Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:38 AM - Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? (Gary Casey)
2. 08:44 AM - Re: Transponder Antenna 0.00 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO (cgalley)
3. 09:33 AM - Re: Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? (Brian Lloyd)
4. 10:41 AM - Re: Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? (echristley@nc.rr.com)
5. 11:17 AM - Re: Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? (Brian Lloyd)
6. 01:33 PM - Re: Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? (Ken)
7. 02:59 PM - electronic ignition (Gilles St-Pierre)
8. 04:20 PM - Re: electronic ignition (Jim Stone)
9. 04:34 PM - Re: electronic ignition (AI Nut)
10. 06:40 PM - Re: Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? (Dj Merrill)
11. 08:00 PM - Re: Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? (Ernest Christley)
12. 08:24 PM - Crimpers (Guy Buchanan)
13. 08:46 PM - Re: Crimpers (Eric Ruttan)
14. 09:41 PM - Re: Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? (Brian Lloyd)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
<<During landing one would use the mnemonic "GUMPS". The first letter
stands for "Gas" which means both fuel selector and fuel pump. Pilots
have been managing this for many years.
Brian Lloyd>>
I agree, and I think the record shows that most of the pilots do it right
most of the time. Is that good enough? Also, I've talked to some that say,
"it might be necessary for them, but I do it right ALL the time." Is that
realistic? There is certainly a balance between complexity and dependency
on the human element. I'm all for simplicity, but I think in this case the
mechanical complexity might be justified by the improved safety - and the
reduced complexity of operation. Another way to look at it: How often does
one NEED to remember the "G" in GUMPS? Almost never. Then why add to the
complexity of operation every time when it is "almost never" required?
Might as well relegate that task to something automatic and use brain cells
for something else.
Just my opinion.
Gary Casey
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Antenna 0.00 FORGED_RCVD_HELO |
Received: contains a forged HELO
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Your fears are unfounded. It only transmits brief blips not continuously.
If it was continous, you would have a microwave oven but it doesn't plus the
transmission is not concentrated like in the oven!
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Buchanan" <bnn@nethere.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Transponder Antenna 0.00 FORGED_RCVD_HELO
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
>
> Hi all,
> I've a Kitfox I'm installing a transponder on. Right now it's a
> Becker 4401 / Ack A-30 combo to be installed in the dash. I purchased the
> Advanced Aircraft L2 antenna, but now I'm thinking that was a bad idea.
The
> transponder instructions say to keep the antenna 15' from people as the
> transponder is a "high power transmitter". The transponder says don't make
> the antenna cable more than 5m long. The antenna documentation says mount
> it vertically in the tail, away from any blockages. Well, I've got a
> stainless firewall and a carbon seat pan so if I mount it internally in
the
> tail I'll not only get the full effect of the blast, but the seat and
> firewall will presumably block transmission forward. Would I be better off
> with the cheap whip sticking out the bottom of the aircraft below my seat?
> That way I don't get blasted, there's no blockage, and the cable is much
> shorter. Will the shorter cable offset the poorer antenna performance? (I
> guess another question is: Is the whip performance less than the dipole?)
> Finally, what's the lightest way to do the ground plane. I assume I will
> need one since I'm tube and fabric.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Guy Buchanan
> K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Oct 22, 2004, at 10:30 AM, Gary Casey wrote:
> I agree, and I think the record shows that most of the pilots do it
> right
> most of the time. Is that good enough? Also, I've talked to some
> that say,
> "it might be necessary for them, but I do it right ALL the time."
That doesn't happen. People don't do it right all the time. That is
why we have mnemonics and checklists and encourage their use.
> Is that
> realistic? There is certainly a balance between complexity and
> dependency
> on the human element. I'm all for simplicity, but I think in this
> case the
> mechanical complexity might be justified by the improved safety - and
> the
> reduced complexity of operation.
You are trading off between remembering and the possibility of system
failure. If you land sometime and forget to turn on the fuel pump, you
are likely to land safely. Likewise for take-off but there it is more
dangerous. Still, if you forget the fuel pump you are still probably
going to complete your flight just fine.
So now there is the question of failure modes and probability of
failure given the increased complexity. And then there are the human
factors of changing airplanes and not being in the habit of doing your
GUMPS check on downwind. Few airplanes you fly will have automatic
fuel pumps.
> Another way to look at it: How often does
> one NEED to remember the "G" in GUMPS? Almost never.
Huh? That is the most important one: gas.
G-as (fuel selectors and fuel pumps)
U-ndercarriage (down and verify three greens)
M-ixture (set for an aborted landing, usually full-rich)
P-rop (full RPM)
S-lats and flaps (set as appropriate for the type of landing; may
substitute 'F')
BTW, this is an after-the-fact *check* list, not a list to go through
to complete the actions unless you want to do it twice.
> Then why add to the
> complexity of operation every time when it is "almost never" required?
> Might as well relegate that task to something automatic and use brain
> cells
> for something else.
It is a good idea to try to accommodate the limitations of the human
brain where possible. It is something else to create a crutch that can
lead to a reduction in situational awareness and to introduce more
points of failure in the system.
> Just my opinion.
Mine too. But as a CFI I have to try to help my students be as
self-sufficient as possible. I cannot in good conscience teach them to
rely on the hardware any more than necessary. Hardware breaks or has
limitations and they should be able to complete their flights safely
regardless.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: echristley@nc.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Rumination:
Automatic standby fuel pump?
> So now there is the question of failure modes and
probability of
> failure given the increased complexity. And then
there are the
> human
> factors of changing airplanes and not being in the
habit of doing
> your
> GUMPS check on downwind. Few airplanes you fly
will have automatic
> fuel pumps.
>
How about installing the automatic switchover
system, then act like it isn't there? That is, the
switch is Off-Auto-On. Operate as if Auto doesn't
exist, and go through GUMPS as always. Always
switch to On for T/O and landings. Now the one time
that you do forget, you might get a second
chance...maybe.
My reservation (if the system is used in the above
manner) is how can you test it regularly to see if
it is working? Is there an easy way to temporarily
disable a mechanical fuel pump? If you haven't
tested the system recently, its presence shouldn't
offer any security.
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Oct 22, 2004, at 1:40 PM, echristley@nc.rr.com wrote:
> How about installing the automatic switchover
> system, then act like it isn't there?
That makes a great deal of sense.
> That is, the
> switch is Off-Auto-On. Operate as if Auto doesn't
> exist, and go through GUMPS as always. Always
> switch to On for T/O and landings. Now the one time
> that you do forget, you might get a second
> chance...maybe.
Fortuntately we usually don't get burned when we forget this ...
usually.
> My reservation (if the system is used in the above
> manner) is how can you test it regularly to see if
> it is working? Is there an easy way to temporarily
> disable a mechanical fuel pump?
No.
> If you haven't
> tested the system recently, its presence shouldn't
> offer any security.
If you run your two pumps in series, i.e. the output of the boost pump
feeds the input to the mechanical pump you can look for a pressure rise
at the input to the mechanical pump to determine if the boost pump is
running.
If you run your two pumps in parallel with check valves on their
outputs you can measure pressure at the outlet of each pump separately.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
clamav-milter version 0.80c
on juliet.albedo.net
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
I believe there were indeed fuel compatability problems with the fuel
pressure switch that one company was supplying for this purpose on efi
systems awhile ago. Automatic activation is a wonderful band-aid for
systems that can't tolerate two pumps on simultaneously, but I'm also
not convinced it is appropriate technology to retrofit to an auxilary
boost pump, at least not for all cases. It won't help if you are sucking
air because the tank is dry. Some aircraft initially suffer only a
partial power loss when a tank goes dry with the boost pump off which
warns you to check the fuel feed selector, whereas with the boost pump
already on there is a complete sudden total power loss when the tank
goes dry. Depends on the aircraft and fuel system. For some a reasonable
solution might well be to design so that both pumps can run all the time
like the heavy metal does.
Ken
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
>
>On Oct 22, 2004, at 10:30 AM, Gary Casey wrote:
>
>
>
>>I agree, and I think the record shows that most of the pilots do it
>>right
>>most of the time. Is that good enough? Also, I've talked to some
>>that say,
>>"it might be necessary for them, but I do it right ALL the time."
>>
>>
>
>That doesn't happen. People don't do it right all the time. That is
>why we have mnemonics and checklists and encourage their use.
>
>
>
>>Is that
>>realistic? There is certainly a balance between complexity and
>>dependency
>>on the human element. I'm all for simplicity, but I think in this
>>case the
>>mechanical complexity might be justified by the improved safety - and
>>the
>>reduced complexity of operation.
>>
>>
>
>You are trading off between remembering and the possibility of system
>failure. If you land sometime and forget to turn on the fuel pump, you
>are likely to land safely. Likewise for take-off but there it is more
>dangerous. Still, if you forget the fuel pump you are still probably
>going to complete your flight just fine.
>
>So now there is the question of failure modes and probability of
>failure given the increased complexity. And then there are the human
>factors of changing airplanes and not being in the habit of doing your
>GUMPS check on downwind. Few airplanes you fly will have automatic
>fuel pumps.
>
>
>
>>Another way to look at it: How often does
>>one NEED to remember the "G" in GUMPS? Almost never.
>>
>>
>
>Huh? That is the most important one: gas.
>
>G-as (fuel selectors and fuel pumps)
>U-ndercarriage (down and verify three greens)
>M-ixture (set for an aborted landing, usually full-rich)
>P-rop (full RPM)
>S-lats and flaps (set as appropriate for the type of landing; may
>substitute 'F')
>
>BTW, this is an after-the-fact *check* list, not a list to go through
>to complete the actions unless you want to do it twice.
>
>
>
>>Then why add to the
>>complexity of operation every time when it is "almost never" required?
>>Might as well relegate that task to something automatic and use brain
>>cells
>>for something else.
>>
>>
>
>It is a good idea to try to accommodate the limitations of the human
>brain where possible. It is something else to create a crutch that can
>lead to a reduction in situational awareness and to introduce more
>points of failure in the system.
>
>
>
>>Just my opinion.
>>
>>
>
>Mine too. But as a CFI I have to try to help my students be as
>self-sufficient as possible. I cannot in good conscience teach them to
>rely on the hardware any more than necessary. Hardware breaks or has
>limitations and they should be able to complete their flights safely
>regardless.
>
>Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
>brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
>+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | electronic ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles St-Pierre" <ranchlaseigneurie@hotmail.com>
Hello
I will be using an 8 cyl. (5.1 lt) Jabiru engine in my Murphy Elite. I am
wondering if there are any lightweight electronic modules for an 8 cyl
engines
Would appreciate if someone could give me the info.
sincerely
dr gilles st pierre
bsl aviation
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | electronic ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jsto1@tampabay.rr.com>
Gilles,
The Jabiru engines come with solid state electronic mags, are you
wanting to replace them with something different?
If you are looking for an electronic engine monitor system for EGT, CHT,
fuel, etc. I suggest you check out the following URL, Craig has Chevy
V8 in his RV so I know he can do 8 cyl.
http://www.pcflightsystems.com/
I'm using his system with my Jabiru 3300.
Another one I have seen advertising 8 cyl is Stern, but they look more
expensive.
http://www.sterntech.com/pulsar200.php
The Grand Rapids Technologies EIS doesn't do a complete set of sensors
for an 8 cyl, but they have a good reputation, so you might want to talk
to them.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Gilles St-Pierre
Subject: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles St-Pierre"
--> <ranchlaseigneurie@hotmail.com>
Hello
I will be using an 8 cyl. (5.1 lt) Jabiru engine in my Murphy Elite. I
am
wondering if there are any lightweight electronic modules for an 8 cyl
engines
Would appreciate if someone could give me the info.
sincerely
dr gilles st pierre
bsl aviation
==
==
==
==
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: electronic ignition |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "AI Nut" <ainut@hiwaay.net>
If you're into building/installing your own, we have done this to a 4-banger
Ford engine. 4 each CHT and EGT, as well as turbine temps and pressures,
intake pressure, and etc. Cheaply, too 8-). CHT and EGT sensors came from
Aircraft Spruce. Temp sensors are from an electronics supply house. Chips
for conversion to 0-5VDC from Digikey. Circuits are boilerplate from Analog
Devices. Less than $200 so far. $110 for 8 channel A/D converter with USB
output from http://www.labjack.com/. Computer power is as your discretion.
Software is easy, too.
Let me know if you want more details.
Of course, only for experimentals 8-). But if you want to put them in a
certificated plane, I won't tell if you won't.
HTH,
AI Nut
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Stone" <jsto1@tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone"
<jsto1@tampabay.rr.com>
>
> Gilles,
>
> The Jabiru engines come with solid state electronic mags, are you
> wanting to replace them with something different?
>
> If you are looking for an electronic engine monitor system for EGT, CHT,
> fuel, etc. I suggest you check out the following URL, Craig has Chevy
> V8 in his RV so I know he can do 8 cyl.
>
> http://www.pcflightsystems.com/
>
> I'm using his system with my Jabiru 3300.
>
> Another one I have seen advertising 8 cyl is Stern, but they look more
> expensive.
>
> http://www.sterntech.com/pulsar200.php
>
> The Grand Rapids Technologies EIS doesn't do a complete set of sensors
> for an 8 cyl, but they have a good reputation, so you might want to talk
> to them.
>
> <<<snip>>>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Gary Casey wrote:
> Might as well relegate that task to something automatic and use brain cells
> for something else.
Like lowering the landing gear? *wink*
-Dj
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Brian Lloyd wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
>
> On Oct 22, 2004, at 1:40 PM, echristley@nc.rr.com wrote:
>>If you haven't
>>tested the system recently, its presence shouldn't
>>offer any security.
>
>
> If you run your two pumps in series, i.e. the output of the boost pump
> feeds the input to the mechanical pump you can look for a pressure rise
> at the input to the mechanical pump to determine if the boost pump is
> running.
>
> If you run your two pumps in parallel with check valves on their
> outputs you can measure pressure at the outlet of each pump separately.
>
Ooops!
Slight misunderstanding, Brian. Testing that the fuel pump works just
like you say. It's the automatic kick-in that is the unknown. I
wouldn't trust any system to work unless it is operated regularly, and
the automatic kick-in is another system in and of itself.
Heh, maybe you switch to Auto before cranking the engine and take note
of fuel pressure?
--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
0.00 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
I finally have some good information.
I bought the AMP PRO-CRIMPER II (58433-3) from Digi-Key for $66. I
just couldn't part with the $350+ to get the real thing. (59824-1
TETRA-CRIMP.) Remember the AMP catalog says that the PRO-CRIMPER II is not
UL or CSA listed for PIDG FASTONs. I bought some of every size of PIDG
FASTONs, rings, and splices because I'd need them and to do some testing. I
received the PRO-CRIMPER and the instructions said it's not UL or CSA
listed for ANYTHING!. I call AMP and finally get someone who seems to know
what they're talking about. He says UL won't approve anything with
replaceable dies. They will only approve single use tools that won't fall
out of adjustment. The PRO-CRIMPER II will crimp just about anything with
the right dies and is adjustable. That means you have to make sure it's in
spec when you use it. Therefore UL won't approve it. I asked the AMP rep
why the PRO-CRIMPER existed. He said it was designed for field use. Don't
ask me why field use doesn't require UL listed tools, but I suspect nobody
wanted to carry around the approximately 50 separate tools I counted in the
CERTI-CRIMP brochure.
My observations on the PRO-CRIMPER crimps was that they looked
just like Bob's pictures of his expensive tool crimps. I haven't cut any up
but I pulled them and they were tight. I did note, however, that the PIDG
splice was substantially different in geometry than the ring and FASTON.
The splice accommodated much larger insulation than the others. The
probable conclusion is that I bought the wrong splices. (I have yet to
double check. It's a low priority item.)
I'm reasonably happy with my PRO-CRIMPER, though I still feel like
a liability target. I'll just keep the PRO-CRIMPER in spec by mic'ing my
crimps and recording the results. (The PRO-CRIMPER instructions give "CRIMP
HEIGHTS" based on "LEAD ROD" crimps for your enjoyment. Don't ask me where
I'm going to find lead rod.)
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan@chartermi.net>
> I finally have some good information.
> crimps and recording the results. (The PRO-CRIMPER instructions give
"CRIMP
> HEIGHTS" based on "LEAD ROD" crimps for your enjoyment. Don't ask me where
> I'm going to find lead rod.)
Just get a few rods and line them up. The one in front is the lead rod.
DO NOT ARCHIVE. Please. I mean it. Really.
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Oct 22, 2004, at 10:30 PM, Ernest Christley wrote:
> Slight misunderstanding, Brian. Testing that the fuel pump works just
> like you say. It's the automatic kick-in that is the unknown. I
> wouldn't trust any system to work unless it is operated regularly, and
> the automatic kick-in is another system in and of itself.
>
> Heh, maybe you switch to Auto before cranking the engine and take note
> of fuel pressure?
That works. That is what I do in both of my airplanes right now.
Boost pump goes on before the engine is started to ensure there is fuel
there to start the engine. This does tell you that the pumps are
working.
>
> --
> http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
> "This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
> instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
> mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
> decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."
How about this from R.A. Heinlein:
"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist,
fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic
criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want
people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former
are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the
greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and
lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the
other sort."
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|