Hi John

quote -{subject to political extremism, but somehow is anyway.}

The post and web pictures with red xs and senators name across weather maps in red targeting the senator from Penn and the extreme political distortions are why the subject is ----{subject to political extremism, but somehow is anyway.}

The senator apparently is the target of DNC associated smear campaign of disinformation .

quote ---and lobbyists went to work in Washington - hence the flurry of paper.--
--you fail to note what the congressionally funded group did actually say --and just substituted your opinion instead .-- quote --""Personally, I like what the report recommended. It seems to be a lot less politically motivated than any thing else I've read so far, So I am not in favor of any of the current bills under consideration. I am in favor of NOAA, industry and academia implementing the recommendations of the 2003 National Academy report. This would mean that NOAA and the NWS would continue to offer the services I currently enjoy.

What the fair weather report says in part is somewhat contrary to your conclusion , also no changes are proposed to the current access to NOAA weather and would actually insure real time access to it ,--not currently in practise -
Contrary to keeping "what you currently enjoy--
the report in part states --
The various entities that comprise the nation’s weather and climate services enterprise evolved a great deal over the twentieth century with little discussion or debate of appropriate roles and responsibilities, with a few notable exceptions. Even so, the United States is among the most advanced (if not the most advanced) nations in the world in the efficient production and effective use of weather information. Yet as science, technology, markets, and demands related to weather information evolve, lack of discussion or debate of appropriate roles and responsibilities has the potential to limit future progress of the nation’s weather and climate services enterprise.

In those few cases where discussion and debate have occurred, satisfactory resolution has not. Consequently, many have arrived at differing and conflicting expectations about roles and responsibilities of the various entities that provide weather and climate services. A policy problem exists to the extent that these differing expectations impede the development and delivery of products and services that would have value to decision makers.

--further the NOAA would spend billions in taxpayers dollars needlessly unless it effectively continues to partner with the -quote ""-billion dollar industry and its lobbyists"" --which means your local TV and radio stations mainly .-The report lists these items -
Effectiveness of the Weather Enterprise
The joint participation of the public, private, and academic sectors in the U.S. weather enterprise has had the following benefits, among others:

Better data coverage. The National Weather Service (NWS) national network is supplemented in some cases with local weather data from arrays of instruments deployed by universities, state governments, regional consortia, and private companies.

Wider information dissemination. Weather information is now available through increasingly pervasive and immediate avenues, including radio, television, newspapers, web sites, cell phones, pagers, and personal digital assistants.

More realistic and scalable models. Improvements in understanding of atmospheric and ocean phenomena, coupled with advances in computing and access to more data, have brought advanced modeling capabilities to the desktops of meteorologists in all sectors.

Increased infusion of cutting-edge technology. Innovations developed in the academic, public, and private sectors are regularly adopted by the other sectors, fueling further innovation.

Greater number of specialized products. The large number of companies seeking market niches yields a far more diverse menu of weather products and services than could be offered by the government alone.

I,m one sailor that is very happy to have the great weather services we have in place --90% of which is private sector --and their terrible lobbyists along with GPS handheld units and NAV systems available ,--along with their terriblr electronics billion dollar interests and --great satan lobyists -- {{sarcasm}}--along with --the boat industry and their billion dollar interests and lobbyists --in their flurry of paper

It seems many people in our affluent society and those around the globe that enjoy numerous benifits of free enterprize including instant weather forcasts -global communication systems --GPS navigation --etc ,-also enjoy the ironic luxury of distain for them and free enterprize system that makes it all possible .

Now now, the GPS system was and is funded over your military budget, not free enterprises (as far as I know at least). I dont think it's fair to mix GPS with your forecasting services.
There have been enough controversies over the GPS, so the ESA are launching their own version, Gallileo. Which also leads to controversies (ref: http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000280.html)

Hi Rolf
It is a sailing forum ,-so we are wondering off into space ,--literally
The Euro Space Agency -http://www.esa.int/esaCP/index.html
is interesting ,-THINK We need to work on this contest right away --copy

-€50 000 for good satellite navigation ideas

24 May 2005 European entrepreneurs, small businesses, academia and research institutes have the chance to win business development support worth €50 000 if they come up with the best idea for an innovative use of Galileo, Europe's coming global navigation satellite system.

We should be able as sailors to suggest an innovative use for Galileo nav .

On the GPS -the US govt developed the satelite system and methods of triangulation for navigation from them -
The numerous electronic units available are of course made by a variety of electronics companies .-Garmin -Magellin etc
http://www.thegpsstore.com/?OVRAW=GPS%20systems&OVKEY=gps%20system&OVMTC=standard

With the recent rejection on the EURO constitution and its numerous regulatory laws and rules it would impose ,--being recently rejected by the French and Dutch people by majority vote ,--which seems a severe slap in the face to the ruling elites like Chirac of FR ,--how does that effect such enterprizes as the ESA ?
just curious -I read articles like this on the subject in the US -
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200505311409.asp

That is reward enough for me ,-happy to be some fractional part of the attempt at the purveyance of truth and exposure of fraud .--The pajama hadeen was the name adopted by web bloggers that exposed Dan Rathers {still in denial DAn } reporting of forged and fake documents. Rather complaining of guys in pajamas typing at their comp.exposing his fraudulent sources.

I wish politics were more like sailing and racing -the fair sailing rule in effect ,and obligation of those who commit a breach of rules to accept a penalty and or retire from the race .-I worry over the decline and lack of integrity over many politicians and their agents who blatently breach rules of common decency without consequence .

Absolute power corrupts absolutely ,as the saying goes ,-
Worse in recent history is the corruption of the U N ,-in its oil for food scandels --Governments, GOVT officials of serveral countries and UN officials who place rules in effect prohibiting investigation or prosecution of themselves , while taking bribes in the millions and kickbacks from Saddam Hussein,s regime, he in his numerous palaces while Iraqis starved .-THANK GOODNESS there are purveyors of truth with courage to take them on ---

Rose Among Thorns
A win for truth and justice.

Congratulations to Claudia Rosett, winner of the 2005 Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Journalism!


She should have a Pulitzer and maybe even a Nobel on her desk, but today Claudia Rosett has a true truth-teller's prize in her possession — the Eric Annual Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Journalism.

The $10,000 prize, given by Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp in honor of former New York Post columnist and editor Eric Breindel, is awarded to "the columnist, editorialist or reporter whose work best reflects the spirit of the writings by Eric Breindel: Love of country and its democratic institutions as well as the act of bearing witness to the evils of totalitarianism." This year the award was presented at a Manhattan ceremony at the New York Historical Society on Wednesday night, with Rupert Murdoch playing host and N.Y. mayor Michael Bloomberg in attendance, among others, including Fox News's Roger Ailes, Presidential Medal of Freedom honoree Norman Podhoretz, and news vet Robert Novak.

The choice of Rosett could not have been more fitting.New York Post Publisher Lachlan Murdoch hailed Rosett for her work uncovering the corruption in the United Nations Oil-for-Food program (a.k.a. Saddam's Sugar Daddy) — a scandal that may not have been exposed without her attention. As it happens, one of Briendel's last columns had to do with Kofi Annan and Saddam Hussein, at the embryonic stages of the U.N.'s collusion with the tyrant — which, Rosett pointed out at the award ceremony, "laid the foundation" for the Oil-for-Food scandal she's been unlocking. Breindel saw that coming: He ended his column by noting that "the final chapter has yet to be written." At the time, Breindel presciently wrote:

It seems that the settlement just crafted by the secretary-general includes clauses concerning the need to "respect Iraq's dignity and sovereignty." Such phrases virtually invite Baghdad to halt the inspections — either by resurrecting the claim that so-called "presidential sites" are off-limits or by demanding that the ostensibly condescending American inspectors be removed from the U.N. teams.

And, as Lachan Murdock said on Wednesday night, "the full story [of the U.N.-Iraq scandal] is not yet known — in part because Claudia has not finished writing it."

Rosett, who is a journalist-in-residence at Cliff May's Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, is a seasoned journalist. She's served in various capacities as an editor and reporter for the Wall Street Journal — including being editorial-page editor of the Asian Wall Street Journal. She reported from the scene of the 1989 Tiananmen Square uprising, exposed North Korean labor camps (again, on the scene), covered the Soviet Union (she was bureau chief of the WSJ's Moscow bureau), and most recently stood in the midst of Lebanon's Cedar Revolution, sending us what she saw.

Hearing Rosett thank the publications, editors, and TV and radio hosts who have encouraged her and been the conduit for getting her work out, as she did Wednesday, one realizes the significant role alternative media play in the world today. There's the Wall Street Journal she has written for, but also The New York Sun, Fox News, Commentary, The Weekly Standard, radio talk-show hosts Hugh Hewitt and John Batchelor, and, of course, National Review Online. These are the outlets that have, along with the blogosphere — Roger Simon, I'm talking about you, for instance — driven the story. Fortunately folks like Minnesota Republican senator Norm Coleman have gotten on the trail inside the Beltway, calling the U.N. to account, however slowly, for the disaster it oversaw.

Previous winners of the Briendel award, now in its seventh year, include NR managing editor Jay Nordlinger, who is a tireless advocate on behalf of the people of Cuba, among others; and NRO columnist Victor Davis Hanson, who consistently makes sense out of the poisonous nonsense of anti-Americanism and the fog of war.

A dogged reporter with clear eyes and the ability to focus like a laser on the meat while never losing site of the big picture — and in the case of the Oil-for-Food scandal, the Iraqi people who were robbed by a tyrant and his corrupt friends, some of whom pretend to be our moral superiors — Rosett is both meticulous and among the most gracious writers an editor is ever privileged to work with. Congrats, Claudia.


* * *

Carl, now you are really on a rant. UN, North Korea, "Oil for food". Whow, we are (as you noted) pretty far from discussing comercialization of yet another public service

I live in a european country whose population twice have refused to join the EU trough a popular vote. We are pretty much widely exposed to pro/con EU arguments (major TV debates before every election to our congress, and all the time else). I also regularly read the Fox News website, who you referred to, and I must say that it reminds me more of propaganda than news, as viewed from my relatively safe place 'over the pond'.
Consider that your view on the UN is based on the news you are exposed to. As the UN finds your GOP policies abhorrent, and says so, your politically influenced media does it's best to convince you about the UN's failure. (I am not sure our media is much better, but at least they dont let political parties buy and create newsstories yet)
Bill O'Reilly is probably the best (worst?) spin doctor I have seen in a long time..


Now, I have provoked you a bit, but I guess you can handle it

Personally, I think that some services better be provided by the state, funded by tax money. Weather forecasting is one of them. Both for extreme weather warning reasons (who owns and launches the weather satelites) and availability of equally good warning systems all over the country.

Hey Carl -

I'm afraid I share JC's short attention span - it took me a couple of tries to get through your posts. I'll try and state my centrist position a little more clearly this time.

The web site you're referring to (the big red x) is one of the extremes that make me cringe, just as much as the "news" issued by Accuweather. Extreme positions are divisive, and both sides are guilty of misrepresentation.

I like the Fair Weather report's conclusions - in short it put the ball in NOAA's court on how and when to make recommended changes. That's where I think the ball belongs - this is not something that requires legislation or the involvement of lobbyists. The report cites a need for cooperation between government (NOAA), academic (universities) and private entities (Accuweather), and I agree. I'm not sure why you're hammering that point as if it somehow proves my "position" is wrong... you are agreeing with me... right? NOAA took the first steps only a few months after the report was finalized. Why so much resistance from the private sector? NOAA did not employ lobbyists to push for legislative action that would force change - they simply started changing.

The accusation that NOAA and NWS somehow "withhold" critical information from the public is, again, misleading and a fear tactic that has become one of the mainstays of political extremism. The fact is, sometimes a model spits out something bizare - any real-time use of a flawed model would be much more dangerous than the brief period that is currently used to review and confirm data before it is released in a useable format. But dress this point as "NOAA is withholding and delaying release of critical data to select private sector end-users, and Senator Santorum's bill will do away with that, guaranteeing everyone, including the public-at-large, will have unrestricted real-time access..." Well, how can anyone be against that, right?

Sure - we enjoy a vast array of available information, 90% of which I would agree is packaged and presented by the private sector. But, Carl, you must know that that 90% number you're using has nothing to do with who is responsible for generating the data used by those private services we enjoy. In my case, I frequent the NOAA and NWS websites in addition to maintaining an annual subscription to a private service that repackages NWS forecasts in a format that I like. I pay for the repackaging through my subscription. I pay for the raw data through my taxes.

You make some points that are mildly offensive - for example, intimating that I harbor disdain for free enterprise, apparently because I'm affluent. This is a another example of one of the political extreme's current tactics, and is likely subconscious on your part, parroting, or intellectually viral (i.e., you involuntarily caught it from someone else). Let me be clear and you can pick this apart at your leisure - political involvement in science generally bothers me. Lobbyists, from the Sierra Club to the NRA, bother me. Political extremism bothers me - centrists and moderates are driven to one side or the other. In this issue, I get all three. Give me a smaller, better balanced government, special interests on the street instead of in the halls, and separation of church and state, and I'm happy... well, while you're at it, give me 10 knots and flat water with abundant sunshine.

John, You will get my vote!

Equating the information as posted on the Accu-weather site John ,with the politically targeting disinformation post and smear campaign as per your quote --{{Extreme positions are divisive, and both sides are guilty of misrepresentation.}} is rediculas at best.

-As a self descibed centrist please provide quotes from the accu-weather information that are "Extreme positions divisive, and are guilty of misrepresentation".
Please -list the EXTREME divisive misrepresentations that are from information provided on the Accu-weather site as you see that exist . The good people at Accu-weather will no doubt find your examples of misrepresentations equally interesting.

Numerous aspects of the original disinformation post targeting the senator were exposed as false -
I do not agree with you John ,-the report you failed to read, apparently , and quoted directly in several segments of interest listed numerous reasons and the need for legislation . Please reread the quotes from the report . You also fail to respond to them or seem cognicent of the report context,its intent,or reason congress funded the report, which is generally for information required for legislative purposes.

Also stated was -""political involvement in science generally bothers me. Lobbyists, from the Sierra Club to the NRA, bother me. Political extremism bothers me ""-

Think I,ll just laugh a little and move on -

The minor aspect of real time access insures that all competing weather agencies have equal opportunity and that no inequities or unethical and or illegal activities occur within the govt,entity . Information is power -that can easily be abused .
The political scenario and imaginary sub plot you assigned as reason for the real time access aspect , labeling it a fear tactic and more extremism is again something to just chuckle a little about and move on .
As to { mildly offensive }points , comments only engage self indemnification ,-yours can be equally misconstrued as personally pointed ,--but are not .But don,t worry it is most likely as someone just descibed -- likely subconscious on your part, parroting, or intellectually viral (i.e., you involuntarily caught it from someone else).

Have fun John ,but again disagree,-I like the ocean seas as opposed to flat water -
Carl

Hi Rolf
Philosophy 101 requires converse thinking ,-hence the real possibility that the EU press is equally bias and wishes you to believe the UN are innocent babes in the woods .

Of course you may have been denied news of indictments of UN officials and 4 others involved in the UN oil for food scandel this week -
Also if you hit a google search on the world wide web on UN oil for food scandal you will get 669,000 related news items .---But according to the EU press no need for concern .

In watching T V shows one must differentiate between political talk shows which are not NEWS REPORTS ,just as we differentiate between hollywood movies and real life events .
Bill Oriely is not a NEW REPORT --nor is CNNs crossfire SHOW --NOR ARE NUMEROUS OTHERS -

hope that is helpfull --The Tybee 500 is on OLN t v in June --not politically bias as far as I know and is not a hollywood production ,-just real life sailing .

take care Rolf -all the best to you .
Carl

Oh man...all this and he's got better looking ears than Perot too. He's got my vote! (seriously!).

All right, Carl. I'll go one more round with you, but keep in mind I hold you in high regard and thought I was careful to not get personal in my last post. I love debate, I love spirited discussion, and I love my country where I'm still free to participate in this sort of heady exercise rather than breaking my back under a cracked millstone until it's too dark to see in order to earn enough to feed my kid.

First, I don't need to counter your quotes from the Fair Weather report - I'm the one that brought it up to begin with. I agree with the report. I think you do too, so the next point might surprise you.

The report was funded by NOAA, not Congress as you stated. It is not and was never intended to fuel the legislative process, as you thought. It was for NOAA's use, recognizing that there were some points of "friction" between the NWS, academia and private industry. It was proactive and coincides with the changes made that prompted private industry to begin lobbying individual Senators. I'm sad to say it has become a partisan issue now, with both extremes making smoke.

As for Accuweather - the title of their "news" story (here) is "Protecting Your Access to Weather Information." I already have that access - I don't need legislation to protect it. NWS is free (after taxes) and advert free, both over the airwaves and on-line. They say that Senator Santorum's bill (he's from Pennsylvania, as you pointed out, which is also where Accuweather is headquartered) is the only currently-proposed legislation that guarantees my unfettered access to NWS and NOAA information - while a true statement, it is important to remember that I already have that access without any legislation at all. "The Bill Requires NWS Information to be Fully Available to the Public." Already done, without legislation. But by making the statement, it again is suggested to the reader that information is not currently fully available to the public. "NOAA/NWS currently can, and sometimes does, delay and withhold information from the public and the Commercial Weather Industry" Gasp! Oh my! We must stop them! Somebody write a bill! Wait... I wonder why they do that, and under what circumstances. Hmm. Doesn't say, here... must not be important.

"The Bill Causes the NWS to Focus on Its Core Mission of Saving Lives and Property." That's right! Yeah! Let's MAKE them to do that because, well... oh. They already do that, don't they... Oh I get it - Accuweather doesn't want NWS focusing on forecasting... This is my favorite quote from Accuweather executive vice president Barry Myers - "The National Weather Service has not focused on what its core mission should be, which is protecting other people's lives and property. It spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year, every day, producing forecasts of 'warm and sunny.'" Did they get it right? Is 'warm and sunny' somehow not worth forecasting? And, as a NWS and National Hurricane Center devotee, I feel that they have ABSOLUTELY focused on their 'core mission', at least as it is defined by Accuweather. NWS defines itself thusly - "The National Weather Service is the primary source of weather data, forecasts and warnings for the United States. Television weathercasters and private meteorology companies prepare their forecasts using this information. The NWS is the sole United States official voice for issuing warnings during life-threatening weather situations."

In response Mr. Myers quote, NOAA's director of strategic planning and policy Ed Johnson said "If someone claims that our core mission is just warning the public of hazardous conditions, that's really impossible unless we forecast the weather all the time. You don't just plug in your clock when you want to know what time it is."

I did, in fact, read. I am, in fact, cognizant. I'm now not surprised that the things that bother me make you laugh a little and move on - that affectation is straight off the Factor. Which I watch, too.

Not sure what you mean by self indemnification - check that word and let me know what you were trying to say. I'm fairly confident you weren't changing the subject to the insurance industry - sheesh... don't get me (or anyone else from Florida) started on that subject.

Carl, surely you can see where someone might take offense at your suggestion that nobody who enjoys the benefits of a free enterprise society has a right to criticize it. That's one of the basic tenets that vaulted some upstart colonists to superpower status in just 200 years. That attitude, that hubris, is what grates so harshly in the ears of the international community.

Here I always figured you for one of those never-trust-anyone-over-thirty guys. Hm. This would have been a great way to pass a 10-hour light air beat - what did you and Jake talk about all day?

You would think we both had time to ramble endlessly - but, believe it or not, neither of us are terrific conversationalist on the boat. About all we talk about is racing while we're at it.

All I know is that when a company starts whining about unfair competition, or conversely, supports action that will increase competition, it's time to hang on to your wallet.

John
I don,t watch much T V and have not seen Oreily in years except for 10 second segments in channel surfing --more than enough ,--so I have no idea of your transposed annalogies to him or references you make towards me in that regard .

Some hopefully constructive comments on your responces or lack there-of on this original topic of fake -{send in a petetion you duped sailors }fraudulent politically targeting post .

Your failure to reputiate this type of garbage is troubling .

The attempt to equate the accu-weather information with it as both being quote -divisive misleading etc --reveals your own extreme form of political bias .

The failure to respond or back your statement as per previous post is troubling -I,m sure the accu-weather people would enjoy reading your percieved list of their misinformation you claimed it made.

The inability to address the report segments provided is disturbing .

Claiming a self described centrist viewpoint in light of this is equally troubling.

Attempting an exchange of ideas with someone that fails to address factual aspects and refuses to back their own claims is generally useless .

I hold you in high regard also John ,-
sincerely hope this gives pause for thought ,-and hope you will eventually reputiate the type of duping -send in a petition ,-disinformation policaly targeting post as a fake and basic insult to inteligence of this sailing board.

We obviously disagree on the validity of this type of politically targeting disinformation and topic in general -

best regards
Carl

Thanks Jake
It was great sailing the Tybee 500 with you -do you know when it will be on OLN T V ? sometime in June -

I would much rather talk sailing -racing anytime given the choise --BUT --seeing the type of garbage posted above on a sailing board duping sailors has to be revealed as the fake and fraud it is .

I,m often wrong and will listen if some point out errors ,always endeavor to correct them and not make the same mistake -
I sailed a terrible last leg to Tybee going way out -way in and way out again on the nav aspect which I know better,-then capped it off by running aground on the end of the Tybee Isl mud flats that extend further out now than previous years after the hurricanes last season .
--sorry again Jake for that last leg --we did have some great legs and excellent racing segments and a great sailing adventure --though it was the easiest 500 weather and sea state wise I can remember .
When ever the wind was light or picked up over 12 we gained time on the pack --the intermediate winds light to med and choppy conditions were difficult with our 400 plus crew weight .
Nice aspect of F-18 --providing larger spin sizes to heavier teams in the intent and spirit of class racing .
working at the drawing board today ,-this is a welcome break ,--hope your out sailing ,-hope to be Sun on the lake with the kids ,--though still cold water temps here in MI .

Hi Keith

The original polically targeting post with red xs and senators name in red across weather maps is a gross misreprentation of the issue -

The point of a forum is to respond to posts as presented -
If they had presented both sides of issues and the bill itself with good logical reasons for and against it would be encouraged and complimented --
The post however is not .

disclaimer --please excuse the typos -have bad eyesight and also can.t spell worth a #$%@

Thank you for your well thought comments -

Took a fresh look at the bill context as suggested--the long extensive legislative process in committee then after revision amendments etc ,then finally to the floor requires extensive testimony from all concerned .
-The NOAA -NWS and the vast network of meteorologists working in the commercial sector with TV radio phone telecommunications -and web oriented news and weather services mainly will provide reports and direct testimony before committees . NOAA is funded by congress and reports like the fair weather report then requested by NOAA pertaining to it,s oversight of the NWS.
The NWS as noted has a 50 year history of non competion -the 91 rules in effect which had essentialy BEEN IN EFFECT for this 50 year time frame were reversed by the current NWS in Dec 04 -just 6 months ago ,-sighting among other reasons a desire to expand the NWS and it,s being held to current strict definition in its purpose and mission statement-
Hope I stated that correctly -
It seems the fear -real or irrational --being played on is the restriction or loss of freedom of information --in this instance the NOAA weather reports -
As the freedom of information act is the LAW of the land which Guarentees access ,-this would not be possible .-Further the existing statement per commercial weather industry states no changes will be made to current practises --which again have a 50 year basis of coperative enterprize between public and private factions which have resulted in the best weather information system on the planet ,--and beyond for that matter.

The freedom of information and access to NOAA weather will be intact is the rational conclusion most would draw though your concern is a matter for debate by those working as meteorologists and those elected to oversee the govt entities and agencies , perhaps some addition or amendment will be added in commitee to further define or insure basic freedom of information ,-which I,m generally always an advocate for as well .

The fasinating legislative question arises from the debate which may set legal presitence as to degree of freedom of information and access vs the non competitive aspect of govt entities into the private sector .

The current practise of govt entities is not to compete with the private sector and to insure equal access to all information and regulatory aspects .-
I E-- being in MI ,-very few would want to see the US govt BEGIN to build cars ,{{a three year waiting line for govt issue vehicle }}
-Govt can set regulations for them , in a coperative effort to develop and continue to improve emmisions standards and safety standards,-the solutions and safety features actually developed in the industry itself ,but must allow equal access and guarentee equal treatment under law for them or new innovative companies that wish to begin ,--such as electric car mfg etc . The current admin has budgeted one billion dollars to help the US auto industry to develop alternate energy source vehicles like hydrogen for another example of GOVT and private sector function.
It is always best when there is constructive positive coperation in non copetitive form between govt and private sectors that benifit all which again is the current accepted practise.,--
The political disinformation post does not promote that and uses misinformation and distortion to discourage it and caters to the lowerest common denominator.
Thank you again Keith --
took a few mins. to respond in kind hopefully -
going sailing with the kids -
the weather looks a little iffy though
http://wwwa.accuweather.com/radar-l...mp;anim=STILL&type=re2&site=KPTK
and equal time --
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/