Lloyd Parker wrote:

> But we know that the warming TODAY is due to CO2. It doesn't matter that
> warmings in the past may have had other causes. That's like arguing that
> since exercise raised your body temp. yesterday, a virus cannot be the cause
> of your fever today.

"We" don't know that. "You" may believe what you wish.

Ed

 
On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:54:53 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <2c7qsvgrtldnv0d50g0u57c2j0cadcc7if@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 02 Dec 03 15:37:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <Us5zb.282500$275.1000782@attbi_s53>,
>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>>>health
>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>insurance
>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>>>>
>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for health
>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and Japan,
>>>spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover everybody?
>>
>>Lloyd, you might want to do a Google search on the keywords:
>>canadian health care problems
>>This would let you see reality instead of the utopia your liberal
>>friends promise.
>>
>
>Oh great, he wants me to absorb his right-wing propaganda.
>
>Try this:
>
>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/clamen/misc/politics/HealthCare/Co
>nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?


So now a simple google search is "right-wing propaganda"? Every one
of 2,280,000 pages is right wing? No wonder people have such a low
opinion of you.
 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

>
> >The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
> >
>
> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?

This statement is the sort of crap uttered by psudeo-liberals that I find
particularly offensive. Trying to redine the word "marriage" to cover same sex
unions is not discrimination.

Ed

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql1so$c29$21@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <WPhzb.2620$rE3.1688@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bqitii$of5$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <JX5zb.48$rE3.36@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we
want
> >an
> >> >> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the
> >supply
> >> >> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there
> >won't be
> >> >> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
> >struggle
> >> >> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think
it
> >will
> >> >> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government
with
> >no
> >> >> >competitors.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less
on
> >health
> >> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
> >insurance
> >> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> >> >>
> >> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
> >national
> >> >> health care, just national health insurance.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >That's the point. A national HMO.
> >>
> >> No, a national insurance. Like Medicare, which runs with less overhead
> >than
> >> any private insurance company, and which seniors love.
> >>
> >
> >Doctors who accept Medicare patients lose money. Many doctors won't
accept
> >Medicare patients for that reason. Those that do accept them do it
because
> >they feel an obligation. Medicare is also headed for bankruptcy unless
> >drastic action is taken. Reduced coverage, reduced reimbursement to
> >doctors, increased Medicare tax withholding.
> >
> >
> Lots of doctors won't accept certain HMOs either, because of low payments
or
> endless delays. Here in GA, a number recently have dropped Aetna, for
> example.

Great thing... competition. All gone with a government monopoly.


 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
> people?), but why should government discriminate?

I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination. Marriage
is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same sex union. If there are
particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages" beneficial
and same sex unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law, or
have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process by
redefining the word.

Ed


 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql30g$c29$28@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <uXnzb.211214$Dw6.768125@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <bql0h3$c29$4@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >>>In article <bqit3e$of5$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >>>>>In article <bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less
on
> health
> >>>>>> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
> insurance
> >>>>>> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
> >
> >>>>>How would we spend "less on health care" ? Instead of paying for
health
> >>>>>insurance we would pay *AT LEAST* that much in additional taxes.
> >
> >>>> Why is it, then, that every western European nation, plus Canada and
> Japan,
> >>>> spend less per capita on health care than the US yet still cover
> everybody?
> >
> >>>Answer a question with a question. How does your state run health care
> >>>system cost less than the current private one?
> >
> >> Because all the examples we have of state-run health care say it would.
> >> Economy of scale, negotiation for lower prices, preventative care
instead
> of
> >> waiting until the person becomes sick -- all these and other factors.
> >
> >So your answer is we would save money through the reduced quality of
care.
> >I suggest you gain some experience with how government price controls
> >have a negative impact on care, at least with regards to how it works
> >in the USA.
> >
> >
> Again, I refer you to all the data which shows people in Canada and
western
> Europe are healthier and live longer.

The Europeans and Canadians choose to tax themsleves to provide cradle to
grave care for health care. It's a choice they make. Good for them.
There's a price they pay for that. There's far less innovation and change
in Europe than there is in the US. They tend to stick with the status quo.
In the US, the competitive juices among companies are often too much for
European companies. Airbus was subsidized for years to support foreign
sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
envelope. Is the most efficient? Maybe not, but it's the price we pay for
innovation and new technologies. High energy competition is dollar driven
(oh, how evil.... the greed!). The European model severely dampens that
energy. You can see the desparation to bring in outside money in Europe;
like government subsidies, their selling of weapons systems (France,
Germany) to ANYONE (read Saddam Hussein), willingness to accept despotism in
exchange for lucrative trade deals (do you really think France opposed the
war on "moral" grounds?).


 
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
>> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
>> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
>> people?), but why should government discriminate?
>
>I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination. Marriage
>is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same sex union. If there are
>particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages" beneficial
>and same sex unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law, or
>have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process by
>redefining the word.

This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bql21b$c29$22@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <Uaizb.2907$rE3.2726@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> So are conservatives -- telling people what kind of sex to have, what
> >genders
> >> can marry, what a woman can do with her body, etc.
> >>
> >
> >This one again? Ok, I'll repeat myself. Conservatives believe some
rights
> >are reserved to states and individuals to decide how they want to govern
> >themselves. That includes the rights of states and communities, through
> >their legislatures, to rule on sexual behaviors, abortion, and marriage.
> >It's the Dems who want to nationalize these things and force all
communities
> >nationwide to accept their new age definitions of morality and religion.
>
> Why wouldn't the most intimate relationships between people be a right
> reserved to the people themselves (9th amendment)? Surely if there are
any
> "inherent" or "God-given" rights, it would be those that have to do with
> intimate relationships and behaviors. Aren't you arguing the 9th
amendment is
> meaningless, that any rights not enumerated are reserved just to the
states?
>

Not at all. It's just not the business of the feds. There's multiple
jurisdiction below federal. State, county, city. The juridiction arguments
among these entities for rights reserved to them is up to them individually.

The arguments for and against Sodomy laws and Adultery laws each have merit.
Government intrusion in personal matters is a matter of great concern to be
sure. Yet, the effect of adultery on families, children, cost to society is
huge. Should local governments be able to prohibit it? The sexual
revolution in the 60's made it "quaint" to expect intact families with
mothers AND fathers; to expect fidelity, which is tightly tied to religious
values, is "old fashioned". Without religious values, we can behave as the
animals and it's "okay".... individually. But that's where we got the
"single mom" phenomenon. It's effect on the black community has been tragic
with 70% of babies born to unwed mothers.

Child poverty is a direct result of this. Even worse than the poverty is
children with teeny bopper mothers more concerned with partying on Friday
night and finding someone... anyone... to watch their kids while they to it.
They give no structure or limits to their children's lives and end up
producing more adults with no clue how to be productive members of society.

Personal choices? Hmph.

> >
> >The conservative position has never been to nationalize any of these
issues,
> >but to allow local jurisdictions to choose for themselves. The only time
> >conservatives do want to nationalize such issues is when the Libs find a
> >liberal federal judge to overturn local law based and make it a national
> >issue, i.e., unlimited federal government.
> >
> >Why can't you see the conservative vs. liberal debate as one based on
role
> >of federal government instead of merely accusing conservatives of being
> >"rascist", "homophobe", "sexist", "bigoted". All those labels are debate
> >enders. The issue of the role of government is a legitimate thing to
debate
> >with honorable arguments on both sides. Yet people like you never engage
in
> >it. You resort to this name calling instead.
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >


 
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:17:50 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>The Europeans and Canadians choose to tax themsleves to provide cradle to
>grave care for health care. It's a choice they make. Good for them.
>There's a price they pay for that. There's far less innovation and change
>in Europe than there is in the US. They tend to stick with the status quo.
>In the US, the competitive juices among companies are often too much for
>European companies. Airbus was subsidized for years to support foreign
>sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
>CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
>movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
>universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
>envelope. Is the most efficient? Maybe not, but it's the price we pay for
>innovation and new technologies. High energy competition is dollar driven
>(oh, how evil.... the greed!). The European model severely dampens that
>energy.

Enron was dollar driven as well.

>You can see the desparation to bring in outside money in Europe;
>like government subsidies, their selling of weapons systems (France,
>Germany) to ANYONE (read Saddam Hussein), willingness to accept despotism in
>exchange for lucrative trade deals (do you really think France opposed the
>war on "moral" grounds?).

Give me a break. American companies were perfectly happy to sell to
Saddam as well and as far as "accepting despotism" who do you think
put him there in the first place and kept him there for years?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 


Brandon Sommerville wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
> <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no religion
> >> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping with its
> >> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by divorced
> >> people?), but why should government discriminate?
> >
> >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination. Marriage
> >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same sex union. If there are
> >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages" beneficial
> >and same sex unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the law, or
> >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the process by
> >redefining the word.
>
> This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
> as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?

It is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same sex entering into a
commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional marriage. If
there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same sex couple feel they
are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass laws to
extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by redefining an
establishment that has long been in place.

Ed

 
In article <iNpzb.2062$WT6.190@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:

> sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
> CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
> movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as a
> universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
> envelope.

You've picked a wrong example. GSM has been the leadership MA for many
years. How do I know this? I did mechanical design and development of
GSM handsets for 6 years. CDMA was always behind the curve on new features.

And the reason was simple, european customers were willing to pay for those
features. In recent years CDMA has done alot of catchup, TDMA seems to be
dying out these days with AT&T and cingular heading towards GSM. (for
instance, motorola's never mass-marketed watch phone is/was GSM)

Now then there is all the politics around a 3G standard, etc etc, but
there is nothing wrong with GSM nor has it failed to provide growth
of new handset technology. I cannot think of anything significant and one
minor item that appeared on CDMA product before it appeared on a GSM
product. This recent push-to-talk feature that simulates the propritary
NEXTEL system that verizon wanted is about it.

Come to think of it, alot of the big wiz-bang handset stuff comes on
phones made in japan to system they have there.... I forget what it's
called but it is a japan only MA.


 

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FCE332E.F20E016B@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:00:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
> > <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >
> > >> But why should government institutionalize discrimination? OK, no
religion
> > >> should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not in keeping
with its
> > >> creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize marriages by
divorced
> > >> people?), but why should government discriminate?
> > >
> > >I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize
discrimination. Marriage
> > >is a union between a man and a woman. It is not a same sex union. If
there are
> > >particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make "marriages"
beneficial
> > >and same sex unions feel they deserve these benefits, then change the
law, or
> > >have the law ruled unconstitutional. Don't try to circumvent the
process by
> > >redefining the word.
> >
> > This confuses me greatly. If two men or two women want to be joined
> > as a family in a marriage, how does it detract from your marriage?
>
> It is not a marriage. I am not opposed to people of the same sex entering
into a
> commited relationship, but that is not the same thing as a traditional
marriage. If
> there are benefits related to a traditional marriage that same sex couple
feel they
> are entitled to, then they should petition their representatives to pass
laws to
> extend these benefits to them and not try to duck the process by
redefining an
> establishment that has long been in place.
>
> Ed
>

Out here in Ahnold's Kalifonia, we have a "domestic partners" registry that
allows partners OF THE SAME SEX to register their relationship. In most
"progressive" companies, mine included, registered domestic partners are
eligible for the same benefits that married couples enjoy.

The problem I have with the situation is that OPPOSITE sex partners do not
get the same consideration! My wife and I lived together for five years
before getting married. We were denied the ability to register as domestic
partners, with the cited reason being "you are eligible to be legally
married". Hmmph.

Larry

 
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:

4> no religion should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not
4> in keeping with its creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize
4> marriages by divorced people?), but why should government discriminate?


3> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

2> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
2> how does it detract from your marriage?

> It is not a marriage.

So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted to
opposite-sex couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite-sex couples."


DS

 
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:

> Government intrusion in personal matters is a matter of great concern to
> be sure. Yet, the effect of adultery on families, children, cost to
> society is huge. Should local governments be able to prohibit it?

Does it matter? The divorce rate is sky-high in states with and without
no-fault divorce, in states with conservative and with liberal governors
and legislatures, in states with high and with low church attendance.


> Without religious values, we can behave as the animals and it's
> "okay".... individually. But that's where we got the "single mom"
> phenomenon. It's effect on the black community has been tragic with 70%
> of babies born to unwed mothers.

Disregarding for the moment your ignorance of the fact that correlation
does not imply causation, do you *really* think some law is going to cause
some shiftless idiot to stick around and be a father?

> Child poverty is a direct result of this. Even worse than the poverty is
> children with teeny bopper mothers more concerned with partying on Friday
> night and finding someone... anyone... to watch their kids while they to it.
> They give no structure or limits to their children's lives and end up
> producing more adults with no clue how to be productive members of society.

Much better when the religious values you tout so highly held such sway
that pregnant teens -- of whom there were just as many as there are now --
were shipped off to live with a remote aunt or simply disowned...eh?

DS

 


"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
>
> 4> no religion should be required to perform or recognize a marriage not
> 4> in keeping with its creed (doesn't the catholic church not recognize
> 4> marriages by divorced people?), but why should government discriminate?
>
> 3> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
>
> 2> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
> 2> how does it detract from your marriage?
>
> > It is not a marriage.
>
> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted to
> opposite-sex couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you can
> come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite-sex couples."
>

Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a dog, does
that make it a dog? The laws related to the institution of marriage were set
in place with the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and
a woman. Trying to extend those laws to cover same sex unions is not the right
way to fix a perceived injustice. It may be the "liberal" way, but that
doesn't make it right.

Ed

 
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:

> I am not suggesting that the government institutionalize discrimination.

You don't have to. The government already does.

> If there are particular laws related to the term "marriage" that make
> "marriages" beneficial and same sex unions feel they deserve these
> benefits, then change the law, or have the law ruled unconstitutional.

That is exactly the process that's underway now.

DS

 
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:

> Trying to redine the word "marriage" to cover same sex unions is not
> discrimination.

Exactly. Very good. It's trying to *prevent* same-sex couples from getting
married that is discrimination.

DS

 
Brent,

For your info ....

Electrically and from a Radio Frequency (RF) spectrum standpoint, the GSM
(Global System for Mobile communications) standard is a form of (the older
and less spectrally efficient) TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access)
technology. Yes, you are indeed correct that US national carriers, AT&T and
Cingular, have announced plans to slowly convert their North American TDMA
systems to the GSM standard. This really does not buy them any improvement
from a quality of service or call capacity/bandwidth standpoint since they
are replacing North American TDMA with GSM TDMA. They are doing this purely
from a cost control perspective so that they can take advantage of the
global sales (and maintenance) volume for GSM and also due to the fact that
most North American TDMA system manufacturers had announced plans to cap out
new development/features, etc. due to a declining market.

That said, CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) technology is the future,
even for GSM!. While it is true that there are several different "flavors"
of CDMA, including CDMA-2000 and W-CDMA, these all share the same basic
"spread spectrum" CDMA technology which came out of research in the defense
industry and provides technological superiority. The simple fact of the
matter is that GSM is now on a CDMA evolututionary path with the planned
move to 3rd Generation (3G) high speed data networking in the form of UMTS
(Universal Mobile Telecommunications System). The major issue in wireless
infrastructure is not so much about new features as it is about getting more
higher quality calls and higher data bandwidths in the limited RF spectrum
for the fewest dollars.

I know none of this is relevant to the discussion, but I wanted to make sure
that you understood this since your comments/opinions on "CDMA" are not
consistent with what is actually happening in the global wireless
telecommunication market.

Bob Shuman

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ywqzb.212011$Dw6.768736@attbi_s02...
> In article <iNpzb.2062$WT6.190@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen
wrote:
>
> > sales. Another example is telecommunications. Nokia has struggled with
> > CDMA technology in the US because of the constant change and forward
> > movement in technology here. Europe would be happy to stay with GSM as
a
> > universal standard while US companies are pushing the technological
> > envelope.
>
> You've picked a wrong example. GSM has been the leadership MA for many
> years. How do I know this? I did mechanical design and development of
> GSM handsets for 6 years. CDMA was always behind the curve on new
features.
>
> And the reason was simple, european customers were willing to pay for
those
> features. In recent years CDMA has done alot of catchup, TDMA seems to be
> dying out these days with AT&T and cingular heading towards GSM. (for
> instance, motorola's never mass-marketed watch phone is/was GSM)
>
> Now then there is all the politics around a 3G standard, etc etc, but
> there is nothing wrong with GSM nor has it failed to provide growth
> of new handset technology. I cannot think of anything significant and one
> minor item that appeared on CDMA product before it appeared on a GSM
> product. This recent push-to-talk feature that simulates the propritary
> NEXTEL system that verizon wanted is about it.
>
> Come to think of it, alot of the big wiz-bang handset stuff comes on
> phones made in japan to system they have there.... I forget what it's
> called but it is a japan only MA.
>
>


 
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:

5> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

4> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
4> how does it detract from your marriage?

3> It is not a marriage.

2> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
2> to opposite-sex couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you
2> can come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite-sex
2> couples."

> Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a
> dog, does that make it a dog?

We're not considering cats, dogs or trees. We're considering two people
who wish to affirm their relationship to each other, thereby taking on the
social and financial responsibilities and attaining the social and
financial privileges accorded by society to two people in such a
relationship.

You have yet to explain why the sex of the two partners is at all relevant
other than to make circular parrot noises ("Rawk! Man and woman! Reehoo!
Redefining! Rawk! Not a marriage").

You seem very convinced of your rightness on this matter. Surely, then,
you can articulate the basis for your belief in a persuasive and logical
manner, rather than simply repeating a dogmatic statement...?

> The laws related to the institution of marriage were set in place with
> the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman.

Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
union between members of the same race."

> Trying to extend those laws to cover same sex unions is not the right
> way to fix a perceived injustice.

While I'd be interested to learn what you think *is* the right way, I
hardly think you have much basis to be making pronouncements on the
matter. You're not on the receiving end of the injustice.

DS

 
In article <bqlerl$51g@netnews.proxy.lucent.com>, Bob Shuman wrote:
> Brent,

> For your info ....

> Electrically and from a Radio Frequency (RF) spectrum standpoint, the GSM
> (Global System for Mobile communications) standard is a form of (the older
> and less spectrally efficient) TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access)
> technology. Yes, you are indeed correct that US national carriers, AT&T and
> Cingular, have announced plans to slowly convert their North American TDMA
> systems to the GSM standard. This really does not buy them any improvement
> from a quality of service or call capacity/bandwidth standpoint since they
> are replacing North American TDMA with GSM TDMA.

Tell me something I don't know.

> They are doing this purely
> from a cost control perspective so that they can take advantage of the
> global sales (and maintenance) volume for GSM and also due to the fact that
> most North American TDMA system manufacturers had announced plans to cap out
> new development/features, etc. due to a declining market.

Nothing I don't know.

> That said, CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) technology is the future,
> even for GSM!. While it is true that there are several different "flavors"
> of CDMA, including CDMA-2000 and W-CDMA, these all share the same basic
> "spread spectrum" CDMA technology which came out of research in the defense
> industry and provides technological superiority. The simple fact of the
> matter is that GSM is now on a CDMA evolututionary path with the planned
> move to 3rd Generation (3G) high speed data networking in the form of UMTS
> (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System). The major issue in wireless
> infrastructure is not so much about new features as it is about getting more
> higher quality calls and higher data bandwidths in the limited RF spectrum
> for the fewest dollars.

I referenced 3G in my previous post.

> I know none of this is relevant to the discussion, but I wanted to make sure
> that you understood this since your comments/opinions on "CDMA" are not
> consistent with what is actually happening in the global wireless
> telecommunication market.

My comments were with regards to the handset development and adding the
additional features and so forth. The very pushing of the technology that
was claimed to be absent from the European market. GSM has been in the
lead posistion in that regard for a good length of time. That makes it
the wrong example to pick for the point he was trying to make.

Europeans were more willing to pay for various wiz-bang features and
was a more mature wireless market than that of the USA. The US market
has come a long way, but it wasn't the innovation of companies or
anything like that, it was the demands of the customers. Europeans
demanded better and got better, US buyers didn't want much more than
a phone-for-emergencies for many years. Now they want more.
Same can be said for the market for automobiles. US gets alot more the
plain A-to-B toastermobile with cup holders while europeans get something
that can actually turn and brake.

Ignoring this dynamic makes his choice of using a cellular MAs for
his example a poor one.

The European digital cellular market developed earlier, and companies
there are no more or less resistant to change than one's in the USA.
Analog ruled the USA when europe went to GSM. One might as well take
his example and roll it back a decade and then it's got the europeans
as the leaders and the US as the laggards. If europe didn't advance
they would have sticked with their analog MA... Can't remember now
what it was called, it was nearly dead when I started working in that
industry, ETACS? AMPS though is still alive and well in the USA. Of
course it's the backup mode, but it's still there.

It's a bad example to use and I stand by that assesment.




 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
9K
Squonker
S
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
5K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
55K
Alibro
Alibro