Why GA is Dying

It is very hard to proofread your own writing. You know
what you meant to say and that is what you see. If your
native language is something other than English, you must
read the words on the paper, but native English speakers
only see every half dozen words and the mind fills in the
blanks.

BTW, this is a problem for pilots get their ATC clearance,
you hear what you expect to hear.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P


wrote in message
ups.com...
| Bob Noel wrote:
|
| My supply of o's is dwindling.
|
| You were merely trying to balance the extra o's wasted
when people type loose instead of lose.
|
| :-)
|
| --
| Bob Noel
|
|
| Don't know how it is in the west, but the most frequent
typo I've seen
| among my countrymen is their use of 'few' when they mean
'a few',
| turning the effing meaning on its head
|
| Ramapriya
|

Jay Beckman wrote
Rather than sit there and just yell "WRONG!!!", could you please
explain to the group how it really does work?

Just ask Duke Cunningham of California and Thomas Jefferson of Louisiana
how it really works. They are just the two most recent who have been
caught doing business as usual.

Bob Moore

Jay,

We're discussing this statement:

"These decisions ARE made by civilian leaders at the highest level of
ELECTED GOVERNMENT. These leaders consult with ALL the necessary
specialists in the field, both civilian and military when making these
decisions, then the decisions are made at the highest level, which is
the elected civilian government."

Specifically, we're discussing the way the TSA determines that taking
photos at an airfield is a security risk. Dudley claimed the process
above would apply. Do you believe the President or someone at cabinet
level ("highest level of elected goverment") has consulted "ALL the
necessary specialists" and then the President or a cabinet level member
of the government ("the decisions are made at the highest level") had
anything to do with whether photography should be classified as a
security issue? (We still haven't determined that it is deemed so by
the TSA) To put it mildly, I have a hard time believing that. I would
hope the highest level of the elected government has more important
things to decide.

As an aside which also came up in the thread, look at the "security
measures" employed by the TSA and other authorities. Some are just
ineffective, others ridiculous, still others an insult to democracy. Do
you believe the real process of coming up with these is as perfect as
described in the statement above? I don't.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jose schrieb:

The parallels diverge before meaningful comparison. My examples are of
=membership= in an =artificially created= group conferring rights
=granted= =by= that group. Your examples are all of =natural=
properties (sex, race...).

And the natural property to have been borne in some random place I
didn't choose myself.

Stefan

And the natural property to have been borne in some random place I didn't choose myself.

First, that's not a natural property.

Second, the consequences (in terms of "membership") are artificial,
related to governing bodies created by people. The only natural
consequences would have to do with being born in the mountains, near the
sea, near natural resources, stuff like that. And related to that, one
does not gain (or lose) "rights" on that basis. One does gain (or lose)
rights based on membership in artificial organizations like countries,
whether one elected to be a member or not.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Skylune wrote:
The cop was just trying to make conversation. Some of them routinely find
reasons to talk with young women.

You sound jealous SkyDip****, can't you get women?

"Jose" wrote in message
y.com...
(However, some voting rights to non-citizen property owners,
relating solely to their property, would be reasonable).

Jose

No, actually it wouldn't. We in the US don't require land ownership to vote
so why should we grant voting rights because of land ownership?

Actually, in some very specific instances, land ownership IS a requirement
to vote. Specifically, if forming a road maintenance association sanctioned
by the local governement agency, you have to be a land owner along that road
in order to vote whether or not to form the association. Other "homeowner"
associations (water, electricity, sewer, etc.) require a vote of the
landowners involved in order to form.

Jim




"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"Jose" wrote in message
y.com...
(However, some voting rights to non-citizen property owners,
relating solely to their property, would be reasonable).

Jose

No, actually it wouldn't. We in the US don't require land ownership to
vote so why should we grant voting rights because of land ownership?

(However, some voting rights to non-citizen property owners,
relating solely to their property, would be reasonable).

No, actually it wouldn't. We in the US don't require land ownership to vote
so why should we grant voting rights because of land ownership?

Local zoning issues come to mind.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
(However, some voting rights to non-citizen property owners,
relating solely to their property, would be reasonable).


No, actually it wouldn't. We in the US don't require land ownership to
vote so why should we grant voting rights because of land ownership?


Local zoning issues come to mind.

That may be particular to where you live. Here if there's a zoning
issue and I would like to have my say I simply show up at the city
council meeting.