to keep the wheel oiled and keep the > house running smoothly, now I have trouble getting dressed some days. The > pain is so bad. > I am at a loss of what to do. Some days I am ok others I just want to cry. > I am fighting to get disability. We are broke. I used to be the big bread > winner. I have the better skill set. > My husband is a artist. He is a writer. He has writes scripts but getting > someone to buy them is a chore we have not yet accomplished.
Muireen, Happy new year to you too. Tell your husband "staving artist" jobs only work well for those who have money or are bachelors. He has a child and a wife with a chronic illness. Time to get a real job and od the "starving artist thing" in his free time. Ask your family and/or his family to support you on this. Hugs and IMO J
I can offer some guidance about getting the SS disability. I’m in the middle of a big flare right now too so can’t do it now but if you want to e-mail me off-group, I’ll tell you what I learned after 3 years of fighting (and finally winning big-time). I know…the whole thing sucks right now, huh? Roe…@comacast.net "Muirenn" <some…@somedomain.cam> wrote in message
news:10tb5d3psfa0sf5@corp.supernews.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hi all, > Happy new year. > I am in a bad flare and I hurt so much. The weather is crazy and I am > trying to potty train my 3 year old son. My husband has ADHD and so has no > memory to speak of. He gets so upset when I forget things. I try so hard. > It drives me crazy. I used to be an accounting clerk. I had most of my 300 > customers names addresses and phone numbers memorized. Now If I don’t write > it down I forget. > My husband has always depended on me to keep the wheel oiled and keep the > house running smoothly, now I have trouble getting dressed some days. The > pain is so bad. > I am at a loss of what to do. Some days I am ok others I just want to cry. > I am fighting to get disability. We are broke. I used to be the big bread > winner. I have the better skill set. > My husband is a artist. He is a writer. He has writes scripts but getting > someone to buy them is a chore we have not yet accomplished. > I am so sorry for my rant, but I am so lost. My effexor is not even working > to keep the depression away anymore. > I just don’t know what to do anymore. > Thanks for letting me vent > As always > Muirenn
Hey Muirenn , Hang in there kid! I have an ADHD Bipolar adult son so I can truly relate. Also, have a few too many autoimmune issues which often makes life a challange. You may be suffereing from the post-seasonal blahs or maybe even need a medication change. I think maybe even both? As far as memory, my middle name is not Memorex also BUT why not use one of them very small micro-cassette recorders to help you throughout the day. I am a few neurons absent from a real brain and I think this could help your efforts tremendously. If you are also like me, and fingers are a problem, this can help with having to write stuff down and lose it too!!!!!! It is a worthy investment. Major warm hugs to the Northerner pals! Always, ..
Sounds like Oracle and KPMG already have a rather good defense, the consumer was well informed.
… When a team from the university flew to Oracle’s headquarters in Redwood Shores, Calif., and then to the California Institute of Technology for a demonstration for the Oracle software, "members of the working party were however struck by the vast effort devoted to the business process mapping activity being undertaken by CalTech staff and by warnings about the research grants module," the report said.
… — * Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A. * * Unemployed for five years, mistake of being an accountant. * * From the Socialist People’s Republic of Kalifornia, * * the Seventh worst state for business, * * Ayn Rand was right *
That should be preserved as a classic.
… 2. …. waste loves company
… — * Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A. * * Unemployed for five years, mistake of being an accountant. * * From the Socialist People’s Republic of Kalifornia, * * the Seventh worst state for business, * * Ayn Rand was right *
I am suprised. (Which is very hard to do in this day and age, in which almost nothing suprises me anymore.) I thought setting these things up was a slam dunk. Aren’t their canned application systems, including Oracle’s, that are +90% fits for these types of application environments?
It would appear not. The following is a copy / paste from the article. When a team from the university flew to Oracle’s headquarters in Redwood Shores, Calif., and then to the California Institute of Technology for a demonstration for the Oracle software, "members of the working party were however struck by the vast effort devoted to the business process mapping activity being undertaken by CalTech staff and by warnings about the research grants module," the report said. "Unfortunately these critical observations got lost in the jet-lagged confusion of the visit," it added. — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA http://survivalworks.com Washington, USA
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am suprised. (Which is very hard to do in this day and age, in which almost nothing suprises me anymore.) I thought setting these things up was a slam dunk. Aren’t their canned application systems, including Oracle’s, that are +90% fits for these types of application environments? It would appear not. The following is a copy / paste from the article. When a team from the university flew to Oracle’s headquarters in Redwood Shores, Calif., and then to the California Institute of Technology for a demonstration for the Oracle software, "members of the working party were however struck by the vast effort devoted to the business process mapping activity being undertaken by CalTech staff and by warnings about the research grants module," the report said. "Unfortunately these critical observations got lost in the jet-lagged confusion of the visit," it added.
So, Cambridge knew or should have known what they were buying. Does the UK have a concept of proportional liability for these sorts of suits? If so, it sounds like KPMG and Oracle may get away with not having to pay much. Regards, Bill
So, Cambridge knew or should have known what they were buying. Does the UK have a concept of proportional liability for these sorts of suits? If so, it sounds like KPMG and Oracle may get away with not having to pay much.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the UK does have such a system. Hopefully one of our appropriately informed colleagues will weigh in with an answer. — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA http://survivalworks.com Washington, USA
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am suprised. (Which is very hard to do in this day and age, in which almost nothing suprises me anymore.) I thought setting these things up was a slam dunk. Aren’t their canned application systems, including Oracle’s, that are +90% fits for these types of application environments? It would appear not. The following is a copy / paste from the article. When a team from the university flew to Oracle’s headquarters in Redwood Shores, Calif., and then to the California Institute of Technology for a demonstration for the Oracle software, "members of the working party were however struck by the vast effort devoted to the business process mapping activity being undertaken by CalTech staff and by warnings about the research grants module," the report said. "Unfortunately these critical observations got lost in the jet-lagged confusion of the visit," it added.
If, as yours truly frequently has, you have performed several IT audits and or financial controllership mandates in IT functions of large organisations (with deep pockets, at least for the time being), this news is not at all surprising. Value for money is in reality only a minor concern of such orgs, a lip service item. More important are: 1. organisational politics (you become more important by increasing your budget and control span, not the contrary); see "The Unix Guide to Defenestration" published in July 2001 2. big guys like big guys (= waste loves company) 3. prestige: "We can afford and have tailor made IT solutions." (even if we pay 90 % of the bill for 10 % of the functions) 4. keeping people busy 5. herd instinct (= "group think") In my experience the only large IT company which has consistently got good marks from its customers is Sun Microsystems. This has surprised me and, mind you, I own no SM stock and they are not (yet) our customers. A. Lucien Meyers, CIA, CMA — If you receive this by error, please delete and inform sender. www.consult-meyers.com recommends e-mail encryption using pgp. To Big Brother Echelon from "spook":
THE UNIVERSITY OF Cambridge in the United Kingdom is considering possible legal action against Oracle and KPMG Consulting for a faulty computer system that the university estimates it spent $13 million installing, with the aid of the two companies.
Is it possible that the system failed because the Univ of Cambridge had a computer system that was pasted together with spit and gum? When I attended a major university in the US the computer kept crashing because the university used a computer system that was donated to the university and an OS that was also donated. The result was a computer that crashed because the university didn’t spend a few bucks to buy a decent OS. What to do with Osama Bin Laden? Capture him, force him to undergo a sex change operation, and send him back to Afghanistan as a woman. I’m allergic to spam. Remove "No Spam" from my e-mail address to respond. —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–
I am suprised. (Which is very hard to do in this day and age, in which almost nothing suprises me anymore.) I thought setting these things up was a slam dunk. Aren’t their canned application systems, including Oracle’s, that are +90% fits for these types of application environments? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Cambridge may sue Oracle, KPMG for failed system By Laura Rohde November 9, 2001 10:02 am PT THE UNIVERSITY OF Cambridge in the United Kingdom is considering possible legal action against Oracle and KPMG Consulting for a faulty computer system that the university estimates it spent $13 million installing, with the aid of the two companies. According to two reports published by the University of Cambridge last week, it spent five years and more than twice as much money than it had budgeted on a computerized financial system, which it calls its CAPSA (commitment accounting software system) project, that still does not produce quarterly statements to the university’s satisfaction. And though the report primarily blames the university’s management for the problems with CAPSA, it also found fault with some of its outside vendors, including Oracle and KPMG. <snip The report itself states the situation somewhat more bluntly. "Oracle supplied a product which was of poor quality. In particular, the Research Grants module is only marginally fit for purpose. Such poor quality is a feature of the software industry as a whole; it is, however, little comfort that Oracle Financials is industry-standard sub-standard. <snip http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/11/09/011109hncambridge.x… — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA http://survivalworks.com Washington, USA
– * Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A. * * Unemployed for five years, mistake of being an accountant. * * From the Socialist People’s Republic of Kalifornia, * * the Seventh worst state for business, * * Ayn Rand was right *
Cambridge may sue Oracle, KPMG for failed system By Laura Rohde November 9, 2001 10:02 am PT THE UNIVERSITY OF Cambridge in the United Kingdom is considering possible legal action against Oracle and KPMG Consulting for a faulty computer system that the university estimates it spent $13 million installing, with the aid of the two companies. According to two reports published by the University of Cambridge last week, it spent five years and more than twice as much money than it had budgeted on a computerized financial system, which it calls its CAPSA (commitment accounting software system) project, that still does not produce quarterly statements to the university’s satisfaction. And though the report primarily blames the university’s management for the problems with CAPSA, it also found fault with some of its outside vendors, including Oracle and KPMG. <snip The report itself states the situation somewhat more bluntly. "Oracle supplied a product which was of poor quality. In particular, the Research Grants module is only marginally fit for purpose. Such poor quality is a feature of the software industry as a whole; it is, however, little comfort that Oracle Financials is industry-standard sub-standard. <snip http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/11/09/011109hncambridge.x… — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA http://survivalworks.com Washington, USA
Many of the books I am reading say to put the Accumulated Depreciation account for each individual asset directly after that asset in the chart of accounts. For instance: Building (1350) and Accumulated Depreciation – Building (1351). However, other books and Peachtree have all the Accumulated Depreciation accounts in an entirely different section of the G/L, 15500 & 17500, respectively. I am curious as to everyone’s thoughts on this. The first way I can easily see the current value of each individual asset and it is easier to squeeze things into my Chart of Accounts. The second way makes it easier to see the total accumulated depreciation all together. However, even if I did it the first way Peachtree will be able to separate out the total assets from the total Accumulated Depreciation by using the Account Type field.
Many of the books I am reading say to put the Accumulated Depreciation account for each individual asset directly after that asset in the chart of accounts. For instance: Building (1350) and Accumulated Depreciation – Building (1351). However, other books and Peachtree have all the Accumulated Depreciation accounts in an entirely different section of the G/L, 15500 & 17500, respectively.
Proper accounting dictates that accumulated depreciation or amortization be grouped with the related asset.
Many of the books I am reading say to put the Accumulated Depreciation account for each individual asset directly after that asset in the chart of accounts. For instance: Building (1350) and Accumulated Depreciation – Building (1351). However, other books and Peachtree have all the Accumulated Depreciation accounts in an entirely different section of the G/L, 15500 & 17500, respectively. I am curious as to everyone’s thoughts on this. The first way I can easily see the current value of each individual asset and it is easier to squeeze things into my Chart of Accounts. The second way makes it easier to see the total accumulated depreciation all together. However, even if I did it the first way Peachtree will be able to separate out the total assets from the total Accumulated Depreciation by using the Account Type field.
The numbering system that you use for the accumulated depreciation largely depends on the accounting system you are using. In many cases when designing custom financial statement specifications in the application’s report writer, it is easier to group like kind accounts so that they can be expressed as a range of accounts. For example rather than expressing a financial statement grouping as comprising accounts 1000 + 1500 + 1700 + 1745 + 1880 it is easier to set up the chart of accounts so that the group can be defined as accounts 1000~1100. (~ represents from and to). If the company needs to add additional accounts that fit into this group at some future date, all that is needed is to pick a number that fits into this range. The new account(s) will be included in this financial statement grouping without the need to modify the specification that defines the group.
As an accountant, I prefer the way you mention in your post, "For instance: Building (1350) and Accumulated Depreciation – Building (1351)." The reason is this – if at the end of the year I am reconciling the depreciation and have a problem, it is easy to narrow the problem down to the group of assets that does not match. You are correct also in that "Peachtree will be able to separate out the total assets from the total Accumulated Depreciation by using the Account Type field" if you want to show only 1 total accumulated depreciation on the financial statements. http://www.asphelpdeskinc.com
Now you have installed ZA, you could benefit by using Zonelog Analyzer, http://zonelog.co.uk . Very helpful for using the ZA log and interpreting the info therein. Cheers, Mike
Intuit doesn’t own Quicken Lawyer. It is owned by Parsons which happens to be owned by Broderbund, which used to be owned by Mattel. Check your facts about which company owns what before blasting a company. It really hurts your credibility as far as I am concerned!
What FACT is wrong. He never said that Intuit owned it. It looks like you need to read the message before responding. Also you missed one "used to be". The first owner ship of Parsons, outside of the founder, was INTUIT. Bill biz.comp.accounting moderator (mike block) note: I will post this because it may be criticizing me and I do not censor that. For the record, I will not allow anonymous posts in the future. Those posting this way have no credibility. It is stupid for Quicken to allow someone using their name to commit an offense worse than many crimes. Unless they make every effort to promptly stop it they are effectively guilty of complicity and deserve public sanctions.
Mike block again: Private emails quickly resolved differences between myself & Idon’tknow. Now we should verify the facts and then hang the program owner AND the company that let them use the name Quicken.
Intuit doesn’t own Quicken Lawyer. It is owned by Parsons which happens to be owned by Broderbund, which used to be owned by Mattel. Check your facts about which company owns what before blasting a company. It really hurts your credibility as far as I am concerned! biz.comp.accounting moderator (mike block) note: I will post this because it may be criticizing me and I do not censor that. For the record, I will not allow anonymous posts in the future. Those posting this way have no credibility. It is stupid for Quicken to allow someone using their name to commit an offense worse than many crimes. Unless they make every effort to promptly stop it they are effectively guilty of complicity and deserve public sanctions.
brodcast is Broderbund Software/Mattel Software’s implementation of the Marimba technology. The software in Question is actually put out by Mattel, Inc. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – We keep hearing QB is only checking for updates and does not send anything beyond version number. I am going to update my Quicken Lawyer to verify this. If this is true, it will be something Intuit long regrets. mike block QuickBooks does the same thing. Sorry bastards. The teqnique is slightly different – but just as objectionable. Mike |I used Quicken lawyer today. I opened Zonealarm, and set it to stop all |traffic. |When I got done using it (Quicken), Zonealarm came up, there it was, |calling |in to try to pass the info back to a site. Ha ! Ha !, I used Adware, |deleted the bad stuff out, then turned it back on. I looked at what it |was |going to send them. EVERYTHING I had put in a LIVING WILL I made out, |plus |the equipment I was running, and on and on. | It executes a program called dss/agent, and tells windows (in the |Register), to run it. It calls in using 24.131.1.9 and it’s called |Brodcast background agent (the o has a line through it) when it came up |in |Zonealarm. The address in the Register is |www.brodcast.net/per/DSS/querySS.cgi |Yes the letters are capital letters. | |The next time you use it, it re-writes this to the register again to |HKEY_LOCAL_Machinesoftwarebroderbund softwaredss |It executes dssagent.exe | |When you use it, it puts it inside Quicken, under a Folder called |Mattel, |which is site on the net that sells software. But I bought mine from |Parsons. | | |Does anyone know if there are similar "problems" with other Intuit |software? Thanks. | |Jim Mike Block, Tax Fighting C.P.A. World’s #1 QuickBooks Top Tester FREE NetLedger consult refer #10260 FREE 462p QB book/error codes/ 80 QB add-ons http://blocktax.com/
We keep hearing QB is only checking for updates and does not send anything beyond version number. I am going to update my Quicken Lawyer to verify this. If this is true, it will be something Intuit long regrets. mike block – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – QuickBooks does the same thing. Sorry bastards. The teqnique is slightly different – but just as objectionable. Mike |I used Quicken lawyer today. I opened Zonealarm, and set it to stop all |traffic. |When I got done using it (Quicken), Zonealarm came up, there it was, |calling |in to try to pass the info back to a site. Ha ! Ha !, I used Adware, |deleted the bad stuff out, then turned it back on. I looked at what it |was |going to send them. EVERYTHING I had put in a LIVING WILL I made out, |plus |the equipment I was running, and on and on. | It executes a program called dss/agent, and tells windows (in the |Register), to run it. It calls in using 24.131.1.9 and it’s called |Brodcast background agent (the o has a line through it) when it came up |in |Zonealarm. The address in the Register is |www.brodcast.net/per/DSS/querySS.cgi |Yes the letters are capital letters. | |The next time you use it, it re-writes this to the register again to |HKEY_LOCAL_Machinesoftwarebroderbund softwaredss |It executes dssagent.exe | |When you use it, it puts it inside Quicken, under a Folder called |Mattel, |which is site on the net that sells software. But I bought mine from |Parsons. | | |Does anyone know if there are similar "problems" with other Intuit |software? Thanks. | |Jim
Mike Block, Tax Fighting C.P.A. World’s #1 QuickBooks Top Tester FREE NetLedger consult refer #10260 FREE 462p QB book/error codes/ 80 QB add-ons http://blocktax.com/
If a person wants to install computer systems the CPA certificate is presently seen to confer some credibility, however, in my opinion this is more illusion than fact. If existing professional standards, particularly our independence standards, were strictly applied to CPAs involved in information technology I strongly suspect we would have fewer certificate holders. At best, the credibility conferred by the certificate would not be worth the cost. At worst, a strict application of professional standards would prevent the certificate holder from competing in the marketplace. This would, of course make the certificate worth less than nothing. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA –
Jim, US CPAs are unique in their "intimacy" with technology, even though there are so many of them that simply shun it. As a growth area, technology, however, offers more opportunity to the new entrants into the profession. Out of so many attempts coming out of AICPA (web trust, global designation, CITP, etc…) to establish a new designation there is going to be a winner, and CPAs will start flocking to it. At the moment, however, it is not clear which initiative will get the critical mass required to allow this. I, for one, am a new breed CPA, falling back on my first accounting class (over 12 years ago) where I could see then mysterious t-accounts so greatly enhanced by an automating device – an age long yearning of accountants to alleviate the drudgery of adding (counting). Remember the abacus? I want to eliminate paper out of all accounting, look how many trees that would save. Greg Misiorek, CPA Before you buy.
… I have been a CPA for 29 years. I have always been
ambivalent about the value of this credential, more so now than ever. We have a lot
of unsettled baggage. … Jim, I think this would be an excellent topic for a new thread. Today, what is the value of the degree, the certificate? Would you care to start it?
First, I want to express a few thoughts on the concept of value. While value in a global sense may be adequately presented as a number based on some objective measure, it is far more subjective when viewed from the individual point of view. From the global perspective, value does not include consideration for individual needs, wants, goals, and objectives. As an example, the current value of a surgical education from the global perspective would be a very large number. If, however, this experience were viewed from the standpoint of someone who cannot tolerate the sight of blood we would have an entirely different set of measures. Not only does the experience have far less value; it is probably not attainable at all. Accountancy is a bit more universal than surgery. Every human endeavor of any size has an element of accountancy. At its core, accountancy is essentially a language – a means of expressing the results of transactions in a form that can be understood by persons not directly involved in those transactions. Some level of accounting knowledge is essential to virtually everyone involved in human interaction, ranging from a clerk making change in a grocery store to a CPA expressing an opinion on the fairness of financials. In my opinion, the subject valuation has three distinct components, each with distinct considerations. Those components, in reverse order, are the CPA certificate, the degree that usually precedes it, and the underlying educational experience. As I have already stated, some accounting is essential for anyone living in an advanced society. In my opinion, anyone planning a career in any area of business or public administration would be well served by a minor in accounting. While knowledge of accounting may have minimal utility early on, as a person advances to higher levels of responsibility, an understanding of the meaning of accounting information becomes increasingly important. As an example, how can you be an effective city council member if you cannot understand the budget? The value of a degree in accounting is less universal, though not as much so as may be commonly believed. It is a recognized testament to a known and accepted form of organized thinking. It is my understanding that at one time the FBI required recruits to hold a degree in either law or accounting. I don’t know if that is still the case, however the concept is still valid. Determining the value of a CPA certificate is far more problematic, both from a global perspective and an individual perspective. That is so, in my opinion, due to the fact that we have a confused and conflicted vision of what a CPA is and does. If a person wants to audit public companies a CPA certificate has infinite value. If a person wants to prepare tax returns, the CPA certificate has some value. If a person wants to install computer systems the CPA certificate is presently seen to confer some credibility, however, in my opinion this is more illusion than fact. If existing professional standards, particularly our independence standards, were strictly applied to CPAs involved in information technology I strongly suspect we would have fewer certificate holders. At best, the credibility conferred by the certificate would not be worth the cost. At worst, a strict application of professional standards would prevent the certificate holder from competing in the marketplace. This would, of course make the certificate worth less than nothing. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://home.att.net/~jdhcpa/mainpage.html – Washington, USA Associate Member, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners
What is the accounting treatment for goods sold on consignment and vice versa? Substance over form must be considered when formulating the above treatment. Please advise. Thanks
In my U.S. experience, goods held on consignment are not *owned* by the holding firm and are not considered part of Balance Sheet inventory. A separate inventory record may be maintained to control the consignment transactions. ’Hope this helps. Al S.
Please show me the accounting entries in the books. Thanks
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What is the accounting treatment for goods sold on consignment and vice versa? Substance over form must be considered when formulating the above treatment. Please advise. Thanks In my U.S. experience, goods held on consignment are not *owned* by the holding firm and are not considered part of Balance Sheet inventory. A separate inventory record may be maintained to control the consignment transactions. ’Hope this helps. Al S.
You have to consider the substance of the transaction. Who has the the risk and rewards associated with the items in question. In order to determine this you may want to consider whether you can send the goods back to the other party with no penalty, whether or not you have to pay for the goods if unsold, obsolesence risk, etc. If you determine that it is you who has most of the risks and rewards associated with the item, then you should record them as an asset (UK treatment I think). However consignment stocks are never really that simple, and you should probably seek professional advice. Kuba
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Please show me the accounting entries in the books. Thanks What is the accounting treatment for goods sold on consignment and vice versa? Substance over form must be considered when formulating the above treatment. Please advise. Thanks In my U.S. experience, goods held on consignment are not *owned* by the holding firm and are not considered part of Balance Sheet inventory. A separate inventory record may be maintained to control the consignment transactions. ’Hope this helps. Al S.
Mr Henry’ What locations are you looking to cover? Robert Mason – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – We are looking for an Insurance Continuing Education Instructor. This instructor position is an off-site /out-sourced position. The canidate should have basic computer skills with word processing and email. The course instructor must meet at least one of the following instructor criteria: (1) Instructor is and has been in the practice of teaching insurance courses for at least the last three years and has the knowledge and experience in the subject the instructor will teach; (2) Instructor is and has been properly licensed as a licensee subject to continuing education under this act for at least five years; (3) Instructor is the holder of a professional designation recognized by the department which relates directly to the subject the instructor will teach; or (4) Instructor is or has been engaged in a recognized profession that is pertinent to the subject areas to be taught, including, but not limited to: licensed or certified medical professionals, Certified Public Accountants, and members of a state bar. If you are interested in this position please reply to this message for addition information. Lee Henry
We are looking for an Insurance Continuing Education Instructor. This instructor position is an off-site /out-sourced position. The canidate should have basic computer skills with word processing and email. The course instructor must meet at least one of the following instructor criteria: (1) Instructor is and has been in the practice of teaching insurance courses for at least the last three years and has the knowledge and experience in the subject the instructor will teach; (2) Instructor is and has been properly licensed as a licensee subject to continuing education under this act for at least five years; (3) Instructor is the holder of a professional designation recognized by the department which relates directly to the subject the instructor will teach; or (4) Instructor is or has been engaged in a recognized profession that is pertinent to the subject areas to be taught, including, but not limited to: licensed or certified medical professionals, Certified Public Accountants, and members of a state bar. If you are interested in this position please reply to this message for addition information. Lee Henry
: Well this is the silly season so I’ll post a few silly questions to : lighten up the occasion… : 1) Does Leica exist as a cottage industry? Cottage ? Like with gingerbread in the Black Forest ? Boutique shop would be more accurate, sort of like the old Alpa works [verkes ?] Leitz dumped Leica as an albatross. Note that newer Leicas say only "Leica" on them, not "Leitz". : 2) Do most Germans buy Leicas with their higher paychecks? Every six months each German gets a new Leica. Of course since not that many are made [Leicas, not Germans...] this means many so- called "new" Leicas are NOT. But since most of these owners never break the seal on the box, it’s a moot point. : 3) I went to the Leica Website – why did they only feature a single : pro who uses their camera? (so I guess it ain’t so popular with the : pros afterall 
. Pro’s have a job to do. Does your company still do it’s accounting on an IBM mainframe ? : 4) Does Leica actually make any money by making such expensive : cameras? Obviously not enough to do R&D. Every "new" innovative Leica item has, for decades, had a twin that bore a more pedestrian nameplate. : 5) What is Leica’s financial statement like ? (NOT Again ! Right. NOT again. : 6) Why is Leica so uncompetitive? See 1 thru 4 above. : 7) Why would anyone buy a Leica? (In a double blind trial can you pick : out which pictures were taken by a Leica?) But *only* in a double [or better yet triple] blind trial. Since this is not anyone’s normal viewing method, other than a few Leica types, no one else cares. See, Canon and Nikon folks get on each other’s nerves because for some stupid "reason" they *care*. Leicanistas are angry with *everybody* because NO ONE cares. : 
Are Leicas only good for taking snap shots? I have only seen their : P&S cameras sold and all that Cartier-Bresson took were snap shots. They are the original P&S camera. Altho not originally a design goal, Leicas have actually gone a step beyond the "Single Use" camera. A single use camera is designed to be cheap to buy and you use it once then toss it. With Leica, they are far from cheap to buy, and you use it *less than once* and rather than tossing it, you keep it forever. Remember, there are no really stupid questions, but some *can* be pretty dumb at times. : 9) Apart from creating the 35mm format, what major camera/photographic : milestones/technologies has Leica given to the world? Fact is, they didn’t even create the format. Other than the above mentioned less-than-single-use camera, I can’t think of anything except that I do believe they are the originators of the current [fairly standard] accessory shoe specifications. Quite the fame ! : 10) How many of you have asked Santa for a Leica R8 rather than a : Nikon F5? I have. I asked him for an R8, back-up R8, lenses, and a 24K solid gold hermetically sealed nitrogen charged vessel to stash it in. Oh, and be sure to take out the batteries before you seal it in there, OK Santa ? Hhmmnnn… "OK Santa" — doesn’t that look like it should be some town or ranch in New Mexico ? : Cheers and have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Why, do I hafta ? Who you telling me whatta dew ? You sound just like them Leicanistas. Regards, - dr
: Leica very expensive system as you know. Some pros use Leica but : there are very few. So for the most part; only rich folks buy : these cameras. : can they stay in business? Leica make lot of eye sight equipment. That doesn’t answer the question because Leica makes cameras but Leitz makes the eyesight stuff. Leitz dumped Leica as an unprofitable specialty boutique line, so the two are no longer associated. So much for the investment value of Leica ….. Regards, - dr
The only barrier is cost. I hate to admit it, but for some of us it comes down to … owning fine toys. HFL — Harry F. Lockwood
Ah! An honest man. Music to my ears. Other people drive fast cars. For the cost of a second car, you can buy a LOT of camera gear. Kevin
I cannot imagine any pawn shop owner being unfamiliar with Leica.
This guy was. Safe to say, he isn’t now. The next time I walked into his store he jumped off his stool, pointed his finger at me and yelled "you thief!" and ordered me out of the store and to never come back. I haven’t. I do get my hair cut at a shop next door, so I do have the opportunity to smile and wave at him every now and then. (Ain’t that rich. A pawnbroker calling someone ELSE a thief. Ha!) John T. Ward Brandon, Florida USA
Well this is the silly season so I’ll post a few silly questions to lighten up the occasion… 1) Does Leica exist as a cottage industry? No 2) Do most Germans buy Leicas with their higher paychecks?
3) I went to the Leica Website – why did they only feature a single pro who uses their camera? (so I guess it ain’t so popular with the pros afterall .
With maybe the exception of the R8, most of the Leica line is aimed at the consumer… Few "pros" use Leica gear…… 4) Does Leica actually make any money by making such expensive cameras?
Cameras are just a small part of their product.. 5) What is Leica’s financial statement like ? (NOT Again !
As far as I know, they are in good shape.. 6) Why is Leica so uncompetitive?
Most people want auto-everything cameras.. They don’t want to mess with manual settings….. 7) Why would anyone buy a Leica? (In a double blind trial can you pick out which pictures were taken by a Leica?)
I use Leica because I like the feel of the camera and the quality of the optics…… Looking at a slide taken with my Leicas, I can see a difference but printing differences of a print would make it difficult to say yes.. Are Leicas only good for taking snap shots? I have only seen their P&S cameras sold and all that Cartier-Bresson took were snap shots. 
I am a retired Navy photographer and I also spent a number of years doing reportage and documentary photography.. My camera of choice was and still is the M3… Cartier-Bresson was not a snap-shooter, much of his work was of pro caliber….. 9) Apart from creating the 35mm format, what major camera/photographic milestones/technologies has Leica given to the world? microscopes….. 10) How many of you have asked Santa for a Leica R8 rather than a Nikon F5?
I’m not interested in either the R8 or F5.. Though they are both excellent cameras, they are too big and bulky….. Cheers and have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Ditto
The EOS had a 70-210 f4 EF Canon lens and I had the 135 on the M3. Those two lens are not comparable in price or quality. The canon you mentioned was a consumer grade lens with a price less than 500 dollars The leica 135 is 1700 dollars.
Exactly my point. If you want the Leica quality then you have to pay the Leica price, or in the inverse, those who buy Leicas get quality that Canon and Nikon can’t touch. A better comparison would have been the 70-200 2.8 or 135 2.0. Both faster and cheaper than the Leica. You probably would not see a difference with them. I would expect you to see some difference against an older consumer grade lense from Canon.
You make some good points, however, at the time, the 70-210 EF was not an "older" lens – it was the best and fastest EOS tele zoom that Canon had to offer (this was before introduction of the 80-200 f2.8 L lens). The Leica lens, on the other hand, was at least 20 years old, but still better than the Canon. John Ward John T. Ward Brandon, Florida USA
Here’s another perspective on who buys Leicas. I’ve been using high-performance laboratory microscopes for many, many years. Based on my experience, this is the hierarchy of optical quality when one is at the limits of resolution: 1. Leitz 2. Zeiss 3. Nikon Interestingly, if one were to ask about the best functionality or performance per unit cost (but not at the limits of resolution) the order would be reversed. Nikon had the best enhancements while Leitz tended to be bare bones, by comparison. Adding all the bells and whistles to a Leitz microscope increased the cost very, very significantly. I see an analogy in Leica vs Nikon cameras, perhaps even with Contax in between the two, just as for optical microscopes. (No swipe at either Canon or Olympus intended. In fact, Olympus microscopes are very much in the running against Nikon.) I have a Nikon, and I’ll probably buy another. But I lust for an M6. As an amateur, do I need it? Need? Who’s talking about need? The optomechanical integrity of the M6 is incomparable; that’s part of the attraction. Size and weight enter into the picture, as well. Then there’s the difference in the quality of the negative, if you can bring it out in the print. The only barrier is cost. I hate to admit it, but for some of us it comes down to … owning fine toys. HFL — Harry F. Lockwood
After I posted my last message on this topic I kept thinking about it, and I remember that I used both the M3 and an EOS 630 on an assignment. I had to shoot pix of a guy with only the spill light from a slide projector falling on his face. The EOS had a 70-210 f4 EF Canon lens and I had the 135 on the M3. When I examined the negs later the images from the Canon looked fine – until I looked at the Leica negatives. Where the fabric in his suitcoat was an even tone on the Canon negs you could see the thread in the Leica negs. Also, a lapel pin that was visible with the Canon was clearly readable with the Leica. John T. Ward Brandon, Florida USA
10) How many of you have asked Santa for a Leica R8 rather than a Nikon F5?
You can have the R8, I’d ask Santa for an M6. Richard
[snip] Can you pick which pictures were taken with Leica? No! But the contrast of a picture can be seen right away. When you get your prints back from the the lab; you either like them or you don’t. That’s what Leica does for you.
Well, actually, sometimes, if not MOST of the time, that is what the LAB does for you (or, too often, TO you <wry g) But with a 1eica lens I saw the difference without anlysing the photos with secondary instruments.
Is this not in conflict with the opening statement? I love Canon, I’m a Canon user. But I see that my pictures don’t look as good as the ones taken with Nikon (remember; this is only my taste and my opinion).
Without "double-blind" testing, this statement borders on the ridiculous. (except for the "taste and opinion" qualifier). A hopelessly indefensible, incendiary contribution to the endless and futile N vs C debate. I have only used a Leica on one occasion, detailed on my web site (under the article on the eaglet). It was amazingly light and QUIET, oh SO VERY QUIET!! Of course it was a rangefinder. I have no argument with Leicas. I DO find them a tad unattractive. Also a rangefinder is a mighty poor choice for the very long lens telephotography of "critters" that I enjoy most. Of course I have never used a Leica SLR either. Considering the cost of Leicas, I think I would prefer a larger format camera for, say, landscape or portrait photography. Terry Danks Nova Scotia CANADA http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/danksta/home.htm
As an owner of a Nikon F5 system, Leica M6 system, a Leica R8 system, a Hasselblad 503CW system and a Hasselblad Superwide I believe I have some experience on your topic. I believe in fitting the camera to the needs of your subject or to maximize your potential outcome. Each of my systems have a specific use. They are all of my favorites and I wouldn’t do without any of them. When speed and focusing accuracy is important to me, I select the F5. When weight, incredible lenses, quietness, very critical detail and color are important, I will always choose the Leica M6. When weight and speed are not issues but I want to use longer lenses with the same characteristics as with the M6, I choose the R8. When a larger negative is important and I can use a tripod, it’s Hasselblad. Leica equipment is built like a tank. It will provide many years of dependable service and you can bet that it will retain a very high resale value. A Leice M3 built in the 50’s retailed for $350. Today, M3’s in excellent condition will bring over $1000. The same is true for accessories. Many of their cameras that are 40-50 years old have never been in for service. The bottom-line is that you get what you pay for. They have consistently been the highest quality cameras for many years. Their optics are unequaled. I would suggest that you sign up for the Leica users group and post the same questions that you have posted today. I assure you that you will learn a lot about Leicas. Have a nice holiday season! R.Bedwell
Now, just to ruin your day, let me tell you that I bought all the Leica gear from a pawn shop owner who called it "Leeka," had never heard of it, and who sold me the whole mess for $400.00.
I cannot imagine any pawn shop owner being unfamiliar with Leica.
After I posted my last message on this topic I kept thinking about it, and I remember that I used both the M3 and an EOS 630 on an assignment. I had to shoot pix of a guy with only the spill light from a slide projector falling on his face. The EOS had a 70-210 f4 EF Canon lens and I had the 135 on the M3.
Those two lens are not comparable in price or quality. The canon you mentioned was a consumer grade lens with a price less than 500 dollars The leica 135 is 1700 dollars. A better comparison would have been the 70-200 2.8 or 135 2.0. Both faster and cheaper than the Leica. You probably would not see a difference with them. I would expect you to see some difference against an older consumer grade lense from Canon. Jim – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
which matters. Both Zeiss and Leica(even the Schneider) lenses have this 3D feeling, at least this is what I have seen, comparing to those Canon and Nikkor lenses. When it is done right, photos
I agree with this, but… by Leica lenses can be so gorgeous, even Zeiss cant catch it. My personal guess is Leica makes the best ground glass when
According to some postings on LUG mailing list, Leica doesn’t melt the glass. Of course, they order the optic glass manufacture to melt the glass by Leica formulas. Zeiss wins at its T* coating. Leica lenses have heavy constructions. This makes them perform more consistently under different temperature…etc.
If Zeiss makes their T* lenses in Nikon F mount, I’d be very happy. Tom Kumagai Miyazaki, Japan
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t think people buy Leica becuse of its sharpness. But rather the vivid and realistic colors that you get back based from what you shot. . . . . . . . . . . I think that’s the same difference between Canon and Nikon. Which is better? that’s up to your taste. But I think that Nikon has the edge when it comes to colors (not sharpness), I love Canon, I’m a Canon user. But I see that my pictures don’t look as good as the ones taken with Nikon (remember; this is only my taste and my opinion). And finally; think of a color TV. If you ask for the difference between Sony and Panasonic, you’ll open a can of worms in finding out which is better. I think is Sony! Do you? Manuel E.
Well said well said. One of the best posts I have read in days!! Sharpness is only part of the formula. It is the color rendition which matters. Both Zeiss and Leica(even the Schneider) lenses have this 3D feeling, at least this is what I have seen, comparing to those Canon and Nikkor lenses. When it is done right, photos by Leica lenses can be so gorgeous, even Zeiss cant catch it. My personal guess is Leica makes the best ground glass when Zeiss wins at its T* coating. Leica lenses have heavy constructions. This makes them perform more consistently under different temperature…etc. -finney
Who buys Leica??…..probably people who expect nothing less than superb
results. That’s funny; I thought that was people who buy Mr. Clean for the toilet floor.
I was Leica owner for a brief time a few years ago. I had an M-3 (single stroke) with 28mm and 135mm "bugeye" lenses (Leica owners will know what I mean); and an R-4 with 28mm, 50mm and 135mm lenses. I have to admit, the photos were superb. As several others have mentioned, they had a three dimensional feeling to them that neither my Nikkors or my current Canon lenses could match. Unfortunately, I just couldn’t justify using such equipment working day to as a newspaper photographer. I needed gear with more versatility, so I traded all the Leica gear for an EOS-1, power booster and a couple of lenses. Now, just to ruin your day, let me tell you that I bought all the Leica gear from a pawn shop owner who called it "Leeka," had never heard of it, and who sold me the whole mess for $400.00. John T. Ward Brandon, Florida USA
I don’t know much, but I like Leica screw mounts because they are nice and compact and the lenses are interchangeable. BTW I like Pentax screw mounts too. Contax screw mounts maybe good also but Pentax is a lot cheaper, easier to use, and still reliable, and I can use Zeiss classic optics with the Pentax. Tom Kumagai Miyazaki, Japan
7) Why would anyone buy a Leica? (In a double blind trial can you pick out which pictures were taken by a Leica?)
Actually, other systems may be capable of achieving similer results (under ideal conditions at least.. more about that later….:-), but often times you can only get the shots by using a quiet, unobtrousive camera, and the M series typify that. As to the lenses…I do think that there are "sharper" lenses out there (Contax 50mm f1.4 comes to mind), but nothing comes close when you consider wide open performance. Leica is, with the current crop of M lenses, in a leauge of their own. Granted, you pay two to three times the cost, but you end up getting results that are literally impossible to get with other systems. Isaac
You can turn alot of heads dangling that cute M6 over your right shoulder (those "in the know" at least) cheers, -khuong – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Well this is the silly season so I’ll post a few silly questions to lighten up the occasion… 1) Does Leica exist as a cottage industry? 2) Do most Germans buy Leicas with their higher paychecks? 3) I went to the Leica Website – why did they only feature a single pro who uses their camera? (so I guess it ain’t so popular with the pros afterall . 4) Does Leica actually make any money by making such expensive cameras? 5) What is Leica’s financial statement like ? (NOT Again ! 6) Why is Leica so uncompetitive? 7) Why would anyone buy a Leica? (In a double blind trial can you pick out which pictures were taken by a Leica?) Are Leicas only good for taking snap shots? I have only seen their P&S cameras sold and all that Cartier-Bresson took were snap shots. 9) Apart from creating the 35mm format, what major camera/photographic milestones/technologies has Leica given to the world? 10) How many of you have asked Santa for a Leica R8 rather than a Nikon F5? Cheers and have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Who buys Leica??…..probably people who expect nothing less than superb results.
you might have added that Leica recently bought Minox and reported that sales were up 30% this year. I will add that I just bought a Minox and find it better than anything anyone else can supply for $300. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well this is the silly season so I’ll post a few silly questions to lighten up the occasion… 1) Does Leica exist as a cottage industry? No, it’s a public corporation. 2) Do most Germans buy Leicas with their higher paychecks? No, most of them buy point and shoots just like Americans do. 3) I went to the Leica Website – why did they only feature a single pro who uses their camera? (so I guess it ain’t so popular with the pros afterall . That depends on the pro. Street photographers love Leicas as do travel photographers. 4) Does Leica actually make any money by making such expensive cameras? Yes, their financial statements are pretty good. 6) Why is Leica so uncompetitive? Uncompetitive with what? Who else makes a hand made, high quality, mechanical rangefinder camera of the size and weight of a Leica M6? 7) Why would anyone buy a Leica? (In a double blind trial can you pick out which pictures were taken by a Leica?) One would buy one for photo situations in which quiet, unobtrusive, light mechanical cameras are an advantage or any situation in which a rangefinder camera is an advantage. Are Leicas only good for taking snap shots? I have only seen their P&S cameras sold and all that Cartier-Bresson took were snap shots. So now we’re trolling? 9) Apart from creating the 35mm format, what major camera/photographic milestones/technologies has Leica given to the world? The list is long enough I’d recommend you read up on the history of Ernst Leitz and his company. 10) How many of you have asked Santa for a Leica R8 rather than a Nikon F5? Oh, you’ve been talking about Leica SLR’s? How silly of me. I had almost forgotten about the SLR’s. No, I’d rather have an F5 (actually I really That’s the kind of camera from which dreams are made-good photographs, too. Cheers and have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Good shooting. Fred Maplewood Photography http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
Well this is the silly season so I’ll post a few silly questions to lighten up the occasion… 1) Does Leica exist as a cottage industry?
No, it’s a public corporation. 2) Do most Germans buy Leicas with their higher paychecks?
No, most of them buy point and shoots just like Americans do. 3) I went to the Leica Website – why did they only feature a single pro who uses their camera? (so I guess it ain’t so popular with the pros afterall .
That depends on the pro. Street photographers love Leicas as do travel photographers. 4) Does Leica actually make any money by making such expensive cameras?
Yes, their financial statements are pretty good. 6) Why is Leica so uncompetitive?
Uncompetitive with what? Who else makes a hand made, high quality, mechanical rangefinder camera of the size and weight of a Leica M6? 7) Why would anyone buy a Leica? (In a double blind trial can you pick out which pictures were taken by a Leica?)
One would buy one for photo situations in which quiet, unobtrusive, light mechanical cameras are an advantage or any situation in which a rangefinder camera is an advantage. Are Leicas only good for taking snap shots? I have only seen their P&S cameras sold and all that Cartier-Bresson took were snap shots.
So now we’re trolling? 9) Apart from creating the 35mm format, what major camera/photographic milestones/technologies has Leica given to the world?
The list is long enough I’d recommend you read up on the history of Ernst Leitz and his company. 10) How many of you have asked Santa for a Leica R8 rather than a Nikon F5?
Oh, you’ve been talking about Leica SLR’s? How silly of me. I had almost forgotten about the SLR’s. No, I’d rather have an F5 (actually I really That’s the kind of camera from which dreams are made-good photographs, too. Cheers and have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Good shooting. Fred Maplewood Photography http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
Well this is the silly season so I’ll post a few silly questions to lighten up the occasion… 1) Does Leica exist as a cottage industry? 2) Do most Germans buy Leicas with their higher paychecks? 3) I went to the Leica Website – why did they only feature a single pro who uses their camera? (so I guess it ain’t so popular with the pros afterall . 4) Does Leica actually make any money by making such expensive cameras? 5) What is Leica’s financial statement like ? (NOT Again ! 6) Why is Leica so uncompetitive? 7) Why would anyone buy a Leica? (In a double blind trial can you pick out which pictures were taken by a Leica?) Are Leicas only good for taking snap shots? I have only seen their P&S cameras sold and all that Cartier-Bresson took were snap shots. 9) Apart from creating the 35mm format, what major camera/photographic milestones/technologies has Leica given to the world? 10) How many of you have asked Santa for a Leica R8 rather than a Nikon F5? Cheers and have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Leica is a very expensive system as you already know. Some pros use Leicas but there are very few around the world. So for the most part; only rich folks buy these cameras. So how can they stay in bussiness? Leica makes a lot of eye sight equipment. The Pho- graphic dept. is the smallest in their branch, and that’s how they make their money. Can you pick which pictures were taken with Leica? No! unless you flat out use the worst lens in the world side by side with a Leica lens. But… if you own one; you would be able to see the difference and decide which is best I don’t think people buy Leica becuse of its sharpness. But rather the vivid and realistic colors that you get back based from what you shot. A lot of people confuse sharpness with contrast. How sharp a lens is can only be proven by checking a photo with a lupe, or by enlarging the print to an 8×10 and beyond. But the contrast of a picture can be seen right away. When you get your prints back from the the lab; you either like them or you don’t. That’s what Leica does for you. I’m bold enough to say that Contax is sharper than Leica but not better (at least to me). Because to prove that Contax was sharp someone had to examine my photos with a lupe. But I didn’t see any difference in my pictures taken with my contax lens and my sigma lens. But with a 1eica lens I saw the difference without anlysing the photos with secondary instruments. I liked what I saw the moment I got my pictures. Looking at them was like looking through a window. The skin tones of people looked so real that I could just reach out and touch them. Some people don’t know how to identify this Even Leica shooters, when asked the question: Is Leica better? they say yes but they don’t know how to answer in a way to convince people. Neither can I because I’m not a Pro, but the best way to put it is this: With Leica your pictures will have depth (even if they’re not so sharp). with other lenses your pictures will look flat (no matter how sharp they are). I think that’s the same difference between Canon and Nikon. Which is better? that’s up to your taste. But I think that Nikon has the edge when it comes to colors (not sharpness), I love Canon, I’m a Canon user. But I see that my pictures don’t look as good as the ones taken with Nikon (remember; this is only my taste and my opinion). And finally; think of a color TV. If you ask for the difference between Sony and Panasonic, you’ll open a can of worms in finding out which is better. I think is Sony! Do you? Manuel E.
My two cents: It’s surprising that the marine insurance industry isn’t more involved in this debate… after all, they have the second-most to pay, after those actually involved in an on-the-water accident. Perhaps these guys can begin to provide rate discounts for those who pass a voluntary safety test, power squadron class or other existing element. any thoughts?
Good idea – consumer groups must push for this. Problem: Insurance companies raise their rates to cover losses and then they make more money on the higher premiums. Turn in the jerks, make sure judges deal harshly when needed, insist that boat tickets are tracked so we can take away their ability to boat if needed.
Maybe we should go back to deterrence and trust people to seek out their own safety education to avoid punishment.
writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My two cents: It’s surprising that the marine insurance industry isn’t more involved in this debate… after all, they have the second-most to pay, after those actually involved in an on-the-water accident. Perhaps these guys can begin to provide rate discounts for those who pass a voluntary safety test, power squadron class or other existing element. any thoughts? Good idea – consumer groups must push for this. Problem: Insurance companies raise their rates to cover losses and then they make more money on the higher premiums. Turn in the jerks, make sure judges deal harshly when needed, insist that boat tickets are tracked so we can take away their ability to boat if needed.
Although I am all in favor of enforcing the law, I think the market is a good deal more efficient than some of the previous posts suggest. My insurer, and my previous insurer, both offer discounts for having passed the Coast Guard boating safety course and for having optional safety equipment (halon, radar, etc) aboard. That the discounts are not large is only because the correlation to loss experience is not great. The problem identified above – that since insurers calculate premiums to cover losses and are therefore insensative to risk exposure – is ridiculous. The market for insurance is sufficiently competitive (although, with less government regulation it would be more so) that the profits of an insurer who does not charge a hazzard premium for increased risk will be commensurately reduced. -Rick
| The best way is a good boating education. The United | States Power Squadrons (url http://www.ronin.com/USPS) | and US Coast Guard Auxillary give excellant basic | boating courses. | The question is, ‘how best to PROMOTE…’ and the problem is that the folks who seem to need it most are the ones who are least likely to seek out and take the training courses. Should a course be part of the purchase of a boat? Should registration be issued only if the owner has evidence of a safety course? What about non-owner operators? Renters? Motorcyclists (a special breed of highway individualists) don’t seem to mind taking a special course to get a special certification in addition to the motor vehicle operator’s license. (Sorry, I used the "L" word here…)
The best way is a good boating education. The United States Power Squadrons (url http://www.ronin.com/USPS) and US Coast Guard Auxillary give excellant basic boating courses. — 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"
Should a course be part of the purchase of a boat?
Should registration be issued only if the owner has evidence of a safety
course? What about non-owner operators? Renters?
Many states are moving in that direction. Given the horendous (sp?) accident rates, I would be in favour of requiring boating courses – I happen to teach them, but be that as it may – all the students who have left my course have walked away with knowlege that has made them safer (from testimonials by some of these students). — 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"
Many insurance companies do offer discounts for completing either the CGA or USPS course – With higher discounts for advanced courses. But, what about the guy that is willing to pay higher rates for having a bad operating record? These are the ones we need to get on the "Safe Boating" bandwagon. Rick
Agreed. The people who most need education are those who are not going to seek it out voluntarily. How can these people be reached without mandatory education/testing/licensing? Im glad to see that my original post on this subjecy has generated some useful discussion. Bruce Holms
(snips at various spots) It’s surprising that the marine insurance industry isn’t more involved in this debate… Perhaps these guys can begin to provide rate discounts for those who pass a voluntary safety test, power squadron class or other existing element. any thoughts?
Many insurance companies do offer discounts for completing either the CGA or USPS course – With higher discounts for advanced courses. But, what about the guy that is willing to pay higher rates for having a bad operating record? These are the ones we need to get on the "Safe Boating" bandwagon. Rick
: <Bruce Holmes wrote advocating regulation/licensing of boaters : : How about punishing those who harm others with a boat? : : Anything else is presumption of guilt…. : First off, stating that "anything else is a presumption of guilt before : any crime has been committed" is false. I can give a really friendly : example where no one is presumed guilty: Active clubs. A watersport : club that actively recruits new members (perhaps flyers at sailboat, : motorboat, and jetski dealerships), and also teaches its members basic : water safety and regulations, does a lot toward making the water safer : for others, and doesn’t create the bureaucratic nightmare that : mandatory classes and licensing would. Your last sentence makes that idea acceptable to me and a lot of other "No-More-Red-Tape" types like me. I thought the thread was going towards mandatory government classes (laughable) and licensing (abhorrent). I’m all for education (I vote for almost every school millage that comes by and support (with wallet, time and mouth) most other ‘voluntary’ forms of education), and I’m all for safety on the water and elsewhere — it’s my a** out there at risk along with everybody else’s. : Whereas I agree that people who injure others on the water should be : punished, I don’t think that safety should start there. That almost : makes it sound like a rite of passage. "Well, son, you just rammed : your first boat and killed everyone on board. Now we’ll throw your : ass in jail and start teaching you the basics of water safety." : Ummm… How about we do that before anyone gets hurt? If you’ll recall, I said most harm is done by REPEAT offenders. I’d hope that with swift, sure, STRONG punishment, there would be few repeaters and maybe even a few less ‘first-timers’. I’d say that reducing accidents by half or 3/4 would be a good start (and much better results than any class/licensing scheme even claims to hope for). As a followup — in the paper is a report that only a tiny percentage of water accidents is being reported to the Coast Guard. This based on a comparison of CG reports with insurance company claims statistics. Contrary to the CG reported statistics, boating accidents may be actually increasing in relationship to the number of registered boats, rather than decreasing dramatically over the past 20 years. People are apparantly just not reporting marine accidents to the Coast Guard. So the massive education efforts sponsored by the various levels of government are possibly having either no effect or a negative one. Maybe we should go back to deterrence and trust people to seek out their own safety education to avoid punishment. If your kid could get into a situation that would bankrupt you or send YOU to jail for a decade or two, would you send him out on a jetski with no training? And ensure financial responsibility — post a bond or get BIG insurance to get the registration numbers for boats, PWC, (and cars, too, maybe). Anything that would make sure that people understand that they are undertaking a responsibility that could affect them for the rest of their lives before they take a vehicle out on the water (or send someone else out on a vehicle registered to them, which would also deter rental places from sending machines out with ignorant riders). — It is impossible to protect anyone completely without enslaving them. [Vonda N. McIntyre]
PMIf your kid could get into a situation that would bankrupt you or send YOU to jail for a decade or two, would you send him out on a jetski with no training? And ensure financial responsibility — post a bond or get BIG insurance to get the registration numbers for boats, PWC, (and cars, too, maybe). Anything that would make sure that people understand that they are undertaking a responsibility that could affect them for the rest of their lives before they take a vehicle out on the water (or send someone else out on a vehicle registered to them, which would also deter rental places from sending machines out with ignorant riders). Perhaps the most intelligent suggestion to date in this thread… It is impossible to protect anyone completely without enslaving them. [Vonda N. McIntyre] Amen. — Sam * 1st 2.00b #4514 * We learn from history that we do not learn from history… — 810-651-9490 |*| Local Access Numbers |*| Telnet to |*| Send Mail to 28.8 Avail |*| AVAILABLE NOW |*| 204.157.14.2 |*| subj: HELP
DLCPerhaps by making classes mandatory, we can avoid having to increase water police – which is going to be much more expensive and involve taxes and licenses to support it. DLCYou can make them (AND US) take the class. It doesn’t make them ACT mature. A really cheap alternative: TURN THEM IN. MAKE SURE YOU HAVE INFDEPENDENT WITNESSES if you can’t get a cop to observe. Better yet, get it videotaped. Whatever it takes. FWIW, Maryland requires that you complete a safe boating course to get a license to operate a boat. The class are taught (so far) by the local power squadron at no cost to the state. My 13 year old daughter and 15 year old son passed the course with flying colors. They are, however, still very short on experience.
My two cents: It’s surprising that the marine insurance industry isn’t more involved in this debate… after all, they have the second-most to pay, after those actually involved in an on-the-water accident. Perhaps these guys can begin to provide rate discounts for those who pass a voluntary safety test, power squadron class or other existing element. any thoughts?
Some insurance companies do provide discounts to those who have completed a CG approved safe boating course. Obviously, it depends on the insurance carrier, always safe to ask them and maybe even beg for one if they dont currently offer one. Bruce Holms
Im all for voluntary programs. I really do not want to see more regulation etc. However, the system as it stands today is voluntary, and it is not working. The people who most need to be reached by any educational/licensing program are not responding to voluntary programs already in place. I agree that education is preferable to licensing. However, education does nothing to keep track of the repeat offender. Perhaps a good place to start would be to charge boating offenses against the registered owners auto driving record. There needs to be some way to track offenses and make sure that the privleges of those who continue to be a problem are revoked. Note that I believe that boating is a privledge not a right. Many people oppose licensing on their belief that unrestricted boating is their right. I dont buy that at all. If a person pilots their vessel in a way that jeapordizes my safety, that person in my mind has forfeited their right/privledge to be on the water. Bruce Holms
One way to promote boating safety is to have active boating clubs who actively recruit new members. Clubs can give new members pointers on how to maintain their craft, organize group purchases of parts, PFDs, etc., can organize seminars from well-known competitors in that field (who, parenthetically, can stress boating safety), and can teach boating safety themselves. It’s all well and good to require people be 16 or older, though I’ve seen some 16-year-olds total cars their first week out on the road. It’s fine to require mandatory classes and licensing, though I’ve seen drivers lose their licenses and STILL go driving. What really gets to people is having a group they respect and whose opinion they value (i.e. the club) disapprove of their actions. Tom
My opinion is: 1) The minimum age to operate any motor driven vessel without direct adult supervision should be 16. No exceptions.
I would object to such a restriction. Several reasons: 1) I fail to see the danger of my 9 year old son operating the dinghy with its 1.5 horsepower motor. Top speed is about 4 knots. 2) You would consider it OK for a 15 year old to take any size sail boat out as long as he didn’t start the engine? You would rather that he sailed it through a crowded harbor and into the slip rather than idle it nice it nice and slow? 3) As it stands now (at least in California) you must be at least 12 in order to operate a vessel with a motor larger than 10 Hp. This seems reasonable to me. A 12 year old has the capacity to operate a vessel safely. Most of the "objections" I have had with operators were not those under 16. If you want to ban an age group, how about 18 -25? That would solve most of the problems. 2) Anyone who wishes to operate a motor driven vessel should be required to pass a minimum of a written test, and in my opinion in addition an on the water training or proficiency test. Again, no exceptions. This is essentially a boating license.
I fully support some level of training in order to operate a vessel. I would not discriminate against motor vessels. The fact that you just dropped the sails doesn’t make a sailboat any more dangerous. In many reagards it makes it safer and easier to handle. Have you ever watched a novice sailor attempt to sail all the way back into his slip in a crowded marina? A proficiency test would be far too difficult to manage. I would be happy if the operator had some idea of the rules of the road. Rod McInnis
As far as licensing goes, I don’t think that another legislative fee based ticket is the way to go. I am for heavier coverage of crowded areas by the marine patrol, etc. Fine/arrest the folks who cause trouble and the trouble will stop, just regular presence will help (kinda’ like the speed of traffic suddenly dropping to 55 while passing a cop). If you think that ripping down the old channel while chugging your 10th beer might just attract attention, you just might not do it… Also, designating areas for, or not for, certain uses (ie anchoring, PWCs, skiing, etc), would go a long way toward keeping the peace. What do you think? Steve
I think your a wonderful voice of common sense.
Perhaps by making classes mandatory, we can avoid having to increase water police – which is going to be much more expensive and involve taxes and licenses to support it.
You can make them (AND US) take the class. It doesn’t make them ACT mature. A really cheap alternative: TURN THEM IN. MAKE SURE YOU HAVE INFDEPENDENT WITNESSES if you can’t get a cop to observe. Better yet, get it videotaped. Whatever it takes. As most people have said, the problems often are occurring in crowded areas. There are other people there who feel the same way you do. dc
<Bruce Holmes wrote advocating regulation/licensing of boaters How about punishing those who harm others with a boat? Anything else is presumption of guilt even before any crime has been committed. Since most harm is done by repeat offenders, getting them off the water forever (or at least for a VERY long time) AFTER the first offense should have almost the same effect (on a statistical basis) as getting them off the water BEFORE the first offense. Unless the object of licensing is harrassment of boaters and increasing bureaucracy, instead of preventing harm, this approach should at least be considered. — When all the parameters change, its not possible to say which caused the whirlwind. [Elizabeth Moon]
<Bruce Holmes wrote advocating regulation/licensing of boaters How about punishing those who harm others with a boat? Anything else is presumption of guilt even before any crime has been committed. Since most harm is done by repeat offenders, getting them off the water forever (or at least for a VERY long time) AFTER the first offense should have almost the same effect (on a statistical basis) as getting them off the water BEFORE the first offense.
First off, stating that "anything else is a presumption of guilt before any crime has been committed" is false. I can give a really friendly example where no one is presumed guilty: Active clubs. A watersport club that actively recruits new members (perhaps flyers at sailboat, motorboat, and jetski dealerships), and also teaches its members basic water safety and regulations, does a lot toward making the water safer for others, and doesn’t create the bureaucratic nightmare that mandatory classes and licensing would. Whereas I agree that people who injure others on the water should be punished, I don’t think that safety should start there. That almost makes it sound like a rite of passage. "Well, son, you just rammed your first boat and killed everyone on board. Now we’ll throw your ass in jail and start teaching you the basics of water safety." Ummm… How about we do that before anyone gets hurt? Tom
My two cents: It’s surprising that the marine insurance industry isn’t more involved in this debate… after all, they have the second-most to pay, after those actually involved in an on-the-water accident. Perhaps these guys can begin to provide rate discounts for those who pass a voluntary safety test, power squadron class or other existing element. any thoughts?
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Porter) writes: =My opinion is: = =1) The minimum age to operate any motor driven vessel without direct =adult supervision should be 16. No exceptions. I disagree here. Many a child has grown up running around in small boats with 6hp or 9.9hps motors. Whether this was safe or not depends heavily on the maturity of the child and the area. However, expecting them to pass a safe boating class is a fine idea. This follows somewhat along the lines of many states allowing 14 year olds to drive farm equipment on public roads. Children under 16 should be limited to what they can drive without supervision, and it should be based on horsepower, thereby ruling out jetskis. I’m pretty much leaning towards manditory classes for boat operators. You really can’t buy a boat and operate one safely without a class anyway. Sure, you can read a book, but its simply not happening. People don’t know what they are doing and they surely aren’t interested in hearing it from me. Perhaps by making classes mandatory, we can avoid having to increase water police – which is going to be much more expensive and involve taxes and licenses to support it. Mike
Operating a boat as a child is regarded as an ‘american right’. Probably most of us grew up in an environment where we regularly ran small outboards or even large ski boats as children. Of course, none of us thought we were being unsafe. All that aside, the world changes. I could support a) Mandatory training and licensing over 10 hp. b) Under 10hp under 16 — Tom McCann
discussion snipped……. Happy and safe sailing… um, I mean boating… um, I mean water vesseling… Its tough to keep it neutral, but please try!
It’s O.K., regardless of the vessel, it’s sailing according to common maritime language (i.e. We sailed to England on the QE II As far as licensing goes, I don’t think that another legislative fee based ticket is the way to go. I am for heavier coverage of crowded areas by the marine patrol, etc. Fine/arrest the folks who cause trouble and the trouble will stop, just regular presence will help (kinda’ like the speed of traffic suddenly dropping to 55 while passing a cop). If you think that ripping down the old channel while chugging your 10th beer might just attract attention, you just might not do it… Also, designating areas for, or not for, certain uses (ie anchoring, PWCs, skiing, etc), would go a long way toward keeping the peace. What do you think? Steve
=My opinion is: = =1) The minimum age to operate any motor driven vessel without direct =adult supervision should be 16. No exceptions. I disagree here. Many a child has grown up running around in small boats with 6hp or 9.9hps motors. Whether this was safe or not depends heavily on the maturity of the child and the area. However, expecting them to pass a safe boating class is a fine idea. This follows somewhat along the lines of many states allowing 14 year olds to drive farm equipment on public roads. Children under 16 should be limited to what they can drive without supervision, and it should be based on horsepower, thereby ruling out jetskis. I’m pretty much leaning towards manditory classes for boat operators. You really can’t buy a boat and operate one safely without a class anyway. Sure, you can read a book, but its simply not happening. People don’t know what they are doing and they surely aren’t interested in hearing it from me. Perhaps by making classes mandatory, we can avoid having to increase water police – which is going to be much more expensive and involve taxes and licenses to support it. Mike
Unknown writer… API am the last one APto recommend more legislation but I think that required boaters safety APclasses might be a good idea. It will educate everybody about the rules APof the water, safety on the water and may lower your insurance rates. APThe problem that I see with the people getting the tickets is that they APjust don’t know the rules. And then many of them get mad at the sheriff APfor "ruining their day". boater removed by me… A person who has never been exposed to the rules and practices that are accepted on the water is not likely to find out about them before taking his new _______ out on the lake. Anyone can go out and buy a _______ and drop it in the water the same day — there’s not much skill involved with that. I’m not sure of the best way to raise the awareness of new boaters when it comes to regulations and safety< practices. . .
That is the fundamental question. What is the best way? What do people in this group think? It really is a problem that has no easy answer but needs to be seriously addressed. I think its worthy of its own thread. Are mandatory safe boating classes the answer? Licensing? If its not mandatory, how do you get everyone to comply? I think that part of the problem is that the people who most need to be reached are ones who are not going to comply if it is not mandatory. My opinion is: 1) The minimum age to operate any motor driven vessel without direct adult supervision should be 16. No exceptions. 2) Anyone who wishes to operate a motor driven vessel should be required to pass a minimum of a written test, and in my opinion in addition an on the water training or proficiency test. Again, no exceptions. This is essentially a boating license. 3) Failure to do so should be punishable by not only fines, but potential impound of the vessel. 4) Stiffen up and enforce more heaviliy the current operating under the influence laws. I really hate to be the one to advocate more regulation. But… My reasons for feeling this way are, its just plain getting scary out there. Why do we allow people who we would not want to be licensed in a car, drive any kind of a water vessel? Why should any pinhead who wants to, be allowed to launch a vessel without knowing even the most rudamentary of rules, and without any knowledge of the operation of the vessel? Why should we allow the people who continue to flaunt the rules, be allowed to continue? Finally, the drunk operation laws are totally inadequate and are rarely enforced. The new neophyte operator is relatively easy to reach. Snag him at the dealer. The people who have been out there a while are the tough ones. There are some very good operators out there who dont need to be educated, licenced, whatever. But there are also plenty of bad ones who have operated for years who probably wouldnt pass a test. How do you reach them? The comment on ticketing is right on the money. Its always the Sheriff who gets ragged on for ruining the day. And if you dont target everyone, how do you determine who to educate? Im sure this will generate a lot of controversy, and potentially some heated responses. Well, good. Thats what it should do. All I request is that this thread not be turned into a power boat vs. sail boat vs. water skiier vs. fisherman vs. PWC thing. We all already know that we hate each other. Lets have a discussion of what we feel the solution to the boating safety issue is, not ban this, ban that. On that issue I might just suggest, though many favor the segregation of different classes of boater from each other, my feeling is that it only serves to hinder the process by perpetuating animosity and contempt among various groups, rather than promote cooperation, safety, and the knowledge of the specific requirements/operation of vessels other than your own. In addition, in many areas, its just not viable, theres not enough room for everyone to have their own area in most places. Happy and safe sailing… um, I mean boating… um, I mean water vesseling… Its tough to keep it neutral, but please try! Bruce Holms
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Unknown writer… API am the last one APto recommend more legislation but I think that required boaters safety APclasses might be a good idea. It will educate everybody about the rules APof the water, safety on the water and may lower your insurance rates. APThe problem that I see with the people getting the tickets is that they APjust don’t know the rules. And then many of them get mad at the sheriff APfor "ruining their day". classes of boater removed by me… A person who has never been exposed to the rules and practices that are accepted on the water is not likely to find out about them before taking his new _______ out on the lake. Anyone can go out and buy a _______ and drop it in the water the same day — there’s not much skill involved with that. I’m not sure of the best way to raise the awareness of new boaters when it comes to regulations and safety< practices. . . That is the fundamental question. What is the best way? What do people in this group think? It really is a problem that has no easy answer but needs to be seriously addressed. I think its worthy of its own thread. Are mandatory safe boating classes the answer? Licensing? If its not mandatory, how do you get everyone to comply? I think that part of the problem is that the people who most need to be reached are ones who are not going to comply if it is not mandatory. My opinion is: 1) The minimum age to operate any motor driven vessel without direct adult supervision should be 16. No exceptions. 2) Anyone who wishes to operate a motor driven vessel should be required to pass a minimum of a written test, and in my opinion in addition an on the water training or proficiency test. Again, no exceptions. This is essentially a boating license. 3) Failure to do so should be punishable by not only fines, but potential impound of the vessel. 4) Stiffen up and enforce more heaviliy the current operating under the influence laws. I really hate to be the one to advocate more regulation. But… My reasons for feeling this way are, its just plain getting scary out there. Why do we allow people who we would not want to be licensed in a car, drive any kind of a water vessel? Why should any pinhead who wants to, be allowed to launch a vessel without knowing even the most rudamentary of rules, and without any knowledge of the operation of the vessel? Why should we allow the people who continue to flaunt the rules, be allowed to continue? Finally, the drunk operation laws are totally inadequate and are rarely enforced. The new neophyte operator is relatively easy to reach. Snag him at the dealer. The people who have been out there a while are the tough ones. There are some very good operators out there who dont need to be educated, licenced, whatever. But there are also plenty of bad ones who have operated for years who probably wouldnt pass a test. How do you reach them? The comment on ticketing is right on the money. Its always the Sheriff who gets ragged on for ruining the day. And if you dont target everyone, how do you determine who to educate? Im sure this will generate a lot of controversy, and potentially some heated responses. Well, good. Thats what it should do. All I request is that this thread not be turned into a power boat vs. sail boat vs. water skiier vs. fisherman vs. PWC thing. We all already know that we hate each other. Lets have a discussion of what we feel the solution to the boating safety issue is, not ban this, ban that. On that issue I might just suggest, though many favor the segregation of different classes of boater from each other, my feeling is that it only serves to hinder the process by perpetuating animosity and contempt among various groups, rather than promote cooperation, safety, and the knowledge of the specific requirements/operation of vessels other than your own. In addition, in many areas, its just not viable, theres not enough room for everyone to have their own area in most places. Happy and safe sailing… um, I mean boating… um, I mean water vesseling… Its tough to keep it neutral, but please try! Bruce Holms
I think that a large part of the promotion of safety has to come from the boating industry at large. By this, I mean all people, manufacturers, dealers, and sports enthusiasts, to set the correct image for how a boat is safely handled. I just returned from a day at the Madison Regatta. It was my first trip to the hydroplane races, and was pretty enjoyable. There were a bunch of ‘official’ boats around the racecourse, uncluding a number of fairly large rescue boats. There were also a bunch of bass boats which were used to tow in disabled hydroplanes (of which there were plenty). Despite the obvious problems with using a bass boat (complete with trolling motor!) to tow anything bigger than a boogie board, I was horrified to see that NONE of the people on the bass boat wore PFDs, even when actually towing a boat. And this, in an event where the Coast Guard is actively engaged in safety and river traffic control. I’m sure they are all good swimmers, and there’s enough PFD’s on board, etc. etc., but this is where the image thing comes in – If the APBA can’t require PFD’s on their safety boats, why should I *ever* think about actually wearing one. It’ll just get in my way while I’m trying to bail out my glub glub glub…. — Tom McCann