Apollo: One gas environment?

In article ,
OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote:

On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:05:18 -0500, Herb Schaltegger
wrote:

I'm a left-handed, blue-eyed Swiss-American male, 35 years old and fond
of wearing an antique mechanical watch at work. Which of these factors
play into determining whether I have any Constitutional protections
against discrimination AND WHY?

...The left-handed part. It's been proven in studies that being a
lefty means that you're specifically challenged when it comes to
giving hand jobs for crack if you're turning tricks in Englandland,
where the driver sits on the right side.

OM

BZZZZZZzzzzt! Oooooh, so sorry, Mr. OM, I'm afraid that is incorrect!
Amusing, but wrong nonetheless. But we have some faaaaabulous parting
gifts for you for playing our game. :-)

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

In article ,
"Scott Hedrick" wrote:

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message
...
I'm a left-handed, blue-eyed Swiss-American male, 35 years old

(sigh)

I remember 35...increasingly vaguely...

Well, hell, in just a couple months I'll start remembering it, too . . .
;-)

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Nicholas Fitzpatrick) wrote:

Where am I wrong? I only commented here that US legislators seem to
need constitutional guidance, to do the right thing. Where am I wrong?

You also don't understand the nature of constitutional democracy and the
oversight role of the judicial branch of American government. Please do
try to catch up.

Right. The way things work in practice is that some politician introduces
some unconstitutional bit of legislation in order to improve his standing
with his constituents. (For example, a bill allowing prayer in the schools
as long as no student is willing to stand up and publicly file a paper of
objection, or a bill prescribing the teaching of creationism, or a ...)
After the bill passes in an orgy of legislative posturing, so that all the
pols can look good to their conservative constituents, the state attorney
general then might act on the law (if it requires arresting people, for
example), and in any case, defends the state against the initial lawsuits by
the ACLU (or whomever). And the inevitable appeals, which may end up in the
supreme court. In addition to any social costs, and the waste of time, this
typically costs the state 20-30 million dollars. But the politicians can get
re-elected because they can claim that they were just trying to do the
moral, correct, and very often "biblical" thing to do. They can rail against
the "liberal judiciary" and the "liberal democrats" and get re-elected.
Personally, I would vote against such a moron who deliberately introduced
the same legislation that had been ruled unconstitutional in three other
states, or which was obviously unconstitutional based on the debate (a
"moment of silence" law which was clearly "prayer in school" based on all
the speeches made by its proponents.) for wasting money that could have gone
to something useful.

In article ,
"Ami Silberman" wrote:

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Nicholas Fitzpatrick) wrote:

Where am I wrong? I only commented here that US legislators seem to
need constitutional guidance, to do the right thing. Where am I wrong?

You also don't understand the nature of constitutional democracy and the
oversight role of the judicial branch of American government. Please do
try to catch up.

Right. The way things work in practice is . . .

(snip)

A remarkably cynical - albeit correct and sadly not uncommon - example.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

In article ,
(Nicholas Fitzpatrick) wrote:

In article ,
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
In article ,
(Nicholas Fitzpatrick) wrote:

Where am I wrong? I only commented here that US legislators seem to
need constitutional guidance, to do the right thing. Where am I wrong?

You also don't understand the nature of constitutional democracy and the
oversight role of the judicial branch of American government. Please do
try to catch up.

You are very arrogant, and assuming about what I know and don't know.
Please don't tell me what I understand and don't understand,
particularily when we haven't discussed the issue first.

Actually, I don't have to assume the limits of your comprehension when
you display those limits so clearly with every post you make referring
and alluding to such issues.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

In article ,
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
In article ,
(Nicholas Fitzpatrick) wrote:

That's good debate practice but it won't work on me. You're the one
claiming minority protections in the U.S. are somehow inadequate. YOU
prove YOUR statement; I don't have to disprove it.

I didn't think I had to. I thought everyone knew this one. Okay,
how about gays in the military. You can lose your job simply
based on sexual-orientation. Unconstitutional in many places.

"Everyone", huh? You're guilty of making far too many assumptions. The
rest of this paragraph proves the truth of my second, quoted below.

I over-estimated you ... sue me.

I'm a left-handed, blue-eyed Swiss-American male, 35 years old and fond
of wearing an antique mechanical watch at work. Which of these factors
play into determining whether I have any Constitutional protections
against discrimination AND WHY?

Irregardless of what laws have been passed to justify wide-scale
discrimination; the acid-test would be if there is a long-term
record of wide-scale discrimination aginst left-handed, blue-eyed
Swiss-American male, middle-aged watch lovers.

If there is such discrimination against this group, then they should, for
such purposes, be classified as a minority.

Nick

In article ,
Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Nicholas Fitzpatrick" wrote in message
...
You can lose your job simply
based on sexual-orientation.

There is *nothing unconstitutional whatsoever* about a private employer
firing someone based on their sexual orientation, their sex, the color of
their car, or the fact that they like to read Usenet.

Which only tells me that discrimination then, is not prevented by
the constitution (well, except perhaps the Usenet big! :-)

The issue that started this, (and I'm not reading back to find the
quote) that being a republic, the US protects minorities .... you just
told me they don't.

And that was my point too. So we agree ...

*Discrimination* makes life possible. I certainly discriminate when I refuse
to provide services for someone who can't pay me. I certainly discriminate
when I choose not to allow someone who I think is unqualified to perform
surgery on me. I am discriminated against properly when a store refuses to
sell something to me at a much lower price I choose instead of their listed
price.

What's interesting, is that you could use the same argument to make
blacks sit at the front of the bus.

Nick

In article ,
(Nicholas Fitzpatrick) wrote:

In article ,
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
In article ,
(Nicholas Fitzpatrick) wrote:

That's good debate practice but it won't work on me. You're the one
claiming minority protections in the U.S. are somehow inadequate. YOU
prove YOUR statement; I don't have to disprove it.

I didn't think I had to. I thought everyone knew this one. Okay,
how about gays in the military. You can lose your job simply
based on sexual-orientation. Unconstitutional in many places.

"Everyone", huh? You're guilty of making far too many assumptions. The
rest of this paragraph proves the truth of my second, quoted below.

I over-estimated you ... sue me.

Sadly, I seem to have pegged you perfectly.

I'm a left-handed, blue-eyed Swiss-American male, 35 years old and fond
of wearing an antique mechanical watch at work. Which of these factors
play into determining whether I have any Constitutional protections
against discrimination AND WHY?

Irregardless of what laws have been passed to justify wide-scale

You want to accept "defence" as proper English - fine, I suppose. I
refuse to accept "irregardless" as a word - it has a double-negative
built in; bah.

discrimination; the acid-test would be if there is a long-term
record of wide-scale discrimination aginst left-handed, blue-eyed
Swiss-American male, middle-aged watch lovers.

You dodged my question: I asked which of the above factors matter and
WHY?

If there is such discrimination against this group, then they should, for
such purposes, be classified as a minority.

That's not how it works. Please feel free to play again.

Nick

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

On Wed, 12 May 2004 12:45:53 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:

"Nicholas Fitzpatrick" croaked like a stuck Frog:

That's kind of ignorant isn't it? You assume that because you haven't
ever studied the constitutions of other nations, that we don't study
yours?

There you go again, making the assumption that we don't study the
constitutions of other nations. Comparative law was a requirement of my 9th
grade civics class.

....He's full of assumptions like this, Scott. It's why I sent him to
Killfile Hell last night, where he can eat snails and quiche with the
Maxsons.

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

On Wed, 12 May 2004 11:05:18 -0500, Herb Schaltegger
wrote:

I'm a left-handed, blue-eyed Swiss-American male, 35 years old and fond
of wearing an antique mechanical watch at work. Which of these factors
play into determining whether I have any Constitutional protections
against discrimination AND WHY?

....The left-handed part. It's been proven in studies that being a
lefty means that you're specifically challenged when it comes to
giving hand jobs for crack if you're turning tricks in Englandland,
where the driver sits on the right side.

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