Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:42 AM - Re: Ham Publication Features Kitfox on Cover (Michel Verheughe)
2. 12:47 AM - Re: off topic - Date time note (Michel Verheughe)
3. 06:12 AM - Re: off topic - Date time note (Rex)
4. 06:22 AM - Re: off topic WAS Date time note (Rex)
5. 06:54 AM - Skyscrew tax deductions (Dave and Diane)
6. 07:11 AM - Re: Ham Publication Features Kitfox on Cover (Lowell Fitt)
7. 08:13 AM - Re: Skyscrew tax deductions (Frank Miles)
8. 08:24 AM - Re: Oil cooler thermostats (Alan & Linda Daniels)
9. 08:27 AM - EAA Sport Aviation magazine (Gary Olson)
10. 11:04 AM - Re: EAA Sport Aviation magazine (Donna and Roger McConnell)
11. 11:04 AM - Re: EAA Sport Aviation magazine (Rueb, Duane)
12. 11:08 AM - Re: off topic - Date time note (Michael Gibbs)
13. 11:29 AM - Ham Publication Features Kitfox on Cover (Jim Crowder)
14. 11:48 AM - Re: off topic - Date time note (alnanarthur)
15. 11:56 AM - Re: Re: off topic WAS Date time note (Michel Verheughe)
16. 12:41 PM - Re: Re: off topic WAS Date time note (Rueb, Duane)
17. 01:00 PM - Re: Skyscrew tax deductions (Greaves)
18. 01:37 PM - [Off-topic] Aviation Mobile (Michel Verheughe)
19. 01:48 PM - Re: off topic: Languages (Michel Verheughe)
20. 02:08 PM - Re: [Off-topic] Aviation Mobile (Richard Rabbers)
21. 02:28 PM - Re: off topic: Languages (Dave and Diane)
22. 06:34 PM - Re: off topic WAS Date time note (Rex)
23. 07:27 PM - Re: off topic: Languages (kurt schrader)
24. 07:36 PM - Re: off topic: Languages (kurt schrader)
25. 08:32 PM - Re: off topic: Languages (Alan & Linda Daniels)
26. 08:43 PM - Re: off topic - Date time note (kurt schrader)
27. 09:21 PM - Re: off topic: Languages (Mo)
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: Ham Publication Features Kitfox on Cover |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
Interesting. Because ham operation from an aircraft is forbidden in
Europe. While I am often LA0HA/MM (maritime mobile) I can't be LA0HA/AM
(aviation mobile).
73 de Michel LA0HA
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: off topic - Date time note |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Apr 14, 2006, at 8:15 AM, kurt schrader wrote:
> How does it know?
I have no idea, Kurt, but this is very interesting, thanks for sharing.
I guess the answer is that light can't be considered as something like
sound wave, wind or running water. It belongs to another universe where
Newton physics and even relativity doesn't rule. It belongs to quantum
physic, the micro-universe where things are not exactly where they are
and you can't predict their next position. ... and now, it gets too
complicated for my little brain! :-)
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
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: off topic - Date time note |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Rex <gypsybee@copper.net>
Maybe it's not "How does it know?", but "How do we know the light is
vertical?"
Perhaps gravity has it's effect IF there are vertically oriented
particles or maybe it's just a gyroscopic thing. :-)
We manipulate the light and when released it rights itself.
Rex
in Florida
Michel Verheughe wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
>On Apr 14, 2006, at 8:15 AM, kurt schrader wrote:
>
>
>>How does it know?
>>
>>
>
>I have no idea, Kurt, but this is very interesting, thanks for sharing.
>I guess the answer is that light can't be considered as something like
>sound wave, wind or running water. It belongs to another universe where
>Newton physics and even relativity doesn't rule. It belongs to quantum
>physic, the micro-universe where things are not exactly where they are
>and you can't predict their next position. ... and now, it gets too
>complicated for my little brain! :-)
>
>Cheers,
>Michel
>
>do not archive
>
>
>
>
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: off topic WAS Date time note |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Rex <gypsybee@copper.net>
Here's something that I sometimes wonder about. For the listers whom
English is not their primary language.
Sometimes we send messages which have misspellngs, slang terms or
gramatical errors. Do these cause much difficulty interpreting? I've
been told that English (American) is often the easiest language to
communicate with because the intended thought can usually be translated
even if not precisely or correctly expressed. Are other languages not so
forgiving in usage?
Rex - (having some knowledge of German and Spanish)
Florida
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: | Skyscrew tax deductions |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dave and Diane <ddsyverson@comcast.net>
Good morning,
A while back some information was exchanged on the list regarding if a person could,
or could not, deduct the losses we suffered due to the bankrupcy.
I also recall that someone said that a hobby loss could be deducted.
I want to share what I found out to help keep my friends from getting unnecessary
and unwelcomed attention from the IRS.
I am not a tax accountant, but I have a pretty good grip on how to sort through
regulations. I do that as my day job - it is just not in the tax accounting area.
I will provide some references - please check them out and don't take my
word for it - everyone has to get this affirmed in their own mind as to what is
correct and not correct.
1) If you purchased a kit or materials in the course of running a business, this
is a no brainer - its a business loss and it is deductible - this is not what
I am concerned with.
2) Those of us who purchased a kit or materials NOT in the course of running a
business are compelled to abide by a different set of rules. This is generally
regarded as a hobby activity; and, that definition is pretty much recapitulated
by another government agency - the FAA, regarding constructing a homebuilt
as an endeavor for our personal edification, interest, etc.
Please look up on the IRS website ( www.irs.gov - not www.irs.com) and find publication 529, page 14 which shows a list of NON DEDUCTIBLE miscellaneous items. It clearly says that HOBBY LOSSES ARE NOT deductible. What is deductible is hobby expenses up to the limit of hobby income. Other parts of the document will tell you what can be deducted for miscellaneous expenses. Although we are generating a small fortune through our activity, we do so by starting out with a large fortune and we normally do not have any hobby income in building an experimental aircraft so that has some limits - let alone the issues with the CFRs regarding noncommercial pilots charging beyond sharing expenses. Most hobby income has to do with someone building some artsy-craftsy objects and then selling them - in that case, the expenses (up to the limit of the income only) in doing the hobby can be deducted.
3) I also looked into the theft and casualty loss deductions. While anyone with
a little concept of ethics and two or three brain cells firing at the time will
come to the conclusion that when someone takes your deposites and lies to you
over the course of year - it is theft and it is fraud; HOWEVER, there is a
difference between basic morality and the laws of the land. While the bankrupcy
laws protect folks who genuinely had bad luck or difficult circumstances, they
also cover folks who mismanage and lie to their customers about about what
they are doing with ytheir money - a successful criminal court case would be necessary
to make this any different. For a loss to be defined as a casualty loss,
it has to meet certain criteria, like a burning building or a hurricane. For
a loss to be defined as a theft, someone has to bust into your place, take
your stuff and get away with it, or use a deadly weapon to convince you top give
up your stuff; unfortunately it does not apply to someone if they make off
with you money through bankrupcy proceedings.
4) Not that I would trust without verification (I did verify); but, I did contact
an IRS agent and talk through the casualty and loss type of deductions - pretty
clear, a bankrupcy loss is neither a casualty of theft loss. If your insurance
won't cover it, neither will the IRS.
5) There is a situation which where bankrupcy lossses are deductible, but it has
to do with a bankrupcy of a financial institution where you lost investment
money.
So, having said all that, I want everyone to know that I just don't want anyone
in our group getting into trouble over this - look it up for yourself, be informed
and stay out of trouble - sometimes it hurts to stay out of trouble.
"Virtue is its own reward - there is seldom any other reward"
Sincerely
Dave S
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: Ham Publication Features Kitfox on Cover |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@sbcglobal.net>
Michel, this might interest you in two arenas. In the late 70's I was
heavily into competive sailing. We were planning on an off shore race
between San Francisco and Kauai in the Hawaiian Islands. I decided to put
my Ham radio on the boat for safety sake and during the crossing, I made
contact with an airline pilot, a Ham. This was on AM single side band. He
explained that the aircraft radios had this capability and he regularly
exercised his privileges on these long flights. I thought this was a great
idea as 5 hours on auto pilot can get pretty boring.
It is interesting how one agency considers certain behavior uncivilized and
another sees nothing wrong with it. It would be interesting to understand
the different thinking.
Lowell
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Verheughe" <michel@online.no>
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Ham Publication Features Kitfox on Cover
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> Interesting. Because ham operation from an aircraft is forbidden in
> Europe. While I am often LA0HA/MM (maritime mobile) I can't be LA0HA/AM
> (aviation mobile).
>
> 73 de Michel LA0HA
>
>
>
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: | Skyscrew tax deductions |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Frank Miles" <f.miles.tcp.833@clearwire.net>
Very well said. Succinct and to the point
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave and Diane
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 5:54 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Skyscrew tax deductions
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dave and Diane <ddsyverson@comcast.net>
Good morning,
A while back some information was exchanged on the list regarding if a
person could, or could not, deduct the losses we suffered due to the
bankrupcy.
I also recall that someone said that a hobby loss could be deducted.
I want to share what I found out to help keep my friends from getting
unnecessary and unwelcomed attention from the IRS.
I am not a tax accountant, but I have a pretty good grip on how to sort
through regulations. I do that as my day job - it is just not in the tax
accounting area. I will provide some references - please check them out and
don't take my word for it - everyone has to get this affirmed in their own
mind as to what is correct and not correct.
1) If you purchased a kit or materials in the course of running a business,
this is a no brainer - its a business loss and it is deductible - this is
not what I am concerned with.
2) Those of us who purchased a kit or materials NOT in the course of running
a business are compelled to abide by a different set of rules. This is
generally regarded as a hobby activity; and, that definition is pretty much
recapitulated by another government agency - the FAA, regarding constructing
a homebuilt as an endeavor for our personal edification, interest, etc.
Please look up on the IRS website ( www.irs.gov - not www.irs.com) and find
publication 529, page 14 which shows a list of NON DEDUCTIBLE miscellaneous
items. It clearly says that HOBBY LOSSES ARE NOT deductible. What is
deductible is hobby expenses up to the limit of hobby income. Other parts of
the document will tell you what can be deducted for miscellaneous expenses.
Although we are generating a small fortune through our activity, we do so by
starting out with a large fortune and we normally do not have any hobby
income in building an experimental aircraft so that has some limits - let
alone the issues with the CFRs regarding noncommercial pilots charging
beyond sharing expenses. Most hobby income has to do with someone building
some artsy-craftsy objects and then selling them - in that case, the
expenses (up to the limit of the income only) in doing the hobby can be
deducted.
3) I also looked into the theft and casualty loss deductions. While anyone
with a little concept of ethics and two or three brain cells firing at the
time will come to the conclusion that when someone takes your deposites and
lies to you over the course of year - it is theft and it is fraud; HOWEVER,
there is a difference between basic morality and the laws of the land. While
the bankrupcy laws protect folks who genuinely had bad luck or difficult
circumstances, they also cover folks who mismanage and lie to their
customers about about what they are doing with ytheir money - a successful
criminal court case would be necessary to make this any different. For a
loss to be defined as a casualty loss, it has to meet certain criteria, like
a burning building or a hurricane. For a loss to be defined as a theft,
someone has to bust into your place, take your stuff and get away with it,
or use a deadly weapon to convince you top give up your stuff; unfortunately
it does not apply to!
someone if they make off with you money through bankrupcy proceedings.
4) Not that I would trust without verification (I did verify); but, I did
contact an IRS agent and talk through the casualty and loss type of
deductions - pretty clear, a bankrupcy loss is neither a casualty of theft
loss. If your insurance won't cover it, neither will the IRS.
5) There is a situation which where bankrupcy lossses are deductible, but it
has to do with a bankrupcy of a financial institution where you lost
investment money.
So, having said all that, I want everyone to know that I just don't want
anyone in our group getting into trouble over this - look it up for
yourself, be informed and stay out of trouble - sometimes it hurts to stay
out of trouble.
"Virtue is its own reward - there is seldom any other reward"
Sincerely
Dave S
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: | Re: Oil cooler thermostats |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com>
Pay close attention to the in and out. It is not well marked on the
thermostat and it does matter.
kurt schrader wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
>
>
>
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: | EAA Sport Aviation magazine |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Gary Olson <ofd725@yahoo.com>
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe one of our members Paul Seehafer, is included
in an article (complete with pictures) in the April 2006 EAA Sport Aviation
magazine. Congrats Paul, nice article.
Gary Olson
Oshkosh
---------------------------------
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: | EAA Sport Aviation magazine |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Donna and Roger McConnell" <rdmac@swbell.net>
Gary,
Your correct, it's on page 62 of the April issue. Nice article, he
owns a Model IV, an Avid Flyer and a Lake Amphibian. I'll bet he wakes up
morning and says.....hummm, now which plane do I want to fly today. Way to
go Paul.
Roger Mac
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary Olson
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 10:28 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: EAA Sport Aviation magazine
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Gary Olson <ofd725@yahoo.com>
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe one of our members Paul Seehafer, is
included in an article (complete with pictures) in the April 2006 EAA Sport
Aviation magazine. Congrats Paul, nice article.
Gary Olson
Oshkosh
---------------------------------
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: | EAA Sport Aviation magazine |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rueb, Duane" <ruebd@skymail.csus.edu>
Gary:
What article?
Duane Rueb
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary Olson
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 8:28 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: EAA Sport Aviation magazine
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Gary Olson <ofd725@yahoo.com>
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe one of our members Paul
Seehafer, is included in an article (complete with pictures) in the
April 2006 EAA Sport Aviation magazine. Congrats Paul, nice article.
Gary Olson
Oshkosh
---------------------------------
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: off topic - Date time note |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michael Gibbs <MichaelGibbs@cox.net>
Kurt sez:
>The horizontal beam going off in a completely different direction
>will immediately turn verticle!
>
>How does it know?
First it was general relativity, now quantum mechanics! Who knew
that Kitfox drivers were so knowledgeable about modern physics? :-)
Mike G.
N728KF
Do not archive.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Ham Publication Features Kitfox on Cover |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jim Crowder <jimlc@att.net>
It was probably an old file photo.
Jim Crowder
At 03:18 PM 4/13/2006, you wrote:
>Most recent records show ownership of this aircraft as:
>
>Ross Niffenegger
>2350 Morrison LN
>Solano, CA 94585
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: off topic - Date time note |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: alnanarthur <alnanarthur@sbcglobal.net>
Kurt, I think the situation that you have presented is a little
sloppy. Let me be a bit more rigorous.
If in a nuclear reaction, a pair of "quantum mechanically entangled"
photons are coaxed out of the vacuum, they will fly off in opposite
directions at the speed of light. They will have an "uncertain
polarization", that is, they have all possible polarizations ( like
Schrodingers cat - both dead and alive).
If we properly store one photon here while the other one journeys
off to Alpha Centauri (which we lowly mortals think is 4 light
years away), and then we measure the polarization of our photon it
will have to decide what polarization it will have ( this is known as
the collapse of the quantum wave function).
At that instant it's sibling must assume a polarization at right
angles.
"How do it know"? Well you answered the question. When a
photon travels in spacetime, it travels in a pure space dimension
and can travel across the universe in zero time. In its frame
there is no time and all of space is a single point.
Since, in the photo's point of view it is right next to it's
sibling so it has no trouble communicating with it.
This is somewhat hard for us earth bound creatures to get our head
around, but you see, the photon can't understand why it takes us so
long to fly from point A to point B in our Kitfox.
The photon travels in spacetime at the the speed of light with very
little energy since it has zero rest mass. But we also travel thru
spacetime at the speed of light.
NOTHING CAN GO SLOWER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT THROUGH SPACETIME!
We travel through spacetime mainly in the time dimension, that is
why time seems to go so fast (especially as we get older).
Do not archive
Al Arthur
On Apr 13, 2006, at 11:15 PM, kurt schrader wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> Since the list is pretty quiet....
>
> A puzzler: If you take light and shine it thru a half
> silvered mirror so that 1/2 the light is passed thru
> and the other 1/2 is reflected off in a different
> direction,
>
> And you pass each 1/2 of the light thru polorizing
> glasses so that only verticle waves pass from one beam
> and only horizontal waves pass thru from the other
> beam and,
>
> If you then take the verticle waves and optically turn
> them horizontal,
>
> The horizontal beam going off in a completely
> different direction will immediately turn verticle!
>
> How does it know?
>
> Kurt S. :-)
>
> Do not archive
>
>
Message 15
| 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: off topic WAS Date time note |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Apr 14, 2006, at 3:21 PM, Rex wrote:
> Here's something that I sometimes wonder about. For the listers whom
> English is not their primary language.
Please, allow me.
English is not the "easiest language to communicate" for one good
reason: It has the largest vocabulary of all languages. More words
equal more to learn, equal more difficult to learn, isn't it?
However, having French as mother tongue and Norwegian as my everyday's
language, English is easy for me. Let me demonstrate with these words:
Oxford University.
Now, this is the oldest university in Europe. It was built in a place
where the river Thames was so narrow that an ox could ford over the
river, hence: Oxford. In Norwegian: Oks ferd. English is an Anglo-Saxon
language, from the people who inhabited the south of Denmark and north
of Germany. Norwegian is a Danish dialect.
"University" on the other hand, is a Latin name that came into the
English language via French and the Norman invasion. About half of the
English language has a French/Latin origin.
Take the following sentence: A case of non-assistance to a person in
danger. Now, in French: "Un cas de non-assistance a une personne en
danger." Pretty much the same, isn't it?
So, for me English is easy and, I guess, somewhat easy for anyone
speaking a German or Latin language. But it must be, in my humble
opinion, difficult for those who speak a Slavic or a non-European
language.
Furthermore, the Scandinavians and the Dutch see everything on the
cinema or television, in the original version. John Wayne speaks
English. In the other countries, films are either dubbed or with
voice-over.
So, for the Norwegians, English is like a second language. To the point
where, when I was first in this country, speaking a very poor
Norwegians, many went over to English, assuming that I would speak it
better than their own tongue.
Last, I notice, sometimes, typing errors on this list. E.g. "hanger"
instead of "hangar." I guess it is just writing as one speaks. The
reason I notice those errors is that, because my English if far from
perfect, I often use a speller. While it helps me to write the correct
words, it doesn't improve my grammar and, often, I use the wrong adverb
or simply built sentences in a way native English speakers, wouldn't.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 16
| 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: off topic WAS Date time note |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rueb, Duane" <ruebd@skymail.csus.edu>
Michel
Since you have brought up the topic of spelling, I will now
throw in my "two cents worth". The spelling is sometimes so bad that
the meaning cannot be accurately determined, and it takes many readings
and thinking about context in order to understand the writer's point.
There is probably no one on the list, including me, who is a perfect
speller, but it would be nice if a spell checker were used more often.
My own experience with these is that the one supplied with Micro Soft
Office lacks knowledge of many common words. We know it won't know
highly technical words, but many times it fails us on fairly common
ones, a failing which I think to be inexcusable. Still, it is useful,
if only to clean up our typing sloppiness.
Whenever I am reading one of the messages that was done very
poorly, spelling (and/or grammar) wise, I do feel for you guys (and
gals) whom are not native English speakers. Since I grew up in a
household of German language speakers, I did learn the sounds of another
language, albeit a closely related one, but at the time of my childhood
and most absorbent period, they actually didn't want me and my sister to
learn German, so we didn't. I am somewhat envious of those who do have
more than one language under their hat.
You do quite well with English, far better than I with any
language other than English, so thanks for the cultural transfer and
enrichment.
Duane Rueb
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michel
Verheughe
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: off topic WAS Date time note
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Apr 14, 2006, at 3:21 PM, Rex wrote:
> Here's something that I sometimes wonder about. For the listers whom
> English is not their primary language.
Please, allow me.
English is not the "easiest language to communicate" for one good
reason: It has the largest vocabulary of all languages. More words
equal more to learn, equal more difficult to learn, isn't it?
However, having French as mother tongue and Norwegian as my everyday's
language, English is easy for me. Let me demonstrate with these words:
Oxford University.
Now, this is the oldest university in Europe. It was built in a place
where the river Thames was so narrow that an ox could ford over the
river, hence: Oxford. In Norwegian: Oks ferd. English is an Anglo-Saxon
language, from the people who inhabited the south of Denmark and north
of Germany. Norwegian is a Danish dialect.
"University" on the other hand, is a Latin name that came into the
English language via French and the Norman invasion. About half of the
English language has a French/Latin origin.
Take the following sentence: A case of non-assistance to a person in
danger. Now, in French: "Un cas de non-assistance a une personne en
danger." Pretty much the same, isn't it?
So, for me English is easy and, I guess, somewhat easy for anyone
speaking a German or Latin language. But it must be, in my humble
opinion, difficult for those who speak a Slavic or a non-European
language.
Furthermore, the Scandinavians and the Dutch see everything on the
cinema or television, in the original version. John Wayne speaks
English. In the other countries, films are either dubbed or with
voice-over.
So, for the Norwegians, English is like a second language. To the point
where, when I was first in this country, speaking a very poor
Norwegians, many went over to English, assuming that I would speak it
better than their own tongue.
Last, I notice, sometimes, typing errors on this list. E.g. "hanger"
instead of "hangar." I guess it is just writing as one speaks. The
reason I notice those errors is that, because my English if far from
perfect, I often use a speller. While it helps me to write the correct
words, it doesn't improve my grammar and, often, I use the wrong adverb
or simply built sentences in a way native English speakers, wouldn't.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 17
| 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: Skyscrew tax deductions |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Greaves" <tenorio41@comcast.net>
Like a post script to a very painful/maddening event in my life. The
painful truth is better than a pleasant lie....just wish Skyscrew held
themselves to that!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Miles" <f.miles.tcp.833@clearwire.net>
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 8:10 AM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Skyscrew tax deductions
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Frank Miles"
> <f.miles.tcp.833@clearwire.net>
>
> Very well said. Succinct and to the point
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave and
> Diane
> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 5:54 AM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Skyscrew tax deductions
>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dave and Diane <ddsyverson@comcast.net>
>
> Good morning,
>
> A while back some information was exchanged on the list regarding if a
> person could, or could not, deduct the losses we suffered due to the
> bankrupcy.
>
> I also recall that someone said that a hobby loss could be deducted.
>
> I want to share what I found out to help keep my friends from getting
> unnecessary and unwelcomed attention from the IRS.
>
> I am not a tax accountant, but I have a pretty good grip on how to sort
> through regulations. I do that as my day job - it is just not in the tax
> accounting area. I will provide some references - please check them out
> and
> don't take my word for it - everyone has to get this affirmed in their own
> mind as to what is correct and not correct.
>
> 1) If you purchased a kit or materials in the course of running a
> business,
> this is a no brainer - its a business loss and it is deductible - this is
> not what I am concerned with.
>
> 2) Those of us who purchased a kit or materials NOT in the course of
> running
> a business are compelled to abide by a different set of rules. This is
> generally regarded as a hobby activity; and, that definition is pretty
> much
> recapitulated by another government agency - the FAA, regarding
> constructing
> a homebuilt as an endeavor for our personal edification, interest, etc.
>
> Please look up on the IRS website ( www.irs.gov - not www.irs.com) and
> find
> publication 529, page 14 which shows a list of NON DEDUCTIBLE
> miscellaneous
> items. It clearly says that HOBBY LOSSES ARE NOT deductible. What is
> deductible is hobby expenses up to the limit of hobby income. Other parts
> of
> the document will tell you what can be deducted for miscellaneous
> expenses.
> Although we are generating a small fortune through our activity, we do so
> by
> starting out with a large fortune and we normally do not have any hobby
> income in building an experimental aircraft so that has some limits - let
> alone the issues with the CFRs regarding noncommercial pilots charging
> beyond sharing expenses. Most hobby income has to do with someone building
> some artsy-craftsy objects and then selling them - in that case, the
> expenses (up to the limit of the income only) in doing the hobby can be
> deducted.
>
> 3) I also looked into the theft and casualty loss deductions. While anyone
> with a little concept of ethics and two or three brain cells firing at the
> time will come to the conclusion that when someone takes your deposites
> and
> lies to you over the course of year - it is theft and it is fraud;
> HOWEVER,
> there is a difference between basic morality and the laws of the land.
> While
> the bankrupcy laws protect folks who genuinely had bad luck or difficult
> circumstances, they also cover folks who mismanage and lie to their
> customers about about what they are doing with ytheir money - a successful
> criminal court case would be necessary to make this any different. For a
> loss to be defined as a casualty loss, it has to meet certain criteria,
> like
> a burning building or a hurricane. For a loss to be defined as a theft,
> someone has to bust into your place, take your stuff and get away with it,
> or use a deadly weapon to convince you top give up your stuff;
> unfortunately
> it does not apply to!
> someone if they make off with you money through bankrupcy proceedings.
>
> 4) Not that I would trust without verification (I did verify); but, I did
> contact an IRS agent and talk through the casualty and loss type of
> deductions - pretty clear, a bankrupcy loss is neither a casualty of
> theft
> loss. If your insurance won't cover it, neither will the IRS.
>
> 5) There is a situation which where bankrupcy lossses are deductible, but
> it
> has to do with a bankrupcy of a financial institution where you lost
> investment money.
>
> So, having said all that, I want everyone to know that I just don't want
> anyone in our group getting into trouble over this - look it up for
> yourself, be informed and stay out of trouble - sometimes it hurts to stay
> out of trouble.
>
> "Virtue is its own reward - there is seldom any other reward"
>
> Sincerely
>
> Dave S
>
>
>
Message 18
| 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: | [Off-topic] Aviation Mobile |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Apr 14, 2006, at 4:09 PM, Lowell Fitt wrote:
>
> It would be interesting to understand the different thinking.
Yes, it would be interesting to know, Lowell. I think the Europeans see
ham radio on an aircraft as a possible danger, if not to the aircraft's
radio itself, to the surrounding transmitters in the vicinity of an
airport.
But there are more to that, in Europe, a ham can't further packet radio
to the internet. Well ... he can, but then manually. But he can't write
say, a program, that does it automatically. That's because, as opposed
to American hams, one cannot broadcast on behalf of someone else. The
idea here is to make sure ham is a hobby and can't be used
professionally. In the US, it is different, probably because, at the
birth of radio, hams and broadcasters were the same breed.
Now, if I was to fly my Kitfox, as a passenger, having a radio and my
keyer, and sending on the 20 meters band, no one will notice or
complain. But since I can't send a QSL card stating LA0HA/AM, the fun
is not the same.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 19
| 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: off topic: Languages |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Apr 14, 2006, at 9:39 PM, Rueb, Duane wrote:
> You do quite well with English,
Thank you Duane.
I would never make fun of someone writing with a lot of mistakes, even
his or her mother tongue. There are many people suffering of dyslexia
or other speech/writing disorders. On the other hand, it is very
pleasant to read something that is well written. However, the art of
writing is maybe old fashion. In the old days, when writing meant to
sharpen a pen, dip it in the ink, and write carefully on a precious
piece of paper, one was more careful. While the internet broaden our
communications, and we write so much more, it goes at the price of
quality.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 20
| 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: [Off-topic] Aviation Mobile |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Richard Rabbers" <rira1950@yahoo.com>
> 20 meter band...
while we're off topic
- I wonder why the US does not refer to wave lengths in yards?
... 20 meter = 21.8722659667754...............
There's the reason!
--------
Richard in SW Michigan
Model 1 / 618 - full-lotus floats (restoration)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=28437#28437
Message 21
| 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: off topic: Languages |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Dave and Diane <ddsyverson@comcast.net>
Well guys,
For an off topic post, I am not really sure it is off topic.
For those who grew up with english as their first language, all of the goofy
expression routinely used make perfect sense.
But then, how would you explain to someone who does not have english as a
first language, the fact that "a slim chance" and "a fat chance" mean the
same thing; we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway; then there are
things which don't make that much phonetic sense, such as "a settling tank"
and "acetylene tank"; or worse yet "hormones" and "w____ moans".
Its gotta be confusing to an english as a second language person who is just
starting to learn it.
Now - why is this not really off topic? As pilots, we stick to a refined and
defined version of the language, particularily when working with a flight
briefer, tower or enroute controller; that is why we have the Pilots and
Controllers Glossary - so both sides are speaking the same language, Pilots
of many different language backgrounds, even with limited english, can get
along just fine in the system because we have this succinct version of the
language we all use.
Problems do arise when folks start getting a bit too loosy goosey with the
definitions, such as the Chicago controller who casually instructed a
transport departing an airport to the north to make a "right turn to 70" -
the pilot, understood "right turn, 270" - which he proceeded to do, resulting
in a whole lot of unanticipated re-routing of aircraft. Nobody the worse for
the wear, and, possibly a bit of justice in that the controller had to suffer
with the results of his indiscretion by needing to sort the mess out in front
of his peers and probably a little discussion with management.
Dave S
DO NOT ARCHIVE
On Friday 14 April 2006 3:46 pm, Michel Verheughe wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
>
> On Apr 14, 2006, at 9:39 PM, Rueb, Duane wrote:
> > You do quite well with English,
>
> Thank you Duane.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> do not archive
>
>
Message 22
| 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: off topic WAS Date time note |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Rex <gypsybee@copper.net>
Thanks Michel, I wish I had your command of languages. So if English is
not the easiest, which is? Who knows? My understanding of the statement
was that someone could make a lot of grammatical and pronunciation
errors and more likely still get the message across better than other
languages. Thus American English is often more tolerant of errors for
communication. I agree English has these odd words which makes it
difficult since there are more exceptions to the rules of pronunciation.
As you pointed out in your message there are very many words adopted
from other languages that are now part of English. Such is the way of
American English with the varied influences of people from so many
countries that settled here and who continue to immigrate here. It
follows that there are many more words used and substituted than in
British English. American English continues to evolve with the USA
experiment. Human nature being what it is, good and bad, it hasn't all
been pretty.
My original thought said another way, was how much harder do we make
these discussions for our international members when we type language
errors? Sometimes I think I would have a really tough time if similar
mistakes were common in emails were I on a List in German or Spanish.
(I'm glad I don't have to!) :-)
Rex
Florida
Do not archive
Message 23
| 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: off topic: Languages |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
It is funny how the human mind works, especially with
something as important as language. For example:
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it
deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod
are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and
lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a
total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm.
Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey
lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe
I wonder if this is as easy to read for those who do
not have English as a primary language as it is for
those who do?
I also know that we tend to look at immages
differently depending upon how we read. Chinese
people, who read vertically, will interept body
language and art differently because they place
priority on a different place in the image than left
to right readers do. We see someone looking from left
to right as pleasingly progressive or superior and
those looking from right to left as more contrary or
inferior. But what if you read from right to left, or
top to bottom? The priority point shifts in the
immage for you depending on your learned scanning from
reading.
Which way should the bunny rabbit hop across the
screen so as not to scare the children? Depends upon
whether they have started reading yet or not.
People in advertising and journalism know and use this
skill to infleuence your thinking without you catching
on. The favored product or politician is positioned
in the favorite space for us, and the unfavored one
is given a contrarian or inferior position. Most
people react emotionally to the position before they
ever get to the substance.
But this doesn't always translate well in other
countries. Sometimes a difference of opinion can be
this simple - a matter of scanning based upon reading.
I have seen it more easily demonstrated in how people
view art.
Ah, for a quiet list.....
Kurt S.
Message 24
| 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: off topic: Languages |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Right Dave!
I learned that it was hard to explain in German how
you can chop a tree down, and then chop it up.
Likewise the Brizialian controllers that I hear
consistantly using the Portugese word for half-a-dozen
instead of six (6) for frequencies, call signs and
such. Wad'he'say?
Kurt S.
--- Dave and Diane <ddsyverson@comcast.net> wrote:
> Well guys,
>
> For an off topic post, I am not really sure it is
> off topic.
>
> For those who grew up with english as their first
> language, all of the goofy
> expression routinely used make perfect sense.
........................
>
> Dave S
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 25
| 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: off topic: Languages |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels@fmtc.com>
I realize this is not an airplane topic, but I am very pleased that we
can have this discussion. I have never been out of the country and I
find this fascinating. The depth of this group is outstanding. I wish I
had something to add but I don't, but I feel privileged to be to
learning from those that know so much more than I do on this subject.
Thank you
Alan
>
>
Message 26
| 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: off topic - Date time note |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
I love it Big Al!
You immediately got the answer.
Given that my physics is better than my spelling, I
think I'll stick it out here while the list is quiet.
We are way out of Popular Science and into Scientific
American territory mow. Theory that is changed by the
act of looking for the proof..... Uncertainity
principle? Chaos and anti-chaos theory?
You probably liked the origional Hitch Hiker's Guide
to the Galaxy too? I got the books and movie both.
42???
Hubble's constant?
I like to use flouresent lights as my "simple" and
every day quantum physics application. Jumpin'
electrons, orbits and wavelenghts. Absorbtion and
re-emmition..... It's a start.
The example I gave is an older experiment where the
light was then shined on a second pair of polarized
lenses as detectors and you could determine that
changing the polarity of 1/2 of the beam meant that
the second beam would no longer penetrate its
polarized lense until it was also turned. Messy as
you said, but an interesting experiment.
You are exactly right that if we view things in light
speed and "no time" the answer is much more obvious.
What we may see as light beams split and miles or
light years apart is really still connected to the
source, or everywhere at once.
This leads me to 3 points.
Have you heard of the recent success in entraping
light or "stopping" it? A photon you say....
Suppose that you split the beam (or entangled photons)
in 2 and polarized each half, then entrapped them.
Now if you carry the case for each half to any remote
location, you can still (?) change the polarity of the
other half by changing yours.
Take 40 or so such paired split beams and make a
"typewriter" from them that changes the orientation of
each 1/2 beam for characters and symbols selected as a
transmitter, or reads the polarity of those you have
as a reciever. Perhaps an unjammable and undetectable
communications device with no range limits? Beats
VHF! I'll let you build the detector.
Second point: If we replace the cat in the box with a
scientist and give the outside observer scientist a
gun, I bet we can determine if the scientist in the
box is alive or dead within a shot or 2 without
opening the box..... The boxed scientist will either
scream, or not..... I just like cats... ;-) And not
uncertainty.....
Third, if gravity is such a problem to the unified
field theory.... Do you notice that we don't really
need any gravity in 4 dimensional space? Inertia will
explain the observed effects, if time is considered.
Accelleration requires a time component.
All except you can still have "gravity waves" as in
the unfolding of space-time, if mass is converted to
energy. But I think the 3 remaining forces can do the
whole job by themselves if we just recognize that we
have time enertia too.
Or am I just pulling your strings? :-) After all, I
am just a KitFox driver. ;-)
OK, everybody got that? There will be a test....
Kurt S.
Do not archive
Message 27
| 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: off topic: Languages |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Mo" <mo44d@comcast.net>
Perhaps the easiest spoken language is Chinese. It doesn't have any
tenses or articles ( a or the ), as, I go to store last week, or, I go to
store next week. It does have a very difficult written language though.
Maurice Fitzgerald, N831MF, S7 912S whose kit was released from Skyscrew
last Friday and is now in John McBean's hangar.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan & Linda Daniels" <aldaniels@fmtc.com>
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: off topic: Languages
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Alan & Linda Daniels
<aldaniels@fmtc.com>
>
> I realize this is not an airplane topic, but I am very pleased that we
> can have this discussion. I have never been out of the country and I
> find this fascinating. The depth of this group is outstanding. I wish I
> had something to add but I don't, but I feel privileged to be to
> learning from those that know so much more than I do on this subject.
>
> Thank you
>
> Alan
>
> >
> >
>
>
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! --
|