e PS fallen out of favour in the US? Are Americans joining > the > Coast Guard Auxiliary instead? I was very interested in joining the PS a while back. I looked up the web site and all the info on classes and such was over 6 months out of date. I sent a Email to the listed address and received no reply. I guess it is a restrictive club that is not interested in new members Morley

and need) new members. I suggest that you contact the squadron in your area and talk to them. As you know they ( we) are all volunteers. so , if something is not 100% correct we do have families and businesses to run. We teach thousands of people every year in classes from basic boating through celestial with ALL VOLUNTEER TEACHERS. The courses are designed with the beginner in mind for pleasure boaters. To counter what one or two said about them being too simple or not challenging enough they are not designed to get you a six pack license. I hasten to add that if you have taken even some USPS courses you will find the six pack material much easier to learn. CCC- LETS ROLL! Charles and Pat Culotta Patterson, La. Web Site: http://www.geocities.com/charlesculotta/

message. Never heard a word. Too bad. Regards, John Gaquin Brefnie Queen, 32' Luhrs blocked and wrapped @ Bass River Marina, West Dennis, MA

alled the number they gave me, > left a message. Never heard a word. Too bad. Well John, at least the fellows at the boat show booth would speak to you. I approached the USPS booth twice at a regional boat show, but the three bearded, salty-looking admirals (to judge by their dress whites and gold braid) were much too busy discussing organizational affairs to speak with an outsider. And Charles Culotta wrote: > All local squadrons want ( and need) new members. > I suggest that you contact the squadron in your area and talk to them. I always enjoy your posts to TWL, Charles, but, at least in my area, the USPS gives no sign of being interested in fresh blood. I found the local squadron had a listed phone number. Only an answering machine, but that's fair enough; it is a volunteer organization. Over the course of several months I left three messages on their machine. Never heard from them. Well, that's all anecdotal, and no doubt the USPS does a great deal of good. But it seems obvious from many comments in this thread that I'm not alone in my perception. Sorry to be throwing still more fuel on the fire... :( -- Dave Goodman M/V Dragonfly Sarasota, FL

o > you. I approached the USPS booth twice at a regional boat show, but the > three bearded, salty-looking admirals (to judge by their dress whites > and gold braid) were much too busy discussing organizational affairs to > speak with an outsider. > > And Charles Culotta wrote: > > > All local squadrons want ( and need) new members. > > I suggest that you contact the squadron in your area and talk to them. > > I always enjoy your posts to TWL, Charles, but, at least in my area, the > USPS gives no sign of being interested in fresh blood. > > Sorry to be throwing still more fuel on the fire... :( > > Dave Goodman Guys, Unfortunately there are (probably) too darn many as you have described. It is true that your experiences are anecdotal however that is only an excuse as there is no reason for such ill treatment. I SHALL bring this to the attention of the powers that be. I imagine there are a number of USPS members on this list , I suggest that ALL of us contact the home office!!! e mail addresses are on the inside back cover of ENSIGN. CCC-- LETS ROLL! Charles and Pat Culotta Patterson, La. Web Site: http://www.geocities.com/charlesculotta/

the Ensign stopped listening years ago - might be to busy polishing their uniform buttons or filling out their expense accoutant reports ... A sad state of affairs for Chapy's Navy .. I agree. All the best Ken D/Lt

. Here is where you can find them: http://thomas.loc.gov/ http://www.house.gov/writerep/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/ _______________________________ `Recreational Waters Protection Act H. R. 1730 107th CONGRESS 1st Session H.R. 1730 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to marine sanitation devices. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 3, 2001 Mr. SAXTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: ______________________________________________________________________________________ A BILL To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to marine sanitation devices. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Recreational Waters Protection Act'. SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. (a) FINDINGS- Congress finds the following: (1) Performance standards for marine sanitation devices were first authorized by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. (2) Marine sanitation device standards have not been updated since regulations were first implemented pursuant to that Act. (3) Advances in marine sanitation device technology have now made it practical for wastes to be treated on board a vessel to the extent that coliform count can be reduced below that required for shellfish harvest, and provide treatment that is superior to that required by shoreside treatment facilities. (4) Setting new marine sanitation device performance standards will recognize existing technological advances and spur further innovation to a level of on-board waste treatment far superior to that envisioned by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. (b) PURPOSE- The purpose of this Act is (1) to promote the use of the best available technology in Type I marine sanitation devices, and (2) to revise the minimum standards for marine sanitation devices so that such standards meet the fecal coliform standards of each of the 50 States or the Federal fecal coliform standard for the harvesting of shellfish for human consumption. SEC. 3. REVISED STANDARDS FOR MARINE SANITATION DEVICES. Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall complete a review of the capabilities of existing marine sanitation technology and publish revised standards for new marine sanitation devices pursuant to section 312(c)(1)(A) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1322(c)(1)(A)). The revised standards shall require a baseline effluent water quality for fecal coliform of not more than 10 fecal coliform per 100 milliliters and shall require a reduction in biological oxygen demand of at least 35 percent. SEC. 4. STATE PROHIBITION. Section 312(f)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1322(f)(3)) is amended-- (1) by inserting `(A)' before `After'; and (2) by adding at the end the following: `(B) A prohibition under subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a vessel that operates a type I marine sanitation device that meets the standards for marine sanitation devices revised pursuant to section 2 of the Recreational Waters Protection Act and published under subsection (c)(1)(A) after the date of enactment of this subparagraph.'. Go get 'em! -- -- __________________ Keith Everybody should believe in something: I believe I'll have another drink.

l avoid > buying their products in the future... just don't like their way of doing > business... >>> snip<<< > it just feels like a grab the money and run, to hell with the customer, kind of > a company... REPLY Unfortunately this kind of mindset seem to prevail in the current crop of up and coming business executives - many of them MBA's - This kind of attitude pleases their bosses and fits with the corporate moral culture we see so much of today. The older generation of business executive who survived hard times in the past and who favour customer service and building up a loyal clientele are retiring and their collective wisdom is being rejected by the younger generation who are replacing them. These younger executives have never experienced the hard times which can only be survived by having loyal customers who continue to buy a product in spite of things. I used to deal with Garmin and find the corporate personality much changed since then. My old contacts have all disappeared. I stand by my earlier statement that this is an example of what so often happens when a corporation goes public and shifts from pleasing the customer to pleasing the stock holder. They hope they can retain market share by always coming up with new products that appeal by virtue of novelty or convenience or cheap purchase price. They are gambling on the fickle nature of most consumers. Why build a product that last ten years when it will be tossed out in five or less because the owner is bored with it? We still live very much in a consumer culture that does not value longevity and reliability over decades of use. We prefer to buy new with a warranty over having something repaired and no warranty. Our social values are very different now than it was right after WW2. This is reflected in our throw away consumer oriented society. Conservation is still a very new and minority view. Cheers Arild

mmercial codes that effectively allows anything to go in a shrink wrap license. Been passed in VA and MD...so don't buy software there. It is being heavily opposed by the tech organizations and the consumer groups but the outcome is certainly not clear. Microsoft and Intel have a lot more money than Consumer Union or IEEE. > > > Michael Cannon wrote > > As far as I can tell, Garmin went public in the last two > years... they are a > > Cayman Island company but owned by american citizens... > obviously to reduce tax > > burden... I found the people in the US to be exceedingly unresponsive to > > requests for help. > > > > REPLY > Unfortunately this kind of mindset seem to prevail in the current > crop of up > and coming business executives - many of them MBA's - > This kind of attitude pleases their bosses and fits with the > corporate moral > culture we see so much of today. > As a long term line technical exec bull.. The old guys were the same. The problem they all have is to maximize return within the rules as defined. Cooking the books a bit is a long term and well understood technique. The only rule violated by the present set is getting caught. My old employer used any number of techniques to look good on Wall Street...and if the CEO had not he would simple have been replaced by somebody who knew how to deal a business second. > The chart problem is being screwed up by the governments involved. The old US rule was probably optimum. Provide the data to whomever at the cost of reproduction. The only other good way may be a true commercial organization which actually takes the responsibility for providing good data. Some version of Jeppesen of aviation fame (though they were I believe, just about a part of the government). My old employer made very reliable and effectively infinite lived electronic printers. There was much discussion about seperately licensing the software to prevent reselling of the older stuff impacting the business. Note that there is currently talk of doing the same thing on things like automobiles...you have to renew your software every five years or the car degrades or quits. Given the sw guys prevail expect to pay by the event...each time you open a chart $.10. That is where they want to go.. Jim