news flash.......mosley bleeds from O-ring.

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...

Sorry. Not only do I not deal in psycho-babble, I also don't care
about "likeliest." I deal in truth.

yep, she regularly sells it to the highest bidder

--
Terrell Miller


"Married men live longer than single men, but married men are a lot more
willing to die."
Proverb

(Stuf4) wrote in message . com...
From Dave Michelson:
LaDonna Wyss wrote:

CT, you go. You're doing quite well, and it's wonderful to hear a
voice of reason.

Would people PLEASE just killfile this person and be done with it.

If the above doesn't confirm that no good can come from attempting to "reason"
with "it", then nothing will.

I'm referring to you Scott. You, too, OM. Herb, Daniel: That goes for you,
too. And everyone else who sees the need to reply to "it".

Thanks.

We wouldn't want to encourage independent thought, now would we.


~ CT

Of course "we" would, CT, as long as that independent thought agrees
with Hedrick and OM. :-)

(Stuf4) wrote in message . com...
From Greg Moo

Whether or not you are aware of it, flag protocol is explicitly
specified by United States Code. According to this code, those who
are to render a hand salute are military personnel, and that is *only*
when they are in uniform.

Actually the only reading I get of that is that applies during the pledge of
allegience.

If you are suggesting an open interpretation of this US code regarding
flag protocol, then you are inviting a position that it is ok to do
anything outside of these specified methods. That is the angle taken
by lawyers of people who burn US flags.

I do not necessarily disagree with that view.

The point being made, however, was that Neil and Jack had an awareness
of proper protocol. This extrapolates to a view that it was improper
for even military astronauts to salute the flag unless they were in
uniform.

And all of that saluting by the military moonwalkers invites the view
that their Apollo space suits were their military uniforms.

In any case, I'll continue to show my respect how I feel appropriate thank
you very much.

I never expressed that I didn't want you to salute the flag. I never
even expressed that I didn't want Neil or Jack to salute the flag.
The point was regarding *their* views on the appropriateness of doing
so.

If you have an alternative explanation as to why there are no pictures
of these two civilians saluting the flag, I'd be glad to consider it.


~ CT

Not only that, but let me toss this in: Saluting the flag, regardless
of "rules", is a matter of respect. I've seen many a person in
"civvies" salute the flag at military funerals, for example. Many of
us "military types" get rather emotional during certain events, and it
is almost second-nature to render a salute (I saw one person do just
that at Reagan's funeral, and there were likely more.)
CT, you are a VERY welcome addition to this debate.
LaDonna

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
From Greg Moo

Whether or not you are aware of it, flag protocol is explicitly
specified by United States Code. According to this code, those who
are to render a hand salute are military personnel, and that is *only*
when they are in uniform.

Actually the only reading I get of that is that applies during the
pledge of
allegience.

If you are suggesting an open interpretation of this US code regarding
flag protocol, then you are inviting a position that it is ok to do
anything outside of these specified methods. That is the angle taken
by lawyers of people who burn US flags.

Umm, no, I'm reading the friggen code. Please show in that paragraph where
it refers to any form of saluting, military or otherwise outside the
recitation of the Pledge?


If you have an alternative explanation as to why there are no pictures
of these two civilians saluting the flag, I'd be glad to consider it.

Can't speak to Jack's case, but in Neil's, remember there's very few photos
of him to being with.




~ CT

In article ,
says...


OM wrote:

...Me, I salute even thought I no longer wear the uniform. To be
totally honest, I've always felt that the hand-over-heart was sort
of...well, a bit fey.


Wouldn't it be cool to give a Romulan salute instead?

Um, Pat -- you *do* know that the Romulan salute (fist to heart and then
outstretched) is actually the old Roman salute, don't you?

Come to think of it, since the U.S. of A. is rapidly conforming to the
path followed by the old Roman Empire, that salute may well be
appropriate these days...

Doug

In article , says...

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...

snip

NASA ordered the Atlas and the Titan boosters straight from the Air
Force, not the contractors. I don't know what Atlas modifications you
are referring to, but in the case of the Titan, minor modifications
(for pogo suppression, etc) could actually be used by the Air Force as
improvements to future versions of the ICBM.

Sure, were they? I'm not saying that there wasn't a very close
co-development cycle on the Atlas and the Titan II, but that co-development
cycle was broken for the Saturn and various Delta, Centaur etc. planetary
probe launchers.

In the case of the Titan II, NASA ordered the basic missile from the Air
Force, true. But the MDS (Malfunction Detection System) that NASA
(*not* the Air Force) developed for the Titan in order to man-rate it
was never, to the best of my knowledge, either desired or implemented in
the Titan II by the Air Force.

Doug

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message ...
"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...

We wouldn't want to encourage independent thought, now would we.

LaDonna's thoughts are not independant; they are the same thoughts, actions
and words of any troll and the people who respond are simply clogging this
group up.

The troll "LaDonna Unit" has even had threads started on her/it's behalf
("LaToya acts as expected" from Scott Hedrick being just one example).

Killfile her/it! The responses to this troll are no different than for any
of the Maxson/CT trolls ("You have never provided any proof of what you say"
etc, ad infinitum).

DUMP THE BITCH!!

Such intellect.

In article ,
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy... _facility.org says...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 02:51:15 GMT, Dave Michelson
wrote:

I'm referring to you Scott. You, too, OM. Herb, Daniel: That goes for you,
too. And everyone else who sees the need to reply to "it".

...Dave, read my earlier post, #666. I sent the flatulent bitch to
Killfile Hell along with "scott's" two accounts *and* Paul "Gestapo"
Maxson's new one.

Ironically, I let Daniel Maxson out on parole. Something about yins
yanking yangs, or something like that...

Daniel, as I have always said, is a great example of some fruit that can
fall well away from the tree. Yes, he can get stubborn and pedantic at
times -- but so can you, OM. So can I. So can Herb, and Pat, and
Scott, and Derek. Hell, even Henry can get stubborn (especially about
finding ways to interpret some of his flat statements as "weaseled,"
LOL).

I actually enjoy and appreciate Daniel's posts here. Well, most of the
time, anyway... *grin*... He has always shown a great deal more humor
and honesty than his father and brother. And when confronted with
flames and abuse, he's taken it all with a grain of salt and moved on.
That truly sets him apart from both his family members who have posted
here, and from many of the other regular posters here...

Doug

"Kevin Willoughby" wrote in message
...
In article , derekl1963
@nospamyahoo.com says...
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:
WHERE do you get the BRASS to call me a liar when you haven't the
first clue what you are talking about?????

When one spouts something that is utterly and completely at odds with
facts well documented, one is a liar.

"Spouting something ... at odds with the facts..." is necessary but not
sufficient to be a liar. If one is honestly ignorant, misinformed or
obstinately unwilling to learn the truth, then telling an untruth isn't
a lie. It is possible that La Donna belives what she is saying.
--
She may fit Mark Perakh's ("Unintelligent Design") definition of a
dilettante as being someone who is convinced, after cursory study, that he
or she knows so much more than the experts in the field, who are accused of
just taking things on faith, and who have failed to notice that their theory
is really stupid.

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
From Scott Hedrick:
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote
(I hate when this thing doesn't post your message and you have to
start over.)

An easy way to get around that problem is that before you hit Post, be
sure to highlight and then copy your entire message. If you have any
problems, then just repaste.

Use a real newsreader and take your time. They are freely available for
download.

I consider GoogleGroups to be an excellent interface. I have used it
for every single post I have ever made to Usenet. I haven't tried any
downloaded newsreaders. If I were convinced that there was a
significant advantage, then I might.

A couple of reasons:
1. Some people set flags in their posts so they won't be archived in google.
2. Most newsreaders give you the option to ignore read messages. You can
also download messages to read offline (which is handy sometimes if you
travel.)