|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 13 May 2004 13:37:29 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote: ....and the worst is "The Skunk"; an unpleasant smell that most Canadian beer seems to develop if it's not consumed fairly quickly after it's bottled. That's not Canadian, that's chemical. All bottled beers can do it. Just put them in the sunlight for a while. Even brown glass bottles won't prevent it entirely, although they'll reduce it. Mary -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 13 May 2004 20:25:54 GMT, Doug...
wrote: I have to say that, from a dietary standpoint, I am quite glad I've never been in a position to have to try and keep kosher. (I was going to say "I'm glad I'm not Jewish," but I have eaten and enjoyed quite a few traditional Jewish foods. I just like a lot of things that kosher rules prohibit.) ....Keep in mind, tho, that about 90% of the kosher regs came about in an attempt to curtail food poisoning and other maladies associated with improper food preparation. The primary motivation for the banning of the consumption of pork products stemmed from the fact that if you don't cook pork correctly, back then you pretty much guaranteed yourself a case of parasitical trichinosis, if not botulism or other diseases associated with eating swine and/or poultry products that weren't cleaned properly before and during prep & cooking. The additional fact that in a desert condition cleaning water is far less important than drinking water, and therefore far less available, is an additional factor. ....Nowadays, with today's modern technology and enhanced sanitation procedures, most if not all of the kosher laws could easily be discarded. The primary reason they aren't is, and always will be, because God/Yahweh/Jehovah said "don't eat that!", and never really sat down and explained why and when the ban should be lifted. Of course, the good side is that as long as kosher is being followed by the majority of practicing Jews, Coca-Cola will still be forced to keep making their product available manufactured with real pure-cane sugar instead of the wretched corn syrup. On the bad side, if God/Yahweh/Jehovah/Roddenberry had any real compassion, he'd restore that third stone tablet that Moses clumsily dropped on the way down Mount Sinai and make sure that one of the Lost Commandments said "Thou Shalt Not Use Corn Syrup To Produce Carbonated Soft Drinks!" "The 13th Circle of Hell: Eternal Unresting Spot for Anti-NASA politicians, hippies and scumbags, IRS workers, and those responsible for the New Coke/Corn Syrup scam." OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy... _facility.org says... On Thu, 13 May 2004 20:25:54 GMT, Doug... wrote: I have to say that, from a dietary standpoint, I am quite glad I've never been in a position to have to try and keep kosher. (I was going to say "I'm glad I'm not Jewish," but I have eaten and enjoyed quite a few traditional Jewish foods. I just like a lot of things that kosher rules prohibit.) ...Keep in mind, tho, that about 90% of the kosher regs came about in an attempt to curtail food poisoning and other maladies associated with improper food preparation. The primary motivation for the banning of the consumption of pork products stemmed from the fact that if you don't cook pork correctly, back then you pretty much guaranteed yourself a case of parasitical trichinosis, if not botulism or other diseases associated with eating swine and/or poultry products that weren't cleaned properly before and during prep & cooking. The additional fact that in a desert condition cleaning water is far less important than drinking water, and therefore far less available, is an additional factor. Oh, yeah -- no question. Now, that's not to say that Judaic scholars over the past 4,000 years or so haven't spent ages and ages coming up with complex and subtle spiritual justifications for the kosher laws. But, to my reading of some of it, that's all they are -- justifications. The real reason was, indeed, to prevent the kinds of "maladies" that befell other middle eastern tribes of the time. (A really nasty mold or outbreak of trichinosis could literally decimate a tribe... and the kosher laws were one reason why the Jews tended to outlast a lot of their contemporaries.) I will point out, though, that many of the other Arabic tribes of the time adopted similar (if not so complex) rules, especially in regards the eating of pigs. Recall that pigs are very close to humans genetically, so more of the diseases that thrive in pigs can also infect people. It's only with a relatively modern understanding of the kinds of foodborne illnesses that can be spread via pigs, poultry and seafood can we eat such things in relative safety. And not courting some of the epidemics we've witnessed in history. ...On the bad side, if God/Yahweh/Jehovah/Roddenberry had any real compassion, he'd restore that third stone tablet that Moses clumsily dropped on the way down Mount Sinai and make sure that one of the Lost Commandments said "Thou Shalt Not Use Corn Syrup To Produce Carbonated Soft Drinks!" From your mouth to God's ear! Doug |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy... _facility.org says... On Thu, 13 May 2004 20:00:53 GMT, Doug... wrote: I *know* that anyone who graduates from an American service academy has been well-trained in what constitutes an illegal order, and how to respond if you are given an illegal order by your superiors. I also know that recruits and draftees *used to* get a lecture on the subject as part of their classroom studies (at least they did 30 years ago). Is there anyone out there reading this ng who has gone through basic training recently and can tell us if they still train the grunts on what an illegal order is and what you should do if you receive one? ...Funny you should bring this up. One of the managers at one of the GC's I do websites for is in the ANG, and he pointed out that the "Illegal Order Lecture" is now basically a 20-minute lecture on what happens when you think an illegal order has been given, and what to do about it if you feel it shouldn't be followed. Most grunts apparently are told something along the lines of 'so long as you're not murdering anyone in cold blood, or you're not running some fissionable contraband past customs, or doing something that's outright treason, use your best judgement as what you think might be illegal may either be "legal" or "not illegal enough to worry about", and there goes your balls and your career. ...This is *FAR* different from what we were taught in NROTC 20 years ago. You do NOT follow an illegal order given by a superior officer, and you do anything shy of mutiny to prevent from having to carry out that order. On the other hand, trying to stop that order from being prevented by anything more than passive resistance was something the NOIs and MOIs discouraged *unless* it was obvious as hell that carrying out the illegal order was going to get everyone killed for the wrong reasons and/or was going to result in our side losing a battle or even the war. The key in all this was the fact that there are things going on in the upper levels of command that aren't filtered down to the lower ranks - the old "need to know basis" excuse. Most times that system works without a hitch, but when it's used to manipulate troops and events for the wrong reasons, that's when things fall apart and people get killed or worse. ...And I'm cuing Derek in on this one for his comments: The "Kobiashi Maru" scenario they used to give was this: you're stationed on a sub. Your captain has somehow gotten confirmation that the Soviets are going to launch a sneak attack on the US within the hour. For [fill in the blank with any reason you want(*)] you can't contact CINCUSNAVEUR, the Pentagon, the White House, or even Domino's Pizza for delivery of warning. The captain has decided to launch his own deterrent attack on Moscow in hopes of stopping their launching and/or disrupting their lines of communications long enough to allow the US to either launch their own preemptive strike or at least attempt to give the Soviets the chance to change their minds before the worst really does happen.. The question here is this: Since the captain hasn't gotten release of his weapons, and is therefore committing an illegal act of war, do you: A) Follow his orders, turn the keys, and make sure everyone has their stories straight for the UCMJ hearing; B) Stand down and relieve yourself of duty on the fact that the captain's lacking official weapons release from either the President or from another officially authorized decision maker within the chain of command; C) Mutiny and/or otherwise take direct action to keep the missiles from being launched until/unless official release is received ...The NOI who taught that course wouldn't reveal which answer got the most responses, but everyone pretty much guessed at the time that A) was pretty much it. Some guys admitted that B) was what they'd chosen, but that it also depended on who the enemy was and how the captain had gotten the information. One guy got honorable mention for ignoring C) and using a coin toss to choose A) or B), because he figured that honestly was the only way that God/Yahweh/Roddenberry was going to have any say in which way he should go that was tangible and believable. Now, see -- when you're talking about the potential start of The War That Really Will End All Wars 'Cause No One Will Be Left Alive, if you don't have release authority AND you are but one of a dozen boomers on patrol (another of which HAS to be able to get release authority in time), I would opt for C) and kiss my balls AND my career good-bye if I was wrong. Because launching those sumbitches without ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that some are already being launched towards me and mine (or are DEFINITELY being launched shortly) means ain't nobody gonna be worried about careers from that point on... Doug |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Ami Silberman" wrote in message ...
The Geneva conventions, the FM on the Law of Land Warfare, and a number of Army Regulations make it abundantly clear that those things are not acceptable. There was a failure to properly educate the soldiers involved in the correct and legal procedures. Wrong. Some of those accused *claim* they were improperly educated but that is almost certainly not the case. Every soldier in the US gets taught the fundamentals of the Geneva Conventions very early in basic training. Ignorance cannot possibly be an excuse here, they knowingly did wrong. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 13 May 2004 20:00:53 GMT, Doug...
wrote: I *know* that anyone who graduates from an American service academy has been well-trained in what constitutes an illegal order, and how to respond if you are given an illegal order by your superiors. I also know that recruits and draftees *used to* get a lecture on the subject as part of their classroom studies (at least they did 30 years ago). Is there anyone out there reading this ng who has gone through basic training recently and can tell us if they still train the grunts on what an illegal order is and what you should do if you receive one? ....Funny you should bring this up. One of the managers at one of the GC's I do websites for is in the ANG, and he pointed out that the "Illegal Order Lecture" is now basically a 20-minute lecture on what happens when you think an illegal order has been given, and what to do about it if you feel it shouldn't be followed. Most grunts apparently are told something along the lines of 'so long as you're not murdering anyone in cold blood, or you're not running some fissionable contraband past customs, or doing something that's outright treason, use your best judgement as what you think might be illegal may either be "legal" or "not illegal enough to worry about", and there goes your balls and your career. ....This is *FAR* different from what we were taught in NROTC 20 years ago. You do NOT follow an illegal order given by a superior officer, and you do anything shy of mutiny to prevent from having to carry out that order. On the other hand, trying to stop that order from being prevented by anything more than passive resistance was something the NOIs and MOIs discouraged *unless* it was obvious as hell that carrying out the illegal order was going to get everyone killed for the wrong reasons and/or was going to result in our side losing a battle or even the war. The key in all this was the fact that there are things going on in the upper levels of command that aren't filtered down to the lower ranks - the old "need to know basis" excuse. Most times that system works without a hitch, but when it's used to manipulate troops and events for the wrong reasons, that's when things fall apart and people get killed or worse. ....And I'm cuing Derek in on this one for his comments: The "Kobiashi Maru" scenario they used to give was this: you're stationed on a sub. Your captain has somehow gotten confirmation that the Soviets are going to launch a sneak attack on the US within the hour. For [fill in the blank with any reason you want(*)] you can't contact CINCUSNAVEUR, the Pentagon, the White House, or even Domino's Pizza for delivery of warning. The captain has decided to launch his own deterrent attack on Moscow in hopes of stopping their launching and/or disrupting their lines of communications long enough to allow the US to either launch their own preemptive strike or at least attempt to give the Soviets the chance to change their minds before the worst really does happen.. The question here is this: Since the captain hasn't gotten release of his weapons, and is therefore committing an illegal act of war, do you: A) Follow his orders, turn the keys, and make sure everyone has their stories straight for the UCMJ hearing; B) Stand down and relieve yourself of duty on the fact that the captain's lacking official weapons release from either the President or from another officially authorized decision maker within the chain of command; C) Mutiny and/or otherwise take direct action to keep the missiles from being launched until/unless official release is received ....The NOI who taught that course wouldn't reveal which answer got the most responses, but everyone pretty much guessed at the time that A) was pretty much it. Some guys admitted that B) was what they'd chosen, but that it also depended on who the enemy was and how the captain had gotten the information. One guy got honorable mention for ignoring C) and using a coin toss to choose A) or B), because he figured that honestly was the only way that God/Yahweh/Roddenberry was going to have any say in which way he should go that was tangible and believable. ....Beady, your son's ANG, right? Can you call him and see what he's got to say from his experience? (*) And we got extra credit for coming up with really good reasons, too. Mine was that the sub was being chased and had disguised itself by moving into the middle of a pack of whales singing mating songs. The problem was that if they attempted to raise the antenna buoy they'd get detected, and those "secret extreme LF radios" that worked underwater were being disrupted by harmonics from the whales' pickup lines, so there simply wasn't any way to contact Washington. ....That one worked fine until I went on about how the Flying Sub was in the shop getting overhauled, and the 2nd Lt NOI took off an EC point because he *hated* "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" with a passion. For his going away cake the next semester, we found an old Aurora "Seaview" kit and had it imbedded on top of the cake, which had been decorated like a beach by the ocean, with the sub upside down like a beached whale. Despite his lack of taste, he was one hell of an instructor! OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message ... I recall reading a science fiction story- the details of which, like the name, I can't remember now- in which the "loyal opposition" was created by the authoritiarian regime to give the illusion of dissent. The "opposition" didn't even know it was a puppet. Interesting Times by Terry Pratchett? |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy... _facility.org says... On Thu, 13 May 2004 23:34:33 GMT, Doug... wrote: I would opt for C) and kiss my balls AND my career good-bye ...Especially if you can't learn to trim your quotes, you git :-P :-P You know I almost always trim my quotes... I just figured that there may be people who have you killfiled(*) who might like to have seen your excellent recap of illegal orders. At least, that's my story and I'm sticking to it... *Of course, everyone on this ng who's politically somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun, which seems to be a damn large number these days, probably has *me* killfiled now, too, for being a dirty ****ing nig... er, liberal -- but that's just fine with me. Doug |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 13 May 2004 14:44:24 -0500, Doug...
wrote: Light beer is arrived at by using less sugars and grains in the brewing process, IIRC, thereby reducing the overall calories. ....My father was given a prescription for lite beer when Miller introduced it in the early 70's when he made it clear to his doctor at the time that there was no way in hell he'd ever give up beer. The same quack tried to pull the same **** on me when neutrasweet came out and Coke started using it. The instant 3-hour "vicodin? HAH!" migrane I suffered after two sips was part of the study that showed the FDA that, yes Virginia, there *are* people with massive neutrasweet intolerance. At that point, I made it clear that the only time I'll ever try another sugar substitute is when they finally find a way to mass produce L-Sugar as cheap as the real stuff. I've had a spoonful of that, and there was AbZero taste difference between L-Sugar and R-Sugar. However, I believe that beer in the U.S. has a standard alcohol content that all brands are supposed to match. If a beer doesn't have that specific alcohol content (something like 6%, or 12 proof), it is marked as such; for example, in many states they have what's called "3.2 beer" that has a 3.2% alcohol content. In Minnesota, for a long time, you could serve 3.2 beer without getting a full liquor license. ....Correct. In fact, although I'm not sure if it's still available, there used to be a 1.6 beer that was sold in the commissaries and ship's stores on some of the larger US Navy vessels, and was legal to keep your own supply in your personal gear provided the captain hadn't issued a no-booze order on his ship. However, drinking beer that weak doesn't give you enough of a buzz to make it worth your while. All it does is lower the blood pressure a notch, but not enough to really matter, IMHO. OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 13 May 2004 14:57:46 -0500, Doug...
wrote: Yeah, there are a lot of very good small and microbreweries in the U.S. That may be one reason why there are no large beer brands that feature really good beers; the high-end beer market is served by the small and microbreweries, while the big guys (like Anheuser Busch and Miller Brewing) make their money off the high-volume sales of the weak-ass crap that Americans like to drink. ....Guys, keep in mind that the sole reason US mainstream beer is weaker than the rest of the world's brew supply has to do with federal and state alcohol regulations that keep mass-consumption beer at their currently FNW alcohol levels. Above a certain level they're required to be sold in liquor stores under a more controlled environment, and taxed differently. If beer had twice the alcohol it currently does, it wouldn't be sold at the supermarket, and would probably cost three times what it does now. ....Which is why I gave up on beer in 1985 for good, and have had, IIRC, only three oil cans of Foster's ever since. If I want to drink, I currently drink only the following: * Dr. McGillicuddy's Vanilla Schnappes. Mixed one shot with a 12-oz Coke or Dr. Pepper, it becomes an ice cream float with a kick. Add in real ice cream and the effect is even more McStaggering! * Blueberry Schnappes and Mountain Dew. 100ml BS in 400ml of MD produces the type of shoe dispersal kick that the original Mountain Dew commericals in 1967 promised but never delivered. I'm serious on this one, kids. Try it. * Blue Creme Nehi and Monopolya Austrian Vodka. This is how you synthesize Romulan Ale, kids. A word of warning, tho: this will turn your turds blue if you drink more than three or four 500ml mixtures of this. I'm serious on this one too. * Johnny Walker Blue, chilled. Expensive as hell - $30/shot last I had it - but worth it for special occasions. Caveat: once you drink this, you will never be able to stomach JW Red, Black or Gold again. Ever. * Pepto-Bismoll. This is a drink I invented that someone claims is also called a B-52. Bailey's, Butterscotch Schnappes, and Creme De Almond, all in equal amounts. Looks just like Pepto, and actually does coat, sooth and relieve. Came about when I was trying to mix a Buttery Nipple, and was too busy explaining to two gals why they were wrong about how mating with guys who are losers with no jobs and no futures is a good thing. * Radar's Aphrodesiac (AKA Korean Fly). Grape Nehi or any other grape soda, mixed with Purple Pucker grape schnappes. Caveat: If you burp, don't burp through your nose, because this *will* burn your mucous membranes. * Pina Colostomy. Pina Colada Mix, Malibu coconut rum. Dr. McGillicuddy's Vanilla Schnappes, Vanilla Ice Cream. Make a shake, but don't ever try making a malt with this concoction. Caveat: I have experienced, and known others who've suffered, if you mix this with low-fat ice cream or some other ice cream substitute, a bad case of the runs the next morning. * TGI Enema. Same as a Pina Colostomy, but you replace the PC Mix with a bottle of that Dreamsickle mix that TGI Friday's sells. Same effect can be seen under same conditions, and serves as a lesson that if you're going to eat ice cream, don't try and cheat with the low-fat crap. Just bite the bullet and use the *real* stuff. OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) | Nathan Jones | Misc | 6 | July 29th 04 06:14 AM |
Apollo | Buzz alDredge | Misc | 5 | July 28th 04 10:05 AM |
Apollo | Buzz alDredge | UK Astronomy | 5 | July 28th 04 10:05 AM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ | darla | Misc | 10 | July 25th 04 02:57 PM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ | darla | UK Astronomy | 11 | July 25th 04 02:57 PM |