A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Did you know you can buy land on the moon?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #462  
Old December 10th 03, 07:47 PM
Andre Lieven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Did you know you can buy land on the moon?

Mary Shafer ) writes:
On 9 Dec 2003 17:04:43 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:

"Paul Blay" ) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote ...
And, heres why we do treat different types of couples differently.

The two parent family is well proven to be the best manner in which
to raise chidren well. See " The Unexpected Legacy Of Divorce; A
25 Year Landmark Study ", Judith Wallerstein.

Er, isn't that proving that a single parent family (specifically one
formed from a failed marriage) is a _bad_ manner to raise children well.
[Big surprise]


It is to the Feminist divorce-is-good crowd...

In any case, on this point, it makes the case that a child *needs*
a *mother *and* a father.


No, it makes the point that economic resources are reduced in
single-parent families and raising kids depends on economic resources.


Incorrect. Wallerstein allowed for those factors, and used groups
from the same demographics, including income. The results *still*
were, no father, things go bad, in every way.

It would be better if... you read the book.

Poor kids in dual-parent families don't do a lot better.


Yes, they do. Not in areas of new Nikes, but in areas of better
odds at finishing school, not using drugs, fewer or no teen
pregnancies, etc.

NO same sex couple can provide that. By self-definition. Thus,
the harms to children of divorce also apply to same sex couples.


But it can provide the economic resources required. You're confusing
a symptom with the cause.


Incorrect. The issue is not resources.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
  #463  
Old December 10th 03, 08:04 PM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default literature (was Did you know you can buy land on the moon?)

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

I _KNEW_ you were the sort of man who would read the Marquis De Sade's
"120 days of Sodom"! Tell me....in detail....what that wallet _smells_
like! :-)


I want Gomorrah of that!

--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.


  #464  
Old December 10th 03, 08:14 PM
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Did you know you can buy land on the moon?

In message , Herb Schaltegger
lid writes
Pat Flannery wrote:

Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Herb Schaltegger" lid
wrote in message ...


gay folks should learn to
screw straight people and learn to like it?



Usani! His sails unfurled!

"Fire Island, where the pants fell down!"


My step-brother's mom and her husband (his step-dad) had a beach house on
Fire Island in the late-70's/early-80's. It was quite an interesting place
(although not nearly as completely-gay as you'd think). I WILL say,
however, that many of the houses were EXTREMELY tidy and well-decorated . .


Is that a diagnostic feature? And if I tidy up, will people start to
worry? :-)
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
  #465  
Old December 10th 03, 08:39 PM
Herb Schaltegger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Did you know you can buy land on the moon?

Andre Lieven wrote:

Lets be real clear about this: You claim that, in order for me to have
an *opinion*, I must pass all those *qualifications*...


No, I claim that in order for your opinions about what constitutes
"family", "parent", "mother", and "father" to be worth much, you ought
to be a parent.


LOL ! Thats exactly what I said.


Where? When?

For that matter, lets test your consistancy...

This is sci.space.history. You an astronaut ? If not, what gives you
the " right " to speak on matters where, according to *your
" standard ", your opinions aren't " worth much "...


Are you? What's your degree in? My undergrad degree is aerospace
engineering and I've designed ECLSS equipment currently on-orbit (and
supporting a crew, BTW). That's space.history enough for most.

I claim that if you're going to insists on arguing about what are
legal matters about what U.S. states should or should not do vis a vis
granting or denying marriage licenses to committed couples (gay or
straight or undecided), you ought to stick to the tools necessary for
logical, consistent legal argument concerning U.S. Constitutional law:


Free Clue, Redeux: Usenet encompasses *more than the US of A*.


Reread the above, friend. You want to debate that policies of U.S. state or
federal government, then do so. Otherwise just shut the hell up.

know and
understand terms like "suspect classification", "equal protection",
"rational basis test", "heightened scrutiny" and how such terms are
applied
and used by courts. You don't. Until you realize that legal arguments
require an understanding of legal terms and how the bodies making the
decisions (e.g., courts) work to apply those terms, further discussion is
not of much use.


So, no non-lawyers can have opinions about the law...


Sure, but stick to the terms and terminology if you want to be taken
seriously when someone points out the why it's okay to have disparate
treatment in some contexts while in others, such disparate treatment is not
acceptable.

How... Soviet of you...


How . . . ignorant of you . . . to not be able to comprehend the
difference.

But, you also claim that, in order for the whole state of marriage to
be re-defined, there are NO qualifications....


I have never made such a claim. You're mischaracterizing what I've
posted.


LOL ! Translation: " Yes, I said that, and how dare you point that
out ! "


I call bull**** on that. Prove it: where have I said "there are NO
qualifications" You're talking out of your ass here (again).

What I *HAVE* claimed is that sexual-orientation is becoming a suspect
classification in the U.S. and that disparate treatement vis a vis
issuance or denial of marriage licenses based on that suspect
classification may (or
may not) pass Constitutional muster. I am sorry you don't seem to grasp
what that means.


" If you CAN'T answer a person's arguments, don't worry ! You can
always call him names ! " Oscar Wilde.


If you can't discuss the matter rationally, pull out a literary quote that
is irrelevent. I didn't call you names. I pointed out that you aren't
grasping the terms of the discussion.

I sense not a little hypocrisy/inconsistancy* there...


Failure of comprehension on your part equals neither hypocracy nor
inconsistency on mine.


Ibid Wilde.


Ibid your own inappropriate use of a quote rather than discussing the
policies you wish to defend.

BTW, I have been a step-parent,


Similar but not the same. For how long? Did the biological parent share
custody or not? Did the child(ren) live with you or with the other
parent?
How about other parenting responsibilities like medical decision making
authority, healthcare and educational decision making authority? Until
you describe why you feel qualified to define for the world what
consitutes a "family" and who should or should not be permitted to marry,
expect to be challenged.


I utterly reject your " means test " in order to be able to *hold a view*.


You can hold a view. I can reject it on the basis that until you don't know
what the hell you're talking about.

I need not be you, in order to have an opinion... And, I cna even have
an *informed opinion*, without mirroring your life.


Then discuss your opinions in rational terms, explaining again why the
disparate treatment of marriage licenses based on a suspect classification
scheme under U.S. Constitutional law is and ought to be acceptable. Try to
do it without calling names.

The idea that one must pass all those hoops, if you've done so, in
order to hold views, is narcissistic, to say the leats.


Then discuss your views in rational terms, explaining again why the
disparate treatment of marriage licenses based on a suspect classification
scheme under U.S. Constitutional law is and ought to be acceptable. Try to
do it without calling names.

Hypocritical, if you *fail* to apply them anywhere else...

I have been through a divorce,


Join the club. No children of the marriage though, huh? Apparently not.


Damn straight. I was... lucky.

one so
messy that a part of it made Canadian legal precedent,


If you're not fighting over custody, care and responsibility for your
children it's just fighting over a damn wagon wheel table* and no one
will
give much of a **** after a few years. It's just money and stuff.


No problem. If that means so little to you, when it's *other people's*,
then... *send me some of yours, if you *wish to avoid further hypocrisy*,
that is...


Other obligations with my stuff and money - MY children (who DO matter far
more than the stuff and money used to support them).

" Show me the money ! " " Jerry McGuire ".

(*See "When Harry Met Sally" and Bruno Kirby's scenes with Carrie Fisher)


Dumb movie. Chyk flick. I repeat myself...


Continuing to equate your stuff ("wagon wheel table") with a child is absurd
and immature; the fact that you offer continued insults in the face of your
own absurdity is a telling commentary. Perhaps you should spend less time
feeling smug about the precedential value of your divorce litigation (over
something as banal as tangible items and money) and more time seeking to
understand why the relationship itself failed.

one that my
studies showed would be the result of the case, so do get off of
your condescending high horse,


Show relevent personal experience (e.g., the basis of some wisdom) rather
than spout holier-than-thou rhetoric about "family" and "parent."


Why ? *You haven't*..

BTW, " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "


Yes, I have: my personal experience is that every gay couple I've ever met
has wished for the option of a legal marriage. That is BOTH "experience"
and "anecdote." Now, explain again why you oppose my friends' wishes to
marry?

long enough to grasp that other
people don't have to have *lived your life*, in order to have legitimate
views on such a topic...


"Views", yes. "Legitimate" maybe or maybe not. If you can phrase your
arguments in accepted legal terminology, free from moralising and
conclusory statements, then such views may be legitimate (if, in my
opinion, wrong). So far you haven't been able to do so.


Thanks for showimg that *you view yourself as a deity-figure*, by
way of declaring what The Rules Shall Be...


Not a deity figure but someone who is holding your feet to the fire to
explain your prejudice. YOU choose to be insulted; that's YOUR choice.

So much for " equal treatment ", and all. Perhaps *you're unfamiliar
with such provisions of the US Constitution... ?


Much more so than you, obviously.

Since none of that will happen anytime soon, there doesn't seem to be
much point in continuing to argue about it.

Since it doesn't seem that you will arrive at an *internally consistant*
point of view, indeed.


My views are internally consistent.


LOL ! Ah, no. But, thanks for playing... g


Show the inconsistency you claim. Otherwise you're just playing trollish
games.

Your failure to understand those views
may be a failure on my part to express them clearly enough (but see
above)
or it may be a failure on your part to ready thoroughly. Either way, we
clearly disagree.


Sure. But, you don't believe that I have " a right to "...


You have a right to disagree. I have a right to claim your views are
ignorant, prejudiced and utterly without basis, especially as you refuse to
actually explain the basis of your opposition.

Uh huh.

Or one that allows other to have different
views, and still be treated as... people.


I don't know; I think this is a very serious subject and I've treated it
as such; I'm not the guy talking about marrying dogs (to whom you've
already responded in this thread).


Nice MS-statement of what I wrote. Dishonest much ? Or, are you a
lawyer ? But, I repeat myself...


A lawyer, an engineer, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, a parent, a
step-parent, a husband . . . a notary public, too. I also play guitar,
drink beer and watch movies. I'm many things, not the least of which I'm
the guy who got fed up with your stereotypical uber-"family values",
homophobic ignorance and decided to point out that you don't know what
you're spouting about.

You did respond to "marry your dog" post. Must I pull a google cite out to
the exact post? Or, are you a . . . what? A liar? Or merely
misremembering? A former step-parent opposed to gay marriage on ill-defined
and indefensible grounds? But I repeat myself

HTH.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.


I doubt that very much.
--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.
  #466  
Old December 10th 03, 08:45 PM
Herb Schaltegger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Did you know you can buy land on the moon?

Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Herb Schaltegger" lid
wrote in message ...
Go back to talking about marrying your dog if you don't want to recognize
that CHOICE plays very little part in what kind of people (especially
gender) that one finds attractive.


I don't dispute that at all. What I *said* was, if the mission was to get
married, then choosing a partner whom one isn't permitted to marry was a
bad choice. I didn't say anything at all about attraction, since being
attracted to a partner isn't a requirement for marriage.


PLEASE don't get all "Stuffie" here, okay? Go back to the crux of the
issue: people don't choose to whom they are attracted. Once they become
attracted, they often want to stay together. Having made that choice, the
real debate is: should the law allow couples to formalize the relationship
and if so, in what way. Second, should the level of recognition (and the
degree of formality and the societal obligations to be imposed) depend on
whether the couple is comprised of a man and a woman, two women, or two
men?

If we disagree, fine. But let's not argue about the marriage itself. Few
people in a modern, free culture get married as an end in itself; they get
married as a step in a relationship, not to create the relationship in the
first place.
--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.
  #467  
Old December 10th 03, 10:56 PM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Did you know you can buy land on the moon?



Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

I WILL say,
however, that many of the houses were EXTREMELY tidy and
well-decorated . .


Is that a diagnostic feature? And if I tidy up, will people start to
worry? :-)



If that's the case, then I'm Don Juan, based on the dust alone.

Pat

  #468  
Old December 11th 03, 12:23 AM
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Did you know you can buy land on the moon?

In message , Pat Flannery
writes


Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

I WILL say,
however, that many of the houses were EXTREMELY tidy and
well-decorated . .


Is that a diagnostic feature? And if I tidy up, will people start to
worry? :-)



If that's the case, then I'm Don Juan, based on the dust alone.


Tsk, tsk. Dust implies that it's not being used, whatever "it" is.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
  #469  
Old December 11th 03, 12:23 AM
Paul Blay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Did you know you can buy land on the moon?

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote ...
Paul Blay wrote:

Interesting snippets there. What kind of (human) defects are they
discussing in the article (if you know)?


I don't recall which bits were specific to the _human_ case. They may
have even been just generalising from animal studies. (And the
username / password is on the wrong computer to check for now.)

But for the animal/bird studies it was things like how many parasites they
had, how likely they were to survive bad winters etc.

In human terms it could* come down to things like getting more of the
colds going around worse and such (By which standard I should be
giving my parents some funny looks). Sounds rather trivial, but if
(for example) childhood diseases hit you wrong they can really make
an impact on later life.

Anyway I should be asleep now or I'll _never_ get rid of this cold.

* Entering speculation zone.
  #470  
Old December 11th 03, 05:02 AM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Did you know you can buy land on the moon?

"Herb Schaltegger" lid
wrote in message ...
Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Herb Schaltegger"

lid
wrote in message ...
Go back to talking about marrying your dog if you don't want to

recognize
that CHOICE plays very little part in what kind of people (especially
gender) that one finds attractive.


I don't dispute that at all. What I *said* was, if the mission was to

get
married, then choosing a partner whom one isn't permitted to marry was a
bad choice. I didn't say anything at all about attraction, since being
attracted to a partner isn't a requirement for marriage.


PLEASE don't get all "Stuffie" here, okay?


I'm not getting even close. That's all I meant when I made a reference to
"poor choices". I know a few gay couples as well, and with one exception,
they are very well suited. All of them, however, are poor choices if they
wish to get married, since none of them are allowed to do so. I doubt their
mission was merely to get married, so this criteria isn't relevant.

On the other hand, while you may not be able to control whom you are
attracted to, you *can* control what you do. Homosexuality, as with
heterosexuality, is invisible until a person chooses to do something.
Sexuality is an active choice. A person *chooses* to get involved with
another person. A person *chooses* go to to locations where other
homosexuals or heterosexuals congregate. A person *chooses* to express their
sexuality. Your thoughts and feelings may not be a matter of choice, but the
*expression* of them is. I'm not saying this as a matter of fault, I'm just
getting tired of the horse**** about "I was made that way". Biology
encourages a *tendency towards* a certain persuasion, it does not *require*
someone behave in a certain manner- unless you believe we are mere animals,
unable to control our biological impulses.

If gays are allowed to marry, then people will want to marry their pets, and
the next thing you know Roseanne will get married again.

One of the fundamental flaws in our society is the extremely limited
definition of "family". While I may not favor gay marriage, I have a
problem with legally-defined family members who intentionally ostracise a
relative having greater say over, say, health-care decisions than a
long-term partner. I have a problem with my cat not being considered a
family member. I have friends who are closer to me than my brother, but they
could be legally excluded if my legal family didn't like them. I don't have
an answer to this. I do know it doesn't have anything to do with the subject
line.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA begins moon return effort Steve Dufour Policy 24 August 13th 04 10:39 PM
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next? TKalbfus Policy 265 July 13th 04 12:00 AM
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon Kent Betts Space Shuttle 2 January 15th 04 01:56 AM
Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 Ron Baalke History 2 November 28th 03 10:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.