X-15 test pilot William J. "Pete" Knight diagnosed with an acute form of leukemia

(Stuf4) wrote in message . com...

I do. You do. They do. We all make our own judgements.

I posted my evaluation on a particular subject. You posted your
evaluation on my evaluation. Who are you to judge me? You are a
freethinking person.

What you actually did was create a whole new subject to express your
"judgement" about Pete Knight. I believe you judged him guilty. Now,
who are you to make this judgement?

You have not imposed your judgement onto me. I have not imposed my
judgement onto anyone else. We have both expressed our views without
being oppressive.



Why do they need to reevaluate after learning that their direction is
seen to be in error? They only need to if they see a need to.
(Otherwise it is only the others who are in need.)


So, your intent was to demonstrate that a "need to reevaluate"
existed? In the midst of praise for an individual, it's also fitting
to point out their "flaws"...is that it? (Of course, with you
defining what is flawed.)

In which direction does your moral compass point? Obviously not in
the same direction as Pete Knight's. Yet you would posthumously
"radio a vector to him", presumably to land on your moral airstrip.

Please be clear that the criticism I posted had nothing to do with
whether or not my moral compass is aligned differently from his. I
could be in total agreement with Pete's beliefs on homosexuality. I
could be in total support of legislation that he pushed...

I *still* focus on his decision to cut off communications with his
son. That is not a method that I support (though you may feel
differently).


But why focus on that? Why even bring it up? It certainly has
nothing to do with the subject at hand. Perhaps, in another NG, under
different lighting conditions, it might make sense to use Pete Knight
as an example...a talking point. But in sci.space.history?

And I must wonder...

How many thousands of little rejections did young David Knight get
from his father when growing up, and did those rejections influence
his decision to seek love from other males later in life...


Whoa. Simply, whoa.

What difference does it make if one heads N and another NNW, when
their paths don't cross? Or was yours a general informational
airman's notice: "Hey, ya'll...I'm aheadin' North. Now don't ya'll
come 'twixt me an' mah destiny, cause then I'm gonna have to be
admirin' you while I turn ya back on course!"

I hope you can see that I'm not telling you which way to go. I'm just
saying, "Keep your compass to yourself."

You are offering a correction for me to use as I see fit. Perhaps
that is not so qualitatively different from me offering a vector to
those who may be in Pete's previous situation.


~ CT

There's a significant difference. What you're doing is preaching.
What I'm doing is saying "Stop preaching." See the difference?

From stmx3:
I do. You do. They do. We all make our own judgements.

I posted my evaluation on a particular subject. You posted your
evaluation on my evaluation. Who are you to judge me? You are a
freethinking person.

What you actually did was create a whole new subject to express your
"judgement" about Pete Knight. I believe you judged him guilty. Now,
who are you to make this judgement?

I created a whole new subject? This thread *started* with the posting
of an article titled:
"Author of Calif. gay marriage ban diagnosed with leukemia".

I judged him guilty? I'm not sure how guilt came into this.

You have not imposed your judgement onto me. I have not imposed my
judgement onto anyone else. We have both expressed our views without
being oppressive.



Why do they need to reevaluate after learning that their direction is
seen to be in error? They only need to if they see a need to.
(Otherwise it is only the others who are in need.)


So, your intent was to demonstrate that a "need to reevaluate"
existed? In the midst of praise for an individual, it's also fitting
to point out their "flaws"...is that it? (Of course, with you
defining what is flawed.)

I am getting an impression that your problem with my post is that you
are coming from a position that:


"I don't want to see Pete Knight's reputation tarnished with facts."


If you look back you can see that I joined this thread to give a
direct response to the statement:
"My local newspaper The Baltimore Sun...mostly concentrated on his
stand regarding gay marriages. Frankly, they nearly demonized the
man."

My intent was to provide some background as to why some people choose
not to deify Pete Knight.

In which direction does your moral compass point? Obviously not in
the same direction as Pete Knight's. Yet you would posthumously
"radio a vector to him", presumably to land on your moral airstrip.

Please be clear that the criticism I posted had nothing to do with
whether or not my moral compass is aligned differently from his. I
could be in total agreement with Pete's beliefs on homosexuality. I
could be in total support of legislation that he pushed...

I *still* focus on his decision to cut off communications with his
son. That is not a method that I support (though you may feel
differently).


But why focus on that? Why even bring it up? It certainly has
nothing to do with the subject at hand. Perhaps, in another NG, under
different lighting conditions, it might make sense to use Pete Knight
as an example...a talking point. But in sci.space.history?

Pete Knight is a part of space history. The life he lived before and
after his flying career is part of that history.

I expect that there are others here who appreciate learning that Pete
Knight had a son who went to the Air Force Academy, became a fighter
pilot and went on to become a combat veteran...

If nothing else.

Part of the story about David Knight's wedding is that the ring he
gave to his partner had a diamond in it. That diamond was given to
David when he was 21. It was Pete Knight who gave it to him.

If you were to learn that Joseph Lazarro is wearing a diamond that has
been to Mach 6.7, maybe then you would agree that this topic is part
of space history.

(For anyone who may be interested:
"During the ceremony at City Hall, the two men, who were introduced by
David Knight's late gay uncle, re-exchanged the rings they have worn
since their civil union as a sign of their mutual commitment. The one
worn by Lazzaro held a diamond that had been passed down to Knight by
his father when he was 21."
From http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P1692_0_1_0)

What difference does it make if one heads N and another NNW, when
their paths don't cross? Or was yours a general informational
airman's notice: "Hey, ya'll...I'm aheadin' North. Now don't ya'll
come 'twixt me an' mah destiny, cause then I'm gonna have to be
admirin' you while I turn ya back on course!"

I hope you can see that I'm not telling you which way to go. I'm just
saying, "Keep your compass to yourself."

You are offering a correction for me to use as I see fit. Perhaps
that is not so qualitatively different from me offering a vector to
those who may be in Pete's previous situation.

There's a significant difference. What you're doing is preaching.
What I'm doing is saying "Stop preaching." See the difference?

I'm not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't do. I don't see
how anything I've stated here constitutes preaching.


~ CT

From Scott Hedrick:
(Stuf4) wrote
If we see someone to be climbing in an errant direction, I don't want
them to stop climbing. I want them to continue climbing, but
reevaluate their vector.

You first. Lead by example.

While it is important to be open to correction, I do not advocate
doing so blindly. Weathervanes cannot chart any course.


~ CT