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

From Greg Moo
"Stuf4" wrote
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?

Your reading a *part* of the code. It is important to note the
distinction between a -reference- and a -source- document. That
reference I posted *directed* you to the source of their information:

"The laws relating to the flag of the United States of America are
found in detail in the United States Code. Title 4, Chapter 1 pertains
to the flag and seal, seat of Government and the States; Title 18,
Chapter 33 pertains to crimes and criminal procedures; Title 36,
Chapter 10 pertains to patriotic customs and observances. These laws
were supplemented by Executive Orders and Presidential Proclamations."
(ref- http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/m.../flaglaws1.htm)


To see more, just look up the source. An easy way to get to the
source is to google ["us code" "title 36" "chapter 10"]. The very
first hit takes you to this page:

http://www.usflag.org/us.code36.html#36

.....where you can see that there's a lot more to flag protocol than
the national anthem, Star-Spangled Banner, and the pledge of
allegiance:

__________

§ 170. National anthem; Star-Spangled Banner.
§ 171. Conduct during playing.
§ 172. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery.
§ 173. Display and use of flag by civilians; codification of rules and
customs; definition.
§ 174. Time and occasions for display.
§ 175. Position and manner of display.
§ 176. Respect for flag.
§ 177. Conduct during hoisting, lowering or passing of flag.
§ 178. Modification of rules and customs by President.
§ 179. Design for service flag; persons entitled to display flag.
§ 180. Design for service lapel button; persons entitled to wear
button.
§ 181. Approval of designs by Secretary of Defense; license
tomanufacture and sell; penalties.
§ 182. Rules and regulations.
§ 182a to 184. Repealed.
§ 185. Transferred.
§ 186. National motto.
§ 187. National floral emblem.
§ 188. National march.
§ 189. Recognition of National League of Families POW/MIA flag.
___________



.....just one more click takes you to Section 177:


___________

§177. Conduct during hoisting, lowering or passing of flag
During the ceremony of hoisting or lowering the flag or when the flag
is passing in a parade or in review, all persons present except those
in
uniform should face the flag and stand at attention with the right
hand
over the heart. Those present in uniform should render the military
salute. When not in uniform, men should remove their headdress with
their
right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the
heart. Aliens should stand at attention. The salute to the flag in a
moving column should be rendered at the moment the flag passes.

___________


Here we find the answer that best applies to the Apollo situation.
The US flag was "hoisted". US code says that it is proper for
astronauts to face the flag, stand at attention...

Here there is divergence. Military officers in uniform are required
to render the military hand salute. Civilians are required to remove
their headdress and place their right hand over their heart. So did
the Apollo spacesuit count as a military uniform? Since Neil and Jack
were wearing the exact same uniform as the others, were they required
to salute as well? (Being civilian, the impracticalities of them
having to "remove their headdress" has been previously addressed.)


.....or maybe all 12 of them should simply have stood at attention like
Buzz did. This is what the US code says that "aliens" should do, and
after all they were on the Moon. Ha!

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.

Excellent point. If Buzz had been more generous with his film,
perhaps he would have captured an image of Neil popping to attention
in front of the flag and giving a Boy Scout salute!


~ CT

From Jim Davis:
Stuf4 wrote:

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.

And yet, Dennis, you've compared people who don't agree with you to
the followers of Jim Jones.

If you are guessing that my gender is male and that my name is Dennis,
my response is that I have never disclosed such information on this
forum and I have no current plans to do so now. If you'd like
confirmation of anything, I'd be glad to give private answers through
private email.

One piece of feedback that I will give publicly here is that Jim Jones
is not the "Jim" I was referring to.

(Or perhaps I missed something in your meaning.)


~ CT

From Ami:
"Stuf4" wrote
From Ami:

We are in agreement that NASA was not a military agency. But unlike
your highway analogy, notice that NASA *did* have many military
personnel.

We are? I was pretty sure that you were arguing otherwise.

Clearly, NASA was created as a civilian agency. It was civilian in
1958. It is civilian today.

The view I have been presenting is that NASA's mission of human
spaceflight had, primarily, a military purpose critical to national
defense.

So we are mostly disagreeing about terminology. To me, national defense does
not imply military. Military implies being under the control and oversight
of the DoD. The TSA is not military, the CIA is not military, but both are
vital to national defense.

I would say that national defense does _imply_ military, but certainly
is not necessarily military.

For the USA, -military- not only implies DoD control and oversight.
Here the relationship is necessary. By design, all US military is
placed under DoD.


Sure, but I don't think that "militarized" means what you think it does.
It
means "taken over by the military", or "issued arms". If anything, NASA
"civilianized" military officers by including them in a civilian agency.

I was saying that NASA took over military programs for human
spaceflight. NASA could have done their own, starting from scratch.
They didn't. The Mercury 7 could have been seven civilians. They
weren't.

Which indicates that the military programs were de-militarized.

I agree with that!

(Now if you were to say that NASA _totally_ de-militarized these
programs, then I would point again to the strictly military elements
within NASA.)

And the fact that astronauts were given *military promotion in rank*
for flying a space mission goes directly against your notion of having
civilianized them.

Not really. It has been common for military officers who supported civilian
efforts to receive promotions in order to maintain their career path. A
number of astronaut candidates were worried that they would spend five years
in NASA, fly maybe one flight, and come back at the same rank, and never get
their career back on track. Tying the promotions to flight was a sign by the
military that the officers were accomplishing a mission important to the
nation, and probably made more symbolic sense than just giving them a
promotion when they got back. IIRC, Tom Stafford eventually made BG and
commanded either a squadron or an air wing. Mary can correct me if I'm
wrong, but didn't military test pilots who worked for NACA/NASA also get
promotions?

Yeah, Stafford made BG.

....and then he blasted right past that for two more stars!

There's no shortage of astronauts who went back into the military fold
to get promoted to general/admiral.

As far as military pilots working for NASA, I'm now aware of *any* who
worked for NASA in the same kind of permanent status that astronauts
had. If anyone got promoted while working a temporary project at
NASA, I expect that it was more a matter of coincidence than getting
promoted *because* of anything they did while at NASA.

Ham and Enos had the required skills to pilot a Mercury capsule. You,
Ami, have the required skills. NASA had many thousands of
non-military candidates available to them who could have done just
fine.

I do not have the required skills. For one, I'm too fat The key word is
"pilot". Ham and Enos would not, even together, been capable of carrying out
Gordon Cooper's mission. The goal was human space flight. Animal flights are
limited excursions testing part of the vehicles capabilities. One of the
purposes of Mercury (as it evolved) was to gain experience in human space
flight, and to give humans experience in space flight, prepatory to Apollo.

From "This New Ocean"
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...4201/ch5-8.htm, discussing the
original draft civil service announcement for astronaut candidates:

"Furthermore, the job qualifications required proof that applicants had
demonstrated recently their "(a) willingness to accept hazards comparable to
those encountered in modern research airplane flight; (b) capacity to
tolerate rigorous and severe environmental conditions; and (c) ability to
react adequately under conditions of stress or emergency."

The entire set (a,b,c) were met by non-human primates. This is why I
was certain that you have the -skills-, Ami. Physical dimensions
aside, it takes very little skill to fly a capsule. They do a great
job flying themselves.

I agree with your point about Gordon Cooper. But Mercury was
successful even without his flight. Notice how the Soviets flew a
generally successful program in hiring someone who was a girl from a
farm to fly their spacecraft.

snip
Since certain classified aspects would inevitably
be involved, military test pilots could most conveniently satisfy security
considerations."

I have expressed dissent with that last statement in past discussions
on this topic. The argument is that it is far from -convenient- to
take an exceptionally qualified person out of the small pool of test
pilots for the reason of satisfying security considerations.

It is far more convenient to take a person with a security clearance
who's loss from their current job will have minimal impact.

A military presence was deliberately infused into NASA's most visible
roles, even though it was totally unnecessary.


It was not totally unnecessary. It was expedient to go ahead with a pool of
candidates who were, by their profession, already relatively qualified. This
was back in the 50s, when issues of "equal opportunity" hadn't yet caught
on. The White house, with (at times grudging) NASA acceptance decided
against an open audition, and limited the initial astronaut candidate set to
those with test pilot experience. (There were a total of seven
requirements.) It may have been unnecessary, but, given that the program had
National security implications, this seemed the cheapest, fastest, and most
efficient way to get the job. Unless there had been an ideological component
to the selection saying "we must have civilians", why not go with a
pre-selected small pool? Remember, this was not today's society.

Proof that the Mercury requirements were over-specified is the fact
that they were not even met by those who were hired! Case in point:
John Glenn not having a college degree.

I maintain that -test pilot- is an overspecification. Even -pilot-.
Even male. I'm tempted to add -human-, but I won't go that far
because the goal was human spaceflight. So this is the only
_necessary_ qualification that the chimps didn't meet.

There were plenty of civilians who, like military test pilots,
*already had their clearance*.

That Right Stuff story does not hold water.

But were they otherwise qualified, and was there the capacity to screen for
them? Remember, the selection process as actually implemented started with
screening a known and bounded set of records (service pilots) versus a civil
service application.

I see no reason why it would have been overly difficult to screen
civilians.

There was lots more going on to tell them that their primary mission
was thermonuclear power projection. Khrushchev boldly stated in
public that his cosmonauts could just as well have been warheads. I
provided links to that NORAD slideshow equating Vostok to a nuclear
onslaught. There have been hundreds of posts on this forum discussing
the overt signs of how the purpose of NASA was nuclear deterrence.

Mostly by you.

The vast majority of info in those posts was merely pointing out
information that has been available the whole time. A
messenger/message type of issue here.

Power project does not mean technology demonstration. Besides, many of the
pilots had wartime experience, or had served in active fighter wings,
including some with nukes. It probably didn't bother them.

Power projection means flexing your muscles. And if those muscles
happen to be new technological muscles, then yes, it does encompass
technology demonstration. What do you think Sputnik was? As far as
the pilot's views, I agree that these aspects didn't bother them. I
expect that they were all extremely proud of the part they were
playing as Cold Warriors.

A question that I would be very intrigued to hear them field is, "What
connection do you see between Apollo and the nuclear arms race?"

I would be interested in seeing what they would say about that as well.
The
results are likely to be suprising to one or the other of us.

Actually I would not be surprised if none of them admit to seeing any
connection. I'm sure that they'd all prefer to be remembered as
having peacefully served all mankind, instead of bio-placebo warheads
along with the astrochimps.

But how does Apollo, divorced from Gemini and Mercury, have anything to do
with nuclear warheads? Not all of the cold war was about nukes. A lot was
about showing how your superpower was a worker's paradise, or that your
country had the best technology, so you should buy our
tanks/fighterplanes/political ideology. I think that the later part of the
space race, especially the lunar programs, was more general. Both sides had
already demonstrated the theoretical ability to place nukes anywhere they
wanted. They were playing the moon race not for each other to see, but for
the rest of the world.

I disagree.

Ability to nuke was only the ante for the game. Once the cards were
dealt, both sides had to play their cards in a skillful way that
convinced the other that they were overpowered and outclassed. It was
not enough to have a good hand. You had to communicate that you had a
*better* hand. The nuclear ante started with Hiroshima. The Soviets
matched. The stakes were raised up to H-bombs. Matched again. The
USSR raises with Sputnik. Ike sees the Sputnik and raises a Mercury.
Up and up the nuclear pot grows. JFK cranks it all the way up to the
Moon. The Kremlin hesitates. Will they fold? Will they call?

It's an unusual play. They don't match 1-for-1 the huge raise that
JFK made. Instead, they slide a space station into the pot and make
the claim that it is worth the same as a Saturn V.

The game cools off for a bit as the players argue their cases. The US
decides to throw in a shuttle along with the Moon rockets. USSR
matches once again. And then comes the decisive moment. Reagan
decides to not only match their station...

Instead of piddling around, he decides to go ALL IN!

Star Wars.

The biggest bluff in human history. But it worked. The Kremlin
worked up an intense sweat, but in the end they decided to fold.


Yes, the rest of the world was intently watching this game. But they
were on the sidelines the whole time. There were only two players at
the level of this game.


~ CT

(Stuf4) wrote in message . com...
From Ami:
"Stuf4" wrote
From Ami:

We are in agreement that NASA was not a military agency. But unlike
your highway analogy, notice that NASA *did* have many military
personnel.

We are? I was pretty sure that you were arguing otherwise.

Clearly, NASA was created as a civilian agency. It was civilian in
1958. It is civilian today.

The view I have been presenting is that NASA's mission of human
spaceflight had, primarily, a military purpose critical to national
defense.

So we are mostly disagreeing about terminology. To me, national defense does
not imply military. Military implies being under the control and oversight
of the DoD. The TSA is not military, the CIA is not military, but both are
vital to national defense.

I would say that national defense does _imply_ military, but certainly
is not necessarily military.

For the USA, -military- not only implies DoD control and oversight.
Here the relationship is necessary. By design, all US military is
placed under DoD.


Sure, but I don't think that "militarized" means what you think it does.
It
means "taken over by the military", or "issued arms". If anything, NASA
"civilianized" military officers by including them in a civilian agency.

I was saying that NASA took over military programs for human
spaceflight. NASA could have done their own, starting from scratch.
They didn't. The Mercury 7 could have been seven civilians. They
weren't.

Which indicates that the military programs were de-militarized.

I agree with that!

(Now if you were to say that NASA _totally_ de-militarized these
programs, then I would point again to the strictly military elements
within NASA.)

And the fact that astronauts were given *military promotion in rank*
for flying a space mission goes directly against your notion of having
civilianized them.

Not really. It has been common for military officers who supported civilian
efforts to receive promotions in order to maintain their career path. A
number of astronaut candidates were worried that they would spend five years
in NASA, fly maybe one flight, and come back at the same rank, and never get
their career back on track. Tying the promotions to flight was a sign by the
military that the officers were accomplishing a mission important to the
nation, and probably made more symbolic sense than just giving them a
promotion when they got back. IIRC, Tom Stafford eventually made BG and
commanded either a squadron or an air wing. Mary can correct me if I'm
wrong, but didn't military test pilots who worked for NACA/NASA also get
promotions?

Yeah, Stafford made BG.

...and then he blasted right past that for two more stars!

There's no shortage of astronauts who went back into the military fold
to get promoted to general/admiral.

As far as military pilots working for NASA, I'm now aware of *any* who
worked for NASA in the same kind of permanent status that astronauts
had. If anyone got promoted while working a temporary project at
NASA, I expect that it was more a matter of coincidence than getting
promoted *because* of anything they did while at NASA.

Ham and Enos had the required skills to pilot a Mercury capsule. You,
Ami, have the required skills. NASA had many thousands of
non-military candidates available to them who could have done just
fine.

I do not have the required skills. For one, I'm too fat The key word is
"pilot". Ham and Enos would not, even together, been capable of carrying out
Gordon Cooper's mission. The goal was human space flight. Animal flights are
limited excursions testing part of the vehicles capabilities. One of the
purposes of Mercury (as it evolved) was to gain experience in human space
flight, and to give humans experience in space flight, prepatory to Apollo.

From "This New Ocean"
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...4201/ch5-8.htm, discussing the
original draft civil service announcement for astronaut candidates:

"Furthermore, the job qualifications required proof that applicants had
demonstrated recently their "(a) willingness to accept hazards comparable to
those encountered in modern research airplane flight; (b) capacity to
tolerate rigorous and severe environmental conditions; and (c) ability to
react adequately under conditions of stress or emergency."

The entire set (a,b,c) were met by non-human primates. This is why I
was certain that you have the -skills-, Ami. Physical dimensions
aside, it takes very little skill to fly a capsule. They do a great
job flying themselves.

I agree with your point about Gordon Cooper. But Mercury was
successful even without his flight. Notice how the Soviets flew a
generally successful program in hiring someone who was a girl from a
farm to fly their spacecraft.

snip
Since certain classified aspects would inevitably
be involved, military test pilots could most conveniently satisfy security
considerations."

I have expressed dissent with that last statement in past discussions
on this topic. The argument is that it is far from -convenient- to
take an exceptionally qualified person out of the small pool of test
pilots for the reason of satisfying security considerations.

It is far more convenient to take a person with a security clearance
who's loss from their current job will have minimal impact.

A military presence was deliberately infused into NASA's most visible
roles, even though it was totally unnecessary.


It was not totally unnecessary. It was expedient to go ahead with a pool of
candidates who were, by their profession, already relatively qualified. This
was back in the 50s, when issues of "equal opportunity" hadn't yet caught
on. The White house, with (at times grudging) NASA acceptance decided
against an open audition, and limited the initial astronaut candidate set to
those with test pilot experience. (There were a total of seven
requirements.) It may have been unnecessary, but, given that the program had
National security implications, this seemed the cheapest, fastest, and most
efficient way to get the job. Unless there had been an ideological component
to the selection saying "we must have civilians", why not go with a
pre-selected small pool? Remember, this was not today's society.

Proof that the Mercury requirements were over-specified is the fact
that they were not even met by those who were hired! Case in point:
John Glenn not having a college degree.

I maintain that -test pilot- is an overspecification. Even -pilot-.
Even male. I'm tempted to add -human-, but I won't go that far
because the goal was human spaceflight. So this is the only
_necessary_ qualification that the chimps didn't meet.

There were plenty of civilians who, like military test pilots,
*already had their clearance*.

That Right Stuff story does not hold water.

But were they otherwise qualified, and was there the capacity to screen for
them? Remember, the selection process as actually implemented started with
screening a known and bounded set of records (service pilots) versus a civil
service application.

I see no reason why it would have been overly difficult to screen
civilians.

There was lots more going on to tell them that their primary mission
was thermonuclear power projection. Khrushchev boldly stated in
public that his cosmonauts could just as well have been warheads. I
provided links to that NORAD slideshow equating Vostok to a nuclear
onslaught. There have been hundreds of posts on this forum discussing
the overt signs of how the purpose of NASA was nuclear deterrence.

Mostly by you.

The vast majority of info in those posts was merely pointing out
information that has been available the whole time. A
messenger/message type of issue here.

Power project does not mean technology demonstration. Besides, many of the
pilots had wartime experience, or had served in active fighter wings,
including some with nukes. It probably didn't bother them.

Power projection means flexing your muscles. And if those muscles
happen to be new technological muscles, then yes, it does encompass
technology demonstration. What do you think Sputnik was? As far as
the pilot's views, I agree that these aspects didn't bother them. I
expect that they were all extremely proud of the part they were
playing as Cold Warriors.

A question that I would be very intrigued to hear them field is, "What
connection do you see between Apollo and the nuclear arms race?"

I would be interested in seeing what they would say about that as well.
The
results are likely to be suprising to one or the other of us.

Actually I would not be surprised if none of them admit to seeing any
connection. I'm sure that they'd all prefer to be remembered as
having peacefully served all mankind, instead of bio-placebo warheads
along with the astrochimps.

But how does Apollo, divorced from Gemini and Mercury, have anything to do
with nuclear warheads? Not all of the cold war was about nukes. A lot was
about showing how your superpower was a worker's paradise, or that your
country had the best technology, so you should buy our
tanks/fighterplanes/political ideology. I think that the later part of the
space race, especially the lunar programs, was more general. Both sides had
already demonstrated the theoretical ability to place nukes anywhere they
wanted. They were playing the moon race not for each other to see, but for
the rest of the world.

I disagree.

Ability to nuke was only the ante for the game. Once the cards were
dealt, both sides had to play their cards in a skillful way that
convinced the other that they were overpowered and outclassed. It was
not enough to have a good hand. You had to communicate that you had a
*better* hand. The nuclear ante started with Hiroshima. The Soviets
matched. The stakes were raised up to H-bombs. Matched again. The
USSR raises with Sputnik. Ike sees the Sputnik and raises a Mercury.
Up and up the nuclear pot grows. JFK cranks it all the way up to the
Moon. The Kremlin hesitates. Will they fold? Will they call?

It's an unusual play. They don't match 1-for-1 the huge raise that
JFK made. Instead, they slide a space station into the pot and make
the claim that it is worth the same as a Saturn V.

The game cools off for a bit as the players argue their cases. The US
decides to throw in a shuttle along with the Moon rockets. USSR
matches once again. And then comes the decisive moment. Reagan
decides to not only match their station...

Instead of piddling around, he decides to go ALL IN!

Star Wars.

The biggest bluff in human history. But it worked. The Kremlin
worked up an intense sweat, but in the end they decided to fold.


Yes, the rest of the world was intently watching this game. But they
were on the sidelines the whole time. There were only two players at
the level of this game.


~ CT

You write really well--you don't happen to write for a living, do you?
LaDonna

Stuf4 wrote:

If you are guessing that my gender is male and that my name is
Dennis, my response is that I have never disclosed such
information on this forum and I have no current plans to do so
now.

A simple case of mental crossed wires. I was posting from work and
was interupted by a call from someone named Dennis. I have no idea of
your identity.

If you'd like confirmation of anything, I'd be glad to
give private answers through private email.

Not necessary. I apologize for the annoyance and confusion this might
have caused you.

Jim Davis

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
You write really well

You don't, dumbass, because if you did, you would have *trimmed your
quotes*.

For someone who knows "all about the Internet" you sure as hell don't show
it.

You yourself said that it's necessary to follow protocol, you flame NASA for
not following it. If it was bad for NASA to not follow protocol, why isn't
it bad for you to do likewise?

On 19 Jun 2004 20:01:25 GMT, Jim Davis
wrote:

Stuf4 wrote:

If you are guessing that my gender is male and that my name is
Dennis, my response is that I have never disclosed such
information on this forum and I have no current plans to do so
now.

....Coward.

A simple case of mental crossed wires. I was posting from work and
was interupted by a call from someone named Dennis. I have no idea of
your identity.

....Well, CT *is* a menace, so perhaps the name fits.

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

From Jim Davis:
Stuf4 wrote:

If you are guessing that my gender is male and that my name is
Dennis, my response is that I have never disclosed such
information on this forum and I have no current plans to do so
now.

A simple case of mental crossed wires. I was posting from work and
was interupted by a call from someone named Dennis. I have no idea of
your identity.

If you'd like confirmation of anything, I'd be glad to
give private answers through private email.

Not necessary. I apologize for the annoyance and confusion this might
have caused you.

Thank you for clearing that up.

With those crossed wired, I hope you didn't call that guy on the
telephone a *troll*! Hee hee.


~ CT

From Pat Flannery:
Andrew Gray wrote:

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...


It's a gas to say, isn't it?
When I was working as a weather observer, we got our helium for the
balloons from the "United States Government Helium Mines" down in Texas.
I always pictured these big burly miners in some sort of strange gray
uniforms swinging pick-axes, and talking in high falsetto voices as they
struck a rich new vein of helium.

If Amarillo's Helium Monument would get as many visitors as their
Cadillac Ranch, then more people would know about such things!

Photo:
http://www.blm.gov/nhp/300/wo310/hlmday.jpg


Ok, for anyone who wants to play, here's a trivia question...


Where was helium discovered?



(I have two answers in mind.)


~ CT

From LaDonna Wyss:

You write really well--you don't happen to write for a living, do you?

Thank you. I did have a job once working public affairs where I had
by-lines published in the local media. It was short-lived. And my
editor reworked my articles so much he might just as well put his own
name to them. That's the closest I've ever come to writing for a
living.

Another writing story...

Way back in the 7th grade I wrote an essay on the Statue of Liberty
and the meaning of Emma's poem. Our teacher graded them and handed
them back. After class, he called me to his desk. He said that he
thought it was an excellent essay and he asked me where I had gotten
it from.

I was a bit slow to catch on before I realized that he thought that I
may have plagiarized it. I was upset about it at the time, but I look
back at Mr Sweetland's feedback as the highest compliment I have
gotten for my writing.


~ CT