Do I need this?
 

"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 8/22/13 10:01 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:24:25 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 8/22/13 9:18 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 20:20:29 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



Liability insurance may mean that those who are shot by guns owned by
people with coverage may be entitled to some sort of compensation. That
seems reasonable.

Paid for by everyone, even those who don't own guns. That is what
insurance is.



Now there's an idea...force gun owners to get liability insurance and
then let everyone who isn't a gun owner know they are subsidizing the
gun owners.

Liability Insurance is just a way to make lawyers rich. It figures you
want more of it.
Maybe we should tell everyone who pays for liability insurance that
lawyers get a third to a half of all claims for basically doing
nothing but driving up the amount of the claim. That does not include
the money the insurance company lawyer gets, effectively making the
cost of the claim about 3-4 times as much as the injured party ends up
with.,

Now get out your checkbook and pay that insurance bill, sucker.


Uh huh. So I suppose you don't have liability insurance on your car or
homeowners insurance in case someone is injured on your property, right?

Why do you have liability insurance? It is not to protect the other
person! It is to protect your assets. Probably 40% of the drivers in San
Jose, CA either have minimum insurance (30 k) or no insurance. Other than
they are required to have it to drive, they do not need it. They have no
assets to go after.

Do I need this?
 

On 8/23/13 1:35 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ...

On 8/23/13 1:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

On 8/23/13 11:26 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 06:42:18 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 8/22/13 10:01 PM, wrote:

Liability Insurance is just a way to make lawyers rich. It figures you
want more of it.
Maybe we should tell everyone who pays for liability insurance that
lawyers get a third to a half of all claims for basically doing
nothing but driving up the amount of the claim. That does not include
the money the insurance company lawyer gets, effectively making the
cost of the claim about 3-4 times as much as the injured party ends up
with.,

Now get out your checkbook and pay that insurance bill, sucker.


Uh huh. So I suppose you don't have liability insurance on your car or
homeowners insurance in case someone is injured on your property,
right?

Yes I do and I understand it is mostly lawyer tax




Oh, I forgot. You don't like people who studied to get a professional
degree. Military trade school is good enough for everyone.

---------------------------

As a beneficiary of both, I'll offer my opinion.

There's no question that in the civilian job market a college degree in
the technical disciplines opens many more doors and can lead to higher
incomes. However, some of the military technical schools, particularly
in the Navy (sorry Army dudes) are excellent. Some require higher SAT
and IQ levels than many colleges.

I think the best is having both. I can accurately state that in my
case I probably learned more practical applications from the Navy
electronics schools than in college, although I'll admit my degree was
obtained in bits and pieces over many years in many schools. The
degree gave me credentials in the civilian workforce. The Navy gave me
the real education that was useful.

Looking back now, if I were ever in a situation where my life depended
on the actions of a military trained vet and today's typical college
grad, I'd much rather have the vet watching my back.




Are there many college grads hiring themselves out as bodyguards?

-----------------------

Doubtful. They are the first that usually need protection.


Well, then, the bodyguards ought to be grateful because without the
college grads, they'd have less work.

Do I need this?
 

On 8/23/13 1:50 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 12:54:39 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



What possibly could be wrong with a system that cuts loose those who are
severely wounded physically or mentally or both, and who have an
astronomically high suicide rate?

That is a decision made by anti military politicians, not the military
themselves.

My, your vision of the world is mightily small and blame-filled.

Do I need this?
 

On 8/23/2013 10:25 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 8/23/13 10:20 AM, True North wrote:
On Friday, 23 August 2013 09:50:34 UTC-3, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On 8/23/2013 8:30 AM, Hank© wrote:

On 8/22/2013 9:15 PM, True North wrote:

There you go with those homosexuals fantasies again.

There must be some place in St Thomas where you can work off your

'fustrations'.



He could probably better work off those frustrations, if he has
them, in

Halifax, where there is an extraordinarily large homosexual population.



I do remember him posting from a gay bar a while back... trying to "hook

up" with a local iirc. Not that there's anything wrong with that:)

You and your 'cousin' from St Thomas sure do have a fetish for gay sex.
It's 2013...time to drop the Peter Pan lifestyle and finally emerge
from the closet.



PsychoSnotty's only chance for sex is with the other Scotty or with an
Electrolux vacuum cleaner.

Cite.

Do I need this?
 

On 8/23/2013 10:24 AM, True North wrote:
On Friday, 23 August 2013 09:30:59 UTC-3, Hank© wrote:
On 8/22/2013 9:15 PM, True North wrote:

There you go with those homosexuals fantasies again.

There must be some place in St Thomas where you can work off your 'fustrations'.



He could probably better work off those frustrations, if he has them, in

Halifax, where there is an extraordinarily large homosexual population.

How would you know that...?
You must be plugged into the 'lifestyle'.

I must have read it on one of your tourism websites. Are you sayin it's
not true?

Do I need this?
 

On 8/23/2013 2:22 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 8/22/13 10:01 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:24:25 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 8/22/13 9:18 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 20:20:29 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



Liability insurance may mean that those who are shot by guns owned by
people with coverage may be entitled to some sort of compensation. That
seems reasonable.

Paid for by everyone, even those who don't own guns. That is what
insurance is.



Now there's an idea...force gun owners to get liability insurance and
then let everyone who isn't a gun owner know they are subsidizing the
gun owners.

Liability Insurance is just a way to make lawyers rich. It figures you
want more of it.
Maybe we should tell everyone who pays for liability insurance that
lawyers get a third to a half of all claims for basically doing
nothing but driving up the amount of the claim. That does not include
the money the insurance company lawyer gets, effectively making the
cost of the claim about 3-4 times as much as the injured party ends up
with.,

Now get out your checkbook and pay that insurance bill, sucker.


Uh huh. So I suppose you don't have liability insurance on your car or
homeowners insurance in case someone is injured on your property, right?

Why do you have liability insurance? It is not to protect the other
person! It is to protect your assets. Probably 40% of the drivers in San
Jose, CA either have minimum insurance (30 k) or no insurance. Other than
they are required to have it to drive, they do not need it. They have no
assets to go after.


I imagine that's the case with Harry as well. How much can a few guns
and half interest in a canoe be worth?

Do I need this?
 

On 8/23/13 4:20 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 13:22:33 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

k.

I also have both military electronics school USAF and civilian electronics
school, NCR computers, and an EE university degree.i hired lots of Cal and
Stanford EEs over the years. Most have no practical knowledge. Were not
as good of engineers as those with practical training also. And Mr.
Luddite is correct. Navy techs were the best! Learned how to fix, and
just not swap parts.

IBM experimented in the early 70s by hiring 4 EEs into the FE
division. (vets were getting to be hard to find)
One was eventually moved to a traditional engineering job at FSD and
ended up retiring from Loral. I still talk to him.
One was fast tracked into management, the AA to the division president
the last time I saw him and we ended up firing the other 2 because
they couldn't fix anything and they refused to learn anything. They
already knew it all.



Well, gosh, let's close down all the EE mills.

Do I need this?
 

On Friday, August 23, 2013 3:11:49 PM UTC-4, Hank© wrote:


I must have read it on one of your tourism websites. Are you sayin it's

not true?

Cockhole wont be so mouthy when he turns around, ands sees me.

I'll send him some Depends " Shields And Guards " before I arrive, so he won't be embarrassed when he ****es his pants in front of his Wife.

Do I need this?
 

"Califbill" wrote in message
...


I also have both military electronics school USAF and civilian
electronics
school, NCR computers, and an EE university degree.i hired lots of Cal
and
Stanford EEs over the years. Most have no practical knowledge. Were
not
as good of engineers as those with practical training also. And Mr.
Luddite is correct. Navy techs were the best! Learned how to fix,
and
just not swap parts.

------------------------

The USAF had some good schools as well.

Back "then" virtually all the electronic gear aboard ship was analog
and most ran on vacuum tubes. The Navy ET's were taught theory,
circuit design, and troubleshooting methods to enable them to repair
equipment that they had never seen before. Sometimes I laugh because
back then current flow was negative to positive only because that's
the only way a tube could work in theory.

I am sure that with the advancement in electronics, the shift to solid
state and digital and the added complexity of the gear has caused
more specialization in the military electronics schools. But back
then, you were expected to fix anything.

Do I need this?
 

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 8/23/13 4:20 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 13:22:33 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

k.

I also have both military electronics school USAF and civilian
electronics
school, NCR computers, and an EE university degree.i hired lots of
Cal and
Stanford EEs over the years. Most have no practical knowledge.
Were not
as good of engineers as those with practical training also. And
Mr.
Luddite is correct. Navy techs were the best! Learned how to fix,
and
just not swap parts.

IBM experimented in the early 70s by hiring 4 EEs into the FE
division. (vets were getting to be hard to find)
One was eventually moved to a traditional engineering job at FSD and
ended up retiring from Loral. I still talk to him.
One was fast tracked into management, the AA to the division
president
the last time I saw him and we ended up firing the other 2 because
they couldn't fix anything and they refused to learn anything. They
already knew it all.



Well, gosh, let's close down all the EE mills.

------------------------------

Harry, you have a very biased and myopic view of education,
particularly technical. You seem to regard college as the panacea for
all things great.

A college awarded EE degree mostly benefits the holder of the degree.
It qualifies him/her for job opportunities where some experience,
usually within a very narrow field of application may be gained.

Military technical training is intended to benefit the mission of the
military. The schools are not diploma mills. They also enable one
to gain serious, practical experience, often under pressure. When
that experience is applied in the civilian sector the person's
capabilities often exceeds that of the college only educated engineer.

I know. I hired many engineers over the years. Some were very good,
some not so good. Generally those with a technical degree that also
included military technical training and experience were the best,
not just in capability but in their general attitude about getting the
job done.