Sold out by IFR

I subscribe to Aviation Week & Space Technology, every other year.
Their best rate for current subscribers is about $98 per year. If you
wait, they will offer you a "come back to us" rate of $58.

--

Scott
--------
The French, God bless them, are finally joining the war against Islamic
extremism. Their targets, which will now confront the full force of
l'état, are schoolgirls who wear Muslim head scarves in French public
schools.
Wall Street Journal
Mike Rapoport wrote in message
k.net...
I used to subscribe to IFR until I realized that they offered a much
better
rate to new subscribers than to existing ones. After realizing this,
my
four year old decided to subscribe :-). Today he recieved a
solicitation
from another aviation magazine. Obviously they sold his (and my) name
and
address. I always check the little box indicating that I don't want
my
information shared and I don't want to recieve any offers. I will
never
subscribe to any Belvoire publication again.

Just had to vent after calling a credit card company and telling them
not to
send me any more ot their stupid balance tranfer checks. It was the
third
time I called them. I am in the national opt out list for all
pre-approved
credit and I still get at least two "offers" a day. I guess that
Congress
is so busy spending our hard earned money developing rainforests in
Iowa and
subsidized rail to Disneyland that they don't have time for
legislation that
ordinary people really care about.

Mike
MU-2

Gig Giacona wrote:

I can show my wife how it could have easily be done in a more efficient manner.

I'll bet that makes you real popular.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

Let's face it... the problem is: those WEEKLY envelopes from Belvoir
Pulbl to renew the subscription I already have with them for that
magazine for the next year or so. Since I already subscibe to IFR and
IFR REFRESHER, and Aviation Safety (and/or Consumer), I get at least
one per week (or more). ARRGGHH!!!!!

I never received anything from any stock places untill a few weeks after signing
up with them. Now get the crap all the time.

Newps wrote:

Jeff wrote:
Ameritrade is the same way.
after using them, we got hundredss of spam (and still do) from stock places.

Really? I've had Ameritrade for myself since about 1996 and for my kids
college trusts since 1997. Never got any spam from financial
institutions of any kind.

Why does that bother you ?
Its a sales technique, we start high, when someone does not buy, we lower it,
then lower it some more. After 6 months to a year, we try to sell them again.
Works great.
No such thing as a fair deal. Companies who sell to individuals and to
businesses will double and triple the price when it comes to selling to
business's. I wont even get into that evil empire called Visa/Mastercard.
Merchants just do what they can to survive.




Another of my pet peeves is when a business extends different prices to
different customers.

"Every man deserves a square deal" Theodore Roosevelt

Mike
MU-2

Not always, depends on the size of the business. Small businesses do not
have the latitude that larger / international places have.


John Harlow wrote:

Another of my pet peeves is when a business extends different prices
to different customers.

It's called volume discount.

Exactly. The louder you yell, the cheaper you can get it.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we want!
Pork
spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to contain
it.
Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I read
(I
think it was by the CBO or GAO).


In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government
spending was pork/waste.

But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want (you
probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what
your
NEIGHBOR wants.

"What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." - P.J.
O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_.



I agree completely. Everybody wants lots of things if they don't have to
pay for them. The federal government should stick to national issues,
defense, foriegn relations, interstate commerce, national parks, some
research ect. The state governments should stick to state issues, state
highways, law enforcement and so on. Local projects should be funded
locally. If Anaheim needs a railway to Disneyland which is only going to
benefit Anaheim hotels, I don't see why someone in New York should pay for
it. All pork spending is a result of people wanting things they don't have
to pay for.

I don't have any pet projects that I expect someone else to pay for.

Mike
MU-2

These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and other
border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal government
refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as responsible foe
the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is Uncle Joe in
California.

wrote in message
...


Mike Rapoport wrote:

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

I guess they need to distinguish what we care about from what we
want!
Pork
spending is getting out of hand but I don't see any mechanism to
contain
it.
Even the defense budget is about 25% pork according to one study I
read
(I
think it was by the CBO or GAO).


In 1981-82 the Grace Commission found that 40% or more of government
spending was pork/waste.

But hey, this is a DEMOCRACY. The spending might not be what YOU want
(you
probably have your own little pet project -- we all do), but it's what
your
NEIGHBOR wants.

"What we must remember is that, in a democracy, the whores are us." -
P.J.
O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_.



I agree completely. Everybody wants lots of things if they don't have
to
pay for them. The federal government should stick to national issues,
defense, foriegn relations, interstate commerce, national parks, some
research ect. The state governments should stick to state issues, state
highways, law enforcement and so on. Local projects should be funded
locally. If Anaheim needs a railway to Disneyland which is only going
to
benefit Anaheim hotels, I don't see why someone in New York should pay
for
it. All pork spending is a result of people wanting things they don't
have
to pay for.

I don't have any pet projects that I expect someone else to pay for.

Mike
MU-2

These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and
other
border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal
government
refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as
responsible foe
the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is Uncle
Joe in
California.


No way. California passed laws giving illegals nearly the same benefits as
legal citizens therefore creating the influx of illegals. Remember the
idiotic drivers license law. Aunt Millie is a whole lot smarter than Uncle
Joe.

Sounds like a formula for marital bliss

Gig Giacona wrote:

Ha....... I have no doubt that the mileage driven by Soccer Moms could be
reduced by 35% or more with a little planning. This is an argument that is
had often around the old homestead and whenever it comes up I ask why it
took 2 hours for what was clearly a 1 hour bunch of stops I can show my wife
how it could have easily be done in a more efficient manner.

Gig Giacona

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy but
people don't want to do it. In round figures:

We import about a third of our Petroleum
Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation

It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a combination
of
fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.

The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip planning
and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's and
mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning.



My wife goes to the grocery store (12 miles each way) almost everyday to
get something that she forgot the previous day, so she could certainly
improve her trip planning. As a result of cheap gasoline, people are living
great distances from their workplace with commutes of over an hour being
common in many parts of the country. If gasoline was $5/gallon you would
see commute distances shorten, more telecommuting, smaller vehicles, better
trip planning.

The economic costs of doing all this are tiny and probably there is actually
a benefit. If there was simply a $4 tax on gasoline and an equivenenat tax
credit (transferable) for income taxes, there would be no net economic cost
and a huge incentive to use energy more efficiently. There would be
casualties in businesses catering to people traveling by auto but that is
about it.

Mike
MU-2