I can't stop laughing over the Shenzhou launch

I have been giggling over the Shenzhou launch, in regard to the spot
light it also casts on the ISS, International Space Station.

Since the ISS is still likely to exclude China, the title
"International" would be an oxymoron and a hypocrisy, regardless of
political and/or security reasons.

Is there any solution to integrate China to preserve the ISS'
legitimicy and still maintain politically correctness?

In article ,
Bo wrote:
I have been giggling over the Shenzhou launch, in regard to the spot
light it also casts on the ISS, International Space Station.

Personally, I am giggling at you, and your poor English.

Since the ISS is still likely to exclude China, the title
"International" would be an oxymoron and a hypocrisy, regardless of
political and/or security reasons.

Is there any solution to integrate China to preserve the ISS'
legitimicy and still maintain politically correctness?

Fortunatly we are saved from this lunacy, by the firest dictionary
definition of the word "international" (Canadian Oxford - I'm sure
other dictionaries are similiar)

international adj. & n - adj. 1 existing, involving, or carried on
between two or more nations

As we will still have 2 (or more!) nations involved, the name will
be quite appropriate.

Another example, would be, of course, the International Joint
Commission, which as I'm sure you know, is limited to
Canada and the United States. http://www.ijc.org

Nick

In article ,
Bo wrote:
I have been giggling over the Shenzhou launch, in regard to the spot
light it also casts on the ISS, International Space Station.

Personally, I am giggling at you, and your poor English.

Since the ISS is still likely to exclude China, the title
"International" would be an oxymoron and a hypocrisy, regardless of
political and/or security reasons.

Is there any solution to integrate China to preserve the ISS'
legitimicy and still maintain politically correctness?

Fortunately we are saved from this lunacy, by the first dictionary
definition of the word "international" (Canadian Oxford - I'm sure
other dictionaries are similar).

international adj. & n - adj. 1 existing, involving, or carried on
between two or more nations ...

As we will still have 2 (or more!) nations involved, the name will
be quite appropriate.

Another example, would be, of course, the International Joint
Commission, which as I'm sure you know, is limited to
Canada and the United States. http://www.ijc.org

Nick

ing.google.com,
Bo wrote:
I have been giggling over the Shenzhou launch, in regard to the spot
light it also casts on the ISS, International Space Station.

Personally, I am giggling at you, and your poor English.

You spelled "fortunately" wrong. Can you enlighten us on the "firest
dictionary"? Not that I would jeer at anyone due to improper language
skills, but would you share with us the specifics of my writing style
that humored you?


Since the ISS is still likely to exclude China, the title
"International" would be an oxymoron and a hypocrisy, regardless of
political and/or security reasons.

Is there any solution to integrate China to preserve the ISS'
legitimicy and still maintain politically correctness?

Fortunatly we are saved from this lunacy, by the firest dictionary
definition of the word "international" (Canadian Oxford - I'm sure
other dictionaries are similiar)


Kudos for finding it in that 'firest' dictionary. Yeah, I guess we can
start 'firing' unwanted nations from the U.N. now.

Jokes aside, this is still a relatively important issue the ISS
eventually have to face. China always have the option (and they have
indeed and gradually succeeded) to cooperate with the ESA or Russian
space agency. This successful launch is also a bargaining chip should
they strike deals with non-US ISS members to lobby for China's
admission. Can we just flatly refuse or rally against like the
Olympics? How many times?


international adj. & n - adj. 1 existing, involving, or carried on
between two or more nations

As we will still have 2 (or more!) nations involved, the name will
be quite appropriate.

Another example, would be, of course, the International Joint
Commission, which as I'm sure you know, is limited to
Canada and the United States. http://www.ijc.org

Nick

"Bo" wrote in message
om...

Another coward who hasn't got the courage to identify themself


--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

The U.S. Government is in the
peculiar position of toppling foreign
governments in the name of democracy.

Oh, how democractic!

(Bo) writes:

I have been giggling over the Shenzhou launch, in regard to the spot
light it also casts on the ISS, International Space Station.

You're under the influence of something, right? Either that or you're
about 12 years old, right?

Since the ISS is still likely to exclude China, the title
"International" would be an oxymoron and a hypocrisy, regardless of
political and/or security reasons.

Why isn't a project that involves the US, Russia, ESA, Japan,
Canada, and etc, international? Do tell.

Is there any solution to integrate China to preserve the ISS'
legitimicy and still maintain politically correctness?

What are you talking about? Next you'll be telling everyone that ISS
isn't truly "international" unless we directly involve every single
country in the world. I wonder what Afganastan can do to participate?

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

(Bo) writes:
Jokes aside, this is still a relatively important issue the ISS
eventually have to face. China always have the option (and they have
indeed and gradually succeeded) to cooperate with the ESA or Russian
space agency. This successful launch is also a bargaining chip should
they strike deals with non-US ISS members to lobby for China's
admission. Can we just flatly refuse or rally against like the
Olympics? How many times?

What are you talking about?

Firstly, you're assuming China wants to participate in ISS. Frankly,
their actions indicate they're working on their own to demonstrate
what they can do on their own. This is a decidedly different approach
than say the ESA has been taking for decades.

Secondly, ISS is struggling to survive. Adding another partner this
late in the game may not necessarily help. In fact, it may actually
hurt the program, unless the new partner participates in only
peripheral ways, which I doubt China would want.

Thirdly, you've got a really warped view of what "international"
means. You assume that ISS is open to any and all participants. It
isn't. It's an exclusive club and you've got to be invited in order to
participate.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Does China want to be integrated?
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.



I have been giggling over the Shenzhou launch, in regard to the spot
light it also casts on the ISS, International Space Station.

Since the ISS is still likely to exclude China, the title
"International" would be an oxymoron and a hypocrisy, regardless of
political and/or security reasons.

Is there any solution to integrate China to preserve the ISS'
legitimicy and still maintain politically correctness?

In article ,
Bo wrote:
ing.google.com,
Bo wrote:
I have been giggling over the Shenzhou launch, in regard to the spot
light it also casts on the ISS, International Space Station.

Personally, I am giggling at you, and your poor English.

You spelled "fortunately" wrong. Can you enlighten us on the "firest
dictionary"? Not that I would jeer at anyone due to improper language
skills, but would you share with us the specifics of my writing style
that humored you?

You are correct, I made a couple of typos. Which I spotted just
as I posted, which is why I cancelled the article within about 30
seconds, and reposted a corrected version, 2 hours before you replied
to this. You should check with your IP provider, as their news
software must be misconfigured, as you shouldn't have seen the
cancelled article.

I was humoured (not humored) by your failure to understand the
meaning of the word "international".

Fortunately we are saved from this lunacy, by the finest dictionary
definition of the word "international" (Canadian Oxford - I'm sure
other dictionaries are similiar)

Jokes aside, this is still a relatively important issue the ISS
eventually have to face. China always have the option (and they have
indeed and gradually succeeded) to cooperate with the ESA or Russian
space agency. This successful launch is also a bargaining chip should
they strike deals with non-US ISS members to lobby for China's
admission. Can we just flatly refuse or rally against like the
Olympics? How many times?

Has China asked to be let in? I doubt it ... and if they ever
do I would suspect that the political situation would have
changed enough, that this would be a non-issue.

Nick

In article , jeff findley wrote:

Thirdly, you've got a really warped view of what "international"
means. You assume that ISS is open to any and all participants. It
isn't. It's an exclusive club and you've got to be invited in order to
participate.

Out of interest, who *are* the station participants? ESA (or at least
individual parts of it), Canada, the US, Russia & Japan; are there other
smaller nations providing some funding/equipment in return for getting
experiments flown? Enquiring minds, and all that...

[I don't think a Chinese flight to the ISS is implausible, and indeed I
suspect both sides can see upsides to it. I do suspect China "coming on
board" is somewhat unlikely...]

--
-Andrew Gray