Listening for Quiet

[daffy]

Quite a good article in the Nov/Dec AARP magazine titled "Listening
for Quiet".
It talks about a silent sanctuary in Washington's Olympic National
park. The article
concluded by someone complaining about the silence broken by a small
plane.

The article said "The small plane flying north more than doubles the
ambient sound,
and we react to the intruder as a threat, drawing in, tracking the
source, hunching for
cover until the last traces of engine noise finally die away."

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:57:17 -0700, daffy >
wrote in om>:

>Quite a good article in the Nov/Dec AARP magazine titled "Listening
>for Quiet".
>It talks about a silent sanctuary in Washington's Olympic National
>park. The article
>concluded by someone complaining about the silence broken by a small
>plane.
>
>The article said "The small plane flying north more than doubles the
>ambient sound,
>and we react to the intruder as a threat, drawing in, tracking the
>source, hunching for
>cover until the last traces of engine noise finally die away."


Did the article happen to mention the duration (in seconds) that the
noise from this "intruder" was detectable? There is little question
that small airplanes are noisy, but they are usually only audible for
about 20 seconds. In the area in question, it may be longer, but the
sonic impact of the occasional lone aircraft is nothing compared
living adjacent to a busy street. Perhaps we should consider closing
all the roads in residential neighborhoods. :-)

[Mxsmanic]

daffy writes:

> The article said "The small plane flying north more than doubles the
> ambient sound,
> and we react to the intruder as a threat, drawing in, tracking the
> source, hunching for
> cover until the last traces of engine noise finally die away."

I guess having the land criss-crossed with highways filled with cars, trucks,
and SUVs doesn't count.

Where I live in the city, I can barely hear the occasional jet or prop
airplane over the constant din of vehicular traffic. And even in the days
when I lived directly beneath a standard arrival for the local (very large)
airport, I never noticed the aircraft--and there wasn't much other noise where
I lived, it's just that modern aircraft are often pretty quiet unless you're
standing right next to them.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Perhaps we should consider closing
> all the roads in residential neighborhoods.

It'll never happen. People are always eager to restrict the liberties of
others, but never of themselves. Since most people drive, they'll resist any
restrictions on driving, but since almost nobody flies, piloting is always
fair game for restrictions.

[Jim Stewart]

daffy wrote:
> Quite a good article in the Nov/Dec AARP magazine titled "Listening
> for Quiet".
> It talks about a silent sanctuary in Washington's Olympic National
> park. The article
> concluded by someone complaining about the silence broken by a small
> plane.
>
> The article said "The small plane flying north more than doubles the
> ambient sound,
> and we react to the intruder as a threat, drawing in, tracking the
> source, hunching for
> cover until the last traces of engine noise finally die away."

Right.

I can count several hundred bass thumping
cars and straight pipe motorcycles for
each GA plane I hear...

Sounds like someone has a hair up their
ass.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Stewart writes:

> Sounds like someone has a hair up their ass.

Maybe, but such people often vote, and they outnumber you.

[Judah]

daffy > wrote in news:1192143437.833720.51620
@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com:

> Quite a good article in the Nov/Dec AARP magazine titled "Listening
> for Quiet".
> It talks about a silent sanctuary in Washington's Olympic National
> park. The article concluded by someone complaining about the silence broken
> by a small plane.
>
> The article said "The small plane flying north more than doubles the
> ambient sound,
> and we react to the intruder as a threat, drawing in, tracking the
> source, hunching for
> cover until the last traces of engine noise finally die away."

I believe there are better sanctuaries for silence in the world than a park.
In the 60's, they made a bunch of bomb shelters, and I think they would be a
much better place to find absolute silence if one is searching for that.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:25:08 -0700, Jim Stewart >
wrote in >:

>
>Sounds like someone has a hair up their ass.

When an airman is rude publicly to a member of the non-aviation
public, it reflects badly on him as an individual, but it also gives
the public the idea that airman are arrogant elitists who don't care
who they annoy. That is a mistake today more than ever, IMNSHO.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-11 15:57:17 -0700, daffy > said:

> Quite a good article in the Nov/Dec AARP magazine titled "Listening
> for Quiet".
> It talks about a silent sanctuary in Washington's Olympic National
> park. The article
> concluded by someone complaining about the silence broken by a small
> plane.
>
> The article said "The small plane flying north more than doubles the
> ambient sound,
> and we react to the intruder as a threat, drawing in, tracking the
> source, hunching for
> cover until the last traces of engine noise finally die away."

The Olympic National Park covers much of northwestern Washington,
including a great deal of the coast, all of the Olympic Mountains, the
Hoh Rain Forest, and much else. It is bordered by important airports
that serve coastal towns, Indian reservations, and international
travel. There are several airports within the boundaries of the park.
There are also several military training areas in and around the park.
There is a narrow corridor between the park and Sub Base Bangor which
is one of the major routes for traffic flying Canada, the San Juan
Islands, Bremerton, Tacoma, Olympia, and Seattle.

Most aircraft avoid flying over the Olympic Mountains because it is
relatively dangerous, rugged territory prone to unpredictable weather
and icing. Because of the park's location, however, and the fact that
the park is broken into two sections, it is not always possible to fly
a route around the park. It can mean adding several hours to a flight
to go around. Not only that, but bad weather in the Strait of Juan de
Fuca, on the coast, or on Puget Sound can leave you little choice.

Pilots do try to maintain at least 2000' above wild areas as requested
by the National Park Service. However, planes taking off or landing
obviously are going to have to fly lower than 2000.' There are
additional aircraft that fly lower than 2000' for scientific and law
enforcement purposes, as well as search and rescue, fire fighting, and
surveying. Specially equipped airplanes regularly fly at low level over
the park as part of the effort to control our borders, fight smuggling,
and look for terrorist activity. Some areas completely bounded by the
park are managed lands set aside for tree farming. There are aircraft
actively involved in logging there. Boeing and some airlines have been
known to conduct training flights at low altitude over the park.

Aviation is a huge and necessary part of the activity at Olympic
National Park, perhaps more so than any other park in the nation. Many
peoples' lives and much of the health of the park itself are dependent
on it. If you want to get away from airplanes and their noise, Olympic
National Park is a poor choice.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Judah]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> When an airman is rude publicly to a member of the non-aviation
> public, it reflects badly on him as an individual, but it also gives
> the public the idea that airman are arrogant elitists who don't care
> who they annoy. That is a mistake today more than ever, IMNSHO.

I think the same holds true even when an airman is rude publicly to another
airman. After all, it is a public forum.

[daffy]

On Oct 11, 9:03 pm, C J Campbell >
wrote:

> Pilots do try to maintain at least 2000' above wild areas as requested
> by the National Park Service. However, planes taking off or landing
> obviously are going to have to fly lower than 2000.' There are
> additional aircraft that fly lower than 2000' for scientific and law

Where can I find the rules and regulations that specify how high
or low a plane can fly over various terrain, like cities, wilderness,
etc.
Also, is there an easy way from the ground to measure the height
of a flying plane?

[Mxsmanic]

Airbus writes:

> Well that's handy - If you're talking about Paris, France the arrival and
> departure procedures are designed to circumnavigate the city . . .

Yes, but as I said, even when I lived in another city beneath an arrival path
for one of the world's largest airports, I still didn't hear much.

It used to be entirely forbidden to overfly Paris without special permission,
but now I do see aircraft occasionally flying over the city. I understand
that rules were relaxed some years ago (ironically not long after 9/11), but
at the same time I still see Paris marked as a prohibited area on the charts,
so I'm not sure what the status is exactly.

[Marty Shapiro]

Airbus > wrote in :

> In article om>,
> says...
>>
>>
>>On Oct 11, 9:03 pm, C J Campbell >
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Pilots do try to maintain at least 2000' above wild areas as requested
>>> by the National Park Service. However, planes taking off or landing
>>> obviously are going to have to fly lower than 2000.' There are
>>> additional aircraft that fly lower than 2000' for scientific and law
>>
>>Where can I find the rules and regulations that specify how high
>>or low a plane can fly over various terrain, like cities, wilderness,
>>etc.
>
> AIM
>
>
>>Also, is there an easy way from the ground to measure the height
>>of a flying plane?
>
> NO
>
>

Actually, the FARs rule, not the AIM.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Mxsmanic]

Airbus writes:

> Not surprising that you are not sure, because you are not a pilot. To pilots,
> the rules and procedures are clear, and vector departures and arrivals may
> route planes over the city.

If only things were so black and white.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-12 14:56:44 -0700, daffy > said:

> On Oct 11, 9:03 pm, C J Campbell >
> wrote:
>
>> Pilots do try to maintain at least 2000' above wild areas as requested
>> by the National Park Service. However, planes taking off or landing
>> obviously are going to have to fly lower than 2000.' There are
>> additional aircraft that fly lower than 2000' for scientific and law
>
> Where can I find the rules and regulations that specify how high
> or low a plane can fly over various terrain, like cities, wilderness,
> etc.
> Also, is there an easy way from the ground to measure the height
> of a flying plane?

The Federal Aviation Regulations can be found in most bookstores and
pilot shops. However, there really aren't many rules.

Federal Aviation Regulation 91.119 spells out the minimum safe altitude
for VFR aircraft. Remember, this is a safety rule, not a noise
abatement rule (although crashing airplanes are pretty noisy):
----------
§*91.119***Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an
aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency
landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or
settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of
1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of
2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the
surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those
cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any
person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums
prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is
conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In
addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any
routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the
Administrator.
----------

As you can see, the above is a general rule. There are numerous
exceptions. Some areas are restricted airspace and have their own
minimum altitude requirements. Also, some wildlife areas, including all
of Olympic National Park, as well as almost all other state and
national parks, nature preserves, and so forth, 'request' that, except
when taking off and landing, you remain 2000 feet above them. Note that
this is a request. It does not have the force of law and it is not a
regulation. There are many reasons it cannot be made a regulation.
However, a pilot who regularly violates this request without a very
good reason is likely to get a phone call from park officials. Since no
one goes and paints a blue dotted line on the ground around all these
areas, pilots who are unfamiliar with an area may inadvertently fly too
low over a preserve.

We also are subject to the same rules as everyone else about
approaching marine mammals too closely or harassing them. When we are
on the water we are boats and are governed by the Coast Guard and have
the same rules as all other boats.

Some Wilderness Areas have airfields in them, although they are rare
and maintained for historic reasons, fire-fighting, or some sort of
compromise worked out with pilots and other interest groups in order to
get the area designated as wilderness. The USDA Forest Service is
usually responsible for these fields and they are generally run with a
strict view to minimizing the impact on wilderness.

Due to the fact that planes come in all shapes, colors and sizes there
is no good way to tell how high they are or how far away they are.
Airplanes can appear to be closer or farther away at different times of
the day or night and in different weather, too. This is a big issue
with pilots. After all, we do not want to run into each other and some
simple method of determining how far away a plane is would be quite
welcome. Besides, we don't like being buzzed by low flying planes any
more than anyone else. If we want to see low flying planes we go to the
airport. Pilots don't like jerks and we have ways of dealing with them.

Although everyone, including the pilots, find airplane noise
objectionable, aircraft are possibly the ultimate in leave-no-trace
visits to parks. Many pilots are rabid environmentalists because we see
the overall effects of environmental damage that are not visible or
difficult to comprehend from the ground. It is not difficult, for
example, to see what parts of Hood Canal are dead or dying, or where a
forest is blighted. We can also see the trash left by humans
everywhere, the bears rummaging through it, and the results of drunken
nitwits who are careless with fire. We can see where criminals have
cleared off public forest lands in order to raise pot. If noisy
airplanes bother you, come for a ride and most of us can show you stuff
that will really raise your blood pressure.

You are possibly aware that large areas of Olympic National Park may
have to be closed to hiking. Much of the forest is dying, as are many
of the meadows, because people have packed down the earth around the
trees and left human excrement several inches deep covering several
acres around the beaches and other popular spots. Some of that silence
you hear is the silence of death. No birds. No animals. Hardly even a
leaf stirring. Think about it.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Airbus writes:
>
>> Not surprising that you are not sure, because you are not a pilot. To
>> pilots, the rules and procedures are clear, and vector departures and
>> arrivals may route planes over the city.
>
> If only things were so black and white.
>

For the purposes of this argument, they are, fjukkwit

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Airbus writes:
>
>> Well that's handy - If you're talking about Paris, France the
>> arrival and departure procedures are designed to circumnavigate the
>> city . . .
>
> Yes, but as I said, even when I lived in another city beneath an
> arrival path for one of the world's largest airports, I still didn't
> hear much.
>
> It used to be entirely forbidden to overfly Paris without special
> permission, but now I do see aircraft occasionally flying over the
> city. I understand that rules were relaxed some years ago (ironically
> not long after 9/11), but at the same time I still see Paris marked as
> a prohibited area on the charts, so I'm not sure what the status is
> exactly.
>



Waht?


You're an idiot.


Bertie

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>daffy writes:
>
>> The article said "The small plane flying north more than doubles the
>> ambient sound,
>> and we react to the intruder as a threat, drawing in, tracking the
>> source, hunching for
>> cover until the last traces of engine noise finally die away."
>
>I guess having the land criss-crossed with highways filled with cars, trucks,
>and SUVs doesn't count.
>
>Where I live in the city, I can barely hear the occasional jet or prop
>airplane over the constant din of vehicular traffic.



Well that's handy - If you're talking about Paris, France the arrival and
departure procedures are designed to circumnavigate the city . . .

[Airbus]

Excellent post.
Proof that pertinent, informational and interesting information can, under
exceptional circumstances, be found on usenet . . .



In article <2007101121031516807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>,
says...

>
>The Olympic National Park covers much of northwestern Washington,
>including a great deal of the coast, all of the Olympic Mountains, the
>Hoh Rain Forest, and much else. It is bordered by important airports
>that serve coastal towns, Indian reservations, and international
>travel. There are several airports within the boundaries of the park.
>There are also several military training areas in and around the park.
>There is a narrow corridor between the park and Sub Base Bangor which
>is one of the major routes for traffic flying Canada, the San Juan
>Islands, Bremerton, Tacoma, Olympia, and Seattle.
>
>Most aircraft avoid flying over the Olympic Mountains because it is
>relatively dangerous, rugged territory prone to unpredictable weather
>and icing. Because of the park's location, however, and the fact that
>the park is broken into two sections, it is not always possible to fly
>a route around the park. It can mean adding several hours to a flight
>to go around. Not only that, but bad weather in the Strait of Juan de
>Fuca, on the coast, or on Puget Sound can leave you little choice.
>
>Pilots do try to maintain at least 2000' above wild areas as requested
>by the National Park Service. However, planes taking off or landing
>obviously are going to have to fly lower than 2000.' There are
>additional aircraft that fly lower than 2000' for scientific and law
>enforcement purposes, as well as search and rescue, fire fighting, and
>surveying. Specially equipped airplanes regularly fly at low level over
>the park as part of the effort to control our borders, fight smuggling,
>and look for terrorist activity. Some areas completely bounded by the
>park are managed lands set aside for tree farming. There are aircraft
>actively involved in logging there. Boeing and some airlines have been
>known to conduct training flights at low altitude over the park.
>
>Aviation is a huge and necessary part of the activity at Olympic
>National Park, perhaps more so than any other park in the nation. Many
>peoples' lives and much of the health of the park itself are dependent
>on it. If you want to get away from airplanes and their noise, Olympic
>National Park is a poor choice.
>
>--
>Waddling Eagle
>World Famous Flight Instructor
>

[Airbus]

In article om>,
says...
>
>
>On Oct 11, 9:03 pm, C J Campbell >
>wrote:
>
>> Pilots do try to maintain at least 2000' above wild areas as requested
>> by the National Park Service. However, planes taking off or landing
>> obviously are going to have to fly lower than 2000.' There are
>> additional aircraft that fly lower than 2000' for scientific and law
>
>Where can I find the rules and regulations that specify how high
>or low a plane can fly over various terrain, like cities, wilderness,
>etc.

AIM


>Also, is there an easy way from the ground to measure the height
>of a flying plane?

NO

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Airbus writes:
>
>> Well that's handy - If you're talking about Paris, France the arrival and
>> departure procedures are designed to circumnavigate the city . . .
>
>Yes, but as I said, even when I lived in another city beneath an arrival path
>for one of the world's largest airports, I still didn't hear much.
>
>It used to be entirely forbidden to overfly Paris without special permission,

No, it was never forbidden to overfly Paris - moreover, the rules are stricter
now than ever ...

>but now I do see aircraft occasionally flying over the city. I understand
>that rules were relaxed some years ago (ironically not long after 9/11), but
>at the same time I still see Paris marked as a prohibited area on the charts,
>so I'm not sure what the status is exactly.

Not surprising that you are not sure, because you are not a pilot. To pilots,
the rules and procedures are clear, and vector departures and arrivals may
route planes over the city. These are limited for political reasons, and remain
exceptional. . .

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Airbus writes:
>
>> Not surprising that you are not sure, because you are not a pilot. To
pilots,
>> the rules and procedures are clear, and vector departures and arrivals may
>> route planes over the city.
>
>If only things were so black and white.

Well, radar vectors are pretty cut and dried - you go where they say.
The arrivals are designed to avoid Paris, but they often vector them right up
to the line - With a 1nm tolerance in B-RNAV a good many of them will be over
the line. Departures often fly over Paris, but they are above 6500ft, where
there is no restriction.

I agree that airplane noise in that and most other cities is insignificaznt
compared with road traffic noise. . .

[Mxsmanic]

Airbus writes:

> Well, radar vectors are pretty cut and dried - you go where they say.

That's not what I meant. I meant that if only all pilots were fully competent
and all non-pilots were fully incompetent. But the reality is otherwise.

> I agree that airplane noise in that and most other cities is insignificaznt
> compared with road traffic noise. . .

Unfortunately, everyone drives cars, but hardly anyone flies airplanes, so
cars get the special consideration.

[Tina]

Mx worte

..> That's not what I meant. I meant that if only all pilots were
fully competent
> and all non-pilots were fully incompetent. But the reality is otherwise.
>
To which I, an nonpilot, can agree, however, the wise person would be
voting to beleive the pilot in matters of the practical aspects of
aviation.

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> To which I, an nonpilot, can agree, however, the wise person would be
> voting to beleive the pilot in matters of the practical aspects of
> aviation.

The wisdom I've acquired has taught me to never believe anyone based on
credentials. I have to see someone demonstrate that he actually knows what he
is talking about before I believe him. It's surprising how frequently people
with credentials turn out to be clueless.

[[email protected]]

Well, the wisdom you have aquired is flawed. It would be much wiser to
make the rebuttable assumption the credentialed indivudual is more
qualified than one claiming to be expert who does not carry the
credentials.

It is laughable when one considers the number of resumes one might see
that claim "Ph.D, Qualified, thesis not completed" Or, among MDs,
"Qualfied for Board Certification."

Such claims make life easier for the decision maker: There are two
broad kinds of mistakes on can make in choosing candidates, or
friends, or experts -- to accept someone now qualified (a mistake of
the first kind) or to reject someone who is qualified (a mistake of
the second kind.) In real life we are best off making many of the
mistakes of the first kind, to avoid making mistakes of the second
kind.

I appreciate that you may never had been a hiring authority, but you
provide good practice to those here who might be.



On Oct 13, 3:59 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tina writes:
> > To which I, an nonpilot, can agree, however, the wise person would be
> > voting to beleive the pilot in matters of the practical aspects of
> > aviation.
>
> The wisdom I've acquired has taught me to never believe anyone based on
> credentials. I have to see someone demonstrate that he actually knows what he
> is talking about before I believe him. It's surprising how frequently people
> with credentials turn out to be clueless.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Well, the wisdom you have aquired is flawed. It would be much wiser to
> make the rebuttable assumption the credentialed indivudual is more
> qualified than one claiming to be expert who does not carry the
> credentials.

I've been burned too many times to make this mistake, sometimes in expensive
or dangerous ways. Now I want proof that someone is competent before
believing what he says, and credentials are not proof.

[Tina]

This caution, I assume, has led you to the rich and full life you now
enjoy?


On Oct 13, 6:44 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Well, the wisdom you have aquired is flawed. It would be much wiser to
> > make the rebuttable assumption the credentialed indivudual is more
> > qualified than one claiming to be expert who does not carry the
> > credentials.
>
> I've been burned too many times to make this mistake, sometimes in expensive
> or dangerous ways. Now I want proof that someone is competent before
> believing what he says, and credentials are not proof.

[vincent norris]

daffy wrote:
> Quite a good article in the Nov/Dec AARP magazine titled "Listening
> for Quiet".
> It talks about a silent sanctuary in Washington's Olympic National
> park. The article concluded by someone complaining about the silence broken by a small
> plane.

I love flying but I also love wilderness camping. Although I would not
vote to ban aircraft from flying over unpopulated areas, I would rather
not hear them when I'm enjoying the wilderness.

In a similar way, I enjoy both fly fishing and white-water canoeing,
although the two are incompatible.

I suggest we simply need to develop a tolerance, or perhaps respect, for
the other fellow's recreation even if it occasionally interferes with ours.
>
> The article said "The small plane flying north more than doubles the
> ambient sound....

Well, if really was "a silent sanctuary," then doubling the sound would
not make much difference: two times zero decibels = zero decibels.

vince norris




, and we react to the intruder as a threat, drawing in, tracking the
> source, hunching for
> cover until the last traces of engine noise finally die away."
>

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> This caution, I assume, has led you to the rich and full life you now
> enjoy?

No, but a past lack of such wariness has been a contributing factor.

[Mxsmanic]

vincent norris writes:

> Well, if really was "a silent sanctuary," then doubling the sound would
> not make much difference: two times zero decibels = zero decibels.

The sound level outdoors is rarely zero. And decibels are a log scale, so a
doubling of sound intensity is always an increase of 3 decibels, irrespective
of the starting sound level. It is hard to even perceive an increase of 3
decibels.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Airbus writes:
>
>> Well, radar vectors are pretty cut and dried - you go where they say.
>
> That's not what I meant. I meant that if only all pilots were fully
> competent and all non-pilots were fully incompetent. But the reality
> is otherwise.
>

YOU need to pick up a dictionary and look up the word "defintion"

Fjukkwit.

> Unfortunately, everyone drives cars, but hardly anyone flies
> airplanes, so cars get the special consideration.
>

Not everybody drvies cars, fjukkwit.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tina writes:
>
>> To which I, an nonpilot, can agree, however, the wise person would be
>> voting to beleive the pilot in matters of the practical aspects of
>> aviation.
>
> The wisdom I've acquired has taught me to never believe anyone based
> on credentials.




If you had actually acquired any wisdonm, you wouldn't be a middle aged
luser pretending to be something you are not,

Fjukkwit.


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Well, the wisdom you have aquired is flawed. It would be much wiser
>> to make the rebuttable assumption the credentialed indivudual is more
>> qualified than one claiming to be expert who does not carry the
>> credentials.
>
> I've been burned too many times to make this mistake, sometimes in
> expensive or dangerous ways. Now I want proof that someone is
> competent before believing what he says, and credentials are not
> proof.



nobody cares if you believe what they say, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tina writes:
>
>> This caution, I assume, has led you to the rich and full life you now
>> enjoy?
>
> No, but a past lack of such wariness has been a contributing factor.
>

Wow! so, now armed with this wisdom, you can finally get that night
managers job at wal-mart


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> vincent norris writes:
>
>> Well, if really was "a silent sanctuary," then doubling the sound
>> would not make much difference: two times zero decibels = zero
>> decibels.
>
> The sound level outdoors is rarely zero. And decibels are a log
> scale, so a doubling of sound intensity is always an increase of 3
> decibels, irrespective of the starting sound level. It is hard to
> even perceive an increase of 3 decibels.
>



Fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Tina]

Words of wisdom from my grandmother, but it could have come from grad
school I guess --- some dogs NEED kicking.

On Oct 14, 5:47 am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
(re Mx.)
>
> It is a pathetic attempt at getting attention.
>
> "

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Oct 11, 7:46 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:57:17 -0700, daffy >
> wrote in om>:
>
> >Quite a good article in the Nov/Dec AARP magazine titled "Listening
> >for Quiet".
> >It talks about a silent sanctuary in Washington's Olympic National
> >park. The article
> >concluded by someone complaining about the silence broken by a small
> >plane.
>
> >The article said "The small plane flying north more than doubles the
> >ambient sound,
> >and we react to the intruder as a threat, drawing in, tracking the
> >source, hunching for
> >cover until the last traces of engine noise finally die away."
>
> Did the article happen to mention the duration (in seconds) that the
> noise from this "intruder" was detectable? There is little question
> that small airplanes are noisy, but they are usually only audible for
> about 20 seconds. In the area in question, it may be longer, but the
> sonic impact of the occasional lone aircraft is nothing compared
> living adjacent to a busy street. Perhaps we should consider closing
> all the roads in residential neighborhoods. :-)

I live directly below the traffic pattern of a busy GA airport in
Dayton, and there are four airports closeby. I am sensitive to noise,
and I go to great lengths to keep my environment noise-free. I have
noticed that the airplane noise is nowhere close to the noise from all
the lawnmowers that seem to constantly run from April to October.
Airplane noise lasts about 30 seconds. A lawn mower runs for an hour
or two. Sometime the noise never ceases as each neighbor fires up
their lawnmower in turns. It would be interesting to do a measurement
and identify the average contribution from all the noise souces. With
a digital recorder and some signal processing software this ought to
be doable. One also has to consider the impact of noise on the human
ear. Widely varying pitch is worse than a constant dull hum. A
chainsaw noise is worse because of all the "vroom vroom" accelerations
and decelerations.

[Tina]

And your caution, I assume, has led you to the rich and full life you
now enjoy?


On Oct 13, 6:44 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Well, the wisdom you have aquired is flawed. It would be much wiser to
> > make the rebuttable assumption the credentialed indivudual is more
> > qualified than one claiming to be expert who does not carry the
> > credentials.
>
> I've been burned too many times to make this mistake, sometimes in expensive
> or dangerous ways. Now I want proof that someone is competent before
> believing what he says, and credentials are not proof.

[Airbus]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>vincent norris writes:
>
>> Well, if really was "a silent sanctuary," then doubling the sound would
>> not make much difference: two times zero decibels = zero decibels.


>
>The sound level outdoors is rarely zero.

TRUE

And decibels are a log scale, so a
>doubling of sound intensity is always an increase of 3 decibels, irrespective
>of the starting sound level.

TRUE


It is hard to even perceive an increase of 3 decibels.

FALSE

[John Doe[_4_]]

Tina <tbaker27705 gmail.com> wrote:

> Words of wisdom from my grandmother, but it could have come from grad
> school I guess --- some dogs NEED kicking.

What sort of dog would need kicking, Tina?
Mainly curious.













>
> Path: newssvr14.news.prodigy.net!newssvr12.news.prodigy. net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.net!newsdst01.news.prod igy.net!prodigy.com!newscon04.news.prodigy.net!pro digy.net!news.astraweb.com!router1.astraweb.com!ne ws.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!k35g2000prh.googl egroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Tina <tbaker27705 gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
> Subject: Re: Listening for Quiet
> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 06:03:56 -0700
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 11
> Message-ID: <1192367036.562949.211130 k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
> References: <1192143437.833720.51620 y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com> <fers6o$1j96$1 f04n12.cac.psu.edu> <66d3h314o0na82gao0s5eaj1o1b1e4fajr 4ax.com> <Xns99C94FA388FDC****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <4711e5b8$0$25657$4c368faf roadrunner.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.111.243.18
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1192367037 13133 127.0.0.1 (14 Oct 2007 13:03:57 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:03:57 +0000 (UTC)
> In-Reply-To: <4711e5b8$0$25657$4c368faf roadrunner.com>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; YPC 3.2.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; yplus 5.6.04b),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.111.243.18; posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
> Xref: prodigy.net rec.aviation.piloting:604611
>
> On Oct 14, 5:47 am, "Viperdoc" <jnin... NOattglobalSPAMMS.net> wrote:
> (re Mx.)
>>
>> It is a pathetic attempt at getting attention.
>>
>> "
>
>
>

[Tina]

John Doe > wrote:

> > Words of wisdom from my grandmother, but it could have come from grad
> > school I guess --- some dogs NEED kicking.
>
> What sort of dog would need kicking, Tina?
> Mainly curious.
>
Those dogs often identified through the gentle cautions expressed by
Viperdoc and Bertie come to mind. Uncle Al, over in Sci.physics, casts
a broader but still pretty accurate net.

[John Doe[_4_]]

Tina <tbaker27705 gmail.com> wrote:

> John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > Words of wisdom from my grandmother, but it could have come from grad
>> > school I guess --- some dogs NEED kicking.

What sort of canines would need kicking, Tina?
Mainly curious.












>>
>> What sort of dog would need kicking, Tina?
>> Mainly curious.
>>
> Those dogs often identified through the gentle cautions expressed by
> Viperdoc and Bertie come to mind. Uncle Al, over in Sci.physics, casts
> a broader but still pretty accurate net.
>
>
>
>
> Path: newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newssvr25.news.prodigy. net!newssvr14.news.prodigy.net!newssvr12.news.prod igy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.net!newsdst01.news. prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon04.news.prodigy.net !prodigy.net!news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter. astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!v2 9g2000prd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Tina <tbaker27705 gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
> Subject: Re: Listening for Quiet
> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:55:38 -0700
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 13
> Message-ID: <1192413338.991332.147850 v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
> References: <1192143437.833720.51620 y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com> <fers6o$1j96$1 f04n12.cac.psu.edu> <66d3h314o0na82gao0s5eaj1o1b1e4fajr 4ax.com> <Xns99C94FA388FDC****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <4711e5b8$0$25657$4c368faf roadrunner.com> <1192367036.562949.211130 k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <yzzQi.10191$4V6.5892 newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.111.243.18
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1192413339 20519 127.0.0.1 (15 Oct 2007 01:55:39 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 01:55:39 +0000 (UTC)
> In-Reply-To: <yzzQi.10191$4V6.5892 newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; YPC 3.2.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; yplus 5.6.04b),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.111.243.18; posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
> Xref: prodigy.net rec.aviation.piloting:604673
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

John Doe > wrote in
et:

> Tina <tbaker27705 gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Words of wisdom from my grandmother, but it could have come from grad
>> school I guess --- some dogs NEED kicking.
>
> What sort of dog would need kicking, Tina?
> Mainly curious.
>
>
>
>
>

Crazy ones who keep files on people?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

John Doe > wrote in
et:

> Tina <tbaker27705 gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> > Words of wisdom from my grandmother, but it could have come from
>>> > grad school I guess --- some dogs NEED kicking.
>
> What sort of canines would need kicking, Tina?
> Mainly curious.
>


If you're "curious" I thinkn they have websites for that sort of thing.

I dind't take you for a leather and alsation sort of k00k, but hey, we've
only just met.



Bertie

[Jim Stewart]

Tina wrote:
> This caution, I assume, has led you to the rich and full life you now
> enjoy?

LOL

>
> On Oct 13, 6:44 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>>> Well, the wisdom you have aquired is flawed. It would be much wiser to
>>> make the rebuttable assumption the credentialed indivudual is more
>>> qualified than one claiming to be expert who does not carry the
>>> credentials.
>> I've been burned too many times to make this mistake, sometimes in expensive
>> or dangerous ways. Now I want proof that someone is competent before
>> believing what he says, and credentials are not proof.
>
>

[Jose]

> Widely varying pitch is worse than a constant dull hum. A
> chainsaw noise is worse because of all the "vroom vroom" accelerations
> and decelerations.

By extension, the "least bad" noise is a leaf blower - a constant drone
of a single tone. It is the sound that I personally find =most=
annoying; even very far away and at a low volume it is extremely
aggravating. I much prefer noise that varies in pitch, timbre, volume,
and other qualities.

Is your statement that "...varying pitch is worse..." a personal
preference, or something that you can quantify and substantiate?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Oct 15, 3:33 pm, Jose > wrote:
> > Widely varying pitch is worse than a constant dull hum. A
> > chainsaw noise is worse because of all the "vroom vroom" accelerations
> > and decelerations.
>
> By extension, the "least bad" noise is a leaf blower - a constant drone
> of a single tone. It is the sound that I personally find =most=
> annoying; even very far away and at a low volume it is extremely
> aggravating. I much prefer noise that varies in pitch, timbre, volume,
> and other qualities.
>
> Is your statement that "...varying pitch is worse..." a personal
> preference, or something that you can quantify and substantiate?
>

I guess it is a personal preference, but I had assumed it might be
true for most people. May be that is not the case. When we go up to
the summer cottage by the lake, it is a shame that the peace and quite
is frequently disturbed by chain saws. On most summer days I can
constantly hear someone running a chain saw. On open water the sounds
carries well, so the noise source could be more than a mile away. Once
you account for all the people on the lake, it doesn't take much to at
least someone to be running a chainsaw at any given time.

[[email protected]]

29-10947 Mark O. Bender
7/25/2007 Dossier


REQUEST OF CLIENT

On July 24, 2007, Martin Markoe with eMicrophones, Inc. contacted
XXXXX & Associates, with the request for a full background/dossier on
Mr. Mark O. Bender.

SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION

Our office found Mr. Mark Bender's current address is 509 Frost, SATX
78201, to be owned by Ms. Gloria Trevino. There are many rental homes
in this area. Mr. Bender has never owned property. He does not own a
vehicle. He doesn't have a TX Driver's license. He does have a TX
State ID. He has been arrested twice for Assault/Family/Domestic
Violence. Both charges were dismissed. There is a possibility that the
"Mark Bender" named in the Bexar County Civil case for damages could
be the same Mark Orrin Bender with in this report. The court documents
would to be ordered at any additional cost to the client.


Custom Comprehensive Report
Date: 07/24/07

Report processed by:
KELMAR AND ASSOCIATES M16489
2553 JACKSON KELLER STE 200
San Antonio, TX 78230
(210) 342-0509 Main Phone
(210) 342-0731 Fax Report Legend:
- Shared Address
- Deceased
- Probable Current Address


Subject Information:
Name: MARK ORRIN BENDER DOB:01/22/1957
SSN: 507-82-xxxx issued in Nebraska between 01/01/1972 and
12/31/1973
Age: 50

Others Associated With Subjects SSN:
(DOES NOT usually indicate any type of fraud or deception)
[None Found]

Comprehensive Report Summary: (Click on Link to see detail)
Names Associated With Subject:
None Found
Others Associated With Subjects SSN:
None Found
Bankruptcies:
None Found
Liens and Judgments:
None Found
UCC Filings:
None Found
People at Work:
None Found
Driver's License:
None Found
Address(es) Found:
1 Verified and 5 Non-Verified Found
Possible Properties Owned:
None Found
Motor Vehicles Registered:
None Found
Watercraft:
None Found
FAA Certifications:
None Found
FAA Aircrafts:
None Found
Possible Criminal Records:
1 Found
Sexual Offenses:
None Found
Professional Licenses:
None Found
Voter Registration:
1 Found
Hunting/Fishing Permit:
None Found
Concealed Weapons Permit:
None Found
Possible Associates:
None Found
Possible Relatives:
1st Degree - None Found
2nd Degree - None Found
3rd Degree - None Found
Neighbors:
1st Neighborhood - 3 Found
2nd Neighborhood - None Found
3rd Neighborhood - 2 Found

Bankruptcies:
[None Found]

Liens and Judgments:
[None Found]

UCC Filings:
[None Found]

People at Work:
[None Found]

Driver's License/State ID Information:

Texas ID Detail:

Name
BENDER,MARK ORRIN License number
20826255 Address
5320 BLANCO #1803 DOB
Jan 22 1957
Class
I City/Zip
SAN ANTONIO 78216 Last transaction date
Apr 9 2003 Last transaction
Original, not permit or MRDL

Above information as provided by state - Our annotations are below
Address (click to find others)
5320 Blanco Rd Apt 1803
City/State/Zip (click to find others)
San Antonio , TX 78216-7052



Address Summary:
509 FROST, SAN ANTONIO TX 78201-3347, BEXAR COUNTY (Nov 2005 -
May 2007)
4210 309 APT B, SAN ANTONIO TX 78201, BEXAR COUNTY (Dec 2002 -
Oct 2003)
4210 FREDERICKSBURG RD APT B309, SAN ANTONIO TX 78201-1912,
BEXAR COUNTY (Jan 1991 - Jan 1999)
5347 BLANCO RD APT B8, SAN ANTONIO TX 78216-7027, BEXAR COUNTY
(Apr 1986 - Dec 1992)
4210 FREDERICKSBURG RD APT B316, SAN ANTONIO TX 78201-1914,
BEXAR COUNTY
7458 LOUIS PASTEUR DR APT 701, SAN ANTONIO TX 78229-4517, BEXAR
COUNTY

Active Address(es):
MARK O BENDER - 509 FROST, SAN ANTONIO TX 78201-3347, BEXAR
COUNTY (Nov 2005 - May 2007)
Current phones listed at this address:
BENDER MARK (210) 734-3107
TREVINO MICHELLE (210) 736-5743
Property Ownership Information for this Address
Property:
Parcel Number - 08441-026-0240
Lot Number - 24
Owner Name 1 - TREVINO GLORIA C
Address - 509 FROST, SAN ANTONIO TX
78201-3347, BEXAR COUNTY
Owner's Address - 509 FROST, SAN ANTONIO
TX 78201-3347, BEXAR COUNTY
Land Usage - SFR
Total Value - $79,610
Land Value - $13,230
Improvement Value - $66,380
Land Size - 9,000
Year Built - 1926
Homestead Exemption - YES
Exterior Walls - STUCCO
Roof Type - ASPHALT SHINGLE
Air Conditioning - AC.CENTRAL
Heating - FORCED AIR
Sale Price - $0
Legal Description - NCB 8441 BLK 26 LOT
24 & 25 & 26
Data Source - A
Neighborhood Profile (2000 Census)
Average Age: 37
Median Household Income: $38,438
Median Owner Occupied Home Value: $47,100
Average Years of Education: 10


Previous And Non-Verified Address(es):
MARK ORRIN BENDER - 4210 309 APT B, SAN ANTONIO TX 78201,
BEXAR COUNTY (Dec 2002 - Oct 2003)
Neighborhood Profile (2000 Census)
Average Age: 30
Median Household Income: $32,417
Median Owner Occupied Home Value: $50,100
Average Years of Education: 12

MARK O BENDER - 4210 FREDERICKSBURG RD APT B309, SAN ANTONIO
TX 78201-1912, BEXAR COUNTY (Jan 1991 - Jan 1999)
SANTA FE PLACE (210) 735-8767
Neighborhood Profile (2000 Census)
Average Age: 32
Median Household Income: $18,304
Median Owner Occupied Home Value: $91,300
Average Years of Education: 12

MARK O BENDER - 5347 BLANCO RD APT B8, SAN ANTONIO TX
78216-7027, BEXAR COUNTY (Apr 1986 - Dec 1992)
NIMITZ APARTMENTS (210) 341-5285
Neighborhood Profile (2000 Census)
Average Age: 29
Median Household Income: $23,611
Median Owner Occupied Home Value: $65,500
Average Years of Education: 12

MARK O BENDER - 4210 FREDERICKSBURG RD APT B316, SAN ANTONIO
TX 78201-1914, BEXAR COUNTY
SANTA FE PLACE (210) 735-8767
Neighborhood Profile (2000 Census)
Average Age: 32
Median Household Income: $18,304
Median Owner Occupied Home Value: $91,300
Average Years of Education: 12

MARK O BENDER - 7458 LOUIS PASTEUR DR APT 701, SAN ANTONIO TX
78229-4517, BEXAR COUNTY
SAN ANTONIO STATION (210) 614-3679
Neighborhood Profile (2000 Census)
Average Age: 41
Median Household Income: $31,783
Median Owner Occupied Home Value: $111,800
Average Years of Education: 14

Possible Properties Owned by Subject:
[None Found]

Motor Vehicles Registered To Subject:
[None Found]

Possible Criminal Records:
Texas Arrest Report:
Name: MARK BEDNER
SSN: 507-82-xxxx
Address: 5200 BLANCO RD 407, SAN ANTONIO TX 78216-7074
State of Origin: Texas
County of Origin: Bexar
Party Status: REL'D ON P-R BOND
DOB: 01/22/1957
Race: White
Sex: Male
Eyes: BLUE
Height: 5' 06"
Weight: 160

Arrests:
Arrest #1
Case Type:
Arrest Date: 01/25/1987
Arresting Agency:
Arrest Type:
Arrest Disposition Date: 01/25/1987
Court Fine: Offense: ASSAULT-BODILY INJURY
Arrest Statute:
Agency Case #: 366381
Arrest Level/Degree: Class A Misdemeanor
Arrest Disposition: BOOKED



CASE NUMBER 366381 displayed
successfully
Bexar County Criminal Justice Information System
07/24/2007
Texas Case Page
10:46:19

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Court Case Number Defendant Name
Date of
CR7 366381 BEDNER,
MARK Birth

01/22/1957
Offense Description Level Sex:
MALE
02/21/1986 ASSAULT-BODILY INJURY MA Race:
WHITE
Location :
CLOSED
Last Setting: Grand Jury: 05/13/1986
FILED
Case Status: 06/29/1987 *** JN CLOSED
***
Disposition : 06/29/1987 DSMD-INTRST
JUSTCE

Judgement :
Bond: CLS 06/29/1987
1500.00
Start: End: By: BAIL BONDS,
PERSONAL

Defense Attorneys Bar Number Yrs Mo Dy
Hrs
MIKE HERVEY 9546500
Term:

Fine:
Court
Cost:



CASE NUMBER 348742 displayed
successfully
Bexar County Criminal Justice Information System
07/25/2007
Texas Case Page
09:57:05
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Court Case Number Defendant Name
Date of
CR7 348742 BEDNER, MARK
Birth

01/22/1957
Offense Description Level Sex:
MALE
08/05/1985 ASSAULT-BODILY INJURY MA Race:
WHITE
Location :
CLOSED
Last Setting: 09/23/1985 TRIAL Grand Jury: 08/12/1985
FILED
Case Status: 08/12/1988 *** JN CLOSED
***
Disposition : 09/23/1985 DSMD-
OTHER

Judgement :
Bond: CLS 09/23/1985
800.00
Start: End: By: BAIL BONDS, PERSONAL
PROGRAM

Defense Attorneys Bar Number Yrs Mo Dy
Hrs
MERCEDES JEAN KUTCH 11770545 Term:

Fine:
Court Cost:


Bexar Possible Civil:

Cause Nbr 1986CI10562 displayed
successfully
***** Bexar County Centralized Docket System
*****
07/24/2007 - Docket Information -
11:04:15
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
Selection: __ Actions: _
(A,C,D,M,P)
CASE NBR: 1986CI10562____ PRINT RT LABELS? N (Y/
N)

Date Filed: 06/12/1986 Court: 166_ Unpaid Balance:
0.00
Type of Docket: PID__ PERSONAL INJURY &
DAMAGES

* * * S T Y L E * *
*
MAX WHITMAN & HARRIET
WHITMAN_____________________
VS MARK BENDER
&_____________________________________

DISCOVERY LEVEL:
_
Account Type: __ Account Number:
____________
Access: _ PUBLIC Status: D
DISPOSED
List Type: C
CIVIL

Litigant(s) for Cause Nbr 1986CI10562 displayed
successfully
***** Bexar County Centralized Docket System
*****
07/24/2007 - Litigant Information -
11:05:23

__________________________________________________ ____________________________
Selection: __ Case Nbr:
1986CI10562____
Style: MAX WHITMAN & HARRIET WHITMAN vs MARK BENDER
&
Court: 166 Docket Type: PERSONAL INJURY & DAMAGES Status:
DISPOSED
Actions: (A,D,M,P) Unpaid Balance: 0.00 Account
Number:
Seq Last /First /Middle Name Lit. Type/Attorney
Date
_ 00001 WHITMAN MAX PLAINTIFF
06/12/1986
DROZD, LINDA M
210 498-0663
_ 00002 WHITMAN HARRIET PLAINTIFF
06/12/1986
DROZD, LINDA M
210 498-0663
_ 00003 BENDER MARK DEFENDANT
06/12/1986
EZZELL, JAMES MICHAE
210 731-6300
_ 00004 DR PEPPER BOTTLING COMPANY DEFENDANT
06/12/1986
EZZELL, JAMES MICHAE
210 731-6300

TX Criminal:

SUBJECT INFORMATION

Name: mark bender Social Security #: -- Birth Date: 01/22/1957

Alias Last: Alias First: Race/Gender: /


Criminal Record (mark bender) TX - * Statewide PLUS *
Status: Completed (CLEAR)
# Years Searched: 7 Date Completed: 7/25/2007 9:59:56 AM
Reporting Period: 07/25/2000 - 07/25/2007
Additional Info: *** Instant search results ***
No record found



Sexual Offenses:
[None Found]

Professional License(s):
[None Found]

Voter Registration:
Name: MARK BENDER
Address: 4210 FREDERICKSBURG RD APT B309, SAN ANTONIO TX
78201-1912
DOB: 01/22/1957
Gender: Male
Registration Date: 12/08/1984
State of Registration: Texas
Status: Active

Hunting/Fishing Permit:
[None Found]

Concealed Weapons Permit:
[None Found]

Possible Associates:
[None Found]

Possible Relatives:
[None Found]

Neighbors:
Neighborhood:
509 FROST, SAN ANTONIO TX 78201-3347, BEXAR COUNTY (Oct
1991)
Residents:
MARK O BENDER Age:
507-82-xxxx issued in Nebraska
between 01/01/1972 and 12/31/1973
ANDREA TREVINO Age:
463-76-xxxx issued in Texas
between 01/01/1963 and 12/31/1963
GLORIA C TREVINO DOB: 05/19/1947 Age: 60
463-76-xxxx issued in Texas
between 01/01/1963 and 12/31/1963
MICHELE TREVINO Age:
457-71-xxxx issued in Texas
between 01/01/1985 and 12/31/1985
MICHELLE TREVINO Age:
457-71-xxxx issued in Texas
between 01/01/1985 and 12/31/1985
VICENTE L TREVINO Age:
463-62-xxxx issued in Texas
between 01/01/1956 and 12/31/1957
Current phones listed at this address:
TREVINO MICHELLE (210) 736-5743
BENDER MARK (210) 734-3107


Address(es):
508 FROST, SAN ANTONIO TX 78201-3346, BEXAR
COUNTY
LUZMCARMEN CAMPOS Age:
CAMPOS LUZMCARMEN (210) 736-6798

510 FROST, SAN ANTONIO TX 78201-3346, BEXAR
COUNTY (Nov 2005 - May 2007)
MONICA ANGUINAGA Age:
ANGUINAGA MONICA (210) 731-8828

507 FROST, SAN ANTONIO TX 78201-3347, BEXAR
COUNTY (Jun 2002 - Jun 2007)
Residents:
ELIZABETH DALIA ROMAN DOB:
03/14/1973 Age: 34
453-73-xxxx issued in Texas
between 01/01/1985 and 12/31/1986
ENRIQUE VAZQUEZ ROMAN DOB:
10/18/1956 Age: 50
450-57-xxxx issued in Texas
between 01/01/1982 and 12/31/1982
JESSE ENRIQUE ROMAN DOB:
11/13/1976 Age: 30
466-71-xxxx issued in Texas
between 01/01/1985 and 12/31/1985
TERESA G ROMAN Age:
459-36-xxxx issued in Texas
between 01/01/1936 and 12/31/1951

Neighborhood:
4210 309 APT B, SAN ANTONIO TX 78201, BEXAR COUNTY (Dec
2002 - Oct 2003)

Neighborhood:
4210 FREDERICKSBURG RD APT E203, BALCONES HTS TX
78201-1925, BEXAR COUNTY
SANTA FE PLACE (210) 735-8767


Address(es):
4205 FREDERICKSBURG RD, BALCONES HTS TX
78201-1902, BEXAR COUNTY
TACO CABANA (210) 733-3911

4220 FREDERICKSBURG RD, BALCONES HTS TX
78201-1901, BEXAR COUNTY
WORLD CAR MAZDA ISUZU SUZUKI (210)
735-6000





Bexar County Appraisal District- Property Rolls

Account
Property ID: 415948 Legal Description: NCB 8441 BLK 26 LOT 24 & 25 &
26
Geographic ID: 08441-026-0240 Agent Code:
Type: Real
Location
Address: 509 FROST Mapsco: 581F5
Neighborhood: LOS ANGELES HEIGHTS (SA) Map ID:
Neighborhood CD: 57017
Owner
Name: TREVINO GLORIA C Owner ID: 316021
Mailing Address: 509 FROST
SAN ANTONIO, TX 78201-3347 % Ownership: 100.0000000000%
Exemptions:
HS
Values
(+) Improvement Homesite Value: + $78,340
(+) Improvement Non-Homesite Value: + $0
(+) Land Homesite Value: + $13,230
(+) Land Non-Homesite Value: + $0 Ag / Timber Use Value
(+) Agricultural Market Valuation: + $0 $0
(+) Timber Market Valuation: + $0 $0
--------------------------
(=) Market Value: = $91,570
(-) Ag or Timber Use Value Reduction: - $0
--------------------------
(=) Appraised Value: = $91,570
(-) HS Cap: - $6,507
--------------------------
(=) Assessed Value: = $85,063
Taxing Jurisdiction
Owner: TREVINO GLORIA C
% Ownership: 100.0000000000%
Total Value: $91,570
Entity Description Tax Rate Appraised Value Taxable Value Estimated
Tax
06 BEXAR CO RD & FLOOD 0.012719 $91,570 $82,063 $10.44
08 SA RIVER AUTH 0.016045 $91,570 $80,063 $12.85
09 ALAMO COM COLLEGE 0.137050 $91,570 $85,063 $116.58
10 UNIV HEALTH SYSTEM 0.243869 $91,570 $85,063 $207.44
11 BEXAR COUNTY 0.314147 $91,570 $85,063 $267.22
21 CITY OF SAN ANTONIO 0.578540 $91,570 $85,063 $492.12
57 SAN ANTONIO ISD 1.249700 $91,570 $70,063 $875.58
CAD BEXAR APPRAISAL DISTRICT 0.000000 $91,570 $85,063 $0.00
Total Tax Rate: 2.552070
Taxes w/Current Exemptions: $1,982.23
Taxes w/o Exemptions: $2,170.87
Improvement / Building
Improvement #1: Residential State Code: A1 Living Area: 1193.0 sqft
Value: $61,750
Type Description Class CD
Exterior Wall Year Built SQFT
LA Living Area F SS 1926 1112.0
OP Attached Open Porch F 1926 24.0
OP Attached Open Porch F 1926 70.0
LA Living Area F 1926 81.0
Improvement #2: Residential State Code: A1 Living Area: sqft Value:
$6,890
Type Description Class CD
Exterior Wall Year Built SQFT
DLA2 Detached Living Area 2 F 288.0
Improvement #3: Residential State Code: A1 Living Area: sqft Value:
$6,890
Type Description Class CD
Exterior Wall Year Built SQFT
DLA1 Detached Living Area 1 F 288.0
Improvement #4: Residential State Code: A1 Living Area: sqft Value:
$2,810
Type Description Class CD
Exterior Wall Year Built SQFT
CPT Detached Carport F 420.0
Land
# Type Description Acres Sqft Eff Front Eff Depth Market Value Prod.
Value
1 RES R/1 Family not Farm Single 0.2066 9000.00 75.00 120.00 $13,230
$0
Roll Value History
Year Improvements Land Market Ag Valuation Appraised HS Cap Assessed
2007 $78,340 $13,230 0 91,570 $6,507 $85,063
2006 $66,380 $13,230 0 79,610 $2,280 $77,330
2005 $57,100 $13,200 0 70,300 $0 $70,300
2004 $57,100 $13,200 0 70,300 $0 $70,300
2003 $59,200 $13,400 0 72,600 $0 $72,600
2002 $58,800 $9,000 0 67,800 $0 $67,800
Deed History - (Last 3 Deed Transactions)
# Deed Date Type Description Grantor Grantee Volume Page
1 9/21/1998 12:00:00 AM Deed Deed TREVINO, GLORIA C 7747 0937





End of Report