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

From Scott Hedrick:
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote
CT, you are a VERY welcome addition to this debate.

Losers and wallflowers tend to stick together.

Notice that those preoccupied with popularity will tend to compromise
much in order to fit in with the crowd.

If given the alternative of standing alone uncompromised, I am quite
willing to accept the label of "wallflower".

I do not hesitate to question the "popular" members here (such as
Henry or Mary or Jim or...) if I see them say something I see as
bogus. I consider everyone as friends (to include OM, etc) and I
would prefer that we all stay open to criticism.

I understand how fragile egos can be. But I would much rather
sacrifice my popularity than my integrity.


~ CT

From Scott Hedrick:
(Stuf4) wrote
And all of that saluting by the military moonwalkers invites the view
that their Apollo space suits were their military uniforms.

Shouldn't be a problem for you then, Stuffie, to provide the military
regulations for uniforms at the time and show where spacesuits are listed.

It's not a matter of opinion. The military has specific regulations as to
what constitutes a uniform. Please provide a copy of the regulations that
shows that moonsuits were military uniforms. Without that, your claims to
that effect are nonsense.

I was not saying that spacesuits were listed as military uniforms.
Obviously, the civilian astronauts had identical suits.

The point was that those ten military spacewalker were aware that it
is improper (according to strict code) for them to salute the flag
when not in uniform.

Recap:

It is improper for civilians to wear military uniforms.
It is improper for military to salute the flag when not in uniform.

Conclusion - Those Apollo photos reveal a definite breach in strict
code regarding uniforms/saluting.


~ CT

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:54:55 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
. com...
CT, you are a VERY welcome addition to this debate.

Losers and wallflowers tend to stick together.

....**** tends to attract flies, natch.


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 Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:46:03 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:

Hell, so's *mohair* (at least until recently, it got a government subsidy
specifically so that it would be available for military uniforms), but you
don't see soldiers shaving the goats. Yes on national defense, no on
military.

....And don't forget that it was also subsidized by Bennie and the
Jets. That is, according to the magazine I read.

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

"Ami Silberman" wrote ...
"Stuf4" wrote ...
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.)

3. The significantly greater delay from Google posts being made to seeing them
turn up in the newsgroup.
4. The ability to killfile in newsreaders.
5. Better handling for $BF|K\8l$H$+$N8@8l(B in newsreaders.

(I admit the last one applies more to me than to most people ;-)

Mary Shafer wrote:

I was so jealous when I saw the paper on the CBU
munition testing, with a huge footprint for the submunitions.


Typical woman...all you are interested in is a whole lot of bangs... :-)

Pat (running)

Using anything other than plain text in a newsgroup gets you killfiled.

"OM" om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote
in message ...
...**** tends to attract flies, natch.

LaToya is clearly a fly- at least **** can be useful.

On 2004-06-18, Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...
The TSA is not military, the CIA is not military, but both are
vital to national defense.

Hell, so's *mohair* (at least until recently, it got a government subsidy
specifically so that it would be available for military uniforms), but you
don't see soldiers shaving the goats. Yes on national defense, no on
military.

I feel obligated to mention the National Strategic Helium Reserve here,
but for no real reason other than that I like saying National Strategic
Helium Reserve. Um... anyway...

--
-Andrew Gray

On 2004-06-18, Mary Shafer wrote:

You'll notice I didn't say we never wanted ordnance, just that we
couldn't have it. I was so jealous when I saw the paper on the CBU
munition testing, with a huge footprint for the submunitions.

I read that as "submissions", and wondered what surreal journal this
paper was in...

--
-Andrew Gray