Nowak's future is clear...

Rand Simberg a écrit :
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 07:49:45 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Neil
Rieck" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


She made a "huge" mistake.

But at the end of the day NASA is just her employer and has no right to
dismiss her.


Really? NASA, as "just her employer," has a right to dismiss anyone
it wants, for any reason, barring civil service protections (that
don't apply in cases like this).


Stuff like this happens all the time in every walk of life
(including police + politicians) and we are just kidding ourselves when we
think we are better than she is.


Speak for yourself.


Obviously Mr Simberg is a saint.

Ahhh when the saints go marching in. I do not want to be in that number.

I hope she can turn-around her life.


So do we, but that doesn't mean that she should go unpunished.


Yeah. Go on punishing. You never betrayed your wife, never thought about
betraying your wife, never had a suspicious relationship, you were (and
are) always straight, clean, without any secret to be ashamed of.

You, (and the other robots here) are better than real robots. No
feelings whatsoever, no desperation, no love, no problems.

And always the first to go on pointing fingers, asking for
punishment as it wasn't already enough the destruction of this
woman, this jokes all around the country, this crucifixion of a
human being that happened to be human and not a robot.

If there was a god I would CRY

GOD DAMMED YOU HYPOCRITES!!!!

But there isn't any god up there.

So I stay silent and wait till that woman is utterly destroyed
and she can have silence and peace of mind.

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:43:04 +0100, in a place far, far away, jacob
navia made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Stuff like this happens all the time in every walk of life
(including police + politicians) and we are just kidding ourselves when we
think we are better than she is.


Speak for yourself.


Obviously Mr Simberg is a saint.

What a foolish black-and-white mind you have. One doesn't have to be
a "saint" to not attempt a murder. Or to be better than someone who
does.

I hope she can turn-around her life.


So do we, but that doesn't mean that she should go unpunished.


Yeah. Go on punishing. You never betrayed your wife, never thought about
betraying your wife, never had a suspicious relationship, you were (and
are) always straight, clean, without any secret to be ashamed of.

I've never planned, or even fantasized about killing anyone, let alone
attempted it. I'm reasonably certain I never will.

Rand Simberg a écrit :
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:43:04 +0100, in a place far, far away, jacob
navia made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


Stuff like this happens all the time in every walk of life
(including police + politicians) and we are just kidding ourselves when we
think we are better than she is.


Speak for yourself.



Obviously Mr Simberg is a saint.


What a foolish black-and-white mind you have. One doesn't have to be
a "saint" to not attempt a murder. Or to be better than someone who
does.

Attempted "murder" is just a lie. It is incredible how all the media
has jumped into conclusions that are not warranted by the facts. She
did not harm the other woman, at most, she sprayed her with gas,
and the other has no physical damage at all.

Why all that? The bb-gun, the other stuff?

I do not know but she did not use it, and she was caught when
trying to throw it away.

Yes, she was desperate, and maybe she *could* have done harm to
her rival. But she DID NOT, and before we start accusing her of
"attempted murder" as it was a fact, I would like to ask if in
your country (the U.S.) there is a presumption of innocence,
i.e. if someone accused is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

In this country (France) this is the case.

But you Mr Simberg, are calling her a "murder" or somebody
that did an "attempted murder" BEFORE any trial, BEFORE any
occassion for her to explain herself.

THAT IS WHAT MAKES ME MAD IN THIS AFFAIR!!!

SHE IS ALREADY GUILTY

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:09:49 +0100, in a place far, far away, jacob
navia made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg a écrit :
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:43:04 +0100, in a place far, far away, jacob
navia made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


Stuff like this happens all the time in every walk of life
(including police + politicians) and we are just kidding ourselves when we
think we are better than she is.


Speak for yourself.



Obviously Mr Simberg is a saint.


What a foolish black-and-white mind you have. One doesn't have to be
a "saint" to not attempt a murder. Or to be better than someone who
does.

Attempted "murder" is just a lie.

No, it's an opinion, based on the available evidence.

It is incredible how all the media
has jumped into conclusions that are not warranted by the facts. She
did not harm the other woman, at most, she sprayed her with gas,
and the other has no physical damage at all.

That's because she apparently didn't get a chance to do anything
elses, because she drove away.

Why all that? The bb-gun, the other stuff?

I do not know but she did not use it, and she was caught when
trying to throw it away.

Yes, she was desperate, and maybe she *could* have done harm to
her rival. But she DID NOT, and before we start accusing her of
"attempted murder" as it was a fact, I would like to ask if in
your country (the U.S.) there is a presumption of innocence,
i.e. if someone accused is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Only in a court of law. Not necessarily in the court of public
opinion. OJ is guilty, regardless of what the first jury said.

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:02:15 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:


But at the end of the day NASA is just her employer and has no right to
dismiss her.

Umm, they have every right to dismiss here. And if she is convicted I can
100% guarantee they will.

That all depends on if she is found mentally competent. There is good
reason to believe she has a serious psychological disorder, and one
that only recently manifested itself. NASA and the U.S. Navy both have
a duty to help her.

Brian

"Neil Rieck" ) writes:
She made a "huge" mistake.

But at the end of the day NASA is just her employer and has no right to
dismiss her.

Oh, I dare say that trying to commit several criminal acts are good
grounds for losing a government job.

Sheesh.

Stuff like this happens all the time in every walk of life
(including police + politicians) and we are just kidding ourselves when we
think we are better than she is.

I dare say that the 90% of the unarrested and lawabiding population would
prove the error of this claim.

I hope she can turn-around her life.

She ought to have 25 years in a small room with which to do that...

Andre

jacob navia wrote:
(....snip....)


Wow. Just plain wow.

In article k.net,
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:


But at the end of the day NASA is just her employer and has no right to
dismiss her.

Umm, they have every right to dismiss here. And if she is convicted I can
100% guarantee they will.

She's clearly suffering very classical mental illness symptoms. No
employer would fire someone under these circumstances. And no one would
be convicted of a crime. Mental illness isn't a crime ... This isn't
the third world ...

Oh hang on, I guess it is kind of the third world down there ... well
she's screwed isn't she ...

Seriously though, it doesn't take much to figure out this is quite likely
related to workplace stress. Presumably even in backward countries, an
employer has still got some responsibility.

Nick

Nicholas Fitzpatrick ) plays a doctor on Usenet:
In article k.net,
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:

But at the end of the day NASA is just her employer and has no right to
dismiss her.

Umm, they have every right to dismiss here. And if she is convicted I can
100% guarantee they will.

She's clearly suffering very classical mental illness symptoms.

Please post proof of your mental health care credentials, and proof of
your having them, and having examined Ms. Nowak.

No proof offered ? Excuse mongering claim fails.

No employer would fire someone under these circumstances.

No proof offered ? Fact free claim fails.

And no one would be convicted of a crime.

No proof offered ? Fact free claim fails. Oh, please post proof of your
legal professional credentials. None offered ? Second basis for claim
failure.

Mental illness isn't a crime ... This isn't the third world ...

No, apparently, its the place where " mental illnesses " are diagnosed
via Usenet.

Oh hang on, I guess it is kind of the third world down there ... well
she's screwed isn't she ...

You MS-spelled " Has equal rights to justice. "

Seriously though, it doesn't take much to figure out this is quite likely
related to workplace stress.

laughs Yeah, if pigs had wings...

Presumably even in backward countries, an
employer has still got some responsibility.

Presumably even in forward countries, a claimant of " mental illness "
bears the burden of PROOF that it... exists...

Andre

Andre Lieven wrote:

....

No proof offered ? Fact free claim fails.

....

Does anyone have contact info for Andre's ex?

--
Dave Michelson