S786 - will eliminate free NOAA-NWS data

Read Senate Bill S786 at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/query

The effect will be to privatize the distribution of most NOAA and NWS data.
Read Section 2(b). Write your senate and tell him/her to vote against this
bill.

--
---

jim frei
http://www.stormwatergroup.com

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:50:43 GMT, "jim frei" <jdfrei@ZZearthlinkZZ.net>
wrote:

>Read Senate Bill S786 at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/query
>
>The effect will be to privatize the distribution of most NOAA and NWS data.
>Read Section 2(b). Write your senate and tell him/her to vote against this
>bill.

Why? Your plain say-so lacks any compelling reasons, pro or con. In the
absence of documentation, I will support the bill!

Ray H.

"TCol" <tcol01spamnot@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ajmae1dsjfmqellul9emi1453mm6md6e7a@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:50:43 GMT, "jim frei" <jdfrei@ZZearthlinkZZ.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Read Senate Bill S786 at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/query
>>
>>The effect will be to privatize the distribution of most NOAA and NWS
>>data.
>>Read Section 2(b). Write your senate and tell him/her to vote against
>>this
>>bill.
>
> Why? Your plain say-so lacks any compelling reasons, pro or con. In the
> absence of documentation, I will support the bill!
>
> Ray H.

The correct link is http://thomas.loc.gov Enter S 786 to search for the
bill.

Ray - Read the bill. You will see under Section 2(b) that the effect of the
bill will limit the dissemination of much of NOAA and NWS data to fee-based
methods controlled by private businesses. We as taxpayers have already paid
for the collection and analysis of such data. Senator Santorum (R-PA)
introduced this bill only to benefit his constituent AccuWeather. There is
no need for S786 - its just one more piece of bullshit legislation to
appease someone who has "bought" themselves a senator.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:55:58 GMT, "jim frei" <jdfrei@ZZearthlinkZZ.net>
wrote:

>>>Read Senate Bill S786 at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/query
>>>
>>>The effect will be to privatize the distribution of most NOAA and NWS
>>>data.
>>>Read Section 2(b). Write your senate and tell him/her to vote against
>>>this
>>>bill.
>>
>> Why? Your plain say-so lacks any compelling reasons, pro or con. In the
>> absence of documentation, I will support the bill!
>>
>> Ray H.
>
>The correct link is http://thomas.loc.gov Enter S 786 to search for the
>bill.
>
>Ray - Read the bill. You will see under Section 2(b) that the effect of the
>bill will limit the dissemination of much of NOAA and NWS data to fee-based
>methods controlled by private businesses. We as taxpayers have already paid
>for the collection and analysis of such data. Senator Santorum (R-PA)
>introduced this bill only to benefit his constituent AccuWeather. There is
>no need for S786 - its just one more piece of bullshit legislation to
>appease someone who has "bought" themselves a senator.
>
Jim:

Interesting...I agree...but the real reason for my comment was to chide the
original poster for just stating a position without reasons. A simple
short paragraph as you wrote would have been far more effective...at least
IMHO. :)

Ray H.

jim frei wrote:
> Read Senate Bill S786 at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/query
>
> The effect will be to privatize the distribution of most NOAA and NWS data.
> Read Section 2(b). Write your senate and tell him/her to vote against this
> bill.

There was a discussion of this on rec.aviation.piloting awhile back...

In article <OddFe.16987$aY6.3038@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink .net>, jim frei wrote:
> "TCol" <tcol01spamnot@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ajmae1dsjfmqellul9emi1453mm6md6e7a@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:50:43 GMT, "jim frei" <jdfrei@ZZearthlinkZZ.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Read Senate Bill S786 at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/query
>>>
>>>The effect will be to privatize the distribution of most NOAA and NWS
>>>data.
>>>Read Section 2(b). Write your senate and tell him/her to vote against
>>>this
>>>bill.
>>
>> Why? Your plain say-so lacks any compelling reasons, pro or con. In the
>> absence of documentation, I will support the bill!
>>
>> Ray H.
>
> The correct link is http://thomas.loc.gov Enter S 786 to search for the
> bill.
>
> Ray - Read the bill. You will see under Section 2(b) that the effect of the
> bill will limit the dissemination of much of NOAA and NWS data to fee-based
> methods controlled by private businesses. We as taxpayers have already paid
> for the collection and analysis of such data. Senator Santorum (R-PA)
> introduced this bill only to benefit his constituent AccuWeather. There is
> no need for S786 - its just one more piece of bullshit legislation to
> appease someone who has "bought" themselves a senator.

The real idiocy of the bill is as follows. The bill still allows for
dissemination of NWS severe weather bulletins. Such bulletins, of course,
are based on forecasts. So, the NWS will still be doing routine forecasting,
they'll just only be allowed to disseminate a fraction of data. No
money will be saved.

All once again going to prove my motto: People Are Stupid.

--
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Duke University

"TCol" <tcol01spamnot@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:i3bce152h9e683tr2l2pk5bdv62np4trfu@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:55:58 GMT, "jim frei" <jdfrei@ZZearthlinkZZ.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>>Read Senate Bill S786 at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/query
>>>>
>>>>The effect will be to privatize the distribution of most NOAA and NWS
>>>>data.
>>>>Read Section 2(b). Write your senate and tell him/her to vote against
>>>>this
>>>>bill.
>>>
>>> Why? Your plain say-so lacks any compelling reasons, pro or con. In
>>> the
>>> absence of documentation, I will support the bill!
>>>
>>> Ray H.
>>
>>The correct link is http://thomas.loc.gov Enter S 786 to search for the
>>bill.
>>
>>Ray - Read the bill. You will see under Section 2(b) that the effect of
>>the
>>bill will limit the dissemination of much of NOAA and NWS data to
>>fee-based
>>methods controlled by private businesses. We as taxpayers have already
>>paid
>>for the collection and analysis of such data. Senator Santorum (R-PA)
>>introduced this bill only to benefit his constituent AccuWeather. There
>>is
>>no need for S786 - its just one more piece of bullshit legislation to
>>appease someone who has "bought" themselves a senator.
>>
> Jim:
>
> Interesting...I agree...but the real reason for my comment was to chide
> the
> original poster for just stating a position without reasons. A simple
> short paragraph as you wrote would have been far more effective...at least
> IMHO. :)

What??? You mean you don't take everything I say as the gospel truth????

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:07:33 GMT, "jim frei"
<jdfrei@ZZearthlinkZZ.net> wrote:

>"TCol" <tcol01spamnot@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:i3bce152h9e683tr2l2pk5bdv62np4trfu@4ax.com.. .
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:55:58 GMT, "jim frei" <jdfrei@ZZearthlinkZZ.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Read Senate Bill S786 at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/query
>>>>>
>>>>>The effect will be to privatize the distribution of most NOAA and NWS
>>>>>data.
>>>>>Read Section 2(b). Write your senate and tell him/her to vote against
>>>>>this
>>>>>bill.
>>>>
>>>> Why? Your plain say-so lacks any compelling reasons, pro or con. In
>>>> the
>>>> absence of documentation, I will support the bill!
>>>>
>>>> Ray H.
>>>
>>>The correct link is http://thomas.loc.gov Enter S 786 to search for the
>>>bill.
>>>
>>>Ray - Read the bill. You will see under Section 2(b) that the effect of
>>>the
>>>bill will limit the dissemination of much of NOAA and NWS data to
>>>fee-based
>>>methods controlled by private businesses. We as taxpayers have already
>>>paid
>>>for the collection and analysis of such data. Senator Santorum (R-PA)
>>>introduced this bill only to benefit his constituent AccuWeather. There
>>>is
>>>no need for S786 - its just one more piece of bullshit legislation to
>>>appease someone who has "bought" themselves a senator.
>>>
>> Jim:
>>
>> Interesting...I agree...but the real reason for my comment was to chide
>> the
>> original poster for just stating a position without reasons. A simple
>> short paragraph as you wrote would have been far more effective...at least
>> IMHO. :)
>
>What??? You mean you don't take everything I say as the gospel truth????
>

Hell, I dont' take the Gospel as Gospel truth .....


Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free Temperature / Pressure charts for 38 Ref's http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

"jim frei" <jdfrei@ZZearthlinkZZ.net> wrote in message
news:VRvFe.5234$6f.653@newsread3.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
> "TCol" <tcol01spamnot@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:i3bce152h9e683tr2l2pk5bdv62np4trfu@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:55:58 GMT, "jim frei"
>> <jdfrei@ZZearthlinkZZ.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Read Senate Bill S786 at
>>>>>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/query
>>>>>
>>>>>The effect will be to privatize the distribution of most NOAA and
>>>>>NWS
>>>>>data.
>>>>>Read Section 2(b). Write your senate and tell him/her to vote
>>>>>against
>>>>>this
>>>>>bill.
>>>>
>>>> Why? Your plain say-so lacks any compelling reasons, pro or con.
>>>> In the
>>>> absence of documentation, I will support the bill!
>>>>
>>>> Ray H.
>>>
>>>The correct link is http://thomas.loc.gov Enter S 786 to search
>>>for the
>>>bill.
>>>
>>>Ray - Read the bill. You will see under Section 2(b) that the
>>>effect of the
>>>bill will limit the dissemination of much of NOAA and NWS data to
>>>fee-based
>>>methods controlled by private businesses. We as taxpayers have
>>>already paid
>>>for the collection and analysis of such data. Senator Santorum
>>>(R-PA)
>>>introduced this bill only to benefit his constituent AccuWeather.
>>>There is
>>>no need for S786 - its just one more piece of bullshit legislation
>>>to
>>>appease someone who has "bought" themselves a senator.
>>>
>> Jim:
>>
>> Interesting...I agree...but the real reason for my comment was to
>> chide the
>> original poster for just stating a position without reasons. A
>> simple
>> short paragraph as you wrote would have been far more
>> effective...at least
>> IMHO. :)
>
> What??? You mean you don't take everything I say as the gospel
> truth????

Can I get a witness!??!

On 2005-07-26, pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com <pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:07:33 GMT, "jim frei"
><jdfrei@ZZearthlinkZZ.net> wrote:
>
>>"TCol" <tcol01spamnot@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:i3bce152h9e683tr2l2pk5bdv62np4trfu@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:55:58 GMT, "jim frei" <jdfrei@ZZearthlinkZZ.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Read Senate Bill S786 at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/query
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The effect will be to privatize the distribution of most NOAA and NWS
>>>>>>data.
>>>>>>Read Section 2(b). Write your senate and tell him/her to vote against
>>>>>>this
>>>>>>bill.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? Your plain say-so lacks any compelling reasons, pro or con. In
>>>>> the
>>>>> absence of documentation, I will support the bill!
>>>>>
>>>>> Ray H.
>>>>
>>>>The correct link is http://thomas.loc.gov Enter S 786 to search for the
>>>>bill.
>>>>
>>>>Ray - Read the bill. You will see under Section 2(b) that the effect of
>>>>the
>>>>bill will limit the dissemination of much of NOAA and NWS data to
>>>>fee-based
>>>>methods controlled by private businesses. We as taxpayers have already
>>>>paid
>>>>for the collection and analysis of such data. Senator Santorum (R-PA)
>>>>introduced this bill only to benefit his constituent AccuWeather. There
>>>>is
>>>>no need for S786 - its just one more piece of bullshit legislation to
>>>>appease someone who has "bought" themselves a senator.
>>>>
>>> Jim:
>>>
>>> Interesting...I agree...but the real reason for my comment was to chide
>>> the
>>> original poster for just stating a position without reasons. A simple
>>> short paragraph as you wrote would have been far more effective...at least
>>> IMHO. :)
>>
>>What??? You mean you don't take everything I say as the gospel truth????
>>
>
> Hell, I dont' take the Gospel as Gospel truth .....
>

I do but I spell it "Religious Myths and Fables".
My favorite line to mormans is Why do you want me to read another fable
when I have enough problems with the 4 gospels in the new testament.

>
> Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
>
> http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/
>
> Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
> 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
>
> HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
> Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/
> Free Temperature / Pressure charts for 38 Ref's http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/


--
Wes Dukes (wdukes.pobox@com) Swap the . and the @ to email me please.

spam@www.spam.com is a garbage address.