gratitude etc. (was Apollo: One gas environment?)

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

In article ,
Scott Hedrick wrote:
The important difference, of course, is that the national government of the
abusers is taking steps to punish them...

Many people would have vastly more confidence in this if those steps
promptly resulted in serious punishment for those people *and* their
superiors (who are responsible for the behavior of their subordinates).

The problem is many people have inflated expectations of how far up
the chain the superiors are directly responsible.

Historically, the odds are against it; the way to bet is that nobody
important will suffer for it, even those who carried out the improper
orders will get just slaps on the wrist, and it will be years before even
that happens. Just *why* is this an important difference?

If you cannot see the difference between a country that attempts to do
the right thing, and a country that does not, then your blind
anti-Americanism has affected you even worse than I thought.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

Derek Lyons wrote:

The problem is many people have inflated expectations of how far up
the chain the superiors are directly responsible.

No, the problem is that many superiors make insufficient effort to ensure that
their influence extends far enough down the chain.

If subordinates sense that their superior feels that certain things are
important, they'll usually follow through.

If subordinates are ignored or, worse, get mixed or even garbled messages,
then bad things usually happen.

If you cannot see the difference between a country that attempts to do
the right thing, and a country that does not, then your blind
anti-Americanism has affected you even worse than I thought.

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies,
I think the soul of America dies with it."

- Edward R. Murrow

--
Dave Michelson

"Dave Michelson" wrote in message
news:vLAoc.459120$oR5.11719@pd7tw3no...
If subordinates sense that their superior feels that certain things are
important, they'll usually follow through.

If subordinates are ignored or, worse, get mixed or even garbled messages,
then bad things usually happen.

That's the cost of power. The trial scene in Star Trek 6 hit it right on the
head. Kirk was responsible for events he couldn't possible have known about
precisely because he was the captain.

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition
dies,
I think the soul of America dies with it."

- Edward R. Murrow

I recall reading a science fiction story- the details of which, like the
name, I can't remember now- in which the "loyal opposition" was created by
the authoritiarian regime to give the illusion of dissent. The "opposition"
didn't even know it was a puppet.

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...
I recall reading a science fiction story- the details of which, like the
name, I can't remember now- in which the "loyal opposition" was created by
the authoritiarian regime to give the illusion of dissent. The
"opposition"
didn't even know it was a puppet.

Interesting Times by Terry Pratchett?

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...

The problem is many people have inflated expectations of how far up
the chain the superiors are directly responsible.

After World War II the chain reached all the way to the top. Why shouldn't
that be the case here?

In article , derekl1963
@nospamyahoo.com says...
(Henry Spencer) wrote:
In article ,
Scott Hedrick wrote:
The important difference, of course, is that the national government of the
abusers is taking steps to punish them...
Many people would have vastly more confidence in this if those steps
promptly resulted in serious punishment for those people *and* their
superiors (who are responsible for the behavior of their subordinates).
The problem is many people have inflated expectations of how far up
the chain the superiors are directly responsible.

Well, there is the issue of who knew, which (pending new information
that could pop up any moment) suggests that only a few low-level prison
guards did nasty things, vs. those who should set policy such that it is
abundantly clear that torture chambers and rape rooms are absolutely,
unequivocally, *NOT* acceptable. The latter goes to the very top. Not
just the Secretary of Defense, but to the President, and even the entire
American voting public.


Historically, the odds are against it; the way to bet is that nobody
important will suffer for it, even those who carried out the improper
orders will get just slaps on the wrist,

The cynic in my wonders if this is exactly what will happen to the
Secretary of Defense.


and it will be years before even
that happens. Just *why* is this an important difference?

If you cannot see the difference between a country that attempts to do
the right thing, and a country that does not, then your blind
anti-Americanism has affected you even worse than I thought.

Canada isn't part of North America?
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

"Kevin Willoughby" wrote in message
...
The latter goes to the very top. Not
just the Secretary of Defense, but to the President, and even the entire
American voting public.

These things were done in my name, by my agents. That makes me responsible.
Which is why I won't object if payments are made to the abused.

The cynic in my wonders if this is exactly what will happen to the
Secretary of Defense.

I don't think he should be removed. I don't know what else can be done.

If you cannot see the difference between a country that attempts to do
the right thing, and a country that does not, then your blind
anti-Americanism has affected you even worse than I thought.

Canada isn't part of North America?

Which has what to do with what was said? If Canadians are Americans, then
they need to start drinking our beer.

In article ,
Scott Hedrick wrote:

Which has what to do with what was said? If Canadians are Americans, then
they need to start drinking our beer.

I tried drinking US beer once ... it was an awful experience, the alcohol
content is so low, that I was sobering up faster than I could drink
the stuff ... :-)

Seriously though, the only main-stream beer down there that seem
potable is Samuel Adams. The rest seem even worse than our mass-market
Labatt and Molson products (which I didn't think was possible!)

(which reminds me ... how come they don't put the alcohol content
on US beer bottles ... and just how low does a light beer get there?

Nick

"Nicholas Fitzpatrick" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Scott Hedrick wrote:

Which has what to do with what was said? If Canadians are Americans, then
they need to start drinking our beer.

I tried drinking US beer once ... it was an awful experience, the alcohol
content is so low, that I was sobering up faster than I could drink
the stuff ... :-)

It gets worse- try the Americanized versions of imports. I've had imported
Killian's Irish Red- the crap that Coors passes off is Coors Light with food
coloring.

Bass is just plain sneaky. You can toss down a half-dozen and pass a
breathalyzer- then it attacks all at once.

Seriously though, the only main-stream beer down there that seem
potable is Samuel Adams.

SA's pretty good.

The rest seem even worse than our mass-market
Labatt and Molson products (which I didn't think was possible!)

The best thing about Lablatt is the commercials.

(which reminds me ... how come they don't put the alcohol content
on US beer bottles

It would hurt sales.

... and just how low does a light beer get there?

Like making love in a canoe.

If I were a trucker, I'd keep a case of Guinness handy as an emergency
source of diesel.

Scott Hedrick wrote:

It gets worse- try the Americanized versions of imports. I've had imported
Killian's Irish Red- the crap that Coors passes off is Coors Light with food
coloring.

Bass is just plain sneaky. You can toss down a half-dozen and pass a
breathalyzer- then it attacks all at once.


Try Canadian Moosehead, that stuff packs a wallop also.
SCTV parody ad:
"And another one's gone,
And another one's gone,
Another one drinks a Moose."
The key with good American beer is to avoid the major manufacturers and
go for the smaller breweries- who actually can make stuff that doesn't
have to be inoffensive to all and sundry; in that group there are some
very good beers, ales, and porters available.

Seriously though, the only main-stream beer down there that seem
potable is Samuel Adams.



SA's pretty good.


Maybe it's gotten more robust, but when they first brought it out I had
some, and I found it weak in character.



The rest seem even worse than our mass-market


Labatt and Molson products (which I didn't think was possible!)



The best thing about Lablatt is the commercials.


.....and the worst is "The Skunk"; an unpleasant smell that most Canadian
beer seems to develop if it's not consumed fairly quickly after it's
bottled.




(which reminds me ... how come they don't put the alcohol content
on US beer bottles



It would hurt sales.


Sometimes they do put it on the bottle or can; try the awful-tasting but
deadly "Camo" beer sometime:
http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/rate_results/881/2789/
Nowadays though, beer must meet the strict regimen of the Atkin's
diet...(laughing in disgust)




... and just how low does a light beer get there?



Like making love in a canoe.


There are things out there that shouldn't be called beer; they should be
called polluted water.


If I were a trucker, I'd keep a case of Guinness handy as an emergency
source of diesel.


Aye lad, Guinness! Now that's what a man _should_ be drinking... :-)

Pat