tempreture change. help!!!!!

[ron criswell]

To be a great politician is not necessary what you do, it is what you convince the people that you do. Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy, Roosevelt were all great at that (not to mention Hitler). Criswell

On Sunday, May 8, 2005, at 03:20 AM, scott quillen wrote: > Eric, > > That was quite a history lesson...THANKS! > > Giving Reagan credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union is akin to > giving Clinton credit for the economic prosperity we enjoyed during > his time in the oval office . Yet a ton of Democrats have no problem > with that! > > Respectfully, > Scott > > "Eric L. Green" wrote: > On Sat, 7 May 2005, Russell Scott wrote: >> I would say getting Soviet communism to fold like a house of cards >> was a >> slightly bigger accomplishment. > > Actually, that had little to do with Reagan. The seeds of the collapse > of > the Soviet Union were laid back in the early 1970's when little-known > companies like Fairchild and Intel came out with little thingies called > "micro-processors". A Soviet-style Communist state is ideal for > producing > large amounts of steel-age industrial goods for a war-time economy -- > the > Soviets actually produced more tanks during WWII than we did, despite > the > fact that every single one of their major tank factories had to be > dismantled in front of the oncoming German advance and reassembled on > the > other side of the Causcausus -- but a modern information-age economy > needs > a flexibility far beyond that available via the creaking reins of > centralized state control, and without a modern information-age > economy, > you cannot build modern weapons except by devoting ever-increasing > portions of your economy to that purpose, to the point where the whole > house of card collapses. (See "Connections" by James Burke for more > info > on the basic economic theory that I'm using here). > > By the time Reagan took office, the Soviet Union was already on its > death > bed. Andropov took charge as a reformer after Brezhnev's death > primarily > because the Politburo had already recognized that the Soviet Union had > already fallen far behind the Western world technologically, and that > further Brezhnev-style centralized planning would make the situation > even > worse. Soviet military technology relied on brute force to do what the > U.S. did with technology -- for example, in order to get a fighter jet > to > match the F-15, the Soviets had to build a fighter jet so large to > carry > the fuel needed by its inefficient engines that it (the Su-27) was > literally twice the size of the F-15, and correspondingly ineffective > if > ever it got into a dogfight with the F-15, and the thing spent most of > its > first ten years in service crashing and didn't make it into service > until > 1982, over seven years after the F-15 had entered service. Everything > else > in the Soviet Union was similarly creaky. Their entire economy was in > meltdown. 60% of their GDP was being used to support the military > because > they were trying to do with brute force what the U.S. was doing with > technology, and as a result their entire infrastructure was collapsing > -- > Aroads, railroads, pipelines, steel factories, the works, all were in > increasingly desperate shape, held together by little more than bailing > wire and prayer. > > Reagan certainly took advantage of the fact that the Soviets were in no > position to match the U.S. technologically, but most of what he used > to do > this had already been on the drawing board for years (e.g. the M1 > tanks, > which finally gave the U.S. the clean slate needed to instantly > obsolete > every Soviet tank in existence, started production in late 1978 and > entered service in February 1980 just as Reagan was taking the oath of > office). The final collapse of the Soviet Union was inevitable no > matter > who had been elected President in 1980... by 1990, when the Iron > Curtain > fell, U.S. technology had advanced so fast in the prior ten years and > Soviet infrastructure had crumbled so far that no matter who was > President, it was all over but the shouting. > > The actual collapse of the Soviet Union itself in 1991 was a surprise > only > to Republicans, who had spent so much time building up the Soviet > Union as > this enormous bogey-man that they were shocked to find that the threat > to > the world that they'd built up the Soviet Union as being had all been a > hoax for at least ten years. The vaunted Soviet military technology > turned > out to not work as well in real life as it did at air shows and in > parades, the Soviet army proved to be a paper tiger, half of the Soviet > Union was hungry on any given night, the other half was shivering in > the > cold because the gas pipelines had more holes than intact pipe in them. > The soldiers were literally starving in their barracks, the vaunted air > defenses were useless for lack of jet fighter fuel and spare parts, and > the only thing in surplus was vodka. And this had been true since > before > Reagan had taken office, but nobody wanted to point that out because > the > Soviets still had images of the German attack upon them in WWII in > their > minds and thus wanted to present a threat image to put the West onto > the > defensive even though they were in no position to threaten anybody, > and of > course it was good politically for Republicans to build the Soviet > Union > into more of a threat than they actually were, since this in turn > allowed > them to scare the populance into believing that unless they elected > Republicans, the Soviet army would be showing up on the Rio Grande any > minute. And of course some Sovietologists and even the noted right-wing > science fiction writer Robert Heinlein (who had visited the Soviet > Union > in the early 70's and discovered that the Soviets were lying even to > themselves about the dire straits they were in, e.g., pointed out that > the > number of rail lines going into Moscow would not in any way support the > numer of people that the Soviets claimed lived in Moscow) had pointed > out > long before that the Soviet Union was approaching collapse, but nobody > had > believed them because the Soviet Union had been around so long and the > Republicans were saying it was a big threat and the Soviets were > puffing > up their chests and pretending they were a big threat, so... > > Anyhow, this is one of my pet peeves as a historian of the era -- > giving > Ronald Reagan the credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union when it > was > actually the Information Age with its concurrent technological advances > combined with the inherent idiocy and inflexibility of Communism that > caused the collapse. Reagan certainly did the right things to help the > Soviets along their road to collapse, but the Soviets had already > embarked > on that road to collapse long before Reagan took office (indeed, the > Soviet failure in the moon race was a sign that the days of Soviet > technological equivalence were gone), and at best he gave them a slight > kick in the behind to help them down a path they were already going > down. > > -E > > > Archive Quicksearch at: > http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html > List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com > List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! Mail Mobile > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > Archive Quicksearch at: > http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html > List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com > List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > >

[dooden]

Thats right.. Uncle Ronnie out spent them into submission.. Been there, did that. We never did hit his 600 ship goal, before that commie house of cards fell, then ole Slick Willy the Cigar Boy got his way. Funniest thing Uncle Ronnie ever said was along the lines to a reporter asking him about the amount of money being spent on the B-1 Bomber and he said: "Bomber ? I thought we were buying vitamins for the troops" Pick your own hero's, Uncle Ronnie was one of mine. Enjoy your freedom to express your differences, but remember your welcome cause I spent 20 years defending your right to have that difference. Dooden (Cold War Vet) A15 Green Ape

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Russell Scott" wrote: > I would say getting Soviet communism to fold like a house of cards was a > slightly bigger accomplishment. > > R > > -----Original Message----- > From: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com]On > Behalf Of RM > Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 10:08 PM > To: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [DSN_KLR650] NKLR - tariffs > > > On Sat, 7 May 2005 08:48:24 -0700, "Ron Criswell" said: > > >Reagan's tariff on foreign motorcycles over 700 cc did save Harley's > >butt though. > > Big whoop. Saving Harley's butt was hardly a worthwhile accomplishment.

[scott quillen]

Dooden, Spent my own 20 in the Air Force...don't expect anyone to thank me though...I was selfish...did it for me ;^) and real glad I did! Scott Dooden wrote: Thats right.. Uncle Ronnie out spent them into submission.. Been there, did that. We never did hit his 600 ship goal, before that commie house of cards fell, then ole Slick Willy the Cigar Boy got his way. Funniest thing Uncle Ronnie ever said was along the lines to a reporter asking him about the amount of money being spent on the B-1 Bomber and he said: "Bomber ? I thought we were buying vitamins for the troops" Pick your own hero's, Uncle Ronnie was one of mine. Enjoy your freedom to express your differences, but remember your welcome cause I spent 20 years defending your right to have that difference. Dooden (Cold War Vet) A15 Green Ape

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Russell Scott" wrote: > I would say getting Soviet communism to fold like a house of cards was a > slightly bigger accomplishment. > > R > > -----Original Message----- > From: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com]On > Behalf Of RM > Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 10:08 PM > To: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [DSN_KLR650] NKLR - tariffs > > > On Sat, 7 May 2005 08:48:24 -0700, "Ron Criswell" said: > > >Reagan's tariff on foreign motorcycles over 700 cc did save Harley's > >butt though. > > Big whoop. Saving Harley's butt was hardly a worthwhile accomplishment. Archive Quicksearch at: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[dooden]

Reckon you aimed high enough for you hey.. Glad I got the retirement outta it for sure. Dooden A15 Green Ape

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, scott quillen wrote: > Dooden, > > Spent my own 20 in the Air Force...don't expect anyone to thank me though...I was selfish...did it for me ;^) and real glad I did! > > Scott > > Dooden wrote: > Thats right.. Uncle Ronnie out spent them into submission.. > > Been there, did that. > > We never did hit his 600 ship goal, before that commie house of cards > fell, then ole Slick Willy the Cigar Boy got his way. > > Funniest thing Uncle Ronnie ever said was along the lines to a > reporter asking him about the amount of money being spent on the B-1 > Bomber and he said: > > "Bomber ? I thought we were buying vitamins for the troops"

[Don Dotson]

--- Dooden wrote:

> > Funniest thing Uncle Ronnie ever said was along the > lines to a > reporter asking him about the amount of money being > spent on the B-1 > Bomber and he said: > > "Bomber ? I thought we were buying vitamins for the > troops"

And one of the saddest things he ever said (referring to the school lunch program), was: "the kids don't need any vegetables, they have ketchup!" don in UTah A15 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

[Eric L. Green]

On Sun, 8 May 2005, scott quillen wrote:

> Eric, > > That was quite a history lesson...THANKS! > > Giving Reagan credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union is akin to > giving Clinton credit for the economic prosperity we enjoyed during his > time in the oval office . Yet a ton of Democrats have no problem with > that!

That is an astute comparison. Just as with Reagan and the Soviets, the best you can say about Clinton is that he gave a kick to the pants of a trend that was already underway. Indeed, most of the policies he followed were virtually identical to those of his predecessor, George H.W. Bush, who I feel is a vastly under-rated President. E.g. NAFTA was originally negotiated by George H.W. Bush, the downsizing of the military was started by George H.W. Bush (indeed the B-52G bombers that bombed the $#$$ out of Saddam's forces in Desert Storm flew straight to the boneyard in Tucson immediately after leaving combat), the privitization of the Internet was started by George H.W. Bush, the road to a balanced budget was created by George H.W. Bush's tax hike (the one that probably lost him the re-election). The technological revolution that led computers from DOS to Windows XP and Linux was already underway. Clinton's main accomplishment was that he largely acted like a small-government conservative by simply standing aside and letting all this happen. (Which is no small accomplishment, of course, given that politicians seem to have an infinite ability to meddle where they shouldn't!). About the best you can say of Presidents like Reagan and Clinton is that they were smart enough to not get in the way of long-term trends already underway. Which is no small feat, of course, given how prior presidents have managed to screw up things (consider LBJ, Nixon, and Carter, for example, an unholy triumvirate who, between the three of them, managed to seriously damage the U.S. economy and U.S. prestige overseas). While there have been visionary Presidents in the past whose actions *did* made a significant difference (e.g., FDR, by the end of 1942 his Office of War Planning had already created the plan that Truman successfully followed for de-militarizing the U.S. economy and creating American prosperity in the post-war era, thus leading directly to post-war prosperity in America), we haven't had one of those recently, and it's probably for the better -- such Presidents tend to do as much harm as good unless they are President during a time of grave national danger such as that presented by WWII where it is almost impossible for them to make things worse than they already are. (Well, in a way Bush Jr. is a visionary President, and thus further grist for my hypothesis above regarding visionary Presidents, but I won't go there). -E

[Chaz Cooper - Hotmail]

I don't get the connection between motorcycle tariffs and folding Soviet communism. Japanese conspiracy????

----- Original Message ----- From: Russell Scott To: KListeRs Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 11:07 PM Subject: RE: [DSN_KLR650] NKLR - tariffs I would say getting Soviet communism to fold like a house of cards was a slightly bigger accomplishment. R -----Original Message----- From: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of RM Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 10:08 PM To: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com Subject: [DSN_KLR650] NKLR - tariffs On Sat, 7 May 2005 08:48:24 -0700, "Ron Criswell" said: >Reagan's tariff on foreign motorcycles over 700 cc did save Harley's >butt though. Big whoop. Saving Harley's butt was hardly a worthwhile accomplishment. RM Archive Quicksearch at: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html Yahoo! Groups Links Archive Quicksearch at: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Chaz Cooper - Hotmail]

Yeah... damn Republicans. In addition to not taking the correct tack prior to Soviet collapse, I'm sure they're the reason we can't now, and won't in the future (at least intermediate term) be able to compete with Korean and Chinese manufacturing (labor). ;~)

----- Original Message ----- From: Eric L. Green To: Russell Scott Cc: KListeRs Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 1:09 AM Subject: RE: [DSN_KLR650] NKLR - tariffs On Sat, 7 May 2005, Russell Scott wrote: > I would say getting Soviet communism to fold like a house of cards was a > slightly bigger accomplishment. Actually, that had little to do with Reagan. The seeds of the collapse of the Soviet Union were laid back in the early 1970's when little-known companies like Fairchild and Intel came out with little thingies called "micro-processors". A Soviet-style Communist state is ideal for producing large amounts of steel-age industrial goods for a war-time economy -- the Soviets actually produced more tanks during WWII than we did, despite the fact that every single one of their major tank factories had to be dismantled in front of the oncoming German advance and reassembled on the other side of the Causcausus -- but a modern information-age economy needs a flexibility far beyond that available via the creaking reins of centralized state control, and without a modern information-age economy, you cannot build modern weapons except by devoting ever-increasing portions of your economy to that purpose, to the point where the whole house of card collapses. (See "Connections" by James Burke for more info on the basic economic theory that I'm using here). By the time Reagan took office, the Soviet Union was already on its death bed. Andropov took charge as a reformer after Brezhnev's death primarily because the Politburo had already recognized that the Soviet Union had already fallen far behind the Western world technologically, and that further Brezhnev-style centralized planning would make the situation even worse. Soviet military technology relied on brute force to do what the U.S. did with technology -- for example, in order to get a fighter jet to match the F-15, the Soviets had to build a fighter jet so large to carry the fuel needed by its inefficient engines that it (the Su-27) was literally twice the size of the F-15, and correspondingly ineffective if ever it got into a dogfight with the F-15, and the thing spent most of its first ten years in service crashing and didn't make it into service until 1982, over seven years after the F-15 had entered service. Everything else in the Soviet Union was similarly creaky. Their entire economy was in meltdown. 60% of their GDP was being used to support the military because they were trying to do with brute force what the U.S. was doing with technology, and as a result their entire infrastructure was collapsing -- Aroads, railroads, pipelines, steel factories, the works, all were in increasingly desperate shape, held together by little more than bailing wire and prayer. Reagan certainly took advantage of the fact that the Soviets were in no position to match the U.S. technologically, but most of what he used to do this had already been on the drawing board for years (e.g. the M1 tanks, which finally gave the U.S. the clean slate needed to instantly obsolete every Soviet tank in existence, started production in late 1978 and entered service in February 1980 just as Reagan was taking the oath of office). The final collapse of the Soviet Union was inevitable no matter who had been elected President in 1980... by 1990, when the Iron Curtain fell, U.S. technology had advanced so fast in the prior ten years and Soviet infrastructure had crumbled so far that no matter who was President, it was all over but the shouting. The actual collapse of the Soviet Union itself in 1991 was a surprise only to Republicans, who had spent so much time building up the Soviet Union as this enormous bogey-man that they were shocked to find that the threat to the world that they'd built up the Soviet Union as being had all been a hoax for at least ten years. The vaunted Soviet military technology turned out to not work as well in real life as it did at air shows and in parades, the Soviet army proved to be a paper tiger, half of the Soviet Union was hungry on any given night, the other half was shivering in the cold because the gas pipelines had more holes than intact pipe in them. The soldiers were literally starving in their barracks, the vaunted air defenses were useless for lack of jet fighter fuel and spare parts, and the only thing in surplus was vodka. And this had been true since before Reagan had taken office, but nobody wanted to point that out because the Soviets still had images of the German attack upon them in WWII in their minds and thus wanted to present a threat image to put the West onto the defensive even though they were in no position to threaten anybody, and of course it was good politically for Republicans to build the Soviet Union into more of a threat than they actually were, since this in turn allowed them to scare the populance into believing that unless they elected Republicans, the Soviet army would be showing up on the Rio Grande any minute. And of course some Sovietologists and even the noted right-wing science fiction writer Robert Heinlein (who had visited the Soviet Union in the early 70's and discovered that the Soviets were lying even to themselves about the dire straits they were in, e.g., pointed out that the number of rail lines going into Moscow would not in any way support the numer of people that the Soviets claimed lived in Moscow) had pointed out long before that the Soviet Union was approaching collapse, but nobody had believed them because the Soviet Union had been around so long and the Republicans were saying it was a big threat and the Soviets were puffing up their chests and pretending they were a big threat, so... Anyhow, this is one of my pet peeves as a historian of the era -- giving Ronald Reagan the credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union when it was actually the Information Age with its concurrent technological advances combined with the inherent idiocy and inflexibility of Communism that caused the collapse. Reagan certainly did the right things to help the Soviets along their road to collapse, but the Soviets had already embarked on that road to collapse long before Reagan took office (indeed, the Soviet failure in the moon race was a sign that the days of Soviet technological equivalence were gone), and at best he gave them a slight kick in the behind to help them down a path they were already going down. -E Archive Quicksearch at: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Chaz Cooper - Hotmail]

Hear, hear!!! Chuck

----- Original Message ----- From: scott quillen To: Eric L. Green ; Russell Scott Cc: KListeRs Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 3:20 AM Subject: RE: [DSN_KLR650] NKLR - tariffs Eric, That was quite a history lesson...THANKS! Giving Reagan credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union is akin to giving Clinton credit for the economic prosperity we enjoyed during his time in the oval office . Yet a ton of Democrats have no problem with that! Respectfully, Scott "Eric L. Green" wrote: On Sat, 7 May 2005, Russell Scott wrote: > I would say getting Soviet communism to fold like a house of cards was a > slightly bigger accomplishment. Actually, that had little to do with Reagan. The seeds of the collapse of the Soviet Union were laid back in the early 1970's when little-known companies like Fairchild and Intel came out with little thingies called "micro-processors". A Soviet-style Communist state is ideal for producing large amounts of steel-age industrial goods for a war-time economy -- the Soviets actually produced more tanks during WWII than we did, despite the fact that every single one of their major tank factories had to be dismantled in front of the oncoming German advance and reassembled on the other side of the Causcausus -- but a modern information-age economy needs a flexibility far beyond that available via the creaking reins of centralized state control, and without a modern information-age economy, you cannot build modern weapons except by devoting ever-increasing portions of your economy to that purpose, to the point where the whole house of card collapses. (See "Connections" by James Burke for more info on the basic economic theory that I'm using here). By the time Reagan took office, the Soviet Union was already on its death bed. Andropov took charge as a reformer after Brezhnev's death primarily because the Politburo had already recognized that the Soviet Union had already fallen far behind the Western world technologically, and that further Brezhnev-style centralized planning would make the situation even worse. Soviet military technology relied on brute force to do what the U.S. did with technology -- for example, in order to get a fighter jet to match the F-15, the Soviets had to build a fighter jet so large to carry the fuel needed by its inefficient engines that it (the Su-27) was literally twice the size of the F-15, and correspondingly ineffective if ever it got into a dogfight with the F-15, and the thing spent most of its first ten years in service crashing and didn't make it into service until 1982, over seven years after the F-15 had entered service. Everything else in the Soviet Union was similarly creaky. Their entire economy was in meltdown. 60% of their GDP was being used to support the military because they were trying to do with brute force what the U.S. was doing with technology, and as a result their entire infrastructure was collapsing -- Aroads, railroads, pipelines, steel factories, the works, all were in increasingly desperate shape, held together by little more than bailing wire and prayer. Reagan certainly took advantage of the fact that the Soviets were in no position to match the U.S. technologically, but most of what he used to do this had already been on the drawing board for years (e.g. the M1 tanks, which finally gave the U.S. the clean slate needed to instantly obsolete every Soviet tank in existence, started production in late 1978 and entered service in February 1980 just as Reagan was taking the oath of office). The final collapse of the Soviet Union was inevitable no matter who had been elected President in 1980... by 1990, when the Iron Curtain fell, U.S. technology had advanced so fast in the prior ten years and Soviet infrastructure had crumbled so far that no matter who was President, it was all over but the shouting. The actual collapse of the Soviet Union itself in 1991 was a surprise only to Republicans, who had spent so much time building up the Soviet Union as this enormous bogey-man that they were shocked to find that the threat to the world that they'd built up the Soviet Union as being had all been a hoax for at least ten years. The vaunted Soviet military technology turned out to not work as well in real life as it did at air shows and in parades, the Soviet army proved to be a paper tiger, half of the Soviet Union was hungry on any given night, the other half was shivering in the cold because the gas pipelines had more holes than intact pipe in them. The soldiers were literally starving in their barracks, the vaunted air defenses were useless for lack of jet fighter fuel and spare parts, and the only thing in surplus was vodka. And this had been true since before Reagan had taken office, but nobody wanted to point that out because the Soviets still had images of the German attack upon them in WWII in their minds and thus wanted to present a threat image to put the West onto the defensive even though they were in no position to threaten anybody, and of course it was good politically for Republicans to build the Soviet Union into more of a threat than they actually were, since this in turn allowed them to scare the populance into believing that unless they elected Republicans, the Soviet army would be showing up on the Rio Grande any minute. And of course some Sovietologists and even the noted right-wing science fiction writer Robert Heinlein (who had visited the Soviet Union in the early 70's and discovered that the Soviets were lying even to themselves about the dire straits they were in, e.g., pointed out that the number of rail lines going into Moscow would not in any way support the numer of people that the Soviets claimed lived in Moscow) had pointed out long before that the Soviet Union was approaching collapse, but nobody had believed them because the Soviet Union had been around so long and the Republicans were saying it was a big threat and the Soviets were puffing up their chests and pretending they were a big threat, so... Anyhow, this is one of my pet peeves as a historian of the era -- giving Ronald Reagan the credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union when it was actually the Information Age with its concurrent technological advances combined with the inherent idiocy and inflexibility of Communism that caused the collapse. Reagan certainly did the right things to help the Soviets along their road to collapse, but the Soviets had already embarked on that road to collapse long before Reagan took office (indeed, the Soviet failure in the moon race was a sign that the days of Soviet technological equivalence were gone), and at best he gave them a slight kick in the behind to help them down a path they were already going down. -E Archive Quicksearch at: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html Yahoo! Groups Links --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Archive Quicksearch at: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Keith Saltzer]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "clint lee jin yew" wrote:

> before i sent my bike,

Huh? Sent the bike? Where did you send it?

> the fan kicked in at centre of the temp gauge.

That's really close to normal. All the bikes that I have been on the fan kicks on at just a hair past 12:00 on your gauge.

> running temp was just a hair line before the gauge mark .

I don't exactly understand what your describing here either. Normal running temp on the gauge while running down the road at 30 mph plus in temps up to about 75 degrees should be almost 12:00 if the carb and pipe is stock (no adustments) and slightly lower if you've richened the carb up a bit, putting the guage just into the red (normal running temp line) by about 2 needles width.

> > now normal temp is slightly higher by more than 1 hair line. > and the fan kicks in only at 2/3 of gauge

Fan kicking in at 2/3 of the gauge sounds a bit off. How long have you noticed it doing that? MrMoose A8 (Barbie and Ken special)