Driver to drive?

[James Meyer]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:48:56 -0400, "Tam/WB2TT" <t-tammaru@c0mca$t.net> wroth:

stations 1000s of miles away. They gave 50 - 54 MHz to the hams. BTW, my
best distance on 50 MHz is around 10,000 miles.

Tam

And then there's always moon bounce. Does the milage count for the
round trip?

Jim

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <ac786e15.0410211855.ec52cc2@posting.google.com>,
kell <kellrobinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
[..]

I have built astable and monostable multivibrators of discrete
components and used 555 timers. I have enough experience as a ham,
and knowledge as an engineering school dropout, to build something,
but could use a little jump-start with the design, even if only
conceptual. Suggested topologies, helpful web site links and such are
much appreciated.

Thinking out loud:

A 555 could be used as a flip-flip. When the points open, a transitor
pulls the "TRIG" down. When the actual spark is done, a signal on the
"THR" pops high resetting the flip-flop.


The output fo this runs to:

R1 V1
---/\/\/\------------ to next stage
!
/ R2
\
/
!
--- C1
---
!
GND

When the "Q" of the first 555 goes high, it causes a step in the V1 signal
dues to the R1/R2 divider followed by a ramp because of C1.

The 555 brings out an internal divider point to IIRC pin 5. I propose
connecting the V1 signal to pin 5 of another 555.

When V1 goes to a high enough voltage, it will make the "trig" input of
the below the voltage it compares with and hence the second 555 will
trigger. The second 555 fires the spark.

The output of the second 555 also biases on a transistor in a circuit like
this:


VCC
!
/
\ R3
/
!
+-------- V2
!
\
/ R4
\
!
+-----
----+ !
!/ ! !
---! Q2 \ R5 --- C2
!\ / ---
!e \ !
GND / GND
!
GND


V2 is the "trig" input to the second 555. It snaps quickly down to a
lower voltage when the plug is fired and then ramps upwards towards some
higher voltage.

At high speeds, V2 does not get to ramp up very far. When V1 makes its
positive step, the second 555 fires right away because the "trig"
comparitor's inputs flipped.

At low speed, V2 ramps up enough that the step in V1 isn't enough that the
second 555 will trigger. In this case V1 will have to ramp, introducing a
delay.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Tam/WB2TT]

"James Meyer" <jmeyer@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:mk2jn0lm6b5f9gtc8rgjqdejbdk41can9t@4ax.com...

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:48:56 -0400, "Tam/WB2TT" <t-tammaru@c0mca$t.net
wroth:


stations 1000s of miles away. They gave 50 - 54 MHz to the hams. BTW, my
best distance on 50 MHz is around 10,000 miles.

Tam


And then there's always moon bounce. Does the milage count for the
round trip?

Jim


I think there is actually a rule covering that. The answer is no. Very hard

to make a 12000 mile contact, because the moon would be on the horizon at
both ends of the path.

Tam

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

Compare that to the libs demand that
DeLay resign as Majority Leader because of an "admonishment" by the
ethics committee.

The story on DeLay is well known, and it was *three* admonishments, one
warning, and one private rebuke. Aside from the felonies he has
/probably/ committed, the unethical behavior demands that he be
censored. Here are the facts:
_________________________________________________________________

A RECIDIVIST: FIVE STRIKES & LONG PAST OUT
The House Ethics Committee Case Against
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has received one warning, one private
rebuke, and three admonishments concerning his ethical misconduct from
the House Ethics Committee between 1997 and 2003.

In repeatedly admonishing DeLay, the Ethics Committee has relied on the
broad standard of conduct in the House rules that requires every House
Member to "conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect
creditably on the House." (Rule 23, cl. 1.) In its October 6, 2004
letter to DeLay, the Committee noted that it is "particularly important
that members of the House leadership, who are the most publicly visible
Members, adhere to this requirement scrupulously."

This Democracy 21 report excerpts findings and conclusions by the House
Ethics Committee regarding multiple instances of improper conduct and
ethical improprieties by Representative DeLay.

1. Admonishment: "Objectionable" Energy-Industry Fundraiser

House ethics rules prohibit a Member from making any solicitation "that
may create even an appearance that, because of a contribution, a
contributor will receive or is entitled to either special treatment or
special access to the Member in his or her official capacity." (Ltr. at
1)1. Similarly, under House rules, a Member "should not participate in
a fundraising event that gives even an appearance that donors will
receive or are entitled to either special treatment or special access."
(Id.)

In June, 2002, DeLay hosted a two-day fundraising event at the Homestead
Resort in Virginia. Executives from only five companies, all in the
energy industry, attended the event. In order to attend, each company
had to make a contribution of $25,000 to $50,000 either to the
nonfederal account of DeLay's leadership PAC, ARMPAC, or to another
nonfederal committee he was associated with, TRMPAC. (Rpt. at 14).

Over the course of the two-day event, which included a golf outing, a
briefing on energy issues, and meals, each of the energy industry
participants had repeated personal access to DeLay and his key
congressional staff.

The Committee concluded that DeLay's participation in the fundraiser
"did not conform to House standards providing that fundraising
activities should not involve even an appearance that donors are being
provided with special access to a Member in his or her official
capacity." (Rpt. at 21).

The Committee said that "at a minimum," DeLay's actions "created the
appearance that donors were being provided with special access to him
with regard to the pending energy legislation." (Rpt. at 21).

The Committee cited a number of considerations that made the fundraiser
"objectionable." (Ltr. at 2):

First, the timing of the fundraiser took place "just as the House-Senate
conference on major energy legislation, H.R. 4, was about to get
underway." (Ltr. at 2). The Committee said that the energy legislation
"was of critical importance" to the attendees at the Homestead event.
It also cited an email between two organizers of the fundraiser -- one a
lobbyist and former DeLay staff member on energy issues, the other an
employee of ARMPAC -- that "notes the legislative interests of each of
the attendees..." (Id.)

In addition, the Committee said DeLay was "in a position to
significantly influence the conference," on the energy bill, both as a
member of the House leadership, and as a conferee himself. (Id.)

The Committee cited two other factors that had the effect "of furthering
the appearance that the contributors were receiving impermissible
special treatment or access" (Ltr. at 2) and that "raise serious
concerns under the standards of conduct..." (Rpt. at 14). One of these
was the presence at the fundraiser of "two of your key staff members
from your leadership office," one who handled energy issues and the
other who was DeLay's counsel. (Ltr. at 2).

In addition, the Committee said, "there were the limited number of
attendees, and the fact that the fundraiser included several events at a
resort over a two-day period, both of which facilitated direct contact
with you and your congressional staff members." (Ltr. at 2).

One of the energy companies at the event was Westar, which was seeking a
special provision in the energy bill conference report that would exempt
it from certain federal regulation. Internal corporate documents
reviewed by the Committee make clear that Westar sought to attend the
fundraising event in an effort to gain access to DeLay as part of its
lobbying effort on the energy bill. An internal memorandum from a
Westar lobbyist written in April, 2002 and cited by the Committee states:

We believe that the most beneficial way to spend corporate dollars -- as
opposed to cutting personal or PAC checks -- is with the House
Leadership. This means joining the fold, so to speak, of House Majority
Leader Tom Delay (R-TX)....

We may have an opportunity later this summer, for an energy industry
'roundtable' golf match at the Homestead for a 'mere' $25,000.... (Rpt.
at 12).

Westar made a $25,000 contribution to TRMPAC in May, 2002, and two
Westar officials attended the Homestead fundraising event in June, 2002.
(Rpt. at 13).

According to a description of the event provided to the Committee by
counsel for the Westar officials, the Westar representatives attended a
dinner and reception with 15 to 20 others at the Homestead. There,
"DeLay asked the group to advise him of any interest we had in the
Federal Energy Legislation." (Rpt. at 15). One of the Westar executives
"advised" DeLay that the company "needed" a grandfather provision to be
inserted in the energy bill to protect its interests. The following day
the Westar official provided a DeLay staff aide with a briefing book
that Westar had prepared on the issue. (Rpt. at 15).

The next day, also, the same Westar official participated in a round of
golf and "shared a cart with an aide to Congressman DeLay..." (Rpt. at
15). He told the aide he would provide him with the Westar briefing
materials, and later did so. During lunch the same day, the Westar
official "restated to Rep. DeLay Westar's position regarding the need
for a grandfather clause..." (Rpt. at 15).

According to the Committee, DeLay and his aides could not recall "having
any conversation" with the Westar executive "or receiving any materials
from him." (Rpt. at 15).

A subsequent internal Westar memo, however, noted that the company had
made "significant progress with House Majority Whip Tom DeLay..." and
that the soft money contributions "made in the first round were
successful in opening the appropriate dialogue." (Rpt. at 16). In
response to a question from the Committee about the meaning of this
statement, the Westar executive who authored the memo said he was
referring to "the opportunities he had at the Homestead event to meet
with Representative DeLay, make a presentation on Westar's position...,
and present a briefing book to a DeLay staff member." (Rpt. at 16).

The Committee noted that the House standards of conduct regarding
fundraising activity by Members "are extremely important ones." (Rpt. at
21). Those standards provide that fundraising activities "should not
involve even an appearance" that donors are being provided with special
access to the Member. "There are certain proffered campaign
contributions that must be declined, and certain fundraising
opportunities that must be foregone, solely because they create an
appearance of improper conduct." (Rpt. at 21).

The Committee said that DeLay's "facilitation of and participation in
that [Homestead] event were contrary to those standards," (Rpt. at 21),
were "not proper," (Rpt. at 22) and "raise an appearance of impropriety
under House standards of conduct." (Rpt. at 2, 22). In its letter of
October 6, the Committee told DeLay that he is being "admonished"
because his actions "were objectionable under House standards of conduct
because, at a minimum, they created an appearance that donors were being
provided special access to you regarding the then-pending energy
legislation." (Ltr. at 1).

2. Admonishment: "Objectionable" Use of the FAA for Partisan Purposes

House ethics rules prohibit Members from taking (or withholding) any
official action on the basis of the partisan affiliation of the
individuals involved. Federal laws generally prohibit the use of
governmental resources for political purposes. (Ltr. at 3). Violation
of these rules "also implicate the fundamental requirement of the House
Code of Official Conduct that a Member, officer or employee 'shall
conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably
on the House.'" (Rpt. at 25).

In May, 2003, Democratic state legislators in Texas began a boycott of
the legislature in an effort to block a pro-Republican congressional
redistricting bill, then pending in the legislature, that DeLay was
publicly identified as supporting. The Texas House Speaker, a
Republican, called DeLay and told him that some of the Democratic
legislators were being "shuttled" away by plane from the state capital.
The Speaker gave DeLay the tail number of the plane and asked if he
could "help locate the plane." (Rpt. at 26).

DeLay asked one of his staff members to contact the FAA and see if it
were possible to determine the location of the plane. The staff member
called an FAA official and requested help in locating the plane, but did
not disclose the reason. The FAA official was able to determine the
location of the plane, and called back the DeLay staffer with the
information. She gave the information to DeLay, who relayed it to the
Texas House Speaker. (Rpt. at 26-7).

In its letter of admonishment to DeLay, the Committee said DeLay's
actions "raise serious concerns" under the applicable ethics rules:

[T]hose contacts [with the FAA] were made solely at the request of the
Texas House Speaker, the request was made in connection with a partisan
conflict in which he was engaged at the time with Democratic Members of
the Texas House, and the information that Representative DeLay's office
obtained from the FAA was relayed solely to the Texas House Speaker.
(Rpt. at 28).

The Committee concluded that DeLay should be "admonished" for his
intervention in the "partisan conflict" in Texas. The Committee found
that DeLay's actions "raise serious concerns" under House standards of
conduct that prohibit members from taking any official action on the
basis of the partisan affiliation of the individuals involved, and that
preclude the use of governmental resources for a political undertaking.
(Ltr. at 1,3).

In addition, the Committee noted a "separate basis on which the contacts
with the FAA were objectionable," namely that is that "such use of
federal executive branch resources to resolve an issue before a state
legislative body raises serious concerns under the fundamental concepts
of separation of powers and federalism." (Ltr. at 5).

3. Admonishment: "Improper" Pressure on Colleague in Medicare Vote

The Code of Ethics for Government Service provides that a person in
government should "never accept for himself or his family, favors or
benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable
persons as influencing the performance of his governmental duties."
(Rpt. at 60-1).2 In addition to violating the code of ethics, such
behavior could in addition fail to "reflect creditably" on the House, in
violation of House Rule 23, cl. 1.

In a close and highly contested vote on passage of the Medicare reform
act in November, 2003, DeLay offered one wavering Republican Member,
Representative Nick Smith, a promise to endorse Smith's son, who was a
candidate in a Republican primary for Congress, if Smith would vote for
the bill. According to a report by an investigative subcommittee of the
Ethics Committee, it is "not controverted" that DeLay offered his
"personal endorsement" of Smith's son "in exchange for" Smith's vote in
favor of the Medicare bill. (Rpt. at 59).

This was important. According to the subcommittee:

At the time the offer was made, Representative Smith believed that the
endorsement of his son by the Majority Leader, combined with the
publicity and substantial financial support that would follow the
Majority Leader's endorsement, would greatly assist, if not assure, his
son's election in the primary held on August 3, 2004. (Id.)

In discussing this, the subcommittee noted that compromise and
"logrolling" are familiar parts of the legislative process. "There are
limits, however, to the methods that may be used to bring legislators of
different views together to achieve action." (Rpt. at 59):

An appearance of impropriety might be created....if support for
legislation were linked to a personal benefit, such as the promise of
one Member to provide another Member with goods or services. Such
incentives cannot be used to influence voting behavior. (Rpt. at 60).

The subcommittee concluded that DeLay's behavior exceeded the bounds of
ethical behavior. It said:

The promise of political support for a relative of a Member goes beyond
the boundaries of maintaining party discipline, and should not be used
as the basis of a bargain for Members to achieve their respective goals.
The endorsement of a political candidate is not related to the
functioning of government, and the promise of such an endorsement is not
a proper offer, and therefore should not be made or accepted, in
exchange for a vote in favor or against a particular piece of
legislation. (Id.)

The subcommittee recommended that DeLay be admonished regarding his
conduct in this matter. (Rpt. at 61). The subcommittee report and its
recommendations were adopted in full by the Ethics Committee, and were
issued as part of the full Committee's own report. The full Committee
concluded that DeLay, as well as two other Members, "should be publicly
admonished for their conduct" in the Medicare vote. (Rpt. at ii). It
said that DeLay's conduct "could support a finding" that DeLay violated
House rules. (Rpt. at iii).

4. Private Rebuke: "Improper" Partisan Pressure on Lobbyists

In May, 1999, according to published reports, the Ethics Committee gave
"a rare private rebuke" to DeLay for badgering a lobbying organization
over its hiring of a Democrat as its president."3

According to a report in The Washington Post, DeLay threatened an
industry trade group, the Electronics Industries Alliance, with
"retaliation" for hiring a Democrat, former Congressman Dave McCurdy, as
its president.4 The Ethics Committee rebuke followed efforts by DeLay
to "pressure" the EIA into dropping plans to hire McCurdy.

The Post story said that the private letter to DeLay mirrored a public
letter sent to all House Members at the time. The letter stated:

government officials, including House Members and staff, are prohibited
from taking or withholding any official action on the basis of the
partisan affiliation or the campaign contributions or support of
involved individuals, or the prospect of personal gain either for
oneself or anyone else. House members and staff are likewise prohibited
from threatening punitive action on the basis of such consideration.
(emphasis added).

5. Warning: Creating Impression that Official Access or Action Are
Linked with Campaign Contributions

On November 7, 1997, the House Ethics Committee sent DeLay a letter
which, as described in the October 6 letter, "concerned, in part,
statements that may create the impression that official access or action
are linked with campaign contributions...." (Ltr. At 6 n.2).

According to a statement issued by the Committee in 1997, as described
in the October 6 report, DeLay was "advised" that it is "particularly
important" a Member not make statements that create the impression that
the Member would "consider an individual's requests for access or for
official action based on...campaign contributions." (Rpt. at 22). In
admonishing DeLay for the energy industry fundraiser at the Homestead
resort in 2002, the Committee noted that its 1997 warning to DeLay is
"pertinent" here because his recent actions in regard to the energy
industry fundraiser "raise the very same concern expressed in that
earlier Committee statement."

Endnotes

1. "Ltr" refers to the letter of October 6, 2004 from Joel Hefley,
chairman, and Alan B. Mollohan, ranking minority member, of the House
Ethics Committee, to Tom DeLay. "Rpt" refers to the Memorandum from
Hefley and Mollohan to the Members of the Ethics Committee re
"Recommendations for disposition of the complaint filed against
Representative DeLay." Both documents are available on the website of
the House Ethics Committee at http://www.house.gov/ethics/DeLay_Cover.htm.

2. In this context, "Rpt." refers to a report of the Ethics Committee
dated September 30, 2004, and titled "Investigation of Certain
Allegations Related to Voting on the Medicare Prescription Drug
Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003." This report is also
available on the Ethics Committee website at
http://www.house.gov/ethics/Medicare_Report_Cover.htm.

3. D. Stout, "Ethics Panel Gives Rare Rebuke," The New York Times (May
14, 1999).

4. J. Eilperin, "Ethics Panel Chastises DeLay for Threatening Trade
Group," The Washington Post (May 14, 1999).

# # #

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:13:21 -0400, Dave Holford wrote:

Guy Macon wrote:

Dave Holford <mylastname@.deletethis.sympatico.ca> says...

Before political correctness there was superstition.

A senior FCC official did not like the idea of 13 channels and ordered
that one was to be deleted - in accordance with his directive ONE was
deleted.

Urban Myth. See http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_372


Good grief, I hope this didn't get to be an urban myth that fast!

In buildings with no 13th floor, have you ever noticed if it takes
the same amount of time to go from 12 to 14 as, say, 11 to 12 or
14 to 15? On the elevator, of course. It'd be a little hard to hide
a whole floor from a stairwell. ;-)

:-
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:20:19 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:

Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com> says...

When they decided that it ought to go up to 11, the easiest way was to
drop the 1.

Incorrect. See http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_372

I think he's making a joke, in reference to the movie, "This is Spinal
Tap". Their amps went up to 11, so they'd be 1.1 times louder than
everybody else. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rolavine]

From: Fred Bloggs nospam@nospam.com
Date: 10/22/2004 7:26 PM Pacific

Bush ordered his SS to direct riot cops to fire pepper bullets at point
blank range into crowd of *women and small children* in Jacksonville,
Oregon.
http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2004/10/15/news/oregon/friore02.txt

The purpose of this action was simply to get those protesters out of
sight of the news cameras. Like Hitler, it is important that the
majority of the US see Bush surrounded only by adoring and devoted
subjects- there is no room for dissent.

Amazingly, we have a president afraid of the general public that only appears
before preselected crowds of Republicans. Driven by paid shills they whoop and
holler on que making a soundtrack somewhat less believable then the laugh track
for an episode of Gilligan's Island.

Rocky

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <4179B96F.7080009@nospam.com>,
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> writes:

Tom Seim wrote:
Then take the case of Trent Lott, who made the fatal
sin of praising a man who had been a racist, Strom Thurmond. No
apology by Lott could placate the libs, who smelled blood in the
water. Only a resignation would do. And the bastards got it!

Here is the 1948 platform of Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat Party in the
Presidential race of 1948:

Remember, Condi's dad was a GOPer because the Dems wouldn't allow him

to participate in their historically racist Dem organization. There are
certainly some racists from the past still involved in both parties,
including even a KKKer (Robert Byrd), who should be branded a sell-out
against his racist ideals. At least, the GOP racists like Strom Thurmond
acted that way in public, but might have truly loved any of their black
family members... The GOP 'racism' appears to have been for appeasement
of the racist communities, while the last half of the 20th century Democrat
racism appears to be associated with the murders and lynching type
organizations (e.g. the KKK.) The Democrat racism appears to go all
the way to the 'bone.'

On the other hand, the KKK and its attitude associated with Democrats
like Robert Byrd is incompatible with love and respect of any kind. Sure,
there was both superficial racism (and true racism) each each party, but
the KKK type of people are really the worst fiends. In recent years, you'll
find that the KKK types (and others with various kinds of prejudices)
will be happiest in the Democrat party. The narrow-minded, my way or the
highway attitude is still prominent in the Democrat party, but the GOP
tends to be more accepting of differences (where you don't have to be
a robot.)

Again, Condi's family was essentially rejected by the same Democrat party
that exists today, but the MAINSTREAM GOP has mostly had the attitude
of laissez faire, because in recent years didnt' have quite the level
of sin that the Demoncrats still even have. This laissez faire attitude
has been mistaken as being obstructionism, but remember: it was mostly
GOP votes who had supported the various equal rights bills in the 1950s and
1960s.

(Note that there was severe racism in the GOP of a level similar to
the Democrats in the very early 1900s, but the Democrats had kept the
racism until they had to atone by their false activism, while keeping
their old KKK members like Byrd.)

Alot like 'new style conservatives', there have also been some upstart
racists trying to join the GOP, but those kind of KKK people are just
NOT tolerated in the GOP (once they are found out to be so.) Robert Byrd,
the KKK member, is highly regarded by his Democrat peers.

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <4179C158.6040300@nospam.com>,
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> writes:

Bush ordered his SS to direct riot cops to fire pepper bullets at point
blank range into crowd of *women and small children* in Jacksonville,
Oregon.

The truth is that the Al Queda terrorists are quite capable of blending

in with their far-leftist (in the western sense) perhaps tending more
towards criminal (with some anti-US intelligence gathering) friends. Frankly,
protests that weren't threatening or couldn't cause a threat against
the current president of the US would be very acceptable. However,
the similarity between the unwashed, dirty abusers of reality on the
American left and the unwashed/unkempt Al Queda terrorists is sufficient
to superficially cause some confusion for those who aren't directly
involved in the terror/disinformation cliques -- there is just too much
similarity between the dirty, foul and foul mouthed leftist so-called
'protesters' (whose groups are also involved in illegal theft and perhaps
anti-government/anti-US intelligence activities) and the Al Queda types.
Again, this difficulty in distinguishing the internal leftist
dishonesty/corruption and external (perversion of Islam) corruption
is from the mainstream of America, and it might be good for those
steeped in the mainstream to learn the minor differences between the
external terrorists and the internal leftist terrorists who tend
more towards the criminal type behaviors (but still have some of the
attributes of international terrorists.)

John

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:31:52 -0700, Product developer wrote:

Do a google search on "martial law nov 1".

It seems that Bush is going to declare Martial law and blame it on
terrorists.

I received a phone call from a client tonight from New Zealand
stating that people are actually leaving the U.S. over this one. I looked
it up and it's a big time story on the web in left wing kook sites. I am
surprised Dred Floggs hasn't paraded here as fact yet.

Well, is George the Holy going to declare martial law, or not?

Please, provide at least one actual reference.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 02:26:41 +0000, Fred Bloggs wrote:

arrived when heavily armored and armed police use potentially lethal force
^^^^^^^^^^^

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-redsoxfans-reax&prov=ap&type=lgns

It's lethal now, brother.

Remember Kent State! Remember Ruby Ridge! Remember Waco!

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<4178FBDB.8070504@nospam.com>...

Rich Grise wrote:

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:42:28 -0700, Tom Seim wrote:



fredfraud, THE VIETNAM VET FRAUD, is silent - good!!!


So, Mr. Seim, would you be so kind as to explain to those of
us who are slow of understanding, what exactly it is about the
silencing of this "freadfroid" character that gives you such
great joy?

Thanks,
Rich


I think it's time for Seim to come clean about his activities during the
period 1965-1975. Just exactly what was this great "patriot" doing
during those years? I just love it when these little loud-mouthed
sissies who dedicated their lives to personal comfort, and have
absolutely no experience to draw on, reach old age- all the maggot has
to show for it is an overfunded and dull life in the suburbs with an SUV
in the garage- all of the more important intangibles are absent- no one
has any respect for a career squirrel!-haha- Like I said before, these
people don't even rate cemetery space- the landfill is the best place to
put them.


FREDFRAUD, VIETNAM VET IMPOSTER - Need I say any more?

Come clean sissy-how can you not rise to this challenge? You know so
much about what these recent high school graduate kids should do to
defend your greedy, corrupt, and criminally materialistic way of life.
Now please tell us what legacy you left for them- tell us what you did
to secure their world.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<4178F48E.7090102@nospam.com>...

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<4177A6EE.8030008@nospam.com>...


Tom Seim wrote:


You keep telling us it's there; that's all we've been hearing.
WHERE'S THE BEEF!!!

The beef is that US cannot publicize the American participants because
of Privacy Law concerns. Volcker will sometime around 6/05 they say.


Translation: YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING!!!!

Come back when you've got something, fredrook.

We do *know* that American business was involved. No one is really
interested in pleasing you. You have produced nothing of merit so far-
you are a worthless parasite and lackey.



When the Dems have nothing else they resort to innuendo
and outright slander. Just like you, fredrook.

Nope- that is the character of Republicans these days- and
the small bits of offal such as yourself.


Right, Dan Rather told you that.

Nope- that is more than obvious from numerous scandals that
have arisen. Take a look at that sorry-assed loser Karl Rove-
clearly some kind of hormone deficient freak. Looks like he may
be going to jail this time. He will not last very long outside
solitary confinement.


[...ehh shut the hell up- fatass blowhard illiterate...]


Running low on insults, huh? You have to start plagarizing mine!
LOL!!

Speaking of plagiarism- that's /your/ life story. We have caught you in
numerous lies, all of your phony sources have been impeached, you
understand very little about the major issues. You are a single issue
voter and prostitute for the Bush campaign. Your death by cancer will be
very painful.


You're in your usual state of confusion, fredrook. The lies are yours.
I have called you on them. I challenged you to a wager - you slithered
away, tail between legs (to mix animal metaphors). The challenge is
still on - do you need a reminder as to what it was (probably do, with
your Russian-grade memory).

Your are the laughing stock of SED. Since you have no other life that
has to be devastating.

Ehh- shoot your mouth off, phony. All you do is confirm what most people
know about you already. That would be Seim, Durban, Clarence, Gathright,
Yanik, and other mentally deficient riffraff- that is quite the group.


SHUT UP, fredfraud VIETNAM VETERAN PHONY!!!!

Just another of your smokescreen charges, fat wimp office parasite. You
continue to evade answering the question about your military service.
Why is that? Looks like you're just another pompous, sissy boy, flag
waver like that Dick Cheney...total scum. Keep screaming, dickless.


FREDFRAUD, VIETNAM VET IMPOSTER - Need I say any more?

Come clean sissy-how can you not rise to this challenge? You know so
much about what these recent high school graduate kids should do to
defend your greedy, corrupt, and criminally materialistic way of life.
Now please tell us what legacy you left for them- tell us what you did
to secure their world.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John S. Dyson wrote:

In article <4179C158.6040300@nospam.com>,
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> writes:

Bush ordered his SS to direct riot cops to fire pepper bullets at point
blank range into crowd of *women and small children* in Jacksonville,
Oregon.


The truth is that the Al Queda terrorists are quite capable of blending
in with their far-leftist (in the western sense) perhaps tending more
towards criminal (with some anti-US intelligence gathering) friends. Frankly,
protests that weren't threatening or couldn't cause a threat against
the current president of the US would be very acceptable. However,
the similarity between the unwashed, dirty abusers of reality on the
American left and the unwashed/unkempt Al Queda terrorists is sufficient
to superficially cause some confusion for those who aren't directly
involved in the terror/disinformation cliques -- there is just too much
similarity between the dirty, foul and foul mouthed leftist so-called
'protesters' (whose groups are also involved in illegal theft and perhaps
anti-government/anti-US intelligence activities) and the Al Queda types.
Again, this difficulty in distinguishing the internal leftist
dishonesty/corruption and external (perversion of Islam) corruption
is from the mainstream of America, and it might be good for those
steeped in the mainstream to learn the minor differences between the
external terrorists and the internal leftist terrorists who tend
more towards the criminal type behaviors (but still have some of the
attributes of international terrorists.)

John

THANK YOU, JOHN, V-E-R-Y MUCH. This is the most excellent example of
your position to date.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 02:26:41 +0000, Fred Bloggs wrote:


arrived when heavily armored and armed police use potentially lethal force

^^^^^^^^^^^

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-redsoxfans-reax&prov=ap&type=lgns

It's lethal now, brother.

Remember Kent State! Remember Ruby Ridge! Remember Waco!

Thanks,
Rich

That was a big rubber bullet. The Oregon /felony assault/ was by paint
ball. Note these are the same paint balls used in that combat game- and
there the players are required to wear protective gear- especially for
the eyes. The crowd in Jacksonville had many mothers with children and
they were fired upon at close range.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Product developer wrote:

Do a google search on "martial law nov 1".

It seems that Bush is going to declare Martial law and blame it on
terrorists.

I received a phone call from a client tonight from New Zealand
stating that people are actually leaving the U.S. over this one. I
looked it up and it's a big time story on the web in left wing kook
sites. I am surprised Dred Floggs hasn't paraded here as fact yet.

It is clear that something is going to happen very soon that will test
the core stability of the US government. We can only hope that the
wisdom of the founding fathers will prevail once more in the form of
some abstruse Constitutional authority that saves the day. Hold on.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 05:40:56 +0000, Fred Bloggs wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 04:09:53 +0000, Fred Bloggs wrote:



Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<41786EC5.20809@nospam.com>...


Tom Seim wrote:




It's been that way for some time now.

And you have been a liar for all of your life- that's an even longer
time.



Compare that to the libs demand that
DeLay resign as Majority Leader because of an "admonishment" by the
ethics committee.

Not quite true-criminal investigations are being pursued. The Majority
Leader is supposed to set an example- even an admonishment is too much
of a bad example- he should go.



Then take the case of Trent Lott, who made the fatal sin of praising
a man who had been a racist, Strom Thurmond. No apology by Lott could
placate the libs, who smelled blood in the water. Only a resignation
would do. And the bastards got it!

That's because he went a little bit further than praise Thurmond- he
said something along the lines of America being a better place if
Thurmond's racial agenda had gone through. Lott got what he deserved,
and it was not just a Democrat thing- even Bush disowned him after
that. Hehe.



Libs are not bothered in the least by an obvious, blatant lack of
balance in their statements and positions. This is the way it is, get
used to it because it ain't gonna change.

And you don't seem to let little things like *facts* get in the way of
your bullshit. Do ya' now, fatarse?


FREDFRAUD, VIETNAM VET IMPOSTER - Need I say any more?

Hehe- tell that to the Veterans Administration- they paid for my college
education. We are all anxiously awaiting the description of your
military service. It is clear to everyone by now that you are a
loudmouthed blowhard coward. You sure are a brave one talking about
getting tough with killing Arabs as long as you're not the one having to
get tough eh? You are such a typical stinking fraud it is almost
comical. You're are garbage to this newsgroup.


Doesn't the Congress have the power and authority to issue a "cease and
desist forthwith" order?

Thanks,
Rich



I am not sure- they can certainly make resolution to that effect. The one
thing they are entitled to do is immediately stop all funding for the war
itself while appropriating funds for evacuation of the troops. Congress,
and only Congress, controls the purse- the Constitution states that only
funds appropriated by Congressional legislation may be withdrawn from the
national treasury. So the means is there to bring everything to a grinding
halt if necessary.

Yes, but is there a way that they can stop the killing TODAY?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Tim Shoppa wrote:

fox@pub.xaonline.com (Fox zhou) wrote in message news:<c7b545b1.0410202001.57339c75@posting.google.com>...

As shown in the following chart, there is a trigger signal (a pulse)
may occur at any time in the cycle of a 100MHz square wave (10ns
period, 50% duty cycle). I want to measure the delay time between the
rising edge of the square wave and the trigger falling edge. (t marked
in the chart).

(snip)

What you're building is a "time-to-amplitude converter". To
drive the integrator (aka capacitor) you can use edge or level
sensitive flip-flops, or in some cases just an AND gate.

I was thinking of the TDC, time to digital converter, which
I believe is often an TAC followed by an ADC, such that
it has a digital output.

-- glen

 

[Nico Coesel]

ghazan.haider@gmail.com (Ghazan Haider) wrote:

I am trying to learn DSP development by trying to build an ISDN TA (or
even a POTS interface) using DSP chips. So far my troubles are finding
the right documentation with the specification of ISDN line
modulation, protol, and POTS line modulation for V.32.

Where can I find these specs? Are they specified in IEEE, ISO, or does
the FTC specify them? Do I have to fork out $$$ for specs that are
internationally used?

Search for I.430, Q.920, Q.921, Q.930, Q.931. With some Googl'ing
you'll find these specs in pdf format. From these documents you can
build an ISDN TA, but it will take more than a few months.
You should start with POTS because this is much easier. You can buy
modules from Zarlink (formerly know as Mitel) which do al the
isolation and splitting for you.

--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl

 

[Don Pearce]

On 22 Oct 2004 14:11:30 -0700, ghazan.haider@gmail.com (Ghazan Haider)
wrote:

I am trying to learn DSP development by trying to build an ISDN TA (or
even a POTS interface) using DSP chips. So far my troubles are finding
the right documentation with the specification of ISDN line
modulation, protol, and POTS line modulation for V.32.

Where can I find these specs? Are they specified in IEEE, ISO, or does
the FTC specify them? Do I have to fork out $$$ for specs that are
internationally used?

Go to http://www.etsi.org/ and do a search. You will find plenty of
ISDN standards. Better yet they are free provided you don't want too
many per day.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com